Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Proposed decision

I appreciate the Committee posting the proposed decision five days before the deadline.

Minor copyediting:

• Purpose of Wikipedia: "conflicts is prohibited" → "conflicts, is prohibited"
• Locus of the dispute: "about the the behavior" → "about the behavior"
• Guitarjunkie22: "following similar pattern" → "following a similar pattern"
• Jimcastor: "including make" → "including making"
• MraClean: "following similar pattern" → "following a similar pattern"
• PinkSlippers: "including make" → "including making"

— Newslinger talk 15:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Should be  Done with thanks. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Some editors at the workshop supported a broader topic ban on bands and musicians for some of the editors, citing, among other evidence, the conduct at Talk:Rihanna. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The evidence about Talk:Rihanna was much more limited and evidence about other bands and musicians even more scant. Hard to build a compelling FoF around that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that some of my comments in the past were poorly phrased or overly argumentative, but I do not believe my overall editing history reflects a pattern of escalating misconduct. When concerns were raised, I apologized, adjusted my behavior, and did not receive further warnings, sanctions, or administrative action regarding those issues.

As a very inexperienced editor i was previously not familiar with how contentious topic areas were supposed to be handled.

The direct conduct warnings on my talk page were isolated incidents caused by my initial inexperience rather than a recurring pattern of intentional disruption. After each was raised, I addressed the concern, brought up by the editor in question and did not receive additional warnings on the same issue & its been 6 months since the last warning on my page because i have learned from my mistakes. And i apologize for any past issues i have caused.

Never17 (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime however i will plan on working on other pages outside the Michael Jackson topic area, i have more interest currently on the video games section, especially in regards to the List of best video games article. So i will constructively work towards contributing to that section & others. I don’t need the MJ topic area to be productive Never17 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Unsure about giving NE0mAn7o a warning. The user was alerted already four years ago (revision) about the MJ-related topics being subject to general sanctions. George Ho (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not a warning. That's a GS/CTOP alert. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In re to what Robert said, I can't help wonder whether an alternative FoF on Episteme Aletheia will be drafted and then posted. The (other) main FoF on Episteme Aletheia is one vote short of passing at this time. --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Would the following diffs be enough?: reply to someone else's evidence (diff), self-revert (diff), re-posting to their own section but without adding diffs (diff), replying directly to someone at the Workshop (diff), removing own reply (diff). I even confronted the user about this: revision George Ho (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Doubtful that blatant or obvious conduct was committed during the Arbitration case. Even Israell's evidence perhaps itself isn't proof of committed conduct during the arb case? Statements by Israell here, OTOH... Perhaps so, but I'm doubtful it warrants to be included in the FoF about Israell. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please, you don't need to ping me four times. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh... Sorry about that. I assumed too much. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

• @ScottishFinnishRadish, Daniel, Girth Summit, Guerillero, Aoidh, KrakatoaKatie, and HouseBlaster:

See: This new user, apparently a single-purpose account (WP:SPA), was just recently banned for major disruption of the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations article.

I had to intervene and revert some of their vandalism. This has been going for years: users joining Wikipedia to push a particular agenda—in this case, an apparent anti-Jackson one, always editing articles in a way that they believe makes him "look guilty."

Every time they do so, action must be taken to repair the articles. A string of editors, including me and Popcornfud, must repeatedly take the time to undo such damage, and when that happens, it may appear to some that a number of editors are somehow conspiring and canvassing.

It now appears to me that four other newly-created SPAs are somehow linked to the aforementioned banned account. One of them () is particularly being disruptive, and I've just had to revert them after they had already been reverted due to "unexplained removal of sourced content."

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and I haven't really started editing Michael Jackson-related articles since 2019.

The release of the Leaving Neverland movie attracted a lot of attention to Jackson's Wikipedia articles, including undue attention from disruptive editors.

My history on here shows that, in that regard, I've only helped to stop vandalism, and I've also partaken in discussions and votes related to that particular subject (Michael Jackson), among all the other subjects I've ever taken an interest in on here.

I have not, in my conscience, caused any major disruption on here unlike the vandals I've mentioned.

