Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aiken drum

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

Aiken drum

Final (15/27/11); ended 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) - Aiken (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Aiken drum (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I have been registered for over a year, with approximately 5,500 edits, most to articles. I am not a prolific article author, though I do claim credit for extensive work on Nick Robinson and Dancing mania (I'll expand on my article work in answer #2 below). I strongly believe admins are a necessary evil, and work for the community, not the other way around. This is my idealogy which I would adhere to: if successful, I would stick to doing the drudge work, such as anti-vandalism patrol, AFD closures and so on. I feel I'm ready to take on some more responsibility on Wikipedia, so I hope you can trust me and support. Thanks. Aiken (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I have had experience in anti-vandalism and deletion debates, and earlier on speedy deletion. I expect to take part in all those areas. I would also like to respond to page protection requests, and anything else that needs doing.

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

A: Certainly my recognised content, Nick Robinson and "my did you know" entries. I also completely rewrote and sourced Dancing mania which I was very pleased with. I also make several minor edits to pages of all sorts of topics: e.g. British television, railways, social sciences, history and lots more. This is usually done through random article, though sometimes through things I see or hear. I have also reviewed several Good articles, which involves a thorough analysis, and often copyediting.

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: One that sticks out for me involved List of streets in Manchester - I had nominated this for deletion, and there was no consensus to delete. After cleaning up the article of red links and unreferenced text, another editor reverted me claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. This was clearly not the case, and in the end, other editors joined in the discussion and agreed with my action which remains. This did not cause me any stress at all, but it was frustrating being accused of disrupting Wikipedia when I was simply trying to improve the article - one I don't even think belongs here, but accepted it does regardless. Should a situation like that arise again, I would remain calm and civil and discuss the issue fairly.

Additional optional question from Beeblebrox

4. As an admin you will often find that users are upset or even angry with decisions you have made. Let's say you block a user for 24 hours for edit warring. They request unblock but it is declined because they continue to deny they edit warred and insist they were right and the other edit warrior was the only one who was wrong. Next thing you know the block has expired and there is a thread titled "admin abuse" at WP:ANI that is about you. In the thread the user is stating that you blocked them unfairly, that they were in the right in the edit war, and that they couldn't get unblocked because your buddies in the admin cabal won't contradict you. They suggest you should have your sysop rights removed. What do you do?

A: The user is entitled to their opinion, but fact is edit warring is a policy that must be adhered to (with the exception, of course, of BLP-type issues which would be a different story). I would patiently explain to the user that nobody is right in an edit war, and I'm certainly not in any cabal. I am certainly willing to hear the user's side of the story, but that should come before a block, not after the damage was done. If for whatever reason I was mistaken to block the user, I would apologise to them straightaway. Aiken (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Sven Manguard

5. I noticed at your userpage that you are not displaying any indications that you are a member or participant in any wikiprojects. Is this correct, or are you in fact a member of one or more projects? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

A:

Additional optional question from ϢereSpielChequers

6. does this still reflect your views on the blocking of "established editors", and how would you define established editor?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. All loooks solid to me. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Support: Should be a fine administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Yes please.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Up till now, my only recalled interaction with him has been when he opposed my RfB. :) Aside from that, though, I feel that he can be a good administrator. He's trustworthy, dedicated, and qualified for the job. (X! · talk)  · @690  ·  15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Funny that, thanks for the support. FWIW you've not been too bad ;) Aiken (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Won't abuse the tools same reason as X! only interaction was when he opposed my rfa, but he did it in a civil and reasonable way, unlike the bloodbath that was occured later, also went to my talk page right after I got a health related episode related to the RFA. Secret ^account 16:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Whatever happened to the life that we once knew. Diego Grez (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
10. I often see Aiken around doing good things. This is quite a firm support. I've considered the opposes but I don't think the concerns raised warrant an oppose from me.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - I don't find the opposes really convincing. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

    The supports are also rather unconvincing. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

