Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case opened on 21:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
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)
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
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
.
- Allegations that TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians are sockpuppets. TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians found to be meatpuppets, and instructed that
- 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
- Allegations of anti-Jackson off-wiki canvassing. Editors
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)