Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

@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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In that regard, I might look at several of the school articles, such as Ulladulla High School (revision history). One IP editor. Two inappropriate edits. This could and should have been solved by a short-term block (although, a month or so later, the IP was schoolblocked, which is the ideal outcome there). Instead, we got a 6 month semi. As for the banned editors issue, I am not competent to respond to that question, I don't think. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, in regard to the Buddhism and violence deletion: I'd presented evidence of copyvio at the DRV prior to YM commenting, but I probably didn't make that clear enough. Thus Stifle's request for evidence had already been met. The article was in a truly awful state, hence the DRV decision. There were concerns about process, which seemed to be the grounds of the overturn comments, but I don't think this deletion is a particularly serious transgression on YM's part. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. I read over that DRV but overlooked your copyvio evidence. Striking that aspect of my analysis. Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you think that a fuller (and/or more honest) response would be "flaming", you should resign your bit right now. Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 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. 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 YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Which declared secondary account would this be, as you have several? Physchim62 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick scan of the contributions on that account doesn't show up any significant interaction with the large number of editors you have blocked over the last few months: perhaps you'd like to find us some examples. Physchim62 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was simply responding to your comment of 00:04, which I took as a comment that have negligible entries in talk, user talk, WP, WT logs YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I recognise most of those user names on the User talk contribs for "YellowAssessmentMonkey"; I can be fairly sure that you use that account for the bureaucracy involved in the FA processes. What about the account you use to discuss your admin actions, outside of your FA remit? Physchim62 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I answer them on my talk page with my accounts along with all inquiries such as CU requests. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't find as many talk contributions as you expected; YM pointed to one where there are quite a few talk contributions. Maybe YM can make sense of this question of yours, but I can't. Can you please be a bit more specific rather than the vague hand waving? What actions with which users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can YM provide any "appropriate warnings prior to, and notification messages following," his admin actions over the last few months? Physchim62 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• YM, let's start where this RfC started: the block of YK. Would you care to give a more detailed rationale for the block now that you have everybody's attention and we have yours? Do you acknowledge that two weeks is unusually long for a first block? Is there a reason you didn't inform him of the block? Answering those questions would go some way to alleviating peoples' concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we're to accept that RfC was the road to follow here, the scope of this RfC doesn't seem remotely correct given the evidence presented. There seems to be a much larger pattern here and that was brought up at AN/I before this was started. The community needs to have a genuine binding discussion as to whether or not YM can keep is position as an administrator.--Crossmr (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the only place for that, obviously, is ArbCom. While that's not out of the question, this RfC is brand new, so let's see where it takes us. If we have faith, something satisfactory might come of it and, if not, we haven't lost anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The article came up for a FAR and I watch over articles currently in that process and looked at the sections on the talk page that are now at archive 12, sections 37 and before 2) Looking back at it now, it was definitely far too harsh and in hindsight not necessary and I should have had a chat first 3) No, there is no justifiable reason/excuse for this. I tend to try and minimise paperwork wherever possible, and usually just use the block log when it is convenient; I did use the talk page regular in previous times, but have strayed from this, possibly because block logs on watchlists were introduced in recent times. In this case, a warning and explanation was needed as it was not obvious spamming or vandalism. As for the semiprotections, I usually base it on how long the article has been in a vandalised state, and the previous % of IP edits that were vandalism and slow response times, as a recap of what I said in February/March? and I did the school articles because most of them had unattended vandalism for several days, and most IP edits were not useful, and coming to a conclusion on a cost/gain analysis. I am willing to conform to mainstream standards with no problems, as I have no stake in these articles. As for the part about sprotecting articles one has edited, I was of the notion that it should not be a problem if it was done to stop unexplained blankings, random things such as person randomly switching numbers and statistics or switching words to their opposite meaning, as it only stops vandals and new accounts with a handful of edits, and doesn't result in the winning of any content dispute. But I can refrain from that too. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see how you got the idea you got from that talk page section. --JN466 07:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YM. I appreciate the explanation and your willingness to do things more in keeping with the mainstream. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=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)

Ncmvocalist said, regarding the Foundation's opening of an India office and its India outreach work, that YellowMonkey's "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."

I struggle to follow the logic of this comment. Yes, we have drive-by vandalism and poor content contributions on Indian subcontinent topics, just as we have in articles everywhere. And YellowMonkey is correct in the assessment he gave here, at the thread Ncmvocalist linked, that this is more of a problem in this area, because these articles are not watched as diligently. While we have Indian editors doing quality content work, churning out GAs and FAs, we seem to lack an army of Indian vandalism reverters keeping these articles in proper shape.

But I see no reason to assume that the Foundation's outreach in India will result simply in more widespread drive-by vandalism and more poor edits from the Indian subcontinent, rather than attract more mature and responsible editors making quality contributions and watching these articles. --JN466 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you that it's not simply that; it will attract at least some mature and responsible editors as you say. What I'm saying is I don't think it's realistic to assume that a picture perfect finish is what is going to be the result; beauty attracts the good in the same way that it also attracts the not so good, and the same can be said about the project's general attraction to people.

He's highly experienced and he does work on those areas so he has a better idea of when he's finding he needs to work on more than normal. It's natural for him to form a view, and on that point, I think those concerns are justified. I don't think it's fair however to take that into another context and assume that is a general attitude towards all India articles and editors; it's really specific to what certain initiatives cause for the project and what certain users do to the project. Frustration about more work being left unattended due to a lack of resources in particular topics is a justified in my opinion; when there is a slight improvement yet there continues to be a lack of resources for over a year, that frustration is bound to build up if there's even a perceived increase in the work-pile. Obviously, sometimes it's a bit overzealous (eg; the retarded comment), but I think that was expecting perfection than anything else. Ideally, the concerns about WMF prove to be unjustified so that there is no disappointment about what has happened to the project, so that the workpile doesn't continue to increase, and so that our time could be spent doing something else instead of even more cleanup. Bit of a long response, but hope it clarifies that the view I'm stating (and I think he holds) is not quite as narrow as suggested. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think frustration and a sense of being overworked are an obvious element here; and that's probably also a reflection of the fact that there haven't been many responsible editors looking after these articles to date. --JN466 07:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How about drafting an outside view to this effect, Ncmvocalist? You seem to have more of an insight into what's been going on in the topic area. --JN466 09:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be turning into a witch hunt. YM has an entitlement to disagree with actions by the Wikimedia Foundation - admins don't have to tow a company line. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had properly read the conversation between Ncmvocalist and myself, you might have gathered that the above exchange is about trying to understand what things might look like from YM's side, and that I encouraged Ncmvocalist to post an outside view broadly in YM's defence, because I thought I might endorse it. --JN466 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey has an accurate grasp of the social problems in India (lack of community work, caste, clan and so on) but it is an assumption to say that WMF will attract even more drive-by-vandals. IMO, we should leave the consequences of opening an office in India (and the providing of needed solutions) to those who devise the strategy of the organization. After all they are the ones who built Wikipedia from scratch, when 10 years back, people ridiculed the very idea of a free, collaborative information source. I have a strong feeling that people's habits and attitudes will change over the next few years making obsolete the need of an "army of vandalism reverters" as pointed out by Jayen466. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey has an accurate grasp of the social problems in India (lack of community work, caste, clan and so on). I disagree with it completely, what he does is work with a group of India centric editors who go to him crying wulf all the time. In the past they have been ranging in ideology from Hindu right wingers to general vandalism fighters. Whoever finds favor with him is what he goes to war for. I have not seen and real understanding of any India specific issues apart from Cricket. Kanatonian (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the letter of the Desired Outcome and of YM's Response, the Desired Outcome has in fact been achieved, and therefore the RFC should in theory be closed. I think this reflects the somewhat hasty drafting of the RFC, that this unsatisfactory response literally qualifies. Perhaps in fact the RFC should be closed, and a new one drafted more carefully with a view to the broader issues. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Useless. Admins are pissing their pants because, y'know, they could be held accountable one day; users are pissing their pants because no-one wants to feel the wrath of the admins. Just close it and forget about it all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to waste time and energy closing this and opening a new one. It is not unusual for a RfC to turn up new issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556, could you please withdraw that immature comment. I am one of those not supporting this RFC and i am not worried about feeling the wrath of neither YM nor any other administrator and i also dont intend to have a wikipedia career for that matter. --CarTick (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't. But you could strike "immature"; that's a personal attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, but you can both pack it in and get back to discussing the matter at hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

