Edge Rewrite
location Source code View original
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2a04ef36ae5c424

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
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)

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

  • Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
  • You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
  • Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

  • The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
  • If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
  • Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

  • Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
  • Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

  • The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
  • Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

  • You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
  • Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

  • Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
  • Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
  • Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
  • Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.


Evidence presented by George Ho

[edit]
Green tickY Extension granted to 600 words. EggRoll97 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)reply
(Portions derived from WP:GS/MJ and "Prior dispute resolution" section)

My edits on MJ-related pages have been rarely or never related to allegations against MJ or whatsoever... unless proven otherwise (unlikely). --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply

General sanctions imposed

[edit]

—George Ho (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply

ANI reports since then

[edit]

—George Ho (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)reply

AN threads since then

[edit]

--George Ho (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Other venues since then

[edit]

--George Ho (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Re to Katzrockso's evidence on Commons DR discussion

[edit]

Pleading no contest against evidence about the Commons DR discussion submitted by Katzrockso. To further explain the context, nonetheless, the Commons image nominated for deletion (file link) is currently not used in any active enwiki page at this time.

—George Ho (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence Presented by Robert McClenon

[edit]

A Dispute Over a Category Is Contentious

[edit]

Whether to include Michael Jackson in the Category: False allegations of sex crimes was contentious. CounterpointStitch filed an RFC on that question: CounterpointStitch then filed a DRN request seeking neutral input: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_266#Trial_of_Michael_Jackson The DRN request was closed both because DRN is not a vehicle for obtaining neutral input, but for discussion between non-neutral editors, and because the RFC was already open. I then filed a new RFC explicitly asking whether to include Michael Jackson in the category. That RFC was closed with a rough consensus to exclude from the category:

Disputes Result in Use of Artificial Intelligence, and in Canvassing

[edit]

On 8 July 2025, Hammelsmith filed a request at DRN concerning Michael Jackson: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_259#Michael_Jackson This request was closed as incompletely filed, because the filing editor did not name any other editors.

Again on 8 July 2025, Hammelsmith filed a request at DRN concerning Michael Jackson: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_261#Michael_Jackson TruthGuardians used artificial intelligence to present their argument. Wallby used artificial intelligence to analyze evidence. An RFC was composed, and there was argument about who could be notified of the RFC. A complaint about canvassing was raised, which I reported to WP:ANI: . The canvassing took place at and was by Hammelsmith.

Possible Coordination at NPOVN

[edit]

There may be coordination between editors at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. In December 2023, Bhdshoes2 files a request at NPOVN [] and is joined by TruthGuardians, castorbailey, and Mr Boar 1.

Non-Party Evidence

[edit]

Disputes Over Michael Jackson Have Been Contentious Since at least 2020

[edit]

A dispute at DRN over FBI Files on Michael Jackson was considered at DRN as Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_192#FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson, and used more than 8000 words over the exact wording of a minor point.

Evidence presented by Katzrockso

[edit]
Green tickY Extension granted to 700 words. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Following contributions

[edit]

Multiple editors involved in the topic area admit that they follow each other's edits to find places to contribute:

  • ; Originally through another editor's edit history and came back here after I saw Jackson all over the media again (though see )
  • ; Much of my editing was and is due to monitoring the contribs of other more active editors with similar interest like TruthGuardian and Popcornduf and editors who previously took part in relevant discussions/votes/RFCs etc ... which I found either through the RFC page or in TruthGuardian's contribs, I don't recall.
  • ; I have followed certain editors when I was new to learn a bit more and because we shared similar interests in specific topic areas
  • ; Bhdshoes2 was one of the first to vote, 6 came after him. I noticed what he was doing four days later and voted myself

While tracking other editors edits is generally permissible by WP:PAG, in contentious topics this can lead to effective meatpuppetry or disruptive WP:TAGTEAMing where likeminded editors alter the consensus of discussions.

Past SPI

[edit]

At SPI, TruthGuardians and TheWikiholic were found to be meatpuppets, were blocked for one month and instructed by Tamzin Going forward, you must treat these accounts as if they were alts of the same person, whether or not you acknowledge meatpuppetry has occurred here. Since then, these two accounts have edited the same articles to push the same POV:

Coordinated editing

[edit]

At , I noted the same pattern as BilledMammal for the appearance of coordination for the following accounts:

This included a pattern of editing a RfC at Talk:Rihanna (noted by BilledMammal), as well as non-MJ overlap at:

See editor interaction analyzer for some of these editors, too.

The following editors also overlapped at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg:

  • Castorbailey/Jimcastor; , Never17; , Episteme Aletheia , TheWikiholic

Upon researching this file , it appears it was only in use at the German and Italian Wikipedias . Episteme Aletheia below made me aware that the deletion request was shared at Talk:Michael Jackson page by TheWikiholic.

Many editors have noticed the patterns of coordinated editing, e.g. Flyer22 Frozen

'Consensus'

[edit]

Many of the parties have claimed there is a "consensus" against using Maureen Orth as a source, possibly on the basis of one talk page diff from a now-topic-banned editor and/or a brief discussion from 2 parties of the case + SNUGGUMS .

PinkSlippers .

Jimcastor Orth shoudl not be used since not only two consensus in the past ruled her out as a source on Jackson matters but she has certianly not been widely used. She has not been used at all on this topic. Associated BLP issues:

  • She didn't care to because her agenda was to throw dirt at Jackson and to humiliate him. Her excuse that she was not sued is hollow. Orth knows public figures need to prove that a false statement was published with malice. To get out of that "journalists" hide behind sources, named or not ... Suing Orth would have achieved nothing, she would have hidden behind "sources" like Myung-Ho Lee. Her other excuse why she focused so much in hitting Jackson over and over again because his behavior truly troubled me is hollow too. There were 1000s of predators in the world could she never wrote a single word about. Reporting that woodoo story or mocking him for his looks have nothing to do with the allegations anyway
  • Do journalists settle libel cases all the time without committing libel [about Orth]
  • But you certainly can say that Orth had a history of reporting provably false things as that's exactly what she did, I provided a list above. Her bias in her Jackson related articles is evident from many other examples
  • Pointing out that a journalist repeatedly published falsehoods and therefore should not be used as a source for a subject is not violating BLP

TruthGuardians repeatedly claims a "consensus" about Orth & Diane Dimond . Despite being asked for links to confirm this consensus , they never supplied them. Newslinger filed an WP:AE case with these issues , and it was closed as an informal warning to follow WP:RS and WP:V. When criticizing sources as unreliable, TruthGuardians comments veer into violating WP:BLP; She’s been determine to lack journalistic integrity ... She functions more as an op-ed writer than a reporter, emphasizing an obsession with portraying Jackson as a child abuser involved in cover-up conspiracies. Her reliance on gossip and her tendency to present personal opinions as facts, questioning the credibility of her work. Orth's articles for Vanity Fair are particularly scrutinized for sensationalist narratives rather than objective news reporting ,, which they've been warned for .

