Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

---

• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is a highly respected administrator, former arbitrator, and functionary who has done a tremendous amount of good for Wikipedia. However, there is a dispute concerning his conduct as an administrator. The issue that lead directly to this Request for Comment concern's YellowMonkey's block of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On 30 September 2010, YellowMonkey blocked Yogesh Khandke for two weeks with a log summary of (trolling and pov pushing at British Empire and talk). At no point did YellowMonkey inform Yogesh Khandke of this block on the latter's talk page, as required by the blocking policy. Immediately after the block's expiry, Yogesh Khandke posted to YellowMonkey's talk page requesting "justification and explanation" of the block. YellowMonkey replied scroll down three days later, asserting that he had responded to Yogesh Khandke's emails. After further discussion {{{1}}}, Yogesh Khandke again requests further explanation for the block, at which point three other editors become involved in the discussion.

On 22 October, YellowMonkey removes the entire discussion of the block from his talk page. This is followed by a further request from Yogesh Khandke for an explanation. YellowMonkey made no further comment. On 19 November, Yogesh Khandke requested further input on the matter at WP:ANIoldid. Consensus was eventually established that this was a bad block. YellowMonkey, despite being invited to the thread by Yogesh Khandke, myslef (HJ Mitchell), Seb az86556 and finally Wehwalt, did not participate in the ANI thread nor make any acknowledgement of it on his talk page.

It is my opinion that this conduct is unbecoming a Wikipedia administrator and is a clear violation of WP:ADMIN, the policy governing administrator conduct and the blocking policy.

Desired outcome

Now

1. YellowMonkey will acknowledge the community consensus that this block was in error

In future

1. YellowMonkey will communicate with the community and with editors against whom he takes administrative action as expected of all administrators
2. YellowMonkey will endeavour to warn editors whom he considers to be engaging in blockable activities in all cases other than serious abuse
3. YellowMonkey will adhere to the blocking policy when blocking editors, including keeping block lengths proportional
4. YellowMonkey will, within reason, respond promptly to concerns raised by editors about his admin actions
5. YellowMonkey will acknowledge threads at community noticeboards concerning his actions
6. YellowMonkey will continue to be a highly respected administrator, former arbitrator, and functionary who has done a tremendous amount of good for Wikipedia.

Description

Poor block and failure to acknowledge community discussion of actions

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

1. Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy
• Administrator policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. WP:ANI thread
2. Multiple diffs given above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

1. I'd like to ask in addition that YM adhere to the protection policy too. There have been complaints on RfPP that he's semi-protecting articles for months or indefinitely, including articles he's edited, despite there being almost no vandalism. I raised it with him back in May, but so far as I know he didn't respond. [1] [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. I do endorse the issue though note that YellowMonkey hasn't been on-line to respond to these issues. Similar issues have also recently occurred involving a recent unblock this thread on YellowMonkey's talk page where he was asked questions about a fairly silent unblock and didn't respond. Block was for stating that "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now." and unblock was only documented in any way (that I can find) with the edit summary "useless block". Hobit (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

I can see full well that consensus is against my block, and respect that, although I do not necessarily agree. I do not have any intention of doing anything if I think it would not stick unless it was a fluke/luck. I can do the things per the expected procedure. As for No. 6, I won't be taking any notice of that, as it isn't relevant or reliable, as I can think of many "respected" people who were widely "loved" when they were producing stuff that reflected well on their "leaders" but when they got in trouble their "leaders" weren't anywhere to be seen.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorsement based in part on participation in the British Empire FAR/C. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC) He's a very competent administrator and given the frequency of and range of cases he has to deal with there is bound to be some opposition to some of them. As for him "removing the discussion" from his page, the guy seriously needed to archive his page anyway and removed a lot of other posts with it... Again this RFC is doing nothing to help wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC). I agree this isn't YM's finest moment, but I endorse taking a no-nonsense approach to nationalist POV pushers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
6. I think this should settle it. I agree particularly with Dr. Blofeld and Lankiveil's comments above. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
7. A fact overlooked at ANI and here is that YM pointed out a major flaw in the British Empire keeping the FAR alive and significantly bolstering YK's position. However following the procedure would have shown that a ban was unnecessary. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
8. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
9. I'm still worried that this is a case of on-going behavior (have you ever responded about the unblock question?) but assume you'll be dealing with that shortly too. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
10. I don't know what number 6 is getting at either.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Atmoz (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

