Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RayAYang

RayAYang

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/24/5); Scheduled to end 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

RayAYang (talk · contribs) – RayAYang has been an avid contributor since June 01, 2008 and out of his 10,000+ edits has consistently made many worthy and valuable contributions to Wikipedia with over half of them to mainspace. Being familiar with policy, he has been highly active in anti-vandal work and new page patrol and thus would greatly benefit from having the extra buttons (already being a rollbacker). He has also been civil and helpful in dealings with other editors as can be evidenced by his talk page. I truly feel this editor is competent enough and deserving of adminship at this point. œ^™ 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept. Ray^Talk 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I imagine I would probably start with the areas I am most familiar with - dealing with vandals at WP:AIV, semiprotecting pages suffering spates of vandalism at WP:RFPP, and handling deletion matters - PROD, AFD and CSD, mainly. I do not see myself enforcing policy on content disputes and the like, since, for any content dispute I care enough to act on, I would probably have an opinion and thus wouldn't count as uninvolved.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My Wikipedia style is a bit split. I spend a good chunk of time itinerantly doing antivandal, newpage patrol and occasionally chip in at AFD, and I like to think my work there has been helpful. When I do content work, I make the occasional contribution to mathematics and politics/history articles, and I do the odd review over at WP:GAN when an article catches my eye. My personal favorite article among the ones I've created is probably Obstacle problem, less for the quality of the article than the time I had to put in to understand the mathematics of it! I've also spent a good bit of time uploading pictures over at Commons for biographical articles of mathematicians.

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: When I first started editing, there were a number of reasonably stressful situations regarding article content, the one I most remember being Anchor baby. I eventually disengaged from that article despite being less than satisfied, since I decided the conversation was not constructive and causing more stress than good. I played a part in discussions over the wording of WP:TERRORIST in the earlier part of this year, where consensus went against my preferred position, and I've since moved on from that area as well. There was also the business over the Death of Baby Peter, which was distressing as I didn't like to see what struck me as excessive deference to governmental censorship. As far as causing me stress, that's about it - I have been in the odd dispute where the other editor may have been stressed, but those are not terribly memorable or significant in shaping my attitude.

Mostly, I remember that my purpose in being here is a joyous one - to learn and to take part in the transmission of learning (I spend far more time reading Wikipedia than actually editing it). I don't back down easily before bullying, but nor do I consider my purpose here to be "winning" points. If the usual dispute resolution processes (mostly talk pages, or in cases where the conversation seems to have insufficient participation - noticeboards or RFCs) don't settle a matter to my satisfaction, it's usually more profitable to move on anyhow.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. Imagine you have admin powers, and imagine some vandal damages your user page (not that hard to imagine), what do you do, do you block them?

A: If it's blatant vandalism, yes (classic examples of the type being aspersions on my ancestry, unfavorable references to my probable sexual orientation, etc). If I have any doubt on the matter, I'd probably refer it to ANI for a second opinion. I'll note that most people who vandalize my user page are people on dynamic IPs who dislike my antivandal patrolling, so temporary semiprotection of my userpage is probably a better solution in those cases.

Question from Leaky Caldron

5. Can you set out what your approach will be to Recall?

A: I think it's reasonably important that administrators not outlast their welcome by the community, but also that a fear of giving offense not paralyze some of our more important administrative functions. I suspect fear of an easily gamed process that creates far more drama and disruption than it solves is part of what keeps a formalized recall process from achieving consensus. In the meantime, I take inspiration from MBisanz's procedure (User:MBisanz/Recall): if sufficient administrators in good standing (5 is sufficient but not necessary, and indeed, from my standpoint, administrator is merely a stand-in for "trusted editor with respected judgement") believe that I have abused my position as an administrator to the detriment of Wikipedia or the community's trust, then it's time to step down.

Question from Jusdafax

6. Would you please speak to the concerns raised by the first opposer on the topic of your involvement and views, including your level of contrition, of the 'St. Pancake' episode around a redirect to activist Rachel Corrie (and while we are at it) the second opposer as well, regarding your lack of a GA or FA?

A: This is a monster of a question, so you'll have a monster of a reply. For those only interested in the FA/GA question, I address it in the last paragraph.

The Saint Pancake episode was an extended (as discussions that even touch on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict tend to be) discussion regarding the use of "Saint Pancake" as a redirect for Rachel Corrie. My position on the redirect issue is that a redirect exists to help people who come searching for information, and by itself conveys no opinion of the subject. After all, a redirect does not show up on the page itself - you literally have to use the redirect (or be a Wikinerd using "what links here" like myself) - to see it. Thus, I think any unambiguous redirect is appropriate. This diff expresses my position quite precisely.

In reply to another point raised by Black Kite - a note about blogs - I am actually a decent fan of using blogs by authoritative figures as sources (indeed, I actually raised this question awhile back). However, in this particular case, I was using the lack of non-blog coverage to counter another editor's point about the controversy's ostensible prominence and level of media coverage. There are other reasons why Above the Law is not suitable as a source in this instance, but that's neither here nor there.