Never17 also has issues following BLP in this context .

TheWikiholic also purports consensus against using Dimond There is consensus that Diana Diamond is not a reliable source.

Episteme Aletheia

[edit]

Episteme Aletheia is a fairly new account, creating their account on 18 March 2026. Their first edit was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent (group) , while their second was to Talk:Rihanna in the aforementioned RfC on 30 March 2026. On 14 April 2026, they commented on the Commons deletion request for c:File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg , voted for its deletion . This file was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2026 by TheWikiholic .

Castorbailey/Jimcastor

[edit]

Following an report of Bhdshoes2 (talk · contribs) at WP:ANI by TruthGuardians, Castorbailey quickly showed up to criticize Bhdshoes2. . Jimcastor has 28 edits to WP:ANI () , all of which are MJ-related reports. There is no indication that Jimcastor was informed about the December 2023 ANI report on their talk or otherwise, making their participation there curious. WP:ABF . Similar to Never17 (per Moneytrees) misunderstands WP:WALLOFTEXT .

TruthGuardians

[edit]

TruthGuardians says that because an article is WP:GA or is "stable", an edit is unjustified . Other similar WP:STONEWALLING

  • Jason claims are omitted to streamline the narrative and focus on key aspects of the article that falls in line with the article’s proper weight. The article has been stable for so long because of its balanced subject matter. It also earned A good article (GA) status which is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards
  • But as a rule of thumb, if an article is a featured article or a GA article and has been stable for as long as this one, there is no POV issues or else would not have reached such status
  • Your comments and the comments of others prove that the intentions are to disrupt stable articles
  • Per WP:NOCON, the common result is to retain the version of the stable article or in this case, last reached consensus
  • The current version has been stable for a long time. It will stay as is
  • Article has been stable for years since it was taken to GA status

WP:FANPOV

Israell

[edit]

Accepted their own AFC draft . Has a WP:FANPOV mindset, including about Madonna since 2007 (readding puffery ). Most of Israell's edits are to WP:BLP celebrities , including Madonna, Rihanna, Sheila Carter and Michael Jackson related pages, as well as noticeboards for those pages. This exchange outside of BLP topic is interesting

Evidence presented by TruthGuardians

[edit]

I’m not entirely sure what I’m expected to defend or say here, because every issue I’ve ever had on Wikipedia has already been addressed at the time it occurred. Early on, I was sanctioned for personal attacks when I was still learning how Wikipedia functioned and mistakenly treated it like a discussion forum. That was years ago when I first started out, and I have not repeated that behavior.

Later, I was sanctioned for edit warring before I fully understood the expectations around dispute resolution. Since then, I have made a consistent effort to avoid that conduct, including during disagreements over the Michael Jackson FBI article, an article I wrote from the ground up. To ensure neutrality and avoid any appearance of bias, I brought it through the full Good Article review process, where every source and line of text was scrutinized. It passed GA review.

There was also a case where Wikiholic and I were accused of meatpuppetry on an issue unrelated to Jackson. I disagreed with that conclusion, but I accepted the community’s decision and served the month‑long sanction. I also made sure to not vote in the same RFC’s as that editor as we were told to move forward like we were the same account… bizarre. We weren’t told that we couldn’t edit the same pages, so there may be some overlap there. I really don’t know if he’s voted in same RFC’s as me since then, but more than highly unlikely.

More recently, I was warned for using AI‑generated text on talk pages, never in articles, and once that was clarified, I stopped immediately and have not even thought about it.

Now I’m facing allegations of canvassing and coordinated behavior. That’s just not reality. I have followed certain editors when I was new to learn a bit more and because we shared similar interests in specific topic areas. This was an attempt to be noticed in a “hey look at me, we think alike” type of way. That is normal for many editors I’m sure as I see the same pack of editors on Madonna articles, articles about politics, etc. I have also monitored the contributions of editors whose approaches I found concerning, because participating responsibly in contentious areas sometimes requires paying attention to discussions that may become disruptive. And I’ve yet to be wrong about my intuition about this.

If other editors have followed my edits, I most certainly did not ask them to and have no control over it. And I really don’t care to be honest.

I do think it is relevant to note that Jackson‑related pages tend to remain stable until new or dormant accounts arrive after discussion on an anti‑Jackson subreddit as I have reported before to Ani with never any action taken. The timing is consistent, and the editing patterns, tone, approach, and overzealousness are similar across those accounts. I seriously do not understand why a SPI, at the very least, hasn’t been considered with some more of these newer accounts and the past problematic accounts that have been discovered to be sock puppets before in the past, blocked, and topic banned. I have raised concerns about this before, including what I believed was a clearer case of canvassing, but no action was taken. I mention this not to deflect, but to explain why I am surprised to find myself the subject of a case request for conduct that does not reflect my actual behavior.

I have made mistakes in the past, and I have corrected them. Always have. I have complied with every sanction I have ever received. I have not repeated the behaviors that led to those sanctions. I have not canvassed, coordinated, or acted improperly in this topic area. My editing has been independent, transparent, and in good faith. Perfect? Nah. But who is?