yes it is; and what's the issue at hand? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this RFC should be closed simply in order to discuss the broader issues. If Rd232 is proposing to open up another RFC, well we might as well stick with this one. There is obviously a significant amount of unease about YM's "style" of adminning. Physchim62 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's structurally hard for an RFCU to serve its purpose of dispute resolution when the Desired Outcome departs so far from the issues under discussion. Reformulating it would enable it to perform its purpose better. On the other hand, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle, even if we state the obvious point that some of the work done here in writing Views could be transposed with updates to a new RFC. This is why an RFCU should not be rushed, and why I set up a drafting system within the RFCU guidance; sadly, it's not really used. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't dispute resolution. The problem is Yellow Monkey is a disruptive user and needs to be treated like one.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The desired outcome listed in the relevant section of this RFC/U has been met. I propose that we close this if there is agreement. Please indicate your support or opposition in closing this RFC/U. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Support closing of this RFC/U, appropriate actions should be taken to rectify the block log so that this is not a blemish on Yogesh Khandke. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Support per ZuggernautOppose disquieted by Quigley's outside view; we should leave this open a little longer. Thanks for the link to Yogesh's talk page; I had missed that exchange. Could someone please propose a wording to take care of Yogesh's block log, to clarify the situation for future viewers of that log? --JN466 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Support It seems that some editors have the pitchforks out now. I don't see any basis for continuing this RfC in light of YM's response both in the RfC and on YK's talk page.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
4. SupportNeutral. YM has agreed to do things by the book in future. That's good enough for me. If he doesn't, that's another matter for another RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support on the understanding that YM's post here means he won't protect articles he's involved in editing, and won't apply protection (especially not long protection) to any others after only minimal vandalism. Also, YM, it would help a lot if you would be more communicative. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

   And how about indefinitely blocking users without communication? or blocking users he's engaged in disputes with? or the insulting personal attacks he's been making towards users? The amount of disruption with the tools is just far too serious for a contrite apology made at the 11th hour after people have spent months and probably longer trying to get a word out of him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe, but I'm not convinced there's much more that can be accomplished here. RfC/U is informal and non-binding. It's not as if we can desysop him here, no matter how many times it's suggested. There is, of course, nothing to stop you kicking it up to ArbCom, but my suggestion would be to take him at his word. If he doesn't keep it, arbitration may be the way to go, but there's no reason to assume he wouldn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   What word? I see him apologize to YK, even though we had to pull that out of him, and he briefly addresses the protections above, with logic that doesn't make sense and does nothing to actually address his history of inappropriate blocks both in style and who he is using them against. Nowhere does he really address his communication-phobia that he has. So even if we were to take him at his word there really isn't a word to take him at. As for having the discussion in a binding place, that was happening, until you, as admin number 3 come along and sweep it under the rug. There are plenty of community members who feel that AN/I is the right place to have a desysop discussion as evidenced by the frequency that established editors bring that very thing up on AN/I and participate in said discussions--Crossmr (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   Crossmr, I agree that the other issues need to stop too. I was only focusing on the protection because that's the thing I'd noticed myself before the RfC opened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Jayron32.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Neutral' It's to be regretted. There are serious allegations of admin misconduct being made. Have you read the recent outside views? Beside, the grounds for closure that are stated above are not grounds for closure per the RFC closure instructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Support, following SlimVirgin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Support this is turning into a witch trial Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

   It's very far from that. It has been very brief, and we're taking YM at his word that he'll play things by the book from now on, looking to the future rather than pursing the previous misuse of tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah. Just like last time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

9. Neutral. With recent outside views, it looks increasingly like the time has long passed when YM's errors and misjudgements fall within an acceptable learning process. In particular, the Yogesh affair looks like a repetition of the earlier Quigley affair, and either one is egregious enough to make desysopping not a ridiculous demand. And that's ignoring the other issues. If this RFC closed, we should draft another, more widely framed. Going to ARBCOM with a request for desysopping might not have enough support without that (and of course a second RFC might come down against making such a request). Rd232 ^talk 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Support This sort of 'throwing the kitchen sink' at a long time editor is not particularly productive. YM's apology shows to YK is much appreciated (and I'm not surprised by it). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

    Better late than never, but not necessarily good enough, when kitchen sinksskeletons start tumbling out of the closet. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

    The one thing we know about skeletons is that they have no meat in them. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    Unfortunately that remark makes it hard not to appreciate that the common phrase "skeletons in the closet" really involves comparing the person described to a serial killer. :( But anyway, the point I need to make in response to your comment is that some past infractions are too serious to dismiss just because they're in the past, especially when they're repeated. Rd232 ^talk 09:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose The whole 'prove yourself whiter than white to become an admin and then you're untouchable' thing is getting kinda old. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
12. stunned What a shock. With each outside view comes another pile of misconduct and suddenly everyone wants to close the discussion. I've seen administrators run out of town or resign for far less than what has turned up here. This has only been up a couple days, but I guess if we were to let this carry on for the duration, we might have so much evidence no one could ignore it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral Oppose YM has misused his admin powers for a very long time. Shame on us for allowing it, but I am confident nothing will come out of this apology due to his behavior of knowingly flaunting admin powers comprehensively in blocking editors, protecting and deleting articles. His range and depth of flaunting these rules is incredible. He carefully hides his misdeeds amongst the many thousands mundane edits he performs as an admin. His abuse of admin powers to intimidate and bully contributing editors that he disagrees and disabling articles from editing is a tremendous loss of credibility for Wikipedia which depends on the countless acts of volunteers acting in good faith. YM having written FA articles should not color our eyes to the lack ability demonstrated as an admin. Allowing bullying to happen is aiding and abetting bullying. Stand up to the countless past and future victims. Also everyone who has spoken critical about him are now marked people. Kanatonian (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose, but not for any specific reason of vengence against YellowMonkey. This RFC has evolved into a general discussion of YM's administrator behavior. I have no specific reason to see him desysoped or sanctioned, but the RFC has become a productive discussion on longterm history of YM as an administrator rather than simply a discussion of a single block. I think it would be premature to close it at this point. There is still a lot of positive results possible from this RFC, if YM becomes more thoughtful in his use of admin tools because of it, especially in regards for situations where he has a "horse in the race", then he becomes a better admin, and we all win. For that reason alone, I'd like to see this play out to its conclusion rather than get closed down. --Jayron32 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. This RfC/U has become a soapbox and also has become a witch hunt by those who have a dislike of YM. I do not see how keeping the RfC/U will change anything other then creating more of a negative atmosphere. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    To my knowledge I haven't encountered YM before. I was uninvolved and rapidly became disgusted by the way he was using the tools. It's disruptive and an insult to the community the way he has conducted himself.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

