Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 20

< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration | Requests
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Asilvering in topic Incorporating word limits into the AE template
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Lvl-2 headers at WP:ARCA

Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can we please reformat ARCA to use lvl-2 headers for cases rather than lvl-3? A page with only one lvl-2 header makes the header rather useless. (No page should ever have only one lvl-2 header.) Also, the lvl-2 header says the same thing as the lvl-1 header (the page title), making it further useless. If every case request was a separate lvl-2 (instead of a lvl-3), it would be much easier to read on mobile (right now it's kind of impossible to read on mobile because you have to scroll past ALL of the cases to get to the one you want). And you'd be able to collapse the individual ARCAs in the V-22 TOC (currently, can't be done). PS: in reality, what renders as a level-2 header is actually a level-1 header (which, I believe, shouldn't be used at all), and what renders as level-3 headers are actually level-2 headers (the headings of the individual ARCAs), but the point is that the page renders it as one level-2 followed by multiple level-3, and so the request is to reformat the page to remove the level-1 header, so the level-2 headers will actually render as level-2. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (ARC), /Clarification and Amendment (ARCA), /Motions (ARM), and /Enforcement (AE) each have one level-1 header so that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (RFAR), which transcludes each of those subpages, will have those four level-1 sections.
However, those level-1 headers could be included only at RFAR rather than at the subpages, such as by putting them in <includeonly> tags. That is already done for AE.
That would certainly make it easier to navigate on mobile, since mobile only collapses the highest level of section headers on a page. But this would also remove the header from desktop, and people may find the header useful to the extent "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment and Clarification" and "Requests for amendment and clarification" are a bit different. (I don't believe {{If mobile}} would work; the hidden level-1 header would still prevent level-2 headers from being collapsible.)
A {{Fake heading}} could be put there instead to preserve the current appearance on desktop— 
<includeonly>= [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment]] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
—though it wouldn't show up in the table of contents. SilverLocust 💬 08:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @SilverLocust, the edit you made fixed the problem for me. Now I can comment at many more ARCAs--hey, wait, why did you self-revert? 😄 Levivich (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds more like cause for an arbitrator to revert the change. 😁 I don't have any substantive input on requests (since clerks do not participate substantively in arbitration decisions), so there is less reason for me to read everything once I'm fairly sure an edit isn't disruptive. SilverLocust 💬 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree this was annoying while I was on the committee. Izno (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

typo

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Motion 2b says 'all participants in a discussions". Valereee (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Mooning the jury

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This is about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Mooning the jury. BUTT was recently linked in a discussion I had with another editor and I couldn't help but think that maybe we could have a better section name/shortcut than that. It's possible I'm making much ado about nothing but figured I'd at least bring this up to see if others agree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not saying to get rid of a shortcut that has historically been used but to maybe come up with an alternative one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps an advertised shortcut isn't really necessary? I don't like creating more all-caps jargon, plus honestly this concept applies broadly to all discussions, not just arbitration. Editors shouldn't be trying to garner support from others by showing flagrant disrespect towards them. So Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury would be a better redirection target in any case. (The 33 uses of the shortcut in question is a small enough number that the links could be updated to point directly to the arbitration guide.) isaacl (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I just think that the whole point could be made without invoking graphic imagery (mooning). It's essentially a section about being on your best behaviour and not WP:BOOMERANGing yourself at ArbCom. It's possible I'm overthinking this but seeing the shortcut WP:BUTT directed at someone else really made me think how unprofessional that must look to a newbie, especially in the literal guide to arbitration. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I understood your initial point. I think in addition, no advertised shortcut is needed, and if the current shortcut were to be kept as a redirect, another page would be a better target.
Your followup explanation sounds like you'd want to modify the actual text, though, to avoid certain imagery. Is that the case? (Maybe something about thumbing your nose at others would convey the same concept.) isaacl (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I was unsure about the usefulness or the target and then that got me thinking about the text itself. So I wanted to bring up both. I'm sorry if I'm being confusing. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything further. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the shortcut link, mainly on "professionalism" grounds as discussed. No comment (at this time) on the actual content/wording concerns. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

what happended

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

how to get arbitration Ipgreenpqg (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Arbitration is a venue of last resort, not of first resort, so it isn't an option for you at this point. Considering you made 23k worth of edit to a template, that BROKE the template, on your very FIRST edit, it isn't surprising that others would disagree. Your 5th edit was this request. At this point, I can't help but question if you are simply trolling, which is my best guess at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

sections

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello HouseBlaster. Why must my comment be in its own section? It's a reply to some other comment, and almost every comment here has replies in the same section. -- mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas, the instructions at the top of the page explain:

This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section.

Threaded discussions only take place between arbitrators. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
That is exactly correct, and I will that you can see an example of replying in your own section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by BilledMammal. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Thing is, the page also says Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. So who knows what's right? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the placeholder text for a blank section, Statement by {other-editor}; you're expected to replace {other editor} with your name. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct. Other editors are supposed to make such comments in their own section. As an official clerk, appointed by the Arbitration Committee itself (verify), I can tell you for a fact that you need to place comments in your own section. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can comments from Wikipediocracy be linked directly on a request for arbitration case?

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Per multiple recent discussions at ANI, I believe it is currently in the community's best interests to disregard the results of the RfC that determined posting links to comments made by Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy be considered "outing". The website is toxic, which has resulted in doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. If a case is ever made about the conduct of Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy, such conduct would obviously need to be linked. Can the committee clarify on whether this is possible? It may be a prescient issue in the near future. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been informed repeatedly that ArbCom will accept evidence via email where there are privacy issues. What exactly is preventing you from doing so, rather than repeating such allegations while failing to provide the necessary evidence to anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm referring to a public Arb case, i.e., one that is available for all to see. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
For reference, an ongoing discussion as to whether Homeostasis07 should be topic-banned from discussing Wikipediocracy is currently under way.[1] Clearly, this would not include ArbCom, though I would request that if and when ArbCom decides to act, they make it clear that hiding behind supposed privacy concerns while failing to even provide evidence by email to back up the allegations made above is likely to have severe negative consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The entire issue is linked to harassment suffered by Lightburst for several months now. Numerous WPOs have been harassing Lightburst, me, and multiple other users for a very long time. The website has a long history of outing, which is arguably their main claim to fame (Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I hope that ArbCom will see fit to take the above further stonewalling into account if and when any case is being considered. Specific allegations have been made. Multiple requests have been made that the evidence regarding this specific allegation be emailed to ArbCom. Instead, we get yet more unsubstantiated allegations... AndyTheGrump (talk)

I linked to WPO posts directly in an active arbitration case last year, in two of my four submissions (link). These were not deemed worthy of summarizing, though (don't ask). El_C 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The times I have seen where such links have been removed, they are usually also suppressed, usually not because of the exact post linked to but because there was content elsewhere in the same thread that, if posted here instead of there, would violate WP:OUTING (as opposed to doxxing, which is not at all the same thing as violating our local outing policy despite some using the terms interchangeably), and linking to it in effect does post it here. This is of course made difficult/hazy by the extrememe length of many WPO threads. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, if the guy gets indeffed/cbanned during a case request, what happens to the case?

Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Inquiring minds want to know. jp×g🗯️ 10:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, in this case the case continues, since more is involved than one editor. And if it isn't then I'm sure a motion would suffice. The wheels of God grind slow, but they grind exceeding small. SerialNumber54129 11:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It's only about more than one editor insofar as those that have been excusing his behaviour and derailing discussions are culpable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
We are in agreement. SerialNumber54129 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule, if a subject at the centre of a case gets 86'd or pulls a "you can't fire me I quit", and there are no matters in controversy that don't involve that editor and their behaviour, then the case generally gets closed as moot. This also includes 172 exits (i.e. administrators going on Wikibreak/quitting the project to dodge an Arbitration that jeopardises their tools). See K1, Orthogonal, Wareware, ESZ[a], Ed Poor[b], JarlaxleArtemis 2, R. fiend[b], Kingofmann, Noloop[c], A Nobody[d], Rodhullandemu, SchuminWeb[e], Media Viewer RfC[b], Toddst1[e], Technical 13, Neelix[b], Andrevan[b], Alex Shih[e], Carlossuarez46[e], and Mzajac[e]. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
That is quite a pile of precedent, but we also don't know the extent of what has been emailed to the committee, the number of commenters saying they have sent something in suggests there is a considerable volume of it, not all related to LB. I don't envy them the task of sorting all that out. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that, if the CBAN does go thru (as is likely to happen, if I'm grokking the discussion right) that ArbCom steps in to endorse it, which would turn it into an Arbitration siteban and limit his ability to appeal it. I can see this happening if the private evidence is extensive enough that any public unban discussion would be problematic from a privacy or victimisation standpoint; see also Rp2006's recent ban endorsements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If possible, an indeffed/cbanned editor should be allowed to continue to participate in a case request & (if accepted) arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think they could maybe submit evidence via email or their talk page, but given the sheer strength of the consensus for a cban that's about it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom can always pass an injunction (assuming a case is accepted) unblocking them but banning them from everything but the Arbitration and their user talk page. They've done so before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If I'm being comletely honest, the strength of the "evidence" he presented yesterday suggests that his particpation would not be helpful, incuding to himself, but yeah, they could do that if he asked for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I'm not familiar with the term "172 exit" -- is that just another term for "resigned under a cloud"? Where does the reference come from? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Can disregard, I believe I've figured it out (it appears to be a reference to when User:172 did it). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct; more specifically it's a reference to 172's second ArbCom case, which was basically the first time an admin "quit the project" to avoid scrutiny of his tool use and which lays out the de facto reasoning for deopping anyone else who "quits the project" in the face of an ArbCom case that would endanger those tools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Which also lays out the rationale for why admins evading Arbitration lose the mop anyway
  2. ^ a b c d e Involved misuse of advanced permissions, which would be willingly surrendered
  3. ^ Both major parties left the picture during the case
  4. ^ Effectively closed shortly after it was held in abeyance, formally closed over a decade later
  5. ^ a b c d e 172 exit

Parties

Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments6 people in discussion

One arb has said People adding and removing parties to this case outside of procedures is cringe. Is there actually a rule or procedure for who can or cannot add or remove parties while a case is still a request? Obviously once there is a full case that's a matter for the arbs to decide but at a glance I'm not seeing any guidance on how it works during the request phase. Not 100% sure it is needed as I don't recall this being a common issue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I feel it falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests: If you are named as an involved party in a request for an arbitration case, or if you feel you must respond to any request or to comments made by others in any request, then you may make a statement on the case page. ... If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. Editors aren't supposed to change what others have written. Clerks and arbitrators can do so, and so they can be asked to revise the list of parties. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
See this short thread from July. At Template:Arbitration amendment request and Template:Arbitration clarification request, a <!-- hidden note --> was added to clarify this in July, but it hadn't been added to Template:Arbitration case request until now.
While there doesn't seem to be a rule saying so, choosing the name and parties for a case request are matters for the user filing the request. Except for clerks or arbs, others generally shouldn't be editing the case request. (However, I'd tend to think that adding oneself as a proposed party is presumptively okay.) SilverLocust 💬 19:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that, that seems entirely reasonable. I do agree that the adding and removing that has been going on is unecessary, but there's been a lot of unecessary crap around this whole topic, so not super surprising. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping one of the arbitrators would point out that changing other people's edits is not standard practice, rather than just cringing, especially as it was discussed in July... isaacl (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point. It may not be obvious to those less familiar with the process that the list of parties is "someone else's edit" but I don't think that was the issue in this particular case. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Changing tack slightly, can someone clarify what difference being named as a party at this stage of the proceedings makes? Given that it is far from clear to me (and from the look of it, quite a few other people) what this case is actually supposed to be about, it would seem rather premature to expect an exhaustive list of possible parties. Are we expected to request that individuals be added onto the list on the offchance that their behaviour might be relevant? I could certainly name individuals now who I consider might be relevant to the discussion if it goes in one particular direction, but that involves speculation on my behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The filter of a case is required to provide a list of proposed parties, with themselves included as a party regardless of their prior involvement. So the current list is very much a rough draft. If and when it's clear that a case will be accepted, the committee will have a discussion (on the mailing list, usually) regarding the drafting arbs, the defined scope of the case, and who is officially included as a party, which is entirely their decision and could include persons not currently listed and could omit some that are. So, at the end of the day it isn't that big of a deal who is and is not on it currently. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
While on the committee I worked on (and the committee adopted) a guide for parties to a case. Here's what the guide says about parties. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
From the guide linked above: Parties are the editors who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining. I think this may be at the root of the problem we've seen, discussed above, with people messing around with the list. The 'parties' weren't 'identified by the committee', they were instead listed by one particular individual, the filer. This use of the same terminology comes across (whether intended or not) as an attempt to preempt ArbCom, and to define the scope of later discussions. If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such, and a better mechanism for constructing it needs to be found than leaving it to the filer, and/or anyone and everyone adding and subtracting to it at will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such Like, "Proposed Parties"? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding between the bolded section (which is as reasonably named) and the list of proposed parties: Unless otherwise indicated, the parties below were listed by the filer of this case. If a case moves forward, the Arbitration Committee will determine the actual parties. This would hopefully both make clear where it came from and make clear that only arbs/clerks should be adding others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
That would certainly address some of my concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I added a hidden-text note based on Barkeep's suggestion. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for word limit extension

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since it appears that this case may be going somewhere, can I have a word limit extension please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump. If I'm not asking in the right place here, where should I be asking? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I said I needed one on the case page and nobody seemed to notice, so then I posted a bolded request for one and it was granted extremely quickly. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
This page is an entirely fine place to put an extension request, this time it just took longer than usual to get an answer. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of "Someone said"

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Marine 69-71
 – SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

JPxG says just above that "Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true." That may be the lamest statement I've seen on this page. "Someone said", really? Dig it out. "Not in a position to aggressively fact-check"? Wait until you are. How is it acceptable to attack a non-admin for a rumor which the admin speaker can't even remember where they read? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC).

Sorry for the confusion -- "lame if true" is here used in the normal sense of conditional statements in the English language (e.g. P → Q, and  P →  Q). If it is not true, then it is not lame. jp×g🗯️ 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
To spread nasty rumors by hiding behind "someone said" is not OK, and mansplaining what if means doesn't improve it. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC).
I still have no idea what you are talking about "hiding behind" or "spreading", since what I said was a direct reference to another person's comment several paragraphs above mine, on the exact same page. If you want to say that Hammersoft's accusations were "nasty rumors", I have no idea why you would make no mention of their claims, and personally attack me for briefly mentioning them, without saying they were true, or even that I believed they were true. jp×g🗯️ 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't initially clear that you were referring to the Statement by Hammersoft, JPxG, so I have added a link to that section in your statement. With that clarified, I think your and Bishonen's responses to each other are no longer needed, so I've moved them here and hatted them. SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What does "scope" mean?