Out of the other diffs pointed out by Black Kite, the only one I would take back is my reply to Cerejota. It was not a constructive remark to make. As for the others, I will clarify that I was not directly calling any editor a wilful hagiographer, but expressing my view on the particular state of the article as it then existed, a view in which I was not alone. In any case, I believe a full reading of the diffs involved will give you a good feeling for my philosophy regarding Wikipedia, and the type of reasoning I bring to my opinions in content disputes.

With respect to GA/FA, yes, I haven't yet been able to bring an article to that status. My preferred mode when making content contributions is really to give an edit here, or an edit there, insert a section here or there, do some copyediting, find some pictures, etc. As far as Wikipedia goes, I would describe myself as mostly an editor, not a writer.

Additional optional questions from Dank

7. On the same subject, the appropriateness of "Saint Pancake" as a redirect, please talk about the relevance or irrelevance of WP:CSD#G10 and Wikipedia:Redir#Reasons for deleting, point #3.

A: With respect to CSD:G10, my position is that the policy exists to eliminate those entries which serve only to disparage or threaten their subject, not merely any connection which is found to be offensive. My position there is simply that a redirect, being in the ordinary course of events invisible to the editor save those who got there by using it, cannot give an impression which is not already in the user's mind. So first, my argument wrt to G10 is that such a redirect does no harm in the usual sense, and thus G10 does not apply.

With respect to Wikipedia:Redir#Reasons for deleting, I note that they are superseded by Wikipedia:Redir#Reasons for not deleting, which follows the other section, noting that we should avoid deletion of redirects if they "aid searches on certain terms" and they are found to be useful (#3 and #5, respectively). Bluntly: offensive redirects are kept if they are helpful to navigation and useful. Both of these apply. I think this is a good guideline, and it should be kept that way, if we want Wikipedia to be maximally useful. I find one of the oppose's suggestions that we redirect offensive terms to WP:CIVIL to be more than a little alarming - whatever standards we impose on our editors, Wikipedia is not for preaching to the world.

I take the opportunity to address the question of reliable sources. I view that guideline as subsidiary and complementary to the greater policy of verifiability, and in any case redirects as subject to a lower standard. For a redirect on a subject, it should be sufficient that we can verify a) that the term refers to the target of the redirect, and b) there is no ambiguity on the matter. In this case, nobody disputes the unambiguous nature of the nickname. In the more general case, I think that where facts can be unquestionably verified, but for some reason there is conflict about the reliability of sources, the lesser rule should not be allowed to override the greater.

This has come up in a small way most recently in the case of Death of Baby P, where numerous news articles were retracted following a censoring order by a court, and it was argued that since newspapers had removed their articles there were no reliable sources on the matter. I found that particular argument to be spurious, since there was no dispute that the newspapers/sites had printed the information, that it was accurate, and private mirrors of those news articles were readily available. Of course, this was a small argument in a much larger question concerning matters of BLP and the degree to which Wikipedia should defer to courts, and that argument is trickier, and there are points where I am unresolved.

Frankly, I do not care much whether people agree with me on the specific case - in my mind, the question of this particular redirect is settled, consensus has been reached, I've abided by it, and moved on. I explain myself here in perhaps too great a length because I believe my judgment is in question, not out of any desire to revisit the topic. I have heard no arguments which would cause me to reconsider the positions I have stated here. The nature of the opposes has caused me to reflect and think things over, coming as they do from some people I respect, but I remain convinced my logic is sound.

Followup from Dank: I'm going to give this one more shot. When we delete promotional material per WP:CSD#G11, sometimes the promotional material wasn't written by someone intending to promote; sometimes it's a good-faith contributor mindlessly parroting the information from a promotional website. In fact, we generally don't have any way to know what was in the mind of the editor, and it doesn't generally matter in CSD matters. Do you see a connection to G10, attack pages? Does what was in the mind of the creator of the redirect matter when the redirect expresses a genocidal sentiment, along the lines of "It's humorous when you think of Palestinians flattened like pancakes"? (Reminds me of the "crispy" jokes that were made by Nazis about Jews.) We of course do include genocidal statements in articles ... but only when the sources suggest the statements had or have a significant impact, and only when they're balanced by something like "X called her this, which was generally condemned in the press".

I'm not sure I understand the connection, Dan. We don't have any way of doing mind reading. We can only act on what is written. What matters for the purposes of Wikipedia is not the original intention anyhow, but the effect of the content on the reader, which we hope to be helpful and informative.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

8. This question is obviously loaded in the extreme so don't answer it if you don't want to. In my youth in the Midwestern United States, I heard shall we say "less than open minded" individuals refer to Martin Luther King as Martin Lucifer Coon. Given that some sections of the population refer to the man this way, should we turn that redlink blue?

