Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:13, 24 December 2010 view sourceMailer diablo (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators55,575 edits →Motions (YM): voting← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
= <includeonly>]</includeonly> =
</noinclude>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
{{NOINDEX}}

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
== John J. Bulten ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] <small>'''(], ])'''</small> '''at''' 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Brendanology}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|John J. Bulten}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*] (slightly more informal, but (failed) attempt at dispute/difference resolution by several users seen)
*] (Ditto)

=== Statement by Brendanology ===
*I will confess that I have not always been entirely civil in my interactions with John J. Bulten; however, ArbCom will be shown evidence that repeated attempted dispute resolution on longevity-related articles (both official and unofficial) with Bulten has failed time and again or shown to have been counterproductive. Bulten has behaved inappropriately on multiple longevity-related articles, such as a) intimidating and attempting to convert editors , b) threatening editors with blocks without prior attempts to seek consensus , c) submitting batches of biographies on long-lived people for deletion under near-identical criteria; d) spamming the same AfD message with minimal differences , e) broken multiple AfD contributing policies (such as not voting on your own AfD , attempts, using spammed messages, to scare off editors who voted "keep" on articles he nominated for deletion .

The request sent to ArbCom is intended as a last resort; an ArbCom discussion will provide solutions to John J. Bulten's disruptive and damaging behaviour for which previous attempts of resolution have failed time and again. ] <small>'''(], ])'''</small> 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
=== Statement by {Party 2} ===

=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
:I have left a on the filing party's talkpage regarding the ongoing Longevity case involving both parties. ] (]) 11:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:The filing party has regarding this request for arbitration and I have that he or she may address this issue at the ongoing case. ] (]) 07:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0) ===
* '''Decline'''. There is already an ongoing case regarding these disputes (''Longevity''); I see no reason why opening another would be necessary or beneficial. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Kirill. Perhaps there may need to be consideration of a temporary injunction in relation to the existing case. ] (]) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as a separate case, but the issues can be addressed in the pending ''Longevity'' case, as suggested by Kirill and Risker. ] (]) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Existing case. ] (]) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

== YellowMonkey ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Serpent's Choice}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|YellowMonkey}}
**{{user|YellowAssessmentMonkey}}, ''acknowledged and legitimate secondary account''
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*YellowMonkey notified

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*Various aspects of this dispute have been discussed at AN/I (], ], and several others), YellowMonkey's talk page ( and many others), and various other venues (including ] and ]). Because this arbitration request alleges substantial noncompliance with multiple aspects of the admin policies over a long period of time, and because the introduction of evidence supporting these allegations has made the environment at the RFC increasingly heated, I submit that further formal dispute resolution outside of ArbCom is likely to be counterproductive.

=== Statement by Serpent's Choice ===
The current RFC for YellowMonkey is not formally closed. Because it has expanded considerably in scope, and because so much of the discussion centers around contentious administrative actions, opinions about how -- or whether -- to proceed have been mixed. Regardless of how it closes, it has moved well beyond its original purpose and much of what has been discussed is now outside the remit of RFC to address. If the Arbitration Committee is willing to accept a case regarding the administrative actions of YellowMonkey, I am prepared to offer additional evidence to support the following claims (limited diffs cited for brevity, substantially more detailed analysis forthcoming upon acceptance -- I'm probably going to technically exceed the length guidelines as it stands):

*'''YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the ].'''
**He has failed to provide appropriate (any) warnings.
**He has failed to notify the blocked user. No diffs for these two at this stage; however, note that he has not had any interaction, including block templates, on the talk pages of any of the 80+ editors he has blocked since at least 1 June 2010.
**He has set block log messages that fail to provide sufficient context for other administrators.
***Most commonly, this consists of the blocking reason "sock", without any indication of the purported puppetmaster, almost always without any SPI or other on-wiki evidence for the block. Note that these are not "Checkuser blocks" as defined in the ArbCom statement (because they are not so noted in the block log), and so are expected to be subject to on-wiki review. In contrast, YellowMonkey ''does'' mark some blocks as Checkuser blocks.
***In the case of one (admittedly problematic editor), he blocked with the reason "Block evasion" without providing supporting evidence and without the simultaneous blocking of any other accounts (that would have been used for the evasion).
**He does not mark accounts blocked as sockpuppets with {{]}}. Any accounts he has so blocked that are marked have been labeled later, by other editors or admins. Example: versus but note that he has <s>not</s> used this template (EDIT: only once, on 2 July) since at least 1 June 2010, (EDIT: and not for an editor he blocked himself; for that, one must go back to 5 October 2009 which is also the second most recent time he has marked a sockpuppet's user page regardless of the blocking admin).
**He has issued indefinite blocks in situations not described as appropriate by policy. In particular, he has indicated accounts are spam or vandal accounts and issued indefinite blocks, even when some contributions appear helpful (or at least in good faith), and without prior blocks or, at times, any prior warnings whatsoever.
**He has issued indefinite blocks of IP addresses without {{]}}.
**Several uses of the tool were in and of themselves problematic. The block of {{userblock|Yogesh Khandke}} and the two indefinite blocks of {{userblock|Quigley}} are foremost among these, but the block of {{userblock|Abhayakara}} also deserves attention, as does the "useless block" ''unblock'' of {{userblock|Dr. Blofeld}}. Each of these circumstances generated a substantial amount of community discussion and will require more space to discuss than is appropriate in the initial request.

*'''YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the ] or the ].'''
**He has applied semi-protection without "heavy and persistent" vandalism.
**He has applied lengthy semi-protection as its first application to an article. For this and the above, see especially any of his semi-protections of Australian school articles, such as which received a 1-year semi-protection following one inappropriate edit by an IP.
**He has applied semi-protection on articles in which he has substantial involvement as an editor. In particular, this applies to ], which he has edited over 200 times since 2006, and protected repeatedly since 2007 including indefinite semi-protection on 11 May 2010 that was overturned 4 days later via RFPP, only for him to re-establish it on 7 November 2010 despite only three IP-vandalism edits (from two IPs) in the previous 30 days and despite the presence of a different IP that had edited constructively during that time.
**He has not applied protection templates to the articles he has semi-protected since at least 1 June 2010.

*'''YellowMonkey has not acted in compliance with the ].'''
**He deleted articles outside of any process. After ] was closed "no consensus", he deleted (and salted) the article anyway claiming interference in AFD by socks. DRV agreed with the deletion on its merits, but noted the failure to adhere to process. Likewise, although upheld at DRV due to copyright violation, the copyvio state of this article was not established at the time it was deleted. There was no AFD, PROD, or CSD justification given; this action was taken unilaterally.

*'''YellowMonkey has not, at times, displayed the decorum expected of an administrator.'''
**Comments about the WMF outreach to India that are intemperate and reflect bias.
**Comparing the On This Day section of the Main Page to a "toilet exhibit" and an Indian slum.
**Making unsupported accusations of Communist bias in an RFA.
**''In general,'' he has not communicated his intentions, and has rarely responded to concerns about his actions. When he has responded, such as in the current RFC, his responses have been limited, lacking in an appreciation of the wider context, and historically, have not resulted in any changes in behavior.

To the extent that the Arbitration Committee is concerned with the concept of "standing" for filing parties, I was not in any way involved with these circumstances prior to my evidence-gathering efforts at the RFC; indeed, due to personal reasons of health and workload, I have been at best an intermittent editor for the past year or two. However, it is my belief that this is a situation with a strong tendency to evade review, because the editors with the strongest claims to involvement in the dispute are often not entirely faultless, and are likely to be wary of the "conduct of all parties will be examined" environment of ArbCom. I have never operated an alternate account, edited in the principle areas at issue, or (to the best of my recollection) had any direct or indirect contact with YellowMonkey or any of the other most-involved editors. Rather, I am filing this case as a representative member of the community at large, in no small part because I feel that my evidentiary contributions to the RFC convey to me a ] upon them.

:'''Response to Mkativerata:''' The fact that this RFC became "vitriolic" is likely to make another worse, not better, especially because no RFC is capable of sanction or action regarding the suspect tool use. This pervasive failure to respond or engage is very much a "fundamental issue" rather than a discretionary one, as was decided in the ] (which, as noted at RFC, YellowMonkey voted in as an arbitrator), although, if accepted, I am also prepared to offer evidence that ''may'' indicate more significant conflicts of interest in tool use than the repeated semi-protection of Ngo Dinh Diem. Nor are these issues new. I have been able to trace efforts to get YellowMonkey to respond more actively to concerns, to better document blocks, and to employ semi-protection more appropriately that date back years (to at least 2008). I generally cited recent events in this request solely in order to demonstrate that the situations are still fresh, but they have ample history. ] (]) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:'''Response to Nick-D:''' On the contrary, I stand by my assertion that each of the elements in my arbitration request is supported by policy, rather than a dispute on discretionary issues. Regarding the deletion issues in particular, DRV upheld the deletion of the content, not the process that was used, which was remarked on as being admittedly faulty on both occasions. Should ArbCom accept this request, they may feel free to examine my statement and the evidence I will submit to support it, and, should any of my concerns be found to be malicious or frivolous, they are welcome to find against me for doing so as well, as is their remit. However, and notwithstanding any behavior by other editors at the RFC, I unilaterally repudiate the assertion that ''I'' am motivated out of a desire to host a witch hunt. Finally, as I'm well over my space limits already, I do not intend to continue to reply to general editors in the request page; there will be plenty of room for that if the case opens. To anyone inquiring about my motives, timing, methods, or evidence, I will attempt to be accommodating on my talk page. To arbitrators or clerks, naturally, I will respond to any requests for information in a full and timely fashion to the best of my ability. ] (]) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