12. Support No reason to oppose. Temperament? Gee whiz. A very good test of temperament is one's reaction to RfA, colloquially known as "Hell Week". So far, I would say the candidate is passing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - at one point I had offered to nominate the user, so I must've thought they were suited for the role. I read the thread at talk:Dancing mania and while it certainly doesn't reflect favourably upon them, I wouldn't call it a 'temper tantrum'. Aiken drum speaks his mind, and doesn't appear to have moderated his tongue ahead of a potential RFA (i.e. didn't bother with "gamesmanship") so at least we're getting a known quantity. –xeno^talk 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Support All the civility problems shown below are relatively mild and were not serious enough to warrant a block. Being around for a year is quite a long time on Wikipedia isn't it? Minimac (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Support The answers to the questions that I have seen are brilliant and this shows that he is a trustworthy editor who can be trusted with administrator tools. Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, temperament not suited to adminship, see temper tantrum linked by Iri below, which was also evidenced other places. Medical statements in Dancing mania were not sourced correctly (per WP:MEDRS), yet when that was pointed out to Aiken, he simply refused to engage further with the article, and was apparently offended at efforts others made to help him. (See here.) A thin skin when the going gets tough and the real work starts will not bode well for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not going to pretend I'm proud of that. In my defence though, it was my first time at FAC and it went pretty badly, on an article I had been informed had a good chance of passing. So naturally, I was a little irritated that such a big "issue" had not been raised at all. I'm no expert in the topic and I had spent so long writing it, I did not want to go back over and re-source it all. I simply don't have the time, and I was put off doing so by the wholly negative comments about it. There are plenty of other articles out there I want to concentrate on, and FWIW I wasn't offended at all by offers of help. Aiken (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I understand your frustration, but this is where the pedal hits the metal on demonstrating how you will handle difficulties (when you encounter unexpected obstacles :) I'm also concerned that your user talk edits are only at 4%-- engaging more with other editors over time will evidence that you understand how Wiki works, and are able to work with other editors with a thick skin needed for admin work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Who told you that it had a good chance of passing? I seem to recall that you blamed me, even though I'd tried to make it clear to you that I thought the nomination was premature.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   It was you who told me, yes. "In general though I really enjoyed it, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't get this through FAC". It's my fault I misunderstood you. Aiken (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I also told you that I thought you were a little hasty in nominating, and that some hard work would be needed to get the article through FAC.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   You did indeed, but that was after I'd submitted it. Aiken (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   ... but you didn't do that "hard graft" though, you threw a tantrum instead. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   The "hard graft" would have taken too long for the article to have remained at FAC. That is why it was withdrawn. Aiken (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   And is that also why you haven't worked on the article since? Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Indeed. I don't have the knowledge, or access to such sources to be able to work on it appropriately. There are millions of other articles which I easily can work on though. Aiken (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Arguing over opposes at RFA does not enhance your case; again, I suggest going forward you engage in more talk page discussion to evidence how you handle obstacles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Malleus asked a question; I answered. I'm not arguing with him. Aiken (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Very Regretful Oppose because of the temper tantrum provided by iridescent. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Regretful oppose. Unfortunately, in my opinion, you don't have enough content work. You don't have any GAs, FAs, or DYKs, and while your content work isn't bad, I don't think you're ready just yet. I would recommend you get at least a couple DYKs and possibly a GA or FA before returning. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that, but one GA, one DYK, and 5,000 edits still isn't enough content editing, in my opinion. Come back when you have a few more DYKs and possibly another GA or FA. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Well... I do have Nick Robinson (a GA) and a DYK... (The Old Wellington Inn). This information is in my statement and answer to #2... Aiken (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   You just changed your criteria. I met the original easily - "I would recommend you get at least a couple DYKs and possibly a GA or FA before returning". Is there something else you want too? Aiken (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I worded it wrong. I recommend at least a couple more DYKs. Again, I apologize. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Out of interest, Utahraptor, what exactly do you think DYKs demonstrate, other than the ability to find a topic so obscure that nobody's bothered to write about it, and knock off a 1,500 character stub on it? I'd wager the overwhelming majority of admins have never touched DYK. Note that I'm not supporting this RFA—if I come out of neutral, it will almost certainly be to oppose—but this looks distinctly like a "don't like you and I'm looking for a pretext" oppose. – iridescent 16:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Didn't you support The Thing That Should Not Be and Elen of the Roads with less content creation than Aiken? What's happended to make you change your requirements so much in a short time? (For the record I too supported both.) Alzarian16 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