I found and continue to find Yogesh Khandke to be a disruptive editor who just cannot accept consensus. For that reason, I didn't protest when he ended up getting blocked for two weeks by YM and felt very little sympathy. However, I was rather surprised by the length of the block, extremely surprised by YM's failure to notify Yogesh, and even more surprised by his silence in response to Yogesh's requests for an explanation. I should add I find this high-handedness on the part of YM similar to his attitude at WP:FAC as the FA director's helper. There, similarly, he'd make royal decrees and then fail to respond to responses about those decrees, just turning up every now and again to repeat them. I then read about similar things happening in the past WRT other blocks. Remove his admin status, I say. Totally unsuited for the role.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with most, make correction that YM is a FAR delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I absolutely agree with this assertion, as I myself have noticed this kind of high-handedness on YM's part, and I believe this sort of attitude makes him bypasas other's comments and requests, as, simply put "they are below his ordeal". But he is indeed an excellent contributer to the sports articles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by RegentsPark

Clearly, YMs block left a lot to be desired. I was unaware of YK's existence at that point in time and so am unable to comment on whether the block was justified or not, but not giving an explanation to the user, not responding to questions about the block on the talk page, and not even informing the user of the block on their talk page is not the proper way to block someone. Anyone blocked, for whatever reason, deserves a fair explanation and a response when they raise a question (unless, of course, they are an obvious sock). That said, YellowMonkey is a great resource as an admin and an acknowledgement of these failures and a statement that he/she will respond differently in future would be the ideal outcome of the RfC/U.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Agree, but I think a sincere apology to YK is in order by now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. --JN466 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
5. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:58pm • 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
7. -- Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Endorse. The point on responsiveness needs to be made, but YM is still far and away a net positive for the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
9. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

I am not particularly acquainted with either the admin or the primary editor in this content dispute, nor am I totally sure of which side is "right". My hunch is that the editor is sincere, zealous, and not entirely wrong, but trying to push this beyond where it should be for now. Ganga is what the locals call it, and increasingly that name is getting some currency, but it's too soon to say that it's really the common name [instead of Ganges]. And that's why we have redirects. (The struck-out part need not be "endorsed", it's merely background info.)

This much I do know: An important responsibility of any admin is to communicate properly and thoroughly. If a true troll keeps asking "why was I blocked", that's one thing. But if an editor who appears sincere asks the same question, he deserves a satisfactory answer. If the admin is generally as good as the other testimony indicates, then this just might be a slip. But regardless, he needs to speak to the matter. RFC's against admins shouldn't be necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Well put. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6. --Jayron32 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
7. support the general gist (excluding the Ganga/Ganges issue, of course). --JN466 05:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Per Jayen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
9. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
10. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:01pm • 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Endorse, excluding the comments about the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Kanatonian (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
13. I can endorse the general sentiment of this outside view, but I cannot believe that YM's failure to engage was a simple "slip": it appears to be more fundamentally rooted in his attitudes towards other editors on the project, as I've detialed at greater length below. Physchim62 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
14. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Lambanog

YellowMonkey as evidenced by his many FAs probably has stricter standards than most editors. As an FA delegate he is freer to make definitive judgment calls and not be questioned about it. I think that role of his and his previous role as an arbitrator may be shading his role as a general administrator. I have not looked at the particulars of this particular case, but have seen at WP:Featured article review/British Empire/archive1 the milieu and kind of behavior YellowMonkey and Yogesh Khandke were likely in the midst of. Yogesh Khandke although correct can probably come on as strongly opinionated and YellowMonkey could understandably have found it a little too much if displayed over many articles. Two weeks does sound a bit much though and not communicating is a concern, but the proper way to deal with this I suspect is simply to revert YellowMonkey quickly in this case and in the future. If the block is as improper as is suggested I don't think he'll make a fuss over it. YellowMonkey may be a good editor and perhaps FA delegate, but the realization that he is not a good admin if he is treated like a junior admin who does not come up to proper standards is likely to do more to get him up to shape up than a protracted public question period.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Lambanog (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Physchim62 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Endorse in part. I believe the issue started with his denial to respond to querries by YK. However, simply reverting his wrong blockages is not going to do him good, since he chooses to ignore others mostly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Jayen466

This block concerned Yogesh Khandke’s participation in discussions of a Featured Article, British Empire. This included that article’s Featured Article Review, to which Yogesh Khandke was contributing before and after his two-week block.

