Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dev920 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dev920

Ended (40/33/7); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Raystorm for having such faith in me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I want to go where admins are needed most – I have noticed there are plenty of admins blocking users, not so many clearing the CSD backlog on a regular basis. I would also like to help out at page semi/un/protection, having been grateful in the past to the admins who do this. I would like my time as an administrator to focus more on the article side of things – protection, deletion, that sort of thing, stuff that often piles up very quickly.

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

A: At the moment I am most proud of my (and WP:LGBT’s) ongoing work with

Jumpaclass IS a good idea. :D ). Also, getting myself and Wikipedia

into The Advocate, the largest gay magazine in America, was pretty amazing.

Generally it’s easier to defuse a potential conflict than run straight into it, and I think I’ve got better at doing that in the past few months, particularly as I now work predominantly in an area, LGBT, that many editors feel quite strongly about. But it is inevitable that people sometimes snap and are incivil, however, and I am no exception. If I did not lose my temper occasionally I would be offering myself as the Messiah, not an administrator. On Talk:Marriage, I utterly lost my rag and got quite angry. I haven’t edited there since. It’s not a pleasant edit to have in one’s history, and I do regret both saying it and working on that article in the first place – too much bickering going on over there. Fortunately it happened over six months ago.

Incidentally, while I have a captive audience, I would like to say that I find the rising levels of harsh, but technically not incivil, comments on Wikipedia, particularly on FACs, extremely disheartening and if anyone knows of how we as a community can reduce this please drop a line on my talk page because I’d like to get involved. See here for some discussion I’ve already had on the topic.

Optional question 4. - from User:Alison

• As your previous RfA failed largely on issues of incivility, how do you feel things have changed since then and what steps have you taken to address concerns raised? - Alison ☺ 12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the "rampant incivility" of which I was accused in my previous RfA was much exaggerated (and many of the non-opposing votes did point this out). I did, however, take the comments of several users about making harsh comments on board, and I do try to moderate my language before posting now. Constructive discourse is always better than incivility. And where constructive discourse isn't happening, I try to walk away; which I did in the moth example raised below, and which I really don't want to think about anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See
  talk page
  .