Time out here. Looking at BilledMammal’s alleged “evidence,” the only thing it actually demonstrates is that I edit these pages consistently, and that on maybe one or two occasions I happened to comment after editors who are now listed in this arbitration. That’s because I follow a couple of them. That’s it. There’s no conspiracy hiding in that pattern.

But this raises a bigger question I find absolutely confusing: are editors not allowed to be inactive for a few days or so and then return when they notice activity on pages they’ve followed for years? Is that suddenly suspicious behavior now? And if that’s a problem, then is it also a problem to edit a page shortly after other editors have edited it, even when those editors are the ones who write on that pages frequently?

Because right now, the implication seems to be that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Either you’re “too inactive” and therefore suspicious when you return, or you’re “too active” and therefore suspicious for editing after others. It can’t be both. Yet the interpretation of the evidence below suggests that unless I’m editing Wikipedia every single day of my life, my participation is somehow questionable.

I’ll even acknowledge the obvious here: I can see how, for maybe two editors (not me), the timing could create a perception of off‑wiki canvassing. I see that. But perception is not proof. This kind of feels like the twilight zone right now.

In response to GhostOfDanGurney below: firstly doxxing is NOT someone using a username that does not reveal their real name or personal information. That’s, repeat after me, “evidence,” of possible off-wiki coordination. Per WP:DOX: “Personal information includes an editor's real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, personal profiles on external sites, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.” None of this information was posted. I posted only a public account on a public forum with the EXACT same username across both platforms where canvassing was demonstrated to be happening.

In regards to me not posting DIFFS, I posted their accounts. All you have to do is find their first edit on Jackson, which in some of their cases is their first edit ever, and there you will discover how things shortly thereafter started spiraling to a state of instability after sustained stability.

The evidence above shows that nothing has ever been done. Hence “no action taken” comments, which means nothing was ever done.

TruthGuardians (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by Guitarjunkie22

[edit]

This was a lot to go through but the only actual proof (not conjecture) of off-wiki coordination I saw in BilledMammal's presentation is (Redacted) Soon after a thread on why this article says Chandler drugged his son with sodyum amytal. (Redacted) DanieleJava tried to replace the existing edit about sodyum amytal using Dimond and Gutierrez as sources. The edit was reverted by one of the editors accused here. On 7 May DanieleJava made an effort to legitimize Dimond and Gutierrez as reliable sources and dismiss the source for the sodyum amytal story Less than 9 hours later user Katzrockso responds, agreeing that the sodyum amytal story needs a "higher-level" source. Later in the thread Katzrockso argues that Dimond being sued and being biased doesn't make her an unreliable source and we should give more positive weigh in assessing the reliability of her anti-Jackson book, at the same time that he would not support including the sodyum amytal story based on the GQ article alone, echoing DanieleJava's arguments. Also on 7 May DanieleJava complains about TruthGuardian deleting the newly created anti-Jackson section Less than 24 hours later Katzrockso created a new section on Newslinger's talk page to accuse TruthGuardian.

Then on May 10 Katzrockso, who never edited Jackson articles before, backs DanieleJava's effort to add anti Jackson lines to the article, forgetting his own point about WP:EXCEPTIONAL requiring multiple high level sources to back up claims implicating wrongdoing. At the same time he wanted to erase a factual edit about exculpatory evidence backed up by at least four reliable sources and asked another editor, accused here, to revert. This move in particular can't be explained with just an editor trying to reach a compromise. On May 11 DanieleJava complains that an anti Jackson edit done with Katzrockso's help was again reverted.On May 13 Katzrockso goes after a relatively new editor who, on grounds of insufficient sourcing. opposes the anti Jackson edit insisted by him and DanieleJava. And here he used that editor's response to their question to support this case, despite that editor not even being involved in this case and who apparently gave a cogent explanation and protested Katzrockso's suggestion that they were a meatpuppet. Granted that was after Katzrockso submitted here, I wonder if they will admit they were wrong.

This is both on and off wiki coordination to influence consensus and it will likely go without consequence. Katzrockso talks about effective meatpuppetry, but there is no such wikipedia policy. My understanding has been that you are free to track anyone's edit history, watch any article. You are free to not edit for weeks or months or even years and only edit when you discover something you find important even if you find it through another editor's history. While I can speak only for myself, it is not reasonable to assume that out of the millions interested in this subject there won't be a be a handful who would religiously monitor the activity of both pro and anti Jackson editors on their own. Case in point: BilledMammal brings up a CfD where 7 such editor voted. But he and the closing editor both ignored the context: it happened five days into the rampage of since topic banned user Bhdshoes2 on multiple Jackson articles and all 7 editors have a history of editing those articles and/or their talk pages. Bhdshoes2 was one of the first to vote, 6 came after him. I noticed what he was doing four days later and voted myself. None of this requires coordination. If you edited those pages in the past you will know the history and agenda of Bhdshoes2.

About BilledMammal's other evidence, I was not involved in anything Rihanna and I started the AfD myself so of course I was involved there. Looking at the result, it would have been the same even if you eliminate 5 of the accused editors so I'd like to know which ones would you erase and on what evidence.

Evidence presented by BilledMammal

[edit]

Deny communication

[edit]

The following deny any off-wiki communication:

Partisanship

[edit]

The following show a sustained pattern of one-sided participation to advance a pro-Jackson viewpoint:

  • TruthGuardians (21/22 discussions)
  • Jimcastor (19/19)
  • Israell (18/18)
  • TheWikiholic (13/13)
  • MraClean (12/12)
  • PinkSlippers (11/11)
  • MrBoar1 (9/9)
  • Never17 (9/9)
  • Guitarjunkie22 (8/8)
  • NE0mAn7o! (6/6)

(Stance analysis)

Focused on the Jackson topic area

[edit]

The following are narrowly focused on the Jackson topic area:

Editor% of edits by edit count in area% of edits by edit size in area
Never1750%61%
TruthGuardians45%69%
Jimcastor38%51%
MraClean56%51%
MrBoar139%71%
PinkSlippers-85%

This is an underestimate, as it doesn't count Jackson-related contributions outside main and article space or in articles outside the Jackson categories. NE0mAn7o! and Guitarjunkie22 are also narrowly focused, but their edits are in Project space or at pages not categized as Jackson-related.