A: I'm not going to rush out to create it as that would be disruptive given the current state of consensus according to my reading, but provided you can verify its unambiguous usage, I would support such a redirect at any RFD proceeding. My reasoning is as explained above. When I take a position, I necessarily take responsibility for the consequences of that position. This is not terribly politically wise of me, but as is no doubt clear, my purpose here is what I consider the promotion of truth, not my own popularity.

Dank's mention of google indexing is the first suggestion I consider plausible that there may be a real harm on the reader of having such a redirect, but I find his concerns outweighed by the benefits of making Wikipedia more readily accessible to all people, whatever their initial beliefs. I think that we should have confidence in ourselves, trusting that a good and carefully written article, whatever the redirect that led the user to it, will yield results that do more benefit than harm. If we were to believe, in your hypothetical, that our treatment of Martin Luther King in his biography is so poor that the benefit of making it accessible would be outweighed by a mere google-associational effect of a redirect pointing people to it, then we have problems far greater than our redirect policy.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

9. Now for an actual admin work related question: Of the various criteria for speedy deletion, one of the more commonly misunderstood is A7, "notability." Could you explain in your own words exacly what an article must have to avoid deletion under this criteria? Would your decision to delete or not be influenced by the presence of a {{hangon}} on the page?

A: The criterion last I read is not about asserting notability, but about importance which is a much weaker criterion. There is some subjectivity on the part of the admin involved here, but basically I would take this to mean that if any fact is stated (sourced or not) which, if verified, would give the article a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AFD then it shouldn't be deleted under A7. I'd certainly read any rationale given on a hangon tag, and think it over - the most common case I can imagine is a plea that the article is under construction and to give more time, and as A7 is not one of the irremediable criteria (like G10 or G12), I'd probably respond by offering to userfy the article and remove it from article-space until it was ready.

Additional optional questions from Sandstein

10. Are you above the age of majority in your jurisdiction?

A: Yes.

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

11. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: Any alternate accounts I may create will be declared on my userpage. To pre-empt the other likely question: I have never edited under any other account on Wikipedia. Should this RfA pass, I intend to create an alternate account to use from public terminals and the like, as I'd have to be more careful on the security surrounding this account.

There is a possibility that editing under my real name (as I have been doing) will become undesirable for professional reasons (this is at least 18 months off). If, for that or any other reason, I need to exercise a right to vanish, I would resign the bit. However, any accounts I create after that would, needless to say, not be tied to this one.

Additional optional questions from Epeefleche

12. If faced with a third AfD within one month on the same article by the same nom, each prior AfD closed as "no consensus" as to notability, what steps if any would you take to minimize redundant sapping of editors' and admins' time?

A: If there was as yet no significant discussion in the AFD, I'd probably hit it with a speedy close and encourage the nom to take it up at deletion review if so inclined - this of course assumes there has not already been any decision to the contrary. If there is significant new discussion at the AFD, I would probably just !vote for a speedy close, and hope that enough editors agree with me that we could get a snowball behind it - cutting off a vibrant AFD discussion in progress is something that requires, in my mind, more than concern about wasting energy and time.

It is settled policy that repeated nominations can be disruptive, and in the case of repeated nominations in the face of a "keep", a speedy close is appropriate. I think that a "no consensus" result is weaker than a standard "keep", but it is a keep result nonetheless. The interval one should wait ought to be shorter, but not almost immediately. Googling, I discovered that this situation had come up before, and been the subject of a guideline which failed, due to fears of instruction creep (Wikipedia:Repeated AfD nomination limitation policy), which was probably a good thing - we can resolve these things on a case by case basis, and I suppose there may be situations that are not so generic and may call for a more specific touch. Given the requirement for discussions to last 7 days, and the tendency for probable no-consensus cases to be relisted in hopes of getting a more decisive result means that the situation you have raised will hopefully be very rare.

General comments

• Links for RayAYang: RayAYang (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for RayAYang can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RayAYang before commenting.

• Deleted contributions look good with accurate tagging for speedy deletion of A5 A7 A9 G3 G7 G11 G12 and prods, also several afd nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Editing stats on talk. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Insert standard expression of surprise that RayAYang is not already an admin.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   Increasing my support to strong. As another editor said, support per Black Kite. I read through the difs Black Kite posted, and found that for the most part, RayAYang made calm, policy-based arguments to support his position. Far calmer and far more policy-based than 99% of the arguments I see elsewhere on Wikipedia, on a subject that surely attracted a number of passionate people. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   very regretfully, move to opposeSupport Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Support as nom. -- œ^™ 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support as om nom nom nom. --Aqwis (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Prolific, trusted, and experienced editor. Nothing to suggest they would abuse the extra tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - active vandal fighter, good natured, learns from mistakes, articulate... a fine choice, and I wish you all the best. Jusdafax 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - no problems here, well-qualified for adminship. From what I've seen, Ray is a very trustworthy, reasonable editor with a strong base of experience. I echo Fabrictramp. JamieS93 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. I've seen Ray make very sensible suggestions at RfCs, and am confident that he has the right temperament to be an admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I was not aware previously of Ray's role in the Saint Pancake issue, but I feel that his answers to the criticisms raised have been thoughtful and sufficient, and some of the criticisms paint him unfairly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support per my criteria. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per Black Kite. Nick mallory (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment. This !vote doesn't even make sense, since Black Kite opposed. Le Docteur (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment. When you see votes like this, it's usually sarcasm directed toward the opposer, as i'm sure it is here. Trusilver 06:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