• Links for Dev920: Dev920 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Comment: It is no wonder so many good Wikipedians have no interest in stepping up to help the project at this level. The shameless judgementalism that is consistently displayed at RfA is more troubling than any incivil comments or perceived misinterpretations Dev may be guilty of. I'd encourage editors to look at themselves more closely before tossing stones at Dev or any one else who is up for adminship. Something that isn't supposed to be a big deal, a mop and broom as so many are so fond of saying, has degraded into a cliquish popularity contest. The message seems to be that if you have been involved in contentious article editing or any kind of dispute forget about adminship. Sure, it easy to edit Pokemon crap all day long but the best editors wouldn't waste their time with such drivel, instead that kind of non-controversial work seems to be encouraged at RfA. This is sad. Just my opinion, I am sure many or most here probably disagree but I cannot say that I really care. IvoShandor 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dev920 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support -Naturally, as nom. Will make a fine admin. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support - yayyy!! Dev will be a great addition to the admin team - Alison ☺ 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Titan Support - At last someone worthy enough...We cant expect a better admin than Dev920..Good Luck Mate..--Cometstyles 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. I believe that Dev has learned from past mistakes and that the issues that resulted in opposition at her previous RfA are behind her. Dev's involvement in Wikiproject LGBT Studies has been invaluable and I have always had extremely positive interactions with her. She is experienced in the areas that admins need to be - I'm convinced she will delete only what needs to be deleted and block only those that policy requires be blocked. WjBscribe 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support: Had a few reservations after some interaction regarding the MfD for
   WP:BAP but they aren't enough to warrant opposing especially considering all of my past interactions with Dev, which is the reason for the strong support. Surely would make a great admin and would know how to use the tools appropriately. To be honest, for awhile I was a bit concerned that what happened with BAP might have caused Dev to leave the project, glad it did not. : ) IvoShandor 13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Support - excellent candidate.
   Addhoc 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support – I, too, believe Dev920 has learned from her past mistakes and that she is now a worthy candidate. —
   talk – desk) 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support Have seen much positive work from this user around the traps, and believe that she deserves the mop and will use it sparingly yet well. Orderinchaos 15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support Long time contributor who has more than proven herself as worthy of adminship, if that is what she wants. --
   David Shankbone 16:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support If Raystorm trusts her, I trust her. I've seen her contributions and I agree with those above: she'll do veeery well. An applause for this candidate!! Kisses --Bucephala 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support - I note that she and I have much in common politically. :-) Anyway, a great candidate. Walton^One 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support - Dev has been here a long time, and knows policy inside and out. Her contributions have made the english Wikipedia a much better place. If anybody should be made an admin here, and will take the responsibility seriously, it's Dev. I can't recommend her strongly enough. Jeffpw 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. You have more than made up for the incivility - all of us can get annoyed at times, it's nothing major. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Any issues are in the past now, as shown by your more recent behavior, I see no reason not to Support you. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see User:A.Z./Imagine. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Dev's merits: I just think no merits are required) A.Z. 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support - makes judgments on facts and not ILIKEIT. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per Blnguyen. Dev920 can be blunt, but relentless civility is hardly the only factor under consideration; we also need administrators who will make tough calls and, more often than not, make them right. Gutsy, smart, insightful: that's Dev920.Proabivouac 02:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Titan Support (per Cometstyles) - Definitely Admin material - a pleasure to work with and a very hard worker. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Dev has already indicated which field will be graced by the presence. You have already done a lot for wikipedia, and because you're willing to do the thankless deletion job, it makes sense to promote.Bakaman 05:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, will be able to make unpopular good calls. Kusma (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Based on my own past experiences with her, I'd trust Dev with admin tools. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong Support Sure she's rather agressive, but we promoted admins who were worse. I worked with Dev before and she's one of the more brilliant editors here, brilliant in article writing, and very active in talk pages. The main reason why she won't be promoted is that she was unfortunally involved with the esperanza chaos in which she handled very well in the begining, but went downhill. We need more admins who is willing to deal with tough decisions, and I strongly trust her more than any other user. Thanks
    ^{wat's sup} 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support she seems like a good user to me. As for the civility concerns, I believe that Dev920 will work on that issue, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Acalamari 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support She has a good track. Harlowraman 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I am delighted to support such a brilliant editor. Beit Or 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Dev920 has shown marked improvement. This was a difficult decision, but I trust that the candidate would now handle themselves better in disputes and keep such disputes separate from their admin tasks. Sometimes blunt-speaking admins are needed. Carcharoth 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I've seen Dev around Wikipedia, and from what I've seen, Dev tends to make excellent edits, and is a fine contributer. I think she'd has shown she would do a wonderful job as an admin.-theblueflamingo^Squawk 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Dev is a fantastic contributor and I respect her work deeply. That she remained as civil as she did in response to Ed's repeated baiting during the EA debacle is admirable. However Dev does not appear to have the trust of the community at large, and I find that saddening. In any case I fear that Dev's wonderful work as an article writer would suffer given the mundane pressures of adminship. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, every interaction I've had with Dev has been productive, and I've always found her to be civil and not a mental (which is my chief criteria).
    ╦ 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Strong support as an editor with lots of edits across lots of genres and many interests, she had made a serious effort, paraphasing Jimbo Wales, "not to make The Internet suck." Bearian 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - No big deal. Sean William @ 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Adopt-a-User -
    (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Strong Support She's got wit, humour, friendliness, experience, maturity, assets (well that's a bit broad but anyway), and I'm certain she won't abuse anything. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 01:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Assets"?! Interestingly ambiguous comment. :-) Walton^One 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

