Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem

Ad Orientem

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (149/36/5); Scheduled to end 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) – I'm proud to present Ad Orientem for your consideration for administrator rights. An active editor for over 3 years, he has shown through his 12,000 edits that he is exactly the kind of level-headed, thoughtful, and experienced Wikipedian we should feel comfortable giving the mop to. In a now cliché kind of way I saw Ad Orientem asking for administrator assistance with a matter and thought to myself 'He's not an admin?'; a thorough investigation through his contributions and editing statistics later, and I found myself encouraging him to put his name forward for adminship.

While the focus of his editing may not be content creation, Ad Orientem has enough mainspace contributions - including article creations (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]) and plenty of patrolling/improving ([5]) - for me to be confident that he understands what goes into writing a good article. Where you're more likely to find Ad Orientem contributing is at AfD and for the front page, particularly at ITN and WP:ERRORS. At the former, his voting is highly correlated with discussion outcomes ([6]), and in the cases where it wasn't, I always found a sensible rationale for his vote. At ITNC Ad Orientem does great work nominating, vetting, and improving candidates, and I think it is here (and at ERRORS) that he could do especially great work as an administrator. ITN is currently understaffed, and Ad Orientem is one of the most qualified users active there.

Most importantly for me, Ad Orientem is civil, thoughtful, and happy to admit when he's wrong. You only need to see the level of consideration that went into running here to see that he isn't going to be deleting the main page in a hurry. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Ad Orientem was not an editor I had crossed paths with recently, but when I saw Sam's plea for him to consider adminship I shared in the now all too common cliché of believing they already had the bit. Ad's interest is in helping out on the Main Page, which could seriously do with an extra pair of hands (considering it's the first thing a lot of our visitors see!) - having made over 1250 edits to ITNC Ad Orientem is highly qualified to deal with the important task of ensuring relevant news information is placed onto the Main Page. Ad Orientem's talents aren't limited to the Main Page though - they have a through understanding of our policies, and this has been demonstrated in a number of places.

All in all, Ad displays a stunning amount of civility and clue, has a sparkling block log for his six year old account and has a clear need for for the tools. I hope you join me today in supporting his candidacy for adminship. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept with gratitude.

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 more than a few interests, however I would expect that ITNC and ERRORS as well as other Main Page related pages and issues would be major areas of focus for my attention. Unfortunately both have been a bit thin on admin coverage of late. However while I have done a lot of work at ITN my familiarity with the actual mechanics of updating the mainpage, which is quite properly fully protected, would be new to me. With this in mind I would expect to have someone holding my hand the first few times I stick my toe into that particular pool. I also periodically do anti-vandalism patrols. Beyond that CSD and RPP are areas where I feel that I could contribute with a minimal risk of breaking anything. All of this said, I think people looking at my record will conclude that I am not by nature an aggressive editor and I tend to look both ways, twice, before doing anything dramatic or jumping into a dispute. You should expect that I will be cautious in the use of the tools, especially so during the first three to six months as I get used to things and am confronted by problems or questions that I have not dealt with before.

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

A: An examination of my record will show two things. My interests have been eclectic and the bulk of my work has been behind the scenes. I am rather proud of my contributions at AfD, and ITNC. I also like to help out when I can at WP:FTN which is one of our more understaffed noticeboards. In the mainspace I was heavily involved with the cleanup of Dorothy Kilgallen which had become a coatrack for fringe conspiracy theories. That took a little effort including overcoming some PROFRINGE resistance. Additionaly while working on the Kilgallen article I became aware of her principal biographer Lee Israel. Not long after this, Ms. Israel passed over and when I went to update her article I was floored to discover that this fascinating (and somewhat dodgy) character didn't have one. Which I promptly corrected. In hindsight I wish I had sent that to DYK.

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: Of course, anyone who hasn't had an occasional disagreement, maybe even a very intense one probably hasn't been around for very long. My usual method for handling disputes starts with remaining cool even when the situation is getting hot. If discussion doesn't resolve our differences then I invite other editors to join and try to form a consensus, which once formed, I respect. In my experience if you remain calm in the face of short tempers others tend to do the same. That said, I'm not an iceberg. Late in 2015 a long simmering and for some, very annoying issue at ITNC came to a head. Unfortunately this also occurred at a time of great personal stress/emotion in my life as my dad had recently died following a long illness. Making a long story short, I popped my cork. After venting on the talk page I decided I needed to step away from the project for a while. At the time I was not sure I would be back. Happily I did return once my emotional and stress level returned to normal. Also somewhere in the archives of my talk page there is a thread where I got into a very testy and frankly less than civil exchange with another editor. I have always been deeply embarrassed by the incident and regard it as an object lesson in how not to comport myself.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional questions from BU Rob13

4. You've staked out a few controversial positions in the past, including a belief that we should bar IP editing. How will such positions influence your actions as an administrator?

A: They will not. Opinions are just that. Policy and guidelines are just what they are. Until and unless they change by community consensus, that is what we go by. And for the record my views on the IP question have moderated given the decline in the number of active editors and the dramatic improvement in our ability to combat vandalism thanks to bots and other tools.

5. Philosophically, what are your opinions about the admin tools and how they should be used? How much "wiggle room" is there for administrator discretion when using the tools? How does WP:IAR apply to the administrator toolset?

A: I am somewhat conservative in my approach to this sort of thing. The first question that should underline every contemplated use of the tools is "does this improve the project?" The other stuff follows. When discussing the ability to block disruptive editors added questions need to be asked... "is this the only recourse reasonably available? and have we reached the point where assuming good faith would cause people to question my judgement or commonsense?" Regards IAR I am unaware of any guideline that says IAR doesn't apply to administrative actions. That said I think admins have a higher standard to meet and barring some kind of time sensitive emergency, I suppose theoretically possible but I can't think of one off the top of my head, they should seek consensus before doing anything outside the strict remit of their job as described in the relevant policies/guidelines. Unilateral actions that are inconsistent with guidelines and policy might be seen as disruptive behavior and lacking respect for the broader consensus of the community as expressed in our guidelines. I have no real problem with the ideal behind IAR. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for invoking it and I have done so myself a few times. I guess you could say one of my guiding principals is don't do anything that could be controversial without seeking consensus first if at all possible. If one ignores that principal then one had best be prepared to defend the action if it is challenged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lourdes

6. I've reviewed many of your contributions. For example, in Gold bug, one of your top edited articles, you have added tags, reverted, cleaned up and much more. The following are some of your source additions in the article: caps.fools.com, peakprosperity.com, thefreedictionary.com. Can you please provide perhaps five examples of non-bare reliable source additions that you may have made in the past twelve months to any article(s)?

A: Thank you for the question which as I understand it you are seeking five instances where I have added reliable source citations to articles within the last year. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

7. What would be your views on COI editing? To be precise, would you consider the editing of religious articles of a particular faith or related faiths to be COI editing, when the editor is a self-admitted supporter/opposer of the particular faith or related faiths? Thanks.

A: I would not. Following that logic we would have to preclude Republicans from editing articles about prominent Democratic politicians and vice versa, that Americans could not edit an article on Iran and vice versa, and that a Presbyterian could not edit an articles relating to Roman Catholicism. It is likely that every editor on Wikipedia has some strongly held biases on various subjects. I know I do. It's human nature. What is important is that we recognize our biases and strive to keep them in check when editing on subjects we have strong feelings or opinions on. When those biases are not kept in check we can end up with NPOV issues. Another serious problem is systemic bias which can be much more subtle. And yes, there are editors with a WP:AGENDA. But that's not a COI issue. It's an NPOV issue and those can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Trying to tell editors that they can't edit on subjects about which they have strongly negative feelings would be presuming that we are all incapable of recognizing and controlling our prejudices. And from a practical perspective I don't think the project could operate under that assumption.

Additional question from Yintan

8. More or less following up from Q7 above, what's your reason for agreeing with the RevDel of an edit summary that said "Jesus Fucking Christ"? I agree it's a bit strong but Wikipedia isn't censored and I'm not even sure if there's a valid RevDel reason for it.

A There are people for whom that particular language would be deeply offensive on religious grounds, in much the same way that most people would (I hope) be offended by slurs based on ethnicity or gender/gender preference. I'd file it under RD2. To be clear however, I don't think it was intended to be hurtful or offensive and I would not support any kind of action beyond a "please be more mindful of how you choose to express yourself." From the wording in your question, I'm guessing you would disagree and I wouldn't be surprised if some others took a similar tack. All I can say is that this sort of thing is going to be a judgement call and that's how I look at it. The bottom line is that we all need to be aware that Wikipedia is a highly diverse environment with different people, different value systems and sensitivities. With that in mind we should be careful in the language we use when talking to and with one another. Thank you for the question.

Additional question from Tigraan

9. I see in the oppose section some concerns about this diff and the related discussion here. I think it is only fair that you get a chance to answer these concerns, hence this question and the next one. For Q9, can you comment on the left-leaning bias of the project comment you made? Do you wish to clarify/amend it?

A: With your indulgence I am going to merge this question and my response into Q 12 as I believe they are closely related.

Additional question from Tigraan

10. See Q9 above. Could you clarify, in view of that content dispute, where you think the line at WP:OR stands, and whether you think it is too restrictive or not restrictive enough?

A: Again begging your indulgence I am going to merge this question into #11 given their closely related themes.

Additional question from Vanamonde93

11. I wrote both these questions out, then realized while posting that they are rather similar to Tigraan's questions above, posted while I was typing, so my apologies. If you feel the answers will be repetitive, feel free to address my questions along with Tigraan's in one response. In the diffs presented by Mr.X, you use certain sources to add a motive for a killing to the infobox. My personal characterization of those sources would be "reliable newspapers reporting the opinion of a marginally involved individual". Would you disagree? In general, how would you evaluate such a source, vs an article in the same paper stating the same thing without attributing it to a police chief, vs a scholarly source stating a motive for the killing without attributing to the police chief, with respect to WP:DUE?