I honestly believe that topic-banning a string of editors over this matter is a mistake which will only allow those vandals to come here, push their POV, and turn Michael Jackson-related articles into a complete tabloid.

Besides, Michael Jackson-related discussions and votes, from now on, will be unbalanced, with mostly only one side represented.

We're talking about topic-banning (and even, in some cases, banning site-wide) eleven editors, most of whom have been here for several years at least. TheWikiholic's contributions to Wikipedia are particularly notable, cover a very wide range of subjects, including a lot of non-music-related ones. His sitewide ban would represent be a great loss for Wikipedia. (He's got over 24,000 edits and has been here since 2013.)

This is a very serious matter that cannot be taken lightly. I ask that leniency and due process truly be followed here. Israell (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Israell: I don't think you quite realise how little your "I shall being balance to the Force" shpiel matters. If you legitimately believe those users are a returning banned user, file an SPI before the case closes. Don't use them as a bludgeon to try and convince the Arbitrators they're committing a miscarriage of justice, especially in a case where (1) you're a party and (2) there's a lot of privileged evidence only the Arbitrators can see. (This argument also didn't work in EEML, which involves much of the same issues as here.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 19:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

i fully agree with Guillero on EA. A brand-new account with this history would likely be indeffed at ANI as clearly WP:NOTHERE.

I am also concerned by the clemency being awarded to MrBoar1. Bumping an ANI thread that they had not yet participated in, after 51 hours, in order to pile on and keep sanctions pressure on an opponent is behaviour I would feel would tip the Arbs to a full site ban in light of the (apparent) nature of the coordination. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 12:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that there is an inconsistency about Episteme Aletheia, because the sanction, which is that they will be topic-banned, is passing, but the finding of fact is not passing. I don't have an opinion on either the finding or the remedy, except that the remedy doesn't follow from the finding. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Finding of fact 3 which references the editor is indeed passing, and that alone would likely justify the sanction - therefore the remedy does follow from the finding. Plus, finding of fact 8 only requires one more vote to pass, with six or so votes yet to be cast. Daniel (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't been taking account of the multi-user finding of fact number 3. My error. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:George Ho - I had been thinking of an alternative finding of fact, but I hadn't taken note of the multi-user finding of fact, which is a sufficient basis for the topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that a Finding of Fact notes that Michael Jackson is a community-authorized contentious topic. In the past, community-authorized general sanctions have often been converted by ArbCom to ArbCom general sanctions after an ArbCom case. I don't see a remedy about changing the nature of the contentious topic this time. Does that mean that, after the November 2025 revision, community contentious topics and ArbCom contentious topics are equivalent, so that no adjustment is needed? (If so, it is good that we reconciled the different procedures.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In this specific case no adjustment was necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources can be banned without any article in the media declaring them unreliable, based on their track record of non-factual reporting and bias. Both applies to Orth, to say the least. Wikipedia considers many sources as not reliable. All of them are decided based on the discussions and consensus among editors is from the first diff on PinkSlippers in my evidence @Asilvering

I think this supports the FoF, especially given the context in this thread (PinkSlippers is clearly supporting the other editors who also claimed there was a consensus that Orth was unreliable/banned). I admit it is not as explicit as some of the other editors statements, but I think this interpretation is the only reasonable one given the juxtaposition.

Specifically with respect to the context, PinkSlippers is replying to Bhdshoes , who is seemingly replying to TruthGuardians (the indentation suggests Bhdshoes replied to themself, but the timing of the comment implies it was directed at TruthGuardian, castorbailey, or Israell - see for the version of talk page then) all of whom had asserted that there was a consensus that Orth was unreliable and banned from Wikipedia.

It is also how Bhdshoes2 took the comment, given their reply. Katzrockso (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster the motion to ban PinkSlippers should be marked as not passing, no? Katzrockso (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed with thanks. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

In terms of slightly academic housekeeping, Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Proposed decision#MraClean topic banned, the "KrakatoaKatie [she] has requested by email that we note her abstention in this remedy" line is in the oppose section. Was that intentional? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed with thanks. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)