:I'm well past 500 words, and, if the clerks would prefer to cut down, please feel free to cull this, as it's just philosophy, not diffs:
:'''Response to ''various'':''' I understand that YellowMonkey is a skilled editor. I understand that he's been a highly active admin for a long time, that much of what he does is thankless, toilsome works, and much of it, in the end, benefits the project. Believe me. In making sure my ducks are in a row for my request and for, if accepted, my evidence, I've probably become more familiar with YellowMonkey's work than anyone other than YellowMonkey himself. I am not on a witch hunt. I want no part of a lynch mob. I do not want to "burn the yellow monkey". I came to the RFC as an uninvolved editor, thinking I could help, because that's what RFCs are for. I saw the communication issue -- part of that RFC from the start -- was more than a one-time thing. I thought that was probably important to look into. I did, and found a whole lot more than I (or anyone, it seems) expected. In doing so, I felt that I became involved in the dispute. ''I'' am here because the dispute needs to be resolved. Did I bring this issue here early? Unnecessarily? Could it have been resolved in the open RFC or a new one? Look at that RFC. ''Look at this RFAR page.'' Those things above that I said I didn't want to be a part of: witch hunts, lynch mobs, and the like? Those aren't my words; those are the words of administrators here, people who have proved to the community that they are reasonable. Even in contrast, not everyone in the RFC was reasonable. Nor, for what it's worth, have I made demands for admin removal (rather, I trust ArbCom can determine the best way forward), although the RFC sure has plenty of those. Even if, as AGK told me on his talk page, "ArbCom is absolutely not, ever, the low-drama option," this process is the only one remaining that seems likely -- or able -- to take a reasonable eye to the evidence and provide an appropriate resolution. That, and only that, is why ''I'' am here. ] (]) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cube lurker ===

At the RFC, and summarized above, multiple credible claims of misuse of tools have been made. There is no community process available outside of Arbcom to resolve this. Therefore I would recomend acceptance of this matter.--] (]) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:@AGK. You suggest people just want drama. Just the opposite. Reformatting the RFC is just reformating the drama with no possible resolution. This is the path of least drama. The RFC identified the issue. Now Arbcom can examine the evience and decide what if any action is needed.--] (]) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::I'd also like to suggest that the next person to refer to good faith concerns by editors in good standing over serious concerns about tool usage as a "witch hunt" be sanctioned for violating ].--] (]) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
@Arbcom. If this is being rejected it should also be accompanied by an announcement to the community that Arbcom is not a viable venue for dealing with misuse of admin tools. This will clear up the misconception that is often repeated at discussions of community deadmin proposals that if admins repeatedly misuse their tools then Arbcom will get involved.--] (]) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

@Risker. You're making my point. Arbcom is not willing to look at admins who've repeatedly misused their tools. They are only willing to deal with admins who've repeatedly misused their tools. Been confronted multiple times. Repeatedly misused their tools again. Had an RFC. And THEN repeatedly misused their tools. This should be explicitly made clear to the community.--] (]) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mkativerata ===

The recent RfC regarding YellowMonkey originally concerned one series of actions regarding one editor. YellowMonkey responded to that RfC and promptly apologised to the affected editor. The RfC subsequently threw up a range of complaints about YellowMonkey's use of the tools. It is unsurprising that YellowMonkey has not been present to give detailed individual responses to those complaints: they were outside the scope of the RfC, and they were on occasions vitriolic.

The complaints above relate to the way in which discretionary use of the tools are exercised (eg the length of protection and blocks, which admins always disagree about) and process (eg issuing proper block notices). They do not relate to fundamental issues such as accusations of using the tools when "involved" (applying semi-protection to ] hardly qualifies here - what interests in a dispute is he said to be furthering?). Thus, these complaints are exactly the kind of complaints that can be addressed through a proper RfC that reflects an expanded scope, that does not degenerate into a witch-hunt. YellowMonkey has responded completely and apologetically to the scope of the current RfC. He has also responded to some of the out-of-scope concerns. So why are we proceeding to ArbCom when YM hasn't been given a proper chance to respond to the wider range of complaints (eg through a reformulated RfC)? This case is premature and unnecessary. --] (]) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:Additional note: Of course, at this point, YM has not edited in days. There should be no assumptions of bad faith as to why this is so. He could be on holidays. Or, having apologised for the concerns behind the RfC, and then having been faced with a barrage of other out-of-scope complaints and at times vitriolic contributions, he could be having some time away from the project. Many would in his circumstances. Again: premature and unnecessary.--] (]) 20:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

::@Serpent's Choice: YM has indicated nothing but responsiveness to the additional concerns about matters such as communication with blocked users. Why are we proceeding to arbitration before giveing YM a chance to act on those concerns? --] (]) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Eraserhead1 ===
I filed the original request on over YellowMonkey's abuse of the semi-protection policy and YellowMonkey did improve their treatment of semi-protected articles and they have generally stopped indefinitely semi-protecting articles after their first piece of vandalism which - while they are still rather long is a definite step in the right direction. However as pointed out by Serpents Choice there have also been use of the tools in this way while involved in editing it. Most notably on {{la|Ngo Dinh Diem}}.

Additionally as also pointed out by Serpents Choice he apparently hasn't notified ''any'' of the users he has blocked since June 2010 which isn't really acceptable. Additionally there have been a number of dubious blocks including those of {{user|Quigley}}, {{user|Yogesh Khandke}} and {{user|Abhayakara}} all in the last six months since a number of administrators gave concerns about YellowMonkey's following of the semi-protection policy. Throughout this there appears to have been poor communication - YellowMonkey doesn't appear to have responded to the questions raised on these blocks on his talk page.

The allegations made in the RFC and the number of cases where YellowMonkey appears to act far from consensus are rather concerning and they appear to be considerably higher than you'd expect for it to just be explainable away as a witch-hunt. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:Additionally while it is true that YellowMonkey is probably just currently taking a break from the project, the number and the severity of the accusations sadly means that this is probably the best course of action regardless - I certainly don't want to imply that he is running away from the allegations. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::PPS I completely agree with HJ Mitchell's point below about content. YellowMonkey's content record is excellent. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:::@Mattinbgn, maybe one of the reasons YellowMonkey has issues with POV pushers in the articles he's editing has more to do with him not communicating effectively with other editors that the other editors behaving particularly badly. I usually find talking to other editors and usually asking for reliable sources (if possible with appropriate examples of sources) to backup their claims either provides such sources or stops them adding the unsourced content.
:::If people in certain countries have greater difficulties understanding ] than others - possibly due to their education system being less good - then I'm sure a venue can be found (not here) to discuss that matter further and solve that issue. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 08:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::::@Mattinbgn, if people are being uncivil YellowMonkey can ban them, I'd be much more comfortable about that - even if it was basically straight off, or with only a single level four warning than most of the stuff listed by SerpentsChoice. Otherwise if he needs a break from the project I suggest he takes one - hopefully he can return and make more great contributions. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::@Jayen466, I agree @Shell, I disagree. By refusing to hear the issue all you are doing is creating drama and applying bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy - the issues raised here are serious enough that its highly likely going to need to come back here regardless.
:::::Frankly in the "worst case" scenario of hearing the case YellowMonkey would be de-sysoped, even in that case it would remove a, frankly, someone who appears to currently be a rather poor administrator and leave behind someone who can concentrate on their key strengths of article work and featured article review.
:::::I don't want the project to lose someone who is certainly one of the very best content contributors, and if this case isn't heard now (or in the next week or two), then there is an increasing risk that either we'll drive YellowMonkey away forever or we'll be forced to ban him, rather than just taking a current worst case of desysoping him.
:::::Not everyone is able to be a good administrator, I see no reason to think badly of a person just because they aren't particularly good at it - its good to let people do what they are good at :). -- ] &lt;]&gt; 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
@Rd232, there is another option, which is next time YellowMonkey breaks convention significantly (e.g. he blocks a vandal without giving them a warning first) we complain about it on his talk page. If there is no response and this occurs, say, 2-3 times, then we start a thread on ANI about it, and so on.

That hardly sounds like the drama-free and sensible route to me, but if the case isn't accepted maybe that's how we have to play it. Administrators cannot be allowed to act with impunity significantly outside consensus - there isn't a hope in hell that anyone would pass an RfA if they said they'd ban vandals straight away without any warnings. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Physchim62, I think the issue is that while he hasn't engaged there aren't any other editors currently "involved" and the entire complaint is about YellowMonkey. I think both motions are reasonable in my opinion. I think they both allow <s>support</s> following through with further action if YellowMonkey returns and his admin behaviour doesn't improve to the standard that's expected of an administrator. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

===Jehochman's Statement===
I suggested the RFC. The purpose was to give feedback and see if the subject changed for the better. Racing to arbitration, when there is no emergency, and when there is no indication that Yellowmonkey won't follow the good advice received, seems unwise. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

: If the RFC is a mess, fix it, and sanction the editors causing disruption if they won't stop after being asked. It would be extremely game-able to say that you can automatically get arbitration by making a mess of an RFC. Yellowmonkey is probably wise to stay out of it if the other participants are turning the RFC into a circus. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

* How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If ArbCom don't have something better to do than vote on motions about nothing they ought to go ''edit some articles''. This request is rejected. You can take up the matter again, if an when the need arises. That's it. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement from HJ Mitchell===
It is with great reluctance that I must urge the Committee to accept this case. We are not dealing with a few isolated incidents of questionable use of admin tools (if we were to desysop admins for such things, we wouldn't have any left), but repeated and persistent misuse of administrator privileges. We have blocks and protections that violate ], that are not preceded by warnings where applicable, that are of excessive length, that are accompanied by inadequate information information for the blocked editor to appeal or for other admins to review and blocks with no notification to the blocked editor, something mandated even for petty vandals. Worse than that, though, is YM's total failure to communicate. I refer not just to recent weeks, but when faced with questions about any of his admins actions, YM's ''modus operandi'' appears to be to lie low and wait for the discussions to stagnate before carrying on regardless. He absolutely refuses to discuss any concerns over his admin actions, a source of frequent frustration at ] when his protections and/or their durations are challenged. , in reply to my notification of the recent RfC/U, I think sums up YM's attitude to questions over his actions. This leads me to the conclusion that YM's position as an administrator (I believe AUSC is separately investigating his actions as a functionary, which is also the reason that this case wasn't filed sooner) is untenable. As ArbCom is currently the only body with the power to remove administrator permissions, I have to request that the Committee accept this case.