A: With respect for the obvious differences of opinion that existed on this subject, I do disagree with your characterization of Chief Brown. The Dallas Police Chief was, IMO, one of the most involved people in the tragedy after the gunman. It is not my desire to rehash this particular, or any other content dispute. So I will confine myself to stating that I introduced an edit that I believed was both factually accurate based on the public statements of one of the most directly involved persons and which was repeated in numerous reliable secondary sources. At the time I did not believe it would be especially controversial. I was wrong. The edit was reverted and what followed was a vigorous debate over the wording of that particular section of the infobox. Once I reached the conclusion that a) my edit was controversial and that b) there was not a consensus supporting the language which I then favored, and that c) it was extremely unlikely that such consensus would be achieved, I disengaged from the dispute. As I stated in my answer to Q3, I believe that consensus is the only legitimate means of resolving disputes of this nature. I amplified this in my response to Q5 where I stated that it was very important not to take controversial actions in the absence of consensus. The bottom line is that we are not required to always agree with a given consensus, but we ARE required to respect it, always and everywhere. Absent that cornerstone the building we call Wikipedia would collapse. And for the record I think the current version is far superior to the wording I had originally proposed.

On the question of OR, I think it is one of our more pervasive problems. Poor referencing is a chronic issue on the project. If there is a complaint that I have gotten at various times that is a bit more frequent than others it is that I am excessively hard-nosed on the subject of WP:V. An examination of the record at ITNC will show that one of the principle reasons for failure of nominations is poor article quality overwhelmingly manifested in substandard referencing. Per V I believe any claim of fact that is not blue, or at least blueish, should require a citation to a reliable source. It is my belief that widespread subpar referencing damages our credibility as an encyclopedia. A while back I even made a proposal at the Village Pump that would have required new articles to cite at least one reliable source in support of at least one claim of fact in the article. It got shot down in flames. Sometimes consensus sucks, but it's all we've got.

@Ad Orientem: Thank you for making your position clear on consensus. I am going to ask a follow-up question here, and I recognize that this is a little bit pushy, so please bear with me: I wouldn't ask if I were already decided about my !vote. I am of the opinion that the questions/comments so far have skated around what is a make-or-break issue. Also, just to be clear, I am not being pushy because of a single incident: all of us make individual mistakes, even egregious ones. I know I have. What I want to see is whether this was an isolated incident, or whether it indicates a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of policy. So:

You say that the police chief in this case was directly involved in the incident referred to above. Okay, granted. Unless I am majorly misreading your comment, you seem to use this as justification for using him as a source. Is this correct? In general, can the views of an involved individual, as reported by reliable sources, be used to support a contentious statement in a Wikipedia article, made in Wikipedia's voice? Please, answer both of those. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question. And the answer is... it depends. When asking whether an involved individual can be a reliable source for describing important details of the subject of the article in Wiki voice, especially if there is a potential for controversy, then you need to approach with caution and weigh the overall credibility of the source. In this particular case that source was the Chief of Police, a man with decades of law enforcement experience who was intimately involved with almost all aspects of the incident and had direct knowledge of the statements made by the gunman. In this case I think the answer is yes. Indeed I think it would be difficult for normally reliable news outlets (press & media) to be able to accurately report about the crime w/o accepting the word of the CoP. That said, I think this is probably not the norm. IMO the reliability of Chief Brown was high enough to do that but that kind of credibility is not altogether common and each case would have to be weighed on its merits. Certainly if we were talking about alleged Mafia gangster Tony, aka "the bender," explaining his motive for shooting someone was purely self defense, I think I would take that with a pound or two of salt. But the bottom line is that each instance needs to be judged independently and absent the exceptional level of credibility that was here, I'd probably lean against it.

Additional question from Vanamonde93

12. You make a reference to systemic bias above. What form, if any, of systemic bias do you think exists on Wikipedia? What role, if any, should an awareness of any systemic bias play when we edit Wikipedia? What about when taking administrative actions?

A: The existence of biases is just part of the reality of the world as much as Wikipedia. I do regret the use of the term "pervasive" in reference to liberal bias. I can only plead that my response was colored by my pique at the abrupt reversion of my now much discussed edit. Do I think there is occasional evidence of possible politically ideological bias here and there? Yes, but I do not in fact believe it is pervasive and broadly speaking it is not a huge problem. Yeah once in a while I see things that make me wonder quietly. But even then it is almost always of a subtle nature. Of course one does see instances of naked bias, which is by no means limited to the political left. One need only look at some of the discussions at Talk:Donald Trump or the talk page for Hillary Clinton to realize that this particular sword cuts both ways. In the end that sort of problem is easily dealt with. Regards institutional bias I think two are worth mentioning. Neither are a critical problem but they exist and we need to be on the alert against them. The first is WP:RECENTISM and the second is the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) bias that tends to favor topics related to the United States. I see examples of both of these problems at ITN for obvious reasons. Both are easily understandable. We live in the modern world and it's a lot easier to write an article about the latest crime to become a tabloid press/media sensation than it is to go and dig around newspaper archives for sensational crimes from the Victorian world. Ditto all sorts of other topics including political controversies that seem so very important now, but are likely to merit little or no mention in history. The issue involving what we might call the American problem is also understandable. The United States is by far the most powerful English speaking country in the world and a disproportionate number of our regular editors come from here. I'm not sure if there is any broad way to combat these biases beyond awareness and trying to keep an eye on the broader world. For myself I routinely peruse English language newspapers from overseas in an effort to find suitable topics/articles to nominate at ITN and I have opposed some nominations about current events in the US such as mass shootings which have become far too commonplace to keep posting them. (Really major exceptions admitted)

Additional questions from RileyBugz

13. What would you do if a new editor made an erroneous edit? And I mean in the sense of wrong or unsourced info, not vandalism.

A: I am assuming that "wrong" here means that we are not talking about "close but not quite right" but rather something that is just wrong and not fixable. I would undo the edit either as an AGF reversion or manually specifying the presumption of good faith. Then I would drop a note on the users talk page welcoming them to Wikipedia (and add a welcome template if not already done) and give some friendly pointers on the issues with their edit with links to the relevant wiki guidelines. I'd close the note by encouraging them to contact me if they had any questions.

14. Would you help editors with sources? Specifically, would you give or help an editor search for sources?

A: Happily. As long as the subject is not so completely outside my ken that CIR becomes an issue I would be happy to help other editors with referencing if they need it. In the event that the subject is one so far outside my knowledge that I might not know where to look, I would refer them to the appropriate wiki-project.

Additional questions from DragonflySixtyseven

15: Can you promise to work as strongly against right-wing bias as against left-wing bias?

A Yes. Bias in editing, in any form is not acceptable. Whatever one's private opinions we need to separate them from our work on the project.

Additional question from ATS

16. In concert with the just-posted 15 (feel free to consolidate your response), you've now made reference to "left-leaning bias" and "liberal bias". Speaking (typing?) as a slightly left-leaning centrist who has heard "liberal" spat as an epithet for more than 40 years, can you do better than #12 of convincing me and the rest of us of your belief that bias is bias, regardless of its "direction"?

A: I sympathize with you. The lack of civility in modern political discourse has become almost ubiquitous. As someone whose politics are I suspect a bit to the right of many on here, I've had similar experiences. All I can say in response to your request for reassurance is to tell you that whatever my political views, I have never consciously engaged in any agenda oriented editing with one exception. My agenda is Wikipedia. I am not here to right great wrongs or defend any given ideology. Actually I am here because I care about this project and some editors who I hold in high regard suggested it might benefit from my having a few extra tools. But next week, irrespective of what happens over the next few days, I will still be HERE. If you require any greater assurance, I am not able to give it.

Additional question for Rhododendrites

17. What relationship, if any, is there between political correctness and WP:CIVILITY? What relationship, if any, is there between political correctness and article content? Apologies for how vague this question is -- it's inspired by this diff, but I'm much less interested in the specific topic/context than with use of the term. Thanks.

A Civility is simply the politeness and common courtesy that one hopefully extends to others when interacting with them and which we might reasonably expect in return. Political correctness as applied to communication is usually understood as civility on steroids with special attention given to individuals or groups and may extend to attempting to regulate or discourage the use of certain words, phrases or expressions. I'm a huge fan of the former and not so much the latter. There is periodically debate about where the line dividing the two exists. Your mileage may vary. Neither however, has a place in content. Article content is simply the presentation of objective facts based on, and referenced to, reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from User:UNSC Luke 1021

18. I feel that the most valuable non-mainspace content on WikiPedia has to be the WikiProjects by far. What WikiProjects are you an active member of, and how would you help smaller WikiProjects, with much to offer, get noticed? This counts as both of my usable questions.

A: I agree with the importance of wiki-projects and have been somewhat concerned by what I fear has been a gradual decline in participation. Beyond that I am a member of a number of projects, there are user boxes for some of them on my user page, however the one I have been most active with is WP:SHIPS which is a hobby of mine. Probably around half the articles I created are about ocean liners. Hundreds of ship related articles are on my watchlist and I have done a lot of editing on that subject including adding new articles to the List of ocean liners.

Additional questions from User:Shearonink

19. Regarding article creation: Why did you choose to start Yahoo! data breaches on-wiki as a published one-sentence statement?

A One has to start start somewhere and I was reading the secondary sources as I was going along. Tech is not my strong suit hence my request at WP:TECH for help with the article. To be honest I was rather surprised that the article had not already been created since it was front page news globally.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

20. When you answered the question about systemic bias (number 12), you did not mention gender bias at all. Is this because you don’t believe there is a gender bias on Wikipedia?

A: No. It's because I don't know enough about the issue to be able to express an informed opinion. I mentioned the two that I did because I have enough first hand experience to be able to comment on them. I have no doubt that there are other ingrained biases, and that they are important and maybe serious problems. But I try not to comment on subjects about which I am regrettably ill-informed.

Additional question from Brianhe

21. What admin tools are required to participate at ITN and ITNC, where your nominator said you could do "especially great work" with them? Brianhe (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A The ability to edit the main page which is fully protected, This would permit my being able to add items that have gained consensus for posting from ITNC and also the ability to correct ERRORS which pop up from time to time and sometimes languish for want of admin attention.