17. Support. So let me get this straight, we've achieved the desired outcome, yellowmonkey has left a detailed explanation and stated he will change his behavior "more to the mainstream", so we're gonna leave this thing open for a while so people can dig up all the dirt they can find? How about we AGF, take yellowmonkey at his word, and if he screws up again we can have a chat about sanctions/desysopping if that's what the community feels is necessary. N419BH 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. Aaroncrick ^TALK 04:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
19. No need for premature closure. And no evidence of "desired outcome". Desired future outcomes like "will do this" and "will no do that" take some time to settle. It's too early to make conclusions. East of Borschov 08:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    See section above: the Desired Outcome was simply "YellowMonkey will acknowledge the community consensus that this block was in error". He's done that. Which in context suggests the Desired Outcome is flawed, but it can't really be fixed while the RFCU is in progress. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose - user deserves restrictions. Also, User:Jayjg only comment to this page at all, is simply to request closure, no comment nothing, such a comment is worthless, in fact its worse than that. Off2riorob (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    RfC/U isn't a Kangaroo court nor should it be used for a witch hunt. Also if an editor doesn't want to leave why they support or oppose, assume some good faith. Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not an AGF issue, it's a WP:NOTVOTE issue. In context it's implicit that he agrees with previous supporters of the closure motion, but it's not ideal to merely !vote. Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its a vote issue, his only comment at all to this page or the RFC is Support closure, its as I said, worthless, worse than worthless. As for AGF, user comes along to a discussion within which are clear problems with a users administrative actions and he adds nothing apart from , that he supports its closure, users already are experienced with administrators simply supporting other administrators blindly and forever. Off2riorob (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Who said this was a vote? It is up to the closer of the RfC not you. If they don't want to leave a comment, who cares? I don't. And please stop witch hunting of an issue which has been dealt with, if your not happy with it take it to Arbcom. Simply really. Bidgee (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of care is loud and clear. This is an example of the blindness, users need to speak up loud and clear when there is repeated poor Administration from a user as if you don't this is what you can expect.Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you just raised WP:AGF, maybe you should look up the term "witchhunt". Incidentally, further towards the incident that sparked this being resolved, Yogesh's block log has been annotated [3]. Still waiting for more responses from YM to other outside views raised. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Pity that Off2riorob is a clear case of bad faith. I have looked at witch hunt but seeing editors here looking for anything to use against YM, it is clear they will do anything to have a hanging but this case is to do with Yogesh's block and his heldling of it, not what happened a week, month or years ago. Bidgee (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hanging? Witch hunt, stop being a drama queen. I support deysopping in this case, I support easier deysopping of administrators when issues with their actions arise. We need to break the cycle of thought that supports blindly. By dealing with poor administration with clarity and decisiveness when it occurs the overall level of administration will rise. If Administrators are aware the community will not support poor administrators the remaining Administrators will use their authority with more care. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)A comment coming from a Arbcom candidate, it worries me on how you will use your tools with comments such as that (above). You may as well put the other Administrators on the RfC, most have made the same mistake at some stage. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had a "lynching" yet, perhaps someone will throw that term in? I'm starting to think that this is heading ArbCom's way.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an arbcom case is probably the best outcome now. --JN466 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Desired outcome met. If the discussion is being called a witch hunt by more than one person here then it might be time to close this out. There is always a next step if needed but give the guy some time to reprove himself to the community and constructive criticism can always be given on his talk page. Cptnono (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   He is continuing to fail to prove himself right now - by failing to engage with the range of issues raised in this RFC. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Support Its becoming a witch hunt for anyone disgruntled with being sanctioned by YM. Completely uninvolved editor. Justin talk 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   By the by, the repeatedly used "witch hunt" is singularly inappropriate as a pejorative term here, because nobody is casting a net high and low to look for a witch. If you want a pejorative term, at least use the correct one, which would be lynch mob. (Except that since RFCs are non-binding, this a lynch mob that can't do anything except perhaps get its act together and present a request to the police supported by appropriate evidence.) Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   By the way he was never able to sanction me because I had passed the newbie stage and had a grasp of some Wikipedia rules by the time he used my newbie mistake of not knowing how to delete my user page completely and exposed my true identity in a very difficult situation. He has harassed me with that knowledge of knowing who I am throughout my Wikipedia stay. I had written to many oversight admins and they would over sight his comments. I have saved some of those e-mail correspondences but not all and is available to any Arbcom member . This has gone on since 30 May 2007 for over 5 years now. Although I had changed my user name few times but never ever did change the association with the original name because of that harassment. That would have been the easy thing to do, and giving into a bully and a real bad human being. So don’t ever tell me that I am picking on him because he sanctioned me. My case alone would have de frocked him long ago if I had pursued it so I am part of the passive victims who stood by and let it happen. Kanatonian (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Support closing, at this point in time, this is WP:Beating a dead horse. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. This is beginning to turn into a witch-hunt. No further action is needed here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What is there that remains to be accomplished here and how should we go about accomplishing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is, but there did seem to be unseemly haste in the burial. Let's leave it open a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To what end? I'm not advocating closing it just yet, but I'm just wondering where we're going to go with it now that we've heard from YM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How about all the other editors who were wrongly blocked by him, shouldnt they have the same fairness in being heard ?Kanatonian (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Those who have been blocked by YM have a dislike for him and will always want to see him desysoped, this RfC/U has clearly turned into a witch hunt. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Always good to bear in mind whether an action is productive or destructive. At this point, this RfC is becoming destructive because it is backward looking and is focused on digging up dirt (as opposed to weighing good vs. bad). Looking forward is always better than looking backward and, as N419BH points out in the section above, we will have the opportunity to see what the future brings. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Bidgee and RegentsPark. Aaroncrick ^TALK 04:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too. It's worth noting that as a very active admin and former ArbCom member YellowMonkey has taken a lot of actions the editors he's sanctioned obviously haven't liked. This seems to be turning into an attempt by some of them to get payback and is also attracting editors who just don't seem to like admins. The stated purpose of this RFC/U has been fully met, and it's impossible for YM to defend himself against all the mud which is being slung his way in this kind of forum. If editors have serious concerns with his conduct (which I personally would regard as being unfounded on the basis of my many interactions with YM over the years) they should take this matter to ArbCom - it's the more appropriate venue for any number of reasons. They should note that their conduct, including in lodging the complaint, will also be considered by ArbCom though... Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree; this is not the spirit of RfC/U or what it exists for. Participants who are not happy should take it to ArbCom and stop misusing RfC/U in this way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment was sought, it's being given. if the comment is negative, that's unfortunate, but the actions were inappropriate. Calling a spade a spade is hardly outside the spirit of RfC. It seems to me there are a few who can't help but rise to YMs defense and can only do so by casting aspersions on those who take issue with him. What's damaging is blind cheerleading and ignoring long-term disruption on the part of a user.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather doubt that the people who are endorsing the complaints of people who were blocked by YM have spent much time looking into the cases themselves (which involves a lot more than clicking on diffs offered by the blocked editor) and checking that the complaints are actually accurate... Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's only so much due diligence you can do as an outsider when the RFC subject doesn't engage with the input given. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See what I said about casting aspersions? The issue I have is not as to whether someone was actually blocked or not, it was how, why, for how long, and what the response was to said action by YM. There seem to be very few people, even those that support him that think he didn't do anything wrong and that he needs to change his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter of the Yogesh Khandke block has been sorted out and it also looks like we have consensus to close this. The instructions on closing talk about adding a summary. I think paraphrasing discussions under items 5 (SlimVirgin), 14 (Jayron32) and the outside view by Quigley will be a good summary. Once a summary is added we can delist from RfC/U, encapsulate between {{rfcuarchivesummarytop}} and {{rfcuarchivebottom}} tags and close this. A few points before we take that route:

1. Several editors have recently switched from "Support" or "Neutral" to "Oppose". We should perhaps leave this here for some more time (another 10-12 hours) until there's more stability.
2. User:RegentsPark features qutie prominently in the original ANI by Yogesh Khandke so I am quite surprised he's able to give an "outside view" here while taking positions that sway between taking a moral high ground to sarcastic responses at the ongoing disputes related to the original ANI at British Empire.
3. User:SpacemanSpiff, also mentioned at the original ANI has a history similar to YellowMonkey, yet he is able to get away unscrutinized. This is alarming because RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff were basically using their roles as administrators to bully Yogesh Khandke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuggernaut (talk • contribs) 05:10, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. You took us away from a place of binding discussions where we were dealing with a disruptive editor and forced the discussion here by starting this RfC which set up a scope which doesn't even remotely begin to approach what was going on here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell could not have foreseen all that came after the RfC/U scope was setup. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The scope of an RfC can be as narrow or as broad as people want it to be, Cross. It isn't limited by the way it was introduced, because people recognize that these things can change shape. All people have to do is introduce more evidence or opinions in outside views, and other people will endorse or not. Also, there was nothing binding about the AN/I discussion. Only the ArbCom can desysop, and anyone can take an issue to the ArbCom at any time. Nothing is changed in that regard by keeping the RfC open or by closing it.

