On top of that, Yash! is a regular at New Page Patrol and has an impressive CSD log, with lots of correct decisions. I see a lot of Indian-related articles appear at CAT:CSD, and as a consequence think it would be good to have more admins from that area. Combine that with the article experience and temperament, and I think we have a suitable administrator candidate. I hope you agree. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words. It is an honour to be nominated by someone that I look up to. I accept. Yash! 19:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: A great amount of my time on Wikipedia is spent on patrolling New Pages and going through discussions at AfD. As I have grown to feel comfortable performing the non-admin tasks of CSD, PROD and AfD, indulging in the admin counterpart would be natural. I encounter quite a bit of username violations at New Pages so I will tip-toe my way at UAA and start with the obvious ones in the beginning. Over the years, I have been keeping an eye on a great number of articles through my watchlist and I have had a fairly good amount of exposure to anti-vandalism work, so I will also wander at AIV and RPP every now and then. As I gain more experience, I would venture into other areas that require admin intervention.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly gratified about Kerala being promoted to the GA status. The article was a delisted FA with a great number of issues and it took me more than a year's work to finally see it make GA. I have dedicated a lot of time to articles related to Green Day; I helped promote "Oh Love", "Let Yourself Go" and "Kill the DJ" to the GA status, and I have more on my to-do list. Out of the 14 articles that I worked on to get featured in the DYK section of the Main page, I am especially content with Guadeloupe Conference - a failing DYK where I pitched in and helped to get it promoted.
Apart from the GAs and DYKs, I have spent a considerable amount of time fixing issues of random articles that I come across. Adding references when needed, neutralising the prose, copy-editing, fixing the MoS, Wikifying and such do not appear as attractive as getting articles promoted to GA/FA status but I believe that work is equally important, if not more. Improving the general readability of Wikipedia is a huge task and there are far too many articles in a bad shape. Whenever I have time and I run into a poorly written article at New Pages and AfC, or when I stumble across one while reading, I have tried my best to improve it to a reasonable extent.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly had a few disagreements with editors but nothing that I recall ever escalated to an extreme point. Most of the disagreements that I encountered, have been about NACs of AfD discussions. In those cases, I have provided an explanation for my rationale and undone the closure as and when required. There have also been a few disgruntled editors leaving me a message when their article is tagged for deletion or deleted, or when their AfC has been declined. I have taken extra care to explain the situation in a polite and civil manner as I believe that those relatively new editors who really wish to contribute to Wikipedia are very important for the future. In my understanding, making efforts to retain editors since the very beginning is essential to increase the editor strength of the project. As for any conflicts of the future, I would do the same as now; I would have a discussion and explain my rationale for the conduct and ask the user in question for further input. If things were to be taken further and if the consensus were to differ from my stand point, I would simply accept the outcome and follow it.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
A: (a) The IP added "Although Christians comprise below 20% of the state population , Kerala has the largest number of Christians in India." which was an unsourced claim which I failed to verify after a quick Google search. For the warning part, I am not sure why the IP received that warning as I especially remember why I reverted the edit (maybe an error from my side). (b) It was a change in genre without prior discussion (even the article had a message warning editors to not change them without discussing) and I used the appropriate warning for it. (c) (d) Since my phone stopped working I switched to an old one temporarily. The touchscreen isn't in the best condition which results in random unintentional clicks - those reverts happened from my watchlist when I did not even press anything; I reverted both those edits as soon as I saw them. (e) In my understanding, Brynda1231 reverted constructive changes by the IP, hence I reverted him. Brynda1231 reverted the edits which converted all the non-template references to template form along with addition of appropriate links, using cite templates and common references. (f) The editor that was warned, WilliamAGordon, was already notified by Jim1138 and adding a level-2 warning to it seemed like biting which is why I reverted it. (g) and (h) I misjudged him warning WilliamAGordon as an unconstructive edit. He had warned WilliamAGordan without ever reverting any edit(s) by him, which is rather strange behaviour and I jumped the gun by warning him. Later, realising that Brynda1231 had warned him after WilliamAGordan's edits were reverted by Jim1138, I undid my edit which was clearly my mistake. (i) I am afraid this is the same link that is there in (g).