I would, however, add, that none of this is meant as a personal slight against YM, who has proven himself to be a truly excellent content editor. ] &#124; ] 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::@AGK, if there's a less dramatic way of doing this, I'm all ears, but the RfC produced evidence of long-term misuse of admin privs and there was a growing sentiment on the RfC's talk page that arbitration was the way to go (though this is a few days earlier than I would have liked) because there are legitimate questions being asked over whether he should retain those privs. In a sense, YM brought this on himself: his complete lack of communication has only compounded the issues. Indeed, he's violating ] ] which he himself voted to approve (then as ]) when he was on ArbCom. ] &#124; ] 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:::@Nick-D, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. The harassment argument is a strawman that's been used more than once during the RfC/U to detract from the matter at hand. You've cited two examples, both of which you've grossly misinterpreted. The MfD had nothing to do with YM's conduct as an admin and was obviously intended to address a wider issue. It was started by an editor with no significant involvement in the RfC and whom I and many others hold in high esteem. The comment about contacting YM at home was a naive, but good faith, suggestion by an inexperienced editor and there is no need to cast disingenuous aspersions. '''This is not a witch hunt'''. The issue here is that several editors in good standing have lost trust in an administrator to use the tools properly and we're at ArbCom because ArbCom is the only body with the power to remove those tools, not because we want to persecute YM. Finally, YM's meagre acknowledgement that the consensus was against his block and his arrogance in suggesting that the community was wrong is not nearly enough to outweigh all the other skeletons that just came tumbling out, one after the other, as soon as anybody cared to poke around in the closet just a little bit. It's the very record of being a "successful admin" that is being called into question here and at the RfC/U. ] &#124; ] 00:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::::I still disagree. You seem to be implying that the MfD was part of some kind of vendetta against YM, which simply isn't the case and, even if it were, does not explain away the mountain of evidence that was brought up in the RfC. ] &#124; ] 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:@RegentsPark, I agree that there was a minority of editors determined to use the RfC as their personal battleground to grind whatever axe they have and I and other editors did what we could to prevent that and keep the discussion on topic. That said, I think it is unfair to cast the entire RfC in the light. The vast majority of editors who participated in the RfC did so in good faith and the concerns raised were legitimate. It's unfortunate that some editors were there with axes to grind, but that's not reflective of the majority of the RfC or its participants. The concerns raised are legitimate. ] &#124; ] 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by uninvolved AGK===
My first reaction to this case, and to the suggestion that YellowMonkey is using his administrator tools disruptively or inappropriately, is surprise; but I will make no detailed evaluation of the merits of this request because I am unfamiliar with the complaint. But I do wonder why the response to an unwieldy RFC is not to trim the RFC down and/or break it up into sub-pages, but instead to request arbitration. It's almost like some people are ''wanting'' drama. ] 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:; Reply to HJ Mitchell : The central premises of this request are that the request for comment, first, has not been participated in fully by YellowMonkey, and, second, has been unsuccessful has it has grown unwieldy and thus useless. Whilst the first argument is a reasonable reason to pursue arbitration ''eventually'', the second is a compelling reason to try to make the RFC more useful (to "get it back on track", so to speak) instead of running to arbitration. So my suggestion for a less dramatic way of doing this is to actually give RFC a chance. ] 12:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Physchim62===
HJ Mitchell puts the case for accepting this request very well, and I completely endorse his statement.

The original RFC/U covered what was considered to be a bad block of {{user|Yogesh Khandke}}. It quickly became apparent during the RFC discussion that this block was not an isolated failure of judgement on the part of {{admin|YellowMonkey}}, but part of a quite astounding array of editing and administrative incidents, admirably summarised by Serpents Choice above.

To take but one example, YellowMonkey has issued 83 blocks in the last six months, compared with one single warning to an editor before blocking. A quick glance at shows a surprising number of redlinked User talk pages, indicating that these users had neither been warned before being blocked nor informed of the block once it had been imposed. Surprising, that is, until one realizes that YellowMonkey has never issued a block notification – not a single one for those 83 blocks – over the last six months.

YellowMonkey’s failure to follow blocking and protection policy can only be described as systematic. So too is his failure to respond to ''bona fide'' concerns about his admin actions (and other problematic editing, for that matter). This is not someone who just got angry, or got it wrong, or didn’t know what he was supposed to do – this is a senior editor, administrator and functionary appearing to treat Misplaced Pages policies with utter contempt, as if they didn’t apply to people like himself. This has gone beyond the stage of a bit of friendly advice to take more care with the tools – that has been tried, and has not produced the necessary results. It is time to say “sorry, but we just don’t trust you with the tools any more.” ] ] 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:A couple more points that don’t seem to have been addressed yet.
:*There was a feeling among several editors at the RFC/U that YellowMonkey hadn’t really done anything wrong, just a couple of mistakes and some technical breaches on what were otherwise good actions. Obviously I disagree with this analysis, but it is held in good faith by several admins. I think this shows the need for the Committee to examine the allegations against YellowMonkey regardless of the ] investigation (which has a much narrower remit) and, if necessary, reiterate some of the basic principles behind the use of admin tools that seem to have been breached by YellowMonkey.
:*There is also some good-faith disagreement as to whether YellowMonkey has breached ]. For my part, I feel that he has certainly breached it in spirit, but that the other alleged policy breaches are already so serious and so numerous as to merit the loss of adminship without needing to rely on this point.
:As for timing, of course YellowMonkey must be given the chance to respond here before the case is accepted or rejected. Equally clearly, his actions should not escape scrutiny simply because he decides, once again, to refuse to engage with the wider community. I am sure that the Committee can balance these two points in a fair manner. ] ] 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::@Nick-D, I don’t think that calling for explanation of ''prima facie'' noncompliant actions amounts to “harassment” or a “witch hunt”. If there are a lot of points, it’s because there are a lot of actions that seem bad. As for ], I hardly see how it can be dismissed as frivolous when it addresses a clear problem, namely the time taken for some User talk pages to load and be edited. Why YellowMonkey feels that his User talk page is an appropriate venue for repeated photo polls is quite beyond me – perhaps he only wants to talk to people with fast internet connections… ] ] 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::@Mattinbgn, I’m sorry that you feel that this is some sort of attempt to punish YellowMonkey – you are quite right that arbitration is not meant as a punitive measure.
::However, we’re not just looking at a truly remarkable number of policy failings – enough to get any admin dragged over the coals – but also very real problems of a refusal to communicate over his admin actions (and other controversial editing) in any meaningful way. “Counselling” can only work if the person concerned is willing to listen – it has already been tried for YM, and has not produced the changes in behaviour that are necessary. YM has already been given the chance to accept that Misplaced Pages policy takes precedence over his personal views insofar as the use of admin tools is concerned, but he has failed to take it.
::If you have any suggestions for a workable outcome that falls short of desysopping, feel free to make them. I can’t see any. We’re not going to mentor a user who has been an admin for 4½ years and an arbitrator for two of those. Any restrictions on the use of admin tools would quickly become a trolls’ banquet, with ] being asked to adjudicate if a given action fell within the restricted areas or not. As YM has shown himself unwilling to discuss the use of the tools, the only solution is to force him to discuss, that is by removing the tools so that he must request their use rather than simply using them himself. ] ] 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::@various arbitrators. There appears to be a feeling among ArbCom that YellowMonkey should be given a last chance on the basis of his forced and rather vague undertakings at the RFC, despite the fact that these only cover a small fraction of the out-of-policy admin actions that have come to light. It is also clear from the various statements here that the dispute goes beyond a single editor – it is rather a difference in interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy between those who feel that YM has acted in an unacceptable manner for a significant length of time, and those who feel that his policy breaches are minor. In refusing this case, ArbCom will do nothing to calm this latter dispute amongst the Community: if anything, it is a recipe for even more drama if and when YellowMonkey decides to use his admin tools once again, as editors continue to fight over whether a particular policy breach is significant or not (I don't imagine for a second that there will not be more policy breaches). ArbCom is missing a chance to resolve this dispute, and seems content to let it fester: civility prevents me from saying what I think of that attitude. ] ] 00:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
::Let us not forget that YellowMonkey would have the right of appeal against any sanctions that the Committee might decide to impose, should he so wish. At present, he is failing in his duty as an administrator to respond to ''bona fide'' concerns about his admin actions, and that in itself is a cause for grave concern, as YM himself noted in the ''Betacommand'' case. ] ] 00:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
;Re Motions: It does seem ironic that the Committee seems unwilling to take on a case involving an admin failing to engage with individual editors (and the Community in general) until such time as that admin re-engages with the Community! An equally valid approach would be to say that YellowMonkey would be able to address such concerns at ], should he so wish, if and when he next feels the desire to block someone or protect a page. I would also be interested to know what has become of the complaint(s) to ], as ] requires a report to be made within three weeks ''whether or not the functionary involved has replied''. ] ] 16:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Wehwalt===
I was the cocertifier of the RfC. While I am very active at FAC, I've done little at FAR and have had very little contact with YellowMonkey. So I have no bias either way concerning him. I do believe, however, that high standards of behavior and civility are required of admins, functionaries, and FA delegates, and if they cannot live up to that, they may be better off serving Misplaced Pages in another way.