11. Support Nominator makes a good case and the answers to the questions are reasonable. @harej 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Per nom.--Giants27(c|s) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per above (except for the whole Black Kite thing). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    I followed his work on WP:TERRORIST, and nothing impresses me more than people who put in the work, make the case, and respond patiently, but are willing to back off if it's not working because they don't need to win every fight. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Switching to oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

14. Weak Support Good credentials. Would suggest that he do a little more article work, but not a big enough problem in my opinion to oppose - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, with full knowledge of the R. Corrie debate (I think I participated it in as well). Part of that falls under the category of 'opinions may differ', another part 'not terribly relevant to the use of the tools'. I don't mean to belittle the concerns, as they are valid. I just don't feel they speak directly to this candidate's ability to wield the mop. Protonk (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - Read all the petty crap below and am willing to toss it all into the "sour grapes over heated content dispute" bin. Will this candidate abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or break the wiki? Very unlikely, that's good enough for me. Trusilver 06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Good Luck!Brianherman (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Opposing over one mistake would be excessive. I know I have made many more. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support the use of Saint Pancake was not a mistake, there are thousands of ghits that use the term, so fair enough for a redirect, so although some below are using it as a reason to oppose I am using it as a reason to support. It is not really an attack, just a bad taste joke. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - seen him around, I think. No concerns here.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - I think some mistakes were made in the incident highlighted by Black Kite, but I feel it would be overblowing his role in that saga to oppose over it alone. In general, I find Ray's participation in Wikipedia to be positive and sensible: I would have no issue with him receiving admin tools, none of us are perfect. ~ mazca ^talk 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Weak support Some errors have been made by this user, but I think he wouldn't misuse the mop and would be a great asset as an admin to WP Community. warrior4321 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support While I agree with the majority that you were wrong during the Saint Pancake Incident, I don't see why that would make you a poor administrator. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - So far (almost) all of the opposers do so only based on one event, the dreaded Saint Pancake thing. While I understand the desire to do so, and I agree with most that Ray was incorrect, being wrong about something doesn't mean a person is unsuited for adminship. I'm sure every editor and admin has made a mistake now and again in Wikipedia (I know I have) but what's important to me is how that mistake is handled. Ray seems to have withdrawn and deferred to consensus as is proper when a person "loses" in a discussion, and while he may still think he was correct everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do people really think that Ray is going to take the mop and run rampant, putting defamatory redirects all over Wikipedia? (Actually he could do that without the mop.) -- Atama頭 17:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    No, but my guess is that he's going to be part of the problem rather than the solution. I'm still not sure what it is he doesn't get; it could be he's not aware that mainspace Wikipedia pages, even redirects, push obscure racist jokes that would have otherwise faded in the next news cycle to the top of a Google search. Mainly, I'd like for admins to pay attention and express at least some doubt when this many people disapprove of their actions in in very strong language. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    I know that in the face of overwhelming opposition, I would at least doubt my position in a discussion. Let me have another look at the incident, I've been aware of it pretty much since it happened (though I didn't participate in it) but if Ray didn't withdraw as quickly as I remember, I'll give my support a second thought. -- Atama頭 18:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    I've looked it over and if anything my support is stronger. I think that the impression that is being painted against Ray is overblown. Reading over the discussion in Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 11, for example, you see will only see a few compelling arguments that Ray has posted, civilly, with appeals to policy. Others argue passionately about his suggestions (both for and against) but Ray for the most part was staying cool. If I were to read the oppose comments in this RfA without looking into the actual debate I would think that Ray was tendentiously arguing against consensus, but that doesn't seem to be the case. All I see is a person rationally giving their opinion. -- Atama頭 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Without being an expert on how Google's search apparatus works, but I think the main impact of the redirect is to push our supposedly neutral article to the top of [1]. I'm not sure this promotes a racist joke at all. However, if people who know more can explain that this redirect would expose people to the nickname who hadn't already heard it, I'd be prepared to listen. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well, try it: do a Google search on the title of any redirect page where the term isn't so common that it's going to get swamped, and it will show up near the top of the search. On the other question: epithets meant to conjure up images of what your targets dead bodies are supposed to look like after you've mutilated them just don't require a lot of interpretation, and for some reason it's a common tactic among genocidal racists; there are terms I won't repeat that are supposed to conjure up what black men's bodies look like swinging from trees, and what gay men's bodies look like ravaged by AIDS. I can't support an admin candidate that would elevate these epithets from quickly-forgotten garbage in obscure blogs to the top of Google searches. It's not a one-time mistake, it's an ongoing error in judgment that could affect our reputation. As User:AniMate/sandbox pointed out, "of all the pages discussing Corrie only .6% use this term", so hopefully, since we deleted the redirect page, it will fade into obscurity quickly. We'd have a lot to answer for if the call had gone the other way. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    The point is that the existence of the redirect page as you describe doesn't increase the notoriety of the term unless it brings it up for unrelated searches, which I don't believe it does. Removing it just guarantees that people (who may have just heard the term in passing) who input search terms propagated by genocidal racists get directed to sites run by genocidal racists. Deleting this redirect doesn't push the term into obscurity, it just ensures that extreme content continues to have plenty of space to dominate the dialogue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Google also indexes pages like this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    MediaWiki:Robots.txt says "Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship/". I think that means RFAs are not indexed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    It may say it, but searching for "Insert standard expression of surprise", the first part of my support, pulled up this page. I checked before I posted. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Damn. Thanks for checking. I noindex'd, and I'll go ask what's up with this at WP:VPT. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