Now, we are not just dealing with one block here. We are dealing with a wider issue, which has to do with writing articles that do not define NPOV as reflecting Western sources, but reflect points of view across the world. As many editors will be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is currently engaged in significant outreach efforts to India, including the establishement of an Indian Wikimedia office, the second such office in the world after the one in San Francisco. Given this global context, we cannot write an article like British Empire basing ourselves exclusively on Western sources, without reflecting scholarship and opinion in the former colonies themselves, and call it an FA, representative of the best work Wikipedia is capable of.

YellowMonkey does not seem to share this global vision. He derides the Foundation’s outreach efforts in India. Last month, he appeared to refer to an Indian editor as a “retarded nationalist” in an edit summary. When the editor complained at AN/I, YellowMonkey ignored the thread completely, even though his contributions history shows he was editing throughout the time the thread was active. No action was taken against YellowMonkey as a result of the complaint. That is not good enough.

I don’t agree with every comment that Yogesh Khandke has made. But his underlying points with regard to the British Empire article were valid and should have been taken on board. This was acknowledged by several FAC regulars at the FAR, notably Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). Treating Yogesh, an editor with 3,000 edits and a clean block log to date, like a common troll with a peremptory two-week block, without prior warning, without talk page notification, is wrong.

I have commented on this case and the wider issues, including the current Ganges/Ganga move proposal mentioned by Baseball Bugs above, at the ongoing Foundation list thread on editor diversity: [3]; responses: [4], [5].

Of course I have seen problematic edits by Indian editors. Some write their telephone numbers into articles. Some delete sourced material they don't like, for blatant POV reasons. Yogesh is not that kind of editor. He is the kind of editor we should welcome; whose points of view we should listen to; whom we should help to make their voices heard, to ensure that Indian Wikipedians have the same rightful level of ownership of Wikipedia as any other English-speaking nation. We go on a lot about how this project exists to make knowledge freely available to kids in nations like India. We fail in that mission if our articles on topics of profound concern to India ignore Indian sources and perspectives, presenting an alien quasi-colonialist viewpoint, and if we lack even the largesse to allow an Indian kid to learn about their country's national river from an article bearing that river's official English name, Ganga.

YellowMonkey's services to the project are beyond doubt. He has made all of 5 edits since the ANI thread started on the 19th, so a little AGF is not uncalled for, despite his completely ignoring the earlier ANI thread I mentioned just as he has failed to comment on this case. But if Yellow Monkey can't see his way clear to make some sort of gesture of apology to Yogesh Khandke, and to reflect on his attitude towards India and Indian Wikipedians, and on the role Indians should and will play in this project, then we should at least ask him to refrain from undertaking admin actions in India-related topics.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --JN466 05:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. I did not take a look at the British Empire nomination before reading through Jayen's asserions. After reading both accused party comments, I am absolutely disgusted with YM's attitude and behaviour towards the Indian editors. And that's coming from an editor, who have time-to-time edited the Indian articles, although lingers on the music articles. I myself faced a little bit of behaviour and shade-throwing from him before, but shrugged it off. Seeing that this is a recurrent issue with YM's editing, I see a complete abuse of editing and administrative tools are going on. I feel the administrative tools in his hand is futile and should be taken down. Regretfully, — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I felt the RFCU was slightly premature, since YM was not fully active on WP during the ANI discussion. But these comments suggest waiting wouldn't have helped, and this summary is a good one. Rd232 ^talk 08:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Fair enough, and he should probably pass India-related FARs to his fellow delegate. A FAR delegate should not be acting in matters where impartiality can be reasonably questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Kanatonian (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
7. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Zuggernaut

