Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 7 |
| 2–3 | 6 |
| 4–5 | 5 |
| Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
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)
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as a contentious topic designation) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Participation
2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Meatpuppetry
3) While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like there is interest in rephrasing. We need to say something about MEAT, and this is a true statement, so I'll support even if I'm not entirely happy with it. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- I'm thinking about this one. It's certainly true as a statement of how we have done things in the past, but I'd rather formulate this in the vein of WP:DUCK. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to avoid giving credence to the idea that one can jump to MEAT based entirely on people's POVs --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Presumption of coordination
4) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view—especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute—it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases needs to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion—especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Neutrality and conflicts of interest
5) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Outing
6) Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted that information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. This specifically includes the posting of links to personal profiles on external sites, whether such information is accurate or not.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of the dispute
1) This case is about the behavior and coordination of parties concerning Michael Jackson, the sexual abuse allegations against him, and his family.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Community-designated contentious topic
2) A community discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard placed pages related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed, under indefinite general sanctions, effective 27 December 2019. A November 2025 RfC converted the prior community-imposed discretionary sanctions into a community-designated contentious topic, effective 3 November 2025.
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 22:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Apparent coordination
3) TruthGuardians, Israell, Never17, Jimcastor, MraClean, Mr Boar1, Episteme Aletheia, Guitarjunkie22, PinkSlippers, NE0mAn7o!, and TheWikiholic have significant overlap in Michael Jackson-related discussions and articles, supporting the same POV, with some named editors often making their first edit in months to take part (BilledMammal's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I feel it is worth noting that some editors' overlap is more
significant
than others. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC) - Elli (talk | contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per HouseBlaster. IznoPublic (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- There is obviously co-ordination happening here. I don't see evidence of it for every one of the listed names. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Apparent coordination has skewed consensus
4) The apparent coordination of parties in this case has skewed consensus in the topic area, clearly exemplified at this request for comment (BilledMammal's evidence, Felinaex's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- There is clearly something funky going on in this topic area --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
TruthGuardians
5) TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) has deliberately misled the community about their connection to and conflict of interest regarding the Michael Jackson family (private evidence) and has deliberately misled the community about their off-wiki communication with TheWikiholic and Israell (private evidence, BilledMammal's evidence). They were investigated at SPI in June 2022 and May 2023, and were blocked for meatpuppetry with TheWikiholic after the May 2023 SPI. After the block expired they continued to edit the same discussions as TheWikiholic (George Ho's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence).
They have made approximately 37% of their edits to pages also edited by MraClean (Newslinger's evidence). After inviting MraClean to edit Taj Jackson they removed what appeared to be an edit instruction added by MraClean (Newslinger's evidence). They have made a large number of minor grammar edits following a similar pattern as MraClean and Guitarjunkie22 (BilledMammal's evidence).
They have claimed consensus against using certain sources with no evidence and stonewalled discussions in the topic area (Katzrockso's evidence, DanieleJava's evidence). They have attempted to out DanieleJava (GhostOfDanGurney's evidence) despite being aware of and having invoked the outing policy in the past (private evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'll leave this comment here, but it applies to all editors whose findings of fact refer state they
claimed consensus against using certain sources with no evidence
. Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 35#Removing Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth as sources and Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 36#Can "The Importance of Being Famous: Behind the Scenes of the Celebrity" be restored as a reference w/ sentence? were indeed discussions about whether to use a source, but they are not evidence that the community has found consensus that all works by a particular author are unreliable about Jackson. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC) - In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I was skeptical about this one at first but the off-wiki evidence of COI is pretty clear. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
TheWikiholic
6) TheWikiholic (talk · contribs) has deliberately misled the community about their off-wiki communication with TruthGuardians and Israell (private evidence, BilledMammal's evidence). They were investigated at SPI in July 2017 where they were blocked along with a confirmed sock and a CheckUser-unrelated account blocked on behavioral evidence, and in May 2023, and were blocked for meatpuppetry with TruthGuardians after the May 2023 SPI. After the block expired they continued to edit the same discussions as TruthGuardians (Newslinger's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence).