I may expand this as time permits. For the nonce, I join the statements of HJ Mitchell and Physchim, and state that I believe, given the misconduct here and the failure to explain as required by ], I believe that YellowMonkey should be desysoped. In addition, he should be removed as a functionary, either now or his seat (which I understand to be indefinite in term) should be ended at the next functionary election.

I join HJMitchell in my admiration for his content contributions. He is our leader in number of FA. I stand very much in his shadow there. But I can divorce his content contributions from his poor conduct as an admin and functionary.--] (]) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: ''] ... '' While Pinkerton did return, YellowMonkey seems more inclined to imitate ]. It might be worth asking YM's fellow FAR delegates if he is scheduled to close any, or if he has told them that he has gone on vacation to ].--] (]) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:Excuse the lack of protocol in replying here, but there's no harm in waiting a little longer. While I still think the case should be accepted, if he's not making any admin actions, we can give him a few days to defend himself. We shouldn't wait forever, though. ] &#124; ] 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@KnightLago, SirFozzie: Given the nature of the diffs, what could YM possibly say that would head off a case? (not a desysoping, a ''case'') As we lawyers say, '']''. Is there ''anything'' he could say which would cause you to say "Right then, never mind"? I appreciate the effort to be fair to YM, but he will still have the same opportunity to defend himself once the case is opened.--] (]) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: I have no doubt that YM's defenders, were ArbCom to follow your plan, would follow any attempt to restart this case if YM returned several weeks hence with "Oh, that's so last year." It's staying away til the heat dies down, then coming back and reoffending.--] (]) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Waiting arbs: The comments about waiting a couple of days were entered on the 30th of November and 1st of December. It is now the 5th of December. While I am not overly literal minded, and there may be stuff going on back channels I can't be aware of, but at some point, fish or cut bait. YM's strategy seems to be to ignore this and rely on the defence of others, which is not unreasonable, but if you want an outcome everyone will accept ...--] (]) 09:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
*@RegentsPark: Yes, some people advocate his desysoping. So what? This is not a trial, and no arb has advocated his desysoping--they are the "judges" to the extent any judging is going on, not us. It is not bad faith that some people have not accepted the defense of it was a bad RfC even if it was a good RfC YellowMonkey responded to it and he did everything you said and cant' you just give him a chance he is a really good guy and a great admin and his block was OK he was going into an area most admins wont' go into and and and even if he didn't leave a block template so what the guy deserved it anyway and he is a really great guy and has all these great pictures anyway he shouldn't have to ever defend himself we will do it for him and he is obviously on wikibreak never mind he didn't leave word anyplace and he has never been away this long and can't all this go away because we really like him and he's a great guy. That's the way I understand the defense, anyway. Forgive me for characterizing.--] (]) 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
*@RD232. Heartily concur. A decline, and the YMistas will be saying "ArbCom cleared his name".--] (]) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
*@LessHeard vanU. Less innuendo, and more diffs, would make your statement look more than less than responsible.--] (]) 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Nick-D===

I'd like to make a three points in response to this RfArb:
*The fundamental basis for this case seems to be that YM hasn't been appropriately communicating his actions as an admin and has been trigger happy with some admin actions. As part of the RfC/U he and promised to communicate better in the future and be more cautious with using the admin tools as per the RfC/U's desired outcome. Given this and YM's longstanding record as a successful (and very active) admin, I don't see why this case has been lodged before YM resumed editing and has been able to demonstrate compliance or otherwise with this promise.
*I am particularly concerned about the broad-brush nature of this complaint - the actions YM is accused of range from serious accusations (such as wrongful blocks) to trivial matters which are a matter of personal preference and not violations of any policy. Some of the complaints seem outright wrong - for instance, the actions under the 'YellowMonkey has not acted in compliance with the deletion policy' heading were upheld at DRVs so can't be serious policy violations and the claim that he made "unsupported accusations of Communist bias in an RFA" ignores the fact that at least two other editors editors raised identical concerns ''before'' YM did, many others raised concerns about the editor's attitudes and temperament more generally and most votes had been to oppose the nomination at the time it was withdrawn (] is rather more informative than the selective diffs offered above). The complaints about comments made by YM concerning WMF activities in India and the 'in this day' part of the main page are legitimate posts for any editor to make - admins are not expected to tow the WMF company line or refrain from criticism of Misplaced Pages's content. If the committee chooses to accept this case I would strongly urge it to first review the complaints and accept only those which appear to actually involve a policy violation so that YM doesn't have to defend himself against trivial slurs.
*Unfortunately the RfC/U has been associated with borderline harassment of YM. This includes using a frivolous MfD to force YM to change the format of his talk page instead of politely asking him to do so (]) and a suggestion that he be contacted at home and be asked to respond further to the RfC/U: . I would suggest that some of the editors involved in the RfC/U have adopted a witch hunt mindset and this appears to have been carried across to this RfArb given the nature of many of the complaints raised above. ] (]) 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

**In response to HJ Mitchell's statement concerning the MfD that it "had nothing to do with YM's conduct as an admin and was obviously intended to address a wider issue. It was started by an editor with no significant involvement in the RfC" the editor who started the MfD made a fairly heated post to the RfC/U in which they alleged that YM was misusing his talk page as part of the rationale for calling for him to be immediately desyoped and blocked (though this was later to just being desyoped), so there's clearly a link between the RfC/U and the MfD. ] (]) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Bilby===

Echoing part of Nick-D's comments, my major concern has been that YellowMonkey hasn't been given a chance to respond or to demonstrate his acceptance of the concerns. The RFC/U was rushed - I think it may have been the right thing to do, but the AN/I discussion was handled during a time when YM wasn't available, and generally isn't available. Thus he was not given an opportunity to respond. He edited briefly after the RFC/U was raised, and during that time addressed the concerns that had been made to date: he personally apologised to the editor he blocked (); agreed to all the requests made at the RFC/U (); and he had previously addressed the concerns that were raised about page protections at AN/I () - sufficiently so that it was later acknowledged that he had changed his approach to page protections (). Given that YellowMonkey stated that he would not be online much, it seems that a better approach would have been to allow YellowMonkey time to see if the concerns raised by the community were addressed, rather than escalating the process. I suspect that it is easy to forget that someone might not be hiding when they don't address our online concerns that are very pressing to us - they might simply not know that the issues have been raised. I'd like to AGF and assume that it is the latter case here.

Perhaps this does need to be addressed at this level, but I would have rather given YellowMonkey a chance to show, one way or another, whether the community-based processes had been able to achieve the desired outcome. - ] (]) 01:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

:@Crossmr: as mentioned elsewhere, during the last AN/I discussion YellowMonkey come online for a total of five minutes, between 11:32 and 11:37 local time, to make a total of four minor edits to one article, and one minor comment related to them. I don't think we can interpret that as having "edited for some time after this began", and it seems fair to AGF and assume that during that short session he didn't check his talk page, and to just assume that he was unavailable for that period and was unaware of the discussion - a view that matches his statement when he did return. The next time he came online was after the RFC/U started, and he commented both on his talk page and on the RFC/U. - ] (]) 20:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Mattinbgn===
This RfAr appears to be an attempt to punish an editor by seeking to remove the administrator tools and removal of the tools should not be handed out as punishment for supposed poor behaviour but only to stop continued misuse of them, wilful or otherwise. The move to RfAr before any response has been heard from YM and without further incidents of the type discussed in the RfC/U show that this simply cannot be designed as a measure to prevent further use of the tools in alleged departure from policy. This RfAr is highly premature and, as such, appears designed as a punishment rather than a prophylactic. He appears to be taking a break from the project, a wise measure when things get heated - much better than lashing back. Using this break, and therefore his silence, to condemn him in absentia is singularly unjust.

In support of YM, whom I consider a friend, I would add this. YM is one of the few administrators willing to work in the jungles of ethnic and nationalistic POV pushers and sock puppets. Certainly, as an administrator I avoid those areas like the plague! This type of work takes a thick skin and a willingness to take bold action when needed. This will mean that sometimes mistakes will be made and perhaps YM could be a little more gracious in responding to complaints than he sometimes is. Of course, it is easy for me to say that too, standing on my ivory pedestal with my clean hands and not having to deal with the constant waves of crap left by the hordes of POV pushers. Some prompt blocks and page protects in these areas has restored sanity to oft-neglected corners of the encyclopedia - and this has been of no small benefit to the project. I am not saying that "the ends justify the means" - following policy is important - but some understanding of the dirty jobs that YM has willingly taken on provides some balance to the laundry list of complaints made by the initiator.

Finally - if the posters here, and I include myself, spent a little more time assisting with the arduous chore of trying to maintain basic policy and guidelines in the far-flung corners of the project, then perhaps administrators like YM would not feel the need to bend (or break) policy through sheer frustration. There has not been any serious allegation made at RfC/U or here that YM has some ulterior motive or that he has anything other that the best interests of the project at heart. We are at risk of losing a good person here, I urge ArbCom to extend a little good faith to him. -- ] (]) 07:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Eraserhead1 - I don't think we disagree that YM could have handled some of these situations better. While I haven't got the time or inclination at present to trawl through diffs, I can recall that YM was far more communicative (and far less cynical) three years ago than he is today. As you suggest, additional communication to solve the POV problems I have discussed above can work, but it is hard and thankless work and often paid back in abuse and accusations of bias. In my very humble opinion, I think he may be a little burnt out and the RfC discussion has given him a reason to take a break - he has been heavily active on Misplaced Pages for many, many years now. In saying this I am not trying to make excuses for or defend any of YM's actions - he can defend his own actions should he wish.

:It seems clear to me in retrospect that YM has needed a hand in dealing with what he is dealing with and perhaps feels a little isolated and a touch bitter, and as a consequence has perhaps made some poor choices in attempting to achieve good aims. In a sane workplace, for a employee with YM's record, this would lead to perhaps some counselling and support and maybe a short break. Here at Misplaced Pages, we seem to prefer to drag them down and under while assuring ourselves that we are dispassionate neutral observers focused on the greater good!

