Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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: 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:24, 25 June 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)

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 viewable here, 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.

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.

Poor block and failure to acknowledge community discussion of actions

• Blocking (log):

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

• Blocking policy
• Administrator policy

(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. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections.
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins
3. Multiple diffs given above.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Endorsement based in part on participation in the British Empire FAR/C. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   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) Removed. Still no answers on unblock request, many problems listed below make me think the problem is larger than I thought. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. I don't know what number 6 is getting at either.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Atmoz (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Dr. Blofield, Lankiveil, Regentspark and Mkativerata. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. No other Administrators have made mistakes [whether accidental or in heat of the moment]? We all make mistakes and learn from them. I also agree with Lankiveil (comment 5). Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Secret ^account 23:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Theda 20:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]
2. Agree with most, make correction that YM is a FAR delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. -- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. --JN466 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:58pm • 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. PhilKnight (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Implications that YM has been racist to India/Indian articles/Indian editors have been made in some of the views on this page; I specifically reject assertions along those lines and find them to be unjustified. I continue to hold the view that his generally CheckUser and admin work in this area have been exemplary, unlike the woeful and concerning actions we might see from others who hold the same privilleges. His concerns that the rest of the India project is going to be stuck with the consequences of the WMF's actions (the cleanup bill and dealing with a greater quantity of disruption) is one that is justified. And yes, I am an Indian editor too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. an acknowledgement of failures would indeed be welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. shoy (reactions) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Well put. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Jayron32 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. support the general gist (excluding the Ganga/Ganges issue, of course). --JN466 05:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Jayen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:01pm • 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorse, excluding the comments about the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kanatonian (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
14. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Implications that YM has been racist to India/Indian articles/Indian editors have been made in some of the views on this page; I specifically reject assertions along those lines and find them to be unjustified. I continue to hold the view that his generally CheckUser and admin work in this area have been exemplary, unlike the woeful and concerning actions we might see from others who hold the same privilleges. His concerns that the rest of the India project is going to be stuck with the consequences of the WMF's actions (the cleanup bill and dealing with a greater quantity of disruption) is one that is justified. And yes, I am an Indian editor too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse - an admin needs to communicate properly and be even more careful with the choice of words (such as avoiding words like "retarded nationalist"). Implicit or explicit allegations of racism against YM are inaccurate and inappropriate. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. shoy (reactions) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Endorse. RFCs against Admins shouldn't be necessary, but we're here because they're all we've got. We don't have a good desysopping process; we need one. As for this particular situation, we need acknowledgement -- at minimum -- that communication is the root of the problem and the heart of the solution, as in the Betacommand case referred to infra. A sad state of affairs. Maybe YM shouldn't lose his bit over this particular block, but I can appreciate the opinions of others for whom the YK block was the "last straw." It's very close. Please, communicate! And maybe apologize for the bad block, especially if it was a "slip," as alluded to by BBallBugs. Saebvn (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. This. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. From what I've seen, this does seem to be the main worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Endorse; as far as i'm concerned the essence of being an admin is that they have the trust of the community to take actions with potentially huge ramifications. They build that trust over the months/years before an RfA, and generally retain it afterwards. When those actions are, as a general rule, neither explained nor discussed ~ even with other admins ~ that trust tends to dissipate. Clearly, YM is trending down that slope. All of which is just to agree, BBugs hit the nail squarely with this: "An important responsibility of any admin is to communicate properly and thoroughly". Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 09:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Cube lurker (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. —SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. I believe that there are significant problems with several articles relating to India. Hogenakkal Falls, and its historically lame edit war (in which I was involved, to my shame), is one example of such. YM has dealt with these articles more than most of us. His administrative work, in general, have been an example which places most of us other admins to shame. In this case, he may have gone a bit beyond what is necessary, and may have been a bit less communicative than we might like, and for that some criticism is probably due, if only to reduce the possibility of the individual's actions being possibly made the subject of suspicion. Having said all that, we all make mistakes. If this is the only one YM has made of this degree, that makes me feel even smaller than I otherwise do, particulrly considering the lameness of some of the justly earned criticism I have received. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Physchim62 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Endorse the junior admin part. YellowMonkey's content contributions are not at issue; misuse of administrator privileges are. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kanatonian (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. --JN466 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse the notion that editors (of all nationalities) with underrepresented views should be brought into the fold and not insulted or marginalized. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [EDIT: Serpent's Choice below gives a more detailed analysis on this point]

