Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RayAYang
Editing stats from [1]
General user info Username: RayAYang User groups: rollbacker First edit: Jun 01, 2008 20:11:00 Unique articles edited: 6,453 Average edits per page: 1.82 Total edits (including deleted): 11,731 Deleted edits: 1,195 Live edits: 10,536 Namespace totals Article 5337 50.65% Talk 773 7.34% User 130 1.23% User talk 2314 21.96% Wikipedia 1800 17.08% Wikipedia talk 144 1.37% File 9 0.09% Template 11 0.10% Template talk 9 0.09% Category 6 0.06% Category talk 3 0.03% Month counts 2008/06 9 2008/07 1996 2008/08 896 2008/09 427 2008/10 233 2008/11 793 2008/12 425 2009/01 192 2009/02 443 2009/03 1577 2009/04 862 2009/05 293 2009/06 469 2009/07 714 2009/08 315 2009/09 650 2009/10 242 LogsPages moved: 27 Pages patrolled: 2546 Files uploaded: 5 Top edited articles Article 52 - Donald_Rumsfeld 32 - George_P._Shultz 28 - Anchor_baby 25 - Douglas_J._Feith 20 - Rick_Davis_(politics) 19 - Vets_For_Freedom 17 - Bill_Kristol 17 - Death_of_Iain_Hook 17 - Beatrice_De_Cardi 16 - Ralph_Peters Talk 36 - Winston_Churchill 32 - Donald_Rumsfeld 24 - Douglas_J._Feith 23 - Death_of_Baby_P 20 - Anchor_baby 20 - A_Responsible_Plan_to_End_the_War_in_Iraq 18 - Osama_bin_Laden 11 - Vets_For_Freedom 11 - Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_... 10 - Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_Ame... User 48 - RayAYang/Sandbox 43 - RayAYang 24 - RayAYang/monobook.js 7 - RayAYang/huggle.css 2 - RayAYang/The_Surge:_A_Military_History 1 - Mongeese/Today_I_Caught_the_Plague 1 - RayAYang/Editcounter 1 - RayAYang/hotcat.js 1 - Download/Guestbook 1 - Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests User talk 167 - RayAYang 5 - Womenscampaignforum 5 - The_Squicks 5 - Autsa 5 - PhilKnight 5 - Pedayba 5 - Yellow_Rain 4 - 83.104.72.243 4 - Hekerui 4 - Geo_Swan Wikipedia 47 - Reference_desk/Mathematics 39 - Huggle/Whitelist 37 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Living_people 37 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 21 - Words_to_avoid 17 - Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard 17 - Good_article_nominations 17 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politicians 15 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics 15 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bands_and_musicians Wikipedia talk 77 - Words_to_avoid 21 - Notability_(people) 7 - What_Wikipedia_is_not 6 - WikiProject_Mathematics 5 - Captions 3 - Biographies_of_living_persons 3 - WikiProject_Baseball 2 - Criticism 2 - WikiProject_Football 2 - Attack_page File 3 - Hastings_Cover_of_Time.jpg 2 - Patrick_Hastings.jpg 2 - Eliane_Plewman.jpg 1 - Alberto_Calderon.jpeg 1 - Dkaganbiopic.gif Template 3 - AmericanTerrorism 3 - Wordstoavoid 1 - Biased 1 - Central_Intelligence_Agency 1 - Nuclear_weapons 1 - Wordstoavoid/doc 1 - University_of_Texas_at_Austin Template talk 2 - POV 2 - Marxist_theory 2 - AmericanTerrorism 1 - Notability 1 - Biased 1 - Antisemitism Category 1 - Plame_affair 1 - Political_scandals_in_the_United_States 1 - Americans_convicted_under_the_Smith_Act 1 - Languages_of_Argentina 1 - Middle_East_Forum 1 - American_Enterprise_Institute Category talk 3 - Political_scandals_in_the_United_States
Support arguments
[edit]Support The case for opposing is almost solely related to the Saint Pancake incident. While I’m sympathetic to the views of those who feel the redirect should not be in WP, I am astonished that so many people would decide to oppose someone as an administrator over this incident. While I can understand that a candidate should be opposed if an interpretation of policy is so at variance with the facts that no reasonable person could hold that opinion, I don’t find that to be the case here. I see an issue which requires close scrutiny of multiple policies, with the possibility that a multiple reasonable people could reach multiple plausible conclusions. If the facts are so clear, I hope someone will make a clear case, because I don’t see it. In order to avoid cluttering up this page with too much discussion, I’ll copy this paragraph and extended comments explaining why I think Ray’s position is plausible on the Talk page. I hope that responses, if any, will go here.