They have claimed, without evidence, that there was consensus against using a particular source and stonewalled discussions in the topic area (Katzrockso's evidence, Moneytrees' evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Israell
7) Israell (talk · contribs) has communicated off-wiki with TruthGuardians and TheWikiholic (private evidence) and has engaged in off-wiki canvassing (private evidence, BilledMammal's evidence). They were warned in March 2020 for off-wiki canvassing (George Ho's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- While this is true, and I've already voted in support, I don't understand why this one doesn't mention conduct on arbitration pages, like Never17's does. There is also no mention of outing, like there is in the FoF for Guitarjunkie22. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Episteme Aletheia
8) Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs) created their account in March 2026 and immediately engaged in the same behavior as the other editors named in finding of fact 3 in the same context, and appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose (Katzrockso's evidence, BilledMammal's evidence). They appear to have provided evidence to this case under the instruction of, or provided by, another editor (Episteme Aletheia's initial evidence, TheJoebro64's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- They offered an explanation for their evidence submission—that it was a note to themselves. I'm not sure I believe that explanation; to my ears,
and under that copypaste this
definitely sounds much closer to "direction to another" than "note to self".I therefore support this FOF.Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- They offered an explanation for their evidence submission—that it was a note to themselves. I'm not sure I believe that explanation; to my ears,
- Even if their explanation is an accurate description of what happened, this certainly has the appearance of the coordinated editing that we know for a fact is happening in this topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I do not agree that they are editing Wikipedia solely for this purpose, and I cannot find a basis for this statement in Katzrockso's or BilledMammal's evidence. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Would other arbitrators be okay removing that text? I think that is a reasonable concern, and is not necessary for the thrust of this FOF. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- The same behavior includes making minor non-Jackson or non-coordination related edits to pad out their edit count. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Would other arbitrators be okay removing that text? I think that is a reasonable concern, and is not necessary for the thrust of this FOF. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per asilvering. IznoPublic (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- asilvering raises a reasonable concern about a clause, and I have to agree with them. I oppose this FOF in favor of the new 8.1, which removes that clause. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can't entirely rule out good faith wrt the copypaste issue, and I don't think it's integral to the FoF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- They're not here solely for that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I prefer the alt, as I'm not confident of the "solely". ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- I do not agree that they are editing Wikipedia solely for this purpose, and I cannot find a basis for this statement in Katzrockso's or BilledMammal's evidence. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Episteme Aletheia (alt)
8.1) Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs) created their account in March 2026 and immediately engaged in the same behavior as the other editors named in finding of fact 3 in the same context (Katzrockso's evidence, BilledMammal's evidence). They appear to have provided evidence to this case under the instruction of, or provided by, another editor (Episteme Aletheia's initial evidence, TheJoebro64's evidence).
- Support:
- This is a copy of FOF8, removing the words
and appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose
. I support this version per my original comment and asilvering's oppose at FOF8. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC) appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose
is another way of saying WP:NOTHERE, and this is one of the strongest condemnations we can make of any editor. I don't believe it is warranted on this evidence. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)- IznoPublic (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice to 8, which I feel is preferred per SFR in the abstain section below. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice to 8. Girth Summit (blether) 14:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I could buy that they have a shared main purpose, or that Epistheme may have been advised not to edit solely about MJ, but I'm not at all confident that Epistheme doesn't also have an interest in other things they have edited about, even if they arrived at some of those pages while looking through a coordinating editor's contributions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is a copy of FOF8, removing the words
- Oppose:
- As above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is a brand new editor with 72 edits. They've hardly done anything here yet. I don't buy that they were directed to paste their evidence by someone else. Their editing could probably use a nudge in the right direction, but so could just about anyone with 72 edits. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I prefer thr first version --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per CaptainEek. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Aoidh. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- I think this omitting that they're editing for the same purpose is a drawback here. Following the same pattern of minor edits to other articles to screen coordinated/MEAT edits about MJ and Rihanna is an important part of the FoF as it's a pattern that we see among many pf the parties that adds to the circumstantial evidence. Matching that pattern of screening edits is something I might overlook if we didn't also have the copy/paste thing. Making other edits to make the coordination less obvious is
editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose
. This finding is true, but incomplete, so I'll abstain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think this omitting that they're editing for the same purpose is a drawback here. Following the same pattern of minor edits to other articles to screen coordinated/MEAT edits about MJ and Rihanna is an important part of the FoF as it's a pattern that we see among many pf the parties that adds to the circumstantial evidence. Matching that pattern of screening edits is something I might overlook if we didn't also have the copy/paste thing. Making other edits to make the coordination less obvious is
- Comments:
Guitarjunkie22
9) Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs) outed an editor in their evidence (Guitarjunkie22's initial evidence). They have made a large number of minor grammar edits following a similar pattern as TruthGuardians and MraClean (BilledMammal's evidence).
At Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 15#RfC on using 100m claimed sales for the Thriller album, they made their first edit in eight months, and at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 2#Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations they made their first edit in fourteen months (BilledMammal's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence). Guitarjunkie22 makes policy arguments in discussions concerning the Michael Jackson topic area that do not match written policy (Moneytrees' evidence, Guitarjunkie22's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- True enough, but I'd extend some slack on the outing. This is the place for providing evidence, they provided evidence. They're an editor with not many edits, and it was of course quickly suppressed. I don't think it was malicious, just uninformed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Jimcastor
10) Jimcastor (talk · contribs) has claimed, without evidence, that there was consensus against using a particular source and stonewalled discussions in the topic area (Katzrockso's evidence).