(Edit analysis count, size)

Participation overlap

[edit]

The parties have a significant level of participation overlap:

Similar edits while new

[edit]
  • Jimcastor changed Episode list/sublist to Episode list at Knight Rider S1, having previously done this at Dallas S4 and S6. Twelve hours later PinkSlippers made their first edits, to implement the same change dozens of times at Dallas S3, and later S4 and S6.
  • TruthGuardians, Guitarjunkie22, and MraClean began with hundreds of trivial grammar edits. TruthGuardians and Guitarjunkie22 used the same edit summary. (see #Gaming EC)
  • NE0mAn7o! began with dozens of grammar edits. Their fourth and fifth edits were to change grammar at Golden Girls S1 and S3. PinkSlippers previously gamed EC at these articles.

Conceptually similar user pages

[edit]

Some parties created user pages containing basic biographical information in their first edits, typically containing a combination of their location, their languages, their interests, and their academic background or experience.

EditorEdit numberContents
Episteme Aletheia3Interests, academics/experience
Jimcastor1Location, languages, interests, academics/experience
MrBoar11Interests, academics/experience
MraClean1Location, languages, interests, academics/experience
NE0mAn7o!2Interests, academics/experience
PinkSlippers24Interests
TruthGuardians42Location, languages, interests, academics/experience

Jumping into formal discussions

[edit]

Some parties jumped into formal discussions on topics they otherwise show no interest in their first edits.

EditorFirst editFirst formal discussionEdit number
Guitarjunkie2225 March 202127 March 2021158
Jimcastor7 November 201924 November 201919
MrBoar124 May 20221 June 202257
MraClean24 May 20221 June 2022107
NE0mAn7o!3 April 20221 June 20229
Episteme Aletheia18 March 202618 March 20261
  • MrBoar1 and MraClean created their accounts on the same day
  • MrBoar1, MraClean, NE0mAn7o! did this on the same day
  • MrBoar1, MraClean, NE0mAn7o!, Episteme Aletheia did this as their first talk page edit
  • MraClean followed MrBoar1 to two of these early discussions, at Walt Disney (MrBoar1, MraClean) and Brie Larson (MrBoar1, MraClean)

Gaming EC

[edit]

The following gamed EC:

EditorStartFinishLinkComment
Guitarjunkie2225 March6 April 2021Link114 userpage edits, 372 trivial and rapid edits, 188 summarized as grammar edit. Stopped shortly after obtaining EC.
Jimcastor21 December22 December 2019Link238 edits, mostly minor. Stopped after obtaining ECP, aside from on 31 December where they fixed issues they had introduced in these edits
MraClean27 May6 July 2022Link56 userpage edits, hundreds of trivial and rapid grammar edits. Other edits were stretched out, including using six edits to add a three-sentence paragraph.
PinkSlippers11 August19 September 2020Link496 rapid and near-identical edits. Stopped after obtaining ECP.
TruthGuardians21 November22 December 2019Link160 trivial grammar edits, 74 on 21 and 22 December. Stopped after obtaining ECP.
  • EC is not required in the Jackson topic area.
  • Jimcastor and TruthGuardians finished on the same day

Off-wiki communication

[edit]
  • Israell disclosed they communicated off-wiki about Rihanna
  • Israell canvassed Pglomba to an AfD. This was not done on-wiki.

Indications of off-wiki coordination

[edit]

Indications of inappropriate off-wiki coordination

[edit]

(Participation analysis)

Improper illusion of a consensus

[edit]

The parties may have produced an improper illusion of a consensus or lack of consensus in the following post-2024 formal discussions:

DiscussionResultParty !votesNon-party !votes
Talk:Rihanna#RfC: SongwriterInclude7/7 include7/12 include
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safechuck v. MJJ ProductionsDelete7/7 delete2/3 weak delete
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 2#Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegationsNo consensus7/7 delete1/4 delete
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 43#RfC: Should we include the demand made to MTV in 1991?Exclude6/6 exclude3/6 exclude
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 43#RFC on Dworin StatementExclude8/8 exclude7/12 exclude
Talk:Invincible (Michael Jackson album)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2025No consensus5/5 support2/8 support
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegationsRedirect7/7 redirect3/7 redirect
Talk:MJ the Musical#Request for commentExclude9/9 exclude2/8 exclude

Evidence presented by Carrite

[edit]

BilledMammal has apparently used AI to produce a battleground document

[edit]

Re: Participation analysis, placed into evidence.

See its edit history. "This table reviews participation in formal Michael Jackson-related discussions. It was done through a semi-automated process, where discussions were identified and contributions reviewed to identify overall stance. If discussions or editors were missed, or stances incorrectly classified, please raise the issue on the talk page and I will correct it. Discussions where !votes could not produce an identifiable stance, Talk:People v. Murray#Requ...'" (Declaration terminates due to excessive length.)

Black-and-white characterization of talk page debate is itself indicative of battleground behavior. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by DanieleJava

[edit]

I've been a Wikipedia user since 2017 and made my first edit in 2023. The first edits were reverted by TruthGuardians twice 1 2 and it led to a huge discussion on the talk page. It was frustrating enough that I eventually dropped it. I have then attempted again in 2025 to introduce elements of neutrality in these articles and I was met with obstruction by the same group of people named above, in particular TruthGuardians, Jimcastor, Israell, TheWikiholic, Never17 and Guitarjunkie22. These people reverted any edit that might cast a potential negative judgement about MJ's persona, no matter how well sourced, and often claimed that some sources are not allowed per "past consensus" (For example, by TruthGuardians and Never17). A few days ago another edit was deleted because family members are not considered sources and then, once the source was replaced, the same edit on the same page was removed again because... well, because why not.

I've also read above that Guitarjunkie22 calls WP:EXCEPTIONAL the reported claim made by multiple newspapers that Michael Jackson owned photos of naked boys, but apparently these users do not consider WP:EXCEPTIONAL the claim that an anesthetic was illegally (and against any available documentation) introduced in a dentist's office to be used as a truth serum and implant false memories, against any WP:MEDRS.

