Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem

Ad Orientem

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (96/5/0); 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?

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)
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)
54. 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)
55. 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)
56. 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)
57. 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)
58. 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)
59. 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)
60. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. 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)
64. 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)
65. Support I like clue, and he has it. Katie^talk 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
66. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
67. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
68. 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)
69. Stephen 01:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
70. Support. Very well qualified candidate, and good attitude shown in his answers. Fbergo (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
71. Support per those above and the response to question 16. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
72. 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)
73. Genuinely thought he was one. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
74. Support Ad Orientem, proudly sponsored by Walmarts--Stemoc 03:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
75. SSTflyer 03:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
76. Support – qualified and certainly a net positive. —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 04:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
77. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
78. 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)

    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)

79. 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)
80. No issues in supporting. — foxj 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
81. 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)
82. 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)
83. 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)
84. Support -- Always.. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
85. 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)
86. Support, largely based on previous observations of the candidate's work, primarily at AfD. --joe decker^talk 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
87. Support, very thoughtful responses and a very respectable history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
88. Support, strong answers to questions and has a lot of experience in admin areas. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
89. Support, Seems like a good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 17:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
90. Support. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
91. 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)
92. 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)
93. 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)
94. 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)
95. 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 edits and concentration on 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)
96. Support no concerns. Great editor who won't abuse the tools. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:44, 19 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: [12] [13] 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)

   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: [14], and [15] (self-moderated several days later [16]). 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 "&rRarr;"). 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." [17]. 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)
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)

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)

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)