Additional question from Lankiveil

22. In your response to Q8, you stated you would apply RD2 to revisions that would be "deeply offensive on religious grounds". Would this also apply to diffs such as this or this which would also be considered deeply offensive to some people of faith? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

A No per NOTCENSORED. Both of these are in the main space, and w/o having looked at sources or anything like that, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. The example from Q8 was an edit summary that connected a rather low brow expression with a prominent religious figure. I see no similarity. All of which said, as I noted in my reply to Q8, I do understand that this is a gray area and I can understand that some people will think revdel would have been an overreaction.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support civil, willing and able. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen Ad Orientem at the fringe theories noticeboard before. He's a good editor, and I have no doubt that he'll be a good admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Support I've been around Ad Orientem for years but haven't worked directly with them. Never had a bad experience that I remember. Still, I decided to go "dig up some dirt", and AFD is a great place to do that. By looking at AFDs where they were out of consensus, I discovered a willingness to withdraw a nomination more than once, rationale arguments even when they were in the minority, and essentially, similar methods that I use. AFD is the easiest place to pick a fight and the sampling I viewed showed that isn't in his nature. Their ratio of content is fine, only a bit lower than mine when I ran, and he has more than enough edits and experience. I'm sure someone will nit pick something, but at the end of the day, Ad Orientem is as qualified as anyone currently holding the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - I think Ad Orientem would be a great administrator. He is focused on the project, level headed and I have no reservations with him getting the tools. As for his AfD participation, it's good and shows an understanding of the policies required. His CSD Log is mostly red and he leaves edit summaries consistently. -- Dane ^talk 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support I've seen Ad Orientem on all sorts of admin boards, even seen him confused for an actual current admin at these boards too. Overall, a calm, generally well-tempered candidate with a good level of experience for the bit. Wants to work at ITN, has over 1200 edits on the page and has been active there for more than a year, ITN is main page stuff, so the lack of direct experience on the main page is not a huge issue for me. Nothing else comes to mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Support per the candidate poll Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
9. Support: A clear net positive. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support after extremely strong answers to my questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Support Impressive answers to questions, very nice record. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 02:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
13. Support I honestly thought they were one already. Would be a significant net positive with the tools. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
14. Support No reason to believe any harm would come as a result. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
15. Support I've interacted with Ad Orientem a lot at ITNC, and no objections. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
16. Support No red flags, and no reason to believe that they will not be a net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
17. Support Great answers. No reason to believe you'd abuse the tools. Eric-Wester (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
18. Support Trusted and experienced candidate. lNeverCry 03:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
19. Support been around long enough, clueful at AfD, I like the contributions at the FTN, and has done enough content creation to convince me they know what the encyclopaedia is about. Should be an asset. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
20. Support. I was especially impressed by the answer to Q4. Furthermore, I don't see any reason to deny the tools. Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Support Fully qualified. I find it most refreshing to see a candidate on the right side of maturity and obviously of some life experience. There's nothing on Wikipedia that he does not know enough about to be given a mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Support good editor. Seen around the project and have been impressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
23. Support as its my default stance when I see no reason to oppose and have not been convinced to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
24. Lourdes 05:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
25. Support trusted and competent user. Lepricavark (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
26. Support – Unequivocally net positive. I have always appreciated the candidate's input to community discussions, and I could have sworn they were already an administrator before today. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
27. Support This edit more than meets my RFA standards. Mkdw^talk 06:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
28. Support The amount of edits that he has does not matter to me, its the behavior that we see on Wikipedia. He looks to be a well qualified user who is very helpful. I have seen him around and he should be an admin. I myself have 12 433 edits, but don't have the overall confidence to become an admin. This guy definitely should have the mop!!! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
29. Support Demonstrated history of clue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
30. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 07:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Trusted editor.FITINDIA (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
32. Support A little hesitantly, because I vaguely remember being dismayed about them at some point; however I can find no relevant instance now. Looking at their userboxes it was probably a philosophical difference, and after all admins aren't required to be avatars of myself :) Answers to questions indicate they are well able to put policy above leanings. Lots of clue and productivity.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
33. Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
34. Support Seems qualified, nothing disqualifying cited in opposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
35. Support. Qualified. -- œ^™ 09:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
36. Support because I see no good reason not to. The oppose section points to an incident in July. Ad Orientem made an edit he believed was supported by the sources. Another editor disagreed. Ad Orientem made no further edits on the subject, and handled the content dispute in a civil manner on the talk page. Big deal. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
37. Support seems qualified to me. st170e^talk 10:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
38. Support. The opposes are reasons to support, not oppose. We do not expect perfection in administrators, we expect a high degree of competency - 'clue' as it were and few mistakes to be made, but we also expect calm, professional and sensible handling of mistakes they make, apologising, not becoming involved in edit wars, defusing situations. The evidence presented by those opposing shows Ad Orientem handling issues very well, with a high degree of competency, and gives a good indication that they'll handle any errors they may make in an appropriate manner. Nick (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    @Nick: Since you cited the opposes, I would like to better understand your comment if you don't mind. Do you think that it is OK to disregard the WP:OR policy if it corrects a perceived left-leaning systemic bias among Wikipedia editors, or do you believe that in the example given, it is acceptable to interpret "anger toward white people" as "race hatred towards white people"? Of course, you're not limited to these choices if there is another reason for writing that the opposes are reasons to support. - MrX 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    Do you think Ad Orientem disregarded the WP:OR policy to correct their perceived left-leaning systemic bias among Wikipedia editors ? That's a pretty serious accusation to be making. It's certainly not clear cut whether Ad Orientem is running afoul of WP:SYNTH but regardless of whether or not he does cross the line, the situation was handled sensibly, the arguments made were reasonable, they demonstrate a high level of competency and even if they're ultimately wrong, as I said earlier, administrators are allowed to make mistakes. Nick (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

39. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
40. Support, I've seen Ad Orientem around and I feel he is qualified enough to get the mop! Good luck! Class455 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
41. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
42. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
43. Enthusiastic support I have to admit to being a talk page stalker and following the discussion regarding this RfA over the past week. The Jesus fucking Christ thing is a bit too touchy feely for my taste, but is a relatively minor issue. The question of systemic bias is not one where anyone is going to get anywhere and is best left to specific talks of specific articles over specific issues. Overall, approaching the tools with a philosophy of minimal risk of breaking anything is the best possible position, and is a better response than any trivia over obscure policy could possibly be. Overall, takes the mop seriously, and is unquestionably a consistent positive quality contributor to the project. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
44. Support - seems like a good editor. No major concerns. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
45. Support - wasn't too enthusiastic about "Pseudo-scientific crap and medical quackery .... See also WP:Complete bollocks" but this seems to be a one-off, with no other obvious concerns. Unlikely to replace the main page with a picture of a cockwomble or block the whole of Arbcom. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
46. Support. I've seen Ad Orientem around the place plenty over the past few years, and I see an intelligent mature person who will be even more of a benefit to the project with the admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    I just want to add that I'm really not too worried about Ad Orientem's comment about a "left leaning bias", for two reasons. Firstly, I think he's right (and I say that as someone who most would see as left leaning myself, at least from a US perspective). Secondly, I trust Ad Orientem to keep his own political opinions away from his work as an admin, and I think his openness about his thoughts will help rather than hinder that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

47. Support mainly because of his/her amazing contribution to ITN. I hope AO will also help out at ERRORS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuy (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
48. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - Whenever I see Ad Orientem in the meta areas, I generally come away impressed by their reasoning. Enough content work to clearly demonstrate CLUE. Good admin material. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
50. Weak support I'm a little concerned about Ad's religious views colouring his NPOV, hence my Q8, but I'll assume good faith here (no pun intended). The 'left leaning bias' claim doesn't sit too well with me and I don't quite understand why he's here when he says he doesn't want to be an admin. It's not enough for me to oppose but I can't go for a full support either. Yintan  15:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
51. Support as a net positive. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
52. Support Just where or when A.O. and I communed here, I've forgotten; but the pleasant aftertaste still lingers and is something I'd recommend. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
53. Support – based on my interactions with this editor, I have no concerns with granting them the tools. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    Support Glad I'm not the only one who thought AO already had the mop. I've seen them around and like what I see, and they're willing to help in an area that really needs it. Good answers to questions, indicating that they'll be fine as an admin. Miniapolis 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (moved to oppose)

54. Support Having run across Ad Orientem more than a few times in AfD, I have been impressed by his calm reasoning and judgment. After reviewing the issue referenced in the Oppose comments, I only see more confirmation of that careful judgment and lack of a tendency to get annoyed at disputes. Those qualities are exactly what we should ask of administrators, and i see no reason to believe he will not continue to display them once he has the bit in hand. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
55. Support - I have run into Ad Orientum over the few years I have been editing, and always found him to be level-headed and inciteful, even when discussions get heated. I echo Eggishorn' comments regarding the issue in the oppose comments. And I particulary echo Dennis Brown's reasoning regarding AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
56. Support - happy to see your name here, I was surprised when you turned up at ORCP recently as I thought you were already an admin. As for concerns about bias, every editor has a bias, all we can ask is to be aware of it and you clearly are. Would make a fine admin I'm sure. Good luck! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
57. Support I have interacted with Ad Orientem several times in the past few years at Talk: Dorothy Kilgallen where this editor has stood firm against ongoing attempts at conspiracy theorizing in this biography. The incident mentioned by the first editor to oppose does not concern me too much. It seems like a content dispute that was worked out without major problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
58. Support per Dennis Brown and all of the others who have pointed out the candidate's cluefulness. Risker (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
59. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
60. Support will be a net gain and won't break the encyclopedia. That's all that's important. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
61. Support - clear use for the bit, and seems competent enough to use it well. Thanks for volunteering, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
62. Support Diffs posted by MrX in oppose section clearly demonstrate that candidate can sensibly and civilly handle contentious situations. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    Support - Seems like he will be pretty good with new editors, although I am a bit concerned about the "revelations". I really think that he will be a positive for the project, especially since he will help people with refs. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (moved to oppose)