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just for my own edification, what does it actually mean for arbcom to accept a case with a particular scope? Is that just general guidance about what you're going to concentrate on, or is it a strict boundary which cannot be crossed, even if things develop in an unexpected direction as the investigation progresses? RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The scope of a case is essentially the specific issues (and anything arising from those issues) ArbCom is looking at in a given case. For example, the scope of WTC is the behaviour of members of WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, more specifically their use of Discord to collude in their topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Obviously the current ArbCom should answer how they see the scope. As a bit of institutional memory, this was formally added early on in my first term. It came in response to feedback that it was hard for community members to know what kind of evidence they should be submitting and that this resulted in all sorts of evidence which wasn't germane to the case. This evidence could be upsetting to the person it was presented about and it could be upsetting to the person who submitted it when it was ignored. So the scope was made a formal part of the process to try and help signal better to everyone. In my experience as a drafter, the scope became irrelevant in terms of the final decision - I went wherever the evidence led. This could be the same scope or a narrower scope. The only times you could say there was a broader scope is when parties would get added, which is why the committees I was on helped formalize a process where parties could be added after the case began if evidence justified it but those parties would still have a reasonable chance to participate in the case without being penalized for being added late. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I see scope as a natural evolution of our cases. Engineering a scope allows us to target exactly the issue we want to solve. If we didn't have a case scope, then a case could be about anything that parties put forth evidence of, which would derail proceedings. Indeed, we've seen ample examples in the past of parties using cases as general excuses to sling grievances against other editors, which has ultimately been a waste of time and energy. Also, if a scope is too large, it can be hard to pin down exactly what we're doing, and the evidence of parties may pass each other like ships in the night, not ever addressing the same issue. Scope delineates what is relevant, and what isn't, and keeps us focused. That's not to say that we'll never hear evidence outside of our initial scope, but there's going to have to be a good reason. At any rate, we often end up changing a scope as a case goes on. Sometimes the issue isn't as big as we thought it was initially, and we'll drill down on one aspect. Othertimes, we will add new parties as it becomes clear that the misconduct was broader than first thought. TLDR: scope is a soft guideline, which we have a right to change, but which we aim to follow. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Crosstalk

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thought there was not to be discussions between commenters, and that we were to address our comments to the arbcom. Probably personal asides should go on individual talk pages. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

the israel palestine request involves highly contentious material and the longer it asks for comments the more it will degenerate from a structured ask into random turf wars between factions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

active vs. inactive

Latest comment: 9 months ago20 comments10 people in discussion

I don't have great enthusiasm for the WPO case, as I wrote there, but regarding the procedural close Hammersoft brought up, we also have WP:AC, which seems to say that arbs should be considered inactive if they haven't participated in arbitration in the past week. One of the arbs has only a talk page message in arbspace in the past week; the other has no edits in arbspace (unless we count AE actions as "arbitration"). It seems to me that in the future it would be simpler to just say "an arb that hasn't made any attempt to participate in a particular case request is considered inactive for that part of the process" or something. Meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Private activity also counts so if one of those Arbs (which I also thought about and checked on) was active on list we'd have no way of knowing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Good point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
There are two arbs (Z1720 and HJ Mitchell) who are inactive by that definition, and another (Sdrqaz) about to be so. I find it slightly bothersome that two of those are active on the project, just not on arbitration. You're voted to ArbCom to do an important job. It's the only job that you're expected to do work in on a regular basis (outside of inactivity for admins, which is a far larger period). To be active on the project but not on ArbCom seems like setting aside work for which they were placed to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Z1720 already declined, and I wasn't referring to HJ (who also updated his comment a few minutes ago) because he had been active on that page. I was referring to the two arbs listed as active but who haven't commented at all: Sdrqaz (whose only arbing edit in the past week was the "talk page message in arbspace" I mentioned) and ToBeFree (whose last edit to arbspace was October 23 -- the "unless we count AE actions" above, which I would presume not, but maybe I'm wrong). Anyway, not something I want to argue about, but it would be a shame for it to end in a procedural can-kicking due to active-but-inactive arbs rather than at least a formal decline/accept. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
And in this case if one of those two is inactive then suddenly it opens as a case because 4 would be a majority (9 active arbs - 2 recused arbs = 7 arbs). Which, truthfully, also seems like a weird way to see this case move forward but I suppose no more or less weird than a case with 50% of active arbs voting to open going away. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
As a post script Sdrqaz has now commented in Arbspace in response to FF's announcement of stepping down and since I've conversed about Arb business with them in the last week have every belief they are active just behind the scenes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites and Hammersoft: As Barkeep states, I have been active in Committee business behind the scenes – I have sent seventeen emails to the Committee mailing lists in the last week and have voted in our private votes. However, the point about my inactivity in on-wiki Committee business is taken on board and I am sorry for that: it is obvious that I haven't allocated my Wikipedia time appropriately and will rectify that. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: and others: I am monitoring the page, reading through comments when I get the chance. I haven't felt the need to comment on anything as others are making arguments much better than I could. If someone has something specific they feel like I need to respond to, feel free to ping me as I may have missed it. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz I am curious whether you think the WPO case should be accepted or not. Those thinking the case should be accepted think Lightburst's existing ban was insufficient, those thinking the opposite think Lightburst's existing ban solved the matter at hand. If you are neutral, or do not wish to weigh in, that is effectively a decline in this case. I myself have no opinion on the matter. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I was aware of, and occasionally looking at, the case request without being sure whether and what to say about it. Saying too much quickly results in calls for recusal independently of whether one is actually needed, saying nothing results in a discussion about inactivity; accepting results in "you wanted this, now find a solution for it" thoughts, declining results in "the others want it and I'm blocking it" thoughts, and I was really in two minds about whether having a case would be beneficial. For me personally, this correctly defaults to a silent decline rather than an abstention, but I guess that's a question of philosophy/policy.
I wasn't aware of this discussion here until today and am always happy about pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
FWIW it would make sense to me, for the future, to document somewhere that (a) if an arb is listed as active on a case, they should find the time to either say one thing about the case in the case request or change their status to inactive; or (b) arbs have X days to weigh in, unless they ask for more, and at the end anyone who isn't down with a formal position of accept/decline/recuse/abstain/neutral/whatever else, is considered inactive. This could take the form of the "active in arbitration" part of WP:AC applying to each specific case (i.e. if it's been a week and someone hasn't said anything, they're assumed inactive on that case until they say something). I mean that just makes sense, right? Or are there more complicated behind-the-scenes reasons why an arb might be considered active on a case but decline to weigh in? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Arb inactivity is judged as not touching anything arb related for a week, or saying you're inactive. The committee as a whole just does a fantastically terrible job of self-regulating their members who are on The List as active but in reality haven't been seen for a while. There were a few arbs when I was on the committee who made sure to send reminder emails if something was dying in public. Clearly this committee has had a bad time of keeping anyone active, with regular counts of even publicly active-member-days below previous years, on which Barkeep has the stats lying around somewhere. Izno (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Related to the above discussion, but I'm confused about Special:Diff/1255905950 declining the WPO case. The latest vote totals were <4/3/2> (Accept/decline/recuse). I'm sure I'm just not up to speed on AC process, but how does that become a decline? I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the process better. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    @RoySmith because clerk procedures say if something hasn't been accepted after 10 days it is declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    Roy, that's why I opened this section -- Hammersoft pointed out the 10-day rule on the case page, and it struck me as kind of shocking to take all the time and energy all these people have put into the case request and flush away everything but the ill will on procedural grounds. Arbs aren't paid and shouldn't be expected to participate in everything, but we do need some clear instructions to avoid such a situation. A possibility for the future: Maybe it's about the definition about "active". The thing that matters most at the request phase is that the arb read it and vote (even if that vote isn't accept or decline), right? So maybe the line is "this is the list of people expected to vote on whether to accept", with the understanding they'd be considered inactive if they don't say anything (after all, "active" for the sake of a given request doesn't mean much if they're only active elsewhere). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    This is as much problematically "procedural" as the automated removal of unactioned reports at WP:AIV, the automated archival of sections at WP:ANI and WP:ANEW and treating a deletion discussion noone participated in as a successfully proposed deletion. We can call it procedural but I disagree with the implication of this procedure being a problem, or the procedural removal being less valuable than an explicit majority decline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    In those cases, everyone can participate (or, in some cases, anyone from a large group of people [admins] can jump in if they can see consensus). Here, consensus doesn't matter and no amount of participation or argumentation can overcome the discussion-closing impact of an absent arb. I'm sure there are downsides of another system, and have sympathy for your points above, but I don't see it as similar to those other venues. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, yes, that's true. And thinking about it again, I think I could agree with defaulting to abstention rather than decline in case of no participation at a case request at all. It might require me to change my way of approaching these cases, but the change would probably be an improvement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, we're talking about an iteration of the committee that really seems apathetic. There's a proposed decision that as we speak has been posted for seventeen days, just as long as the WPO case request remained open without being accepted or declined, and an ARCA thread that has been open for eighty four days, with motions to move it forward languishing for a month and half, longer than most ARCA requests are even open. The committee often moves slower than is optimal, but this past year it has been exceptionally slow to act. Tighter standards regarding how an arb is determined to be inactive could possibly help, this is by no means a new issue but it seems particualrly acute right now. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Historical precedent