34. El_C 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Just like last time, the civility concerns are insignificant. Dev920 does good work, and would be a fine admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Per Akhilleus; more content-focussed admins are badly needed. Superb editor unfortunately attracting opposes for being willing to make tough calls. 80.176.190.96 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (Moreschi behind a firewall)[reply]

    Sorry, only registered users may !vote in RFAs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erm, User:Moreschi is a registered user and an administrator. I see no reason to assume that the above IP is an impersonator, or to discount this vote. Walton^One 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just knew that would happen.Yes, it's me. Moreschi ^Talk 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

37. Whole-hearted Support. Dev has shown herself to be a very hard worker and has earned my respect for her many talented accomplishments in coordinating the LGBT Portal, and improving Wikipedia as a whole. I've never found her to be anything less than cooperative and supportive. I also believe she has learned, as we all must do along the way, sometimes by painful experience, that firmness and civility go hand in hand. I think Dev really has the interests of the whole Wikipedia community at heart, and would be a tremendous asset to the whole organization as an administrator.--Textorus 22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. You can't edit the sorts of articles Dev does and not wind up getting into a dispute every once in a while. From what I've seen, most of the animosity has been mutual and this user has shown a willingness to either calm down or step back when the going gets tough. Other than all that, there's no reason to oppose. She's an experienced, knowledgeable, helpful user. --
    talk? 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support, I respect honesty.
    Talk 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Support I can see that Dev is someone who really believes what they fight for, not a sleaze trying to push their own agenda. She would be an excellent addition to the mop up team.
    Dagomar 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Oppose for same reasons as before. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Sorry Dev, I've got to oppose. I actually quite like you but I really question your maturity and ability to handle conflict. During
   Wikipedia:Esperanza/Mediation, where I mediated your dispute with Ed, your constant arguing with one one another was quite disruptive (check the mediation page to see what I mean). Dev remove every single comment Ed made to her talk page, which only inflamed the situation[1][2][3]. Then when Ed comes over to your talk page to say he's leaving wikipedia due to the dispute and the fact that he has cancer [4], she removed that as well, which I strongly believe was a really nasty thing to do, and showed a complete lack of empathy [5]. Now don't get me wrong, I think Ed could have handled the whole esparanza dispute better, but I question your judgement by refusing to discuss anything with him and removing any attempt at discussion that Ed made, it makes me think that in a similar situation, you would just hit that block button to stop discussion with you. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I actually followed that issue when it happened, though I did not participate in it at all. And I should point out that one of the other mediators actually ended up being quite fed up with Ed's actions (check out her talk page now), as he ignored her answering comments when Ed complained about what you are mentioning. I'm sorry the guy has cancer, but I'm not getting why deleting some of his persistent and repetitive messages about having to change *immediately* some phrases about a dead project implies she'll be a block-happy admin. That's an extreme leap. The issue was at Mediation, and he should have made his points there, as Dev did. And Ed made some kinda disparaging remarks about Dev at another users' talk, which I view as much more inflamatory than merely removing virtually the same comment again and again from one's own talkpage. Dev actually explained you how she felt about the whole situation and why she had erased those comments when you asked, and you're entitled to your own opinion on the matter, but Dev was not the only user feeling harassed at the time due to Ed's actions. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Dev920 was instrumental in getting that project (among others) deleted.Proabivouac 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose — This is a joke, right? Absolutely not, forgive me, but I think you'd bring Ragnarok. You have serious ownership issues[6][7][8] You've demonstrated to me that you have an ego problem and frankly I only think you're interested in yourself (see for example
   Matthew 13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   A dispute that was settled in a couple hours? Surely most of the admins on Wikipedia have far worse conversations in their histories. Its not fair to condemn someone for such mild actions, I am not commenting on the ownership issues you cited because I haven't checked them out. IvoShandor 13:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hours? The conversation was part of an ongoing dispute. Which has now been settled.