5. A three-statement stub of a Professor goes to Afd and is kept despite not qualifying on GNG. The keep rationale was that as the professor has won a prestigious MacArthur Foundation fellowship (confirmed by a single reliable source in a single sentence), as per NACADEMIC#2, the article may be kept. What are your views on such and similar articles, with respect to their qualifying on SNG and not on GNG? In one perspective, would you be bent towards renominating this article in a few months if no further sources are found to qualify the article on GNG? Or would you be satisfied that as SNG has been met, there's no need for the article to necessarily meet GNG?
A: That is an interesting question. I can recall at least two separate occasions when I saw articles about MacArthur Fellows being nominated for AfD. In most of the cases, if any article happens to meet one of the particular notability criteria, there is material available out there that would help in establishing that the subject meets GNG too. Lets assume that it is one of those rare occasions where apart from the single source which only proves that the person won the MacArthur Fellowship, no other reliable source exists. In those cases, I would tend to be bent towards keeping, instead of deleting and I would not be renominating the article in a few months. The article does indeed meet NACEDEMIC, a notability criteria that is specific for academics which is why I would be arguing for keeping those articles. Furthermore, clarification of Criterion 2 of NACEDEMIC states that "major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2." Unless the criteria were to snub MacArthur Fellowship as a "major academic award", the topic would meet NACEDEMIC and I would be inclined towards keeping it.
A: I would prefer using the name of the article which was why PIA Flight 661 was linked in the first place. The page was moved which is why it was switched from PIA Flight 661 to Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661. In such cases, I would prefer using the current title of the article and make changes accordingly.
9. With reference to this diff, you write on a now retired Admin's page that "Yash told me that he was working on this article to get promoted to GA status and so I read what is GA and there are many improvements in the article to be made. As I m new, I don't have enough grip on how things work, but I can certainly help in finding ref and making minor changes. So can I assist?" This is showing as one of your earliest posts on wikipedia when i went to your user history, but it is signed as 'TheSpecialUser'. Ritchie clarifies in his nomination that you were earlier known as 'TheSpecialUser'. This post is dated 02:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC). If I scrutinize this page carefully (click on the diff i gave and scroll down) I find another post by Yasht101 dated 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC). When I click on the user name of Yasht101 I am directed to your user page. I find this unusual and I'd like some explanation about this. Soham321 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
A: I attempted a cleanstart after I edited for a while as Yasht101 (which is my first and only other account that I have edited with). A cleanstart is when a user stops using an old account and and starts with a new one. I have mentioned that this is a cleanstart account on my userpage and I would be willing to provide an explanation to anyone that would be interested. I never felt comfortable in disclosing the reasons for my cleanstart previously (I am still a bit hesitant now). In all honesty, and in response to Lourdes' comments below, I cleanstarted then tried to pretend (a bit too hard perhaps) that I was not Yasht101 because I was receiving off-Wikipedia serious threats from some unknown person towards the end of my time as Yasht101. That is why I did not feel like accepting the fact that I was Yasht101 and tried to disguise myself until I felt safe enough. Now that I see, I really should have contacted the Arbitration Committee, but I was too naive and young. Apart from that, there were a lot of personal issues at that time (which I am not proud of) and an unstable emotional state because of them. A cumulative effect lead me to practice unsound judgement; I attempted a cleanstart and then left those messages in order to make it look like I really was a different person. I realise how ill-judged my decisions were but I really did feel scared because of those threatening messages. That is all there is to know as to why I attempted the cleanstart. I could further clarify if you have any doubts.
10. Hi there, and thank you for being willing to take on more responsibilities here. Two of the articles on which you are the major contributor are AMC Dental College and Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee. Now these were admittedly very early in your tenure, quite a while back (before I made my first edit, in fact: heh). Looking at these now, what issues would you identify? What would be your approach to fixing these? Please take your time to answer this: I'd much prefer a long but thorough response to a hasty but concise one. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Thank you for volunteering to serve the community as an administrator. This is a followup question to question #9. Will you disclose, (i.e. right after answering this question), to the arbitration committee, the nature and details of your clean start? If no, then could you please offer an explanation as to why not?