This behavior leaves as only solution to open an RfC for every single sentence in an article, which will then be reverted anyways. If a single editor is active and they feel outweighed in the discussion, suddenly all the other pro-MJ editors appear. TruthGuardians even claimed that my edits would be some kind of concession.

As for today, 28 May 2026, I don't remember any edit "against" Jackson that has managed to end up on pages connected to him, due to the apparently coordinated effort of several users on these pages.

EDIT: Reading Episteme Aletheia's evidence, it seems to me quite necessary to point out that I have no idea who @Katzrockso is. In fact, Katzrockso was the one who "reported" my content as potential AI slop a couple of weeks ago. I have been pointing out the serious problems of the articles about MJ for years now and if random people support my arguments, that's not a conspiracy or some kind of hidden coordination team. They're just noticing that these pages are flawed and biased and definitely not in line with Wikipedia's spirit. Also, I like the "edits and goal to use never-before-used dubious sources" claim, because there had actually been attempts to use those sources and were all blocked long before I joined the talk pages years ago, all with the not-yet-proven excuse that "there is past consensus".

Evidence presented by Bhdshoes2

[edit]

TruthGuardians, Jimcastor, Israell and Castorbailey have edited heavily on Square One: Michael Jackson, a fan-made "exculpatory" documentary. I read about concerted activity and that very same Square One doc in a academic source:

Keidl (2022). "The Fans of Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson and James Safechuck": Forensic Fandom and the Staging of a Media Tribunal. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(8). Free open access PDF of Keidl paper under "Files"

Per Keidl paper, a coordinated network of pro-Jackson fan channels called The Michael Jackson Innocent Project produce content to discredit accusers re Leaving Neverland. Square One is one of the main films it covers. The paper states the MJIP self organizes through the Internet. Per paper, released FBI files on Jackson are one of the network's most used arguments across hundreds of fan videos. TruthGuardians' signature contribution happens to be the FBI files on Michael Jackson article. See also FBI edits here.

This all tracks with the notion of coordination. Do I know it for a fact? No, of course not. But inculpatory content is systematically deleted no matter how well sourced. Mainstream inculpatory reporting (Orth, Dimond) gets blocked. Exculpatory content is inserted even where contrary to sources.

There's also another pattern. Fan-made pro-Jackson documentaries like Square One and the others that appear on the Leaving Neverland page get detailed, favorable articles edited by named parties.

Meanwhile actual commercial productions by actual film production companies, where they are far less likely to be exculpatory, get no Wiki presence. I wrote Michael Jackson: The Trial, a commercial documentary w media coverage and not a fan production — TheWikiholic moved the page I wrote to draftspace almost immediately. Granted, my write up was bare but I have created lots of pages over the years and not seen that. It tracks. The Trial of Michael Jackson, a 2026 drama directed by Richard Macer with Adam Fielding also has no page.

I also read talk page for Square One: Michael Jackson. TruthGuardians stated "The current version has been stable for a long time. It will stay as is." Israell then pinged TruthGuardians and Jimcastor by name to vote together on the article's content. An editor, Flyer22 Frozen, noted Jimcastor "predictably appearing out of the blue at a Jackson article he'd never edited before."

  • "Allegations of canvassing on and off-wiki. Bhdshoes2 topic banned" is inaccurate. Re-read the ANI thread. I got in hot water for getting way too argumentative, calling everyone "superfans." One admin compared me to a drunk driver going the wrong way hollering that everyone else is driving drunk. The admins told me to get a grip on my uncivil behavior and it resulted in me agreeing to a voluntary topic ban. Not an excuse, but honestly all my hooting and hollering was driven by my reaction to the glaring lack of neutrality in the articles. TruthGuardians did accuse but no discussion of same from admins. Also see this post.

Evidence presented by Israell

[edit]

In response to BilledMammal's statements:

[edit]

1. In regard to Rihanna, the editor I was referring to is an admin w/ whom I had regularly been conversing off-Wiki for years; discussing the content dispute w/ him, he suggested that arbitration might be a better route. He himself, an admin, in this post, disclosed we communicated off-Wiki about that matter. Besides, I never asked that admin to vote or rule one way or another, so where was the fault? As I explicitly stated in that post, off-Wiki convos are permitted if not done for canvassing, sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry purposes.

2. Pglomba stated that I personally told him that a page was under attack by a user called Excelse, and that I seemed to be right. Did Pglomba state that I asked him to vote? If you look at Pglomba's edit history, you'll see that his first edits (made in 2014) are Michael Jackson-related. It therefore makes sense that he'd take interest in that vote. As for me, I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, and from what I recall, I started editing Michael Jackson-related articles many years later. Israell (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Additional evidence

[edit]

This new user, ~2026-28078-15, has only appeared on Wikipedia to push an anti-MJ agenda, repeatedly reverting valid, sourced information. Israell (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by MraClean

[edit]

I’ve already said everything I had to say. I’m still struggling with the overall plot to all of this and why I’m still included in a conversation for making edits in a heavily watched topic area where multiple editors may independently notice the same page or discussion around the same time. Much of the accusations don’t even make sense to me and I’m not aware of doing anything wrong. I was not asked by TheWikiholic to assist with The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See, and I reject the suggestion that the editor or any other editor even knows who I am outside of Wikipedia. That’s just creepy to me. My watchlist, including Template: Michael Jackson, alerts me when I decide to make an edit and when I don’t. It’s that simple. MraClean (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by Episteme Aletheia

[edit]

BilledMammal adding me to their pet project is a move in a string of strange acts that looks more like a coordinated effort by four editors to eliminate editors disagreeing with Katzrockso and their apparent ally DanieleJava rather than an effort to protect wikipedia's integrity.

