Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
YellowMonkey		30 November 2010	{{{votes}}}
WikipediaExperts		29 November 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal	none	none	11 December 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

YellowMonkey

Initiated by Serpent's Choice (talk) at 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey
• Various aspects of this dispute have been discussed at AN/I (here, here, and several others), YellowMonkey's talk page ([1] and many others), and various other venues (including here and here). Because this arbitration request alleges substantial noncompliance with multiple aspects of the admin policies over a long period of time, and because the introduction of evidence supporting these allegations has made the environment at the RFC increasingly heated, I submit that further formal dispute resolution outside of ArbCom is likely to be counterproductive.

Statement by Serpent's Choice

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

• YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the blocking policy.
  • He has failed to provide appropriate (any) warnings.
  • He has failed to notify the blocked user. No diffs for these two at this stage; however, note that he has not had any interaction, including block templates, on the talk pages of any of the 80+ editors he has blocked since at least 1 June 2010.
  • He has set block log messages that fail to provide sufficient context for other administrators.
    • Most commonly, this consists of the blocking reason "sock", without any indication of the purported puppetmaster, almost always without any SPI or other on-wiki evidence for the block. [2] Note that these are not "Checkuser blocks" as defined in the ArbCom statement [3] (because they are not so noted in the block log), and so are expected to be subject to on-wiki review. In contrast, YellowMonkey does mark some blocks as Checkuser blocks. [4]
    • In the case of one (admittedly problematic editor), he blocked with the reason "Block evasion" without providing supporting evidence and without the simultaneous blocking of any other accounts (that would have been used for the evasion). [5]
  • He does not mark accounts blocked as sockpuppets with {{sockpuppet}}. Any accounts he has so blocked that are marked have been labeled later, by other editors or admins. Example: [6] versus [7] but note that he has not used this template since at least 1 June 2010.
  • He has issued indefinite blocks in situations not described as appropriate by policy. In particular, he has indicated accounts are spam or vandal accounts and issued indefinite blocks, even when some contributions appear helpful (or at least in good faith), and without prior blocks [8] [9] or, at times, any prior warnings whatsoever. [10]
  • He has issued indefinite blocks of IP addresses without {{indefblockedip}}. [11]
  • Several uses of the tool were in and of themselves problematic. The block of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · block log) and the two indefinite blocks of Quigley (talk · contribs · block log) are foremost among these, but the block of Abhayakara (talk · contribs · block log) also deserves attention, as does the "useless block" unblock of Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · block log). Each of these circumstances generated a substantial amount of community discussion and will require more space to discuss than is appropriate in the initial request.

• YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the protection policy or the guide to semi-protection.
  • He has applied semi-protection without "heavy and persistent" vandalism.
  • He has applied lengthy semi-protection as its first application to an article. For this and the above, see especially any of his semi-protections of Australian school articles, such as [12] which received a 1-year semi-protection following one inappropriate edit by an IP.
  • He has applied semi-protection on articles in which he has substantial involvement as an editor. In particular, this applies to Ngo Dinh Diem, which he has edited over 200 times since 2006, and protected repeatedly since 2007 [13] including indefinite semi-protection on 11 May 2010 that was overturned 4 days later via RFPP, only for him to re-establish it on 7 November 2010 despite only three IP-vandalism edits (from two IPs) in the previous 30 days [14][15][16] and despite the presence of a different IP that had edited constructively during that time. [17]
  • He has not applied protection templates to the articles he has semi-protected since at least 1 June 2010.

• YellowMonkey has not acted in compliance with the deletion policy.
  • He deleted articles outside of any process. After this AFD was closed "no consensus", he deleted (and salted) the article anyway [18] claiming interference in AFD by socks. DRV agreed with the deletion on its merits, but noted the failure to adhere to process. Likewise, although upheld at DRV due to copyright violation, the copyvio state of this article [19] was not established at the time it was deleted. There was no AFD, PROD, or CSD justification given; this action was taken unilaterally.

• YellowMonkey has not, at times, displayed the decorum expected of an administrator.
  • Comments about the WMF outreach to India that are intemperate and reflect bias. [20]
  • Comparing the On This Day section of the Main Page to a "toilet exhibit" and an Indian slum. [21]
  • Making unsupported accusations of Communist bias in an RFA. [22] [23]
  • In general, he has not communicated his intentions, and has rarely responded to concerns about his actions. When he has responded, such as in the current RFC, his responses have been limited, lacking in an appreciation of the wider context, and historically, have not resulted in any changes in behavior.

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

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

WikipediaExperts

Initiated by Sophie ^(Talk) at 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

WikipediaExperts.com

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Can not be done because of the nature.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Can not be done because of the nature.

Statement by {Party 1}

I am guessing this me so, was recomended that this be posted here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikipediaExperts

In user:Alpha_Quadrant's irc channel, he posted a website which allows users to pay $99 to get their atricle into wikipedia. WikipediaExperts.com has to have users here on Wikipedia and I am sure there will be sock accounts as well. Can we get a check for them? The ip from Whois says the IP for the site is 173.230.132.153.

Thanks - Sophie ^(Talk) 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, if this were to happen and bussinesses start using Wikipedia for profit it would essentially undermine Wikipedia's founding purpose. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Their FAQs

Q: Do I have full control over the content of the article? A: Yes. This is the case in the sense that we won’t post any article without your approval, and that you can later make any modifications to the article on your own. However, under Wikipedia rules, we are required to do our own research and submit a balanced article based on multiple sources. Wikipedia articles are NOT press-releases or advertorials written by the company or its ad agency. As specified in Wikipedia Pillars: “Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.” Q: Are there subjects not admissible to Wikipedia? A: Yes, and they are best summed up in another of the five Wikipedia Pillars: “Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.” Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Wikipedia? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Wikipedia rules and standards; however, Wikipedia does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted. Q: How long does it take you to learn that someone’s modified an article? A: We receive alerts instantaneously. Q: What’s included in your writing services? A: The writing service includes: * Necessary research needed, including an analysis of your website and other materials you may provide including related media coverage * Article creation in compliance with Wikipedia rules, and adjusting the article should it be refused by Wikipedia * The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application. Q: What’s included in the monthly monitoring and maintenance service? A: The $99 monthly fee includes: * Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software * Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted * Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes * The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.

See this page for any updates or what ever...

If you reply to me, please note I am 13 so please speak accordingly - Sophie ^(Talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Comment and decline: Sophie, arbitration is for a dispute that involves specific Wikipedia editors or specific disputes that involve only Wikipedia editors. WikipediaExperts is an external company that is not part of Wikipedia, and the Arbitration Committee has no control over their actions. Just as important, there is no Wikipedia policy that forbids editors who are paid to edit. In other words, you have no grounds on which to bring an arbitration case against WikipediaExperts. To other experienced editors and clerks: Perhaps someone could assist Sophie in exploring other methods of gauging community opinion on this question. I note that there was a recent thread on one of the administrative noticeboards relating to this issue. Risker (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. I agree with Risker that there is nothing for the Arbitration Committee to do in this matter, at least not at the present time. I also agree with Risker's other comments. I appreciate Sophie's interest in avoiding problematic types of editing and her calling this issue to our attention as someone else had suggested on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; while it is unarguable that there is a fair segment of editors who find the very concept of paid editing distasteful, the fact is there is no policy that prohibits it per se nor has past attempts at reaching consensus on the matter met with any success. There may be something to arbitrate if an editor is found to edits inappropriately with a conflict of interest (with or without being paid for it), but at this time we cannot intervene against hypothetical editors, nor would we have a policy-based rationale for doing so. — Coren ^(talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - per Risker. KnightLago (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)