Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC\|Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC]]	none	none	15 September 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA\|Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA]]	none	none	15 September 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names\|Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names]]	none	none	19 August 2011

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC

Initiated by TransporterMan (TALK) at 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

TransporterMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (uninvolved initiator)
Doremo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by TransporterMan

Do articles about Slovenia or Slovenian matters come within the Eastern European or, less likely, Balkan discretionary sanctions and, if so, which? I am not advocating for inclusion or exclusion, just wish clarification, but would note that Doremo and Doncsecz are involved in a long term slow-motion edit war at Slovene dialects which might cool if one or the other of the sets of sanctions apply. (To their credit, they are seeking dispute resolution at Third Opinion.)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

Answer as a non-arb, but as somebody who has been active in enforcing both sets of sanctions: my personal stance would be that, since both decisions allow for a "widely construed" field of application, I'd have little qualms in using either or both in respect to this country. Where I come from, "Balkan" certainly comprises all of former Yugoslavia. However, my willingness to invoke these sanctions would depend to a high extent on the question whether the type of conflict involved in a given case is comparable with the typical profile of conflicts these sanction rules are made to handle – i.e., mostly, inter-ethnic and nationally motivated historical and political conflicts. In the specific case you mention, the issue seems to be much less political and more of an internal language-related kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Doremo (party to dispute)

Geographers disagree on the eastern/central and Balkan/non-Balkan categorization of Slovenia. So it's difficult to say what the scope of the discretionary sanctions are in relation to Slovenia. User Fut.Perf. is correct that the dispute involves a language issue and not a political issue; that is, it does not have an inter-ethnic/national dimension. The slow-motion edit war ended on 8 September after I refused to revert. I've tried to summarize the issue at Talk:Slovene_dialects#What_is_this_fight_about.3F. In any case, the dispute appears to be inactive now because I was successful in soliciting a 3rd opinion as well as additional input from another editor at WikiProject Slovenia at the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis. The result is that consensus was achieved, user Doncsecz himself/herself reverted his/her changes, and another editor (Yerpo) restored balance (removed undue weight) from the article. Doremo (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Generally agree with FPaS that it would probably fall under the category of broadly construed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Future Perfect and SirFozzie, the sanctions apply in this instance as Slovenia is part of Eastern Europe and The Balkans, broadly interpreted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the original intent when we said "Eastern Europe" is mostly about cultural rather than geographical lines; and given that we gave leeway to construe the field broadly, then I agree with FPaS and my colleagues above that Slovenia is reasonably included. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono

I would like clarification on the often used phrasing "broadly construed". This includes a possible adjustment of the phrase used in enforcement and maybe even a change of standard practice (ie not using the term at all). Although this might seem simple enough, there have been cases of admins deciding that editors are not in breech of sanctions since some edits to articles in the topic area are acceptable if they do not touch directly on the conflict.

Since I am not good at explaining myself I am going to offer an example. I am sure the admins who deal with AE in the topic area know that there have been others. Recently, Biosketch opened up a request for enforcement based on Supreme Deliciousness editing an article that has previously had conflicts related to the conflict @ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Supreme Deliciousness (note that this will archive sooner or later). My request is based on the response of an administrator:

"'Tabbouleh' is neither directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor inextricably intertwined with it in such a manner that all edits to the article would fall under the topic ban. Nor are the edits at issue related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." [1] (note that the requester will probably get BOOMERANGED and no action will be taken against the other)

In this example, Supreme Deliciousness dabbled in an article that has previously had issues. To make it even worse, he was highlighting Syria's claim to the dish. I know that sounds silly but emphasizing the origin, popularity, world records, and such as it relates to one nation has been used to diminish the cultural identification another nation might have to the dish. Categories have historically been a focal point. So sticking the category Category:Syrian cuisine instead of Category:Levantine cuisine actually stirs some trouble (weird, huh?]

Conversely, Biosketch made a request that could be viewed as "gotcha" if you want to not assume good faith. The diffs were a couple weeks stale. They were not violations that could be easily assumed as problematic.

But this is exactly why we need to get this cleared up. An editor brought an enforcement request because another editor was editing an article with the ARBPIA tag. The wording is usually "broadly construed". Does anyone have ideas on how to adjust the wording commonly used at AE to fit with standard practice? Or, should admins be sticking to "broadly construed" as it is assumed to mean.