63. Support I like clue, and he has it. Katie^talk 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
64. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
65. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
66. Support per nom and co-nom. Clearly has enough experience; as for the NPOV and improper synthesis allegations, I don't believe that the candidate was at fault in those incidents. Joshualouie711 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
67. Stephen 01:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
68. Support. Very well qualified candidate, and good attitude shown in his answers. Fbergo (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
69. Support per those above and the response to question 16. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
70. Support Candidate's responses to the issues raised in the opposes show thoughtfulness and clue. IMO, this demonstrates high competency for the mop. Best of luck. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
71. Genuinely thought he was one. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support, in spite of some very valid concerns that have been raised since my last comment. I generally agree with Sandstein's impression of people who carry on about their contempt for political correctness, and this comment runs dangerously close to being like something you'd find in a Yahoo News comments section. Speaking as a moderate conservative, I have very little tolerance for people who dismiss ideas or proposals solely on the basis of their being "anti-PC." If it's truly a bad idea, you should be able to explain why using sound reasoning and conventional logic, without accusing the project/internet/country/world of being on some sort of liberal crusade against all that is good and just. Nevertheless, the candidate seems civil and level-headed almost all of the time, and even the best of us get a little too passionate at times. He seems unlikely to cause any serious issues with the tools, so I'll stay in this section. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

72. Support Ad Orientem, proudly sponsored by Walmarts--Stemoc 03:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
73. SSTflyer 03:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
74. Support – qualified and certainly a net positive. —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 04:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
75. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

    Support - While I'm curious about the editorial interest in Dorothy Kilgallen my curiosity doesn't have much to do with anything... Adequate tenure, clean block log, and a measured participation on the talk page of Protests against Donald Trump that indicates a commitment to NPOV first, personal politics seventeenth... Which is as it should be. Now about Dorothy Kilgallen — what's up with that? Carrite (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC) .......Moving to Oppose. I find the AfD participation numbers extremely troubling. The nominee has never, ever, ever, ever voted "Keep" at AfD, has a fairly miserable Win-Loss record of 103-53 when voting Delete (should be 80%+ voting this way there) and most disturbingly of all has voted Delete for 18 Speedy Keeps. Somebody simply does not understand notability doctrine for that to be happening and is therefore not ready for possession of megadeletion tools. .....It has been brought to my attention that I was not looking at correct info. I know what I saw but clicking the AfD link now shows something completely different. Hmmmm I'm out. Carrite (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Carrite, Kilgallen is a secondary figure in the world of JFK assassination conspiracy theorizing. Such articles need level headed people watching them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

76. Support I have noted Ad Orientem adding value to the project through content contributions, counter vandalism, CSD, AFD and other work. Thoughtful, good demeanor, good attitude in dealing with others. Good answers to questions, mature, professional approach. This all adds up to trustworthiness. Also per Dennis Brown and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Donner60 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
77. No issues in supporting. — foxj 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
78. Support. No red flags blah blah blah, I would have supported sooner but I saw a nonzero chance they would blow their candidacy in answering Q9 to 12. But they gave perfect answers there: (1) keeping the RfA-suitable diplomatic tone, (2) no denial of their former opinions, (3) an admission that their edit was controversial even if they did not think so, and (4) a willingness to go with consensus even when it goes the other way. I see that SMcCandlish has dug up more reasonable concerns than "he made an edit I disagreed with" but I do not find them enough to oppose. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
79. Support Very intelligent answers to some difficult questions asked above. SHows the mindset and respects NPOV above their personal biases. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
80. Support. I'm encouraged by Q7 in which Ad Orientem presented the case that we all have our personal prejudices and NPOV is about regulating our own behaviour despite our prejudices. Some comments below are concerned that the candidate is hiding his personal political agenda and writing what he thinks the RfA community wants to hear. I actually think that's a positive thing for an admin - we want admins to participate in editorial discussions with their personal point of view, but adjudicate them fairly. Some may see this candidate as hypocritical but this separation of responsibilities is exactly what we want from admins as they move back and forth between their capacity as a general involved editor and as a neutral admin in different discussions. Deryck C. 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
81. Support -- Always.. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
82. Support, having read sensible and mature answers to questions, and having investigated opponents' concerns to my satisfaction. No such user (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
83. Support, largely based on previous observations of the candidate's work, primarily at AfD. --joe decker^talk 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
84. Support, very thoughtful responses and a very respectable history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
85. Support, strong answers to questions and has a lot of experience in admin areas. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
86. Support, Seems like a good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 17:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
87. Support. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
88. Support - I have been left with a good impression after interacting with the candidate at ITN. I believe that he possesses the qualities that we desire of administrators, and will be an asset to the project in that role. Mamyles (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
89. Support - I somewhat feel a little disappointed by the fact that he has only created nine mainspace articles. However, the great work in AfD and page curation makes up for this in a great way. As always, my selling point was his high value of WikiProjects. Lots of administrators are usually neutral or ignoring of WikiProjects, which are very important in my opinion. Seeing an RfA where the candidate holds WikiProjects to a high priority makes me happy, and so I respect his answer for this. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 18:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
90. Support - no issues whatsoever. Appears to be civil and helpful at all times. Best of luck. 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
91. Support. Have seen Ad Orientem's participation frequently at ANI and am always impressed with the cool-headedness. An obvious choice. agtx 21:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
92. Support. I'm happy with Q1-3; there's an interest and an expression of restraint. I'd like to see more content experience (total article edits and concentration on individual articles). The large percentage of WP space edits threw me off, but the vast bulk of those are ITN. Candidate's AfD stats look good over the last 500 but worse over that last 100; there are many recent reds (3 of the last 4). Delete nom for Fulvic acid gives me a WP:BEFORE shudder because plenty of books mention it. On the plus side, there's a willingness to advise on difficult topics and not a per so-and-so approach. Follow your Q1 statement. Glrx (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
93. Support no concerns. Great editor who won't abuse the tools. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
94. Support Someone I run into often but haven't talked to much. My opinion is rather neutral and I tend to think that folks who have left no negative impression with me should get the mop.--v/r - TP 22:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
95. Support, no concerns. The candidate is well-qualified and the opposition statements are not compelling. --Laser brain (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
96. Support, seems experienced, good response to question 4. Tamwin (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
97. Support. With 99 people supporting you why not make it 100. User is well qualified and ready for the mop. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
98. Support, absolutely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
99. Support – Certainly appears to be the kind of levelheaded hard worker who would be an asset to the admin ranks. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
100. Support good candidate, experienced and constructive. As it has already been extensively discussed in other comments, I'll just say that I am satisfied with the user's answers about "bias" and don't expect any problems in that regard. GermanJoe (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
101. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 06:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
102. Support I really like the answer to Question 13. Administrators should be the face of Wikipedia and helping cultivate new users is a key task that we will need the core users for. South Nashua (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
103. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
104. Support: I trust this candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
105. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
106. Support I do not see any reasons to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
107. Support - Insert oldest RfA cliché in the book here. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
108. Support mainly per Dennis Brown. Intothatdarkness 18:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
109. Support Nom's responses in Q12 seem sufficient enough, overall seems like a great asset to the community. Necrosis Buddha 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
110. Support I've seen him around, seems generally reasonable. Opposes have a few valid points and I think there is a bit of risk here, but expected value is very much on the positive side. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
     • Still supporting, but didn't look closely at Q8 before. That's a problem. I'm hopeful the candidate takes objections to that on board. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
111. Support. I do not recall any negative interactions with Ad Orientem. He appears to be a net positive, so for these reasons I default to the support column. We choose admins based on what they have contributed to the project—we do not choose them based on their personal views, especially if they discuss their views in a cooperative and civil manner. Biblio (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
112. Support, this candidate seems to have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and answered the questions to my satisfaction. Icebob99 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
113. Support Proves to be competent enough to use advanced features. — Music1201 ^talk 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
114. Support Some of the opposition has merit, but the mistakes pointed out seem mostly human and don't sway my opinion. The candidate is a net positive at the very least, and the help at WP:ERRORS alone satisfies me as an answer to Q1 — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
115. Support - a solid editor, who will make a solid admin. bd2412 T 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
116. Support. It is frequently observed that, once an editor has been around a while and edited about controversial topics, it becomes very difficult to pass an RfA because the editor will have too much of a record that provides reasons to oppose. It seems to me that, instead, the right question to ask is whether a candidate will misuse the admin tools to advanced personal preferences. The answers to questions are very good, and satisfy me that the tools will be used properly. Having edited in controversial topics is a feature, not a bug, so long as the user knows when to accept consensus. It demonstrates experience. Having strong opinions, and expressing them with flair, should never, in itself, be disqualifying. This is someone I've seen around, and I support. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
117. Support as user can be trusted to use the administration tools fairly and observe a high standard of conduct. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
118. Support based on my every interaction with this editor. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
119. Support: We all have biases. I'm aware that I have biases and blind spots. I hope that Ad Orientem's past accusations of bias and occasional anger will make him more aware of his own biases. I'll accept Ad Orientem's statements that his biases won't effect his activities as an administrator; we need admins and I trust he can be a good one.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
120. Support, per above...TJH2018talk 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
121. Support - will make a good admin. J947 03:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
122. Support - Solid grasp of policy & good editing experience. There are people I respect !voting on both sides here, but I tend to lean toward the idea that we should not make adminship too big of a deal, and while we all have biases in our editing, what I see from Ad Orientem is forceful, but clueful advocacy for their viewpoint and respect for outcomes and editors they disagree with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
123. Support - no concerns. Graham Beards (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
124. Support per above. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
125. Support. I am very impressed with his responses to difficult questions. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
126. Support. Does great work at WP:ITN/C, and main page related areas are always short of admins these days. If I hadn't done a cursory review of the candidate for WP:ORCP, I would never have discovered their political leanings, because their work at ITN/C is wonderfully apolitical. For an example of how AO's not some partisan wingnut, you just have to look at their !vote at Talk:Fidel_Castro#Survey, where they are opposing using Wikipedia's voice to call Castro a dictator, which goes against the grain of most conservatives out there. I would however suggest that AO take the concerns of the opposers seriously, especially re: sourcing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
127. Support per nom. Also, there should never be a political litmus test to become an admin and it's terrifying that being a conservative is seen as something that precludes one from being one. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
128. Support as per my co-nomination. Ad is not a perfect editor by any means, but then nor was I or (I dare say) any admin nomination in the history of Wikipedia - Ad is proficient in the areas they would like to work in and is trusted by the community to not run around breaking things. The opposes below, while raising good points, should not take away from the plain and apparent fact that this editor will do good work in their areas of interest and ultimately be a net positive to the project -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
129. Support has experience and judgment for an admin DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
130. Support net positive to have the tools. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
131. Sadads (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
132. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
133. This is perhaps the worst edit I have ever seen on wikipedia. The citation of red-top sources, trumpeted in Q6, is also a big misfire. Concerned by these instances and the candidate's clear anti-left politics, I searched long and hard on talk pages (Trump, Middle East, etc) for evidence of bias or egregious error, and found very little. Perhaps the only thing of concern was the peremptory dismissal of Al Jazeera as a reliable source ([12]), contrasting starkly with the candidate's willingness to use right-wing tabloids elsewhere. And the candidate's entirely correct willingness to label ISIS as 'terrorists' ([13]) conflicts with their stubborn and minority insistence on specific and irrefuted sources to label Andrew Wakefield as 'discredited': Talk:Vaxxed. I need to mention these examples so that others can consider them, but I also need to mention that on my review they were outweighed by the number of sensible and balanced contributions, especially concerning fringe theories. I suspect that Ad Orientem will be liable to the occasional and significant error, but I see no evidence of a serious lack of competence or presence of bias in editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
134. Support - Respectfully, much of the opposition appears to center around the candidate's mention of the project's (clear) left-leaning bias. Nonetheless, I expect that the candidate will treat both sides evenhandedly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
135. Support - has experience and credibility as an admin --Jay (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
136. Support lots of experience and strong answers to the questions. I believe this candidate will use the tools well. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
137. Support. I have seen the editor's work, and it clearly shows competence. But Ad Orientem, please consider that what you disparage as political correctness often is simple respect. Our policy on assuming good faith should require no less. Kablammo (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
138. Support. I don't think we need to require admins to have many tens of thousands of edits, or to have imperceptible political leanings. Overall a net positive, let him give it a go if he's willing. Many of the opposes in this case, as with many RfA's are filled with fear of the unknown. We will never have a perfect vision of what a candidate will do, and we urgently need to fill the Admin ranks. He wants to do mainpage edits, let him do it. - Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
139. Support. This over-blown nonsense about the candidate's alleged political leanings is a tempest in a teapot. I fail to see how it outweighs his potential to be a productive administrator. --Drmargi (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
140. Support. Candidate seems to be a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
141. Support Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
142. Support I am not concerned at all about the bias, or potential for opinion-based admin actions because i take the candidate at his word when he says they won't happen and, anyway, to be honest, so many people are ready to drag admins to ANI or elsewhere for perceived wrongdoing that i don't believe that he'd last if he did start acting biasedly. Far more important to me, and almost enough to scupper my support, is the series of events brought up by wmb1058; they seem to me to indicate a certain lack of judgement, and judgement is really what we look for more than anything else in an admin; the events are long enough ago that i believe the candidate can have perspective and see the concern, thereby gain self-knowledge and not do the same again. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
143. I am going to offer a tentative support offered even with knowledge of the below oppose comments. The candidates' answers to the questions show enough nuance to indicate cluefulness, restraint, and reasonableness in use of the administrative toolset. --Izno (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
144. Support, seems a fine candidate for the tools. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
145. Support well suited for the job. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
146. Support Despite looking the reasons in the oppose section, I'll assume good faith here. User may become matured enough for the job with the responsibility. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 06:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
147. The rant about the gender of ships was stronger language than I'd have used but it was more than three years ago. The point about the USA supplying a disproportionate number of editors is wrong, but lots of people have misconceptions about the stats here and it isn't an issue for adminship (yes the USA is the largest English speaking country, but the UK, Canada and Australia all have a larger proportion of the populations as readers and editors than the USA). Otherwise per most of the above. ϢereSpielChequers 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
148. Support seems able and willing. Good answers to the questions. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
149. Support Keeping a cool, calm head is very important. This editor looks like they can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--5 albert square (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, regretfully. In my experience, Ad Orientem takes too many liberties with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and has a perspective toward editing that I don't believe is compatible with adminship. For example, this edit and subsequent discussion: [14] [15] and related talk page discussion. I am concerned about promoting someone to adminship who thinks it's acceptable to make conclusions not found in sources, and who cites "the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project" as a defense for bending policies. My recollection is that they have been other examples that stand out as red flags, but because of time constraints, I don't know if I will be able to list them here before the RfA concludes.- MrX 03:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   While I don't agree with Ad Orientem in this instance and am unsure if it does or does not run afoul of OR, but, I will say that I can't blame them for this perspective. It's not an uncommon one. I'll quote the New York Times who quoted Police Chief Brown; The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.here Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   • There is a left leaning bias on this project. Do you want to count how many people openly claim to be liberals versus how many people openly claim to be conservatives? Do you want me to show you how many people who identify their political leanings have been banned or topic banned recently from one particular side? Do you want me to show you archives from WP:RS where a certain sides sources are consistently deemed non-RS while blogs on the other side are defended? Do you want me to show you where blogs and opinion pieces are used for negative material in BLPs of one side while substantive sources are required and then debated to death on the other side? Because, I can do all of that. If you think it's disputable that this project leans one direction, I have a bridge to sell you.