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)[reply]
2. Kanatonian (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tomayres (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. East of Borschov 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Wow. That's kind of disgusting.[reply]
9. Only the last paragraph. shoy (reactions) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. DC T•C 19:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. The total failure to address the OTD concerns properly when raised on his talk page strikes me as particularly egregious.--Korruski^Talk 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Non-responsiveness is a huge problem for an admin, and this does increasingly look like a pattern. Having been well aware of this issue at arbcom, it's even harder to excuse. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Off2riorob (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Hillcountries (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. --JN466 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Agree. He's authoritarian and blocks people in disputes that he doesn't understand. Ninguém (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Dorsal Axe 15:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Specifically discussion of admin actions. If YM is unwilling to do that, he shouldn't be using the tools. --Kbdank71 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Outback the koala (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Absolutely spot on - I believe the term "practice what you preach" applies here. Imho, looking at the discussion and the clear lack of judgement in application of the block, I agree with other signers and the poster of this view, this admin should not be in possession of the tools if they are unwilling to deal with issues arising from their use in a sensible and civil manner. I therefore in addition to this comment, call for Desysop and Recall of this administrator. BarkingFish 02:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Physchim62 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tomayres (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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, in a situation not unlike the one that triggered this RFC. 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. (Struck in part, based on input from DRV participants; concerns about out of process deletion are still valid.)

YM deleted 1984 ghallooghaaraa after the AFD was closed No Consensus, citing sockpuppet contamination. That decision was upheld at DRV despite agreement that process was not respected.

3. Page protection

YM has not employed page protection during the examined period.

YM has semi-protected over 100 articles since 1 June 2010. In many cases, his use of semi-protection does not appear to be wholly compliant with the semi-protection policy. As with all my analyses, I am unable to view deleted contributions.

I will endevour a detailed review of all of the page protection instances. Okay, I've had about enough of that; I see no reason to expect the remaining protections to be any different in the whole than the ones I've already slogged through. With only a few exceptions, YM has used long-duration semi-protection on pages in which only a single editor -- often only a single edit -- has been disruptive. I do not believe this to be in compliance with the semi-protection policy as I understand it.

His 1 year semiprotection of physics is particularly notable in this regard. The log summary ("flagrant vandalism on major page for 40 minutes") is accurate, as far as it goes. A one-edit vandalism of the article by an IP editor went uncorrected for nearly an hour. YM reverted this single disruptive change (ironically, to an IP editor's version), and then applied a one-year semiprotection, which remains in effect at the time of this posting.

His semiprotection of thylacine is even more puzzling; I can see literally nothing in the article history to explain why any admin intervention at all was warranted.

