Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Onel5969


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

Onel5969
'''Final (81/27/5); ended 11:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC) - Regretfully, withdrawn by candidate. Sam Walton (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Allow me to bend your ear once more, this time to present Onel5969 for your consideration for administrator rights. Onel has amassed a huge 113,000 edits over the course of the 3 years he has been actively editing Wikipedia, amassing a wealth of experience across a range of areas. Onel is an accomplished content creator, with somewhere in the region of 800 article creations, including a number of Good Articles. He has also contributed extensively to AfD, where his votes have a good record of matching outcomes and appear to always sensible and well argued, has one of the longest CSD logs I've ever seen, and does great work at AfC. From browsing Onel's posts and replies to talk pages I found him to be civil, helpful, and happy to ask other editors with more experience in an area for their opinions on a topic rather than make an edit he wasn't completely certain about; qualities that I think would make him a great administrator.

I had a couple of minor queries prior to nominating Onel, but he answered my questions in more than sufficient quality and depth to alleviate any concerns; I invite you to read his answers to avoid duplicating the questions. Overall, Onel is a highly qualified editor who I think could do great work with the mop, and if you take a look at his contributions I'm sure you'll agree. Sam Walton (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I am delighted to be able to co-nominate Onel5969. I first began urging him to consider adminship more than a year ago, and I am glad he has finally decided to take the plunge. His record, as detailed by Sam Walton above, is outstanding, particular in deletion areas and in content creation. I was also impressed by his work at Articles for Creation, where gentleness and patience are very important - qualities that an admin needs in abundance. I have personally experienced his helpfulness and collaborative spirit. And anyone who can get to more than 100,000 edits with a clean block log clearly knows how to get along with other editors. I believe he will be a strong addition to our admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's humbling to have two such experienced editors write such remarks, and so I humbly accept.

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: - Initially, I think I would be more involved in what I perceive as the grunt work: CSD, RPP, vandal blocking, page moves, closing AfD discussions. Beyond that I would look at where there are currently backlogs, and then begin to help out in those areas. That’s how I try to operate now as an editor: AfC becomes backlogged, I try to help get that backlog down, same with NPP (although that seems endless), AfD, AfC. But I’ve learned not to leap into things, but take things slowly, watchlist articles and see how other editors deal with issues. As I deal more and more with questions and issues which as an editor I’ve never had to deal with, I intend to be very cautious, and probably be obnoxious in asking other admins for help/advice.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: - A very interesting self-reflective question. I think anti-vandalism is very important, and I’m pretty proud of my work in that area, although in recent months I’ve focused more in other areas. Helping new editors get their articles published through AfC is something I’m extremely proud of. That can be very time-consuming, and so I occasionally take breaks from it. I assisted another editor in getting an article, The FP, to FA status, and I worked pretty hard to bring the Phoenix, Arizona piece to GA status. Also pretty proud of the improvements I made to List of RKO Pictures films (although I was disappointed it didn’t make it to Featured List status). And I really enjoy researching and developing articles on older films and film personalities; being particularly proud of Edward Cronjager, Nick Stuart, Robert Kurrle and Samuel J. Briskin. But sometimes there simply isn’t enough citable material to bring an article further along. A perfect case in point would be the article I created on Blaise Diesbourg.  I was copy-editing an article (for the life of me, I can’t remember the name), and came across his name. Started to research him and found his story fascinating.  But sometimes it’s the little things, like helping a stub article like Putong along; taking a one-line unreferenced piece and doing a bit of research to get it into something more than a simply dictionary definition.


 * 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: - While I attempt to avoid conflicts, sometimes when you are active it seems to be unavoidable. Recently, I can’t think of a conflict, more of disagreements which were resolved within a day or two. Back on May 23, I had a disagreement over the concept of WP:UNDUE on the Americans for Prosperity article. The back and forth lasted for that day, and when it was clear consensus was not going to go my way, I backed away from the discussion. That’s how most disagreements are: differing interpretations of policy/guidelines/essays, etc. I’ve had disagreements with users about WP:GEOLAND, and what constitutes legal recognition. The only real issue (in my viewpoint) that I’ve had is with an editor in the Spring and Fall of 2015. Said editor has since been banned from editing on Wikipedia (not due to the conflict between us), so I see no point in further disparaging them by naming them. My pattern of dealing with such disagreements is to seek consensus, and then abide by that consensus.

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 ATS
 * 4. In light of the oppose !vote by BMK, what would you say to appease any concerns by the community that your application of the tools may be motivated by political bias?
 * A: - Thanks for the question . First, while I respect BMK's contributions, he was not entirely accurate in his description. I did not object to including the participation of the Koch brothers' funding of the organization, merely it being mentioned in the lead. That being said, the discussion lasted for less than a day, and I abided by the consensus on the talk page. That alone should be the standard upon which that discussion is judged by. Disagreements will come up, differing interpretations of guidelines/essays, but in the end it is consensus which makes this project work.


 * 5. Thanks for your reply to Q4, . Hypothetical: say someone reading this response is still concerned specifically about the tools and how you would apply them. How would you mollify that concern?
 * A: - Hi again. Well, hypothetically speaking, if an editor/admin does not believe in consensus, I would have to say they should not support my candidacy. If anyone expects me not to abide to consensus, they will be sorely disappointed. To quote WP:CON, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i.e. to achieve our five pillars." There is not a single instance where I have not abided by consensus, or contested consensus. I think it is safe to say that I will abide by the consensus established by the community.


 * Additional question from Dane
 * 6. You appear to have significantly reduced your activity from June 2016 until October 2016, resuming again at normal rates for you in November 2016. Was this a self-imposed wikibreak and if so, what led you to reduce your activity?  Have you taken wikibreaks in the past due to stress from the project?
 * A: - Hi Yes, it was self-imposed.  asked me this same question prior to nominating me. here's my response: "In a nutshell, I got tired of some of the POV pushing which can occur on the site through the inconsistent applications of guidelines and policies. After reflection, I realized that I missed being part of the project, and doing what I could to improve it, so I returned." And when I say POV, that's not a political thing, but more how folks see certain policies/guidelines and essays. I joined Wikipedia back around 2010 (can't remember the actual date), but didn't really become involved until December 2013. Until I took a break, I was pretty consistent in my participation. And even when I took my "break", I still was active in some of my "grunt" tasks: keeping watch on pages, etc. In response to the rest of your question, that's really the only "break" I've taken in the last 3 years.


 * Additional question from 86.17.222.157
 * 7. What checks did you make today before proposing deletion of Colombo International Book Fair here and Margarita Hranova here? Do you consider that you conducted enough research before claiming that these were uncontroversial deletion candidates, as required for the WP:PROD process?
 * A:


 * Additional questions from Hobit
 * 8. Above you said "I did not object to including the participation of the Koch brothers' funding of the organization, merely it being mentioned in the lead". But looking at your edits to the article, you appear to have removed all discussion of funding by the Koch brothers  and just about every reference to them at all (1 mention left in the article, 1 in a "see also" and 25 in the title of articles in the references section).   There were 11 or 12 such mentions in the article before you started that editing jag.  This seems both unwise and different than you described above.  Could you give your thoughts both your edits then (back in 2015) and on how you described them in your answer to Q4?
 * A: - Hi and thanks for the question. It really needs to be answered in 3 parts, with the third part being a discussion of Undue, which, if it’s all right with you, I’ll respond to in-depth when I answer Vanamonde below (which will be sometime later this day). First, When BMK registered his !oppose, the link provided related to the discussion which had occurred this past May (2016): "(See the entire discussion here.)." And it was this discussion I was referring to. In that discussion you can clearly see that I make the point of only removing it from the lede, not the body of the article.


 * Second, regarding the 2015 episode, that’s a bit more complicated. To be honest, I don’t know what prompted me to look at the article in the first place, most likely it was in using either Stiki or Huggle, or it might have caught my interest on the 3RR noticeboard. Regardless, at some point in May or June of 2015 the article came to my attention, as there appeared to be an edit war between several editors. I looked at the history of the article, and it had been relatively stable prior to March 2015. At the beginning of March 2015, the article looked like this: March 2015 version.


 * Then an editor began to edit the page, radically transforming it over the next several months. Whether or not that editor had a particular POV I’ll leave up to you folks to decide (said editor is now banned from Wikipedia - don’t know if it had to do with this article, or others). Towards the middle of June I began to attempt to contribute to the page, seeking consensus on the talk page. When what I felt was consensus had been reached, I attempted to be WP:BOLD, and do a massive re-write, restoring the article based upon that consensus. My thoughts regarding the re-write can be found here: (first subject on the page). In addition, I looked at how Wikipedia handles funding of advocacy groups such as Media Matters America and Moveon.org, and modeled the page based on those articles, the February 2015 version of the article, as well as the several areas of consensus which had been reached on the talk page.  Having made the changes, I backed away from the article. Looking back, I see that I should have added a "Funding" section. Definitely unfortunate on my part.


 * On the whole, at the time I thought I was making the right call in trying to stop an edit war on a page which had been relatively stable. After the bru-ha-ha it caused, I definitely learned my lesson not to do something like that again. Bottom line is that I'm a firm believer in consensus (I know, sometimes it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but I think it's a pretty important principle on this site), and those moves were predicated on my belief that consensus had been achieved.


 * Additional question from Vanamonde93
 * 9. What is your understanding of WP:DUE? With respect to a topic that is politically polarized, what factors need to be taken into consideration to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a certain perspective?
 * A: - Hi, and thanks for the question. I’ll respond as succinctly as possible to the question of WP:DUE. First, while all Due/Undue questions are NPOV issues, not all NPOV issues are questions of Due/Undue. When I pointed to the specific subset of UNDUE, rather than to the broader issue of overall NPOV, I was supposing that a reasonable editor would make that inference. Obviously, I was incorrect (not at the reasonableness of the other editors, but on my making that assumption). Undue weight can take several forms, especially when the RS deal with recent events and news items. When a single factor about an article is given too much "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement", than that can be construed as UNDUE. These last two points are important when taking into consideration that the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. To quote from WP:PROPORTION (a part of UNDUE), "news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I feel that this is true in all instances, but heightened when a topic is politically polarizing. But again, beating that dead horse, when something is politically polarizing, as per WP:5P4, Consensus should be even more adhered to.
 * Thanks for the response, . Let me ask a slightly more direct followup question. In determining how much weight to give a source, which of the following should be taken into consideration: a) how many other RS back it up, b) the type of source (ie news source, book in the popular press, blog, scholarly source) c) the political orientation of the source, and d) the independence of the source from the subject matter? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again . First, I’m assuming that you are only talking about reliable sourcing. My answers reflect that assumption. a) Yes, to a certain extent. Especially when dealing with current/breaking events. Also, if it is about something contentious, then definitely. But you have to be careful that sources aren't all using the same underlying source. b) Yes. The more editorial oversight a source has, the more reliable it is. For example, blogs should rarely be used, except "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". c) In a limited sense. In a nutshell, reliable sources may be non-neutral, however, articles must take care to reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. d) Absolutely. Articles should be based on secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources). Primary sources may be used, as long as they are from a reputable source, but should be used with care, since they may state opinions, rather than facts.


 * Additional question from Tryptofish
 * 10. Other than Americans for Prosperity, are there any other pages where you have edited content related to the Koch brothers?
 * A: - Hi - That's a pretty broad question. Not that I'm aware of. I did quite a bit of work on Stiki, so there may be a revert, but I don't think so. Per your question, I went to the Koch family page, and I checked on some of the main pages which are linked there:  Koch family foundations, Political activities of the Koch brothers, Koch family, Koch Industries, both brothers, Cato Institute, Citizen Koch KochPAC, and Citizens for a Sound Economy. But there are quite a few others. On the ones I did check, I didn't see a single edit by me (although it was interesting to see which editors seem to edit on all of those pages). I also went to the AFP page, and checked some of the linked articles there such as FreedomWorks. The Koch brothers really don't interest me all that much. But, as I said, not that I'm aware of.


 * '''Additional questions by Newyorkbrad
 * 11. Please respond to the concern raised by several opposers regarding your comment about President Obama's law license.
 * A.


 * Additional questions from Oshwah
 * 12. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? When should you do so?


 * 13. How could this ANI have been handled better?