If we're going to get someone to summarize, it should be done by an uninvolved person. And I don't think we should close it without strong consensus to do so, though I hope people will only ask to keep it open if they intend to add something, or expect that others may arrive to endorse, and not for the sake of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but it was limited by the stated desired outcome which wasn't remotely in-line with the problems raised. As soon as that was met everyone rushed to close it regardless of the fact that people were still showing up with evidence pointing to on-going misconduct well beyond this single incident. As for AN/I's power, it's a noticeboard to deal with disruption. They might need someone else to enforce the removal of the bit, butt he community can come to a consensus to it's removal. The community is the one who grants it after all and as I've pointed out plenty of long-term users have sought desysop through there and there have been many discussions on it, so the community as a whole doesn't believe it doesn't have the power to remove it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually HJ Mitchell could have foreseen that since he was even one of the people who found some old issues with YM showing past misconduct and even before HJ started this RfC other users had come to raise those issues at the AN/I thread. He formulated the RfC and desired outcomes to be extremely narrow and not address those at all. Hence why we're now arguing about closing it with mounting evidence of misconduct--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it, there is not consensus for an early close. I read the !vote as ten supporting an early close, eight opposing, two neutral. This is a community discussion, however it started. I see nothing in the closure instructions (which require that a motion to close be open a minimum of 48 hours) that says that because "desired outcome" is met, you close the RfC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the motion to close was helpful, it's showed everyone that so far there is no consensus to close. That's input. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also illustrated some structural problems with RFCU. Perhaps a step in the right direction would be to draft a revised Desired Outcome here on the talk page, and transpose to the main page if we can get consensus. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck on that! Or perhaps it would be best if HJMitchell, as the initiator, did it, perhaps with my assistance as a certifier.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep shifting the goal until it matches what the kicker can hit? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I'd hope we'd take this more seriously. None of us is approaching this lightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving towards a kangaroo court? Hate to think what future RfC's will be like if we have people wanting to use all the dirt they can find just to get an out come they want but not the effects it will have on the project. Bidgee (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is spot on why RfCs aren't in themselves binding to begin with, though they can be cited later by an admin or even arbcom in laying out sanctions. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If they're not binding (they're not) then what's the problem? This is attempted dispute resolution. It doesn't work very well if one party doesn't engage and then stacks of people try to dismiss issues raised without discussing the evidence... Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It works a lot more slowly if they don't answer, but the input will still be meaningful (somehow) and it does seem YM has given this some thought. Given this isn't likely to close in the next day or two, he may say more. Let time have its sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute here that we're trying to resolve? Were YM not an admin we'd be calling this what it is, disruptive. This isn't a dispute over whether or not tags belong at the top of articles, or whether or not a particular image is appropriate for an article or a MOS concern. This is a violation of several policies that has caused disruption on the project.--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Moving towards a kangaroo court?" - Quite, YM has demonstrated that this is excessive bureaucracy: we should just block him for 1 month for tendentious adminning, without evidence or a block notice. Result! Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Revenge does nothing but damage the project even more then a mistake does, again use Arbcom if you're not happy with the RfC's outcome. Bidgee (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Revenge? Your accusations of bad faith sprayed around so liberally are starting to get excessive. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You said "we should just block him for 1 month for tendentious adminning, without evidence or a block notice. Result!", that is a revenge block. Saying that what you want and said is revenge is hardly bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Revenge" implies that YM has done something to me. And excuse me, but "saying that is what you want" do you not recognise sarcasm at all? Or did you think YM's action was acceptable, so a similar action would be too, so I must be serious? Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually came back here to remark that some people seem to be forgetting that both the arbitrary exercise of admin rights and the failure to properly investigate allegations of misuse/abuse (whether they turn out to be well-founded or not) have very real effects on the project too - rather more so than the concerns voiced about "witchhunting" an admin (admins are expected to have a certain amount of thick skin, and willingness to discuss their actions). Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