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Huldra, re. your curiosity: Can I draw your attention to the Law of 22 Prairial, as codified by the Committee of Public Safety in 1794. The law made denunciation of one's neighbors the only permissible form of evidence, denied the right of the accused to defend themselves or call witnesses, turned the public court into an in camera committee, and, unsurprisingly allowed for only one sentence ... presumably an Indef Site Ban... ;) SerialNumber54129 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Hmm, somehow quoting a law from the Reign of Terror doesn't really calm me. And no email from arb.com, as yet, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2b

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Egad

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Wikipedia:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Wikipedia:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian (April 2025)

Latest comment: 4 months ago101 comments29 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a result of investigating Tinucherian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following an AN thread alleging COI editing, the Arbitration Committee has discovered a long history of inappropriate editing. Tinucherian's current position with their employer is sufficient to blur the line between COI editing and undeclared paid editing. Tinucherian has repeatedly made edits to articles about their employers [2][3][4], removed appropriate {{advert}} and {{promotional}} tags from their employer's article [5][6], made edits about their employer in other articles [7][8], created an article about an app created by their employer [9], and created an article about the CEO of their employer [10]. They have also used administrator tools in situations related to their employer [11][12].

Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion 1: Desysop 14 0 0   ·
Motion 2a: Indefinite ban 0 8 5   Cannot pass
Motion 2b: Admonishment + warning 0 9 1   Cannot pass
Motion 2c: Admonishment 2 8 2   Cannot pass With 2d passing, two second-choice support votes counted as opposes
Motion 2d: Admonishment 6 3 4   ·
Notes


Motion 1: Desysop

1) For repeated and egregious breaches of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest, Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is desysopped. Tinucherian may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support
  1. COI editing and what amounts to paid editing is an unacceptable breach of trust for an administrator. The single talk page disclosure is not sufficient for the breadth of articles edited, nor does it adequately disclose their connection. It also doesn't address earlier edits relating to a different employer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Given I've said Tinu's response was not what I wanted to see, and he's just copied and pasted it here, I see no option but to desysop. WormTT(talk) 16:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Tinucherians message below is much the same as his prior response to our questioning. It's full of grandstanding that tries to make him look important. And sure, he has been important in the movement. But that's not some get out of jail free card. His response to the actual concerns is anemic and shows he hasn't kept abreast of any of the modern COI requirements. He also shows little understanding of wrongdoing. His response to point 6, where he claims an IP couldn't possibly know how to use a template is laughably out of touch. Administrators are expected to know and abide by policy, and to own up to their faults when they don't. Tinucherian has done neither, and thus we must desysop. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Essentially per Worm. Undoubtedly Tinu has contributed a great deal to the encyclopaedia and the movement but the response response below (which is more or less verbatim what he sent ArbCom) does not come close to adequately addressing our concerns. The community of 2025 takes a much harder line on COI and paid editing than that of 15 or 20 years. At minimum, administrators are expected to keep up with community and policy developments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. There are a few grounds for desysop here that I think are spurious, but ultimately I'm still landing here. As I said below, Tinucherian doesn't seem to have broken any rules by not disclosing their Juniper Networks COI, as disclosure was entirely voluntary at the time. I also don't think the two deletions constitute a gross misuse of admin tools. And finally, Tinucherian did disclose their COI with UST, even if improperly and incompletely, and I don't see a case for this being paid editing (see below analysis of policy) provided we AGF on them really never having been asked to edit. That said, Giraffer correctly points out that the removal of the promo tag with rollback is misuse of the tools. Tinucherian's editing on UST-related topics doesn't come close to meeting content standards and they didn't properly disclose their COI on all affected pages they edited. (In light of the fact that I was wrong and all of their post-2018 edits were paid, their failure to disclose on their userpage and on every talk page is much more serious.) Their characterization of their own editing is inaccurate, and their defense generally falls well below what I expect from an admin behaviorally. It's clear to me that Tinucherian is out of step with the behavioral norms of the community and can't retain the admin tools. The harder you look at this, the less it's as huge a scandal as people have been making it out to be, and if Tinucherian were more in touch with community's norms on COI editing and ADMINCOND, I think this desysop could definitely have been avoided. Unfortunately, that's not the way this shook out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Per Worm. This is substantially the same response we received via email, which I found did not address our concerns. They had a second chance here to respond more precisely, but instead we have received the same response. I see this as the only viable path forward here. Daniel (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. My brother-in-law is a retired fighter pilot. He, and all fighter pilots, he says, have what's called an 'I Love Me' wall – think the wall of photos Tom Cruise looks at when he goes to Viper's house in Top Gun. Well, Tinu has pasted his own 'I Love Me' wall right here. That's fine if that's how he wants to use his space, but it's a wholly inadequate defense to the issues presented to him. I can't support continued access to the admin tools for this editor. Katietalk 17:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  9. Pretty much per leeky. What they have done here both violated policy and indicated they were quite out of touch with community norms. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  10. This editor has engaged in undisclosed paid editing for years, including using administrative tools on articles in that scope, as minor as those administrative actions may have been. Their response to these concerns is a very lengthy post about their significance to Wikipedia, followed by whataboutism. It does not matter how significant an editor believes they are, they still need to follow the same rules as everyone else. This administrator has not only failed to follow those rules, their response indicates that they do not see their editing as UPE. Their editing is undisclosed paid editing beyond any shadow of a doubt, and a desysop is required here. - Aoidh (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  11. As others have said, the response is unfortunately inadequate for the issues being presented. I am not very happy with the way in which this desysop is being conducted (see comment below), but I can't argue with the result. I also agree with TLC regarding the use of administrative tools – this is based on the COI and paid editing and Tinucherian's response, rather than based on the use of tools. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  12. Not much more needs saying. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  13. UPE has been contrary to the WMF's terms of use since 2014. Past glories and name dropping Jimbo do not excuse an admin from being unaware of the TOU for 11 years, from breaching the TOU, and from misusing the tools. Cabayi (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  14. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2a: Indefinite ban

2a) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 5 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
  1. We've desysopped other admins for similar conduct, but not blocked. I'm not seeing anything here that fundamentally sets this case apart and requires a block. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, not necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Any future instances should be treated as severely as UPE needs to be, and I support a potential 2c being drafted and proposed that makes this somewhat clear, but my opinion is we don't need a siteban at this time. Daniel (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. There's some SUPERMARIO here, but I don't think a site ban is warranted. He's more or less declared now, and the cat's out of the bag. The usual processes can be used from this point forward. Katietalk 18:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Currently unnecessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. I am persuaded by Hammersoft that this would not be preventative and I would rather err on the side of giving a last chance. I think that Tinucherian made some good-faith efforts to disclose his COI and paid editing, even if they weren't sufficient, and he has made commitments going forward. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Similar to the others, I do not see this action as being necessary, but I also do not see this motion failing as a prohibition on the community taking action should they find it necessary. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. Oppose in order to bring this to the community. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I don't actually oppose this, but I wish there was something beyond an admonishment but shy of a ban. If I had seen an editor with over a decade of COI and undeclared paid editing I would likely block indefinitely as an individual admin action, but that is less severe than a Arbcom ban. An individual indef can be overturned by a single admin satisfied with an unblock request, whereas an Arbcom ban has a lot more process and stigma attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Administrators need to be held to a higher standard, because administrators are typically experienced editors who have been involved with Wikipedia long enough to know better than a new editor. If we would block or ban a new editor who reasonably might not know better who engaged in this behavior (and we would), we should hold this editor to that same standard. Katie cited WP:SUPERMARIO before I did, but it is relevant here. A staggeringly substantial portion of their recent editing has been dedicated to their UPE. When they say Thanks to Wikipedia, I found my true calling - to have a career in PR, I have to believe them, because their editing history shows exactly that. This is not an editor who has been making productive edits for years with an occasional problematic edit, the UPE/PR has been their focus for years. What's more is that they still don't see this as an issue, which is itself an issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    I moved this from support since there's a valid point to be made that since they have disclosed their PR role at that company that there is no reason why the community cannot handle this (now non-private) portion rather than ArbCom itself, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. This motion would have been best with 15 abstentions. We do the desysop, the community decides the rest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Considering the scale of the issue, I don't see he need to ban - but I do agree with TBF, that the community should be able to decide. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. As Tinucherian has pointed to his LinkedIn page where his job title can be seen there is now nothing private left to this case which needs ArbCom to act. The community is in possession of all the evidence to assess his UPE as an editor. Cabayi (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
  • I'm going to make a clarification: I mean that an Arbcom site ban is not warranted. I'd like to see a full-throated community discussion about Tinu's future on the project, which I'm sure will be coming once these motions are handled. Katietalk 21:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't like us tapping our nose, so to speak, to the community, or putting our finger on the scale. Like the kings of old, if we're going to execute a man, we better do it with our own sword. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Motion 2b: Admonishment + warning