When the ban was handed out YK had brought up 2-3 different issues simultaneously at British Empire in a single editing session instead of resolving those issues one by one. This made him appear like a troll. However, YK is a patient and mature editor who has not had any major incidents in his several thousand edits over several years. A simple friendly reminder/warning would have sufficed instead of the two week ban. A fact overlooked at ANI and here is that soon after YK was banned, YM fought in favor of YKs position even if it meant taking a lot of heat for doing so. However, YM is wrong in assuming that every Indian editor who is assertive and persistent is a "POV pushing nationalist". Many certainly are but our goal should be to bring them in the fold of policy abiding, long term contributors to boost the numbers of the under-represented India editors. The entire situation was made viable because of a European bias on Wikipedia due to which it was impossible to get consensus on any matter that criticized the British Empire. The main trigger was provided by the handful of British nationalist editors who have twisted and omitted many facts, used inappropriate language and inaccurate maps for glorifying the British Empire. Both YM and YK are passionate editors who improve India related articles in their own way and it is painful to see this here.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. YK was being borderline disruptive and I thought it might reach the point of being blocked, but was quite surprised to see a 2 week block, and done with no warning or even announcement that it was done. I discovered the block by accident--it was not obvious he had been blocked. Was also surprised to see his attempts to discuss it over the next few weeks being met with near total silence from YM. I'm less sure about the "British nationalist editors" glorifying the British Empire. But the whole thing was painful to see. I've seen several promising editors driven away from Wikipedia by things like this. Glad to see YK did not give up, and does seem to be working to be less disruptive. Pfly (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Physchim62

Nice picture, but nineteen times a year? That was YM’s idea of what is good for the Main Page

I’ve had several “interactions” with YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) over the years, and I must say that I’m not in the least surprised by his attitude over this dispute. The combination of an ex cathedra pronouncement followed by a simple refusal to discuss his actions is, for me, one of his hallmarks.

While it does not involve admin powers, this recent affair concerning WP:OTD is a good example. YM had systematically gone through the OTD templates to ensure that his articles on South Vietnam would appear on the Main Page, to the point that the image of Ngo Dinh Diem (shown right) was scheduled to be shown nineteen times over the course of the year. YM did not contribute to that discussion: when the issue came up again a few days later, YM compared OTD to a “toilet exhibit” and a notorious Mumbai slum. At no point was there any attempt to justify his actions or engage in meaningful discussion. We see the same attitude again in YM’s response to this RFC: no attempt to justify the action or to engage in discussion, merely an unwilling acceptance that consensus went against him.

YM’s apparent allergy to discussion can be seen in his contribution history to the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces. A comparison of YM’s contributions history in the User talk namespace with his block log shows that his failure to inform or engage with Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) over the block was not a one-off incident: there are very few signs that YM has ever informed or engaged with users he has blocked over the last year.

In the Betacommand case (2007), the Arbitration Committee found the following principle:

Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

YellowMonkey – under his alternate username, Blnguyen (talk · contribs) – voted to approve that principle, and to have Betacommand desysopped. This principle has been considered important enough for it to be linked from WP:ADMIN: in short, discussion of admin actions is not optional. If YM does not wish to discuss his admin actions in any meaningful way, then he should voluntarily resign his sysop bit before the community as a whole is forced to decide that, despite his undoubted writing skills, he is is unfit to be trusted with the tools.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Kanatonian (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Tomayres (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Kanatonian

As a long time editor, I have also noticed the same lack of respect for following due process in blocking editors and not responding when requested to respond. This also is evident when he summarily deletes articles that he does not like with a potential for conflict of interest. He also deletes whole cited sections of articles without any discussion (See this) There is also a lack of respect, assuming good faith when dealing with editors. here. In general I am of the opinion that YM is a good contributor but giving him admin powers is stressing him beyond his capacity to interact with others. He has demonstrated his inability to be nuanced and responsible with his Admin powers over and over again, through many years. YM should be removed of his Admins powers and encouraged to contribute to the project like thousands others do on a daily basis.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kanatonian (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Physchim62 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Tomayres (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Serpent's Choice

I have no stake in this issue, merely a desire to analyze available information for the community's benefit. As this is an admin RFC, I have looked exclusively at the YellowMonkey's (hereafter YM) use of the admin tools. Because I am not myself an admin, I have somewhat limited capacity to judge the propriety of certain actions, which I will note when appropriate. In an effort to focus on recent activity, I have examined only the use of tools between 1 June 2010 and current. Other outside views have included comments on editorial activity (edit summaries, incivility), but that is outside the scope of this analysis.