They have engaged in similar editing to PinkSlippers outside of the Michael Jackson topic area, including making the same edits to the same family of articles (BilledMammal's evidence). They fixed an error added by Mr Boar1 on an article they had never edited on Mr Boar1's first day of editing articles (BilledMammal's evidence). Their second edit, after creating a very similar user page to TruthGuardians's, was to an article TruthGuardians had created less than four hours earlier (BilledMammal's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Definitely some weird stuff happening here, the simplest answer which is off-wiki coordination, or meatpuppetry, though we admittedly lack direct evidence of that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Mr Boar1
11) At Talk:MJ the Musical#Request for comment, Mr Boar1 (talk · contribs) returned to activity after seven months (BilledMammal's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence). They created their account on the same day as MraClean and within three weeks both had participated in the same two RFCs (BilledMammal's evidence). Aside from Rihanna, these are the only two non-Jackson related pages they have both edited (editor interaction analyzer).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- I don't think the last sentence is true? The EIA is certainly Jackon-heavy, but Rihanna is not the only exception; they both edited Talk:Walt Disney, Talk:Brie Larson, and the aforementioned Talk:Rihanna. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Those two RFCs are the two RFCs mentioned in the FoF (
within three weeks both had participated in the same two RFCs
). They created their accounts on the same day, both took part in those two RFCs, and aside from Rhianna they were the only two non-Jackson articles they both edited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Those two RFCs are the two RFCs mentioned in the FoF (
- I don't think the last sentence is true? The EIA is certainly Jackon-heavy, but Rihanna is not the only exception; they both edited Talk:Walt Disney, Talk:Brie Larson, and the aforementioned Talk:Rihanna. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
MraClean
12) MraClean (talk · contribs) appears to have made an edit under the instruction of, or provided by, another editor at Taj Jackson after being invited to the page by TruthGuardians, who removed the instruction without an edit summary (Newslinger's evidence).
They have made approximately 46% of their edits to pages also edited by TruthGuardians (Newslinger's evidence). They have made a large number of minor grammar edits following a similar pattern as TruthGuardians and Guitarjunkie22 (BilledMammal's evidence). MraClean created their account on the same day as Mr Boar1 and within three weeks both had participated in the same two RFCs (BilledMammal's evidence). Aside from Rihanna, these are the only two non-Jackson related pages they have both edited (editor interaction analyzer).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Never17
13) Never17 (talk · contribs) has engaged in battleground editing, forum-like behavior, cast aspersions, and used their own interpretation of sources, and pushed a POV (Moneytrees' evidence, Never17's conduct at arbitration pages).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- A lot of it is pretty typical newbie behavior/imported internet warrior culture. For a fairly low edit count editor, I'm not all that surprised. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- I mean, I guess? They could stand to learn more about how editing is supposed to work and how they're expected to behave. They should learn that sooner rather than later. But... meh. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
- Can someone point me at diffs of the conduct on arbitration pages that's being cited? Can't tell if I've missed it or if I'm just being too jaded. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
NE0mAn7o!
14) NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs)'s fourth and fifth edits were to articles previously edited by PinkSlippers (BilledMammal's evidence). These are the only two non-Jackson related pages they have both edited (editor interaction analyzer).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I respect that the opposers aren't convinced. I would agree with them on any one of the sentences. But, put together, there are too many coincidences to ignore, which is what the FoF is saying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- True, but I oppose this passing into the final decision. NE0mAn7o!'s fourth and fifth edits were made in April 2022, when they changed the word "lost" to "lose" and added a pair of commas to The Golden Girls season 1 and The Golden Girls season 3, respectively. PinkSlippers had indeed edited both articles... a year and a half earlier, in September 2020, to fix unrelated markup errors. I am really having a hard time believing that those edits were in any way coordinated, as the FOF strongly implies. The second sentence is also misleading; it's two of six, which I don't think is a large enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Six total with 90 pages edited by NE0mAn7o! and 53 pages edited by PinkSlippers. Compare our EIA and pages edited, where I have edited 0.7% of the pages you've edited, and you've edited 0.6% of the pages I've edited, including all of the Wikipedia space stuff and user talk pages. Even putting aside the Jackson articles there's a degree of magnitude more overlap, and those were NE0's 4th and 5th edits after making a copy edit to an MJ page and creating a user page. That coincidence seems pretty unlikely and if I'm showing someone how to edit or giving them ideas to increase edit count I'd use articles I've edited significantly, but not Knight Rider or Dallas since I used those with a different editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per HouseBlaster but with a bit more vehemence. IznoPublic (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- With rather more vehemence. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- True, but I oppose this passing into the final decision. NE0mAn7o!'s fourth and fifth edits were made in April 2022, when they changed the word "lost" to "lose" and added a pair of commas to The Golden Girls season 1 and The Golden Girls season 3, respectively. PinkSlippers had indeed edited both articles... a year and a half earlier, in September 2020, to fix unrelated markup errors. I am really having a hard time believing that those edits were in any way coordinated, as the FOF strongly implies. The second sentence is also misleading; it's two of six, which I don't think is a large enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- They haven't even edited in a year, and mostly made little grammar edits. Why are we putting the energy into this? Why couldn't this have been dealt with via the general MJ sanctions?? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't find this observation very compelling. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
PinkSlippers
15) At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and Talk:MJ the Musical#Request for comment, PinkSlippers (talk · contribs) made their first edits in seven months, then returned to inactivity for ten months (BilledMammal's evidence, Katzrockso's evidence). They have engaged in similar editing to Jimcastor outside of the Michael Jackson topic area, including making the same edits to the same family of articles (BilledMammal's evidence). They have claimed, without evidence, that there was consensus against using a particular source and stonewalled discussions in the topic area (Katzrockso's evidence).