I don't want this request for clarification to be completely about the Supreme Deliciousness request. I would like it to be viewed as separate because that example is just one of at least a few. I am posting a link there since it has been brought it up, but I think it is important to get this straightened out regardless of the outcome over there. This is not for that request but instead for ones that will probably come up. Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys have said what you think should be the way it is but you have disregarded the wording. "Broadly construed" can mean something that "nibbling at the edges" can take advantage of but does not need to mean the same thing. "Broadly construed" reads one way even if you do not like the implementation. Can you honestly say that "broadly construed" is not flawed wording? Just to be completely open, I do not think you can. I think admins are worried about gaming. Unfortunately the wording was put in place to prevent gaming. And modification of editors sanctions opens up a massive can of worms that needs to be addressed. But we only have ourselves to blame. Some editors took advantage of the wording to nail others while others made edits that were covertly political and said they were not. This is a problem and ARBCOM needs to address it since we have had too many arguments over what "broadly construed" means. Editors essentially asking admins to modify sanctions that are already in place based on manipulation of the wording. Sp stop being contrary and address the issue. Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak. If there's problems in topic area A, we don't want people to move on to "related topic B" and continuing. If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first, like what's happening above. SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can honestly say that "broadly construed" is not flawed wording. It prevents gaming of the sanction, and is to avoid endless wiki-lawyering. SirFozzie (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of topics that can be "Broadly construed" is indeed to prevent dispute to spread to marginally related fields where the same dispute can (in substance) be replayed. For instance, someone who had been topic banned away from "bread, broadly construed" because of a fundamental dispute about what "true" bread is would be correctly barred from continuing the same dispute at tortilla, or even wheat if the enforcing admin sees that the same pattern is being repeated. — Coren ^(talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SirFozzie and Coren. The intent of the discretionary sanctions is to prevent disruption, and I have no problem with reasonable interpretations of the sanctions which are intended to prevent disruption spilling over onto other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per preceding - "Broadly construed" is prudent wording to prevent skirting round the edges of a topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with my colleagues above. If you have to ask, it's probably related. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Initiated by Fmph (talk) at 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Fmph

Can I direct ArbCom's attention to the first motion in this case. It states that "... no page moves shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" and that ruling is in force until September 18, 2011. Can ArbCom please clarify what they expect to happen on the 18th September?

There have been continued 'suggestions' over the last 23 months that the articles should be moved. So the issue has not gone away. I have made a suggestion (in response to a question as to whether the prohibition should be extended) as to what should happen. If ArbCom think its not a bad idea, perhaps they would like to endorse it, or something like it?

I will notify the project that I have opened this clarification.

I note that PhilKnight has suggested closing this. Can I ask that if you do, that ArbCom should make a formal statement of its views before closing if at all possible. Even if that is only of the "Get on with it yourselves" variety. Thanks Fmph (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by snowded

This was a deeply divisive and long running dispute and the closure last time was managed by some of the protagonists with consequent accusations of manipulation etc. I think there is a very strong case this time round for a strong mediation team of neutrals to structure the discussion. Possibly with a nominee of each side I'm sure we have some sleeper accounts in place ready for the debate and we had enough socks etc last time to be the subject of a whole dissertation. Best to manage it from the start than to be pulled in later --Snowded ^TALK 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DrKiernan

While remedy 4 is clearly expired, I am not clear whether the motion Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names that restricts move discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still in effect. The motion does not appear to be time-bound. Would the Committee please clarify whether the motion is still in force? BTW, I've come here from Template:IECOLL-talk which used to be on the applicable talk pages, and it is now not clear to me whether the template is redundant or not. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

I think starting a thread on WT:IECOLL was a good move. I've watchlisted the page and will continue to monitor the discussion. Hopefully the discussion will result in a way forward. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Agreeing a structure for discussion the parties seem to be on their way to resolving this. Obviously, if things don't work out, we could look again, but for now, I guess we can probably close this clarification. PhilKnight (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also watching the IECOLL discussion. I cannot say I know much about the current situation so getting more input would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does look as though the current discussion is productive and that our involvement is not needed at this time. Mind you, I expect the committee would take a very dim view if editors take the expiration of the remedy as a permission for the level of hostility that led to it being imposed in the first place. Those who feel most strongly about the matter would do well to let the rest of the community handle the discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 13:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recused due to my previous work in the related areas as an administrato.. but hope that they keep forward momentum going. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments mirror Coren's. Or, to paraphrase something said by many a parent, "don't make us come deal with this again, because I can almost guarantee you [the parties] won't like the results" Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure most of the relevant pages are move-protected, but just in case: the one thing you should not do is set about boldly moving pages as soon as the prohibition expires. Have the proper discussions, seek outside assistance to structure them if necessary, and hopefully achieve an end result that people are willing to accept. –xeno^talk 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]