clearly, people are not happy with the outcome of the RFC, though the RFC's "desired outcome" is already met. YM has apologised to YK and has agreed that he is willing to conform to mainstream standards in the future. New issues have been brought up and all the active participants have rehashed their positions multiple times. While we can wait for new inputs from uninvolved editors, the following options have been discussed and are on the table. I am not necessarily supporting these options, just trying to find a solution. please cast your votes below. --CarTick (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what YellowMonkey has stated in his 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....", which I consider is very informal putting it as mildly as I can. Has the desired outcome been met, somebody should tell me how? Will he mend his trigger-happy ways, and endeavour to perform his administrative tasks professionally?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he will, given the the evidence of systematic failings that have come out from various different users with different experiences of dealing with YellowMonkey. That's why I think the case against YM is now wider than the block on Yogesh Khandke. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my first time watching this aspect of Wikipedia, so I have no idea what should happen next. I'm not an admin and don't want to be, and don't pay much attention to the admin subculture here. But, although most admins I know are decent, kind, thoughtful, helpful people doing necessary but annoying work, I've seen more than a few admins abusing their powers and coming down hard on naive yet innocent editors--and in these cases all too often walking away from the damage caused without an explanation or, god forbid, an apology. In some cases the abused editors have left Wikipedia. In other cases they stick around but carry their experience with them in various forms. Sometimes the actions of an abusive admin later end up reflecting poorly on the innocent editor instead of the admin--in the form of block logs, for example, which in some cases result in future admins being suspicious of the poor editor. In fact, having witnessed these sort of things over my years here, my earlier respect for admins in general has been significantly eroded. These days I respect and admire certain admins only. The effect of this RFC, it seems to me, has been to essentially force Yellow Monkey, under the threat of revoking admin powers, to actually respond to complaints and even to offer an apology to YK. It is hard for me to see an apology pulled through the teeth as sincere. The effect of this RFC seems to have been a "slap on the wrist" for YM. That is more than I have seen for other abusive admins, but I have to wonder--why aren't there better processes for dealing with this kind of thing? If I understand right, "taking it to Arbcom" is a fairly big deal and might result in the loss of adminship. Are there really no other processes in place other than "slap on the wrist" and "Arbcom"? Regular editors are subject to a wide variety of sanctions, mostly temporary things like blocks. Are there no similar sanctions for admins? Common editors who are abusive and get blocked are often told to spent the week, or month of block "thinking about their behavior" and encouraged to "return after the block with a more constructive approach"--or words to that effect. Is it not possible to take a similar approach to abusive admins? Perhaps I am wrong, but if "slap on the wrist" and "Arbcom" are the only options then Wikipedia's system for dealing with disruptive admins leaves much to be desired. My apologies if I have misunderstood the systems in place. Also, please excuse my apparent lack of good faith in YM--I'm posting this to get at an issue larger than Yellow Monkey's behavior, and am mainly using this case as a model for the larger issue. For all I know YM is sincere. That's why I'm posting this here instead of under one of the "what to do next" subsections. I have no opinion about what to do, if anything, about YM. I'm just a little surprised at the apparent lack of options, and the ad hoc approach to something that, were it involving a regular editor, would be quite different, with many options and well-established processes. Pfly (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Perhaps we should think about having a "blocking" option for admins -- just as a block removes editing privileges from an ordinary editor for a limited time, so community consensus might be empowered to disable an admin's tools for a limited time. Then again, just imagine the drama ... but you're right, the system sucks in multiple ways. --JN466 12:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are an administrator and all users like you, that probably means you have stayed away from the "hard job" of dealing with disruptive users and vandals. There are always users who would like to have some admins desysopped just because they dont like them and was affected by them once. then there are banned users with new avatar whose histories we can not even verify. It will be a struggle to see the difference between genuine concerns and revenge attacks. That said, I do share your opinion what this RFC exposes, if anything, is a lack of such a mechanism to deal with real trouble making administrators. --CarTick (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins qua admins are so supposed to have the trust of the community. If they lose it, they should lose the tools, and any halfway house isn't really logical or workable. Even asking admins to refrain voluntarily for a while from doing certain things seems pointless; those that don't agree will be the ones to worry about! About the only thing that might be any use is something like temporary mentorship being agreed, in respect of certain admin tools eg a certain type of block which an admin has made mistakes with. Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Given YK's level of experience, a mentorship seems pointless. If he keeps the bits, the entire community will be looking over his shoulder, that is the only mentorship that will work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was thinking generally, as Pfly was doing. In terms of specifics, the current Nyttend RFC is much more the sort of level and scope of problem where it might conceivably be useful. And yes, as far as possible any mentorship should involve asking for advice before acting, rather than someone looking over the mentee's shoulder. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What shocks me is that most of the supporters of the Nyttend RfC have not made their way here, although they pretend to weep over "admin abuse". I'm suspecting cliquism, strongly. YM, after all, is a functionary and a FA delegate and all the rest of it. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For my part (and I imagine many of the others), I'd seen the Nyttend incident(s) unfold as I had both his and Sandy's talkpages watched at the time, so felt qualified to comment. I know nothing about the background to this one. – iridescent 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes.Move to Arbcom as first choice. And please let's take the time (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance) to do a draft, and as part of that drafting process give YM a chance to give input on existing points raised in Outside Views here. Such input can always be had later, but it would be particularly helpful then. (If not sooner...) Rd232 ^talk 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Well, I've made it clear that my "desired outcome" is that YM voluntarily resigns his admin bit. I fear that any second RFC/U would be seen as simply sharpening the knives for an RFAr, but if people think that more discussion is useful I shall not stand against it. Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Appears that further discussion in an RFC format would be fruitless. Physchim62 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Looking at all the issues raised, I support it needs to go to Arbcom.Kanatonian (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Another RFC will give us the same answer: "Take it to ArbCom". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - too many unresolved concerns to just let this drop. A clear case of the main problems needs to be presented for a binding resolution.--Korruski^Talk 14:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Support An arbcom case seems sensible; this could look at the wider background, and come to a balanced view of both the value of YellowMonkey's admin work and the concerns expressed here. I just hope they don't all recuse. :) On the other hand, with the arbcom elections about to start, there should be enough new arbitrators in a couple of weeks' time even if some of the present arbitrators recuse. So, let's take it to arbcom; there is not much more we can do here. --JN466 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   If ArbCom is willing to accept the case, that's fine. But I'm concerned that (albeit partly because of YM's lack of engagement) there may be issues of not having done the homework. But I suppose if that happens a wider RFC can be drafted then. Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    Question: So someone who doesn't respond cannot be taken to ArbCom? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   Clearly not. But the flaws in this RFCU would be less evident if YM had chosen to engage with the concerns as they came up. Absent that, and there's a greater need for clarity and organisation, particularly in terms of the specific request made of YM. Arbcom might look at it and say "well YM did exactly what was asked, and the rest of the RFCU wasn't relevant to the original issue..." I'd hope they wouldn't, but it is slightly messy. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   With all respect, Rd232, do you really expect YellowMonkey to engage further in another RFC/U than he has done in this one? Or than he did when challenged over the OTD spamming? Or when he was challenged over Yogesh Khandke's block? Or when he was challenged over Quigley's block? Or when he was challenged over his page protection practices? Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   The hope is slight, but there. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   If it's procedurally more appropriate, I'd support a second RfCU as well. --JN466 16:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   Likewise. If that is the best process for proving we have done due dilligence, then I am happy with it.--Korruski^Talk 16:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   It's a fine line. We don't want to do things just because it's procedurally more appropriate (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY) - but procedures are there for a purpose, and not following them often has substantive consequences, which may be harder to overlook than formal ones. I would prefer to do a second RFCU - much of the legwork has already been done, and can be reused with flaws cleaned up. There is enough opposition here (talk of witchhunts and the like) that I think it would be best. Rd232 ^talk 16:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   I feel that YellowMonkey hasn't responded to the vast majority of concerns raised at the present RFC/U. As Rd232 notes, it has not been for lack of opportunity. For example, this reply to a long discussion about alternate accounts and talk page contributions, still doesn't come up with even a single example of interaction with people affected by his admin actions. Physchim62 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Support Best procedure, I think. There are plausible allegations of admin abuse over a longish period of time, and I think ArbCom's better prepared to deal with it. Should be quite an evidence page!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Support since there is no community based way to remove adminship, arbcom is the only place that can appropriately address the matter. Starting a second RFC would be an unnecessary bureaucratic step. DC T•C 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Support if they'll take it. Otherwise the community has to have it's own discussion, in a binding venue where consensus can be cited as meaningful.--Crossmr (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
8. As second choice, support. Baseball Bugs view is clearly the consensus view and I believe it has addressed the issue that was being considered at the outset. However, excuses have been made to turn RfC/U into a peanut gallery to attack this subject with allegations and implications of: unjustified checkuser usage, inappropriate use of alternate accounts (sockpuppetry); and racism. At least two out of these three have been made by users who lack the competence to be able to make such conclusive statements. Several of the participants here are conducting themselves in a manner that suggests there is a battleground at present of "defenders" when there is disagreement. I've also expressed a concern that touches on the issue that at least one of the commentators has failed to disclose relevant facts about her involvement - particularly in that she has been affected by ArbCom decisions which YM has voted on. The conduct of some participants during this entire ordeal (even through their contributions at the ANI which prompted this thread) is significant enough to warrant examination and remedies of their own. Therefore, while such an unhealthy atmosphere exists, continuing to discuss this via RfC/U is not beneficial and contrary to the spirit of the existence of this process. I sadly conclude that this is another instance where the Community is not equipped to address the particular participants of this dispute which are intent on being disruptive at any cost (such as even if ArbCom declined the case). My favoured course of action is Nick D's suggestion below. However, there is a likelihood that this will lead to them resorting to harassing YM through any means possible. So in the latter scenario, where the ordeal will continue in any event, then it should only continue in the appropriate final resort - ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. The issues continue to get deeper and wider, both in relation to the subject of the RFC, and to participants. Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. There's no other choice, given that the "community" (or, at least, that subsection who have expressed themselves here) are divided as to whether YellowMonkey is a good admin who made a minor error (for which he has apologised) or a dangerous loose cannon who needs to be stripped of the tools for the good of the project. To recap the allegations made against YM:
    • systematic failure to engage with users (through warnings and notifications) when blocking; (for 83 blocks since 1 June, not a single one was notified on the talk page; during the same period, this is the only example of anything approaching a warning before blocking; I also looked for possible warnings by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs), but couldn't find any, nor does YM's response above give me any confidence that all the warnings are somehow hiding on another account)
    • systematic failure to follow semi-protection policy;
    • use of admin tools to further his own position in editing conflicts;
    • failure to respond to bona fide concerns about his use of admin tools;
    • inappropriate editing (not using admin tools) and failure to respond to bona fide concerns about such editing.

    As it seems more than unlikely that we will acheive consensus on these (very serious) allegations, given the various views that have been expressed at this RFC/U, we should ask ArbCom to come to a conclusion that will (have to) be accepted by the community. Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    It seems like the Audit Subcommittee of ArbCom are taking an interest in the allegations of CheckUser abuse [4]. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

11. Since several editors have supported desysopping in good faith, this needs to be decided by ArbCom. Jafeluv (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Concerns reaised have moved beyond what an RFC is authorized to handle.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Regrettably support. I'm sure that my efforts at tool use evaluation are among the things referred to by some other editors as "witch hunting", although that was, for what its worth, never my intention. However, having had the opportunity to look more closely at the blocking log, even some of socking blocks, which I had assumed sacrosanct, are problematic: to wit, (talk · contribs · block log). Both the blocked editor and the eventual unblocking admin attempted to get a response from YM. Nothing, ever. YK, Quigley, Mnlira013, Abhayakara. That's (at least) four overturned blocks in under 6 months, in addition to the lack of talk page notice or communication -- with editors or admins -- on every block. Those saying this is outside the scope of this RFC are correct; this is outside the scope of RFC. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
14. support just too many problems, no discussion at this point from the editor. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

if possible, specify how/when it should end

1. YM stated that he wouldn't be around much this week. It seems that the concern that he hasn't sufficiently responded this time (specifically - the general concern was well justified) has been based on a desire by some that the response happen to their schedule. What bothers me about this process is the unseemly speed, that seems to fail to take into account that people have other concerns off-wiki. If YM was running around making the same mistakes, then yes, the speed would justified. Or, indeed, if he was running around not making mistakes, but actively ignoring this discussion, then yes, there would be reason for concern. But he's not, so there are two possibilities: he is not able to be involved in the way some would like, (and he has stated as much), or he is deliberately avoiding the issue. Personally, I think his response and personal apology makes it plain that he isn't running away as such, but others may not share this view. However, given that only time can work out which it is, and given that his inactivity means that there is no pressing need for haste while we determine which way to interpret this, why not slow down and see which way it goes? There was some need to act with AN/I, because of the risk of the discussion being archived before it was addressed, but that isn't the concern here. Let it play out, then work out the next steps, and that way you can at least say that he was given every chance to be involved in this process. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   I disagree. The concern is not so much that he hasn't responded this time (all of us have RL commitments) but that he never seems to have responded, nor even thought that he should, over an extended period of time. In that sense, any anouncement that he just "won't be around this week" seems more like arrogance than anything else. Physchim62 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Makes sense, specially the part that people have concerns off-wiki, on the other hand it cuts both ways, what about the time of others? Would it be fair to them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
3. It's true that at time of writing YM has not had that much onwiki activity since 19 November. So it's possible there may be more input in future. I think a certain reluctance to wait comes from the past failure to discuss, which leads some people to have low expectations of much input even when he is more active. The "I have no intention of flaming" comment above [5] does nothing to suggest those expectations are incorrect. But the RFC could easily remain open for a few days more before doing something else. I've made a specific request to YM to respond to one of the Outside Views - let's see how that goes. Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps he's at the Ashes ... in the US, everyone's at Grandma's. Why don't we leave things open and reassess on Monday?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