   Matthew 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I just looked at the link, the talk page conversation you cited ended in a couple hours with both parties in a much more civil state than it began. While it may have been part of an ongoing dispute you pointed that part out specifically, if its out of context the context should be provided, in my opinion. IvoShandor 13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I thought the discussion made it quite clear it was part of something ongoing, but as I stated, it's an example.

   Matthew 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I looked at the previous threads and yes it seemed to be a dispute but it didn't seem all that major to me, anyway, just commenting to spur discussion here really. Of course you can oppose for whatever reason. : ) IvoShandor 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Issues with civility brought up in the previous RfA have clearly not been addressed, as is evident in this edit just six days ago [9]. In this edit as well as the ones above, she is consistently disrespectful, condescending and bearing an attitude that is the polar opposite of what an admin should have. Trusilver 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not going to talk about that, because that user's comment and the subsequent ones which followed, all of which determinedly ignored my original point and advocated I leave a helpless animal to die in pain is not something I wish to think about again. I am not being consdescending, I am being quite serious, and that's why if you read the entire conversation I clearly stopped reading it after the first two comments. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Leaving a helpless animal left to die is different than stealing another animals hard earned meal. T Rex | talk 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Which is, of course, exactly what I did not do and repeatedly said so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I did read your entire conversation, and my position stands. I feel that an admin should be able to remain civil even when provoked. You have proven that you cannot. Trusilver 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Not admin material. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Erm, it would be nice if you explained this a little more. Walton^One 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per Ryan. The civility concerns are worrying, and appear to be ongoing. Admins must be able to maintain a calm demeanor. Xoloz 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose I was originally thinking about support but am now opposing due to how the user interacts with people she disagrees with. T Rex | talk 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per Ryan. --John 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per Ryan. Politics rule 19:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per Ryan --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Interaction here is pretty unacceptable for an admin candidate. Example: "unhelpful and stupid", "you were not listening in your arrogance"? Still needs some work on
    RxS 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Oppose. The diffs cited by Trusilver and Matthew are worrying. Sandstein 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Per civility and ownership issues. An admin isn't infallible, but they need a stronger head on their shoulders than what I see here. Jmlk17 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose The civility and ownership issues raised above are enough to give me pause in supporting this editors' application for adminship. Admins have to exemplify the policies and guidelines that govern their choices and actions; this editor does not do so. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sorry mate, but a look through your last 50 edits (I clicked the contribs link) shows multiple edit summaries that could be taken badly, and beg the question; how bad could the edit be? Rather then cite all of them (some of them weren't actually that bad), I'm going to opposer per two diffs. [10] - A user who doesn't really "get" the concept of constructive criticism (that's how I see it) isn't someone I can trust as an admin. Admins need to be able to learn from their mistakes. [11] - Biting. I don't care that he isn't really a "new" user, or that he has notes on his talk page (about COI, NOT about OR, mind you), the edit summary there is still unacceptable in my eyes. Therefore, because of civility, I must oppose.
    P 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Oppose
    WP:OWN says it all. -- Kicking222 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Oppose per Ryan and others. User seems to have serious
    (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Oppose Civility issues are a major concern here. Meanwhile, do not be discouraged over this and try again for nomination in a few months. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Oppose - incivility has been a problem in the past with this user, and I don't believe that she can handle the kind of concerted trolling and attacks that get thrown at admins. I also feel that admins need to be held to a higher standard than normal users when it comes to dealing with users in a civil and moderate fashion, and I don't see this happening with this user. Please don't be discouraged by this -- it may not be a reflection on you, but rather your history. Just keep working hard and prove my fears unfounded. --Haemo 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per above points on civility and similar concerns, both past and recent. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per points on civility. I was neutral until I saw the candidate's response to Captain Panda's response below. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per Ryan. Majoreditor 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose... Not the worst incivility or intransigence I've ever seen in an RfA candidate, but the fact that there are things like some of the diffs above in the last couple of weeks doesn't inspire confidence. If I'm a new user, let alone a regular, coming to your talk page with a reasonable complaint over an admin action, I would hope I would be able to have a constructive discussion. I'm not sure that would be the case at the moment.
    masterka 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Oppose I don't believe in political correctness. Biting commentary doesn't bother me, and I think we are all a bit thin-skinned about civility and personal attacks. But calling an edit "stupid" goes somewhat over the line, but only marginally so. But violating
    WP:OWN just is not acceptable. However, I think backing down a bit on these issues will allow you to succeed in an RfA someday. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. Oppose Civility concern raised above and from edits like this [12] make me unwilling to trust with the tools. Davewild 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol. Next time someone's being racist, I'll be sure to keep silent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see that as a racist comment, more an acknowledgment of a very real problem on Wikipedia. --John 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment that was a response to did not like that racism to me but rather addressed to systematic bias on wikipedia. I can see it would be possible to take the comment badly but believe an assumption of good faith in the circumstances would not have been impossible and what we should be striving for especially in areas like AFD which can be high pressure. Davewild 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Oakshade's comment, and think that Dev920 should be admonished for her response, which reeks of hypocrisy - if she was from