3. The problems demonstrated at Dancing mania's FAC are too recent to be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose, with some regret. I do see good work from this editor, and the mainspace contributions are fine - but I am troubled by the issues raised by Iridescent and Sandygeorgia. The most telling aspect of an editor's contributions here is how they disagree with people - and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable asking this candidate to review an erroneous block, given those diffs/threads. And that is a problem. The conduct here on this very page is less troubling, honestly, but I would note that a candidate's chance of success at RFA usually goes down the more edits they make under "Oppose". Just saying. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   In fairness, all but one of the candidate's posts in the oppose column have been in direct response to questions asked in the oppose column. Don't think you can hold that against him; if he didn't answer, people would be accusing him of avoiding the issue. – iridescent 17:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   True - and I've struck that bit. I think it's a valid observation, not so much on the fitness of the candidate, but on the current state of RFA in general - but, either way, doesn't go here. The other concerns stand, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Sorry, I don't feel you have enough experience. Currently you have 5,724 edits and one year of experience. That's the amount of experience I have as well(if IP edits are counted) and I am not even considering trying a RFA because it's too soon. The link given by iridescent also worries me. Overall I thing you are a good contributer, but I think it is too early. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose, but with moral support. You're a great contributor, but admins need to handle stress and conflict well, and I'm afraid what I see is conflict and stress being handled less than optimally. I'd suggest a bit more time, get more involved with people, and come back here and try again when you're able to point to some problem-solving and say "I handled that well". Good luck -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with experience, temperament, and judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose Concerns with temperament. Maybe try again in 6-10 months. Inka888^ContribsTalk 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Are those two sentences supposed to be related in some way? Are you suggesting that in 6–10 months your concerns about temperament may have magically dissipated? Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Some people can, over time, improve their temperament and get along better with other wikipedians. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps they can, but how can anyone say it will take 6–10 months? Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I do find that proposed timeframe a bit arbitrary; it takes as long as it takes. Maybe what Inka is trying to say is "don't rush it". Airplaneman ✈ 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Or it could be that everyone says "wait 6–10 months" and he's doing it too, even though WP:NOTNOW doesn't strictly apply here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I was saying that if Aiken drum improved his temperament and came back in 6-10 months that I would have not problem supporting. That's all I meant. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   ... and that if he came back in 12 months you might not? Why do so many parrot the same old nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Same old nonsense? The oppose said "Concerns with temperament. Maybe try again in 6-10 months". It did not guarantee RfA support after a fixed interval. If the candidate has their wits about them, they will realise that they're likely to win support from this !voter through changes of temperament rather than through a certain arbitrary delay. Nor, of course, did the !voter say that 12 months would be too long. Some people can, over time, improve their temperament and get along better with other wikipedians. bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose: Per all reasons brought up, and, why do you really need the tools? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   It's more of a question of whether he is ready to use them; nobody needs them to edit. Airplaneman ✈ 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

10. Based on some observations made over the last few months, I don't find Aiken ready or having the right temperament to use the tools at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose: Ouch! Really sorry Aiken, but to be an admin you need a good understanding of the processes of Wikipedia. FAC isn't a get strokes process - the Virgin Mary could write an article on The Annunciation, and the FAC crew would still ask for 100 improvements, and reject the picture of Gabriel because Mary had uploaded it to Wikipedia rather than Commons. And to be a good admin, you need not to take things personally, and not to take your bat home when questioned. Content is created by consensus. Take some time, make some more content, hold more discussions with other editors. Pick that article back up, and talk to the other guys on the talkpage. You'll be able to come back and show that you've moved on from this blip.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

    Why would the picture of Gabriel be unsuitable at Wikipedia? Some people don't like commons and upload to WP, it may well be that the VM had bad experiences at commons. Much more likely there would be concerns about whether the VM had the right to release the photo under Divine Law, we don't know who owns photographs in the Hereafter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

    In which case, G-d would have to email OTRS. Fact remains, FAC is a very genteel bearpit, and Aiken would have been much less surprised and dismayed if he'd read a few before he embarked on the process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

