WP:ARBMJWP:ARBMJ

Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Target dates: Opened 18 May 2026 • Evidence closes 23:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC) • Workshop closes 23:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC) • Proposed decision to be posted by 15 June 2026

Scope: Editing and improper coordination related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed

Case clerks: ~delta (talk) & EggRoll97 (talk) • Drafting arbitrators: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) & Daniel (talk) & Girth Summit (talk)

This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 21:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by email before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Case information

Involved parties

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hammelsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Israell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jimcastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mr Boar1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MraClean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Never17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PinkSlippers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously TwoShots30)
TheWikiholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously Akhiljaxxn)
TruthGuardians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Flyer22 Reborn: incivility, personal attacks (June 2019)
- Allegations of personal attacks and pro-Jackson meatpuppetry. Editors instructed to focus on content, not whether canvassing is occurring.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Meatpuppetry across the Michael Jackson articles (December 2019)
- Allegations of pro-Jackson meatpuppetry. Community sanctions imposed
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#Off-wiki canvassing by User:TruthGuardians at the Talk:List of best-selling albums (June 2022)
- Allegations of pro-Jackson meatpuppetry. Editors instructed to take it to SPI.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcastor/Archive#20 June 2022 (June 2022)
- I alleged Fancypants786 and PinkSlippers were sockpuppets of Jimcastor. Closed as not sockpuppets, meatpuppetry not assessed.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic/Archive#24 May 2023 (May 2023)
- Allegations that TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians are sockpuppets. TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians found to be meatpuppets, and instructed that Going forward, you must treat these accounts as if they were alts of the same person.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic (December 2023)
- Allegations of anti-Jackson off-wiki canvassing. No result.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162#Magnesium77 harassing Nqr9 (July 2024)
- Allegations of harassment both on and off-wiki, and anti-Jackson meatpuppetry. No result.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#User CounterpointStitch (December 2025)
- Allegations of anti-Jackson off-wiki canvassing. Editors reminded to work together in good faith to seek consensus before escalating disputes to ANI
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#Canvassing Controversy about RFC at Talk:Michael Jackson (July 2025)
- Allegations of anti-Jackson canvassing. No result.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive379#Michael Jackson--yes, we're still doing it (March 2026)
- Allegations of canvassing on and off-wiki. Bhdshoes2 topic banned

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

@TheWikiholic: I've removed your statement as a violation of the word limit restriction; feel free to post a version of the statement using only the 500 words allotted, or request a word extension. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

This has been a community-designated contentious topic since 2019. ECP is also (broadly) authorized to deal with the disruption. The most ArbCom can do here is pick a few and exit them from the wiki, which I'm not totally sold is the best use of time... Izno (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given Newslinger's comment at Special:Diff/1354021757, it seems to me this could be handled at SPI? -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Very well. As some of the only people around here who can be voluntold to do anything, I'm happy for us to accept "this is complicated and we'd rather you did it". -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only think I can see here that Arbcom can do is provide the structure to provide evidence in a multi-party dispute and consider private evidence. Some of the responses are leaning towards admins just taking available actions, so I'd like to hear if that would be sufficient before we'd move forward with a case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have received some private evidence about this case request which, on a brief skim, looks worthy of further investigation. Combined with the continued issues even after a community CT designation, I am inclined towards a case. I'm not persuaded by the argument that there is little for us to do because of the existing community CT designation. There's a lot ArbCom could do. We could assume the CCT designation. We could impose 1RR or ECR. We could create a mechanism for easier reporting of off-wiki meatpuppetry (e.g. expanding COIVRT to be off-wiki-evidence-VRT). And, of course, we could restrict editors who are causing problems in the topic area, taking off-wiki evidence into account. I'm not saying all of those are good ideas—we can only determine that after an evidence phase—just that we shouldn't decline this request because there is already a CT designation. However, I do want to hear from the proposed parties before formally voting. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've briefly perused the private evidence, and I agree that there's some smoke, but I'm not convinced yet that admins couldn't handle this on their own without us stomping all over it first with a case. Katie^talk 21:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Katie^talk 14:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about where Katie's at, though I'm going to take time to more closely examine the private evidence. However, if this is something that ArbCom should handle, I feel like User:QEDK's suggestion of motions are a better route than a full case based on what I've seen so far. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Newslinger's final paragraph. I think a full case would be better here than motions, as the facts are somewhat in dispute, and in the interests of following a set process that already exists which will allow for further evidence to be presented and then reviewed. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept It looks like there is enough here for a case and the CT isn't ending the disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what more we can do that hasn't already been done, but maybe the structure of a case will help get to the bottom of some of the issues so I'm willing to accept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[1] or is no longer an administrator;^[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[1]

[2]

PROFILPELAJAR.COM