Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 24 November 2010

Discussion

I would be grateful to hear YM's explanation for the actions regarding YK, which does not appear to be addressed in the statement. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would be nice if YM could address the issue of the unexpectedness and length of the block as well as the lack of notification. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To SlimVirgin, I don't agree with your general interpretation of protection policy. He did provide a pretty detailed response here when similar issues were raised earlier, and I found that to be satisfactory. He is a highly experienced functionary and if I were put in an unfortunate dilemma of choosing between retaining the users certifying the dispute and endorsing that statement, or retaining YellowMonkey alone, I'm afraid I'd choose YellowMonkey; his wealth of experience is not something that can simply be taught or passed on to others, particularly in relation to CheckUser work and the admin work that naturally follows on from it. His methods may not be perfect, or the most preferred method (because they do not strictly adhere to procedure), but they protect the project from both potential and actual harm in an appropriate manner. Unlike some of the other woeful admin work we see on site, he does not pretend that vandals/socks and disruptive editors (including tendentious sometimes civil POV pushers) should be treated equally, or even more nicely, than quality or prolific content contributors who seem uncivil from time to time (like when they're having a bad day). To that extent, while I could expect a lack of clue from a few of the others, I'm quite disappointed at what it is you're saying through this RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entitled to your opinion, just as YellowMonkey is entitled to his opinions, but I'm afraid that many people don't agree that YellowMonkey is somehow so essential to the project that he should be allowed to ride rough-shod over so many of our basic principles and practices. Physchim62 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, how often do you contribute to India articles? How often do you deal with the sorts of disruption that the India project is condemned to? How often have you had to encounter different quantities and types of puppetry? Is 5 pillars a joke or are they actually there to be upheld by our elected users? I'm not saying he's perfect; he's human too. He should explain per the other statements. However, these concerns are not sufficient to drop (let alone offset) the high quality work he does as a CheckUser and administrator. And that's without even looking into his quality content work. Experience is not something that can just be *obtained* by electing a few more users or telling ArbCom to appoint more. I'm also specifically referring to protection policy when saying that to SlimVirgin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC) That could arguably extend to blocking policy too per my response below and the distinction I raise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, easy enough for him to say so, if it is true. No matter how you slice it, a major problem here is insufficient communication by YM. Views presented by a defender are unlikely to have much weight. We want to hear from him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist, the whole point of this discussion is that a significant number of editors feel that YM's work as an adminstrator is really of very low quality. I don't think his featured articles are up to much either, but that's my personal opinion – they're certainly better than nothing being written about the subjects at all. He doesn't need an admin bit to write featured articles, nor to be FAR delegate. Physchim62 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know about his content work; what I remember reading was high quality, but if something has changed, I'm certainly not aware of it. I'd rather retain him as a functionary than as a FAR but I dunno if he would be ready to stay around if I asked that of him; he enjoys working on content, and I suppose, that's the way he gained some of the experience that he has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Ncmvocalist) I didn't realize he had already been asked about this already on AN. The point is that he's s/protecting articles he has recently edited, which has never been allowed. He's s/protecting articles for months, a year, or indefinitely after just one or two vandalism-type edits in violation of policy. I'm one of the admins who regularly patrol RfPP, and this is nowhere near best practice. His refusal to respond to polite queries about it, including from other admins, is something I find hard to explain.

I also believe that if I could protect the articles I work on, I'd be preventing damage to the project. Don't we all think that way? And that's why we're not allowed to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key was, what was YM's intent in the protection. If it is a short protection to prevent vandalism, that's not to give an advantage in a content dispute. If it is to give him an advantage, that's trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a separate matter; you're both talking about articles he's involved in - I'm talking about articles he's not involved in. There's a very specific distinction in that. He isn't going to take you to ArbCom just because you disagree with an action when someone requests unprotection or whatever; he's quite happy for you to unprotect and deal with it if there are editors who will work on it and (hopefully) monitor it for any further disruption. See also my response to Physchim62. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCMV, you wrote above: "Experience is not something that can just be *obtained* by electing a few more users or telling ArbCom to appoint more. I'm also specifically referring to protection policy when saying that to SlimVirgin." You are right. And YellowMonkey uses the tools in a way that suggests he is not experienced. That's the problem. You have two admins here who do spend a fair bit of time protecting articles (HJ and myself), and we're both telling you that there's a long-term issue with his tool use, so I think you need to take that seriously. It's unusual to see non-admins defend sustained misuse of the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Really, wow. If that's your reaction to a mere partial disagreement (the other part agreeing with what is being said and taking those concerns seriously), I dread to be in a situation when I completely disagree. You're making a really weird observation/accusation: I'm supposedly defending an alleged sustained misuse of tools and it's unusual because I'm not an admin? What does that say about you and your remarkable hardline reaction? I mean, you were the subject of an arbitration case; YM did vote on findings of fact against you in what became a widely-known case; this later was used as a partial basis for a pretty serious remedy in the same year. And you're telling me what I'm saying is unusual? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The vandalism has to be sustained before admins are allowed to s/protect an article they're working on, and over time even this this has tightened up, so that we're really always expected to ask someone else now, unless it's a BLP emergency or similar and the protection is brief.

