Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence

Clerks: do we generally allow non-evidence on the evidence page, or do we ask it be removed? There are a lot of statements here that are either interpretations of policy or conclusions of some sort or another. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably something of a lost cause at this point; and it's not like there's that much actual evidence in this case anyways. ;-) Kirill 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not having seen this thread earlier today.
 * There is, of course, a distinction between a "statement" and evidence. However, I don't recall any case in which material was actually moved off of the evidence page (unless it was so inappropriate that it didn't belong anywhere in the arbitration at all). It strikes me that for a clerk to go through the evidence page and say "this person's comments are evidentiary, okay ... this is evidence ... nah, this one is just opinion and invective, moved to talk" would potentially involve the clerks in a little more subjectivity than is expected of us.
 * However, the primary purpose of these pages, and of the clerks, is to be useful to the arbitrators. If any arbitrator wants a clerk to move submissions that are primarily statements rather than evidence over to the talk page, I'll be happy to do it. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG's evidence
I am hoping that JzG means "this policy" in his statement instead of "a policy" here. Blocking IPs of editors for failing to follow MOST policies would indeed be inappropriate - as far as I can tell, this is the only policy that permits blocking of IPs instead of the editors themselves. Risker 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It raises an interesting question - is it acceptable to ban editors by blocking their IP addresses while leaving their accounts unblocked? I'd think not, but it doesn't seem to be written down anywhere... -- ChrisO 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so, but that didn't happen here. We had someone using a huge number of TOR IPs in violation of policy. TOR IPs are blocked on sight. A checkuser stated that he believed that "given the sheer number of IPs [she] used (over 400) the non-TOR ones were accidental", and offered to have the non-TOR IPs discreetly unblocked by another admin, if Charlotte emailed him a list of the legitimate IPs that she had been using, and which ahd been blocked. Another checkuser stated:
 * "Re-checking hundreds and hundreds of IP addresses to ferret out the (apparently) small number that were not Tor nodes strikes me as a massive and unreasonable project; we do almost all of this by hand, and it would have taken days if not weeks to do this. As it turns out, the presence of CW on an IP was pretty strong evidence that the IP was a Tor node (or some other open proxy; I don't know offhand if CW used non-Tor anonymizers.)"


 * Charlotte chose to register a new account, rather than accept the offer of having the non-TOR IPs privately unblocked. What good would creating a new account be if the IP blocks have left her unable to edit? ElinorD (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She found some more Tor nodes that haven't been blocked? Or in general, she is editing from different IPs now. Carcharoth 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)