Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Yash!

Andrew Davidson's oppose
An oppose based on a candidate's insufficient command of English is sensible in principle, though it appears highly unwarranted in this case. However, an oppose based on the fact that a candidate speaks other languages better than he or speaks English borders on impermissible ethnic bias, and since I am certain it was not intended as such, should be removed or rephrased. Please consider this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Question for : If Yash! had not specified that his level of English was level 3, would you still have thought that he was not proficient enough with English? Joshualouie711 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone with your usual token oppose here with whatever rationale you could find, but given the 17,000+ edits by the candidate, can you give any examples where their en-3 language skills have actually harmed their ability to communicate or function here as a non-admin? That might give a bit more weight to what you're saying. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already provided an example of incorrect English. Reading on, I soon found another, "I am very passionate for medical research" (which should be "about" rather than "for").  The infobox scale of language skill has six grades and so level-3 is in the bottom half.  I reckon admins should have level-5 (professional) or native command of the language.  As the candidate is young and is active here, I suppose his command of English will improve. Andrew D. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've provided an example of an inaccurate preposition, but not where that interfered with their ability to communicate. If you can find zero instances where their en-3 level has made it more difficult for them to communicate, then surely you can't be suggesting we blatantly discriminate on the basis of their nationality/language origin with no regard to how it affects them on the project ... or are you? If you are, you're voting for systemic bias for bias' sake. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no standardization on the English Wikipedia to accurately determine someone's language proficiency. Have you asked the candidate if they've ever worked somewhere where they used English -- even to a very small degree? If so, they by definition, have a "professional" level of English. It's important to note that the requirements for language proficiency greatly varies based upon the profession itself. In addition, employers will also have varying standards and expectations. My point is that aside from inherent flaws, a self assessment of someone's language proficiency is probably one of the worst metrics I've seen used to judge someone "trustworthiness". Mkdw talk 22:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I make typos more egregious than that example on a regular basis, please feel free to call for a desysop. Sam Walton (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Samwalton9's user page indicates that he has level 3 command of Welsh. Is he an admin in that project?  Should he be?  Andrew D. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never comment on how others vote, but just to note I also evaluate my level of English as en-3.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconding what Samwalton9 said, and I'm a native speaker of (admittedly Southern American) English. If you go back through almost any long-term editor's history you'll find at least a few grammatical or spelling mistakes. Plus who knows, maybe en-3 is them being humble and they're actually more en-4, which is a fully respectable level of English proficiency. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to be particularly troubled by a never ending number of spammers who can barely string together a couple of words of English, could you come and shoo these people away too ? Nick (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents. I'm confident Yash! will ask for help if they feel they are not competent about the English needed in a dispute. It's all about camaraderie after all, don't you think?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't usually involve myself in these discussions, but this is ridiculous. I just have to say that I know some admins who are not very fluent speakers of English either. What do we do with them, desysop them? Yes, please go and shoo some perfectly good editors away because English is clearly the superior language around here, right? English not your first language? Shoo! Come back when you no longer have an accent. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 21:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This kind of oppose is becoming all too prevalent from this individual. Almost like "can I find a single possible reason that this individual perhaps might be a net negative for the project" rather than the "could this individual, as an admin, be a net positive for the project".   Is there any precedent where an individual with this candidate's clear skill set has been an net negative for Wikipedia in the past once they've been made an admin?  I guess Colonel Warden is looking for candidates in his own image and nothing else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To play the devil's advocate in the interest of fairness, Andrew D. has supported a number of RfAs in the past: RfX stats. I agree, though, that some (several?) of his opposes are among the most nitpicky I've ever seen. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Add in the Colonel Warden votes, another 69 opposes vs 38 supports. With 2 exceptions out of 86 opposes, he has drastically been in the minority.  And I wouldn't care about that if his opposition rationale had any real relevance in administrating the Wikipedia..... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even when they are, when it's so bad it gets this reaction out of Juliancolton, you know it misses the mark. Andrew D., I would take this section and the substantial reaction to your previous recent opposes as constructive criticism, because if you don't they're likely to begin to really rub some editors the wrong way. They're already starting to be considered routine, which isn't a good sign. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be sympathetic to this concern if there were evidence grammar errors had impaired his ability to collaborate, but on the contrary, evidence suggests he's unusually successful at collaborating with others. Which just leaves the matter of proofreading additions to the encyclopedia, and we've got umpteen editors competent for that task. Far harder to find editors with the necessary temperament for adminship! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, why has RfA been getting so many ridiculous opposes lately? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lately? Nah, this a years-long tradition. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that English is the candidate's third and weakest language. Those other languages are not European and so are quite different, not sharing the same alphabet, for example.  We have Wikipedia versions in those other languages but I don't get the impression that the candidate is active in them, let alone having advanced permissions.  If he wants to progress then he should advance first in those other languages and then become a steward, say.  Or just continue here while improving his English – he is still young and there's no rush. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief, what the fuck are you wittering on about now? Given that I and many others struggle to comprehend your ludicrous opposes, it would seem that Yash! makes himself far better understood in a third language than you do in your first. I find it hard to believe that this isn't just trolling. Could it be that you're bitter because one of your socks failed an RfA? Feel free to chuck this back at me if I ever have a psychotic break and decide to go for the mop myself. --Hillbillyholiday talk 09:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not been a candidate at RfA as I have never been nominated. I have high standards at RfA and one reason for this is that admin powers seem to be quite a big deal.  A single admin might drive off hundreds of other editors while the appointment is for life and  is difficult to challenge or impeach.  For example, I recall a fellow editor being indeffed for calling someone a "troll" - similar language to that used by Hillbillyholiday just above.  The admin in that case was eventually de-sysopped for being too trigger-happy but that was after years of such over-zealous action.  And the other editor is still indefinitely blocked. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And how is a less than perfect command of English going to "drive off hundreds of other editors"? --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I must concur with Hillbillyholiday with this one. I know plenty of fluent speakers of English that would drive a hornet out of its nest, and lots of people who do not speak English fluently that are the friendliest people I've met. Just last week I had to phone customer support for some issues I was experiencing, and though the operator who spoke with me had an accent and was not the best speaker of English, he was still remarkably patient and kind, and it made the irritable situation I was in far more bearable. I am not exactly sure where you're getting these ridiculous ideas from. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lourdes' oppose