   I'm not here to have an argument about the bias of the project. But if you plan to oppose this candidacy because the candidate has one particular leaning then I'll be sure to add this to my list of bias on this project.--v/r - TP 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   Is this a bait or a debate? Either way, this is not the place to right great wrongs. The rest of your comment is a flimsy straw man. I never said I was opposing the candidate because of their political leanings. What I did say was that I oppose their promotion because it seemed that they are willing to bend some of our content policies, and justify it because of a perceived left leaning bias. Your suggestion, and that of another editor in this section, that you would keep a list of "bias on the project" seems intended to have a chilling effect, and I find it to be one of the most reprehensible things I've read on an RfA page. I apologize to Ad Orientem if I unintentionally helped facilitate it.- MrX 23:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neither a bait nor a debate. I really hope the conservative media picks this one up.--v/r - TP 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Oppose - The point made by MrX shows a behavior that is recent enough to raise serious concerns for me as well. "Left leaning bias" is also a very problematic blanket term, and a rationale inappropriate for an administrator (or potential administrator) to use in his editing or judgment.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   The candidate's answer to Question 12 is sincere and reasonable enough to mitigate my initial concerns.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose for now. Temperament, politicization, projective overgeneralization about others, and willingness to rant about trivia needs closer examination to see if it's just old-news flukes or is habitual. I'm thinking of this 2013–2014 debate pattern about using "she" to refer to ships: [16], and [17] (self-moderated several days later [18]). While that was a while ago, it's been my experience that this kind of WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS attitude toward language use – as if it's just un-F'ing-thinkable that anyone sane could disagree – and the willingness to vent and fight about it rather than calmly discuss, is not something that most who exhibit these traits abandon easily. But maybe it was just one a one-topic peccadillo and does not reflect the editor's usual approach to disagreement. Still, these comments' particular focus on railing against "political correctness", in combination with above observations about anti-leftist generalizations, gives me pause, even if I like much of what the candidate's supporters have presented. As a centrist/moderate, I have my own issues with far-left language policing (just as I do with far-right propagandizing), but the editor's username could also seem to suggest a pro-rightwing stance (I don't see a history of editing in the topic area to which that term usually applies, so it seems be be a way of saying "⇒"). We don't need admins who are here to advocate a political position. Anyway, need to look over more recent stuff when I get the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   Followup. Candidate does good work at the fringe noticeboard, so that's a plus. A double minus for me is this 2016 ANI thread; Ad_Orientem's view that posting on someone's talk page if they asked you not to is WP:HARASSMENT, rather that just sometimes inappropriate depending on the circumstances, is untenable and badly misreads community expectations and values (talk pages are not Facebook feeds from which you can ban people; they exist for editorial communication, and "I don't like you, go away" is not a magic wand for escaping editorial feedback from other volunteers, especially if you're being disruptive or otherwise problematic). Plus his going after Hijiri_88 in the same thread (in a subsection) for calling someone on "bullshit" is directly hypocritical, since Ad_Orientem had an ANI lodged against him for referring to other editors' "B.S." [19]. Ad_Orientem said of Hijiri_88 "It is becoming increasingly clear that you just don't get it, and I am starting to doubt if that is correctable", which is casting an aspersion about the latter's mental capacity, in CYA wording (I encounter Hijiri_88 frequently on East Asia topics, and the editor has not exhibited any WP:COMPETENCE problems, FWIW). On the plus side, much of Ad_Orietem's informal "clerking" at ANI, to close pointless threads, has been good, and the majority of the candidate's commentary there seems reasoned and reasonable. The overall issue to me is that the candidate is reasonable most of the time, but when not, is really really not. That's not a pattern I'm comfortable with in admins, and most of them that I can think of who have been desysopped exhibited it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Nom's editing history is satisfactory, although there could be more article edits, and the proportion of Wikipedia-space edits is high, but nom's answer to Vanamonde's second question is unsatisfying and, frankly, strikes me as disingenuous. Very well written, yes, but it seems carefully crafted to hide the nom's actual views and say what the nom believes the community wants to hear, so that the nom appear reasonable and neutral. (Since many "oppose" votes provoke responses, which are sometimes deeply sarcastic and demeaning, I assume that this one might as well, but I have no intention of explaining my !vote any further than I have already done here, as this is a matter of intuition and feel, based on 43 years of analysis of the subtext present behind the words presented.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose I am troubled by the candidate's replies on the issue of political bias, and how readily they seem to wear their own ideologies on their sleeve. It rings alarm bells for me that this could be a controversial administrator in the making, with the net effect of spreading resources thinner as others clean up the mess. That is not to say that I don't acknowledge the candidate's contributions to the community, and this looks like it may pass regardless. Talk of a "left-leaning bias", though, just smacks of trouble and I cannot support. KaisaL (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   Before I add this oppose to my list of left-leaning bias encountered in Wikipedia, I ask if you have any evidence of biased editing of the candidate? Or what is troublesome in answers to questions like Q15? I feel you have just identified an ideological opponent and oppose because of that. Arguing common sense against some SJW political correctness about choice of words in talk page (MrX's talk page link above) is not indication of a systematic bias. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Hmm. But I'm a outspoken centrist and raised the same issue with the candidate that KaisaL did. Note that KaisaL's concern is about wearing of ideologies on one's sleeve, not whether KaisaL and the candidate share ideologies. Sandstein also made the same point. Jni, you appear to be claiming to maintain some kind of "left-leaning bias" dirt list, and just doubled down with "SJW" labeling (an attack term used against all who are left-of-center on social issues) and the same "political correctness" ranting that raised a red flag with the candidate to begin with. Clearly, an "identif[ying] an ideological opponent [to] oppose" problem is present here, but it is not coming from KaisaL's end (and in your case appears to be misidentifying). You are not helping the candidate in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose, but I'm only bringing up this concern because you are sailing though this. It wouldn't be fair to single you out here for what I view as a community-wide problem. The issue I'm raising is the treatment of a particular user, Daniellagreen by other editors, and of course, the RfA candidate in particular. Ms. Green began editing in September 2013, and as her contribution history shows, quickly became a prolific Content Creator, creating many new articles of local interest to people living in western New York. In her first eleven months here, she amassed over 3300 article-space edits. She patiently worked within our Articles for Creation system, until finally after two rejections, her first article Gernatt Family of Companies, was accepted on October 29, 2013. After that, she created a variety of articles on topics including a University president, a bike path, a US House of Representatives committee, and a White House task force. If it seems she has a particular aptitude for content writing, I note that she asserts on her user page that she is "an experienced journalist, writer, and writing teacher". Her new Wiki career was progressing swimmingly until she attempted to add a "Notable owners" section to a horse breed article in June 2014. That was the first speed bump she ran into, but her career really took a hit when her first article fell under scrutiny in October 2014. By January 2015, the issue was getting ugly, and Ad Orientem's New Years Eve pile-on, and Happy New Years Day formal and Final Warning spelled the de facto end to her Wikipedia content-writing career, as she has gone into {{semiretired}}ment. Ad Orientem's hatting Daniellagreen not once, not twice, but three times on his talk page is conduct unbecoming on an administrator. He couldn't handle this himself, as he requested intervention at ANI. Had my favorite admin without a sense of humor not intervened, I fear that this poor gal was on the verge of getting blocked or worse. The community has unfairly thrown assume-good-faith out the window and all-but-convicted her of being a paid editor, by showing extreme skepticism for the statement she placed, in boldface, on her talk page: "My participation and contributions to Wikipedia are completely voluntary. I have not received any compensation for my efforts. Additionally, I am not connected by family or employment relationships with any of the articles that I edit." Her only sin, in my view (reading between the lines and speculating a bit), is wanting to honor what is probably the most respected family in her area, who she saw at their church at least once, with a positive presence on Wikipedia. A family that employs 200 of her neighbors in their businesses including a gravel plant, in an area where blue-collar workers are hurting from the loss of manufacturing jobs. It's not Daniellagreen that needs to drop the stick, it's the community. Or we'll keep losing more editors like her. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose I rarely oppose. I think Ad Orientem has sufficient experience to be an administrator, but the most important skill an administrator must have is the ability to diagnose complex issues, especially those involving relatively new editors. I have seen similar cases to Daniellagreen and whether they turn out well often depend on the skills of one or more administrators. wbm1058's concern is sufficient for me to oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose The candidate's history of content creation is weak and so they don't have permissions such as autopatrolled, as they do not qualify. This weakness can be seen in their answer to Q6 where they are asked to demonstrate their use of reliable sources. They respond with this example. This is a controversial topic but the bundle of sources seems quite weak – TRUNEWS; Metro; Washington Examiner; Daily Star; Daily Express; The Wrap; The Sun; Charisma News. This is a collection of tabloids including red tops that have a partisan stance about politics and so we would not normally consider them reliable. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose—the editor doesn't have enough article creations. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Having carefully considered the advice given to you on your talk page by 2 experienced Wikipedians ([20] and [21]), would you be willing to provide additional rationale for this oppose? In the event that this RFA needs further examination by the closing bureaucrats, your oppose as written now does not seem to carry very much weight. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   @MartinZ02: Have you ever supported an RfA? Your standards are bizarre. If I make 24 FAs, and no other articles, you still wouldn't support me for adminship? Because that appears to fail your criteria. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   @ThePlatypusofDoom: I supported Oshwah and Yash! —MartinZ02 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Questionably sufficient content work is one of the most frequent oppose rationales, Mr Ernie, and I would think you should know that if you're going to go around trying to "police" RfAs. RfA doesn't need you do that; we already have 'Crats clerking the process. Many RfA respondents will not support a candidate who does not have multiple FAs under their belt, or at least a noteworthy pile of GAs. MartinZ02 is not the only editor to have raised a low-content-work concern with the candidate. It is not necessary for commenters here to write huge pro or con essays. The concern is one that I share, actually, but did not feel like including in my own comments. It isn't required for commenters to include every rationale they can think of, either. One is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