:What I object to is what appears to be the use of RfAr as a punitive tool (and the process is at least partly the punishment) to solve a problem that currently does not need solving. A good faith look at his wiki-break would consider that perhaps he is pondering his future and will return a wiser and somewhat chastened admin. While he is away, what is the rush to rip the tools from him, given that he is obviously not misusing them now? If YM returns, refreshed and taking on board the points raised here and at RfC/U that would be a win/win, right? If so, what is the harm in giving that option a try? Unless you think that his past behaviour deserves some sanction, which is not supposed to be the point of this exercise. -- ] (]) 12:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::@Cube lurker - You do see the irony in calling for anyone offending you by using the term "witch hunt" to be punished, don't you. A less charitable person would see that call as an attempt to intimidate supporters of YM. -- ] (]) 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Rd232===
''(Note: though I've participated in the RFC/U, I was not involved in the underlying dispute, and in fact can't recall any prior interaction with YellowMonkey.'' I have to say that it is highly regrettable that the RFC/U was framed as narrowly as it was, because even before it was set up it was clear that there were wider issues; this made things messier. But the issues are so serious and wide-ranging that an arbitration case would probably be inevitable anyway, unless YM had excellent explanation or corrections for the whole range of complaints made. YM however has been largely absent for an unusually long time (for him), without even a note to say that he doesn't have time to respond ''now'' but will later on. In his absence, a number of his defenders have rather made things worse rather than better, in particular by repeatedly and at times quite vocally accusing the RFC/U participants of bad faith and attempting to close down the discussion - indeed this continues on this very page! Little or no evidence was presented for these accusations, and it's contributed substantially to my view that an arbitration case was becoming unavoidable to shed light on the range of issues (whilst unsubstantiated, it's possible the claims are partially true, though that hardly negates the complaints made). Certainly it's made it harder for those who wanted to wait a bit longer to come here to give YM more time to respond. At any rate, we're here now, and there's ''still'' zero news from YM since 24 November. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Cubelurker: "I'd also like to suggest that the next person to refer to good faith concerns by editors in good standing over serious concerns about tool usage as a "witch hunt" be sanctioned for violating..." ''logic''. As I pointed out before on the RFCU talk page, the appropriate derogatory metaphor would be ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:@RegentsPark: "Deciding the outcome before the 'trial'..." - is the person who gave the opinion that they cannot see any 'workable outcome short of desysopping' on the 'jury'? If not, their view is not prejudicial. 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Mathsci: no, ''on the face of it'' (and I stress that), YM's actions merit desysopping. He needs to explain himself, and if he can do that sufficiently well, good. If not (including if he fails to respond at all, which increasingly looks like a deliberate decision to hope the whole thing goes away, with the help of various supporters criticising the RFCU and RfAr), he should have the tools taken away. He's more than welcome to continue as a good content contributor, and he can try another RFA in future if he wants. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Risker: the concerns weren't "piggybacked", the RFC/U was misframed from the start, since the much wider scope of the concerns was clear beforehand. That misframing shouldn't be allowed to enable YM to continue his avoidance pattern. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Arbs: declining to accept because YM made some small concession to a small part of the issue in the RFC would be a dereliction of duty taking into account the big picture. The picture is this: a large part of the complaint is failure, in various ways, to communicate. If YM does not reappear tomorrow, he will have been absent for 2 weeks without even a wikibreak notice or equivalent declaration. He has not previously been absent as long as 1 week in 2010. This disappearance during an RFC/U which raised such a range of serious questions is very convenient, especially as YM surely knows there are plenty of people willing to advocate vociferously on his behalf in his absence. YM appears to be continuing the avoidance pattern, and any suggestion that a continuance of the RFC/U or of further discussion with YM may resolve the issues is, frankly, bloody optimistic. I see no evidence at all that anything less than an Arbcom case will get YM to take the questions seriously. See in particular early response to the RFC/U. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Eraserhead1: your suggestion leads, if anything, to an even stronger conclusion that the case must be accepted: because your suggestion would then be the only alternative and it's hard to imagine it working. We'll be told in no uncertain terms (probably not by YM... but many others....) that the RFC/U resolved matters and then Arbcom declined to hear the case so any critics are just hounding YM and should STFU before they get blocked for harassment. Decline the case, Arbs, and you offer YM little less than carte blanche to continue his behaviour. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:@RegentsPark: that brief was YM's last edit before vanishing. At the time that comment was made, the RFC/U looked like , with a clear expansion of issues beyond the matter he apologised for. A cynic might say that in the circumstances providing the briefest of apologies before disappearing looks like a tactical manoeuvre to avoid engaging with the other issues raised (but that cynic would be told to ]...). ] <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Jayen466===
There is enough material in the RfC/U to justify a case. I have no doubt
*that the arbitrators will look at the positive contributions that YellowMonkey has made as an admin, the conditions he has been working under, and at the areas that have caused concern,
*that they will come to a balanced and more thorough assessment than is possible in the course of an RfC/U, and
*that an arbitration case is the best way to work out how best to move forward from this, in the interest of both YellowMonkey and the relevant areas of the project in which YellowMonkey has worked. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Shell, I don't see how the RfC can work if YM ignores it, and doesn't respond to the concerns raised. :( Also, an arbitration case is not about requesting sanctions, but about requesting an unprejudiced ''analysis'' from the committee to establish whether or not sanctions are indeed appropriate; and an arbitration case can have other outcomes than sanctions. I have no opinion on what such an outcome should be; I am sure there are two sides to this story, as with every story. Moreover admins are not expected to be perfect. But would you be comfortable with the situation being left hanging like this, and YellowMonkey returning quietly to editing next year as if nothing had happened? I would not. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by RegentsPark===
I've been an editor on wikipedia for about 3 years and primarily edit articles on Burma, Indian history, New York, and fiction. My interaction with YM has been fairly low (I have posted 13 times on his talk page and he has posted 5 times on mine according to the history stats) but I am aware that other editors and admins on the India project consider YM the 'go to guy' to solve problems associated with the many POV pushers who show up at that project. I am also aware of the semi-protection issue referred to by Eraserhead1 above (I was active at RFPP at around that time) and believe that Eraserhead1's complaints about excessive semi-protection were justified. At the outset, let me state that, in my opinion, YellowMonkey has been a net positive for the India wikiproject and that his remarks on India and the project linked to by SerpentsChoice above should be viewed in the context of that totality and not in isolation. I would also like to clarify at the outset that I do not have an opinion on whether the various blocks issued by YM and discussed in the RfC were appropriate or not. In the case of YogeshKhandke, the basis for the RfC/U not explaining the block to that editor and not responding to questions about the block was inappropriate. I said as much on the RfC and YM has acknowledged as much and apologized to YK, as indeed he needs to do. That should have ended the matter but, instead, this devolved into the circus that we all now find ourselves in.

However, the RfC/U ended up with several characteristics of a witch hunt. Witch hunts are characterized by several things: the scope of accusations expands far beyond the original complaint; accusations are accepted without examination; and defenders of the 'witch' are presumed witches themselves. In this case, it should be noted that the RfC/U digressed from its stated purpose '''after''' the subject of the RfC had responded and apologized. Other accusations were then brought in, presumably because a witch is, after all, a witch ( was the state of the RfC/U after YM's response). Second, these additional accusations were accepted and endorsed unexamined by many participants. As Nick-D above shows, these are clearly not cut and dried violations of administrative power and some of them are out and out frivolous. Finally, editors such as myself who believed that ] was sufficient to end the matter were attacked for 'defending' him in an ] where I had merely commented as an outside editor, and, rather bizarrely, or perhaps frivolously with the intent to make trouble or neutralize any positive affect regarding YM, charged with being a sock puppet of YM (). All this is troubling and, to me anyway, appears to be a 'burn the yellow monkey' witch hunt. --] (]) 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

:Addendum: HJMitchell makes a good point. There may be good reasons for investigating YellowMonkey, I'm not in a position to make that determination. However, I do feel that this is not the way to go about it. I note, for example, that at least one editor seems to have decided that the accusations are true and cannot see any 'workable outcome short of desysopping'. Deciding the outcome before the 'trial', if I may be permitted the sledgehammer approach, is yet another characteristic of 'the thing that cannot be named'. --] (]) 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::*NOTE (@Physchim62):When I say there may be good reasons for investigating YM's admin actions, what I mean is that that possibility exists - just as it exists for any other admin. My point is, regardless of whether these reasons exist or not, this is not the way we should be doing things. --] (]) 03:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
::@RD232. Note that concerns were raised in the RfC/U, YM responded to those concerns specifically stating that he would try to be more communicative and included a specific apology to the editor involved(). Is it not enough to AGF and see if he follows up with that? And is it surprising that he has chosen to go away rather than respond to the many charges raised after he had responded and apologized? None of us, I should hope anyway, are here to be given a hard time and why would any of bother to continue editing if all we got was a bucket load of grief? That should be more than enough reason to AGF and see how things play out rather than continually seek the proverbial 'pound of flesh' from a long term and undeniable productive editor. Entirely, of course, in my opinion. --] (]) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:::@wehwalt. let me make it clear that there is no defense for YM's actions in blocking YK without proper explanation and without providing a mechanism for appeal. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do and needed to be addressed. You incorrectly identify a desire to reduce drama and retain a long term productive editor with some sort of 'defense' for his actions. The simple way to look at this is to say that YM blocked YK without due process, did not respond to requests for an explanation of the block in a meaningful way, and was taken to task for that. He promised to be more careful in the future and apologized to YK. Which, in my opinion, should end the matter. If, in the future, we see more such actions then there will be plenty of opportunity to do something about it. I ask myself, what would I do if I were a once respected and long term wikipedian who was suddenly faced with the need to respond at length to actions that were done a while ago (yes, I know, we've been there before!), that I believed were justified and proper, and that there was suddenly, if you will pardon the expression, a mob seeking to string me up. I would just not bother because I don't come here to get grief and I assume that, to some extent, most of us, or at least the non-masochists amongst us, think the same way. I've commented in three arbcom cases and have concluded that a root canal is preferable to the diff hunting required there. It's one thing to make life hard for sockpuppet masters and disruptive editors but should we be doing so for otherwise productive editors unless we've decided that we just don't want them around? That, rather than issues of 'defense' or 'juries' or whatever is the question we should be addressing. --] (]) 03:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
**'''Question for arbs:''' Is it necessary to go through the process of reviewing and voting on motions when the current vote is 2 accepts and 6 declines? Shouldn't that mean that the case is automatically declined and no opinion is necessary? A clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks. --] (]) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by an IP editor===
:<small>''Note'': This was posted to my talkpage by an IP editor, who could not post here because this page has had to be semiprotected. Because this appears to be legitimate input on the request for arbitration, I have copied it here. ] (]) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</small>

I can't post at RFAR, but I figure you are the most reasonable of the bunch so I'll put this here.