- Support:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Again, maybe the overlap is a coincidence. But there are a lot of coincides here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think the tv show edits could be an artifact, but I agree they're showing up at the same discussions, and something just feels weird here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- I am not really convinced by the claimed similarity to Jimcastor. IznoPublic (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes to the first sentence, meh to the rest. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I'm not finding the evidence for the final sentence? Katzrockso's evidence includes two diffs on PinkSlippers that make it clear what they think of Orth (very little), but I don't see them claiming without evidence that there was consensus against using them as a source. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
TruthGuardians banned
1) TruthGuardians is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- I find the private evidence compelling and it shows they misled the community about their COI and contact with other editors. With the very strong circumstantial evidence of coordination alongside the COI editing and off-wiki communication I think a full ban is the most appropriate result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- My assessment of the evidence and the FoF is that TruthGuardians demonstrated probably the largest portfolio of poor conduct in this case, and this sanction is easily justifiable. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- The evidence, public and private, is indeed quite compelling - this editor has exhibited a lengthy pattern of willful deception and should be banned. Girth Summit (blether) 17:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- clearly needed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- When reviewing the public and private evidence, I don't think anything short of this would sufficient in preventing disruption. - Aoidh (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Trust is an essential component of working together to build an encyclopedia. Misleading the community over, and over, and over, and over again shatters that trust; a topic ban is insufficient on its own to fix that. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- I handle a lot of sockpuppetry blocks, which means I deal with a lot of people who try to lie about who they are. I don't think any of them have lied to me half as much as TruthGuardians has lied to arbcom and the community at large. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per House's first sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- The total failure to take accountability or even be remotely honest is unacceptable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
TruthGuardians topic banned
2) TruthGuardians is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Second choice, per above. Misleading the community about COI and off-wiki contact goes beyond just coordination in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also fine with in addition to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 1), for any subsequent successful appeal. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Insufficient on its own, but should be instituted and should stay in place if they were to successfully appeal the ban down the line. Girth Summit (blether) 17:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to TruthGuardians banned. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to the site ban, on the understanding that the entire Jackson family falls under the "broadly construed" umbrella. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 1). Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 1. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Obviously. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice, per above. Misleading the community about COI and off-wiki contact goes beyond just coordination in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- They need to be shown the door --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- I don't oppose, but the site ban needs to happen. Everything else is secondary. And I suspect it will be a long time before we welcome TruthGuardians back given the deceit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
TheWikiholic banned
3) TheWikiholic is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Their history of socking, blocks for meatpuppetry, and misleading the community about off-wiki communication puts this beyond what I think a topic ban will address. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Again, a protracted history of willful deception. Girth Summit (blether) 17:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- clearly needed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per SFR. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Again, it comes down to trust. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per House. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I was hoping to see some kind of response from them. Since they've continued editing about MJ sales figures, I assume one will not be forthcoming. And I couldn't come up with any good reasons to vote against a ban on my own. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Wikiholic has been a productive editor and I think there is a much weaker case to ban them than for TruthGuardians. TG's statement was also much more dishonest. But I'm still hard pressed to say that Wikiholic was entirely forthcoming. A close reading of their statement
I also want to once again clarify that I am not involved in any meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, and I have no on wiki or off wiki contact with any of the users mentioned above for canvassing, tag teaming, or coordinated activities.