12. Regretful Oppose Come back in 6 months to a year after a bit more seasoning, because you are definitely on the right track; however, now there are too many issues surrounding temperament, maturity and policy-knowledge. You'd be a great candidate for one of the sysop-mentoring programs.--Hokeman (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose Drama mongering as cited above. Vodello (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Regretful oppose, mainly per Boing! said Zebedee. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above reasons. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose Not that I'm the greatest role model for this, but one of the first things I look for in an admin is the ability to detach and just say "You know what, I was wrong, I'm sorry" Considering the stress and conflict that every Admin will inevitably one day be confronted with, and the fact that Admins are frequently called up to make judgments and close debates, the fact that I do not see this ability in the candidate is deeply troubling. Fastily's !vote says it best. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose per temperament reasons and general inexperience. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose You're a good guy but that diff (or diffs) is simply too much for me to support. I must oppose per the comments of iridescent and Soap.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    You know neither Iridescent nor Soap is opposing, right? – iridescent 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    If he sees the concerns as enough to warrent an oppose, he can. He may interpret that section more strongly than Iridescent and Soap. X! also wonders what's with the 3rd person. (X! · talk)  · @940  ·  21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose - "Since when were admins janitors?" Sorry, but I prefer admins who don't have grandiose opinions of their role here. Parrot of Doom 11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    I think it's a bit of a stretch to deduce that Aiken drum has a grandiose opinion of the role of admins from that diff. Depending on where you see admins work your view may change. Presumably if you see them doing speedy deletions or cleaning up copyrighted material, the janitor may seem an appropriate analogy; if you see them dealing with vandals then a bouncer or policeman may be more appropriate; in the dispute resolution processes (although you of course don't have to be an admin to participate) or closing AfDs they may seem enforcers of policy. And of course if you lurk around ANI you may think they're all corrupt power-grabbing politicians. The diff tells us that Aiken drum didn't (their opinion may have changed) think of admins as janitors, but not how they do view the role. Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    That isn't the only bone of contention I have, although for me its the most prescient. I understand the point you make and its entirely valid, but I wouldn't expect a potential admin to strike janitorial duties from the list quite so easily (I know he wasn't a candidate when he posted that diff). For me, an admin should view himself first as a janitor, the end result being good, reliable articles. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose. Issues involving temperament. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose, temperament not suited to adminship. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
22. Regretful (weak) oppose. I'd really like to support you, but I have qualms because of the issues concerning temperament highlighted above. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
23. "Here's my GA nomination, make sure to nuzzle my nuts with the utmost tenderness or else I'll have a temper tantrum" belies an underlying juvenile temperment that would make this user a net detriment in any position of self-determined authority. Could just as easily become "sure, my block was wrong, but your unblock request contained insufficient amounts of genuflection, I see no reason to overturn it". Badger Drink (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Needs that tad experience more and more stuff in other areas than just editing. Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose I'm not seeing the temperament issues people seem to be concerned about here. However, like Jokerman, I don't the he has enough experience yet. Would like to see a wider range of involvement, service, content creation, etc. Would not be opposed a second nomination once the candidate is more seasoned. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose I can't support, as I don't think you have the experience required to become an admin yet. Work with deletion discussions, CSD, vandal fighting, as well as other admin related areas, and review policies. After a little more time and experience and I'm sure I'll be able to support. MJ94 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose NOO. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. For this edit back in April. Normally I wouldn't notice something so small and so far back, but your talk page only has 2 archives, and you don't seem to have a lot of edits overall, so I'm basing my opinion on what I found. —Soap— 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
2. AFAIK my only interaction with you has been this comment, this exchange, and your temper-tantrum at Talk:Dancing mania#Sources. Everyone has bad moments, but when someone has a lot of problematic exchanges in their recent past, I expect to see evidence of collaboration and a willingness to admit that other people might have a point even when they're not agreeing with you. – iridescent 14:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
3. I'm tempted to oppose per Sandy, Iridescent, and Soap, but I'll stick myself here for now. I have concerns about temperament and overall experience and may ask a question later on. While I've seen no problem with the majority of your edits, I have sometimes seen some unnecessarily heated comments from you. I addition, I found this comment; this is what is tempting me to ask the question, stolen from Groomtech (talk · contribs): Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ? Airplaneman ✈ 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Much as with Airplaneman, temperament concerns expressed by Sandy, Malleus, etc. are strong enough to lean me opposing, but here for now pending a broader review of context and contributions. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Nuetral: I don't see any pressing reason for you to need the tools. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) moving to oppose

   There's no pressing reason for anyone to "need the tools" is there? Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   His answer to Question 1 is not convincing. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral But i want to stress moral support here. I do see evidence of policy knowledge, but the dancing mania event is too recent. And i have concerns about the handling of the event and temperament. My advice take the experience and grow from it. Sometimes comments we recieve which we may feel as an attack, can be used by ourselves as motivation to continue to improve as editors rather than allow it to create frustration. I guess what im saying is, dont let it get to you :) At any rate keep going, your not far off, in some time (not too long) give RFA another shot. I think i could gladly support then, Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
6. I se temperament problems, but also very good content contributions. I'm not convinced either way, so I'll just wait here, for now. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
7. I'm changing my vote to neutral. I see that I was wrong in saying your content editing was not enough, but there's still the issue of your temperament. I morally support you, though. Come back in four to six months and I may support. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 21:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
8. neutral - I haven't seen enough to make up my mind one way or the other - I think it is worth a try but the exchanges higlhighted by iridescent give me pause. Given that this RfA might be heading south, I think the best thing is to try and show people you can collaborate and interact, so I do think taking a deep breath and trying to produce a Featured Article is a really good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
9. I hate to vote oppose in any RfA, especially one for a contributor who, three years ago would have been given the mop without all of this fuss. RfA has changed though, voters are demanding more and more perfection from candidates. There is a reason that we call RfA "Hell Week." Ronk01 talk 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
10. But count me as a definite moral support. Suggest you withdraw, take note of the "oppose" arguments and come back in 6 months. VictorianMutant (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral, but really Moral Support. I really wanted to support. I've interacted with the candidate during the recent proposal for a vandal-fighting flag, and even gave him a barnstar for it. This is someone who cares about the good of the project and is very intelligent and insightful. When that vandal fighting proposal was being discussed, I felt that Aiken gave up a bit quickly. Seeing the thread about Dancing mania makes me think that this kind of reaction to criticism may be a repeated behavior. For that reason, I want to encourage you strongly to think hard about all the comments in this RfA, and try again in a couple of months, because I'm confident that you can grow into an administrator who will be highly valuable to the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.