 * 1) 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 '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, 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)
 * Here is a link with the response to my post. I don't remember which pseudonym either. It was years ago. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I do not have any association to those 8 socks and I have provided an answer. I am open to further clarifications. Best,  Ya  sh  !   03:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yash. I'm not alluding to your association with the 8 socks. It's just a matter of fact I've mentioned above. I would request your clarification on the edits that I have mentioned in my oppose and on Soham's query too. Also, if you in fact are the other user(s) what these edits allude you to be, might I ask why did you not come clean in the nom acceptance statement? And if you are not connected with the other user(s) pointed out in my statement, then please explain. Thanks. Lourdes  03:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have indeed mentioned that I am a cleanstart of Yaht101 on my userpage but I see that should have clarified it over here too., I am not sure as to what "other user(s)" you are referring to here. But if you are talking about TheGeneralUser (who has !voted here) and TheOriginalSoni, I am not either of them and the only accounts that I have ever used to edit are Yasht101 and Yash! (TheSpecialUser - the name was inspired from TheGeneralUser). As for my edits on Yasht101 as TheSpecialUser, I was afraid that the person who used to threaten me would figure out that I was Yasht101 because of similar interests and editing pattern. This reasoning really sounds extremely immature to me right now but that is what my teenage disturbed state of mind thought of. Regards,  Ya  sh  !   04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand issues in RL affecting you and don't wish to probe into your RL. But dude, this is an Rfa. How did you expect this not to come up? You're requesting for admin tools and are mentioning stuff that people will just think is a conspiracy theory ("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...I attempted a cleanstart and then left those messages in order to make it look like I really was a different person"). If this Rfa does tank, or if you withdraw this nomination, make an honest and clean statement of who you were and re-apply in a year. If you miraculously go through to passing this Rfa, then too come clean to all the !voters, especially the supporters, who may have faith in you. I am sorry, but I don't trust you with the tools right now. You need a year of clean functioning and a clean acceptance statement in your next Rfa for me to support. Thanks. Lourdes  04:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of a clean start that you don't need to reveal your past identity? And this was May 2012 - can't we just judge them by the past four and half years of contributions? I don't understand this oppose. Bradv  04:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * hello. According to WP:Clean start: "A clean or fresh start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account." This user was using both his primary and secondary accounts at the same time without stopping use of either. In other words, he was clean and plain socking and, for example working on getting GAs by communicating between his primary and secondary account on talk pages. He also did not inform the arbitration committee about the same. Well, all this you and I know because this issue was brought up here. He mentions here that this was immature of him and happened because of RL issues. Be that as it may, my point is that Yash should have revealed these things before we got to them – a simple post hoc linking of two accounts is not enough. I would be prone to think that if he did not choose to reveal these interactions, then what trust do I have that he has not chosen to hide other details from his past 4.5 years of editing? It's about trust and I don't have it in this user. Lourdes  05:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I count a grand total of 5 edits made from his old account after creating the new one, and they were all in userspace. Where do you see evidence of sockpuppetry? Old New Bradv  05:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I posted the above you added that you just don't trust this user. That's completely fair - you can't be expected to trust everyone. However, accusing him of sockpuppetry in order to garnish more opposes seems a little beyond the pale. The contributions show a clear separation between the two accounts. The only fair criticism is that he did a poor job of pretending to be new, and probably should have mentioned this to ArbCom before filing the RfA. He's already acknowledged and explained that decision above. I will keep my !vote at Support for now. Bradv  05:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You are mistaken on various areas. Firstly, I hope you now realize that your understanding of clean start is not what is defined by the clean start policy and not what happened here (that's perhaps why you finally checked the editor's edits). Secondly, I think you have still not checked the edits that I placed in my response, where The Special User is exhorting the admin about his discussions with Yash or where The Special User is talking to Yash himself. Thirdly, if you are interested, you should check all edits of this user (The Special User) till July mid, the day he finally connected the accounts, rather than just the edits of the old Yash. Till July, through his new account, he was propagating a new identity, referring to his discussion with the so-called Yash, talking to the so-called Yash – socking as per policy (I don't know what you believe it is); and to top it, the user claims it was a clean start, but chooses not to inform the arbcom till date. Why?!?! Also, please read WP:sock puppetry; irrespective of the fact that both the users (old Yash and The Special User) have made a considerable number of aggregate edits till mid July 2012, as per policy, there's no minimum number of edits required to call out a sock where it is. Bradv, I think you are also mistaken on understanding my oppose. It's not for this candidate's socking or for his misguided invocation of clean start without adhering to the basis of the policy; but for his lack of transparency in bringing out the issue here. Finally, I would suggest you take this issue up with the candidate rather than with me. If you are satisfied with his responses, you should support him. I don't trust him; and shall not support him currently. Thanks. Lourdes  06:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And Brad, given one of the edits of Yash that I had linked, I would suggest to the editor to start with changing at least one statement in his current Rfa acceptance, where the editor writes: "I have certainly had a few disagreements with editors but nothing that I recall ever escalated to an extreme point." Lourdes  09:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)