The Arbitration Committee accepted one new case this week, and closed three cases.

• Piotrus: This case involved Piotrus and other editors on Central and Eastern Europe-related articles. In the case, multiple parties had accused one another of edit-warring, incivility, unethical behavior, and biased editing. In the Arbitration Committee's resolution of the case, an amnesty was granted for prior editing problems on these articles, and the parties were reminded of the need to edit courteously and co-operatively in the future.

• Pigsonthewing 2: A case initiated by Moreschi concerning the conduct of Pigsonthewing, including a series of conflicts between this user and other editors involving the use of microformats on Wikipedia and other matters. As a result of the case, Pigsonthewing was banned for one year.

• Zacheus-jkb: A case involving the actions of -jkb- and Zacheus, who have been involved in disputes in other forums that were imported to the English Wikipedia. As a result of the case, the Arbitration Committee admonished both editors for their previous misconduct against each other but noted that the problematic conduct seems to have stopped, and directed the parties not to resume practices such as posting identifying information about other editors, importing external disputes, or making personal attacks.

• BJAODN: A case involving an alleged wheel war over the deletion and undeletion of Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, which many allege to be a GFDL violation, by Georgewilliamherbert and Alkivar, among others.

• Allegations of apartheid: This case concerns the conduct of various editors in connection with a group of articles whose titles include the words "Allegations of apartheid". It has been alleged that these articles were created in violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, after several deletion debates concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid resulted in that article being kept. Issues have also been raised concerning comments made in deletion discussions and reviews. Several users who have created and edited the "Allegations of apartheid" articles have strongly denied any inappropriate conduct. Voting on most proposals is split, but those with a current majority include an amnesty for past actions, or restrictions enjoining various editors from participation related to allegations of ... apartheid articles.

• Vision Thing: A case initiated by Infinity0 concerning alleged edit-warring on anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and related articles. The dispute has already been the subject of a prior arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0, involving some of the same parties. A motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence has the support of four arbitrators.

• Catalonia: A case brought by Physchim62 involving alleged edit warring, possible sockpuppetry, and other misconduct by various editors on Catalonia, Valencian Community, and related articles. A proposal banning Maurice27 has the support of two arbitrators, and one encouraging the parties to continue with the normal consensus-building procedure has three.

• Boris Stomakhin: A case involving a dispute between Biophys and Vlad fedorov, involving alleged BLP and 3RR violations, block evasion, and edit-warring. A remedy banning Vlad federov for one year has the support of three arbitrators.

• List of Republics: A case brought by Nema Fakei involving disputes on List of Republics and related articles, involving the conduct of WHEELER and other editors. A proposal banning WHEELER for one year has the support of three arbitrators.

• Great Irish Famine: A case initiated by SirFozzie, involving allegations including misuse of sources and harassment relating to Great Irish Famine and other Ireland/Northern Ireland articles. Arbitrators are voting on arbitrator Mackensen's proposals to place the Great Irish Famine article under the "mentorship" of three to five administrators and restrict Sarah777's editing, as well as proposals by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin that would ban Sarah777 from Wikipedia for one year and place MarkThomas on civility parole.

• Attachment Therapy: A case initiated by Shotwell, who alleges that other editors have engaged in POV pushing and tendentious editing on attachment therapy and related articles. During the case, checkuser indicated that DPeterson had created at least four sockpuppets that were used to edit-war on these articles and create the appearance of consensus. A proposed decision by Kirill Lokshin, with the support of four arbitrators, would ban DPeterson for one year and would remind the other parties to exercise care while editing articles as to which they may have a conflict of interest.

• COFS: A case initiated by Durova based on a discussion at the community sanctions noticeboard. The case involves allegations of tendentious editing by various editors, sockpuppetry, conflicts of interest, and other user conduct issues on Scientology related articles. The proposed decision, which has the support of five to seven arbitrators, would ban COFS for 30 days for POV editing and require him to change his username and disclose any duties he may have to the Church of Scientology before resuming editing.

• Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: A case alleging misconduct by various editors, some of whom were previously placed on revert parole in an earlier case, on articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and related matters. A proposed decision with the support of four arbitators would place those editors already subject to the revert parole on probation as well, and would impose identical remedies on any other editors who are identified as editing these articles aggressively and uncivilly.

• Jeffrey O. Gustafson: A case brought by John254 alleging incivility and other misconduct by administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If closed, Mr. Gustafson's administrator privileges would be suspended for 30 days.