9. Oppose I have been on the fence on this one for a while now and until just now had decided to sit this one out. There is a lot to like about Ad Orientem, but there have been a few things that make me uneasy (the overreaction to an edit summary, saying that "the United States is by far the most powerful English speaking country in the world", not checking sources correctly and some of the other issues brought up above). None of these were major, but were enough to keep me out of supporting. However, the diff presented above by Andrew D is far more compelling. It is from November and the candidate himself presents it as an example of a good edit. WP:overcite aside, I am sorry but I don't think any editor that uses Metro and some of those other sources in what is essentially a BLP is ready to be an admin. AIRcorn (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose due to the concerns brought up by Mr. X, SMcCandlish, KaisaL, Andrew Davidson, and Aircorn. Ad Orientem has done some good work here which we should all applaud, but I'm surprised more editors are not taking these concerns seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose Between the diffs provided by MrX and SMcCandlish, the comment about left-leaning bias, and the use of poor-quality sources in a contentious political article, I don't trust that Ad Orientem will be able to work in controversial areas as an admin without injecting his personal opinions or causing further controversy. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose Due to the use of Pentecostal tabloids as sources, combined with the left-leaning bias comments.--Catlemur (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose, with regrets. By all accounts, Ad Orientem is a good editor, but people who go on about "the political correctness police" are not people I am comfortable with entrusting with authority in an international collaborative project made up of people of wildly varying backgrounds and persuasions who depend on a shared spirit of collegiality and respect, rather than divisive rhetoric, to work well with one another. It does not help in this regard that Ad Orientem chooses to describe himself as a "reactionary trapped in the wrong century" and a "monarchist" on his user page. My personal view is that considering WP:N, a Wikipedian should ideally comport themselves such that their personal political or ideological views are not discernible in any way from their on-wiki presence or editing. I know that this is unrealistic to expect even from most admin candidates (and I myself have probably fallen foul of it on several occasions), but this open espousal of divisive personal views is not, I think, suitable for the position sought here. (This is not, for me, about left- or right-wing politics: I once voiced the same concerns about an admin, now retired I think, whose user page was full of images of Marx and Lenin and such.)  Sandstein  18:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    As far as I can see, prior to this discussion, the comment about liberal bias was one sentence in passing in a larger context. I'm not sure I'd characterize that as "going on about" political correctness, but perhaps I missed something. Besides the userboxes and that one comment, do you see more evidence of a pre-occupation with political correctness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    When an editor calling himself a "monarchist" says that they support the rightful rule of Emperor Norton and his dynasty, then there is certainly an element of tongue-in-cheek humor involved, Sandstein. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but the risk one incurs in making jokes is that others may not get them. Eggishorn, I don't necessarily see a "preoccupation", but a willingness to associate oneself prominently with very divisive viewpoints, and that is part of the problem I see here.  Sandstein  09:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

    I myself am proud to be a Marxist—Lennonist. Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

14. Oppose. As in the candidate response to my question above, I know articles have to "start somewhere" and they go through many iterations & improvements, but it took less than 15 minutes for the candidate to add additional references to and craft 2 more sentences for Yahoo! data breaches. It's a small thing, perhaps, compared to the candidate's many accomplishments (especially his Main Page editing), but I think improving/editing/referencing could have easily been done before publishing. Shearonink (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose There are a few good reasons to oppose this candidate. None of them is more important than the issue discussed in Q8. Revdel is one of the most powerful tools we give an administrator, and it is also one of the most prone to abuse. I cannot support a candidate who exercises such poor judgment over the use of revision deletion. If that were the only red flag, I would still have to oppose. However, I'm also concerned with the treatment of Daniellagreen as eloquently summarized in Wbm1058's oppose. Any candidate with run-ins on ANI merits scrutiny, but the fact that administrator intervention was required for the user to disengage is worrisome. Generally speaking, the candidate is a valuable contributor to the project, but when it comes to the use of admin tools, he fails to meet even my bare minimum standard of WP:NETPOSITIVE. If, in the future, he can demonstrate that he has overcome these concerns of mine, I would happily lend my support. But his answers to questions about his past behavior in this RfA do not fill me with confidence at this time. I have to register a solid "oppose". AlexEng^(TALK) 01:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

    I've read Q8, the discussion behind it, and the answer, but I don't see poor judgement on the candidate's part at all. If I had seen that edit summary, I would have hidden it as soon as possible, as would many of my colleagues. Indeed, it was eventually hidden by another admin. WP isn't censored, but no purpose is served by leaving offensive edit summaries visible in article edit histories. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

    Then I hope you, too, reconsider your position on the use of revdel. Bearing in mind that ...RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users..., I think it's safe to say that deleting an ordinary interjection, even though it may cause offense to somebody, constitutes inappropriate censorship. We wouldn't even condone that type of censorship on a talk page. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

16. Oppose I share Andrew D.'s concerns, and have an additional--though lesser--concern about the record as nom at AfD. I hesitated here because I am impressed by Ad Orientem's record in numerous ways and see that they're a valuable contributor to the project, but if I am candid, the concerns do rise to the level of an oppose vote for adminship at this time for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose. After following various links and reading more of Ad Orientem's interactions with other editors, I share SMcCandlish's concerns. There's a problem with tone and temperament. Things like the "rant" about ships, the posts on civility at AN/I (this [22], for example, and no wonder people thought the candidate was already an admin [23]), and the final warning on New Year's Day all add up to someone who's not quite right for the job. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

    I don't have a problem with those remarks. I'd rather have an admin who was straight talking than one who pussy foots around to be "nice". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

    We differ there. Some of Ad Orientem's remarks at AN/I are not what I'd hope to read from an admin, plain-spoken or not. Another concern which I somehow missed when I posted my !vote is the choice of sources here [24], and the fact that Ad Orientem chose those as an example in this RFA. I may have an anti-tabloid bias. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

