The Arbitration Committee closed two cases this week.

• Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others: Closed on Wednesday, a case involving editors on biological psychiatry. Cesar Tort and Ombudsman believe the article has a pro-psychiatry point of view. Ombudsman was placed on probation indefinitely for tendentious editing on the article, and Cesar Tort was cautioned to "limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority."

• PoolGuy: Closed on Friday, a case involving PoolGuy. PoolGuy was placed on probation indefinitely, and, in light of PoolGuy's multiple sockpuppets, was restricted to one user account, though he is not required to disclose the account's name.

Three cases were opened this week; all are in the evidence phase.

• Añoranza: A case involving Añoranza. Users asserted that Añoranza had been incivil, and had filed a retaliatory request for comment and request for checkuser. The dispute involves the usage of terms such as "Operation Iraqi Liberation" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• 8bitJake: A case involving 8bitJake. badlydrawnjeff, the initiator of the arbitration request, has asserted that 8bitJake's editing on political articles was biased, and that 8bitJake was incivil to other editors on the articles.

• Dionyseus: A case involving Dionyseus and Danny Pi, and their actions on Veselin Topalov, an article on a Bulgarian chess player accused of cheating.

• Iloveminun: A case brought against Iloveminun. Evidence presented asserted that Iloveminun violated fair use and image deletion policies by uploading copyrighted images and removing tags. A checkuser request confirmed that Iloveminun also was involved in sockpuppetry.

• Moby Dick: A case brought against Moby Dick. Administrators Tony Sidaway, Bishonen, and MONGO have alleged that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle, violating previous arbitration rulings in his political edits and his relations with Cool Cat.

• Pudgenet: A case brought against Pudgenet, involving a dispute between Pudgenet and -Barry-. The dispute involves pages relating to Perl, as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.

• Irishpunktom: A case involving Irishpunktom, Karl Meier, and Dbiv. Measures to ban Irishpunktom and Dbiv from editing Peter Tatchell for one year, place Irishpunktom and Karl Meier on probation for one year, place Irishpunktom on one revert per article per week parole, and desysop Dbiv have the support of two arbitrators.

• Saladin1970: A case involving an appeal of Saladin1970's indefinite block originally placed by Jayjg, and later by SlimVirgin. Arbitrator Fred Bauder has submitted remedies in the case, but none have been voted on by other arbitrators as of press time.

• Raphael1: A case brought against Raphael1, involving the display of images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Measures to place Raphael1 on article probation for one year, as well as general probation, and to ban Raphael1 from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for one year, have the support of three arbitrators.

• Francis Schuckardt: A case involving editors on Francis Schuckardt. Remedies to place the article on probation are being debated.

• Highways: A case involving naming conventions on highway-related articles. Current remedies that will likely pass include a probation against move warriors in the case, a ban on moving pages between names until a policy on the names is adopted, and a warning for JohnnyBGood and SPUI to remain civil at all times.

• Election: A case involving editors on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. The dispute centers around edit-warring on the article, including the addition and removal of a "NPOV" tag. Seven arbitrators, with no dissent, have endorsed remedies placing the article on probation, but allowing all editors to continue editing.

• Infinity0: A case involving Infinity0 and RJII. Remedies likely to pass would ban RJII for one year, and place Infinity0 on one-revert-per-day parole for a year, requiring Infinity0 to discuss any reverts on talk pages. Another remedy cautions use of An Anarchist FAQ as a source.

• Blu Aardvark: A case involving the block status of Blu Aardvark. Blu Aardvark was unblocked to participate in the case, but a temporary injunction in the case bans Blu Aardvark to his talk page and pages relating to the case. Six arbitrators, with no dissent, have endorsed remedies banning Blu Aardvark for one year, and placing him on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation, as well as admonishing administrators for block-warring. Blu Aardvark has claimed that he has left Wikipedia for good. [1]

• Deathrocker: A case involving Deathrocker and Leyasu. Six arbitrators supported measures that would place both Deathrocker and Leyasu on revert parole, banning the user from reverting more than once per 24 hour period, more than twice in any 7 day period, or more than three times in any 30 day period. Deathrocker could be blocked for up to a week for violations of the ban; Leyasu could be blocked for up to a year.

• Locke Cole: A case involving Locke Cole and Netoholic. If closed, Locke Cole would be banned for a month for harassment, and placed on non-vandalism one revert per page per day parole, requiring all reverts to be explained on the article's talk page. Netoholic would be banned from editing in the template namespace and restricted to one revert per page per day, as was previously prescribed in a previous case. Netoholic would also be reminded of Wikipedia's fair use policy, and both Netoholic and Locke Cole would be banned from interacting with each other. Locke Cole has since left Wikipedia.