    landed her in jail. When articles on non-American topics are nominated for deletion (or speedy deleted) by Wikipedians who are unfamiliar with the topic, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Having participated in several AFDs on articles pertaining to Singapore, some of which were started by editors with a vendetta against the Little Red Dot, this is a very real and serious problem on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    If by "systemic bias" is meant that we're allowed to say things one is not allowed to say in Singapore, this can only be a good thing.

    Incidentally, Islam is FA now, and I suspect Dev920's role in deleting the Muslim Guild played a significant role in this. One thing you'll increasingly find on Islam-related articles is editors approaching Wikipedia as an academic enterprise rather than a battleground of the religions or a theatre for geopolitical grievances. There is still POV-pushing, naturally, but it's much smarter and better-cited than it once was, producing a higher-quality product.

    It is easy to avoid controversy: stay away from controversial (often this means significant) articles. Dev920 spent time in what was a hopelessly dysfunctional morass and worked to improve it, earning her enemies (some of whom may be seen in her first RfA) through no fault of her own. Most editors, most admins, and certainly most prospective RfA candidates - avoid involvement in such spaces for this very reason. I have a lot more respect for Dev920's record than for someone who remains unfailingly placid while editing articles of little significance - this kind of standard will earn (and has earned) us many flatliners who freeze like deer in proverbial headlights when faced with contentious issues. That most administrators won't so much as touch this space with an eleven-foot pole isn't a sign of functionality, actually.

    Nor is relentless civility, while in itself useful, necessarily a sign of character. It's quite easy to civilly stand by, for example, while other people are abused, to civilly do nothing when faced with a complicated sockpuppet report, or re the diff you quoted, to civilly not care when the encyclopedia is a shambles. I believe that Dev920 won't do that, and I don't see anyone here doubting it. I can appreciate the

    WP:OWN issues, and I oppose personal attacks, but this civility fetishism is really damaging. You're almost better off being borderline incompetent than a genius with a sharp tongue and an opinion. That's not how great works are made.Proabivouac 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I understand that nobody is perfect, and am willing to overlook occasional, minor lapses of civility. However, some of the diffs cited by oppose voters are very recent, and show that Dev920's incivil remarks are not isolated incidents, but a recurrent problem.

    On Wikipedia,

    systemic bias

    refers to uneven coverage (for example, US-centrism). It has nothing to do with Singapore's alleged lack of freedom of speech. Nominating articles on non-American topics which you are unfamiliar with for deletion (as Dev920 did) worsens Wikipedia's systemic bias. Oakshade's comment was not racist; it simply addresses the issue of systemic bias.

