YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made 83 blocks in the six months from 1 June 2010 to the initiation of the arbitration request on 30 November. None of these blocks was notified to the user concerned on their talk page as required by blocking policy and by principle 8.1 of the Betacommand case:

Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.

removal of Yogesh Khandke request without reply

Amcmelbourne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created on 4 May 2010, with 14 edits when it was indefinitely blocked without warning on 21 June for "spamming". All edits seem legitimate (if unsourced) except the last five, which inserted copyrighted promotional material into the article on Ave Maria College (Melbourne, Victoria). YM had previous come across this article in April, when he rolled back an excessively gushing paragraph added by an IP (also copyvio as it happens) and semi-protected the page indefinitely (for that one incident). Note that by rolling back, instead of just deleting the paragraph, YM reinserts grammar errors and typos into the article. YM completely misses the copyvio, and fails to engage with the newbie user.
Jitinkumar2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created on 12 August 2010, with 16 edits when it was indefinitely blocked without warning on 17 August for "spamming". Some edits are obviously unhelpful (e.g. [1]) but most are legitimate, such as the creation of the Aditya Tare article. The lack of talk page notification of the block appears to have hampered the editor's attempt to obtain an unblock.
Raghavsuryadev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created on 27 August 2009, with 117 edits when it was indefinitely blocked on 23 August 2010 for "spamming". There is a spam warning (not from YM) on the talk page dating from 4 July 2010, when one of the account's articles was speedy deleted under G11. Otherwise, the account's edits seem legtimate. While there might be deleted content to justify the block, YM's deletion log doesn't show any deletion of content for spamming at around that date. YM appears to have taken offence at the addition here of an external link to the Imran Khan article (reverted by YM here): the link was to a recent interview of Khan in the New Statesman. YM also reverted the additions of a New Statesman link to Bob Blackman (politician) (a UK Conservative politician). So, for YM, the addition of two legitimate external links to a respected UK magazine constitutes spam requiring an immediate indefinite block?
184.32.177.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blocked for one month for spamming on 23 August. This one is clear cut spamming, over all six of the IPs edits to Wikipedia. But how is the user supposed to find out about WP policy on such matters if there is no talk page communication? An immediate block is definitely WP:BITE.
91.150.122.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blocked for one week for vandalism on 9 September. Another WP:BITE block, with no attempt at interaction with an IP that had precisely four edits when it stumbled on an article created by YellowMonkey.
Jtjdajtjda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created 27 September 2010, with 5 edits when it was indefinitely blocked on 5 October for "vandalism". This edit could probably be considered vandalism; other edits suggest a desire to paint India in as positive a light as possible. WP:BITE, no attempt at interaction, just straight for the indefinite block (with no notification of the reasons for the block, as ever with YM).
Mnlira013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created on 21 July 2009, with 13 edits when it was indefinitely blocked on 20 October 2010 for "spamming". The talk page has a ((uw-vandalism1)) on it (not from YM). The problem here is that nobody seems to have explained to the user that we don't want external links to The History Channel... Nope, straight in with an indefinite block.
211.30.161.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blocked for two weeks on 9 November for "vandalism". This appears to relate to two sets of edits, on Ngo Dinh Nhu [2] and on Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu [3]. These were rapidly reverted by YM [4][5], who also semi-protected both article for three months [6][7] citing "unattended vandalism". It's not clear to me that either of these edits constitutes "vandalism": they seem more like content disputes involving articles to which YM has substantially contributed. It is certainly not "unattended" vandalism, as YM reverted the edits less than twelve hours after they had been made. YellowMonkey seems to think that WP:BRD should be BRBP (for bold–revert–block–protect): there is no sign of discussion, either on the article talk pages or on the (still redlinked) IP talk page.
Jpullokaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user who had been blocked quite legitimately for repeated copyvio contributions after many warnings. YellowMonkey extended the block length from two week to one month for "block evasion". So far OK, except that there is no sign of any block evasion. No other accounts or addresses seem to have been blocked in relation to the case, as one would expect in a case of evasion. Rather, YM appears to have felt that the original two week block was insufficient – and there are many who would agree with him – and decided to unilaterally extend it with a block summary that nobody would question (given his status as a CheckUser), instead of challenging it with the original blocking admin or at WP:AN/I.