    I've seen worse from admins. And why has everybody pulled out the same diff for opposing - I am happy to AGF that this is a one-off mistake because the Sun and the Express are not too well-known in the US. Has anyone got any other diffs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

18. Oppose. The "political bias" element raises a small question mark for me (per MrX); the dubious sources are a bigger problem (per Andrew D); their conduct at the 2016 ANI (per  SMcCandlish) is a further concern. For me the treatment of Daniellagreen (per wbm1058) is the strongest indicator that the approach and temperament isn't right: that seems to cross the line to harassment of a good editor. I dread to think what would have happened if they had the mop back then. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
19. Regretful oppose, moving from support. I rarely oppose an RfA, but I supported before reading the candidate's answer to Q12 (which gave me the same feeling it gave BMK), and I can't get past reservations raised by MrX, wbm1058 and Sandstein. Not enough article work, and interpersonal issues in the recent past which are incompatible with adminship at this time. Miniapolis 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose, moved from support. Still concerned about the "Jesus fucking christ" thing, too tired to link to it. Also concerned about systematic bias, and I feel like he could still help new editors without being an admin. If he can clean up his act, I may support him if he goes for admin again. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose not ready IMO. Indifference towards understanding systemic bias and refraining from discussing it isn't convincing enough for me to !vote Support for this editor. The type of apathy found in several of this editor's answers just allows hate and abuse to proliferate. I also find some of the editor's discourse unnecessarily harsh and unobjective. Hmlarson (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I don't like to oppose RFAs, and I appreciate Ad Orientem's answers to some of the questions, but there are too many red flags here (such as the rants about political correctness and the issues at 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers). Admins don't need to be perfect, but they should be able to model civility, level-headedness, and diplomacy, and after looking at the diffs provided by other editors, I don't have full confidence that Ad Orientem will do this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose. I have not been involved with this editor -- that I can recall. That said there are a number of things that make me uneasy about this nomination. I'm especially not impressed by Q6 and Q8, or by his userpage.

    The problem in Q6 is not so much that the candidate used tabloids as sources (the horror!), but that he, deliberately and thoughtfully, offered an edit containing some of the lowest-quality sources available as an example of good sources in his own RfA. Well, to be fair the Daily Mail wasn't in there... I would understand if it were one bad edit, cherry picked among thousands of good ones by someone out to get him, but he seems to think it was a good one, a point in his favour. That I just don't get. (Compare with recent edits on Vaxxed and its Talk when it comes to pickiness of sources.)

    Q8 also strikes me as a clear-cut violation of WP:NOTCENSORED; dislike of "political correctness" (another topic of contention) cuts both ways.

    His userpage also displays some strange judgement calls, prominently informing me, within the first 5 seconds of letting my eyes roam, that he's a theology-enjoying orthodox monarchist reactionary trapped in the wrong century. Ooookay; so glad I didn't ask... Maybe I am revealing my own biases here (theologians don't get invited to my parties; which I throw often; incidentally, those are very fun and I have many many many friends. I can prove all this using modal logic) but in my book that's not exactly the most confidence-inspiring shop front for an admin. Having carefully composed that store front seems to me as odd a choice as the items advertised in it -- there is a whiff of in your faceness about that. Well, that or a rare level of obliviousness, neither of which enthuses me. (The "monarchist" bit might be facetious -- c.f. Norton box -- but it's really hard to tell, and if so, I don't quite grasp the humour.)

    I am skipping over the "left-leaning bias" and other stuff that's been mentioned before. In some instances (like the rant on ships' grammatical genders), I actually sympathise.

    That said, no, one can never perfectly predict how an admin will turn out, but that is no argument for ignoring red flags; not when they are so prodigally offered. Given that there are two other excellent candidates running simultaneously, why rely on this candidate (who was at best lukewarm at the idea of becoming an admin in the first place) not turning out to be as much of an omen of incoming drama as he chose, in various ways, to make himself appear? He seems to be doing just fine as he is, and I don't see that he has great want or need for the tools, or that there is a great need for him to have them. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 01:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

24. Oppose I've been sitting on the sidelines for a bit and have slowly moved in this direction. The whole Q6 answer-debacle doesn't concern me in the least. It would happen once, maybe twice, and someone would tell Ad to knock it off. I also appreciate the real answer to Q12, even if I disagree with parts of it. On the other hand, the tabloid sourcing is concerning, as is the similar issue brought up by MrX. And above all, Mx. Granger's last sentence states my bottom line: "[admins] should be able to model civility, level-headedness, and diplomacy, and after looking at the diffs provided by other editors, I don't have full confidence that Ad Orientem will do this." Sorry, Ad. This still has a good shot at passing, and I sincerely hope I'll look back at this !vote and see that I was wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose because of rants. Coolheadedness is an essential characteristic for admins, as others have noted. --Petrichori (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose too many red flags have been brought up by opposers to support. At this stage Ad Orientem looks set to become an admin, so my oppose is merely to underline what other opposers have said in the hope that Ad Orientem will take those concerns on board, especially as there are plenty of folks who see the good things that Ad Orientem has done and is capable of. Concerns have been raised over temperament - Ad Orientem, you can take time out to calm down, or type out what you want to say, read it over, then edit it down until it becomes reasonable before posting. Concern is raised that you pile on instead of doing the right thing and stepping in where someone is being unfairly victimised - Ad Orientem, look more carefully into issues to ensure what is being said is accurate, and in cases where it is, but it hasn't been explained clearly, take some time out to speak human to human to the other person; often even vandals will stop vandalising if someone explains to them on a one to one level that what they are doing is not helpful, rather than simply stepping up the "fight", as that tends to simply escalate matters (or push it into a different area). Concern has been brought up regarding you pursuing a political agenda - I'm uncomfortable that has been brought up by both opposers and supporters. Removing bias is what we are about. Removing one bias but not the other is not what we are about, and that troubles me. If someone is aware they have a particular political viewpoint or personal views on an issue, best not to edit in that subject area. Anyone deliberately setting out to redress what they perceive to be right or left wing bias on an article (rather than seeking to balance the article as a whole) tends to create problems. Some of our worse edit wars and most unstable articles come from political warriors seeking to redress bias. If you know you have a political viewpoint, then best stay away (at least at first) from political articles, and any debates or issues with a political aspect. This may keep you from the areas you may most want to be involved, but it will also mean you have a calmer, less stressful, happier, and more productive time as an admin. When you feel you have a more balanced perspective on political bias in Wikipedia, and can control your own leanings in any direction, that is the time you can allow yourself to get involved in political area of Wikipedia. Good luck with everything! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose Nothing personal as I don't even know the guy, but by some comments here he wouldn't be my first choose, and as there's plenty of alternatives right now... Bertdrunk (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose It would be tedious to list all the "pers" I agree with. Suffice to say SMcCandlish's findings first raised skepticism in me, and others have elaborated on that already. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Too many red flags listed by the !voters above, temperament most troublingly. - Nellis 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
30. Hesitant oppose. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite there yet, given the legitimate concerns over sourcing, "rants," OR, revdel, and other issues cited above. GAB^gab 19:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Oppose, with regret. I have nothing to add beyond what SilkTork said above. –Grondemar 22:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
32. Oppose. After giving this much thought, I must also agree with SilkTork. Jonathunder (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose primarily due to Q6 and the sourcing concerns as explained by Andrew D. I would not typically be driven to oppose based on this, but the candidate's stated desire to work in ITN and other main page related articles makes it important for me that they are very conservative with regards to using reliable sources given the visibility of the articles linked from ITN. A willingness to use tabloid and such sources in those circumstances (since the diff in question is on a current events-related article) is alarming to me. C628 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose. I'm concerned about the diff SMcCandlish offered, in which people not wanting to use "she" for ships are "Ivory Tower twits" and "over educated cap and gown clowns", and even more concerned about this edit to Protests against Donald Trump, pointed out by Andrew Davidson, where Ad Orientem uses British tabloids (The Sun, Daily Express and Daily Star) and religious sites (truenews.com and Charisma (magazine)) as sources for Trump receiving threats. That's completely inappropriate sourcing. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    A significant percentage of Ad Orientem's edits appear to be minor edits not marked as minor, where he adds a citation-needed tag or similar, [25][26] delinks a year, [27] or removes a red link. [28] SarahSV ^(talk) 06:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I would want CN edits and such to be marked as minor. I'd only mark as minor utterly uncontroversial edits such as obvious typo fixes, spacing fixes, template freshening etc. A , I might want to contest. I don't recall any specific policy on that, but my feeling is that it's muuuch better to abstain from marking edits as minor, even if they could, rather than marking as minor edits that are not. I personally would consider acceptable to never mark anything as minor, short of AWB or other repetitive and tedious editing. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

35. Oppose. Per above. – ishwar  (speak) 07:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
36. Oppose - I've been watching this RfA for a few days, and if I had commented at the start then it would have been to support the candidate. However, I refrained from commenting at first, as I had the feeling that I wanted to look into the case a bit further. It's a tricky one as I think there are many indications that Ad Orientem would make a good admin. However, I ultimately (and regretfully) feel that I must oppose. It worries me that the candidate picked this edit, which added tabloid sources to an article on a controversial topic, as an example of their use of reliable sources. Then there is this, which refers to scholars as "Ivory Tower twits" and "over educated cap and gown clowns" (not to mention the block-caps rant about "political correctness"). That's not a very constructive way to engage in debate here or a very healthy attitude to scholarly sources, which are in most cases our most reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Looking at the second comment again, perhaps it was directed at other editors rather than at scholars. If so, then it's a civility problem, and is unfair given that those proposing the change had presented empirical evidence, which at least merited civil engagement. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Oppose - Don't care about the nominee's politics as he puts NPOV first. Don't care about his rant about ships. Do care very much that he has never voted 'Keep" at an AfD debate, that he has voted "Delete" correctly only something like 2/3 of the time, and that he has voted "Delete" 18 times on debates that ended up as Speedy Keeps. This indicates both militant deletionism and a complete misunderstanding of notability doctrine — which is a disqualifier for the holding of megadeletion tools in my book. This nomination is apt to pass, so my late move here is more of a protest and a warning to the future administrator to stay within his depth and to not become involved "making policy" with the deletion tools. Carrite (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC) ...... It has been brought to my attention that I was looking at a defective AfD participation matrix. No idea about the cause of the glitch... I'm out. Carrite (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending answers to questions. If anyone notices I'm still here with a couple days left, ping me please. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (moving to support)