2b) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly editing in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest, and warned that future instances of this conduct may result in further sanctions.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
  1. Insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Insuffucient. Also, it muddies our usual "remind/warn/admonish" scale. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Disagree that this was paid editing, just barely. (I was wrong that this isn't a paid editing case, at least post-2018, although I'm still opposed per Eek's warn/admonish muddying. I might support something that just warns or admonishes, in concurrence with a desysop.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Redundant with the passing desysop motion, which is an admonishment in itself. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Katietalk 02:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  9. Redundant with 1 passing. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. As Tinucherian has pointed to his LinkedIn page where his job title can be seen there is now nothing private left to this case which needs ArbCom to act. The community is in possession of all the evidence to assess his UPE as an editor. Cabayi (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2c: Admonishment

2c) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly editing in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. I don't think we actually need the warning; it's implicit in the concept of admonishment. And, yeah, support, further violations of the COI or paid editing policy might well result in further sanctions. Support in concurrence with motion 1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. In concurrence with 1, per leeky and my comments on 2a. Daniel (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Support if 2d doesn't pass. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Second choice to 2d. - Aoidh (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Redundant with the passing desysop motion, which is an admonishment in itself. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Per Sdrqaz WormTT(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Per Sdrqaz. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. They're getting desysopped. It's clear we are unhappy with their conduct. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. Prefer 2d. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Similar to ToBeFree in 2d; a desysop is already a hefty admonishment, but I do not feel strongly enough to oppose outright. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. As Tinucherian has pointed to his LinkedIn page where his job title can be seen there is now nothing private left to this case which needs ArbCom to act. The community is in possession of all the evidence to assess his UPE as an editor. Cabayi (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2d: Admonishment

2d) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly editing in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest. The question of whether administrative action is needed for violation of WP:COI and WP:UPE is left to normal community processes.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 4 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support
  1. The desysop is the only thing here that only Arbcom can do. The community has access to the evidence and can determine where to go from here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Doesn't rise to the level where we need to take action other than a desysop, but I could see the community wanting to sanction. Enough of the evidence here is public for community processes to be effective. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. With their comment disclosing their role at their company, the community is able to and should address the UPE issues. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities, it is no longer private and the community should be able to resolve this aspect. - Aoidh (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. I'd prefer we don't admonish, so as not to compromise the community's judgment, but if I'm the only one that feels that way, i'm not gonna propose a whole new motion for it. (Like, if we do the one thing short of indeffing and then hand him to the community and say "here, you might want to do more than admonish", we're basically asking for an indef, in which case we should just indef. We can make it so that it can be undone by an individual admin action.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Aiodh puts it best for me. Katietalk 02:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. While the wording of the motion is not perfect, Aoidh's statement about everything being public is correct and I want ArbCom to make a statement that further sanctions for Tinucherian can be (but don't have to be) a question for the community to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I feel like being the final binding decision-maker means that the buck stops with us: if the Committee feels that Tinucherian should be banned, we should do so ourselves. I don't think that Tinucherian should be banned, so I land here. If the Community really does want to block or ban him, then we can't stop them from doing so. But this awkward middle ground of handing off this case when it is already in front of us strikes me as leaving incomplete work and not fulfilling our role. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    We're not the final binding decision-maker in this case. We were involved because this is a non-self-request for the removal of administrative tools and because of privacy concerns (scopes 3 & 4), not because of failed prior dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    As you note, the items at ARBPOL aren't mutually exclusive. I think that this is a serious conduct dispute the community has been unable to resolve due to the private element, and even if you don't think so, the primarily in that item means that it doesn't have to be.
    Let's say that we had accepted a "regular" desysop case and all of the evidence pointed towards a ban or a topic ban in addition to a desysop. Just because the Community can ban and topic-ban people too doesn't mean that we should just desysop and hand the rest of the case over to the Community. It would be a huge abdication of responsibility for us to say that our job was done just because we did the desysop element. If members think that Tinucherian should be blocked – and evidently some of us do because we wouldn't have this or the ban options open – there are ways to do so without further consuming the Community's time, instead of this strange incomplete work. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. I think I agree with Sdrqaz, though from a slightly different angle. An admonishment serves little purpose beyond the desysop. If we weren't desysopping, it might serve some function (as a warning that to continue on the same path would result in sanctions) but not in this instance. Either this is the final disposition of the matter—which does not seem likely—or ArbCom's remit is only to consider the desysop (in vulgar terms, we should "shit or get off the pot"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Like the kings of old, if we're going to execute a man, we better do it with our own sword. Nose tapping at the community is not necessary nor helpful, and prejudices Tinucherian. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I'm not a huge fan of this. We don't need to explicitly admonish in addition to a desysop for misbehavior. We shouldn't need to clarify that the community can take action too. If the matter is no longer part of our scopes and responsibilities, we are not in a position to pass a motion either. "Violation of COI and UPE" is bad/illogical English. I won't stand in the way but I don't feel this one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    I forgot the wikilinks and WP prefix for WP:COI and WP:UPE. Fixed now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    WP:UPE is part of WP:COI. Perhaps WP:PAID was the intention? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Per ToBeFree. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Per ToBeFree. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. As Tinucherian has pointed to his LinkedIn page where his job title can be seen there is now nothing private left to this case which needs ArbCom to act. The community is in possession of all the evidence to assess his UPE as an editor. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
  • To give a little more context, in private I had raised the 2021 Tenebrae motion (where the Committee topic-banned Tenebrae, and the Community followed up with a full ban) in response to concerns that the Community would feel unable to carry out graver sanctions. I'm not convinced that this is the right solution, though. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions

  • Noting for the record that I intend to be actove on this for majority purposes. I would very much like to hear from Tinu before making any final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    Changed to 15 active members. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I would also like to wait for a statement. We have spoken to Tinucherian via email, but would like to see what they have to say now that sanctions have been proposed. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm intending to wait for a statement as well. Tinu's previous response was not what I wanted to see, and although I am willing to accept this was likely a good faith lack of understanding of UPE / COI requirements, I still believe it was over the line in behaviour I expect from an admin. WormTT(talk) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I've already voted on the desysop, as I don't see a way through that leaves that intact, but I'd like to see their statement before deciding on a ban versus admonishing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • To me, the current position of WP:COI and WP:PAID seems to be that an editor has a financial conflict of interest, but is not a paid editor, if they're an employee who is not specifically being paid or told to edit Wikipedia. That makes some amount of sense to me; a Starbucks barista has less financial stake in the ebb and flow of Starbucks' PR than the average person with $1000 in the S&P 500. (Update: yes, it is paid editing.) In 2009–2010, the position was roughly the same, but disclosure of a COI wasn't required at the time. For me, that largely excuses the Juniper Networks editing as poor practice, but not necessarily falling short of what was expected of an admin at the time. The UST editing is much more problematic; the one disclosure made wasn't sufficient in that it was written improperly and didn't cover all of their editing (much of which does read with the tone and quality we've all come to expect from UPE), but it seems like there was some attempt to be transparent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    W/r/t to their uses of the tools in COI editing, I think they were both bad, but not desysoppable in and of themselves. They were both deleting pages he'd created – he should have tagged both as G7 instead of actioning it himself and doing so with incorrect rationales, but I don't think that's super related to the COI at the core of this case. It's not the same as, say, using the block or protect buttons to enforce one's side of a content dispute. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tinucherian

Hi respected members of ArbCom and community,

Let me begin with saying this upfront: I have never edited Wikipedia for payment or because I was asked by my employer(s).