leaves open the possibility that they have been in off-wiki contact with them for other purposes. And there was certainly evidence of such off-wiki contact. Did Wikiholic perhaps think those contacts were benign? Sure. But failing to even say "oh, yeah, I've talked with those people before and we're friendly." feels dishonest to leave out. I think there should be a path back into the community for them, but they're going to have to come clean to the extent of their off-wiki communications, even if they believed those communications to be benign at the time. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wikiholic has been a productive editor and I think there is a much weaker case to ban them than for TruthGuardians. TG's statement was also much more dishonest. But I'm still hard pressed to say that Wikiholic was entirely forthcoming. A close reading of their statement
- Comments:
TheWikiholic topic banned
4) TheWikiholic is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Second choice, per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also fine with in addition to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 3. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Again, insufficient on its own, but should be enacted and should stay in place should the ban be successfully appealed. Girth Summit (blether) 17:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to TheWikiholic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 3). Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 3. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Obviously required, given the repeated issues and private evidence. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Obviously. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice, per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- They need to be shown the door --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Israell banned
5) Israell is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- As we were beginning to work on this proposed decision, I thought Israell was heading for one of these. However, as the evidence was sifted out and analysed, I don't think there's enough to require this. Topic ban feels more suitable based off evidence and FoF. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Dan, this is too much for the FoF. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I concur with my colleagues, a Tban ought to be sufficient in this case. Girth Summit (blether) 17:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Daniel here. - Aoidh (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Too much. Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I continue to be surprised that the votes are ending up like this relative to other parties in the case. But ultimately I don't think a ban is necessary here either. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- IznoPublic (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I could have been tempted to support but I can live with topic ban + thin ice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I would rate their behaviour here as worse than Guitarjunkie22's, so I'm surprised to see the votes go like this. To be clear, that isn't me saying I think a site ban is warranted; I'm still unsure. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Israell topic banned
6) Israell is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- The big difference between Israell and TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians is that I didn't see any evidence of them denying any off-wiki communication. In fact, they copped to some off-wiki communication. I'm still thinking on a ban, but I easily support this for the coordinated editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sufficient. Girth Summit (blether) 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Appropriate. Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I believe and hope this is sufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- They were definitely part of the off-wiki evidence, though a lot of that evidence was pretty old, and minor. Still, they're not doing the topic area any favors. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Comments:
Episteme Aletheia banned
7) Episteme Aletheia is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Posting evidence provided by an unknown third party ("and under that copypaste this") is strong reason to pass go and head straight for a ban. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Too much based off evidence & FoF. Topic ban feels suitable. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Bit much for a new editor who probably didn't know exactly what they were stepping into. A topic ban should give them the space to grow as an editor and learn about Wikipedia while making it clear that meatpuppetry is unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to give them a chance to learn the ropes in other topic areas. Girth Summit (blether) 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In favor of a TBAN. - Aoidh (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- If this was an experienced editor, I would agree with Guerillero. But they're not, so I oppose in favor of the topic ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per my hesitation on the FoF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Episteme Aletheia topic banned
8) Episteme Aletheia is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Opposed 7 as too much, but this is justified by the FoF. Was very unimpressed with the evidence submission issue and subsequent attempted evasion. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to give them a chance to learn the ropes in other topic areas, but not this one. Girth Summit (blether) 18:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I am sceptical of some of the evidence presented, but none of it suggests that continued involvement in this topic area would be a good idea. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Asilvering. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- This is a brand new editor with 72 edits. They've hardly done anything here yet. I don't buy that they were directed to paste their evidence by someone else. Their editing could probably use a nudge in the right direction, but so could just about anyone with 72 edits. At most, they should be walking away with a warning, and probably some mentorship to help them stick around and become a learned member of the community. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Guitarjunkie22 banned
9) Guitarjunkie22 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Absolutely. Outing, meatpuppetry, returning from long breaks to distort consensus, and misrepresentation of policy. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Dan. Specifically, violations on top of the standard MEAT/coordination we're looking at in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per the outting --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also per Daniel Girth Summit (blether) 13:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Largely per Dan. Without the outing, I probably would have been happy with a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I am pretty unconvinced about a full ban here for what is present in the evidence. IznoPublic (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like a tban would be enough to contain the disruption, and I don't see significant aggravating factors. I don't mean to imply that the outing wasn't a problem, and it's clearly battleground behaviour, but I don't think it requires our strongest sanction. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think the outing angle has been entirely blown out of proportion here. They only outed somebody on the evidence page as part of providing evidence. ArbCom has arcane rules about what evidence goes where. If they'd just emailed it to us, we wouldn't have even batted an eyelash. Otherwise, their behavior was not particularly egregious, and they're a new editor. They did game ECP, for reasons unclear to me, but I think that removing them from the MJ topic area should do the trick for now. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- I don't think the WP:OUTING violation here was on the egregious side. On most any other website I don't think it would be considered outing. Still, it's just one of several issues in the finding, and on balance I don't have a firm view. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Guitarjunkie22 topic banned