Support - I've seen Yash! around quite a bit, and they're always helping. I'm not worried about the first few deleted articles as they were the first ones. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Yash! is the embodiment of what we should be looking for in our administrators - kindness, civility and knowledge of policy. Yash! has a demonstrated history of content creation and some significant contributions under their belt, and this is matched with a decent history of anti-vandalism and deletion discussion participation. I have no reservations in giving this candidate my full support and hope that you will too -- samtartalk or stalk 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, good impressions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, precious, - haven't been mentioned in a nom before ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Good record of dealing civilly with even especially uncivil interlocutors. Good balance of content and maintenance work. Happy to see this nomination. Support it unequivocally. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Good content creation and a good record as CSD, give him all the tools. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. Like nominator (but "It's your lucky day" doesn't sound right). Frankly, AfD looks a little too good. There are late votes and per X, but there are also noms and stated reasons. Taking former FA to GA doesn't sound like a stretch, but I'll AGF the rest. Distribution a bit odd, but I'm OK with low-intensity. I stopped looking when I came across User talk:Yash!#I guess you got your way. Glrx (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Glrx, I saw Taking former FA to GA doesn't sound like a stretch and immediately thought, this editor needs to see the history of Ike Altgens. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I support this candidate, they appear to have the requisite level of knowledge and experience which is required to be a good and effective administrator. I also agree with the nomination statement, the quality of article work is fine as is the volume. Nick (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I don't share the English concerns expressed, and think his English is good enough to be an admin. We need more admins, user would be a net-positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I support Yash!. Yash created his account 4 years ago. Also, he has done over 17,350 edits. Also, no vandalism and no blocks. Very trustworthy. I vote Yes for Yash!--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support—I have found no reason to oppose the candidate. We need more admins, and the user would be a net positive. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support if Andrew Davidson couldn't find anything more damaging than what he cited below, Yash! must be a very strong candidate! Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - The candidate seems to have a use for the sysop tools, and the competence to use them well. The oppose regarding language skills would be a valid concern, if it could be verified in any way. I have done my own search through all of the candidate's edits to the "Talk:" namespace over the last year, and have indeed found some shocking things. First, they seem to insist on actually explaining what the alphabet soup links mean instead of just linking to them without explanation. This seems to fit in with the broad trend I see of helpful and friendly interactions with new editors, and a thorough understanding of policies here like notability. In addition to these positives, I didn't find anything that I would consider to be negative - not even a sarcastically-worded or somewhat rude post. It looks like, despite their en-3 language skills, they are able to effectively communicate in the English language and function here on this project. Thanks for volunteering, and all the best if you're elected. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The other concerns regarding the use of other accounts is indeed concerning. But it happened five years ago. If there is any indication that they are currently doing such things, then I'll probably move to the oppose section. But nobody is perfect and almost five years is a long time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support- if our persistent "oppose everyone" participant Andrew Davidson can find nothing worse than a declaration that English isn't the candidate's first language, and maybe a typo or two, this must be a very strong candidate indeed. ReykYO! 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support- Lets give it a try. CLCStudent (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - after having examined all the aspects of the nomination which I deem important. An ability to communicate effectively is, I think, more important to an admin than total command of English, so as long as the nom's level of proficiency doesn't get in the way of that, I don't share Andrew D's concern. On the other hand, no editor has a right to be an admin, and any editor who see reasons that a nominee should not be an admin has a right, indeed a positive duty, to express those reservations publicly without having the community jump down their throat. We've seen from a recent case that the Bureaucrats are perfectly capable of weighing the reasoning expressed for and against a nominee, so there's really no reason to "play the refs", and no value to the community in suppressing by ostracism negative viewpoints about a nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe we have a duty to call out ridiculous oppose votes for being ridiculous so they do not affect the viewpoints of potential voters. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is a discussion, not a vote, allegedly. So we must discuss. ~ Rob13Talk 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"Discuss," yes, no doubt about that. "Call out" or denigrate? No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support as my default position. Answers are perfectly fine so far. The few times I've crossed this contributor's path, they've conducted themselves well. Certainly seems qualified at first glance. ~ Rob13Talk 21:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Reaffirming my support despite the clean start. I can certainly understand a desire to clean start given off-wiki threats. I've received them myself, and they have an incredibly chilling effect on contributions. We're prolonging the effect of threatening an editor, and therefore encouraging others to make threats, if we withhold advanced user rights or the mop due only to an appropriate clean start. ~ Rob13Talk 05:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Any editor with 17000+ edits and several years tenure with no obvious red flags is a quick support for me. Gluons12☢|☕ 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC).