I am Tinu Cherian Abraham, a software engineer turned communications professional from Bangalore, India. I was a former board member (executive committee) and, previously, head of communications, PR, and media relations of the Wikimedia India chapter. I am an administrator on en.wikipedia. I have over 54,000+ edits on en.wiki, making me one of the top 100 article creators , top 300 global editors and one of the top 4 Wikipedia editors from India or of Indian origin by number of edits in 2013.

If you have been to Wikimanias in Gdansk, Poland (2010); Haifa, Israel (2011); Hong Kong (2013); or the Wikimedia Chapters Conference, Germany (2012?), you may have seen me.

I had probably started editing Wikipedia as an IP editor in the first half of the 2000s. I started editing as a registered user in 2006, and I have been fiercely editing the greatest library of information and knowledge—the Wikipedia—especially during the 2009-2013 timeframe. During this time, I have become the biggest evangelist of Wikipedia in India.

In 2006, a group of Wikipedians, along with Jimmy Wales, met in the city of Bangalore, India. I missed this meetup, but I want to reunite Indian Wikipedians with regular meetups. This was a time when most of the handful and known Wikipedians were from Bengaluru (Bangalore).

In 2009, following a discussion on the wikimediaindia-l mailing list , I made a call for an informal Wikimeetup of Indian Wikipedians (any language Wikipedians) at my very own residence in Bangalore. The idea was to talk about an Indian chapter of Wikimedia and growing Wikipedia in the country. Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore3 . Little did I imagine that this meetup would be the first of hundreds of Wikimeetups and wikiacademies later in India.

Find the much younger me in this meetup photo File:WikiMeetupBlore07_08_1.jpg

The regular Bangalore meetups, which I started, became something of a monthly affair, mostly hosted by me. Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangalore

Along with other Wikipedians who shared the passion, I started curating (with my own money and later on the foundation project) WikiMeetups across the country and cities, towns, and states of India. I am proud to say that I personally inspired hundreds to thousands of people in India to contribute to the English Wikipedia and Indic-language Wikipedias.

English Wikipedia Adminship: In 2009, my RFA was co-nominated by 3 long-standing and reputed en.wiki administrators, which passed with 174 votes in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 neutral. It was one of the most participated RFAs with a clear and overwhelming vote in favor by people who have watched and dissected my contributions so far. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tinucherian

I had become the unofficial spokesperson for Wikipedia in India by then. But I found a big gap in our publicity efforts in India - lack of PR and media relations. So far, most of the Wikipedia media stories in India are about something that happened in the US and the republication of an interview with Jimmy Wales. There were no stories of Indian Wikipedia and the contribution of Wikipedians from India. As someone who always wanted to be a journalist (probably why I got interested in Wikipedia later), I started building media relations for Wikipedia in India. Lots of media stories followed due to my efforts across India - Wikipedia started becoming mainstream. Over these years, I helped in bringing coverage to Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the media and press, which has resulted in unprecedented, consistent, and favorable coverage for the Wikimedia movement in India. A small sample set here

I was always vocal about why people should donate to keep Wikipedia free. In 2007-08, India ranked 18th in terms of monetary contributions, with merely 583 donors contributing about USD 12,532. In 2009-10, India was ranked 16th, with 2,936 donors contributing just USD 52,156. In 2010, I worked with a journalist with The Economics Times, India's largest business newspaper, on a front-page story on this. This story went viral and was followed by subsequent stories in other publications. The result: Nearly 11,000 Indians donated a whopping $193,657 in the next year, 2010-11, catapulting India into the top 10 donor countries. A 4X jump in the subsequent year resulted in more and more in the years to come.

I was inducted into the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. I was invited by the Wikimedia Foundation to present my media efforts in Israel. This is what Jay Walsh, then Wikimedia Foundation Comms & PR chief, wrote on LinkedIn Profile recommendation : "It was a total pleasure to work with Tinu in his capacity as the PR leader for Wikimedia India. Tinu has an adept grasp of both online and social media outreach and also traditional media relations. He knows the media markets throughout the region deeply, and it was a pleasure to be able to turn to him for expertise and insight for the Wikimedia projects in India. He's an extraordinary leadership asset to any communications effort."

Then WMF Board member Bishakha Dutta wrote about me on my LinkedIn, "Cherian Tinu Abraham is a kickass public relations professional. Active in a volunteer capacity only, he generated huge amounts of media coverage of Wikimedia activities in India - I can't imagine what more he could do in an employed capacity. Seriously, he has everything that it takes to do this extraordinarily well - a nose for the news angle, the right personality, expertise on whom to contact for which story, and the understanding that this is not one-off short-term work but work that needs a deeper building of longer-term relationships."

Continuing my efforts of evangelism of Wikipedia in India, I was elected (first ever election) as an executive member of the Wikimedia India chapter. It was saddening to see the chapter slowly die years after I left being active.

Apart from co-hosting the biggest Wikipedia 10 event in India in Bengaluru, I was part of the core team that hosted the biggest Wikiconference outside of Wikimania - in Mumbai, India. The WikiConference India 2011 was the first conference of its kind to be held in India or even the world and was intended to become an annual national flagship event for Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the country. It was organized by the Wikipedia community in partnership with the Wikimedia India Chapter with the support of the Wikimedia Foundation. WikiConference_India [13] While I spearheaded the media outreach for this event in particular, I still remember a particular incident when Jimmy Wales, who was the key speaker and was in a different country (Belgium, I think) with a US passport, had issues getting an Indian visa for the event. I intervened with my connections to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and managed to help secure his Indian visa for Jimbo, which he was very appreciative of.

My contributions to the Indian Wikipedia movement were always appreciated by Jimbo, the community, the Wikimedia Foundation, the board members, and advisory members. I always championed the setting up of a Wikimedia Foundation office in India. When the foundation started its first office outside of the US in India, I was offered the role of the PR lead. But I had to turn down the offer because I was unable to relocate me & my family to Delhi from Bangalore. Ironically, it was primarily my idea to push for the office in Delhi, India's capital, for strategic reasons. Later, with the support and encouragement of the foundation's chief global development officer, a board member, and an advisory member, I even took up a project of seeding WikiMeetups and academies across India with the support of the foundation to continue and help my evangelism for Wikimedia in India.

This is what Hisham Mundol, Head India Program at Wikimedia Foundation, had to say (on my LinkedIn Recommendations): "Tinu does not have a formal education background in media/public relations - but you would never guess that from the kind, quality and scale of his work in this area. As an extraordinarily constructive and influential volunteer of Wikipedia in India, he has voluntarily managed a lot of the media / PR support of and for the community in India for several years now. In this role, he has displayed clarity and discipline of messaging, an innate sense of sniffing out a potential news story and an uncanny ability to build media relationships. He has been selfless in stories - and has constantly ensured that a diverse range of fellow volunteers are covered by the story. Personally, he has strong and deep values of integrity, meritocracy, and industriousness. He is also a wonderful human being and really great fun to work with. I don't know if he would ever explore a career in media / PR, but if he ever did, I would have no hesitation in highly recommending him."

When there were conflicts between the foundation, the community, and the chapter in India, I was the peacemaker. I was always a strong believer that there is enough space for multiple entities to work together for the contribution and progress of the movement.

