Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012

This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee in 2012.

More recently-closed cases on top

Arbitration Committee index of cases (all cases)

2025	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2024	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2023	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2022	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2021	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2020	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2019	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2018	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2017	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2016	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2015	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2014	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2013	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2012	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2011	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2010	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2009	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2008	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2007	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2006	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2005	January February March April May June July August September October November December
2004	January February March April May June July August September October November December

February

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Final decision – Decided 15 February 2012 (AN notice)

• The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
• Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
• After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

January

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images#Final decision – Decided 6 February 2012 (AN notice)

• User:Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
• Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely.
• Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
• FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
• Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
• The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.