Regardless of what he was accused of (and I don't pretend to know the full scope/validity of the accusations) I think it is profoundly unfair that a case is being brought against him now.

He was subjected to an RFC, he apologized for his actions, claimed to take the criticism seriously and pledged to be better in the future. He should, at least, be given the opportunity to make good on that pledge before being dragged to pseudo-court.

About the only reason I can think of why he should not be given that opportunity is if you believe he has abused it in the past and can't even be trusted to try and improve his behavior. Has he? Is what he has done SO bad that he doesn't even get a real chance to change?

Note that I am not sticking up for Yellowmonkey personally, I'm sticking up for the process. If the person named in the RFC acts the way he did (maturely, apologetically) but gets sent to RFAR before it even closes then why have the RFC? ] (]) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

===Suggestion by Ks0stm===
Given YM's silence on Misplaced Pages since November 23rd, if the committee is in favor of accepting this case they could perhaps do so in a way similar to ]. ] <sup>(]•]•])</sup> 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Ncmvocalist===
What is being requested by the filer is to examine a number of actions which requires an examination of all of the circumstances surrounding each of those actions – this will inevitably include disruptive editing, tendentious editing, vandalism, sockpuppetry, how effective measures have been to deal with certain socks and vandals, the spirit of policy, and more. Some have alleged that the fact that this number of actions is disputed at this point in time is enough to warrant a desysop. Others, including myself, are of the view that YM has more than satisfactory judgement and that absent a few issues (and skipping a few steps in procedure/paperwork), this is insufficient to warrant desysopping due to the general quality of his judgement and the fact that he is open to addressing the main concerns. <small> Incidentally, are administrators elected to rigidly follow the letter of policy or are they elected to use their judgement to follow the actual spirit of policies as well? </small> That seems to represent the split in views in the RfC/U. The consensus view (represented by Baseball Bugs view) was that he needs to communicate more. In such circumstances, the above statement by the IP editor seems very relevant. Alternatively, if the case is needed, it could be held off until he is contributing again.

So it's not a time-sensitive issue, but if ArbCom are required to intervene early, it would be for a very separate reason (which has not been addressed effectively by the filer). There is a concern that the conduct and/or approach of certain participants in the RfC/U is problematic enough that it needs to be addressed directly by the Committee as it is not a stale issue. <small>Administrators have generally not intervened in RfC/Us without a lot of pressure, without the conduct being grossly serious, or without the RfC/U failing to meet minimum requirements (which warrants the deletion of such an RfC/U). It would be an anomalous situation if we needed to file RfC/Us about conduct that should have been addressed during another RfC/U; it would make DR look like a complete joke.</small> In that way, the only users or body who is left to address that conduct is ArbCom. This includes conduct that has inflamed a dispute unnecessarily or where the conduct is against the spirit of ], and is thereby unconstructive and detrimental to the project (for example, an editor has provided all indications that they will harass an admin (and others) unless that admin is desysopped - it goes back to the “axes to grind”, “lynch mob”, “witch hunt” and “battleground” issues which several editors have identified). This is not a healthy atmosphere and irrespective of whether YM is contributing or not, that editor already tried prolonging an ANI and turning it into a desysop venue during the RfC/U despite being repeatedly told that it is not appropriate. This issue has become further complicated as some of the participants in this RfC/U have been administrators themselves who have not taken such concerns as seriously as they ought to. Perhaps incidentally, one of the participants was an administrator who did not communicate or disclose (while she was participating in the RfC/U) that she was directly subject to remedies by ArbCom while YM was an arbitrator and that YM was supportive of the relevant Fofs and remedies that were adverse to her position as an administrator. ] (]) 08:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

:In regards to individuals who are continuing this battleground mentality with references to enablers, apologists, defenders, offenders, etc. - ArbCom should point out how this is contrary to the ultimate purpose of this project and it has resulted in many users terming this with the terms above (witch-hunt, battleground, lynch mob, axes to grind, etc). Crossmr is a concrete example of the key problem. Crossmr's utter unwillingness to see that the Community is ''not actually'' in agreement with his pre-determined view is part of what I was describing - Crossmr was unresponsive to the questions (and concerns) (where the so-called hyperbole was used) and , but more noticeably, Crossmr's attitude is unhelpful and his outlook is unconstructive (which is effectively conveyed through his statement on this very page). Obviously, I'm not in a position where I can address this sort of problem or the effects it is having on the RfC, otherwise I would get that ball rolling; in certain situations, there's only so much that can be done. That is the sort of issue which is suffocating the system at present, and if it was dealt with by someone who is in a position to do so, I'd have no reason for concern (and that would mean that I could strike the second paragraph of my earlier comment). ] (]) 09:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

::2 words to describe the nominated action: foolishness personified. ] (]) 02:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement from Kanatonian===
The request for arbitration has listed that ‘’YellowMonkey has not, at times, displayed the decorum expected of an administrator’’. I would like to add that since <s>he had in the past</s> (2007) <s>during discussion about the methods to edit a controversial article, outed my real identity using a newbie mistake I made. After I made the assertion that that revelation is detrimental to my life as well as my families physical safety, at some point those comments were over sighted.<s> has made comments about me of which some were oversighted. <s>But YM has continued to harass me with that information at every chance he gets. Some of these comments were over sighted and others have been left alone. His comments have led to my Misplaced Pages user name being black listed in off wiki websites that seem to maintain a hit list. I was forced to change my user name again because of it. But I refuse to quit editing Misplaced Pages because of that harassment.</s> I will provide all the diffs and e-mails and other evidence in private.<s>YM should not be just Sysoped but blocked from editing.</s> ] (]) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:I revised my statement per ] (]) 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement from Nathan===

Nick-D took down a couple of the complaints against YellowMonkey above, and I find his assessment of those particular accusations to be accurate. Also alleged were violations of the blocking policy, specifically the need for warnings, for blocking as a CU with the CU block template, the use of SPI and of sockpuppet templates. I can address those, based on my understanding of past practice. I'm a little dated, but I don't think practice has changed dramatically recently, so here goes:

* For a checkuser, or any administrator, use of the SPI process is voluntary and not required. Most sockpuppet blocks are done outside the SPI process, including the majority of CU blocks. The SPI process is handy because of how it accumulates and archives case data, but sometimes cases are unnecessary or counterproductive.

* The templates are similarly voluntary and not required. In some cases they are purposefully not used for various reasons; their sole purpose is to inform others (not the blocked editor) of the reason for the block and to facilitate research and categorization. Sometimes they aren't used because they are unnecessary, and sometimes because they are counterproductive.

* The block templates that indicate a checkuser block aren't, as far as I know, required or used uniformly. The statement the OP linked to does not ''require'' checkusers to use "checkuser block" templates for CU blocks, as suggested by the OP. It simply describes the process for appealing checkuser blocks, and indicates that blocks that say "checkuser block" are automatically considered CU blocks that can be appealed only to ArbCom. The template {{tl|indefblockedip}} is also not required by any policy.

Based on the complaints made here, and Nick-D's follow up, there doesn't seem to be enough real substance to the allegations against YellowMonkey to justify arbitration. Even if all the allegations were proved to be true, they are far below what the committee has previously described as administrator misconduct, and the most likely outcome of finding against YM on all accusations is some sort of censure. Because of the amount of work involved in arbitration for all parties, the burden placed on those accused of misconduct in defending themselves against typically huge volumes of often insubstantial "evidence", and the real risk of losing a positive, long-term contributor (and by far the best goto CU for Indian POV pushing serial sockpuppeters), the bar for accepting this case should be quite high. It doesn't appear to have been met. ]] 17:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Crossmr===
Since NCMvocalist wants to bring this up, we'll bring it up. I suggested the Desysop on AN/I, because after a cursory search I found several desysop discussions that existed there, and it seemed like the place to have it. Having a Desysop discussion at RfC was pointless since RfC doesn't have the power to make someone tie their shoes let alone desysop them. I'd like to see his evidence where he claims I'd harass anyone unless Yellowmonkey is desysoped. I posted on the admins talk page who closed it, and then admin opened it back up. I conceded that the earlier pre-rfc discussion could be archived if needed. Another admin came along and closed it again, so I moved the hat to only cover the pre-rfc content. A discussion had actually begun at that point. I pointed out that that the second admin who closed the discussion had previously started a serious desysop discussion on AN/I so it seemed odd for him to suddenly be closing one. A third admin came and closed it and I left it closed and moved to the RfC, even though RfC was not the venue for the discussion that needed to take place. I would suggest that NCMvocalist find a way to make his points civilly and without resorting to hyperbole, as that most certainly creates a battleground. . Calling this "dispute resolution" is almost apologist talk at this point. I haven't actually seen what the dispute apparently is. This is the community trying to deal with a disruptive user, who happens to be an admin. This isn't a discussion over content in an article. It's a discussion about a user disrupting the encyclopedia with administrative tools and their behaviour around using them. I'd encourage arbcom to remember that there is no point or barter system. Disruptive is disruptive and regardless of the good contributions in the past, the disruption with this user has been going on a long time. Since there is apparently no other acceptable venue to have this discussion (though countless long time users would disagree from the desysop discussions that have taken place on AN/I in the past), it must happen here.