Support Would make an excellent admin. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Clearly qualified, no pressing issues, and they're active in areas that admins usually work in. Only one ludicrous oppose !vote so far, and I can't see any good reasons to turn this candidate away, aside from nitpicking on trivial issues. Good luck, and thank you for volunteering! —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Seems qualified, has enough content contributions to satisfy me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I think Yash! will be a fine admin. He's certainly a fine editor: plenty of work done with, as far as I can see, good judgement in various areas. I'm happy with the answers to Q4 so I'm moving from Neutral. Yintan 22:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per reputation of the nom. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I have personally interacted with Yash and found him to be pleasant, mature, and receptive to feedback. I would feel safe with Yash wielding the mop.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (In addition, I think Yash is that rare admin type who has significant experience editing articles, which is a major plus in my mind.) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per Ajraddatz, k6ka. No concerns, net positive. I like the fact that they work well at new page patrol. Should make a fine admin. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 22:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support An experienced Wikipedian with many helpful contributions. Will clearly be a net positive to the project. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per nom and others. To me, the command of languages other than English is a plus, we have gobs of articles on topics related to the Indian subcontinent, many with issues that involve source material in native languages, so bilingualism on this topics would be a big help in figuring out what is or is not salvageable material. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. Wow I feel like we are really lucky to have Yash! stand for adminship. Expertise in languages underrepresented on en-wiki; investment in editor retention; and demonstrable success promoting constructive and civil dialogue in what appears to be at least his third language? As someone who often works outside my first language, I am particularly wowed by that last: it takes a very good temperament indeed to collaborate successfully when you don't have native command of a language at your disposal. I'm totally persuaded adminship here would be a boon to the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose because the candidate has an exclamation mark in his username, which makes it awkward to end sentences with (much like prepositions). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the fact you're in the wrong section, are you really serious Opabinia regalis? Or am I missing some irony here? Yintan 10:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence that this user would misuse the toolsSQLQuery me! 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support enough content creation to satisfy me they know what is involved in building the encyclopedia. Editor retention work is good, seems to have sufficient clue to handle the mop with care. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I see no evidence that the candidate would not be constructive in clearing out CAT:CSD, nor any that the candidate would perform an admin action contrary to policy. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 00:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Am going to get this in early, before yet another RfA degenerates into a slimefest. I've seen the candidate around, and am confident that they will do a good job with the mop. Andrew D.'s (predictable) first oppose is over the top this time, even for them. Miniapolis 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support very good content creation and NPP, AFD work Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I think more admins with language abilities beyond English is a huge plus. Supporting after looking through Lourdes' questions and Yash!'s response. Ajpolino (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per the honest answers to question 4 (everyone makes mistakes). I hope you get a new phone before you get the tools! Bradv 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. If the strongest argument anybody can come up with against him is the use of an idiomatically unusual, yet not even remotely difficult to understand, preposition in one spot on his user page, then that's just not a particularly compelling concern to me. What's needed is the ability to communicate clearly, which Yash certainly has, and not necessarily the ability to be so grammatically perfect that nobody could ever nitpick even the tiniest error in your writing (plus, I'm not an expert in the Indian English dialect, but "at Amsterdam" may not even really be an error there even if it sounds like one to North American ears.) What's significantly more important is (a) the potential admin's understanding of policy, (b) their willingness to listen and not get defensive if they make a mistake (which every admin here, including me, has at one time or another), (c) their willingness to collaborate, and (d) their willingness to communicate respectfully. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Yash fails any of those four criteria. Plus there's a tremendous benefit in having administrators around who can bridge the language gap with other editors from India who might have weaker English-language skills (trust me, I did an uncats batch today and it was littered to the rafters with articles where somebody had borked the existing categories on an India-related topic. We need more admins who can help fix problems like this.) And at any rate, I have an entire branch of my own family who are native speakers of French, and thus make minor errors of idiom when speaking English too — so what am I supposed to do, disown my own aunts and uncles because their English is less than 100 per cent perfect? No, because even if they're saying it "wrong", big fat hairy whoop de doo — I still understand what they mean, which is what matters. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, I see no red flags. I'm happy to see an experienced editor volunteer for more responsibility and would love to see more do the same. Best of luck, --Tavix(talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - I'm astounded at Andrews Oppose but can't say I'm surprised ..., Anyway Yash! would make a great admin - They're mature, They're extremely civil and remain calm throughout any heated discussions, They accept feedback well, Their CSD log as well as their AFD record is impressive too ... I could go on but in short they'd make a great admin and I see no valid reasons whatsoever to oppose. –Davey2010Talk 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC) (Struck/Amended in light of the other opposes below. 04:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC))
Support - no reason to oppose. Lack of English proficiency becomes a problem when basic communication is jeopardized, but we are a long way from that point. Plus, even though there certainly are disputes over fine points in English, there's nothing forcing Yash to join in. Just like most people will not get involved in a dispute on the fine points of General Relativity, I trust Yash to avoid a dispute which is beyond his or her ability. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. Upon seeing the any-excuse-to-oppose-style !vote below, I did an admittedly rudimentary review of the nominee's talk and user talk contribs, and I see a civil, level-headed, competent editor whose command of the language, while not perfect, is better than many EFLs here—and I'm a card-carrying pedant. Add to that the overall activity coupled with the answers above, and I'm firmly in Camp S. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I've read Lourdes' concerns and, yes, Yash! should have made an interests-of-full-disclosure statement. That said, given that the clean start from some 4.5 years ago appears indeed to be clean, I'm staying put. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not think this candidate will misuse the tools Also, re Andrew's oppose below, I believe good langauge diversity among our admins, especially at UAA and new pages could be helpful. Though we are the English Wikipedia, we have many contributors who speak languages other than English. Having admins skilled in communicating in those native languages can turn them into helpful contributors. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - no red flags, need we need more admins. English could use work, but is easily good enough to function as an admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I'm seeing a lot of positives, and nothing that concerns me enough to oppose. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 04:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral -FASTILY 07:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Seems like a good egg who knows what's what. The opposes are unconvincing. -Hillbillyholidaytalk 05:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - good content creation, solid process experience over several years, no reason to believe they will misuse their access to a janitor's mop. Good luck to them. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - Well-rounded editor who can help greatly in a sorely-needed and growing area. His language usage is barely- distinguishable from many native English editors here and a reasonable explanation for his use of multiple accounts appears to have been provided. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 06:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Seems to be a very pleasant and constructive editor. But, looking at his user page, I notice a userbox indicating that his command of English is only level-3 (advanced), which is less than his command of Gujarati and Hindi. Looking at the "About Me " section on that page, I soon notice incorrect use of prepositions such as "I have also spent some time at the Netherlands" (which should be "in" rather than "at"). This seems inadequate for an admin because many of our disputes are about fine points of the English language and one also needs good English to communicate well and avoid misunderstanding. Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Struck since anons cannot cast votes in RFAs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, please log in to !vote so that we can keep track of who's who. IPs change frequently enough there's a possibility we couldn't tell you from other IPs who would !vote here, which could lead to concerns about vote stacking. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 22:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose because I have seen longtime concerns about not being aggressive about advertising, either by accepting it at AfC or closing or voting for Keep at AfD. Even then, a few of his recent AfC acceptances in fact counted advertising, some of which I nominated and they were deleted. Seeing the concerns, beyond the obvious advert ones and tagging them, is essential, and while this user has been here for years, it's not enough for me to support without knowing there's not aggressive anti-advertising motivations. Another concern is the fact there's such a space gap in activity times, often being away for close to a year or so, so that causes some concerns alone. Wibradth this said, this is similar to another hopeful RfA I saw recently, where the same concerns also applied: Not acknowledging the seriousness of even the highly covert advertisements, or in fact keeping and accepting them. We all know any advertisement, regardless of anything, can in fact be removed policy WP:NOT alone (GNG be damned). The vandalism removal history is good, but there's not enough confidence for me to support. SwisterTwistertalk 03:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of transparency in nominee's acceptance statement (no concerns with Ritchie's nomination; this would have in all probability escaped him). In connection with Soham321's question above, this edit by Yash! on Yasht101's page may be insightful, especially the edit summary left by him (which I'm not placing here with discretion). This version of the talk page of the other editor Yasht101 has a header that may provide more context. This version of the talk page also has two talk page edits by TheSpecialUser (Yash!'s earlier user name), which beseech Yasht101 to stay back and not retire. This talk page of Yash101 also has edits from around 8 confirmed sock puppet accounts in a period of around 60 days preceding the redirect edit of Yash!. Moments after Yash!'s redirect edit, Anna Frodesiak wrote on the talk page of Yasht101 in this diff: "Hi Yash, Glad you're back from your other pseudonym." (I can't make out which pseudonym Anna is referring to) and questions Yash's similarity to two other users "All so similar and wondering why.". Irrespective of the background in all this, I guess Yash! should have been transparent about these issues in his Rfa nomination. They happened many years ago, but it's important for Rfa !voters to know important aspects of the candidate in order to make up their mind. And by explicitly avoiding any mention of this issue, I think I cannot trust the candidate. (Alternatively, all these edits may have a considerably strong logical explanation from Yash!, post which I will change my !vote). Lourdes 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - After checking links given by Lourdes. This edit summary by Yash! on the user talk of Yasht101, Since, I m revealed, I redirect. Who revealed him and when? And this hilarious talk page comment given by Lourdes, Yash! commenting on the user talk of Yasht101 signed as TheSpecialUser, Hey there Yash. What an irony that you 1st inspired me to come on wiki and now yourself have retired. The day I joined, you retired and this is not happening. I know that the last week was one of the worst time ever for us. It was a nightmare for me also but especially it was more horrible for you. I were there for you, weren't I? Cheer up mate. You are better then me, much better. You stated above that you won't return in 9 years but it is too much and I know that you'll not wait for 9 years. I'd suggest you to comeback ever 6 months and to become active. I know you very well and I m sure that you'll return after your birthday and will retire again (probably) but it is a long time from now. Don't completely retire, come and make 10 or 20 edits daily in the field you like and you wont face such problem again. It is good to see you back on track in real life, I m waiting for you to get back on wiki also. You are an amazing friend and wikipedian. With best regards and hope that you'll be back not completely but still you will be back, You-know-who (I don't want to go public here). --MarvellousSpider-Man 03:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Seems to have limited English capabilities. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose after reading the comment of Lourdes in this section and Yash's reply to my question. Soham321 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not comfortable supporting an admin who reminds me of a sockmaster. Talking to yourself with different accts, having several names, etc. Doesn't sound trustworthy. lNeverCry 04:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I have to change my vote. After editing as Yasht101 and making edits which they themselves say "were not encyclopedic", the editor creates a new ID ("TheSpecial User") and leaves a comment on Yasht101's talk page  that certainly gives the impression that these are two different people, an action which was completely unnecessary (and indeed counter-productive) to a clean start - no message between the accounts was called for or needed to continue editing the encyclopedia. They then change their name to "Yash!", making the connection between the two accounts quite clear. None of this makes any real sense to me, it's either someone playing games, or its someone whose judgment is quite poor, for whatever reason. On that basis alone I would have considered changing my !vote, but the more I read of Yash!'s writing, the more I think that Andrew D.'s concern is a valid one - I don't want an admin adjudicating potentially complex matters who doesn't have a sufficient command of English. Add to that Yash!'s reply to Soham321, and that Yash!'s participation on Wikipedia has fallen off significantly in recent months, and I just cannot bring myself to approve of giving this editor the bit, there are too many negatives, some of which are, in my view, markers for trouble. I regret that I have to change from "Support" to "Oppose". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Unfortunately moved from support. This is a tough one. I truly wished to support the candidate, even after the Lourdes revelations, on the basis that these childish activities happened 4.5 years ago while Yash was still young and immature. I don't see bad faith in posting a pickup message on your own talk page pretending to be someone else, when it's likely that nobody except Yash read that message. I see someone who's immature and probably going through a tough time. 4.5 years is enough time to change that. However, Yash's failure to clearly disclose this here weighs against him, even in the absence of official policy requiring him to disclose it. Also, I was willing to give him a true clean start and not consider his activities in the year 2012, but most of Yash's edits were during that time period, and he has little experience on Wikipedia after 2012. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 06:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Most of his edits were in that time period? 2012 was his busiest year, but Yash has made around 10,000 edits from 2013-2016, pretty evenly spread. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same edit count? I'm seeing about 5,000 total edits after 2013. 5,500 if you include 2013, which doesn't change much. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 06:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I miscounted. It's 6000 edits 2013-2016 when you include his deleted edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The masquerading, the pretense, the talking to (and about) himself via his other usernames, the current claim that alternate accounts were because of being harassed (or something to that effect) yet using the exact same name in the currently used account. Very worrisome and a deal-breaker for adminship for me. Admins must above all be trustworthy, mature, reliable, and transparent. There's also odd things like (1) This "A pie for you" on TheSpecialUser's talkpage from Strike Eagle (who somehow signs with the username "Srikarkashyap") on 12 May 2012 that says "Yash told everything about you...he wants to see you as an Admin and CRAT...don't disappoint him.Face-wink.svg Srikar Kashyap" . (2) Anna Frodesiak's post on TheSpecialUser's talkpage (with the opener "Welcome back to a single identity", implying there was concommitant use of multiple accounts) on 5 July 2012 noting Yash's similarity with two other users (besides the known accounts): . I've seen Yash currently do good things on wiki but there is enough here to give me pause, especially the revelation that he was gunning for adminship from the get-go. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC); edited 10:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Yash appears to be near-fluent in English, and therefore I see no issue there, but I am rather disturbed by the fact that he has been talking to himself using more than one account and has failed to disclose this. I find this incredibly strange, and this is definitely not behaviour I would expect from a soon-to-be admin. Sorry, Yash, but... what were you thinking?Patient Zerotalk 10:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Waiting for the answer on Q4. I have no big problems with Yash! but those recent hiccups bother me a bit. Yintan 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Moving to support. Yintan 22:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna wait for this to play out some and see what some of the opposers dig up as well as what some of the questions will be. —Gestrid (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a non-badgering, non-substantive general comment to editors posting this sort of neutral comments in recent RfAs. You absolutely have every right to hold off on !voting or commenting in the RfA until later in the week. In fact, if you haven't decided yet that's exactly what you should do, and for the moment it is what I am doing myself (although absent something unexpected arising I expect to support). However, unless you want to flag a specific point or concern, I don't know that it's helpful to post a "holding comment" on an RfA to the effect of "I haven't decided yet, I'll evaluate later" (and then strike it in a couple of days when you decide). After all, imagine how an RfA page would look if everyone did that! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Concerns about the nature of the 'clean start' and pending an answer to my question (#11). -FASTILY 07:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral. I am distraught by both, the language argument and the results of Lourdes' investigations. The first, makes me pause before adding one more weak, and perhaps unfair oppose !vote. The second, makes me cringe. The way the candidate answers concerns about immaturity will determine what follows next. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 07:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Echoing Newyorkbrad's comments above regarding neutral "holding" comments: none of us can say it's inherently harmful to do so, but it's not necessary at all. Some websites recently have developed a "follow" system which requires posting a comment in order to follow a thread, but Wikipedia does not work this way. If you would like to watch the page, click the "star" icon, which is located next to the "edit" button along the top (desktop) or at the top of the page (mobile). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.