Last week Cptnono submitted a request for clarification to the committee about the use of "broadly construed" in sanctions, based on concerns that the phrase has not yet been defined clearly enough and that it left too much discretion to administrators.
Arbitrator SirFozzie was the first to reply, writing that:
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.
This message was generally echoed by the several other arbitrators that weighed in; for example, on Friday, Arbitrator David Fuchs wrote that "SirFozzie['s definition] hits the nail on the head [...]".
Evidence presented and voting begins in the Senkaku Islands case
How the evidence presented by users related to each other (red arrows represent critique, green arrows endorsement)
Five weeks after the first piece of evidence was submitted, voting has begun on this case which centers on the naming of "Senkaku Islands" and "Senkaku Islands dispute" articles (it has been alleged that using the Japanese "Senkaku" gives too great an endorsement to the Japanese side of the debate). The case itself was opened to investigate if behavior contrary to Wikipedia policy were impeding consensus. Arbitrator Coren stated that "this is a relatively simple case where it's likely consensus could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does".