Look at Ngo Dinh Diem, for example. He has made 232 edits to it since 2006, more than any other editor. He has s/protected it five times since 2007. Even if we ignore the earlier ones, where admin practices were looser, and look at the recent ones, he s/protected it indefinitely in May 2010 after just two IP edits. There was a complaint about this on RfPP, so I broached it with him, got no response, and unprotected it. He then restored the indefinite s/protection on November 8 after a very small number of edits he saw as inappropriate. That's a misuse of the tools, and it's not an isolated example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the spamming of the article on OTD which, while not an abuse of admin tools, is certainly indicative of his attitudes towards the encyclopedia as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent patroller of RfPP myself, I've seen many complaints from multiple editors about YM's protections. It's not his involvement with the articles I take issue to, it's the totally disproportionate lengths of the protections (6 months for a few IP edits is not uncommon) and his complete lack of response when asked for it. Failing to respond to YK's questions is certainly not atypical of YM's style. I don't think I've ever received a satisfactory response to any of the multiple queries I've raised with him. @Ncmvocalist, being "happy" for others to unprotect it isn't the point. It's non-adherence to the protection policy and it just creates work for others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either adminship is no big deal or it is; you can't have it both ways HJM. If any of you would like to work in areas where there is a notable lack of resources, you're most welcome to come off the high horse and attend those matters as if they are your duties (seeing nobody else is willing to take them - myself included except in rare circumstances). See the questions I've asked above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an odd incident here at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review in May, where he wouldn't respond to queries from another FAR delegate (despite being one himself), an FAC delegate, and several FAC reviewers. The problem arose because he was nominating too many articles for featured article review, in violation of the guideline. DanaBoomer, the other FAR delegate, wrote: "YellowMonkey has apparently no interest in following the rule, and it's somewhat hard for me to enforce a rule on a 'senior' delegate." Two notes were left for him on his talk page alerting him to the discussion, but he didn't respond until two weeks later. The other delegate had to proceed with a proposal without his involvement, because we couldn't get him to comment, although he was editing regularly at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If FAR participants deem him unsatisfactory, they can proceed with a vote of no confidence there. I am coming to the conclusion that if YM is to retain his roles, he must engage with the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Serpentchoice

Am I missing something here? Your analysis has serious flaws in it. I'm going to list what I can within the next 15 minutes as I am short on time, but hopefully it gets the major issue(s) I'm finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely possible, and if so, I'll strike. I caught the rather large mea culpa of missing YM's substantial list of page protection activities. Poor clicking on my part. If there are other concerns, let me know. My methodology for this sort of analysis hasn't had a thorough field test. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well my time seems to be up already. :S I'll try to get back to it when I next have some time to spare. From what I can see, Thylacine article: between 26 April - 6 September, pretty much 27/29 IP edits reverted as vandalism? I stopped at 26 April because I saw another admin using protection at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, long-term semiprotection for a vandalism rate of about one edit per week? Something that could be handled just by watchlisting the article? Is this really in line with WP:PP? And, more importantly, did YellowMonkey even care if it was it line with WP:PP? Did he ask advice over a borderline case? would he have reconsidered his decision in the face of arguments to the contrary? Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles is each Wikipedian expected to watchlist? How many contributors are active in the aforementioned WikiProject and how many articles on each of their watchlists? Why is it that some WikiProjects attract more editors than others? And to the last question you asked, I think he would have if arguments were being made specifically in relation to that article or if someone was ready to take over monitoring that one. I know YM is forced to spend a lot of time reverting crap from articles each weekday for a period of time; things that I don't manage to discover even if I dedicated that amount of time. I'm pretty sure YM has too many things on his watchlist as it is if his contributions history is anything to go by. In 2008, I was nagging every arb to vote on cases - in his case, he can vouch for that; I needed to nag him because he had so much never-ending work on his watchlist (and vandalism and FAC/GA/DYK/other stuff too and CU stuff) that he literally fell behind on his case work. In fact, that included one of the longest cases in arb history, Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin arbitration case. And then there's the socks pushing their agenda and the admins who refuse to do anything because they're not sure of the history so expect technical assistance and assistance in relation to behavior - from those experienced ones who are staying up to date on those situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's more to judging the nature of IP edits than determining if they were reverted. In the 30 days prior to semi-protection, there were 8 occasions in which the article was edited by an IP (here, I count the three consecutive edits by 125.164.28.54 as a single occasion). 24.84.54.59 performed a format-only change (altering the order of sections), which was plausibly valid, although reverted. 175.39.72.241 also performed a format-only change (video attributes), which was plausibly valid, although reverted. 69.225.230.105, 60.241.117.128, and 71.10.32.124 made edits that do not meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, but that are not facially vandalism. Of the 8 IPs editing thylacine in that month, only two -- 174.76.24.10 and 125.164.28.54 -- were demonstrable vandals. The admin who attended to 125.164.28.54's vandalism provided a 24-hour block; the other IP vandal got off easy with no action (for this article, anyway). Admittedly, the page received more vandalism earlier in the year, but much of that was caused by now-schoolblocked IP 142.26.232.250, and besides, it is my understanding that semi-protection is not appropriate to deal with months-old non-repeating situations. My understanding of the semi-protection policy is also not closely compatible with a 6-month semi-protection to deal with a rate of IP vandalism (as opposed to just IP editing) on the order of once every two weeks. Additionally, from the semi-protection guide, "If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few days or a week." This 6-month semi was the first application to this article. Previous admin actions were to move-protect the page (26 April, policy for FA), and a brief period of true protection back in January. This isn't even a borderline case. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is authorised in limited situations; are you alleging that editors have been misusing that tool on this article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is alleged that YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used semiprotection on the article in inappropriate circumstances and for an inappropriate length of time. The case is fairly clear to me – YM uses his tools just however he wants to, with scant regard for policy or the general benefit of the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist is welcome to have a different opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Ncmvocalist is referring to my assertion that some of the reverted IP edits are not, in fact, vandalism. I am neither particularly familiar with nor personally interested in the rollback tool or its restrictions. I know only what I was able to determine by an examination of the article content. This and this are the IP edits I characterized as non-vandalism format changes. This, this (see especially edit summary), and this are the IP edits that I characterized as non-vandalism in good faith, although ultimately unsuited for inclusion. Regardless of the compliance of rollback use with the tool's guidelines, I feel that my analysis of the page's status and lack of a demonstrated need for protection -- especially a 6-month semi -- stands. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more worried by instances where there is no cause for any protection; excessive durations are another ball park. This analysis has raised a separate issue - other editors usage of rollback to revert those IPs, and absent investigating each and every rollback (that is, AGFing that it was used for vandalism in those cases, which is what most editors do), that is something to consider. Also, were any of the IPs returning banned editors? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion

What has come out is troubling enough so that perhaps one outside view should see who favors asking ArbCom to terminate his appointment as a functionary effective at the next election. This would force him to gain a vote of confidence from the community if he cared to continue in that role.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that asking that here would be appropriate, as there is no room to oppose. I can't see that RFC/U is very good for proposing concrete actions, as it is very much the wrong forum. It seems better at saying "this is a concern, and these are the people who agree that it is one" rather than "this is something that we need to do next". - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a widely held view about RFC/U. Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so bothered about his roles as a checkuser and an oversighter than I am about his admin tools. Simply denying YM his "privileges" as a functionary wouldn't resolve the problems that have come to light during this RFC. He should resign as an admin, and then (if necessary) ArbCom could determine his status as a functionary. Physchim62 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey Response

On the block that prompted this RFCU, is "I can see full well that consensus is against my block, and respect that, although I do not necessarily agree." really all we're going to get? I was expecting some attempt to justify/explain the thought process, preferably with some diffs and/or quotes. It's one thing to make questionable decisions, as most anyone will do from time to time when acting in difficult circumstances, but it's another to not be willing to explain them properly when they are questioned. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what threw gasoline on the fire as far as I am concerned. I was reluctant to bring this. Now I know something has to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not say more was because I did not think it would do anything useful, given most people's already expressed opinion. I have no intention of flaming YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was truly shocked when I looked at his contributions to the various "talk" namespaces: I was expecting not to find much, but I wasn't expecting quite as little as I found. Physchim62 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main account has almost exclusively article edits as I have a habit of logging my talk edits on my declared secondary account YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

This seems strange:

05:54, 19 November 2010 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) m (49,167 bytes) (Protected Cricket World Cup: not much except vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)))) (undo) - given that the next Cricket World Cup will be OVER by the time that expires and there was no ongoing vandalism at the time, nor is it a BLP.

This is also highly questionable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Snedden&action=history

YM protects the page here: [1], and reverts the edit made by User:Poofacemcgee123, but he misses the fact that Poofacemcgee123 previously vandalised the page as User:202.37.114.230.

The page is protected including the text 'His daughter Steph snedden is a keen netball player who catches balls in her face. ' Because the page is protected, it doesn't get de-vandalised till November - by an anon IP. [2]

Sumbuddi (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :That is what threw gasoline on the fire as far as I am concerned.  I was reluctant to bring this.  Now I know something has to be done.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
+:::The reason I did not say more was because I did not think it would do anything useful, given most people's already expressed opinion. I have no intention of flaming '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">new photo poll]]''</font>)  00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::I was truly shocked when I looked at his contributions to the various "talk" namespaces: I was expecting not to find much, but I wasn't expecting quite as little as I found. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
+:::My main account has almost exclusively article edits as I have a habit of logging my talk edits on my declared secondary account '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">new photo poll]]''</font>)  00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 == Page protection ==