As I understand it, the Black Kite oppose is based upon one key action, and some related commentary surrounding that action. Several of the opposes are effectively “per Black Kite” so if the Black Kite oppose is persuasive, it is likely that the oppose position will prevail. On the other hand, if the Black Kite position does not stand up to scrutiny, some people will have to find other reasons to oppose or change their position.
Here is the main point:
- Someone created a redirect page, redirecting “Saint Pancake” to “Rachel Corrie”. (I don’t know who created it, but that doesn’t appear relevant to the argument.)
- Black Kite deleted the redirect, citing G10
- Ray disagreed that the page should be deleted.
Black Kite also cited a number of points in the subsequent discussion. I do not know whether the reason for the oppose is solely based upon the disagreement about the G10 application, with the subsequent links providing context, whether each of the linked points constitutes sufficient grounds for denying adminship, or something in between.
Does G10 apply?
[edit]The summary sentence of G10 states “Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.” It is clear that the redirect page did not threaten the subject. It is plausible that the page disparaged the subject. However, disparaging material is not a sufficient reason for deletion, the page must “serve no other purpose”. The page clearly serves a purpose.—if a person runs across the term somewhere, and wants to learn more about it, then enters it into the search box, the reader will be redirected to the article almost certainly relevant.
Please note I am not opining on how I would !vote in a deletion discussion. I think I would !vote delete, but I don’t see that the argument is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could disagree. As I understand it, that’s the point of CSD—no reasonable person could disagree.
Part of Black Kite’s argument rests on the assertion that the term is only used in blogs. This statement is not true (see below for update) Salon is not a blog. Arguably, one counter-example merely changes the statement from “only sourced to blogs” to “primarily sourced to blogs” but it isn’t obvious that this criteria should prevail. Blogs may not yet be considered reliable sources, but the dispute isn’t whether there is a reliable source to justify inclusion in an article, the dispute is about whether there is sufficient rationale to reference the phrase in a redirect.
One complication is that a term used in a redirect (other than close variants) should be mentioned in the early part of the article itself, leading to a potential contradiction, if the term is common enough to deserve a redirect, but not discussed in a reliable source. However, as the term is used in a reliable source, that isn’t an issue here.
Black Kites additional points:
- Ray calls editors of Corrie's article "hagiographers"
- accusing another editor of "political correctness"
- redirects don't have to be NPOV
- asking for the redirect to be recreated despite it having been deleted as a G10
Regarding the first point, it isn’t stated what policy is violated. Presumably WP:CIV? First, it isn’t clear that the use of the term “hagiographers” applies to any editors. The term comes in a general discussion of points of view in external sources. While it is clear that there is a claim that the article reflects the viewpoints of some hagiographers, no specific editor is named. Even if one concludes that this mild, indirect comment is a violation of civility, is it so egregious that it prevents on from becoming an admin? At best, I see it as the type of discourse best avoided, but to suggest it is so over the top as to preclude adminship is, well, over the top.
The violation in the second point isn’t identified. The term “politically correct” is a funny term, as it’s original intended meaning is a goal to which I subscribe, but I accept that the term has become pejorative, as some of the proponents have carried the concept too far. I think that’s exactly what Ray is saying – avoiding the phrase isn’t really a case of decency, it’s a case of carrying the political correctness concept to an illogical extreme. Let’s recall that we are writing an encyclopedia to help people obtain knowledge, not expressing an opinion that such a term is appropriate in conversation, in the same way that I would support deletion of an article describing someone as a “nigger”, but would not support the deletion of nigger. I thought Ray’s point was valid, although it is possible there is a slightly better way to make the point.
The third point is quite perplexing. More than one person emphasized the NPOV argument, even to the point of saying that not understanding the NPOV issue is a sufficient reason to oppose. Yet the redirect guideline could hardly be clearer—“Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.”
The last point is even more perplexing. It appears that if a page has been deleted per G10, it is not allowed to question the decision.? Surely no one takes that position. I hope this link is simply included for context, as I cannot believe it is a policy that decisions cannot be re-examined.
In summary, while I think the decision to delete the redirect is an acceptable decision, it’s a decision that requires the examination of a number of facts, and balancing the desire to provide useful information to the readers against the desire not to help popularize a pejorative phrase. However, that decision should be part of a deletion debate, not a CSD. I think Ray was correct to challenge the CSD, and I find it astonishing that this single decision is viewed as so egregiously wrong that Ray is not acceptable as an admin.
- Just to correct a few points.