10) Guitarjunkie22 is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- In addition to 9. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to Guitarjunkie22 banned. - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 9. Katietalk 14:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 9. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition. Girth Summit (blether) 13:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 9. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice to 9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Just show them the door and move on --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Jimcastor banned
11) Jimcastor is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Their statement denying off-wiki coordination does not explain away the evidence concerning the timing and nature of their edits, both at AN/I and elsewhere in support of other named parties. Viewing that evidence through the lens of the off-wiki coordination in this topic area by these other named parties that Jimcastor returns to editing specifically to support, I find it very difficult to believe that they aren't part of that coordinated off-wiki effort. I do not believe that a TBAN alone is sufficient because of this, along the lines of what HouseBlaster stated at TruthGuardians banned. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I simply don't believe the behavior in the FOF is explainable by following editors' Special:Contribs. How did they find Mr Boar1's account? How did they learn about TruthGuardians? I can't come to the conclusion that they were honest about their off-wiki behavior, and I therefore support a site ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per HB --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Aoidh and HB. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. Girth Summit (blether) 13:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- There is clearly something going on. I could imagine less-nefarious explanations than meatpuppetry but outright denial is a non-starter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- There is clearly something peculiar going on here. I agree that the simplest explanation is off-wiki conduct or meatpuppetry. Still, I think that the target of that is the MJ topic area. They seem to also be interested in Star Trek, and I suggest we yeet them from the MJ topic and give them a chance to be normal elsewhere. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Jimcastor topic banned
12) Jimcastor is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to Jimcastor banned. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 11. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition, Girth Summit (blether) 13:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 11. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Mr Boar1 banned
13) Mr Boar1 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Not enough in the FoF to justify this. Topic ban will be enough. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Daniel. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Again, I can live with topic ban + thin ice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Mr Boar1 topic banned
14) Mr Boar1 is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Lets try the less drastic option --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 13:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
MraClean banned
15) MraClean is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- It's trust. Writing
Here you add the lawsuit about the wrongful death of Dee Dee
is obviously a command from another, not a note to self. MraClean, however, denied this allegation at the preliminary statements, arguing that in the preliminary statement that they areunfairly targeted for being a Jackson family fan
and that allegations ofworking with others off of Wikipedia [...] would be a lie
. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC) - Per HouseBlaster. - Aoidh (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- per HB --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per HB. The disruptive meatpuppeting is bad and it is significantly compounded by lying. I can understand not knowing that meatpuppetry/coordination is as big a deal as it is, but once you know you should be coming clean and committing to following our PAGs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Weakly. As above, we can see that there is something going on. Had they come clean with a relatively innocuous explanation, I would probably have opposed a ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Considering the evidence as a whole (the "command" on its own could be something else), I am left with little doubt that MraClean was involved in off-wiki coordination (and, of course, left with no doubt of their strongly non-neutral editing). Hence I am left with little doubt that their denial is dishonest. And I think deceit calls more for a site ban than a topic ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's trust. Writing
- Oppose:
- The evidence and FoF was significant but it was all around the meatpuppetry angle, rather than any other editing offences or deception that have seen me support sitebans for other editors. Just about happy enough to oppose this as topic ban sufficient, although I was sitting on the fence for a bit here. Daniel (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- About even odds these days that it was ChatGPT adding the instruction. Which is almost as bad as proxying an edit and then not admitting to it either way. That said though, I'm willing to see the topic ban as a warning about future behavior. IznoPublic (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I really struggle to see this as anything other than co-ordinated editing. But it seems to me that a topic ban will contain this well enough. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- They haven't edited about anything but Jackson stuff. A topic ban is frankly a de facto ban. If they actually do stick around post-topic ban, I'm sure the community can assess that on its own merits. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to leave this as a topic ban and see whether they're interested in editing anything else. Girth Summit (blether) 14:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
MraClean topic banned
16) MraClean is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Lets try the less drastic option--Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)- HB convinced me, second choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to MraClean banned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- At least this, still weighing the full ban. Girth Summit (blether) 13:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 15. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Because I could envisage this ban being lifted in the near-enough future for this to be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Never17 banned
17) Never17 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Conduct goes well beyond the various forms of coordinated editing and meatpuppetry that was a baseline for topic bans on others, as outlined in the FoF. I believe this is justified. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Weakly, per Daniel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel/SFR. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- The talk page apology and the fact their misbehavior was confined to the Michael Jackson topic area bring me here. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not convinced a ban is merited, especially without prior warning. The evidence kind of makes them look like they haven't learned some critical stuff about Wikipedia yet. Some sort of remedy (outside MJ space) along the lines of requires-RS-to-make-a-change or argument on a talk page might be interesting here. IznoPublic (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Strikes me as a dedicated fan rather than someone who set out to subvert our consensus-based processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't get it. No prior history of sanctions, no strong evidence of meatpuppetry, no outing, none of that. Mostly, they seem confused. Why go straight to a ban? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- They're a fairly green editor who is a big fan, and brought some Twitter warrior energy here. We don't work like that, but I get it. They showed understanding and apologized and aim to do better going forward. Especially for someone who hasn't been given a chance like that before, that's like all we ask of folks. They can spend some time outside the topic area and grow as an editor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to give them a chance here. Disruption in a different topic area can be dealt with easily enough. Girth Summit (blether) 14:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Never17 topic banned