25. Support After reviewing contribs I think Ray would be a fine admin. The Saint Pancake episode was a political blunder on his part but not nearly serious enough to justify an oppose for me. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Generally, don't see evidence that the nominee is likely to abuse admin tools. And, per the above the comments presented in the opposes below seem fair enough to me; I don't think they demonstrate any fundamental misunderstandings of policies or practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
28. I think that I can disagree that Saint Pancake should be a redirect (a disparaging nickname? How about "Shrub" for G.W.B.?) and still see that the candidate has the attitude and experience necessary for adminship. I'm not sure why that one thing is such a deal-breaker for everyone; if you have over 10K edits here, you've been on the losing end of a policy-related argument. Perhaps the sensitive nature of it? "OMG you insulted the girl who got ran over!" sort of thing? At any rate, you have my support. Tan | 39 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support First of all, the fact that you answered my first question at all impressed me. With that answer and your other remarks and answers to questions, I see a user who is thoughtful and honest, and, most importantly for an admin, who understands what consensus is and that admins must abide by it whether they agree or not. (I'm a little afraid my question might have spread some WP:BEANS around now that I think about it but what's done is done...) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Support per Black Kite. Since Black Kite brought up RayAYang's participation in the Saint Pancake affair, it is relevant to note that Black Kite wheel warred to delete that redirect: log. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    An action which was upheld as correct at DRV. Black Kite 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    No one is disputing the fact that the DRV endorsed deletion of the redirect. Wheel warring, as a conduct issue, was specifically excluded from consideration by the closing admin. The fact that you continue to assert that re-deleting prior to discussion was a proper action calls your administrative detachment and judgment into question far more than anything Ray's said or done reflects poorly on his. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

31. Support. The pancake affair raised by the opposers seems overblown. Whilst the candidate was not the example of how to handle dispute resolution and discussions, they still went with concensus and attempted to gather this through means of discussion. The other parties in the incident were also not examples of how to handle such, with AGF issues and as pointed out a mini wheel-war. I personally feel it is unfair to oppose the candidate over this as its been blown out of proportion. Support as net positive. --Taelus (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Support: besides the 'Saint Pancake' affair this contributor appears the ideal candidate. When it comes to that affair, I can appreciate arguments from both sides, and ultimately lean toward Dank's position on the redirect's worthiness. But in considering how it all affects RayAYang's suitability for adminship, the detail I find most important is his statement that "in my mind, the question of this particular redirect is settled, consensus has been reached, I've abided by it, and moved on." Thoughtful, considered, bold but prepared in the end to be bound by consensus. That's what I want to see in an admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support We all make mistakes and that particular incident is not oppose-worthy alone (and while tu quoque is not an argument, Jclemens correctly points out that Black Kite's wheel-warring in that situation was not really the correct reaction either). But Gonzonoir puts it well: The candidate has shown an understanding of how to react when confronted with such opposes and has shown that they are willing to learn from past mistakes when necessary (see answer to Q7). Their answer to Q9 shows a good understanding of one of the most difficult speedy criteria and their contributions show no obvious mistakes in that area...As such, my decision here is to assume that Ray learnt from that particular incident and that they will not let their personal POV influence the use of admin tools. Therefore granting adminship to this user would be a net positive imho. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    That is not what "assume good faith" means. You're assuming competence- good faith is another matter entirely. Friday (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    No, I am not assuming competence. I have stated why I think the user is competent. What I am assuming is that Ray is trying to "help the project, not hurt it" which in this case translates into learning from this particular incident (because otherwise, he would hurt the project). Regards SoWhy 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

34. Support to counter "Saint Pancake" opposes -- it's highly offensive, but there are reliable sources for the term -- see http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/05/03/rachel/, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