Sue Gardner, then Executive Director of the foundation, awarded me the Executive Director's Barnstar (you can see on my user page), saying this: "Tinu Cherian! I am hereby awarding you the Executive Director's barnstar, for your lovely post to foundation-l earlier today, and your many contributions to the Wikimedia projects since 2006. The Executive Director's Barnstar is an award that I give out every now and then, created for me by my colleague Frank Schulenberg, to celebrate and honour editors who are making a particularly significant contribution to the projects. Most recipients are nominated by other editors, but I nominated you myself :-)

You are a wonderful contributor. Since 2006, you've got 54K edits on 39 different projects. You're an admin here on the English Wikipedia, where you are one of the top 100 article creators, the top 300 global editors, and one of our most active editors working in India. You've created more than 2,200 articles. You're an executive member of the Indian chapter, an active volunteer on the Communications committee, a participant in our global gatherings, and an evangelist who organizes and participates in meet-ups and training sessions for newcomers.

But I am awarding you this barnstar also for your mail to foundation-l earlier today, which I thought was gorgeous. Your mail came after a long and unhappy thread about relationships among the Indian trust, the Indian chapter and the Wikimedia Foundation. What I found admirable about it was that you did not engage angrily: instead, you called upon participants in the thread to aim to be our best, wisest, most generous selves, and to remember what we are here to do, and that our work is important and necessary. As I said to you in my reply, one of the things I like best about Wikimedia is that anyone can become a leader, simply by acting like one. You showed real leadership in that thread, and I applaud you for it. Thank you for everything you have done—and will do in the future—for the Wikimedia movement."

There are so many of my Wikimedia contributions and acclaim that I want to talk about. But.

I just wanted to set a context: while I contributed to the Wikipedia movement for a decade and over, I did so with the utmost passion and integrity. Wikipedia changes lives and careers. I had mentioned that I started out as a software engineer. Thanks to Wikipedia, I found my true calling - to have a career in PR, media relations, and communications. I resigned from my software job with Juniper Networks overnight and later joined UST as a PR person, which is also my current company again. Today I am one of the top PR professionals in India and the world. I owe my thanks to Wikipedia for guiding me to the light of career.

I have always contributed to the best interests of Wikipedia. Never have I edited or misused my editor or adminship against the basic principles of Wikipedia.

Every week (over the two decades), I am approached by people to create or edit Wikipedia articles for payment. And I have always refused. I have been pressured and threatened by political entities to make edits favoring them. I have refused. If anyone in my company ever asked to edit wikipedia for the company, I would say NO. Let me now try to answer some of the specific instances that you had mentioned:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tinucherian/Infobox&diff=prev&oldid=229169823 I see this edit happened way back in 2008, 17 years ago. I don't clearly remember the circumstances of removing the company information. Probably I thought it was too much personal information. Remember, this is when my identity is publicly known and searchable, unlike most of the Wikipedia editors and admins. I can't figure out who the members of ArbCom are, let alone their real-life identities.

A simple Google search reveals my full details, including my employment, city, or a variety of personal information that is connected. How many of the admins or ArbComm members on Wikipedia have my level of transparency? If I used a pseudonym for this account or alternate accounts for editing wikipedia, would anyone have noticed my alleged 'conflict of interest'?

[2] https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Tinucherian&page=Juniper+Networks&server=enwiki&max= [3] https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Tinucherian&page=List+of+acquisitions+by+Juniper+Networks&server=enwiki&max=

When I was working as a junior-level engineer employee at Juniper Networks (remember, this is even before I became an admin), I was just adding information that I am passionate about - computers, software, networks, history, India, places—in the 2000-odd articles I have created and the 1000s of articles that I had edited.

Did anyone at Juniper Networks ask me to edit articles related to it? No. Did I get paid to edit any articles about Juniper Networks? No.

In my mind, I was just contributing information that I had deep knowledge of—that too with publicly available information.

Conflict of interest is a very broad term. Everyone has a conflict of interest—some way or other. If you edit the Wikipedia articles of your country, places, or state, don't you have a conflict of interest? If you edit a Wikipedia article about a monument in your country, don't you have an apparent conflict of interest? What is key is our ability and willingness to edit articles in a neutral way with publicly available information.

In December 2005, Jimmy Wales was discovered to have edited his own Wikipedia article, specifically concerning Larry Sanger's role as a co-founder. This led to criticism that he was "rewriting history" and prioritizing his own narrative. Larry Sanger, who worked with Jimmy Wales on Nupedia and Wikipedia, has disputed some of Wales' claims about his role in the project, particularly regarding whether he was a co-founder. Wales has also been accused of using his position to influence the content of Wikipedia articles, particularly in relation to his business, Wikia, and the Wikimedia Foundation's Knowledge Engine project. This had raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, but what actions did Arb-Com or the Wikimedia Foundation take against Jimbo Wales?

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UST_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=632564068 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_%28company%29&diff=prev&oldid=1105289342

Unlike my role at Juniper Networks, my new role at UST presented a possibly more realistic conflict of interest. Unlike a random engineer before, I am now responsible for the reputation of the company, but the 'upkeep of UST's Wikipedia article' is not my responsibility (ever). You can go through the hundreds of edits of UST's article and see that I have made only a very small handful of very necessary, minimal edits.

I was with UST from August 2013 to 2016 and then rejoined in 2019 (you can see my LinkedIn profile). In 2014, I shared my conflict of interest declaration publicly on UST's talk page. From 2014 to 2016, I hardly edited the company page. After rejoining in 2019, I have only edited a few times, only when critical information is wrong or not updated for a long time.

But my conflict of interest declaration was still there, so if anyone disagreed with my factual update, they could change or revert it.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1284752784

I believe this is the edit that invited all the attention now, but you're chasing the wrong person!

And this issue needs a bigger investigation.

From what I have seen and heard, this is the work of an organized syndicate that works in paid editing for the brands and companies. There are many agencies across the world that specifically target and approach companies to offer to edit Wikipedia, either by adding a promo tag or looking at company pages that have a promo tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1282112746 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/51.154.145.205 Isn't it too much of a coincidence that an IP user knows exactly the Wiki syntax {{Promotional|date=March 2025}} to place in an article?

Suspecting this is a possible MO by Wikipedia editing agencies that approach companies, I reverted it. In hindsight, should I have avoided the revert myself? Maybe yes. Maybe I should have asked a neutral admin or editor to look into it.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Stevejross

OMG. This is NOT me! This is an early employee of UST, named Steve Ross, who claims to be the founder of the company. He repeatedly removes mention of the real founder of the company and inserts his own name. He claims an arbitration verdict that ruled in favor of him (which no one at UST has heard of). To be neutral, I am not even attempting to remove his false narrative, which he is injecting into Wikipedia. If I had been misusing my admin powers, I could have blocked him and removed the controversy section/founder status that he keeps adding. This is in spite of him creating issues for me (in my actual job), with journalists getting confused with him as the founder ( and sometime quoting him), as it is on Wikipedia! Why is no one questioning his COI and fake information to Wikipedia?

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AUST_Global_Logo.png If I remember correctly, I deleted a non-currently-used old logo file of UST because it is both outdated (not used in any article) and no longer allowed as a fair use image. If I had not deleted it, probably it would have been there idle until it was discovered by an admin and the file was deleted. Again, no harm done.

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Sajan_Pillai I felt it was wrong that the then CEO of UST didn't have a Wikipedia article in spite of so much media coverage or stature, so I created it but on second thought I deleted myself in a few days in Nov 2015. His article seems to have been created later in 2022 (he left the company in 2019), but I have no knowledge of who created it. I have no hand in it nor have I been in touch with Mr. Sajan Pillai since 2016 (when I left the company).

One important thing to remember is that I have never created a pseudo/anonymous account to do any of the above; if otherwise, none of these would have been scrutinized today. I could have made much money by working in the shadows, using my expertise to create and edit pages for brands and celebs. I didn't. I love wikipedia and thankfully I make an honest living by doing a job that Wikipedia has been instrumental in itself.

I have tried to answer all your concerns and allegations, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, truthfully, with integrity, and in a transparent matter.