For the record, I've never, to my knowledge, interacted with YM prior to catching the thread on AN/I and I was immediately disgusted by the behaviour going on there. So claims of witch hunt, or having an axe to grind, hold no water. My response is as a community member who was disgusted by the behaviour of someone supposedly in a position of trust. Someone who appeared to be abusing the trust of the community that put him in that position, and a handful of people enabling that behaviour. We often see this with long time users who disrupt the community. If you're here long enough and make nice, there will always be someone to back you up if start stepping in it. It becomes almost impossible for the community to deal with these kinds of users because they often have an admin friend or two who will quickly unblock them and basically ensure the behaviour will go on and on forever. We've had several incidents over high profile long time disruptive users like this, and there is even one more going on right now that I can think of. These cases have to come to arbcom and be dealt with or they end up as a cancer on the community. These users end up driving away genuinely good users and that's real damage.

As to the RfC, it was poorly constructed and executed all around. It was created far too hastily as there was already evidence on AN/I of further misconduct when it was started. So it is no shock at all that the RfC went beyond scope. YMs answer wasn't even an answer. He acknowledged no wrong-doing, and didn't even address most of the things brought up at the time. His second response was nothing more. His editing and not-responding to the AN/I thread did not help matters and only really went to evidence his conduct. When he was finally called out at the RfC, his responses were poor, insufficient, and more of an insult to the community. His justifications for the non-answer ]

@Bilby YM was given plenty of opportunity to engage in discussion and explain his actions. He edited for some time after this began, and the last AN/I thread on his misconduct he never responded at all and just let others do the talking for him.

@Mattinbgn YM has responded, it was insufficient. He hasn't repeated the behaviour but the problem was how long it had been going on.--] (]) 08:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Shell - This isn't a dispute, it's disruption and RfC has no power to do anything in this matter. I am absolutely mystified how many people are trying to down-play his behaviour by calling it a "dispute".--] (]) 08:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@ncmvocalist - what evidence do you have that I read those questions? I saw neither reply as I didn't return to that talk page after making my final comment. You see it is your assumptions and insults which cause a battleground here. You've still failed to provide any evidence which shows I'd harass any admin until YM is de-sysopped. In fact, he hasn't been yet, so I assume you can show where I've been harassing admins for weeks, otherwise, I'll assume you'll retract the statement and avoid making such garbage claims in the future. As you can see from my user page, I'm more than happy to debate with people who can conduct themselves civilly. As you've repeatedly demonstrated in this matter you can't, so that would also make me less inclined to answer any questions you'd put to me, but now that I've seen them 1 - no one had, but as one of the admins who closed the desysop discussion had previously noted, if a consensus was reached, a steward could be approached to consider the request from the community, and the second, I have a genuine issue with this user. I don't trust him as an administrator. I'm willing to discuss that on it's face without resorting to insults, attacks and innuendo. are you? As for the AN/I. I've already detailed that. It was closed 3 times. The first time, the closing admin opened it after I objected, the second time I only re-opened an on-going discussion (when the close admin was one who'd previously started the same kind of discussion there, seems hypocritical), the third I left it alone. it's pretty tough to make a case that I was edit warring or any of the like since I only actually changed it once myself.--] (]) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@kirill - his claims at the RfC should have little bearing on this arbcom case. what he agreed to (or barely did) on the RfC was only a very small subsection of the overall complaint filed in this request. He was addressing solely the single block at that time and his handling of it. That was all he really responded to.This other stuff was added after, and he really hasn't responded to it or made any statement to it thus far.--] (]) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Sandstein===
I recommend that the Arbitration Committee accept this case for the reasons outlined in the request for arbitration. The conduct described there is incompatible with the position of administrator or holder of other advanced permissions, YellowMonkey's many merits as a Wikipedian notwithstanding. <p>I've not participated in the RfC, and to the best of my knowledge, my involvement in this matter is limited to undoing one of YellowMonkey's inappropriate blocks after ANI discussion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Access Denied===
YellowMonkey shoul have been desyssoped a long time ago. He has violated so many policies that I simply cannot believe it.
*Blocking YK for "trolling". That is not trolling. ]
*Not using block templates.
*Not warning editors.
*Grossly inapropriate protections as explained above.
*Other various violations of the blocking policy.
*Calling an editor a "retarded nationalist".
*At a recent RfA, opposing: "this editor is a communist pov pusher"
*Using his talk page for a photo poll containing hundreds of images. I guess he only wants to talk to people with ultra-high speed Internet connections. What does he have against us people stuck with 256k internet? A talk page is for TALKING.

In addition, his supporters have been very abusive of his critics. I have been repeatedly accused of bad faith, harassment, and wikihounding simply for raising a concern about his talk page. And I have been accused of wikibullying and abuse of process for requesting that he be desysoped and given a short block. I would wholeheartedly support giving short NPA blocks to all editors involved in this who have made such comments and refused to strike or withdraw them. <small class="ad-sig" style="background:#800;border:1px solid black;color:white;">''']&nbsp;]</small> 11:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Nsk92===
I don't think I have ever had any interactions with YM, but from reading the statements above, it is clear that the case needs to be accepted. There are serious allegations of numerous instances of misuse of admin tools here. The real question is whether to desysop or not. An RfC cannot result in desysopping, only ArbCom can do that - sort out the facts and decide if desysopping is warranted. So this one is squarely in the ArbCom's court. Regarding YM's absence, well that is clearly his choice. He disappeared on the day the RfC was opened, after making a single post in that RfC; that is certainly more than a coincidence. There is past precedent, particularly in dealing with ], where disappearance when an arbitration case is filed did not preclude accepting the case and in fact was treated essentially as an aggravating factor and an attempt to escape responsibility for misconduct. If I remember correctly, there was a decision in that situation to accept the case but to delay opening the case until ] resumed editing. You could use a similar approach here - accept the case, but delay opening it until YM returns (although it is probably also a good idea in such a situation to set a hard deadline as well - say if YM does not resume editing within a particular specified period, the case is opened at the end of that period anyway). ] (]) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
===Statement from Yogesh Khandke===
'''(1) (a)'''I was blocked by YM for 15 days without '''any''' warning, or other similar less severe measures as is conventional here in similar circumstances.'''(b)'''The block message carried a cryptic comment ''trolling and pov pushing at British Empire and talk'' I messaged YM requesting him to detail his objections, he did not. '''(c)'''After my block expired I requested YM to justify his block He mentioned this request(s) of mine to other editors, in very casual terms, deleted my comments on his page, made very casual comments about me elsewhere, but ignored engaging me despite reminders for a period of over 15 days, during which he was active on the project.'''(d-i)'''This block was used by other admins to mark me as a history-sheeter, so I was forced to seek AN/I '''(d-ii)'''During the AN/I he apologised etc., and agreed that the block be ''un-done'' '''(e)'''YM's reluctance to discuss comes across as unprofessional, perhaps he needs to demonstrate a willingness to understand this issue, to be an effective admin. IMO admins are not just executioneers, they are to be mentors, guides, counsellors '''(2)'''There have been a few comments, above that editors from a certain region are badly schooled, display a lack of understanding about ], and are nationalist ''POV pushers'' I solicit that evidence be produced in support of such allegations, or suggest that they be withdrawn. '''(3)'''About YM's invaluable and irreplaceable tackling ''so-called'' difficult nationalist POV pushers, I say the project should not be at the mercy of swashbuckling lone rangers, who do not follow rules and conventions.
:'''Response to NickD:''' A case of not reading carefully, and making false allegations of witch-hunt. '''(1)'''Nick alleges witch-hunt, even though I have in my ''edit summary'' made a request for '''not''' bringing proceedings ex parte, I have pleaded that YM be given more time to respond. Also the statement '''contact at home''' was preceded by a rider, '''if rules allow'''. In similar circumstances I would greatly appreciate being contacted by all means possible, I was merely using the philosophy ''Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'' ] (]) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
:'''Response to RegentsPark''': '''(1)'''With reference to the AN/I that brought us here. You were amongst the three administrators against whom the AN/I was initiated. You presented yourself as uninvolved in the resulting RfC, which IMO is a mis-representation. '''(2)'''In ''the case of the retarded nationalist'' you were active in YM's defence, while he ignored the discussion. YM needs to engage the community, your actions are not helping him, he should justify his actions. '''(3)'''This is not personal, we are discussing YM's actions and not YM, and I am commenting on your specific actions and not you, please discuss specific actions with diffs and state positions instead of personalising the issue and calling names, and creating strawmen.] (]) 05:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
:'''Ncmvocalist:''' (I understand that) You acknowledge that YM has not followed procedure, but you feel that he has been forced by circumstances to do so. If YM is not happy with the procedure he should have suggested changes in it rather than not following it. Misplaced Pages rules are not written on stone, but once they are there they should be followed.] (]) 06:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Mathsci===
On the whole YellowMonkey seems to have been an above-average administrator who has served wikipedia well. Like all administrators, with some possible exceptions, his actions have not always been perfect. On the other hand at this stage there appear to be a number of outspoken critics determined to hold him to account beyond the recent RfC. In the present circumstances, if YellowMonkey chooses not to reply, it might be more appropriate for ArbCom to suggest directly to him some voluntary break from administration, as other administrators like NuclearWarfare and Spartaz have taken recently in different circumstances, and pass that by motion. The nature of the reports here suggests that if a full case were opened it would not serve any purpose beyond creating unnecessary drama and bad feeling. ] (]) 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by Spartaz ===
I wondered why my ears were burning. I thought it was something at DRV. Clearly not. Not sure my circumstances were anywhere near those faced by YM but it seems clear to me that YM is burning out to some degree and some support to help an experienced and effective admin deal with that would be a much more useful result for the project then a formal tarring and feathering. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved editor Laser brain===
The RFC was only open for a week—with YM largely inactive—before the rush was on to bring this to ArbCom. I actually had reasoned comments to make at the RFC, but by time I was ready to post them, the filers had moved on to other venues. ] on admin actions was given a month to gather feedback and allow the subject to respond. I acknowledge that the issues up for discussion ''here'' are of a different nature. However, YM should be given the chance to take the feedback on board and adjust his strategy. Should this case be declined and the RFC allowed to run its course, I will volunteer to work with YM if he desires a sounding board or second opinion on any of his admin actions. --] ] 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by editor Hillcountries===