   We conveniently ignore that occasion here! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

4. The wiki is not going to end because we dind't all pack our bags and march off to ArbCom at the drop of a hat. The worst that can come of leaving it open at least for a few more days is that we waste a bit of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support this per HJ Mitchell - very sensible, otherwise given the number of things bought up here (it certainly isn't just semi-protections) I think Arbcom is appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice support - conditional: the participants accept this message and move on instead of continuing to treat this as a battle. If this condition cannot be accepted under any circumstances, then ArbCom per my second choice comment above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Moving on is to accept that alleged bullying, intimidating and out right violation of due process is O.K as long as one is useful in other areas. We have to be careful as not to appear to support the attempts to smooth over, cover up and just bury the whole disruptive behavior because it can be interpreted as pay back by core group of supporters who have benefited from these actions.Kanatonian (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   It's a request for comment, detailing questionable actions on the part of the subject nor discussion of those things is battling.--Crossmr (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Arbcom is a long drawn process that should be resorted to only when there is no other choice. In this case, we have the choice of returning to the matter at a later point in time, if necessary. (Though, based on the collapsed section below, I'm thinking of endorsing ncmvocalists view expressed above. It seems to me that the editors he mentions have little intention of restricting their harassment to YM and, perhaps, arbcom is better suited to deal with this. Trading off the time sink nature of arbcom with the intentions of these editors - I need to think about this.)--RegentsPark (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   If there is harassment going on, rest assured ArbCom will deal with it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   To Wehwalt, just for the record, does your comment mean you approve of Physchim's comments in the following thread? --CarTick (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   No, I felt RP's comment "harassment" was a bit over the top and was tongue firmly in cheek.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   Comment:RegentsPark featured prominently in the AN/I that led to this RfC, he is not an outsider. He has been reported for alleged bullying - mis-using administrative positions and unprofessional behaviour, by this editor. He had jumped to YM's defence, ignoring the fact that AN/I was about his actions too. It goes without saying that innuendo of sockpupptery against RegentsPark was overly speculative and quite unnecessary. It unfortunately acted as a distraction. Here too he is accusing editors of harrasing YM, he should understand that it is behaviour like this that adds fuel to the fires of speculation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   YK, I took no admin action against you so I don't see what you're going on about. One look at my history of blocking editors should clearly indicate that I would be very unlikely to block you. And, as far as I can see, the RFC/U was about your block by YM at which time I was unaware of you as an editor. You're trying to take a set of independent and disparate actions (YM's block of you and, much later, my warnings) and conflate them into one and that is patently obviously not the case. I don't want to comment on your motives on this, but repeatedly dragging everything into one place is, imo, unnecessary and could be construed as harassment designed to neutralize editors who may make it difficult for you to insert your viewpoint into articles. (I'm not saying that that is your motive, but rather that that construction can be placed on your actions.) Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   RegentsPark, if you are insinuating that those who have brought complaints about YM are harassers then you are not assuming good faith and failing to do the right thing by investigating fully when there is an alleged case of misuse of power. Many of YM’s flippant comments about me were over sighted by other admins. I have all some of the private e-mails that I sent about it to the oversight admins available if this goes to an arbcom. What are we trying to protect here ? Kanatonian (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Kanatonian, I'm not talking about the harassment of YM. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   ?? An admin's comments about you were oversighted? The mind boggles, the jaw drops. Rd232 ^talk

   Mine too. Kanatonian, you do realise that you can submit any such evidence to ArbCom separately from opeing a case? The email address is at the top of WP:ARBCOM. Physchim62 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   though the oversighted comments wouldnt be avaiable to us anymore, could you pls provide some links which could be useful for others. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Private-mails will be provided to Arbcom when required. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Just to be clear - it was oversighted, yes, not revision deleted? Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   There it is after all this timeKanatonian (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK. February 2009, precedes introduction of RevDel. Rd232 ^talk 21:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   No, technically that's a RevDel: I presume it's the one listed in the page's deletion log as "hid edit summary for 1 revision: Remove allegedly libellous (and life-threatening) assertion". Unfortunately, us mere mortals cannot see if YM was warned at the time, because his entire User talk page was deleted six weeks later when he changed to his current username. Physchim62 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   Technically it isn't - I can tell from the date, as well as by not being able to read it! User:Roger Davies, who did it, is an oversighter. The talk page deletion isn't an issue - there's only 2 deleted edits, which aren't relevant. I can't find any talkpage discussion from around then though - which given the nature of the log entry, isn't unexpected - it would be the sort of thing to handle by email. Rd232 ^talk 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for looking. Physchim62 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
7. This should be closed, as there appears to be lynch mob and attack-based group mentality behavior going on here, which is not productive in nature or constructive towards positive improvement of the project. -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   Cirt before you accuse others of being part of a mob to attack a person with whom you work very closely on other projects, people should know you upheld the controversal Deletion Review, I for one had only an interaction with just one of other editors, none of the others were known to me. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

8. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so people aren't entirely happy with this RfC/U, but not everybody is entirely happy with the prospect of packing up and walking down the block to ArbCom, so what I propose is that we give it an amount of time (to be determined, but I'd suggest maybe 3 weeks to a month to start off with). After that time has expired, we revisit this and determine whether YM is keeping to the statement above that he'll adhere to "mainstream" blocks, protections etc, including notifications and expiries. If evidence emerges of further blocks without prior warnings or notifications or excessive protections or anything since this RfC, then we can consider taking it to ArbCom and, if not, we revisit it after another [period of time]. This allows YM the chance to keep to his promise instead of bringing to his attention the seriousness of community concerns and immediately looking to have him defrocked while keeping the situation under review in case of any further instances of misuse of admin tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What that is, is negotiating with ourselves. Bad idea. YellowMonkey has yet to respond to most of the allegations here. Once he does so, if he does, then it is time to find middle ground. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In some respects, this is already out of the hands of editors on this page, as AUSC have already siezed themselves of Quigley's allegations [6]. I would assume that ArbCom as a whole would rather wait until AUSC has investigated the CheckUser allegations before looking at the wider issues brought up here. Secondly, I don't see some sort of mentorship as the solution to a problem with an experienced admin. We would suggest mentoring for a newbie admin who was having problems coming to the "right" decisions, but it is surely a waste of time trying to mentor an old-hand like YellowMonkey. If we can't trust him, we take the tools away. Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather bring the case and let Arbcom decide when and whether to hear it. Agree on the mentoring. Feel we are at the thumb-twiddling stage now and if we don't move and do something, this will die. But I can't do it alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think anyone would be justified in bringing an ArbCom case simply from the discussion above, which shows a significant split in community opinion and a significant feeling that the allegations are serious enough to merit ArbCom attention. We're not going to get some sort of "RFC consensus" over an RFAr, unless you count 2:1 support as consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Psychim62. I will draft a case request in my userspace hopefully by Wednesday (I am currently traveling and do believe that YM should have more time should he desire to reply. I also believe that ArbCom will take the case. After all, their docket is not what I would call busy!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell, as long as the rules are followed properly from now on (which was never really managed with the protections, it was just a good step in the right direction). It seems too many admin rules have been broken :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this has gone on for a long time and needs to go to Arbcom for the good of the project. He has had many years to understand and apply wiki rules and expectation. He knows what he needs to do and he simply refuses to do it. Kanatonian (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a reply to RegentsPark's comments above[12], (1) I just wish you read carefully, I have been very careful with my words, I said that there was an allegation. The same has not been refuted, the AN/I about you, the one that lead to this RfC, was closed, before the matter was discussed. (I am not blaming anybody for my ignorance about the duration of an AN/I) So that issue has not been settled either way, my perception may be wrong, but so far as my allegations have not been refuted, they are there. (2) I brought AN/I when I was threatened with a block for being tendentious on your talk page, using an earlier block to mark me as a criminal. We have had no content related disputes, dispute was about your inappropriately timed block warning,[13] therefore the allegation that I used AN/I as a tool for harrassment is false and without evidence. Please give one example. Put up or shut up as has been said on this page. (3)I am not dragging everyone in one place, I do not allude any connection between you and YellowMonkey, except one that is there for everyone to see, namely, the AN/I that lead to this RfC was about three administrator's user:YellowMonkey, user:RegentsPark, user:SpacemanSpiff, and another the AN/I user:YellowMonkey's, use of the words retarded nationalist. He ignored the discussion, you defended him which came across as a little strange.[14] Please do not imagine offence, and allege harrassment, a manifestation of misplaced guilt, an alleged victimiser complains of victimisation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Moved from the above section - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion, and the issues raised there, is only tangentially relevant: the AN/I discussion raised concerns about YellowMonkey's behaviour, and that lead to this RFC/U. Other issues raised about other editors at AN/I would generally be looked at separately, because the focus here is on YellowMonkey. If you have ongoing concerns about RegentsPark's behaviour (which I'd suggest you may find have little traction, at this point) this is the wrong forum in which to raise them. - Bilby (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't wish to bring unrelated issues from the AN/I that led to this RfC/U.[15]. My point is RegentsPark is not an outsider, and his view cannot be considered an outside view, if my point is wrong, trash it. But it has been brought up once before ->[16].11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just leave it at the fact that the terminology is inexact, and we really don't have a word for "semi-involved". Save it for ArbCom, there everyone's a party.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Inside View / Outside View / Hovering On The Threshold View? :) Yeah, we don't really have a word for it, but to the extent that it matters it'll be part of the Arbcom case. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I don't see what arbitration proceedings about YM have to do with me. I suggest that YK either file an RfC/U on me or restart the matter on ANI. Repeatedly bringing up 'allegations' on peripheral pages appears to be nothing more than harassment aimed at quelling dissent related to that editors POV. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also YK, would you mind keeping the discussion threaded? Replying to my comments in a different thread, especially one that has been collapsed makes it appear as if you don't want me to necessarily see your reply. Note that one feature of tendentious editing is an inability to adequately thread your posts. This is just FYI and I'm not 'alleging' that you are engaging in tendentious editing. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another example RP of not reading carefully, I have given link to the diff I was refering to. Hiding? I was merely following chronology while editing, however your suggestion is the norm I understand, very difficult to follow a discussion if there are multiple threads going except by referring to page history.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I had suggested that we give YM until Monday to make further responses. I think we are at the limit of what we can do here, and that, absent some unforseen development, we should, early next week, proceed with filing an ArbCom case request.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please use all means possible to reach him. I remember reading that he is occupying/ has occupied high positions on wiki, which I understand requier identifications, which should be used to reach him, if it is according to wikirules. From his contributions, it seems that he is not on Wiki. He may be busy, please do not rush. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That is possible; on the other hand, users' disappearing for long periods of time to avoid sanctions is not unheard of. Quigley (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That is why I said use all avenues, if rules allow. AGF, phone, fax, email, snailmail, perhaps someone can go and personally inform him. 100000+ edits, phew, do not do it ex parte.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

