Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)

Case closed on 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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




Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

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)

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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
    Accept. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • 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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Accept. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • 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. Katietalk 21:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Accept. Katietalk 14:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Accept. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI