The Signpost

Arbitration report

Clarifications and requests

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Bri

Arbitration requests

Clarification and amendment requests

Amendment requests adjusting one editor's editing restrictions are not discussed here.

New case requests

Several arbitrators voting to accept the case cited the lack of resolution to issues at the Arbcom case brought concerning the same administrator this past June. However, the committee is divided on this; after writing on 11 June 2020 [1]: I'm voting to decline today because I don't see enough recent evidence of serious incivility or personal attacks to warrant convening an admin-conduct case—but the outcome might be different if we find ourselves back here with a more solid request for a case, based on incidents occurring after today. JzG, there might be people out there looking for a good reason to file a new request. Don't give them one., Newyorkbrad stated on 9 September, in voting to decline again, commented [2] In voting to decline a previous case request against JzG in June, I urged him to remain civil even in difficult situations. It is good that in both of the recent disputed discussions, he appears to have done so.


S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

The JzG case showed how Arbitrators read one part of a case request and fixate on it. The case request was about JzG's behavior due to a recent NAC and past behavior however many of the declines commented about the NAC totally disregarding any past behavior issues and history of JzG. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]




       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0