- "Part of Black Kite’s argument rests on the assertion that the term is only used in blogs. This statement is not true." - Yes, Salon is not a blog, but at the time of the incident the Salon source had not been unearthed - therefore the "sourced only to blogs" comment was correct. (Actually, even the Salon source was only a passing mention of the term, and so wasn't a usable source anyway, but that's irrelevant).
- "It appears that if a page has been deleted per G10, it is not allowed to question the decision." The decision was questioned - it was taken to DRV. The community decided there that the deletion should stand. So asking for the redirect to be re-created is effectively trying to overturn a community decision.
Black Kite 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the responses - regarding the first point, my bad for not checking the date closely. You are correct that it is a fairly recent article, I failed to confirm that it was avaialble at the time of the discussion. I'll try to add an unambiguous edit. Regarding the second point, I thought it was a non-contentious request to reconsider in the light of new evidence. If the new evidence is LGF, I don't consider it persuasive.--SPhilbrickT 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Policy-based consensus
[edit]The Arugments in the DRV and RfC on Saint Pancake are pretty clear: A majority of Wikipedia editors prefer not to include sourced negative information on Rachel Corrie, despite WP:UNDUE, despite WP:YESPOV, and despite editors' best efforts to report a fact in a neutral manner.
Black Kite, AniMate, and Bali ultimate, all participated in an RfC in which they hey prevailed, despite having no policy backing for their emotionally- or politically-driven position, yet still feel justified in persecuting RayAYang for having the gall to be politically incorrect. The worst thing that he has been accused of in connection to that has been calling their censorship attempt... censorship.
These and the dozen or so other users who opposed purely (per their comments, at any rate) on the basis of Saint Pancake or Black Kite have not articulated any policy-based reason why RayAYang is untrustworthy or unsuited to administrator work. Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, these are de facto "User supports/opposes X" !votes, and should be disregarded on that basis. Attempts to cloak those opinions on disputed policy examples ignore the reality that at Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_11#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake, the policy-based arguments clearly favored inclusion, while opposers there and here based their arguments on emotion and numbers. Many others have simply been "per X" !votes, also inadmissable.
If the inadmissable !votes are properly excluded, RayAYang's support percentages are well within the bureaucrat consideration range. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I concur. The entire scenario has been overblown from what I can see, its less a discussion of admin qualities and more a referendum on political correctness... --Taelus (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- For my part, I opposed not solely because of this issue, but because of the impression it gives me of RayAYang - that a user who defends the inclusion of pejorative nicknames, even as redirects, might not appropriately enforce policy on biographies of living people. (Obviously BLP does not strictly apply in the 'Saint Pancake' case.) I admit this is a somewhat weak reason to oppose, and I'm slightly surprised by how many others have also taken it - but it shows I'm not the only one holding these concerns. Robofish (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your explanation is succinct, and it explains the inadequacy of every such oppose: it is Wikipedia's job to report, not to decide good taste. You cite BLP, but get it completely backwards: BLP simply requires that such nicknames be adequately sourced, as Saint Pancake is. Yes, you and the others opposing have no rational basis for such objections, but yet the numbers of such inadequate arguments appear to have overwhelmed policy-based rationales. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Ray had merely supported the inclusion of the redirect, it would not have been a problem. That is his prerogative. It was the way that he went about it, as detailed in my Oppose, which was the issue. There are civility issues and WP:BLP issues, not to mention the additional issues on the back of this subject by such as MastCell. As such, the oppose !votes are completely admissible. Having said that, if this RfA does fail, I would be prepared to support in the future if there is no reocurrence of such issues, because Ray's other contributions look sound. Black Kite 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Context is everything. "Saint Pancake" os not simply denigrating of the individual, it is also completly insignificant in so much as it is only used by a handful of this individual's polar opposites. Disrespectful nicknames can have a place, provided they are significant (i.e. "Mumbles Menino" for Boston mayor Thomas Menino. The issue at hand isn't political correctness; it is good judgement. The decision to create these types of redirects is bad, but forgiveable judgement. However, the candidate sees no issue with this, and is content to hide behind the logical fallacy that this is a case of censorship of a politically incorrect phrase. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I thank Jclemens for his support, but I think this RfA has failed. Needless to say, I do not agree with the opposes, or I would have withdrawn my candidacy, but I would not care to be an admin over such an extraordinary statement of rejection by well-intentioned editors, however much I think the essence of the opposes was irrelevant to the role in which I proposed to act as admin (nor do I consider such a situation possible or worth fighting for even if it were). RayTalk 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)