    See also this search relating to the "Martin Lucifer Coon" question above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    No such sources were available at the time. Also, that Salon reference (which now appears to be dead, I think) was also discussed at the talkpage, and it was decided by a consensus that it was just a passing reference to the fact that the epithet was used by the blogosphere, and thus the redirect was still invalid. Black Kite 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Clarification: "... at the time [(Feburary 1, 2009) of the DRV]". The RFC, which happened months later, was based on the readdition of the epithet to the article, based on the Salon article--which is still live (the above URL is incorrect). Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sarek, you just blew my mind. I thought that was just something the crackers I went to high school with said. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

35. Weak Support The "Saint Pancake" issue is concerning, but it looks like RayAYang is a user who is willing to change and correct his ways. I think he'll learn from his mistakes. Everything else checks out fine. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
36. support Certainly concerns about the SP issue. But I've seen Ray around a lot and trust his judgment. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support - Administrators need to be NPOV, but I'm not convinced the controversial edits shed much light on the editor's temperament. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - Despite the Saint Pancake issue I don't think he'll abuse the tools. Pikiwyn ^talk 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
39. support for having the integrity to give honest answers where it would have been very easy to be equivocal and make the election much more likely to give a favorable result. an admin has to be neutral even over the most unsavory matters. I further agree that the obnoxious motives of people do not matter if they contribute good edits-- POV is a reason for examining them closely, not for rejecting them. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. I have no doubt that Ray is trustworthy, per the first sentence of DGG's support. As to the "Saint Pancake" episode: Yes, the epithet is disgusting; yes, I'd have !voted to endorse the G10 speedy; yes, I think Ray's position was clearly wrong there - but I just do not see how this has any relevance to the question whether he will abuse the tools; if anything, as DGG said above, the ability to be "neutral even over the most unsavory matters" is something we should be looking for in an admin. The question is whether he can set aside his views, however strong they are, and follow the consensus when he uses the tools; whether he can learn from his mistakes and move on; whether he can react calmly in stressful circumstances. As Gonzonoir explained, I see no indication that he cannot. Tim Song (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The Saint Pancake saga left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm afraid. For those unaware, the (now deleted) redirect was to Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian activist killed when she was run over and crushed by an Israeli bulldozer. The "Saint Pancake" epithet was used only in the extreme right-wing blogosphere to mock Corrie's death. The redirect was deleted (disclosure: by me) as a G10 (attack page) and endorsed at DRV [2]. Ray removed the original G10 speedy tag admins only. In the ensuing discussions, Ray calls editors of Corrie's article "hagiographers", accusing another editor of "political correctness", redirects don't have to be NPOV, and asking for the redirect to be recreated despite it having been deleted as a G10. Wanting so desperately to keep something that was only sourced to blogs is very ironic, given that Ray is aggressively clear that other things that are only sourced to the US blogosphere must not stand. Sorry, not convinced. Black Kite 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   ...highly disturbing. Would like to hear candidate address this post by Black Kite. I had never heard of 'St. Pancake' as a term for Rachael Corrie nor the wiki-issue around the redirect, but it is obiviously in the worst taste possible regardless of one's view of Corrie.

   The details are also a concern. Since as I see it, Wikipedia demands a high moral standard of its admin's, cannot help but contemplate switiching my vote to Oppose, but again, will await candidates reply. Jusdafax 01:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   This was a fairly long and involved saga, and I was peripheral to a large chunk of it. I think, in the interests of not creating one of those gigantic replies in the oppose section which kills itself with its own length, I'd be grateful if you phrased your queries more specifically in the question section. Similarly, if you would like explanations of particular diffs and things I have written, I would be happy to oblige. Best, Ray^Talk 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Have done so at your request - my first RfA question, showing my concern. UPDATE: Thanks for your prompt reply, most obliging. Will not pass judgement pending further discussion. Best, Jusdafax 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Does this candidate have any real experience editing articles (not counting reverting vandalism)? He apparently has no GA's or FA's, and the articles that he feels that he has contributed to significantly can probably be counted on one hand. I do think that some experience in the basic editorial process is essential for developing good judgement befitting an administrator on the project. Le Docteur (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yes the candidate does have real experience writing articles. I suspect most !voters here would agree with you that "some experience in the basic editorial process is essential for developing good judgement befitting an administrator". Judging from the questions in this RFA and the example I've given I would say that this candidate easily exceeds the test you pose, even before one considers his GAN work. ϢereSpielChequers 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed, I was aware of candidate's contribution to the article obstacle problem, but this is only one article, probably in candidate's own specialty, and technical articles like this that are only of interest to a small group are generally quite easy to write: one simply regurgitates what the five or six reliable sources have to say about it. Then again, it is fair enough to say that at least the candidate is at least not completely green when it comes to editing articles. In fact, his reply "editor not writer" nearly convinced me to change my vote to neutral, but I do still feel that the substance of my objection remains: this editor has made few substantial contributions to the actual goal of the project (writing an encyclopedia). Le Docteur (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation. We used to get the occasional pure vandalfighter coming to RFA with literally no experience of helping build an encyclopaedia, only in protecting it. Which is why your comments "Does this candidate have any real experience editing articles" and "I do think that some experience in the basic editorial process is essential" rang alarm bells for me, and I would have opposed per your rationale but for the example of obstacle problem showing that he does have some real editing experience. Out of interest what weight did you give to his Good Article reviews in coming to your assessment of the candidate? ϢereSpielChequers 06:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