Timeline:

May 13: Katzrockso asked me how I found the article I just edited. I answered honestly. I didn't say I followed any editor or named any editor, I didn't see those details as important.
May 13: Katzrockso complained on Newslinger's page about 4 editors, assumed that my Rihanna edit was at the request of those four
May 13: Newslinger warned me against using AI in a contribution Katzrockso objected to When I told Newslinger I didn't use AI to write it, it wasn't them who replied, but Katzrockso
May 19: I asked Katzrockso how they knew Newslinger warned me. So far I got no answer.
May 19: after I found through Katzrockso's history that they dragged me into their conspiracy case on Newslinger's page, I told them that I first saw the article in the history of a completely different user who has nothing to do with those 4 or me and who also edited Rihanna's talk page.
May 19: instead of getting an apology from Katzrockso Newslinger told me to submit my evidence in this arbitration, when I wasn't even named in the case.
May 21: BilledMammal added me as a party at a current arbitration case. I looked at their history and found this request where DanieleJava whose edits and goal to use never-before-used dubious sources on Michael Jackson wiki is supported by Katzrockso, joined with a new element of the conspiracy theory that I "popped out of nowhere" and I "used wikiepedia tags" just when "TruthGuardians disappeared." (I see alleged proof that DanieleJava enaged in off wiki coordination was redacted here, wonder why) The concept here is that I am TruthGuardians or TruthGuardians recruited me? Not the other 4 named by Katzrockso? Or they recruited me too or just one of them, some of them?
May 21: Katzrockso thanks BilledMammal for adding me to this case because he decided that my edit history was "suspicious". Rich from a person who refuses to answer how he knew I replied to another editor on my userpage.
I joined on March 18 and didn't come from "nowhere" more or less than any new editor, I've been reading and studying wikipedia for a while, including the Rihanna talk page, where I saw the all-green caps editor whose edit history included the 1993 article and, for that matter, my first edit on any Michael Jackson page was before TruthGuardian's last one. About the other "evidence" by BilledMammal and how Katzrockso copypasted this:

The strongest evidence

[edit]

"The strongest evidence I have is their involvement in the Commons discussion" BilledMammal says. Katzrockso also brings this up. However, this deletion was announced on the Michael Jackson talk page I see that only 3 of the 11 questioned editors showed up long after the request was published, 17 hours later, 30 hours later and myself 6 days later. Think about this: your strongest evidence is that 3 editors you say are focused on Michael Jackson could not notice a new talk page section at the most visited article of the entire Michael Jackson template in 17, 30 and 144 hours and that 11 editors are all talking to one another but in almost a month only 3 were alerted to this deletion. Wouldn't be very effective coordination as during that month three other editors voted the other way around. BilledMammal says: The commons participation is particularly suspicious, because while following contributions is plausible, following global contributions is far less so - especially for a new editor.

But I didn't follow any contribution global or otherwise and never claimed I did. I said I first saw the 1993 article in SNUGGUMS's history and came back to the Jackson wiki due to all the promo for the biopic. I don't have to follow anyone to read the main Michael Jackson article and its talk page nor do I have to edit anything to read that talk page.

"The issue is he last edited in 2020"

[edit]

Please read my response to Katzrockso again. I said "curious about their history" for they had an all-caps all green username. How would I even know SNUGGUMS edited it without going through his history and if I went through his history why does it matter when he edited it? I didn't say I went to that article because of SNUGGUMS. I said was his edit history where I first saw that article. Nothing more to it.Episteme Aletheia (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Rebuttal of TheJoebro64's allegations

[edit]

Look at where that line was, ask why it was there and not at some other part of the statement, then look at the revised statement. It was my note in my draft about Katzrockso copying BilledMammals Commons argument right under his comment within just 25 minutes with both of them ignoring that this deletion was on the Michael Jackson talk page. It's not literal copypaste. I rephrased it into a coherent sentence (and before TheJoebro64 revised his statement) and put the evidence in the timeline and I stand by it. If anything the "smoking gun" is that all these different editors are the ones coordinating and working together, because how could all of them be so quick to comment on my every move? How did JoeBro find my statement here within just 4 hours when he was not summoned and he has no recent history of arbitrations? Episteme Aletheia (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by TheJoebro64

[edit]

"and under that copypaste this"

[edit]

When initially added, the first section of Episteme Aletheia's evidence ended with a curious phrase:

and under that copypaste this

They removed this in a subsequent edit a half hour later, and then came back after another half hour to introduce "copypaste" to the last sentence, which, if I had to guess, is so it'd look less suspicious. Their evidence does not appear to have been posted anywhere else on-wiki, and given the length of time between the edits, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that they were told what to say off-wiki and mistakenly included an annotation. Strikes me as strongly indicative of inappropriate off-wiki coordination, to the point that I'd call it a smoking gun. JOEBRO64 13:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Re: Episteme Aletheia's response , I don't think that explanation makes much sense, as they weren't accusing Katzrockso of "copypast[ing]" BilledMammal anywhere in their evidence. I'd be willing to accept that it was an annotation from their notes, but the assertion that the word "copypaste" was always supposed to be in their evidence strikes me as hard to believe given the length of time between the annotation's removal and the reintroduction of the word "copypaste". JOEBRO64 11:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence from Moneytrees

[edit]

Just a general note that I believe the volume and denseness of some discussions has made it more difficult to action issues.

Disruptive editing from Never17

[edit]

Never17 mostly edits around MJ related articles. They have engaged in battleground behavior/forum-type arguing and ranting ( Note the bolding here, , ) disparaging comments (, , ) and disruptive, often undue WP:FANPOV type edits (, , this sort of POV pushing is not limited to mainspace, incredulous edit that they edit warred over).

GuitarJunkie misapplying policies

[edit]

As noted above, almost all of Junkie's edits outside of MJ look like EC gaming. Their contributions to these discussions fall below what is expected in GS areas, and they frequently misapply policies. This is not vandalism, although it wasn’t unreasonable to revert. This is not a WALLOFTEXT, Junkie is just misunderstanding what was written. This miscites SPAM. This vote exemplifies a problem with many of these discussions; editors will allude to “the media” being “biased/lying” and then use this rationale to pick and choose what information they want included in articles. Compare with Junkie's suggestion here; and their misunderstanding of WP:BALANCE and WP:OR here (, ). This can also be seen in Junkie's evidence, which weakly accuses Daniele and Katz of some sort of coordinated editing. It comes off more as an attempt at "mirroring" the WP:MEAT claims leveled at editors on Junkie's "side".

Pattern of poor conduct hasn't changed over the years

[edit]

Discussions and disputes related to MJ-- even ones not involving allegations against him-- are often subject to blugeoning and stonewalling. See Talk:Neverland_Ranch#Including_mention_of_the_child_sexual_abuse_aspect (February 2020), where TruthGuardians, Jimcastor, and Akhiljaxxn/TheWikiholic clash with Flyer22 (and others) after she alleges WP:MEAT issues and FANPOV type ownership of articles. A few months later, there is conflict on Square One: Michael Jackson about whether a kid and/or his dad accused MJ of abuse. TruthGuardian's dismisses a civil comment from an ip with an unhelpful reply and bizarre threat, "I’ll give you 2 sources: Square One and All that Glitters. Thanks for exposing your IP address. Good day", while again insisting that those who accused MJ of abuse are corrupt. Admin NinjaPirateRobot explicitly warns TruthGuradians to stop this, saying "do not post defamatory smears like that again, please. From what I can tell, Evan Chandler is no longer alive. That means WP:BLP doesn't apply, but the general sanctions certainly do." Beyond the allegations, see this June 2020 massive multi-day edit war on List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson involving TruthGuardians, Jimcastor, and BrothaTimothy. Timothy was reverted several times while trimming sections of the article; an ip notes the revert restrictions on these articles, but nothing happens. Compare all of this behavior to the conduct from a few weeks ago at Talk:1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations; such as here, here, here, etc. These discussions play like a Möbius strip, and serve to stave off editors who do not align with the main "MJ editor clique", even when allegations aren't being discussed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Further Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence from Never17

[edit]

i haven't violated any rule in the past on Wikipedia that i have been made aware of, nor have i done anything besides post well sourced citations and comprehensive article expansions such as the best selling singles, as well as frequently editing not Michael Jackson related articles and such. I began with the Best selling albums & others first. First you claimed i collaborated with other editors which isn't true because i have had edits reverted numerous times by the same editors you are grouping me with, i try to obtain editor approval on talk pages first & then proceed to make my edits when a semi-consensus / consensus has been reached, as done on his various main pages. Most of my edits have simply been expanding articles with reliably sourced information, including sales data, legacy sections, and coverage from major publications, in fact i have even asked editors for their input on how to make such pages better. I also edit pages outside of Michael Jackson-related topics, including best-selling albums and other music articles. If there are disagreements over wording, weight, or sources, that’s a normal content disputes that editors can discuss amongst each other. Reverting edits or alternatively expanding an article with well sourced news material is not disruptive editing and such disagreements can be taken up with the talk page. If i had made improper remarks in the past then i sincerely apologize for that.

I don't like getting involved in Editorial drama & plan on spending some time away from the platform, as there's nothing right now that requires editing on any page & i plan on taking time off anyway

Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney

[edit]

ANI thread from 2023

[edit]

In their evidence, TruthGuardians states, Jackson‑related pages tend to remain stable until new or dormant accounts arrive after discussion on an anti‑Jackson subreddit as I have reported before to Ani with never any action taken. TruthGuardians does not provide the corresponding diff for this claim. The historical record of this report is as follows:

  • : The December 2023 ANI thread filed by TruthGuardians concerning the subreddit "r/LeavingNeverlandHBO".
  • / : TruthGuardians tries to link DanieleJava to this subreddit via shared account names.
  • / / : Jimcastor and Mr Boar1 participated in the noticeboard thread in support of TruthGuardians' position. Mr Boar1's first post to the discussion (first diff in line) notably occurred 51 hours after the above-linked reply by TruthGuardians went unanswered, preventing the thread from auto-archiving.
  • : The discussion was archived with no action taken following a back-and-forth between TruthGuardians and Bhdshoes2, the initial subject of the report. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 07:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Removal of evidence template

[edit]

Evidence presented by Felinaex

[edit]

Note: My previous username was Acinonyxjubatusrex.

I received the impression that specific editors are quite aggressive when it came to topics pertaining to the child sexual abuse allegations, to the point where neutrality might be violated.

I had previously expressed confusion on the MJ talk page about the lack of a page that summarised the MJ allegations, and learned that there had been two AFD'd articles that had proposed such a page. The first was Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations in 2024, nominated by Guitarjunkie22, the second was Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations in 2026, nominated by TruthGuardians.

In the first AfD, it passed with 4 keep votes to 9 redirect votes. The nominator and 6 of the redirect voters are parties listed in the case, namely Guitarjunkie22, Never17, TruthGuardians, Mraclean, PinkSlippers, pinkslipper, NE0mAn7o!, and Mr Boar1.

By itself, the AfD results are fine, but if the accusations by BilledMammal of coordinated editing are true, this would indicate a concerning bias regarding the neutrality of MJ and MJ-related articles.

I've edited the Michael Jackson page only once to clarify something. After reading the MJ talk page and the "pro-Jackson" POV-pushing by the same clique of editors that have been active for years and seem entrenched in their views and questionable conduct (see number of prior dispute resolution attempts and Moneytree's links), I realised there wasn't much point in contributing to this area. Felinaex (purr / pawprints) 14:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by Newslinger

[edit]

TruthGuardians and MraClean: Meatpuppetry and undisclosed conflict-of-interest editing on Taj Jackson

[edit]
  • 2022-09-06
  • 2022-09-07
  • 2022-09-08
  • 2022-09-09
  • 2022-09-10
    • MraClean removed the tag at 01:52. TruthGuardians and MraClean, who had written essentially the whole article, violated WP:CSDCONTEST: "For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so."
  • 2022-09-11
    • Flickr account Taj Jackson (tajjackson) uploaded photos "TajJackson 1" and "Taj Jackson 2" at 01:27 (UTC).
      • The source code of both Flickr pages contain "datePosted":"1662859661", a Unix timestamp indicating the images were uploaded at 2022-09-11 01:27:41 (UTC).
      • Archive links: #1 ( ), #2 ( )
    • TruthGuardians then uploaded both photos to Commons at 01:41 and 01:46 (UTC), respectively.
    • It's implausible for TruthGuardians to upload these photos to Commons 14–19 minutes after Taj Jackson uploaded them to Flickr, unless TruthGuardians communicated with Taj Jackson off-wiki.

See also interactions between TruthGuardians and MraClean. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC); corrected date 16:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians

[edit]

— Newslinger talk 23:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Other

[edit]

— Newslinger talk 23:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Evidence presented by TheWikiholic

[edit]

I would like to respond to the concerns raised about my editing activity.

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2013 and have made around 24,000 edits across many different topics, including a lot of work on Michael Jackson related articles. Editing Wikipedia has geniunely been a very important part of my life for years and I always tried to help the encyclopedia in a constructive way.

In 2023, a sockpuppet investigation was opened because of suspected connections between myself and Truthguardians due to overlap in topics and editing patterns. That investigation concluded that we were not the same person and not sockpuppets. Even after that, concerns about possible meatpuppetry were still raised. I explained my side in the unblock request and discussions on my talk page at the time.

I fully cooperated during that process and even shared identifying information, including passport related details and location verification, directly with admin Tamzin through email to show that I am an independent editor and to prove my travelling details and visa stamped dates because doubts were raised about my IP address.

After that investigation, I became extremely careful about avoiding even the appearance of coordination. I tried my best not to edit or comment in places where Truthguardian had just participated, even when I personally wanted to participate, because I did not want more misunderstandings or suspicions. Honestly that was the only thing I felt I could really do from my side. I have never communicated with him through his talk page, email, or any off wiki platform.

I understand why some editors may still have concerns because we edited within the same topic area, but editing articles related to the same public figure is not automatically proof of coordination. I just ask people to look at my own edits and actions seperately instead of assuming coordination because of topic overlap.

On BilledMammal's evidence, it was said that Truthguardian participated in 22 discussions since 2019 and that I participated in 13 of them which were described as pro Jackson discussions. I participated because I had my own opinions and policy based views regarding those topics. I did not participate in the remaining 9 discussions Truthguardian participated in, which itself should show there was no automatic coordination or tag teaming happening. Sometimes I was not interested in a discussion and other times I may not have agreed with the same position. There is no rule saying I have to comment everywhere another editor comments.

Regarding the allegations of off wiki coordination, BilledMammal stated that two hours after TheWikiholic created The Michael Jackson Interview, MraClean returned from a week of inactivity to assist, and then Jimcastor returned from a month of inactivity to assist. Soon after I created the interview page, I updated Template:Michael Jackson. Editors who regularly edit Michael Jackson related topics would very likely have that template on their watchlist. MraClean already explained that they noticed it from there. I also think an editor like Jimcastor, who has an older account and more edits in this topic area, could easily have noticed it the same way.

Also, just because an editor is inactive in terms of editing does not mean they are not using Wikipedia. Many people browse Wikipedia regularly but only edit when something interests them or when they notice something related to topics they follow.

On the allegations regarding overlap on Wikimedia Commons, I nominated a doctored image for deletion and notified about the nomination on the talk page of Michael Jackson because the image had already been discussed there before. Editors including Castorbailey/Jimcastor, Never17 and Episteme Aletheia later participated in the Commons discussion. But people joining a public Commons discussion after seeing a notice on a Michael Jackson talk page is not unusual at all. Admin Jpgordon also commented that editing out James' father from the picture made it seem like Jackson was alone with the boy. Another editor, Denniss, who participated in the Michael Jackson discussion also later participated in the Commons deletion discussion as well.

I just ask admins and editors to also look at my long editing history, the outcome of the previous investigation, and the efforts I made to avoid disruption before considering any topic ban or sanctions based on what I honestly feel is a cherry picked version of activity from a huge topic area like Michael Jackson, which also has a dedicated WikiProject where interested editors regularly monitor discussions and recent changes.

I am still willing to follow policies, work with others constructively, and avoid unnecessary disputes going forward.

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. I know there may still be suspicions because of overlapping topic interests, but from my side there has never been any coordination or communication with these users. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment on template removal evidence

[edit]

While adding my comment, I removed the template because I thought it would automaticaly reappear afterwards for others to add evidence. It was simply a mistake from my side, and another editor also made the same mistake which GhostOfDanGurney is now pointing to as evidence.

This is the first arbitration case I have participated in, and honestly I never really paid attention to these procedural things before. I was more focused on responding to the allegations themselves than the template.

Also, if this is being used as evidence of coordination, then I think it is worth mentioning that out of all the editors from the so called pro Jackson side, only one other editor removed the template like I did. If there really was coordinated editing or meatpuppetry happening, I would expect more editors to make the same removal, not just one other person making a similer mistake independantly.

Evidence presented by MrBoar1

[edit]

I don't know why I'm being draggedbt my participation doesnt constitutes canvassing and meat puppetry

Nearly 4 years ago I decided to join Wikipedia to edit about certain pages relatwd to music like michael jackson related pages , groups like East 17 , 3t (mjs nephews) and groups of different genres

When I First joined I had some help from castor Bailey who helped me on my talk page when he saw me edit on a page he flows . And so I followed him and we both happen to have similar interests If wondering the Rihanna RfC (as well as various MJ RfCs) are displayed for the whole community to see! As a Wiki editor with an interest in urban pop music, it'd make sense i want my voice be heard too in this . Similar topics are not evidence of canvassing and meat puppetry hence see policy WP:AGF I ask to consider not make big assumptions based on association and give due diligence and will apply it to everyone else and focus on proof when other editors gave evidence of off wiki contact with other like on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1cuki8g/comment/l4khqu6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I also object to Dan the ghosts accusations in his evidence Aapparently he's seems to imply it's smoking gun if I edit too soon someone else and it's a smoking gun if I edit many days after someone else Timing alone cannot establish motive or canvassing and no evidence has been provided showing that any editor acted with the purpose alleged. Think that's important to understand here I'm not perfect I make mistakes in my edits but I want ensure I follow the policies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Jackson/Evidence&oldid=1360034192"