Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem

Ad Orientem

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (57/2/1); 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 overwhelming 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.

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:

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, everybody 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)

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)

2. 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)

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)

1. Neutral pending answers to Q9/10. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 18 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)