    --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm aware of that, and I see your point about the nomination. However, it is quite silly to suggest that what might land one in jail in Singapore should play any role in determining the standards of this community.Proabivouac 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on, you're saying because I'm English, I may not edit or AfD articles outside of my culture? Oh, sorry, supposed to keeping silent on stuff like that, aren't I? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop making strawman arguments like these, you are only exacerbating the situation. There was no apparent racist intention when the user made the statement. Wikipedia does have a US-centric bias (although I do not comment on whether it was relevant to the issue at hand) and saying so can in no way be considered racist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dev920, I must concur that you are handling this discussion rather poorly. It is plain that this RfA will not succeed, due to a real flaw in your approach, which you're currently perpetuating instead of addressing. If there is a Dev920 3, people will certainly look at this discussion. They may agree or disagree with what you're saying - as it happens I agree with Nick that this argument is a straw man - but more salient than that is that the tone is unfortunate. Look around this page: that's enough to keep your from adminship regardless of any other aspect of your record (most of which, unfortunately, isn't on display here.)Proabivouac 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you misunderstand. You may edit or AfD any articles from any culture you like. What you may not do is characterise a perfectly valid point about systemic bias as racism. Doing so shows misunderstanding of our policies. Doing so and then continuing to defend it here shows a lack of reflection. Please have a think about what people are saying to you here and try to learn from it. --John 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As John said, you may edit or AfD articles outside your culture (although I advise you to do a quick Google test and ask a relevant WikiProject before AfDing articles on topics you are unfamiliar with). Falsely accusing another editor of racism, however, cannot be excused. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose Incivility in responses leads me to believe that this user is not worthy of the community's trust in excercising good and prudent judgement. -- Avi 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose per Trusilver. Calling people stupid on the reference desk isn't how an admin should edit. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose Reservations about user's suitability for being given admin tools. We've all seen personality flaws balloon into major problems when admin powers have been granted in the past to certain other individuals. - MSTCrow 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose, per what seems to be a lack of maturity. I can't believe some saying "civility concerns are insignificant". Unless we want to scare the rest of the world off, and leave editing of this encyclopedia to a selected in-crowd, then civility is of the utmost importance for an active editor, especially an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose - I agree, perhaps
    Scarian^Talk 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Oppose - Sorry to say the
    WP:CIVILITY issue is my major concern. As an administrator, people will look to you as a leader and a mediator. In these roles, I believe you need a little more experience. Shoessss |  Chat  12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If people look to administrators as leaders and mediators, that's their mistake and their fault, and Dev shouldn't have to be the one to pay for it. They're not leaders nor mediators, they're just users with four or five extra tools. People must choose their leaders and mediators based on whether they think they have the qualities needed for such a task, not on whether they are an administrator or not. And they shouldn't choose for adminship people who they think are good leaders and mediators, because it's not admin's job to be that. Any user can be a leader and a mediator, and administrators can do a great job even though they have never mediated or lead anything. A.Z. 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

32. Oppose as per Davewild. --xDanielx^Talk 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose as above. Anwar 12:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral I think that Dev920 has learned from her mistakes, but I am uncertain whether she will be civil as an admin. Captain panda 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll be civil whether I'm an admin or not. I've had literally thousands of interactions with other users and I've been rude to approximately four of them. Given that's statistically insignificant for research purposes, I've always been a bit baffled that somehow this makes me rampantly incivil. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately, it only takes one bad incident to cause a serious problem. With administrators, it is not a good idea to take any chances. Captain panda 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Adminship is not one-strike-you-are-out game. Otherwise, Wikipedia would have no admins at all. Perfect people do not exist, unfortunately. Beit Or 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I tend to agree with Nick at this stage. Daniel→♦ 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. --Aminz 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral - Dev, I like your work on the GLBT wikiproject, but I'm sorry, there are enough legitimate concerns here to bother me. - Philippe | Talk 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral – both the arguments for and against your Adminship are equally balanced, so I'm not really sure what to think: you've written an
   Anthøny 09:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Neutral. Mixed feelings on this one, I can't oppose or support at this time. RFerreira 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral User is undoubtedly dedicated to Wikipedia but civility concerns are too recent for me to support. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.