18) Never17 is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Lets try the less drastic option --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to my support of 17. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Still considering the site ban (especially in light of the talk page statement), but I support this regardless of whether or not the site ban passes. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to Never17 banned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- At least this, weighing full ban. Girth Summit (blether) 13:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 17. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is merited. I would advise Never17 to shape up. IznoPublic (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Strongly suggest they do something useful in a different part of the encyclopaedia if they wish to remain part of this community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
NE0mAn7o! banned
19) NE0mAn7o! is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Grossly excessive. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that this is too much based off the FoF. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can't get behind this --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
NE0mAn7o! topic banned
20) NE0mAn7o! is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not editing for 8 months is par for the course with many of this group - they've come back from inactivity in a coordinated way previously. I'd normally agree with HB that sanctioning an editor with 8 months inactivity wouldn't usually happen, but the conduct patterns here means we're likely to see a repeat in the future if we don't take action. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm moved by HB's argument, but also by Daniels. A topic ban from MJ articles really leaves them 99.999% of the project to work on if they are so inclined - let them do that, and appeal the MJ ban after a period of constructive editing elsewhere if they want. Girth Summit (blether) 13:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I am really struggling with topic banning an editor who last edited eight months ago and who has never been warned for their behavior. I would prefer we give a warning about WP:GS/MJ, which means admins can quickly remove them from the topic (or the site) in the event of future misconduct. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Really not convinced that the evidence is here for this. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not even. IznoPublic (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think this excessive, and furthermore I don't think "appeal after a period of constructive editing" makes sense to expect of someone whose last 20 edits go back to August 2024. A tban here is going to be effectively forever. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per House. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- If they come back...and keep editing about MJ...the MJ general sanctions could be slapped on them. The administrative cost of an Arb sanction just doesn't make sense here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
NE0mAn7o! warned
20.1) NE0mAn7o! is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.
- Support:
- Proposed. I'm not fussed over which of the three magic words we use here. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice to topic ban; I believe this is not quite sufficient but if it's all that passes, then I will support it over nothing passing. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- IFF we can agree that the account waking up and causing disruption would be grounds for a swift indef or topic ban, and this counts as the only warning for CT purposes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choise to topic ban. Girth Summit (blether) 13:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Distant second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Second choice to topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Reasonable and proportionate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Honestly, there wasn't any prior dispute resolution here and I'm not impressed that they were a party. 144 edit account getting an ArbCom warning feels like a poor use of everybody's time. If they come back...they can just get the regular MJ sanction hammer. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
PinkSlippers banned
21) PinkSlippers is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- There's enough poor conduct in the evidence and FoF to justify this, extending beyond meatpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. They also have some of the most egregious "appearing after six months to take part in an RFC" in evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Blatantly gaming EC and their pattern of participation is pretty egregious. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I've tried to write a rationale for supporting this ban multiple times over the last few days, and each time I felt like what I wrote was not a sufficient explanation for the full ban. My vote in opposition boils down to the fact that a topic ban would've prevented all of the poor behavior we have evidence of, with the exception of the EC gaming. However, there is an easy fix for that problem: revoking EC. If there is appetite, I might propose that as another remedy, but for now, I oppose this ban. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would call it gaming except the access to extended confirmed has not apparently been abused. As such I can't support a ban. IznoPublic (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we can argue simultaneously that someone's non-MJ edits are so useless they constitute gaming, while also saying those edits are so poor they need to be banned from the project entirely, ie, that a topic ban would not suffice to prevent the disruptive behaviour. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure this is proportionate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- The misconduct seemed MJ constrained. If they want to keep editing about TV shows or what have you, I think the community can assess that editing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to extend the chance to contribute elsewhere. Girth Summit (blether) 15:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
PinkSlippers topic banned
22) PinkSlippers is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Support, and in addition to any other passing remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Still thinking on the site ban, but this is necessary regardless of other remedies. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- At least, still weighing full ban. Girth Summit (blether) 13:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to PinkSlippers banned. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- In addition to 21. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- IznoPublic (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Their editing around MJ is both disruptive and, evidently, canvassed. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- KrakatoaKatie has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy. Girth Summit (blether) 15:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments:
Proposed 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.