Neutral pending answers to Q9/10. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (moved to support)

1. Neutral. This is my first-ever non-support !vote at an RfA. I hesitate to cast it because it's clear the candidate has many fine qualities, and I believe it is very unlikely they'll misuse the tools. I am taken aback, however, by the "reliable" sources selected by the candidate for a blatantly controversial article, as documented by Andrew D. in the opposes above. This demonstrates a serious lapse in judgment, imo; finding good sources for current or recent events is a basic skill every Wikipedian should have, and much better sources were readily available. I also find the allegation of “left leaning bias” deeply troubling (for reasons I won’t try to concisely summarize here) and am unimpressed by the answers to questions 8–12. Finally, I find it curious that the candidate holds no advanced permissions; while this probably shouldn't be a prerequisite for being handed a mop, it would provide ready evidence of an editor's proclivity for using tools within policy—which is, after all, the fundamental question every RfA should turn on. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Uneasy. Have seen him around and have not had any particular concern. SMcCandlish's opinion influences me, and I am concerned about the number of bluelinks in his ProdLog, User:Ad Orientem/PROD log, even though I would like to give him credit for maintaining the ProdLog. User:Ad_Orientem/CSD_log looks good, as does his AfD !voting. However, his AfD nomination stats, while not bad, are not good, with over one in ten nominations being "speedy keep" of particular concern. I have yet to look at individual cases, and am open to a response. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Looking at a large number of random AfD contributions from Ad_Orientem, I'm not seeing a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

3. I'm afraid that after a good deal of thought, I must !vote neutral here. The positives first: Ad Orientem is clearly experienced, with non-ideal but non-trivial content creation, a need for the tools, and demonstrated competence in the area they want to use the tools in. They are also very civil. Even in the area that I take issue with, I believe they are editing in good faith, and so I haven't the heart to jump into the oppose column.
   Why, then, am I not supporting them? Let me be clear, it is not because of their ideology per se; indeed, I think it is a very healthy thing for Wikipedia to have a mixture of ideologies among its editors. And I'm not simply referring to a mixture of the American notion of "liberal" and "conservative" either. However, I am deeply dissatisfied with the answer to my followup question, as I see that response as an invocation of IAR in a situation where it is highly inappropriate, and in a manner that seems based on "real life" common sense, which is precisely the opposite of what WP:COMMON says. This is not a trivial issue: there have been a number of prominent disputes, including several that have gone to ARBCOM, which have hinged in part on the use of involved individuals as sources, which is strongly discouraged by WP:SECONDARY. The example that jumps to mind is this AfD, but there are others. Administrators are almost certainly going to be drawn into dispute resolution of some sort sooner or later, and clarity on this point is essential, IMO.
   In any case, it seems at this point that Ad Orientem is likely to receive the tools. I wish them the very best of luck, and I hope to goodness that they keep this concern in mind, and prove it to be misplaced. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Vanamonde, what does Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_and_state-sponsored_terrorism have to do with Ad_Orientem? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   It had nothing directly to do with Ad Orientem. It is an example of a dispute which hinged on the use of involved individuals as sources, which required administrator action. Ad Orientem's answer makes me believe he would not be entirely equipped to deal with it appropriately. Also, can whoever indented my comment please return it to looking like one comment, rather than me replying to my own !vote? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)I modified the formatting per your wishes, I think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Neutral. I'm not concerned at all about the "Oppose" votes from partisan political opponents. That's the kind of stuff we really shouldn't be considering at all. We have many admins whose political views are well known to lie on the other end of the political spectrum, yet no one questions their fitness for adminship. However, Wbm1058's oppose vote is legitimate, and it's enough reason to give me pause here. The way a prolific content contributor like Daniellagreen was badgered and eventually driven off of the project for basically no reason at all except a stunning lack of WP:AGF is pretty much a textbook example of exactly how a Wikipedia administrator should not behave. Those of us who edit articles relating to Western New York and related topics still miss her valuable contributions very much. In all honesty, I would probably be in the "Oppose" section here, except for the fact that I feel you're already catching way too much flak over all this political nonsense, and I don't want to ding you any further. But, in the likely event that you do wind up becoming an admin, please remember that content contributors are not "the enemy" here on Wikipedia. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Neutral, the answer to Q22 is not terrible enough to stick me in the Oppose column, but neither does it do away with my concerns about this editor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Re. "the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project" I would be concerned if anyone saw adminship here as a platform either for defending or resisting a particular political view. IanB2 (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  I think you take that quote a bit out of context. It doesn't seem to be that he is suggesting he should become an admin to fix this bias or insert his own political point of view - he could already do that with the edit button. Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship suggests that there is a history of people claiming this, though it does seem to be improving. I will note that it's quite the US-centric viewpoint; Canadian political articles here are, on the whole, quite balanced I would say. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  I would be extremely concerned as well if anyone saw adminship here as a platform [to defend] a particular political view. But that quote does not state or imply a willingness to use adminship in this way. Honestly, it is fairly obvious that Wikipedia editors are more left-leaning (rather "liberal-leaning", actually, with the US meaning of the term "liberal") than the general population, and it is probable that articles reflect that state of things. I would also be concerned if an admin hopeful claimed that they did not see the slightest possibility of political bias in WP.

  A parallel is obvious if you look at articles on science fringe topics (e.g. Creationism, Acupuncture, etc.) where almost every editor save a few SPAs is from the same "side". While the resulting articles certainly do not represent the median view of the general population, they are (supposedly) "balanced" because they weight each view according to the strength of evidence that supports it (or so they should). The hope behind the truckloads of bureaucracy generated by WP:BRD, RfCs and the like is that when goodwill editors cooperate, they will reach an article that is the most truthful representation of the current debate (although not The Truth itself), no matter the positions of said editors in the debate. If that result is not in line with the general sentiment, too bad. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ach, AO is probably onto something there - after all, reality has a well-known liberal bias  ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  Reality doesn't have a bias. Perception is the lens through which we view reality. Politics can spin the truth one way or the other. The glass is both half full and half empty depending on who is looking at it.--v/r - TP 07:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since it came up, I would just like to put the idea out there that the AGF guideline is not meant to be an intimidation tool or blamestick. AGF really is something that works best when it lives privately within each individual heart and mind. I'm sure I'm a preaching sinner, notably on this very occasion, but I felt it might do at least a small amount of global good if I could get a few people joining me in this contemplation. I hope y'all might forgive me this patch of somewhat self-ironic commentary and judge it on its merits, not its shortcomings. Best regards, Samsara 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How long has this candidate been editing

• According to the first nominator: "over 3 years"
• According to the second nominator: "six year old account"

Just curious? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Six years, but he has only been active the last three years. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Account is six years old (registration date), but serious editing started 2013. This kind of pattern is fairly typical. See oldest contributions here: [29] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 15:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed the reason! I used the language "active editor" because I think it's much more useful to know how long an editor has been active on Wikipedia versus simply knowing when they created their account. Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

MartinZ02, to say 'only' in this context in English has a demeaning connotation. Could you please now start reading some of the messages that have been posted on your talk page over the past couple of months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree. "They told me he was seven foot tall, burrin fact he's only six foot six" - no-one would think you were calling that person a shortie: Noyster (talk), 10:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've already done that. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be tough to parse sometimes. I created my account in 2006 but didn't edit much until 2008. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Conservative bias

• How many people's RfAs would be opposed for making a comment that there is a conservative bias?--v/r - TP 17:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose strictly on that basis, but it wouldn't be a point in their favor. For starters, I find the notion of binary left and right ideologies close to meaningless; the world, and its inhabitants, are way too complex to be reduced to such terms, and so is our little microcosm. The terms also mean different things to different people, and many of us suffer from a lack of historical and geographical perspective when assigning them to others or even to ourselves. Nevertheless, it's one thing to consider this in the abstract and quite another to consider it in a real-world context. Claims of left-wing bias have been rampant in various public spheres, including Wikipedia, for years. I'm unaware that any such claims have ever been objectively documented. More importantly, whether or not they're true, I'm unaware of their ever having been helpful or constructive. Instead, they are polarizing, divisive, and unlikely to help bring people together. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose a nominee who made such a statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It would depend entirely on the context for me. Obviously, we all agree that there are certain articles on the project that are biased in one direction or the other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'd need to see a strong argument as I'm pretty sure the bias is the other way around (and I'm fairly liberal). Without that strong argument, I'd be more likely to oppose. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly my thoughts. Unless special context etc. I would see a "conservative bias" comment as strikingly out of touch with reality, hence a red flag. (Of course, if they can they provide hard data to support the comment, I would be corrected - but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• The phrases "conservative bias" and "liberal bias" tell more about the individuals using them than they do about the topics that they aim to describe. It forces me to question whether or not their intention is to truly help build an encyclopedia. All Wikipedians are entitled to hold political views; however, as a community, we should not support those users whose editing is based on these type of unclear buzzwords.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would be very likely to oppose such a candidate. That would be an absurd statement. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, re: Kilgallen

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. May be of interest to those wanting to know, "what's up with that?" wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Advice to any admin with heavy opposes related to WP:NPOV/Bias

It's one thing to say "if I'm religious, I don't see any problem editing articles about my religion or other religions." Unless you actually make obviously biased edits, nobody will notice.

But using the mop is a whole different matter: If more than a few editors have accused you of bias in a given topic, using the mop for anything but the most obviously-no-bias-involved reasons on that article or topic will leave you wide open to accusations of mis-using the bit. Even if you are totally innocent and eventually exonerated, the drama will suck up your time and that of others, which is bad for the project.

Ad Orientem, several users have raised concerns about your bias in certain topic areas. For your own sake, if this nomination is successful, I would advise you to err on the side of caution and treat these topics as if you were an involved administrator, even if you are not. Not doing so will open you up to accusations of mis-using the mop. Even if unfounded, these accusations will be an unnecessary distraction to you and others.

As an aside, I haven't made up my mind if I will support your nomination, oppose it, become "officially" neutral, or abstain. The deadline is approaching and I don't want to put a stake in the ground without doing my homework in this case. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)