Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case information

Involved parties

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

Prior dispute resolution

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

Preliminary statements

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

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• This has been a community-designated contentious topic since 2019. ECP is also (broadly) authorized to deal with the disruption. The most ArbCom can do here is pick a few and exit them from the wiki, which I'm not totally sold is the best use of time... Izno (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Given Newslinger's comment at Special:Diff/1354021757, it seems to me this could be handled at SPI? -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Accept. Very well. As some of the only people around here who can be voluntold to do anything, I'm happy for us to accept "this is complicated and we'd rather you did it". -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• The only think I can see here that Arbcom can do is provide the structure to provide evidence in a multi-party dispute and consider private evidence. Some of the responses are leaning towards admins just taking available actions, so I'd like to hear if that would be sufficient before we'd move forward with a case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Accept. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• We have received some private evidence about this case request which, on a brief skim, looks worthy of further investigation. Combined with the continued issues even after a community CT designation, I am inclined towards a case. I'm not persuaded by the argument that there is little for us to do because of the existing community CT designation. There's a lot ArbCom could do. We could assume the CCT designation. We could impose 1RR or ECR. We could create a mechanism for easier reporting of off-wiki meatpuppetry (e.g. expanding COIVRT to be off-wiki-evidence-VRT). And, of course, we could restrict editors who are causing problems in the topic area, taking off-wiki evidence into account. I'm not saying all of those are good ideas—we can only determine that after an evidence phase—just that we shouldn't decline this request because there is already a CT designation. However, I do want to hear from the proposed parties before formally voting. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Accept. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've briefly perused the private evidence, and I agree that there's some smoke, but I'm not convinced yet that admins couldn't handle this on their own without us stomping all over it first with a case. Katie^talk 21:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Accept. Katie^talk 14:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm about where Katie's at, though I'm going to take time to more closely examine the private evidence. However, if this is something that ArbCom should handle, I feel like User:QEDK's suggestion of motions are a better route than a full case based on what I've seen so far. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Accept per Newslinger's final paragraph. I think a full case would be better here than motions, as the facts are somewhat in dispute, and in the interests of following a set process that already exists which will allow for further evidence to be presented and then reviewed. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Accept It looks like there is enough here for a case and the CT isn't ending the disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what more we can do that hasn't already been done, but maybe the structure of a case will help get to the bottom of some of the issues so I'm willing to accept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Final decision

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

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 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).

Passed 7 to 6 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 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).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 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).

Passed 8 to 3 with 2 abstentions at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 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.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 3 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 2 at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 5 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review

On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

References

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

Enforcement log

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