I support that he should be removed from his administrator position. He at times attacks the editors out of the way. You can have a look on ''''''.] (]) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:After I pointed out - (), the article I created was tagged under .] (]) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved LessHeard vanU===

I think the Committee should accept this case since, if my experience of ANI relating to Yellow Monkey is anything to go by, there will be a persistent attempts to have a case accepted going forward. In accepting the case I think the Committee should make it very clear that they will closely review the quality of the evidence provided, the rationales supporting the evidence, the references to policy and guideline, the historical relationship between the complaining editors and Yellow Monkey, and any history provided of attempts to bring concerns regarding Yellow Monkey to general attention. I am not suggesting that there may not be valid concerns regarding Yellow Monkey's conduct, attitude and competence, but it has apparently been a an issue that has been raised again and again in the past - and rarely found to have been well grounded. I hope that a case will settle this matter, one way or another, for once and for all. ] (]) 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
*Noting here that I will take the lead clerk role should this case be accepted. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:* And I will be '''recused'''. ] 12:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Note to Clerk''': Please hold this request open for now. Thank you. ] (]) 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/6/0/1) ===
*'''Accept'''; the gravity and number of serious allegations in the RfC alone justify ArbCom's intervention. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
**I also support holding this request in abeyance until YellowMonkey's return. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*Awaiting statement from YellowMonkey. As noted above, YellowMonkey has not edited (or taken any administrator actions) for the past week. Although significant concerns have been raised, I see no need to proceed until YellowMonkey has returned and had an opportunity to respond to this request. ] (]) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
**My vote at this time is to continue to hold the request here pending YellowMonkey's returning and making a statement. There is no need to open a case unless and until he returns; if he does, we can consider his input and proceed at that time. In general, I am concerned about situations where the absence of one editor delays a multi-party case with significant implications for a topic area; I see lesser harm from the hopefully temporary absence of someone whose conduct would be the primary focus of the case, to the point that the case, if accepted, would likely focus on scrutiny of that person's actions. I know that YellowMonkey has written on-wiki, when he himself was an arbitrator, about issues of stress and burnout affecting administrators in some of the topic areas on which he focuses. It is quite possible that he has diagosed the same malady in himself, and prescribed a cure (although if this is what has happened and he is reading this, some form of communication to us would be much appreciated). ] (]) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
*Agreed with Brad. There are very specific and very significant concerns, but we can hold a couple days to see if YM will comment on them. ] (]) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
**@Wehwalt As things stand, I agree that this is a likely accept. However, this matter is not so time-sensitive as to require instant acceptance/opening. There is no time concerns that would make the courtesy of giving YM a couple days to reply an issue. ] (]) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' and hold in abeyance if/when YM returns. I have the feeling I'm a minority, but I think things need to be cleared out here. ] (]) 23:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> - Agree with Coren. No prejudice to revisiting this acceptance if and when YM posts a statement. ] (]) 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' - I am willing to give the results of the RFC a chance. ] (]) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*Aware of the request. Per SirFozzie, hold a couple of days to see if YellowMonkey will make a statement. I've noted the comments already that argue against this approach, so it would help if further comments don't just repeat what has been said already (i.e. ''new'' arguments for or against accepting a case will help, but repeating the same arguments won't help). What is needed here is comments from other editors, comments from other arbitrators, and a statement from YellowMonkey. ] (]) 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
**On further consideration, I am not prepared to accept a case without YellowMonkey having the chance to make a statement, and the request can't be kept open indefinitely, so '''decline for now''', but making it absolutely clear that YellowMonkey needs to say something when he returns to respond to the concerns raised here. If this response satisfies those who have made statements here, then that should be an end to it. If it doesn't satisfy those with concerns, then a new request can be opened. The lesson to be learnt here is not to file a request when someone has been absent for a week (as was the case when this request was filed). Leave a note on their talk page about your concerns (especially here, where ''extra'' concerns over and above the ones responded to had been raised), wait until they start editing again, and depending on the response, only then file a request. It makes it much easier to work out what the reasons are for any absence. ] (]) 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Noting this request and, at this point, leaning toward declining it pending a statement by YellowMonkey. Users are encouraged to take a break periodically and to reflect on their Misplaced Pages practices; that additional concerns apparently unrelated to the initial issue were piggy-backed onto the RFC after the subject of the RFC started an apparent wikibreak does not lead me to believe that there has been an opportunity to address the new concerns addressed. ] (]) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Decline''' at this time, per Shell. ] (]) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::@Cube Lurker: Arbcom is perfectly willing to look at administrators abusing their tools; however, we encourage early dispute resolution first. There is an existing RFC, in which many comments have been made. YellowMonkey responded to the concerns that were present, and agreed to change his administrator practices. Nothing that has been presented in this RFAR indicates that he has continued the practices that were critiqued by his peers. If he's taking a break to consider the messages you and others have sent through the RFC, that is a *good* thing. The objective of dispute resolution is to ''stop the problematic behaviour'', and there is absolutely no evidence provided here that the objective has not been met. ] (]) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline.''' The RfC should at least be given the chance to work before requesting further sanctions. The prior steps in dispute resolution aren't really just checkboxes. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Shell. YM has stated that he will alter his behavior based on the opinions expressed at the RFC; I see no reason not to give him the opportunity to alleviate the concerns voluntarily. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per Shell. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

===Motions (YM) ===
For these motions, there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 6 support votes are a majority.
====Motion 1====
The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning administrator actions by ]. The request for arbitration raises several issues. Although YellowMonkey has made significant contributions to Misplaced Pages, as well as substantially responding to the original issues raised in the RfC, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 and has not yet addressed new issues raised in this arbitration request.

The Committee understands that concerns remain. We recommend that, on his return to editing, YellowMonkey address the new matters raised in the RFC and this request. Further, we recommend that YellowMonkey avoid potentially controversial administrator actions until the new matters are resolved at the RfC. The request for arbitration is declined at this time but may be renewed if suitable assurances are not made by YellowMonkey or if new issues arise.

;'''Support'''
# As nominator. There are concerns that remain, but the fact that he did respond well to the original concerns on the RfC means we should treat this differently from other such cases. Hopefully if/when YM returns from his break, we can put this behind us, and resolve any lingering issues. ] (]) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# I'm not in love with the wording (in particular, the points on that subject by Carcharoth below are noted), but I agree with SirFozzie that there are concerns that YellowMonkey should address upon his return. That said, stating that the case "''may be renewed''" is not an invitation to make a new case request the moment YellowMonkey returns; only if issues remain unaddressed. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
#First choice. Frankly, neither of these motions represents my choice of wording, but I don't think it will be helpful to delay matters by posting a third alternative. ] (]) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

;'''Oppose'''
# Oppose for several reasons: (1) The amount of significant contributions made to Misplaced Pages shouldn't need to be mentioned here (I used to support wording like this in the past, but can no longer do so as I think it feeds the 'vested contributor' meme). I would certainly have no problem in personally acknowledging YM's contributions, but that sort of personal acknowledgment has no place in an official motion like this. (2) Saying that the request can "be renewed if suitable assurances are not made by YellowMonkey or if new issues arise" effectively paints a target on his back. What we should realise is that ''nothing'' can be done here until YellowMonkey resumes editing. All that is needed to do is to note that the current request was premature until YellowMonkey had commented on the new issues raised at the RfC since he stopped editing. And leave it at that. Deal with what happens later when that point is reached, as that will largely depend on the context. Finally, any administrator should be willing to give up any advanced permissions and bits if the responsibilities associated with those bits are interfering with their editing. Editing should come first and foremost. ] (]) 03:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# Substantially per Carcharoth. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# He is encouraged to address any ''new'' concerns at RFC, but there ought to be no target on his back. ] '']'' 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
# Prefer #2. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
# ] 09:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

;'''Abstain/Recuse'''
#

====Motion 2====
The Arbitration Committee has considered the (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by ], which followed a ] (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues.

;'''Support'''
# As proposer. The principle of allowing people the time and space to respond and address each other in the correct manner in the correct venue is an important one. Escalation should not be done following a break in editing activity, and certainly not before there are indications as to whether the previous stage of dispute resolution worked or not. Attempting to go further than this (as the previous motion does) prejudges matters. ] (]) 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# ] '']'' 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
# Second choice. ] (]) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
# ] 09:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

;'''Oppose'''
# I don't believe that the request was ''premature'', but it most certainly is ''moot'' now. The problem is that the issues raised in the RFC ''are'' significant and should be addressed; something which this motion as written does not take into account. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
# Per Coren. ] (]) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

;'''Abstain/Recuse'''
#

====Clerk notes (motion)====
Motion 2 can be passed now, I believe. I shall do it later when I have the time, unless someone else gets to it first. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.