3. No. Deeply unimpressed with this editor's behavior on the "Saint Pancake" issue, for the reasons outlined by BlackKite above. The tendency to handle disagreement by accusing others of "political correctness", "groupthink" ([3]), "censorship" ([4]), etc bothers me, as it's already way too prevalent here. As a matter of personal preference, I think we need more admins who can recognize and handle obvious disruption and abuse. I'm concerned (based largely on this) that RayAYang isn't able to differentiate disruptive accounts from "established users with a history of valuable contributions", which is a problem for a sysop. Given that these issues are not offset by any substantial experience in content- or consensus-building, I'm in the "oppose" column. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Arguments like "Whether reliable sources use the term is irrelevant" are a deal-breaker for me. I could accept those if the debate was only about innocuous typos or transliteration, but this was clearly a "content" issue about a real-person, where WP:RS requirements are non-negotiable. The attendent bad-faith accusations are also deeply troubling. I'll reconsider my vote if something new is brought to light to show clearly that the user's views and conduct have changed. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Striking last part since candidate has indicated in response to Q6, that the statement reflects his current view. To be clear: I am not concerned that Ray was arguing for the St. Pancake redirect - that is a valid topic for discussion - I am opposed because he was arguing against the need for reliable sources, even when a disparaging descriptor for a real person (albeit deceased) was concerned. I really fail to see how that can be defended or overlooked. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   I will point out that my opinion regarding reliable sources is only with respect to redirects, where sourcing is impossible to record with our current setup, anyhow. I am quite familiar, and agree with, the purpose of requiring reliable sources in articles (i.e. the material our readers actually see). The purpose there is to make our encyclopedia more accessible, with no harm that I can perceive to the subject. That said, if consensus should be that every redirect requires a reliable source to associate the term with the target, I would accede to that, but if you're looking for a recantation of my position or my reasoning, I cannot in integrity provide that. Ray^Talk 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Black Kite. We lend integrity and approval to incorrect terminology, nicknames, misspellings, etc., if we use them as redirects, since no reaction to the inappropriate nature of terminology like "Saint Pancake" would accompany its redirect. I would support redirecting searches like that to WP:CIVIL. Sluggo | Talk 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
6. The Saint Pancake issue paints a rather unflattering picture. Fails to understand the importance of reliable sources, therefore I am concerned about any future activities concerning BLP issues (I know the person in question was deceased btw). —Dark 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
7. No per Black Kite. Crafty (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Black Kite. Ikip (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose sorry, Black Kite and Mastcells comments give me significant cause for concern. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
10. The episode Black Kite brings up does not instil confidence in me.  GARDEN  13:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Reluctant Oppose per Black Kite. I'm sorry to do so, because looking at RayAYang's contributions, he seems to be generally a good user, who would probably use the admin tools well; but his judgement in the 'Saint Pancake' issue was just so poor I have to oppose over it. While he's actually correct that NPOV doesn't apply to redirects (a bad policy IMO, and one I think we should change), in this case the redirect was so blatantly offensive and non-notable that it should have been obviously inappropriate. It gives me reason to have concerns about RayAYang's treatment of BLP issues. I don't see any major problems apart from that, but it's just too soon for me to support - if RayAYang continues to contribute well and avoids making any similar mistakes, I would be happy to support a future RFA in a few months' time. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Switching from support. Google made more in advertising revenue in 2008 than every U.S. newspaper combined. We don't always admit it or like it, but the top websites have dramatically changed the world, and with ascendancy comes responsibility. One of those responsibilities is not to parrot genocidal sentiments without nuance or balance; this is not a problem in (most!) news sources because they have editorial oversight, but we're in the process of putting most of them out of business. It's a problem on a wiki, and one we need to constantly guard against. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    P.S. I was sort of expecting to see a discussion about G10, redirects, and Ray's views. (I don't need to be starting any more threads, I've said enough ... too much?) I'd rather we not start a discussion at WT:CSD or elsewhere until after this RFA is over; it would probably leak out what the fuss was about and that might unfairly attract voters to this RFA, but I would like to see a discussion at WT:CSD right after this RFA closes, because there seems to be some significant disagreement on a contentious issue. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Ray asked a question on my talk page and says he'd prefer I not reply here (unless it concerns his qualifications, which it doesn't). I don't mind and I'm responding there, but for future reference, there have been a handful of cases over the last two years where taking the conversation outside the RFA page led to trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose: The Saint Pancake saga gave me a bad feeling about this candidate.Ret.Prof (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Black Kite. NPOV is a core policy, and should not be misunderstood by prospective admins. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Not enough substantive mainspace experience yet; this is especially important when concerns of NPOV interpretation come into play. Had we seen that he had written or contributed substantially to dozens of well-sourced and neutral articles, then I think the concerns raised by Black Kite would not stick out as much as they do. While I wish the candidate success with this RfA, should this one be unsuccessful, I would recommend a focus on substantive mainspace contributions, after which, I would be happy to support -- Samir 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
