This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee in 2010.

More recently-closed cases on top

Arbitration Committee Index of Cases (All Cases)
2024	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2023	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2022	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2021	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2020	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2019	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2018	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2017	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2016	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2015	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2014	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2013	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2012	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2011	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2010	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2009	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2008	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2007	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2006	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2005	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit
2004	January February March April May June July August September October November December	edit

2010

14 cases.

December

No cases were closed in December.

November

No cases were closed in November.

October

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change Decided 14 October 2010 (AN notice)

A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
- Scjessey [1]
- KimDabelsteinPetersen [2]
The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
- Stephan Schulz
- Lar

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2 Decided 23 October 2010

Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

August

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence Decided 23 August 2010 (AN notice)

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
- Mathsci (by consent)
- David.Kane
- Captain Occam
- Mikemikev
Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

July

No cases were closed in July.

June

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement Decided 6 June 2010 (AN notice)

All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

May

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2 Decided 8 May 2010 (AN notice)

User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar Decided 11 May 2010 (AN notice)

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys Decided 23 May 2010 (AN notice)

Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs), Ellol (talk · contribs), and YMB29 (talk · contribs) are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophy may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
Russavia is admonished for posting personal information or communications of other editors.
Vlad fedorov is admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

April

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian#Final decision Decided 10 April 2010 (AN notice)

User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

March

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody Held in abeyance 19 March 2010

This case will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday Decided 14 March 2010

User:Durova and User:Shoemaker's Holiday are restricted from commenting upon one another, and may be temporarily banned upon doing so.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Final decision Decided 9 March 2010 (AN notice)

User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

February

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2#Final Decision Decided 11 February 2010 (AN Notice)

As User:MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned;
MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama;
MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement#Final Decision Decided 13 February 2010 (AN Notice)

No specific enforcements in final decision.

January

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Final decision Decided 25 January 2010 ([3] AN notice)

User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2010