YM has responded by agreeing with the desired outcome and has no obligation to respond to the rest of the mud being flung at him (it would be very difficult and not very productive to do so given the format of RfC/Us and the nature of many of the comments). Suggestions that he or she be contacted off-Wiki are seriously out of order and are getting uncomfortably close to harassment. A claim that he or she is not editing "to avoid sanctions" is nonsense given that sanctions can't be imposed via a RfC/U. Having been on the receiving end of an anti-admin witch hunt (which thankfully didn't reach the level of hysteria this has reached) I can assure you that it's rather stressful. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, YM is obliged to respond to bona fide concerns about the his use of administrative tools. If he chooses not to do so here, he will simply have to do it before ArbCom. Non-response is not an option, unless he saves everyone a whole lot of time and hassle and simply resigns his admin bit. Physchim62 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that is the obligation you take on with the bits, if you want to have more powers than the average bear, you have to justify your use of them. But given that more outside views are being posted, let's let this run its course. Every day that YM doesn't respond, it is more and more of a concern. If this goes the full thirty, well, the cricket match only takes five days, and at some point, he needs to respond if he is going to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

YM has a life outside Wikipedia, assuming why he isn't editing is a bad case of assuming bad faith. What is the point in keeping this alive? None, other then trying to try someone who can't defend themselves from allegations made by those who have a dislike for YM or Admins! Bidgee (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"someone who can't defend themselves"? What do you know that we don't? And way to go with accusing others of bad faith and then throwing your own bad faith around. Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, so accusing someone of abuse of tools and they are unable to respond to them isn't bad faith? Get with the times. I don't think it is any of your business on what I may or may not know but YM does have a life on the outside world, like most of us on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

" so accusing someone of abuse of tools and they are unable to respond to them isn't bad faith?" - er, no, it isn't. And once again, all we know onwiki is that YM hasn't responded (since 24 November). What inside info do you have that he can't? When you imply that you have private info, expect to be asked about it. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to think this is a court, the allegations towards YM are just that. So saying they are doing something such as 'avoiding Wikipedia waiting to the heat to cool down' or 'he has abused his admin tools' (these are not quotes but this have been some allegations along those lines) is bad faith in assuming something which you have no knowledge of. Whether I know something or not, it is none of your or even Wikipedia's business, and have your heard of No comment (RE: expect to be asked about it) *screams Admin abuse [sarcastically]*? If you expect that if anyone knows anything should have to say what it is that they may or may not know, then it makes Wikipedia a dictatorship, what next, want to know what I did today? Bidgee (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Since you seem to think this is a court" - yeah, one of us lost the thread of this discussion some time ago, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me. Review the talk page and you will find several places I point out that RFC/U is non-binding. And my point in this thread has pretty much been we should wait a bit and see if YM responds. Your point seems to be ... I don't know what your point is. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your insults are pathetic, especially from an Admin, taking someone court doesn't necessary mean action will be taken and the fact that some people take action against people for the sake of it. People are using this RfC to make damaging allegations towards YM, the mission of the RfC is done but the contributors who want him hung (as in being blocked) or just want the admin tool removed for the sake of pushing their POV are misusing the RfC for something which it is not. There is no longer any point in keeping this RfC open. Bidgee (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Insults? What insults? All I see is insults and bad faith from you. I'm suddenly wondering who the hell you are to have such a visceral involvement in YellowMonkey's RFC/U... Anyway, your position is clear, and the RFA takes care of the increasingly inevitable outcome of this RFC/U. Rd232 ^talk 00:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself, your comment was nothing but insulting and your the one who has hit the low of extreme bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking this to your talk page, this is getting ridiculous. Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's now a request for arbitration as mentioned below, I would agree that further commenting on the RfC seems pointless. Doniago (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That might be a defense, were it not for the fact that YM has systematically refused to engage on his editing actions over a long period of time. We simply cannot allow an admin to feel that he is above the rules that others have to follow. If YM wishes to take this defense, he should explain why he didn't engage with editors over the last six months (or more) when he presumably had the chance to. Physchim62 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And especially when it follows complaints about indefinite semi-protections of articles which had barely attracted any vandalism at all. YM should have been engaging with the community and making sure all their admin actions were reasonably in line with the community. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All the time that YM isn't actually editing or using admin tools, there is no immediate urgent problem: we can wait a while longer, and maybe look to be more specific in the points that are worrying editors (rather than just screaming "admin abuse!"). There is already an AUSC investigation, so ArbCom are well aware of the perceived problem. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. YM hasn't edited since 24 November. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he said he doesn't tend to edit over the weekend, but it is getting to the point where one can't help but wonder if he's just hiding in the hope that all this will blow over. Physchim and Wehwalt are right that he is obliged to communicate with the community over concerns about his admin actions, but they're also right in saying that there's no immediate problem while he's not active, so there's no need to rush. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he's just writing us a featured article about the highest ever Test innings for the loss of a single wicket ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet they could not win.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The environment here becoming increasingly acrimonious, and given the virtual impossibility of any response being capable of resolving all of the concerns expressed at this time, I've taken the initiative to "get on with it" and have opened a request for arbitration on a summarized list of the primary administrative tool use concerns. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to write this for a while (I requested this talk page be created) but never got round to it because I was feeling lazy. I decided to just write a quick comment. About the ANI thread referred here:

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 participated in that discussion and while it was disappointing that YM never participated I know personally I felt that thread was somewhat DOA and didn't see much point pursuing YM about it.