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:
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 actionAn administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:
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 reviewUninvolved 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:
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:
References
|
- Comments:
Discussion by arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
This section tracks which proposals are passing with the support of an absolute majority of arbitrators. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
For a summary table of votes by individual arbitrator, please see /Implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by automatic template check; the last edit to this page was on 10:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC) by Aoidh.
| Number | Proposal name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 2 | Participation | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 3 | Meatpuppetry | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 4 | Presumption of coordination | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 5 | Neutrality and conflicts of interest | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 6 | Outing | 12 | 0 | 1 | . |
| Number | Proposal name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Locus of the dispute | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 2 | Community-designated contentious topic | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 3 | Apparent coordination | 11 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 4 | Apparent coordination has skewed consensus | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 5 | TruthGuardians | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 6 | TheWikiholic | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 7 | Israell | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 8 | Episteme Aletheia | 7 | 6 | 0 | . | ||
| 8.1 | Episteme Aletheia (alt) | 4 | 7 | 1 | Cannot pass | Two second-choice supports counts as an oppose because 8 is passing; cannot pass because 8 passes | |
| 9 | Guitarjunkie22 | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 10 | Jimcastor | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 11 | Mr Boar1 | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 12 | MraClean | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 13 | Never17 | 12 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 14 | NE0mAn7o! | 8 | 3 | 2 | . | ||
| 15 | PinkSlippers | 11 | 0 | 2 | . |
| Number | Proposal name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TruthGuardians banned | 13 | 0 | 0 | . | ||
| 2 | TruthGuardians topic banned | 11 | 1 | 1 | . | ||
| 3 | TheWikiholic banned | 12 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 4 | TheWikiholic topic banned | 11 | 1 | 1 | . | ||
| 5 | Israell banned | 0 | 10 | 2 | Cannot pass | ||
| 6 | Israell topic banned | 12 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 7 | Episteme Aletheia banned | 1 | 11 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 8 | Episteme Aletheia topic banned | 11 | 1 | 1 | . | ||
| 9 | Guitarjunkie22 banned | 9 | 3 | 1 | . | ||
| 10 | Guitarjunkie22 topic banned | 11 | 2 | 0 | . | One support counts as an oppose, as it was second choice to 9, and 9 is passing. | |
| 11 | Jimcastor banned | 11 | 1 | 1 | . | ||
| 12 | Jimcastor topic banned | 10 | 0 | 2 | . | ||
| 13 | Mr Boar1 banned | 0 | 10 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 14 | Mr Boar1 topic banned | 12 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 15 | MraClean banned | 7 | 5 | 1 | . | ||
| 16 | MraClean topic banned | 11 | 1 | 1 | . | One support counts as an oppose, as it was second choice to 15, and 15 is passing. | |
| 17 | Never17 banned | 4 | 7 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 18 | Never17 topic banned | 12 | 0 | 1 | . | ||
| 19 | NE0mAn7o! banned | 0 | 11 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 20 | NE0mAn7o! topic banned | 4 | 7 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 20.1 | NE0mAn7o! warned | 11 | 0 | 2 | . | Four votes second choice to 20. | |
| 21 | PinkSlippers banned | 5 | 7 | 1 | Cannot pass | ||
| 22 | PinkSlippers topic banned | 11 | 0 | 1 | . |
| Number | Proposal name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Enforcement of restrictions | 0 | 0 | 0 | . | Passes by default | |
| 0 | Appeals and modifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | . | Passes by default |
Notes
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.
Support
- All proposals have an outcome. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- SilverLocust, there's still the alt version of the EA FoF, which you haven't voted on, and which you can mark Katie down as abstaining. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The implementation notes say it has failed. I agree with the notes. Izno (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Huh, weird. I checked the notes before saying anything. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The notes on the subpage didn't have the second-choice votes accounted for. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Huh, weird. I checked the notes before saying anything. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The alt has four opposes and two second choice supports. Given the original EA FoF is passing, the two second choice supports count as opposes. With Katie's abstention, there are 12 total arbitrators, so it is impossible for the alt to pass. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The implementation notes say it has failed. I agree with the notes. Izno (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- SilverLocust, there's still the alt version of the EA FoF, which you haven't voted on, and which you can mark Katie down as abstaining. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Girth Summit (blether) 17:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments