User talk:Piyushratnu

June 2016

Hello, Piyushratnu. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. It isn't sufficient to say that you have a conflict of interest. Please note what the above message says or else you will be in violation of our terms of use. —SpacemanSpiff 05:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Spiff Thank you for your message, I have disclosed my employer - Carnival Group, India. I will try my best to follow the policies of Wikipedia. I have never linked any article with the website of my organisation or employer. I am not invloved in making changes to Wiki Pages of our competitors in any direct or indirect manner. I assure you I will exercise great caution while any edits or changes to be made in the pages. Thanks once again. --Piyushratnu (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to what you've already done, you also have to disclose the name of the client(s) and not edit the articles directly (you'll have to use the request edit templates described above). cheers —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Dear Spiff, I have gone through the tutorial, policies and guidelines carefully, as a responsible Wikipedian, I edit, change the content only if what I am posting is backed with enough proof, supporting links and citations for the same. As a part of NDA contract, we are not allowed to disclose our clients in any direct or indirect manner, as per our company agreements. Kindly consider the same. In future if I want to change any content which doesn't have citation, I will use the request to edit templates, as suggested by you. Thank you for your time and suggestions.--Piyushratnu (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: That might be a bit of my fault - I told him in the past that he could put a blanket statement on his userpage (any edits should be seen as a COI edit unless specifically stated otherwise) and make very basic, basic edits once he got the swing of things. I think that any policy issues are unintentional since he's always tried to be pretty careful when I've edited with him - he's asked me for advice on several occasions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Dear Spiff, I assure you I will be more careful, and will observe the steps mentioned by you above. I usually take help from Tokyogirl79 for editing or changes to be made to specific content. Thanks for the guidance.--Piyushratnu (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Tokyogirl79, I can understand the basic edits in light of your advice but the disclosure of clients is essential per the foundation's terms. ANd Piyushratnu, there are no rights on Wikipedia, this is a private website and if you can not abide by the terms of use of the site then the editing privileges can be withdrawn anytime. You will have to disclose client names for each article, if your NDA prevents that then you shouldn't edit or request edits for those articles. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Dear Spiff, Noted with thanks, in future if I make any changes I will inform the client, that I need to disclose the names, however I have already declared the name of my employer, in addition I will declare the clients' name too otherwise I will not make any edits. Please help how, in what format and where to declare clients, thank you.--Piyushratnu (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Use {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on article talk pages, filling all the fields. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Spiff, Can you please do it for me, for the page of Vikram Singh, henceforth I will do it the same format, thanks in advance. --Piyushratnu (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've placed it on the Vikram Singh talk page, you can copy paste it to the other articles after changing the names. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you so much Spiff, I will do it right away and will maintain he same henceforth while creating / editing pages / requesting for edits.--Piyushratnu (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, I have declared COI and in addition have added COI to all the pages handled by me, can you please mention the reason for blocking me. I have been taking help and discussing before editing anything on Wikipedia from senior members. Kindly help. In addition I have also disclosed the names of the pages managed by me. Thanks--Piyushratnu (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 Please help, why every now and then some or the other Wikipedian comes and creates troubles for me, when I have followed all the rules, and have declared as and when required the necessary documentation and declarations. Please help, this is really disappointing.--Piyushratnu (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Piyushratnu is my full name and not a name of any organisation, to prove the same I can submit the passport or valid Indian Identity Proof, kindly remove the block from my account, this might risk my job.--Piyushratnu (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not what you said on your deleted autobiography, where you claimed both Piyush Ratnu Digital Media Services and Diamonds By Piyush Ratnu were your companies. That's why I blocked you, for operating a shared corporate account. Note that declaring a COI doesn't mean you can write what you like. If you think I've got it wrong, follow the appeal procedure in the pink box Jimfbleak (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Spaceman, Tokyogirl79 you have both been involved, and I'll defer to any decsion you make regarding the block if you disagree Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: TBH, I was about to block earlier when he posted this as he seems to operate under the premise that he's entitled to do as he pleases but I did not since @Tokyogirl79: was trying to work with him. At this point, I think too much volunteer editor time is wasted with post paid editing clean up etc in this case. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak To be precise, Piyush Ratnu is my name and if I am holding companies by my name, then it has nothing to do with this account on Wikipedia. No where in my edits have I used these identities to promote myself, as a user my name is Piyush Ratnu and hence the user id. If you feel as per policies this is not right, then pleasure suggest me the name. I wanted to be honest and transparent hence used my original name while making user id, and maintained the same. I am in no way trying to break policies of Wikipedia, however at the same time I request you to please notice that I have clearly mentioned my identity and entities for transparency, not for commercial promotions. I handle Digital promotions for my client and their online reputation management, unless and until there is something drastically negative posted against my client without sufficient proof to malign the reputation of my client, I do not make any edits.I have always declared, published after discussing with senior members. Hence, please consider and unblock my account from editing. This account is not made to promote myself or my biography, it is for the information of users to be transparent and if you feel a certain part to be removed, you can please suggest me I will make the edit. --Piyushratnu (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Spaceman, thanks, he's clearly WP:NOTHERE and is simply exploiting us for his own gain. I've pointed him towards the formal unblock procedure, and unless Tokyogirl79 strongly disagrees, I see little reason to circumvent that process Jimfbleak (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I am exploiting you all? Come on dear, if I am correcting something which is posted to malign reputation of celebrities, and not posting anything that promotes them or my account - How am I exploiting you. Be justified on your words, and think before you post such strong words! With due respect to your policies and position, I have nothing against anyone, I am doing my job and am contributing to Wikipedia too, by submitting required data in right format with proof and supported documents, is that what exploiting is for you? I requested support, you started criticising and pushing me to the core, if I am honest and declaring the intent, role - this is what I get! I have a last hope from Tokyogirl79, I am waiting for the reply from her side. My page was created by her, with all the information in place, I didnt change anything against the policies, I stopped edits too, posted or edited after discussing and informing Tokyogirl79, and this is what I get - a blame of exploiting you all. Expecting a positive reply from Tokyogirl79. Thanks for everything and nothing.--Piyushratnu (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak At WP:NOTHERE it is clearly mentioned: Being "here to build an encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing Wikipedia. In considering whether or not a user is here to build an encyclopedia, the user's overall pattern of editing and behavior, as well as the clarity of past warnings or guidance and their attempts at improvement, should be reviewed as a whole. I have adhred to policies, have replied to every comment by Wikipedians, have declared my clients, have contributed in a positive manner to editing, submitting required documents, and information in the right format in guidance and consultance with Tokyogirl79. Even then why I am being blocked, am wondering and above all I have been termed as a person who is exploiting all of you, which means am not a part of Wikipedia, wow this is amazing. I think you should read policies well, and then decide such words before quoting here. Please be positive and constructive.

On your suggestion Spaceman, I also mentioned list of clients am handling, as a contributor it is my duty to publish, contribute right content to Wikipedia related to the topics and subjects I am well verse and equipped with documents and proof to support the same, as per Wikipedia policies mentioned clearly. Then too, you feel I should be blocked? Then what is the point of following the policies of Wikipedia, this is not how you should treat and reply to someone who is following the policies strictly and without any negative comments, with due respect.--Piyushratnu (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Piyushratnu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is my name, and I do not want to use any false name or nick name. I have all the valid proof to prove that it is my full name. I am not using my name to popularise, promote myself, however maintaining real identity is what Wikipedia motivates, and am following the same, just because my company names contain my name as a suffix, it doesn't effect the process nor my editing in a process and an attempt to publish, filter and submit true facts to Wikipedia on various topics, pages supported with correct documents, proof and evidences. I have always followed guidelines and have declared COI too, as and when asked to. My account page itself was created by Wikipedian in correct format, which is being blocked on not reasonable reasons. I look forward to a positive reply. Kindly unblock me.Piyushratnu (talk) 8:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

I'm declining this per this diff. If you cannot disclose your clients, the Terms of Use say you may not edit Wikipedia. This includes all edits on Wikipedia whatsoever, not just direct edits to articles. Huon (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @Jimfbleak: You blocked this account for promotion. Can you show me some of his edits that you consider too promotional? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, my attention was caught by this page, but Spaceman's link above suggests a wider systematic abuse of editing privileges. It may be worth waiting to see what Tokyogirl79 thinks given her interaction with this editor, but that's your call. I appreciate this is not as straightforward as many delete and blocks, but I don't like the idea that Wikipedia editors are effectively acting as unpaid employees of this guy's business Jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Shrikant Bhasi (per the on-wiki COI declaration, part of management at his employer), including the deleted history (and the earlier socks) to see the amount of time volunteers have to waste on this. —SpacemanSpiff 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's also this which is linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hrishi Pandey. Good luck to anyone who wants to keep this advert farm clean. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Spaceman's I am really disappointed to read such comments from Wikipedian like you stating that by helping in posting the article in a right format as per the policies of Wikipedia Tokyogirl79 wasted her time? She helped me in publishing the article of Shrikant Bhasi , the tone of content of this article was infact corrected and then published by Tokyogirl79, so how is it wrong. At one point of time under policies it is mentioned, we should use help of senior Wikipedians before publishing any article and on the other hand you mention that by helping me Wikipedians are wasting their time! At my end, do you even image how tough it is to convince corporates and celebrities to allow us to publish their information on Wikipedia. We always recommend Wikipedia for information and promote Wikipedia as the most trusted source of information. However celebrities, corporates are scared of Wikipedia since they feel any one can edit and post anything wrong against them. We always justify Wikipedians as the most transparent and sensible volunteers, who do not take any action without checking source, proofs. Wikipedians like you should motivate us, even I have contributed to Wikipedia in updating the information that I can, with proof and with the help of Wikipedians. I do not understand by helping me in getting the content published in the right format to match the policies of Wikipedia, how is acting as an unpaid employee of my business? Wikipedia is not my business, it is a passion in me. I love to contribute on various topics, which I am capable of providing the proof and documents on Wikipedia. If I assure celebrities and corporates that if anything wrong is published by any competitor os spammer, we can report to Wikipedia and can get it corrected as per proofs and documents and as per approval from Wikipedians, why am I blocked? Why I see so much resistance from you? I look forward to motivation and guidance from senior Wikipedians, I feel disappointed to see resistance and such strong remarks from seniors like you and Spaceman. If I have posted anything in wrong format, help me correct it rather than blocking me. I have always taken guidance and then posted.

Regarding this which is linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hrishi Pandey. , I took guidance of and when Tokyogirl79 alerted that I should be very cautious as it has been deleted and we need documents and strong sources, and when the celebrity was not able to provide so I did not move ahead nor did try to fix it by any other way. I believe in policies and suggestions of Wikipedians, as a responsible Wikipedian and contributor. Please consider my case, I am not promoting myself, or any other client in any direct or indirect manner. I have contributed facts based on the articles and proofs that I could collect for each article, fact and posted it under strict guidance of Tokyogirl79. I look forward to motivation, guidance and suggestions rather than criticism from all of you. I dont think I am wasting my time here, I am proud to be a contributor to Wikipedia by publishing facts that should be available under various topics and which are supported with valid proofs approved by Wikipedia and its policies. Thanks.--Piyushratnu (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I don't think that creating a promotional autobiography in the user's sandbox warrants indefinite block. @SpacemanSpiff: I checked history of Shrikant Bhasi (including the deleted history) and I can't find any promotional edits by this account. What do you mean by earlier socks? Do you want to say that this user is using sockpuppets? Any evidence of that? Regarding the other link you provided ([1]), I don't understand what exactly is the problem. Wikipedia does not allow undisclosed paid editing. But, disclosed paid editing is allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon many thanks, despite the number of times I've waved Terms of Use at editors, I hadn't actually picked up on this clear violation of our rules which makes the block straightforward Jimfbleak (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, as Huon has pointed out, disclosure includes revealing employer and clients, which this editor has declined to do, so paid editing hasn't been disclosed. T&C says you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak and Vanjagenije I have clearly mentioned my employer name and have disclosed name of the pages where I edited the content, on my user page. I am unable to understand why Jimfbleak wants to block me for the reasons best known to him. Huon I have mentioned the name of employer and clients on my page you can have a look. You have picked just one part of the conversation, wherein you have no referred the other part under which I agreed to mention the name of the clients, though as per NOn Disclosure Agreement in Indian COnstitution we are not allowed to disclose our identity in regards to the client we are handling on public forums. However I declared the name of the pages and my employer. Please re check.--Piyushratnu (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Piyushratnu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Huon I have declared the name of the pages that I edited, I have mentioned the name of the employer. I have used my real name for real identity and transparency. Vanjagenije I have always seeked the help of Senior Wikipedian before editing or adding facts. Jimfbleak I have always co operated and submitted required proof and documents as and when requested by Wikipedians. I am not promoting anyone or myself, the articles published are published by and under strict guidance of Senior Wikipedian. Please unblock my account.

Accept reason:

accepting per below discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So you claim the Constitution of India prevents you from publicly declaring who hired you to edit Wikipedia? Sorry, I don't believe that. If you mean that you only named page and employer but not the client, that's not enough. Huon (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon I had mentioned this in the discussion that you referred. However later I mentioned the pages I edited after asking my employer, the name of the employer is mentioned clearly too. There is no third party involved in this.we are unnecessarily making it complicated. When it is clearly declared on the page the pages that I edited and the name of the employer, then where is the confusion. What more details can I provide for your satisfaction to match guidelines of Wikipedia? Thanks.--Piyushratnu (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon I also mentioned {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on article talk pages as suggested by Spaceman. --Piyushratnu (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Now you're saying you violated your NDAs and did disclose your clients? Huon (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon I showed the suggestion and request of Spaceman, took the permission from my client and then disclosed it. However as per NDA I was not allowed hence I requested Spaceman that I am not allowed to disclose the client name. Please consider.--Piyushratnu (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon I have mentioned the same in my reply at 12:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)--Piyushratnu (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Huon Since it is clearly written under terms of use: You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification. Hence, I had requested that allow me not to disclose the name of the clients as per my NDA, however when Spaceman did not approve that, I took permission and published the name of the pages and the employer, you can see on my user page.--Piyushratnu (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

HuonAs per terms of use: You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

I have declared using the first option. --Piyushratnu (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm honestly unsure how to progress with this. The promotional tones did bother me with his past articles, however he seemed willing to accept help when it was offered and together we cleaned up the article for Bhasi. A look at his edits shows that he's mostly made minor edits like this one, like adding a film to an actress's filmography. I also note that he's removed some things that could be seen as promotional such as this claim. I remember him contacting me over sourcing for a celebrity's siblings and he seemed decent enough with all of that.

It looks like the main thing he could be blocked for is the disclosing of specific clients. I'm not overly familiar with this, which is why I'd initially told him that it was fine to make a blanket statement on his user page. It looks like he wasn't tagging the article talk pages, which he seems to have done in June with edits like this one. So I guess the question here is what exactly is required here and how much he can reveal without violating India's NDA. I'm unfamiliar with this particular Indian law, so I don't know anything beyond what's being written here so I can't give an honest opinion on that. This is something that I'd probably suggest bringing up to an applicable board and asking what can be done in this situation. Other than the aspect of disclosure Ratnu seems to have been doing well and I'll note that his most promotional edits were made prior to or around when everything started happening with the Bhasi article. It looks like after that point in time the unambiguously promotional edits stopped. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79Thanks for your honest feedback. Please help me, I don't want to get blocked, I have always followed, and I assure to follow the policies and suggestions in future too. I request all of you.--Piyushratnu (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The ToU is unambiguous: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". If for whatever reason - including "India's NDA" - Piyushratnu cannot or does not want to do that, he cannot edit Wikipedia. He may be able to get his clients to agree to such a disclosure on his part, or he should not edit Wikipedia on behalf of those clients. To me it seems that - following advice from SpacemanSpiff - Piyushratnu decided to indeed ask his clients to allow him to make the required disclosure; thus I would not object to an unblock, at least not on these grounds. Jimfbleak, what do you think? Huon (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I also do not object to an unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, Huon, SpacemanSpiff, Jimfbleak - I assure all of you, I will follow the policies, I will declare the name of my client on my page, I will accept the work from the client only if they allow me to disclose their identity and this responsibility of editing facts on Wikipedia under guidance, after discussion with Senior Wikipedians and suggesting them the changes if they are not minor changes - supported with facts, required documents and with an assurance to co - operate and submit the data and facts required with proof as and when required to Wikipedians for cross verification. Kindly unblock me. Thank you.--Piyushratnu (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, Huon, SpacemanSpiff, Vanjagenije, I can't say I'm happy, but if it meets the required Wikimedia terms, then I have to accept the reality rather than what I would like (no paid COI editing at all). I'll go along with whatever is decided. With five admins involved in this, it has at least been subjected to close scrutiny Jimfbleak (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I thank ::Tokyogirl79, Huon, SpacemanSpiff, Vanjagenije for considering my requests, I assure I will follow guidelines and policies of Wikipedia during any edits / suggestions for edits and will take guidance before making any major changes, I will also declare the name of my clients, and will accept orders only if they allow me to disclose their names. Thanks once again all of you and Tokyogirl79 for your valuable time and feedback. --Piyushratnu (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Piyushratnu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Piyushratnu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Piyushratnu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)