Arbitration Committee proceedings

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/1/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

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: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names]]	none	none	21 September 2011
[[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

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

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

Initiated by DrKiernan (talk) at 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

N/A

Statement by 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? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I'm obviously recused here (as an Arbitrator) due to my past involvement as an administrator, but wanted to make this statement. I agree with my colleagues that the motions ARE indefinite, but I have concerns that we are walling off the problem, rather than fixing the base issue behind it. If it was listed at Requested Page moves as well, at least we would get SOME new blood looking at the request, other then the "same old faces in the same old ways". However, I don't think willy-nilly pagemoves are a good idea, so agree to keep it restricted in this fashion, but I urge uninvolved Arb-watchers (is there a version of talk page watchers for ArbCases/Clarifications etcetera? :D) to keep an eye on the discussions, and contribute there if you can. SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 21 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

On a plain read, it does seem to have indefinite length. Would like to hear from those of my colleagues who were around back then to clarify the intent, though. –xeno^talk 12:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Building off what SirFozzie has written above, I see no problem with having a pointer from the WP:RM page, and any other relevant pages, to any centralized discussion being held at WT:IECOLL. –xeno^talk 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that project is as good a place for collaboration, and for new editors with strong feelings on the matter to be educated by their peers on the history and necessary associated decorum of such move requests, is there any proposal that it not remain in force? Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those motions are indefinite because of the long history of problems with naming discussions occurring all over the place. An amendment would be needed to change or remove it, and I would oppose any changes for a few months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both motions remain in effect. While I would be open to reconsidering them in the future, someone would need to make a reasoned case for why centralizing discussions to a single venue is not a net benefit. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues' comments above. Unless anything further is being asked of us, I believe this request can be archived soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Also concur. It's worth noting, incidentally, that the question of which set of discretionary sanctions is applicable here is essentially an academic one, as any particular sanction may legitimately be imposed under the terms of either case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this can be archived. –xeno^talk 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]