16. The above stuff gives me no confidence in his level of clue. Friday (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose - After analyzing the rationales of Black Kite, MastCell, and Abecedare, I don't believe this candidate will be a net positive as an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Per Black Kite, MastCell, Abecedare, Friday. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Regretful Oppose. per Black Kite. Ray has done awesome work around the project but this recent Saint Pancake incident noted by Black Kite is absolutely a cause for concern. Perhaps in a few months and some more experience. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per KillerChihuahua above. Saint Pancake? FFS. No way. ƒ(Δ)² 07:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose I cannot trust this individual with the tools at this time due to the Pancake issues coupled with no substantial disputes resolution. Hipocrite (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Black Kite. LovesMacs (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per BK. As one of the editors involved in the controversy, I was not impressed with his arguments and remain unimpressed with the rationales and interpretations of policy he has expressed on this page. AniMate^draw 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Wikipedia becomes a better place when we attempt to engage in candid conversations on awkward or sensitive topics. That said, extremist and fringe epithets should be addressed and assessed as to whether they have an appropriate place within in an article. However, the position that Ray is taking with the answers he gives in this very RfA demonstrates to me on of two things: either a simple minded approach to a complex issue, or a duplicitous intention to sneak unencyclopedic redirects into the project under the guise of expansive thinking. Redirects that denigrate the redirect target article is a no brainer. You. Don't. Do. It. If a denigrating term is significant, maybe it warrants inclusion, but if someone is searching a denigrating term in search of a well known figure, instead of searching for that individual then they are far too ignorant to even begin to grasp the basic purpose of an encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Planned on supporting, but BK's oppose concerns me. See both sides right now, so I'll stick here. iMatthew ^talk at 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Generally good, but that incident leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Still, I do not oppose. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm in the same position as iMatthew and Irbisgrief. I am not happy with the incident BK brought up, but RayAYang's contributions otherwise are OK. The incident clearly showed a lack of judgement. Sorry. Better luck next time ;) Airplaneman ^talk 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Per iMatt really. Perhaps, I'll change my mind. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
5. I've seen Ray around at various forums; his comments are usually logical, reasonable and contribute signal admist noise. On the other hand, I participated in the RfC about including the "Saint Pancake" bit in the Corrie article and found the arguments for inclusion to be incomprehensible without assuming unstated motives on the part of those making them (the exception was DGG, who argued that the phrase should be included because in his opinion it was common enough that some people were likely to search for it or expect to see it in the article). Jclemens and RayAYang, though, had little argument other than that there were reliable sources that the nickname existed, and that NPOV meant we absolutely had to include it. I found that to be an unusual misunderstanding of a number of policies on the part of experienced editors (and an administrator, in Jclemens). The issue is settled, of course, and there's no sense in rehashing the argument (which went on, and on, and on, via an extended Rfc). Even so, it's enough to cause me to vote neutral when I would otherwise likely support. Nathan ^T 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   As a follow up to myself, I understand Ray's argument wrt the redirect. I don't agree, of course, for various reasons... but I see the logical underpinnings of his position there, and I can accept that it's a reasonable difference. More important is his (briefly stated) argument in support of including the epithet in the article itself. That's far less understandable, in my opinion. I'm willing to support candidates at RfA who hold positions at odds with my own, even wholly different philosophies on various aspects of the project. But I can't reconcile his reasonable comments and answers to questions above with what seems to be an unreasonable position that the very existence of an epithet, no matter how rarely it is used or by whom, requires that we include it in the article. Nathan ^T 16:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   Is this a referendum on Saint Pancake or Ray? Fact is, NPOV is about including the bad things said about people along with the good. Realize that at the time, we had a 44k-long article consisting almost entirely of positive reactions to Corrie's death (link for admin viewing, if desired). The fact that an editor is being hailed as lacking sound editorial judgement for arguing, based on policy, for the objective description of an unflattering, reliably sourced political commentary on Corrie questions whether Wikipedia is really about NPOV or not. I would strongly urge the closing bureaucrat to review the entire conversation: the DRV from February and the RFC referenced in the talk page archives, and accord appropriate weight to the !votes--that is, to the extent that Ray was correct on policy and the !votes express a non-policy-based objection, they should be disregarded as failing to provide a valid reason for opposition. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

   This is the neutral section. Nathan ^T 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)