Going forward, I will restrict myself from editing any article related to the company that I work for - even if it means allowing a factual error to continue as it is.

I have given a lifetime of service to the Wikipedia movement. I wish to still contribute as an editor and administrator whenever time permits.

Regards
Tinu Cherian
User:TinuCherian
-- Tinu Cherian - 15:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Community discussion

RoySmith

I recognize there may be things you can't discuss in public, but I'm really wondering what prompted the talk of a full project ban. Looking at the most recent admin COI editing case (Nihonjoe), there was never any talk of anything beyond removal of the admin and crat bits. What makes this case so different that a full site ban is on the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Bri

I used to be active at WP:COIN and continue to apply {{connected contributor}} to talkpages, when appropriate based on evidence, probably on the order of 100 times now. The connection outlined here would certainly have applied to many of the editors' contributions and merited at least the {{connected contributor}} template. A person who doesn't understand that, or acknowledge that fully, probably should not be an administrator. The 2014 declaration does not mitigate that much, if at all, in my mind. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Giraffer

The connection and edits were initially troubling, but I am particularly concerned by Tinucherian's new admission that they do PR work for UST (company). Using rollback to revert a promo tag on an article they have a thinly-documented COI with is a blatant abuse of administrative tools. That the company in question pays them for PR takes this firmly into UPE territory. Regardless, the statement posted here only worsens the issue; defending yourself against credible allegations of UPE by posting nearly 2000 words of self-promotion does not demonstrate much self-reflection. Giraffer (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

NebY

Tinucherian, I can see how much pride you have in your Wikipedia activity up to 2013. Can you talk a little about why you want to remain an administrator on en.wiki now? So far as I can tell, your only use of the tools in 2024 was to unprotect and, a minute later, re-protect your own subpage User:Tinucherian/Infobox, a couple of weeks after you'd received the bot's Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder[14], and that was the last time you used the tools or otherwise served en.wiki as an administrator. NebY (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Cryptic

What Giraffer said, and specifically contra Theleekycauldron: per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose, Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. While it's not in a policy-marked section, the wording's been stable since it was first added (to a different section) in mid-2018. —Cryptic 17:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Entirely correct, Cryptic, my bad on missing that. I was mostly looking at definitions of "employer", but you're right that said language would make all of their post-2018 edits paid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

isaacl

Regarding the sentence on the paid-contribution disclosure page about users being compensated for publicity efforts: it doesn't come from the WMF terms of use, which is why it isn't under that section on the page. It was a result of a discussion on the talk page that strove to draw a distinction between any company employee, who could be considered to have a conflict of interest but not be a paid editor, and one specifically paid to help publicize a company. Personally, I think it's difficult to try to separate out paid from non-paid edits for someone engaging in public relations, and thus it's reasonable to deem them all paid edits. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding blocking as an individual admin action: I think arbitrators continue to be able to act as individual admins when necessary. If an arbitrator feels they would have blocked the subject of a case as an individual admin action had they witnessed the behaviour outside the context of arbitration, they should be able to do so. (I appreciate, of course, that the opinions of other arbitrators may be a factor even though the action is being taken by an arbitrator in the role of an admin.) I also think it's reasonable for the arbitration committee to allow for normal community practice to proceed when the only reason it was involved was due to private information that is now public. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Guerillero

Due to the long-term pattern of deception, I urge the committee to pass a ban as well as the very needed desysop --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

JzG

If the committee stops at desysop, there is no bar to the community enacting a ban. We really should have zero tolerance for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

QEDK

Generally agreed with the ArbCom conclusion. I don't disagree with the community bringing up the notion of a siteban but the fact of the matter is that they have been honest since and stated that they will stray far away from the topics related to their COI. I am not a fan of punitive sanctions and I'd much rather hold them at their word than lose a contributor. If needed, a preventive editing restriction would make sense with no recourse of an unban. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading some more comments (particularly Floq), I agree that if there is a block, it should be an AC block, there is no reason to punt it to the community. The community has never (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) overturned an AC block AFAIK and there is no reason to spend additional contributor time. My earlier comments still stand as-is. --qedk (t 愛 c) 01:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Floq

The desysop is a no-brainer, as the committee clearly sees. I guess the only input I have for a siteban is what we would do with an editor found to be doing this who wasn't an admin? If we'd normally indef block them, then I think that should happen here. If the promise to avoid the topic would have been accepted from a non-admin, then I think that should happen here. I'm not involved enough in COI stuff to know what we'd usually do. But Aoidh's and Katie's concern about a Supermario effect resonates with me.

Also, for a communications professional, the first 3/4 of their response here sure failed to read the room... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Like I said above, I would likely indef. That's different than an Arbcom ban, though, and now the community has essentially all of the concrete evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Punting to the community seems like a reasonable (although no doubt chaotic) solution. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thryduulf

ScottishFinnishRadish said above I would likely block indefinitely as an individual admin action, but that is less severe than a Arbcom ban. An individual indef can be overturned by a single admin satisfied with an unblock request, whereas an Arbcom ban has a lot more process and stigma attached. It is within arbcom's power to place a block (of any duration) that can be overturned by a single admin, it just needs to explicitly say this when placing the ban and there would be no more process to an appeal than an individual admin block. I am not aware of this having been done previously so I can't comment on what stigma would be attached in practice.
Regarding the actual meat of the ban, I would prefer there to a cooling-off period (for both Tinucherian and the community) between any arbcom action and any subsequent community action so as to avoid knee-jerk reactions while emotions are still hot. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hammersoft

COI editing: Tinucherian, trying to equate your edits for your employers with editing about things such as monuments is false on the face of it. You are not employed by any monument. You had a stake in the success of Juniper and UST, yet edited the articles anyway. What possible justification is there for doing that rather than making an edit request on the talk pages of the articles? Then you go on to cite Jimbo Wales' behavior as some sort of justification? He did bad things so it's ok for you to do bad things? Let's walk that logic forward another step; since he did bad things, you can do bad things, and everyone else can do bad things? Is this how that works? Whether or not ArbCom acted with regards to Jimbo is utterly irrelevant. You then go on to attempt to defend your behavior by saying you only edited a little bit on the UST article. So...it's ok to edit an article with which you have a conflict of interest if you only do it a little bit? Your explanations lack validity and self reflection. You're not getting it. You seriously breached trust with this community of the project you so love. The edits highlight a serious lack of judgment. That you have attempted to defend them rather than realize the enormity of what you have done further cements the lack of judgment you have shown.

Site ban: I don't see immediate grounds for a site ban. This doesn't rise to the level of some of the other seriously damaging efforts I've seen. I also don't think we need worry about future damage to the project. Between the heavy push back against the clear COI editing and the almost complete absence from the project for the last 11 years, it's hard to imagine a scenario where more damage would happen to the project. Yes, we're talking about a ban and not a block. But, blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but protective. In this case, I think we need to view a potential ban in the same light; what is it we are protecting by banning? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Graham87

I entirely agree with the course this motion seems to be taking. However, I have an issue with the opening statement of the motion ... which ANI thread is it talking about, and if there is one, can it be linked? I've searched the recent ANI archives and his talk page archives and I can find nothing relevant. This search, which should be comprehensive, fails to find anything relevant posted this year; the list of links to the UST page in the Wikipedia namespace isn't helpful here. I do know about the Wikipediocracy blog post though. Sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place (I considered Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard but it didn't seem quite right either); I'm not very experienced with arbitration procedures. Graham87 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It was a thread at AN, not ANI. I've fixed the reference and added the link. Sorry about that! Sdrqaz (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorporating word limits into the AE template

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It looks like historically AE template changes have been discussed at this talk page so here I am. L235 has made a bot that is counting the number of words used by people at WP:ARCA and WP:AE. He has also made {{ACWordStatus}} which would allow us to have an updating count of people's words displayed in/around their section. Examples of that template can be seen at User:L235/sandbox1. I'd like to make this a standard part of the template so there is transparency for commenters and admins alike about where everyone stands with their word counts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_20&oldid=1305026149"