Additionally, there are a few cases in which YM employed semi-protection on pages in which he has a history as an editor. Primarily, these pages relate to cricket (although his history at cricket appears purely administrative) or to Vietnamese political figures. Whether or not his contributions at any or all such pages are sufficient to raise him to the level of an "involved admin" is not a topic I feel competent to opine on.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Believe this should be followed up by uninvolved admin to view deletions and revisions. This may be a serial pattern here. Given YM's ... unyielding response, this could happen again, and very likely will.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Just a question. The summary says YM has not protected pages since June 1, 2010, but he has, and in several cases I've looked at, in violation of policy (semi-protecting articles he has edited recently and/or semi-protecting them for months, a year, or indefinitely after almost no vandalism). See the protection log here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse the analysis of blocking actions but, per SlimVirgin, question the analysis of protection actions. The six-month semi-protection of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu seems very questionable given the low level of vandalism, and YM's obvious involvement in the editing, both evidenced in the article history. Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. East of Borschov 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kanatonian (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Tomayres (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. As I said in one of my summaries, the administrative tools in the hand of a corrupt editor is devastating. YM shines a worthy example of that. I don't give a damn about how many Fas he has. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is what it's about. Nothing else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. shoy (reactions) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorse. Note: Mnlira013 has no deleted contributions. The user's additions in 2010 were merely adding History.com links to some External links. The sole talk page interaction was a note from someone else describing this as "Nonconstructive editing." (in the edit summary - Twinkle's Vandalism Warning Level 1, I think), which wasn't exactly helpful, and suggests YM didn't even look at the user talk page, because seeing that should have prompted some notification about spam (since he saw it that way), most obviously by choosing an appropriate block message. Except of course it wasn't spam, even if the links shouldn't be added. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. --JN466 14:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Jafeluv (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Hillcountries (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Cube lurker (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Redthoreau's request for adminship, YellowMonkey called him a Communist POV pusher [6] and is likely to be more lenient towards pro-communist users than anti-communist users [7] with no real justification. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and an admin should be held to higher standards.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --150.101.127.159 (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. That was an intemperate comment, and it was followed by a rebuke from DGG. --JN466 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I remembered that, but wasn't quite sure whether to bring it up. But since you did... Yes, not good to make such statements at RFA, without any evidence (handwaving to the effect that "anyone can see from his edits in that topic area" is not evidence), and then not respond to DGG's rebuke. In view of the latter aspects, seems a relevant part of the behaviour pattern being discussed. Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kanatonian (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hillcountries (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. His rude behavior is unbecoming of an admin in my opinion, and he seems to hold grudges based on what he deems to be an editor's ideological point of view.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowmonkey is one of the most active editors and admins going. A feature of his or her adminship is that they often jump in and take action in circumstances where other admins would sit on the fence - in my view (as a fellow admin) he or she does so wisely and this constitutes an important and valuable contribution. As Yellowmonkey has agreed with the desired outcome and should be taken at their word, I don't see why this is continuing. Many of the issues raised above in this section seem to be only loosely related to the dispute raised at the start of this RfC/U and I don't see how this is very productive.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --CarTick (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) well said. very similar to what i said at ANI. It is no surprise his no-nonsense approach is not popular with more than a few. --CarTick (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Has the balls to admit to being wrong and apologise; rare quality in an admin. Is prepared to jump in and deal with a problem; rare quality in an admin. Well said. Seems like a lot of people are indulging in chips on shoulders rather than contributing to an RFC. Justin talk 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Aaroncrick ^TALK 04:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Very constructive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Bidgee (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Bilby (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. SatuSuro 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Secret ^account 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. –Moondyne 14:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support desyopping and Recall of this administrator. He has ignored the community and his comments about Indian contributors and his actions in this poor block all show very poor judgment with no sign of any understanding or care of his actions. It would do him good to treat him as he has treated others - make fun of him and then block him for a lengthy period without warning and then ignore him. - retracting this part, wouldn't want to treat him so badly.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. (minus the "make fun of"-thing) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kanatonian (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Quigley (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Crossmr (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hillcountries (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My case was alluded to above as an example of the silent and excessively long nature of YellowMonkey's blocks, but it also ties into other themes we have heard from the users here: using administrator tools to further a position in a content dispute, McCarthyist accusations and attacks when asked to explain his decisions, and to introduce a new one, unjustified use of the CheckUser tool. His reasons for his first block of me, with no prior discussion and simply the usernames of my supposed alternate accounts connected with "=" as the block reason, remains mysterious. The alternate accounts that YellowMonkey outed were sufficiently removed in time and topics edited from this account that they could not have come from a suspicious connection between the two. So why did YellowMonkey target me for a sockpuppetry block? A likely answer came during the month or so during which I idled, because he disabled my talk page inappropriately along with my block. With reason to believe that he had permanently rid me from Wikipedia, he quietly reverted my edits on an article about a fairly obscure Buddhist succession dispute that I had been editing recently, to remove some of my language that tried to proportion viewpoints, in order to favor his strongly expressed preference for candidate. Eventually I was unblocked by another administrator, who was satisfied to call it a misunderstanding.

But the consequences of letting YellowMonkey hand out unjustified indefinite blocks like this without scrutiny are clear. One month after his previous block, he tried it again, and when asked to explain his second unilateral block of me, accused me of "obvious[ly]" "editing in the equivalent way of a Chinese Communist Party internet policeman". Sandstein and the other editors at ANI, with much less fanfare than in this case, did not find these accusations "obvious", and further found that YellowMonkey did not follow the proper procedure for blocks, and so Sandstein unblocked me. We are here now, so it appears that YellowMonkey has not changed his habits; by either being more careful with the tools, or by improving his communication skills. Whatever the reason, if other administrators have to constantly follow YellowMonkey around and clean up his messes, he should not have the tools to make them.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Quigley (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree wholeheartedly with the last portion of your statement, this is something that needs to head to arbcom. DC T•C 20:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. If YellowMonkey won't do the decent thing and simply resign his tools, they should be removed from him. Physchim62 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kanatonian (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is highly problematic. I recall a similar case from 2008 (see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Section_break_2), in which YM blocked one of his/her opponents (Googlean) with the motivation that Googlean had violated a 'consensus' (a consensus proclaimed by YM him/herself and not endorsed by any other editor prior to the block was issued). --Soman (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Crossmr (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Disquieting. --JN466 02:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. There's a pattern here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. (Lo and behold, I'm endorsing Quigley.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. As has been stated, repeated pattern of poor administration. Off2riorob (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorsing; I'm open to the possibility of YM explaining his side of this (as I requested) sufficiently well that I'd strike my endorse, but I'm not holding my breath. Rd232 ^talk 10:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Some kind of explanation is needed. But part of the problem is that explanations seem rarely to be forthcoming.--Korruski^Talk 14:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. I still can't believe the corruptness that this user has been going on with. I always thought that he was quite high-almighty type of editor, fantastic FA developer, however, these behaviours and actions are certainly not acceptable in Wikipedia. There will be no explanation from his side I guess, because the facts show that this is indeed an on-going matter. What happened to Quigley, certainly happened to many. Its time to give up on this user. Either remove his administrative tools or maybe a block is eminent. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Hillcountries (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Cube lurker (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. This looks, to me, worryingly like a person repeatedly misusing the tools and then taking advantage to further their viewpoints. This would be a Very Bad Thing for an admin to engage in. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it speaks to the key issue of communication, I point out issues with YellowMonkey's use of his alternate account:

1. There is no link from his main account User:YellowMonkey to User:YellowAssessmentMonkey (there is a link in the other direction, but I don't think this is sufficient for an actively used alternate account)
2. As the alternate account name suggests, it was created to separate out the large volume of edits associated with wikiproject assessments on talk pages [8]. That's fine, but the account now seems for quite a long time to be used for all manner of general edits. Now plenty of people have alternate "public computer" accounts, and maybe that's the use adopted here - but then it's even more important for it to be clearly linked from the main account than if it's merely used for talkpage assessments. The failure to make this connection clear enough has affected this RFC itself, in particular in trying to evaluate YM's communication with blocked editors. Let's WP:AGF that YM was not avoiding scrutiny, but for a former arb to create this problem is most unfortunate, especially when combined with the principle he himself endorsed in the Betacommand case (see Physchim62 view above).

Addendum: I missed this comment on the RFC talk page: "My main account has almost exclusively article edits as I have a habit of logging my talk edits on my declared secondary account"[9]. This is not an accepted legitimate use of alternate accounts. And to make matters worse, I notice that the signature of the alternate account merely reproduces the signature of the main account: this is surely more confusing than alternatives like having that signature point to the alternate account page (which redirects to the main account page) or even an explicit note in the signature. Not everyone follows this good practice, but it's worse not to when you omit a link from the main account to the alternate. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --JN466 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Korruski^Talk 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Quigley (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kanatonian (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. DC T•C 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Seems more bizarre than WikiCriminal to me. Note however that YM has used his alternate account to try to deflect criticisms of his lack of admin accountability, by pointing out that YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs) has plenty of talk page contributions while YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has remarkably few: the problem remains that the talk page contributions on YAM are not the ones that are expected of YM as an admin. Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hillcountries (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 here.Hillcountries (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I pointed out - "The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites" is a baseless allegation and should be ignored by the Closing Admin.(Signed after log in), the article I created was tagged under speedy deletion.Hillcountries (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop him NOW. He has a habit of randomly accusing editors. At Redthoreau's RFA he called Redthoreau a communist pov pusher. And there was the retarded nationalist incident. And this terrible block. And he misuses his user talk page. He has such a long header that the talk page took over 8 minutes to load for me. Then the pageload hung and I had o load it all over again. I think heshould be desyssoped; he has clearly misused the tools. Access Denied 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this summary

1. Access Denied 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)He does indeed have a terrible habit of personal vendettas.[reply]

I feel that YellowMonkey's protections, while maybe not ideal, appear to have reasonably significantly improved in my view since I made a complaint (linked at the top) on ANI and since other Administrators followed up these issues. Some of the other comments raised above do seem rather worrying however. I also feel that administrators jumping in can be a positive thing, though you have to discuss the issues when a comment is raised about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Well I should explicitly endorse my own view :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. JJ98 (Talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Secret ^account 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found YellowMonkey to be an extremely unscrupulous and ideological editor. On the Vietnam war article, for example, he reverted edits involving the following sources: Charles Hirschman et al., “Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate,” Population and Development Review, December 1995; Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995); Heuveline, Patrick (2001), "The Demographic Analysis of Mortality in Cambodia," In Forced Migration and Mortality; Banister, Judith, and Paige Johnson (1993), "After the Nightmare: The Population of Cambodia," in Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge, the United Nations and the International Community, ed. Ben Kiernan. He did so repeatedly, without offering any explanation as to why. He rejected my appeal to "avoid edit wars" and instead told me that these sources were "fringe from home-made websites etc." The dispute involved, not if I would delete his estimates of the dead in the Vietnam War (which come from official Vietnamese government propaganda), but if Population and Development Reviews demographic survey was a credible source. Notably, the article currently states that "1.5 to 2 million" Cambodians died in the war--which would make the entire population of Cambodia a casualty when one considers that wounded is three to four times greater than the number of dead. The Pol Pot article, under the "Analysis and Perspectives" section, has two paragraphs copied and pasted from a news article that explicitly blames America for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. In a series of edits, I added an excerpt from President Nixon's speech on Cambodia, Sliwinski's and Kiernan's estimates of the death toll from the bombing, and a rebuttal of the charge from “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda. When done, the section looked like this. He told me that Yale University was engaged in an effort to "white-wash US support for Pol Pot". He has engaged in these tactics repeatedly. Accusing Henry Kissinger of war crimes, he asked me "are you kissinger?? lol". He then randomly deleted my edits on the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Henry Kissinger, and several other articles back-to-back--without offering any explanation. Some of the editors expressed puzzlement over his apparently vindictive reversions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.