It started off with an accusation that YM had removed content without comment, but in fact this wasn't correct, instead the info was just moved around. This was pointed out by me and another editor but the OP still insisted the info was removed. A diff to the sandbox was provided to try and demonstrate the content was the same, but the editor still insisted the info was removed. Finally after several more comments from other editors the editor finally realised the info had not been removed.

Unfortunately even though this was a honest mistake, it sorta killed the thread in my eyes.

Furthermore no attempts were made to discuss the issue with YM beforehand. The editor claimed YM wouldn't responded, which considering some of the evidence presented here, may be true but saying 'they probably wouldn't have responded' doesn't IMHO help your case much. It's far better if you can actual show evidence they didn't respond because you attempted to engage them that time before you brought the issue somewhere else, particularly if it isn't urgent. And as several people pointed out, it was questionable if that thread really belonged in ANI anyway.

As I said at the beginning, it still would have been good if YM responded but considering what happened I don't personally think it's was much of anything in itself. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Reading about it seems this is heading to Arbitration and there are more serious issues like comments requiring oversight and alleged widespread admin abuse so I guess this is really too late :-) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are some voices calling for recall/desysop, and there are concerns that YellowMonkey has not responded adequately to concerns raised here. However in pragmatic terms, this RfC has been active for a full month, and effectively dormant recently. This is quite long enough for an editor to have the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. For what an RfC is predicated to achieve, quite clearly it has failed to do so (in the absence of acceptance by its proposers that YellowMonkey's behaviour has changed, or that YellowMonkey has accepted the criticisms aimed at him). Accordingly, I will close this RfC in 72 hours time (to allow additional time for the holiday period), and if not closed, invite interested parties to take this to ArbCom, should they think it appropriate. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As a factual matter this has been taken to arbcom some time ago with a case headed toward decline w/ motion.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew he'd win. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Arb committee have made it pretty clear that if there isn't a substantial change in behaviour that the issue can go back to them - as he initially responded well to this RFC it isn't unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) In fact the motion about to pass references returning to this RFC if/when YM returns. I would suggest that any closure be without prejudice to reopening to allow YM to address the concerns that arose after he became unavailable, in the event of YM returning with the intent of continuing tool usage.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• If this has been taken to ArbCom, and accepted, that should immediately cease this RfC as being a different, and superior jurisdiction. The problem arises when ArbCom decline jurisdiction, when I think it should devolve back here; however, the inherent delays in doing that tend to militate against a speedy resolution and only increase pressure on the subject of the RfC. The only alternative is that a declined ArbCom petition should also quash any failed RfC that led to the motion to ArbCom on the basis of maximum information being available to the latter. Unfortunately, I don't think we currently have such a structure that determines how that happens, and if anywhere, it should come from ArbCom or the community, which in itself would require a further RfC. Rodhullandemu 02:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really no point to keeping this open any longer. If YM returns to the site, a new RFC can be started. DC 03:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There seems to be an impasse here in that, in balance, ArbCom will not accept jurisdiction in the absence of a close of this RfC. That, to me, suggests that if anyone is really interested in closing this Rfc, other than myself, they should say so. We are in danger of making ourselves look ridiculous here. Close this Rfc, pass it to ArbCom, or withdraw. Those, I think, are the options. Rodhullandemu 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an amount of ridiculousness involved here. And if we start trying to formulate summaries of the views, we'll be here to the dark ages due to the obvious split in opinion. Only summary that everyone could agree to is: "Delisted due to inactivity; request for arbitration filed; [link to request for arbitration]". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure is the way forward. Possibly it could be closed with "significant concerns have been raised, and YM needs to be given a good faith opportunity to follow them" or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eraserhead1 Kanatonian (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with closure at this time. The ArbCom motion sent the matter back here with a concern that YM had not had the opportunity to adequately address the concerns which had come up after the initiation of this RfC. The thing to do is to hold this open, perhaps list concerns that should be addressed, and do exactly what ArbCom says. If he continues to remain inactive, then at some point, perhaps in ten or fifteen days, it can be closed with a strong recommendation that YM address these issues before resuming his roles as an admin and functionary. While closure motions are to be given a minimum of 24 hours, I believe, we would be well advised to extend that as this is being proposed on Christmas Eve.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Since YM's failure to address the broad range of concerns raised is the major issue, closing the RFC now doesn't really help any, unless it's closed with the proviso that a second one be started if YM returns and doesn't voluntarily address the issues. Rd232 ^talk 12:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I am disappointed by ArbCom's refusal to take this case and by comments by individual arbs which sound to me like they had drunk YM's Kool-Aid and were relying on facts that I've never seen established in this matter (for example, that YM was on wikibreak). Personally, I'd propose leaving this open indefinitely, but that would draw more opposes from people opposed to the idea of any RfC being left open like that, so I proposed what I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not, and I don't think several users are either, and I'm troubled by the continued axe-grounding. The RfC/U has been open for the customary 30 days and there is nothing quite so extraordinary that warrants leaving this open for any longer; it's not uncommon for users to be absent for even a whole RfC, let alone the majority of it. A motion of closure is not necessary for this to be closed because the 30 days is up; all that we are discussing now is whether to put a summary, and if so, what to include in it, and whether anyone had plans to close it. Given that the RfC has resulted in a remarkable split in views, simply demanding that it be kept open unless you have your favoured summary or course of action isn't going to fly because it will mean there is no agreement for a summary (which will leave the RfC closed without a summary) and the only thing that is left to show is ArbCom's motion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy on that is here. I am uncertain that it supports your position.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

...you've pointed me to the policy and practice of article RfCs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Darn. Foiled again. Well, for users "RfC/Us are closed when no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and/or the dispute appears to have stopped. Typically, RfC/Us are closed after about 30 days of major activity on the RfC/U (or after about 30 days of the RfC/U being open)." That sounds pretty loose to me. Typically.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that the RfC/U has been open for 30 days and has not had major activity, there's nothing extraordinary in this case that justifies departing from the norm. Unresponsiveness or absence is not extraordinary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt if there is value to keeping the RFC open then I'm not totally opposed to doing so, however I think if YellowMonkey returns and his admin actions require further discussion then we can always re-open it :).

@Ncmvocalist, pointing out significant, wide-ranging, and frequent problematic adminship from an admin isn't "axe-grinding". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead, ArbCom has repeatedly in its decisions indicated that a combination of both does not make it OK. That is, I'm well aware that there is a distinction between the two, but what I am pointing out is that the latter is occurring and is problematic. If you fail to recognise it, that's another story altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is probably nothing useful left to say here unless and until YellowMonkey returns and has a chance to respond to the concerns that have been raised. There is no point to continuing while he is away from Wikipedia, but there should be a forum for his response when he returns. I don't know whether RfC's have a designation for "on hold" or the like, but in effect that is where this one should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The general tone is that YM has responded adequately which to me isn't evident, I would like to quote his 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." I understand that he says that he would follow rules and procedure, but a break isn't a manifestation of procedures and rules being followed, he hasn't demonstrated improved use of administrative tools, not being on the project is not a demonstration of compliance imo.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It is true that as yet he hasn't demonstrated adequate use of the administrative tools due to being on a break, but I think we should assume good faith and give him the opportunity to do so on his own when he returns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A cynic might suggest opening a betting pool on how long it'll take YM to return after the RFC is closed... but anyway, in his absence it serves no purpose, and a newly drafted RFC for the unresponded-to-concerns might work better anyway. So just close this RFC, there's no need to debate a summary at length when we have views written in detail at the arbcom request page linked from the top of this page. Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad -- let's stick a box saying "This RfC is on hold pending YellowMonkey's return to active editing" on it. --JN466 14:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. When YellowMonkey returns, he should address these matters. We will, of course, give him time to get up to speed and refresh any necessary recollections.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take it off the list of currently pending RfCs in that little box that's templated onto multiple pages, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And perhaps we can put a hatnote on the project page saying, this is being held open because of the ArbCom motion (link) pending YellowMonkey's return to the editing world.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced it wouldn't be better to close it now, but I don't feel strongly. This is a sensible proposal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's objection say ... by 0001 on 30 December, I will go ahead and implement NewYorkBrad's proposal, which appears to have achieved consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Now let's sit back and await with anticipation. The cricket's been going badly for Australia, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How was that last sentence helfpul here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)