1. Blocking

YM has blocked a reasonably large number of users since 1 June. In examining his adherence to the blocking policy, I have excluded blocks of IP addresses or those blocks citing sockpuppetry. Practice (and, in some cases, policy) regarding IP addresses and sockpuppets of known blocked or banned users differs from "standard" blocking. In addition to the block primarily under discussion in this RFC, and excluding those categories, YM has issued the following blocks:

collapsed list of editors

Jpullokaran (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 1 month 15 November 2010. Pato18 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 6 months 11 November 2010. Quality check (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 72 hours 4 November 2010. Jezza95 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 1 week 1 November 2010. Mnlira013 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 20 October 2010. Expat4ever (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 11 October 2010. Jtjdajtjda (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 5 October 2010. Ijaz13 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 2 weeks 5 October 2010. BertManX (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 3 months 5 October 2010. Lindamd90 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 1 week 16 September 2010. Bhanvad (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 30 August 2010. Jitinkumar2014 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 17 August 2010. Hasnain96 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 11 August 2010. Irrypride (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 20 July 2010. 123abz (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 5 July 2010. Amcmelbourne (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 21 June 2010. Akul007 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 15 June 2010. Digerateur (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 11 June 2010. Mort247 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 8 June 2010. Daanii10 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indef 2 June 2010.

Many of these blocks are not, in and of themselves, contentious. YM has blocked a number of serial vandals, obvious spammers, sockpuppets of known banned users, and an unrepentent copyright violator. However. In addition to the YK block at discussion here, several of these blocks deviated from standard practices. Several (although not all) of the indef blocks occurred without any block escalation whatsoever -- often with minimal warning. By means of the most extreme example, Mort247 was certainly not contributing constructively (contribs suggest a student at a private high school), but literally nothing has ever been posted to the user's talk page; it remains a redlink.

As I am not an admin, I cannot view the deleted contributions of Mnlira013 to determine what warranted a "spam" indef without warning or discussion, but a series of links to the History Channel and A&E websites (the visible contributions) are not what I would expect for an immediate spam indef.

Quigley has actually been indef blocked by YM twice. The first indef is not included in my list above because it was a block for sockpuppetry that was overturned following a determination that the user's alternative accounts are compliant with multiple account use policy. The second block, a month later, was for "nothing but hardcore pov pushing", and was an immediate indef. This situation actually went to AN/I at the time and was overturned (archive link ... pending, sorry). Quigley remains an editor in good standing, albeit one involved in the often contentious topic of Tibet.

By means of summary: as far as I can tell, YM posted a combined total of ZERO times to the talk pages of any users in the box above. Not even a template, not even once. From the blocking policy: "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to." At least in this regard, none of the blocks examined were compliant with the letter of blocking policy; the case being discussed in this RFC is typical practice, not an isolated incident.

2. Deletion Because I cannot see deleted content, I am less competent to judge YM's use of the deletion tool. However, YM's deletions have been taken to DRV at least twice recently. The vast majority of his other deletions are G6 to allow for pagemoves or deletion of pages in his own userspace.

YM deleted Buddhism and violence 22 October 2010 without citing any process whatsoever ("pov essay, most of the article is off topic and about book reivews, or isn't in the content linked"). The DRV upheld the deletion (despite a very split consensus) as being a problematic article in the state it existed, but YM's explanation at DRV was not particularly illuminating ("essay, OR, copyvio, waste of time"). In particular, the copyvio claim had not been raised previously and was presented without evidence despite a request for clarification from DRV.

YM deleted 1984 ghallooghaaraa after the AFD was closed No Consensus, citing sockpuppet contamination. That decision was [Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 6|upheld at DRV]] despite agreement that process was not respected.

3. Page protection YM has not employed page protection during the examined period.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.