Discussion

 * Links for Onel5969:
 * Edit summary usage for Onel5969 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) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - holy content creation Batman! Onel has a demonstrated need for the tools through both their obviously exhibited understanding of content policy, and their understanding of deletion policy through an outstanding CSD log. This clue, mixed with their civility (one of the most important qualities an administrator should have) makes this a pretty easy choice -- samtar talk or stalk 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of their "content creation" (9,528 out of 13,937 or 68%) have been new User talk pages, very possibly welcoming new users. They have only 1155 (8.3%) new articlespace page creations, [] and looking at them, about half of them appear to be sub-stubs about barely notable places in Arizona.  Also, 84 of their 233 new files (37.8%) have been deleted. Creation of sub-stubs is hardly "Holy content-creation, Batman" territory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Only" 1155 new articlespace page creations, are you serious? Or excluding redirects, 835 articles created? If "half of them are sub-stubs," that leaves 400. At my successful RfA I was rather proud of having created 80 articles. Onel has created 10 times as many. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only 1150 sub-stubs, which are "content" only by the strictest definition. It doesn't really help the encyclopedia much to have a sub-stub on a place in Arizona with a population of 30 people. Calling an editor who does that a "content creator" is an insult to people who actually write or significantly expand articles which consist of more than two sentences and an infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No major issues for me. Intothatdarkness 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – Very impressive number of edits and participation in areas such as AfD. And I am sure the state of Arizona thanks you for all of your article creations. United States Man (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - you are in pillar 1 of my RfA criteria!  Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  21:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like that, . Interesting way to look at it. Patient Zerotalk 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support superb candidate. Full Rune Speak, child of Guthix 21:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Content contributions are extremely good, and I can't find any red flags. Joshualouie711talk 21:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Excellent content creation, AfD work, and CSD work. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Great work with AfC submissions. Good luck as an admin! GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Able and willing to do anti-vandalism work, will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support great editor. Would be happy to see them with the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as co-nom. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Solid. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)  The opposes raise issues I'm having trouble looking past. That said, I'm not moving to oppose. Based on my own interactions, his/her judgment has seemed pretty good. Hopefully I'll unstrike this. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support clueful at AfD, great content creation history that shows they know what we do here, no blocks. Every reason to believe they will use the mop with care. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support this current spate of Requests for Adminship is a very welcome sign for the project. I hope this is a sign that RfA is finally on the rebound. The candidate will clearly be a net positive with the tools and therefore I am firmly in the support section. Lepricavark (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support what Lepricavark said above. Also, more admins willing to work with speedy deletion requests is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as a clear net positive and an excellent editor. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Seems to meet my rather generic criteria, has an interest in helping with administrative backlogs, and no red flags from what looking I've done. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The more admins around, the less of a 'special status' it'll seem.--v/r - TP 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Peacemaker. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Moving to neutral pending adequate explanation for oppose #2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: No issues to deal with, good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support precious "just a sign of support" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – A long-time content creator who also knows his way around the admin boards. See this search of the admin boards for some examples, including several correctly-filed 3RR reports that show understanding of the edit warring rules. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, because of his overall positive participation in admin areas: anti-vandalism, AFD, CSD, and 3RR noticeboard. epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support great editor, good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschslava (talk • contribs)
 * 6) Support No concerns at all. Katietalk 00:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Love the spate of Rfas. Support per Sam. Lourdes  00:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I like the attitude of being cautious and going straight into the grunt work. Icebob99 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: Wow, we have 5 RfA's running at once. Anyway, great candidate, no issues whatsoever! Class 455  ( talk  | stand clear of the doors!) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a time when that was the norm at RfA, you know. ;) Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I see nothing to make me think that they would harm the project. SQL Query me!  01:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Thumbs up from me, wonderful candidate.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Content creators require the admin tool set. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I have looked into the conflicts regarding Onel's interpretation of WP:GEOLAND, and frankly I found it to be sound. The string of articles that were deleted seemed like close calls to me (not by !votes, but by interpreting guidelines), and I would have likely made the same mistake. I'm sure Onel has learned from it, and that aside I see no compelling evidence he won't excel as an admin &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support. Noticed him some time ago and was very impressed with his content work, I know he can do the job. (I dont just hand out strong supports). Wizardman  02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Wait, this guy isn't an admin? RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Competent enough for the use of advanced features. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support. I trust this candidate implicitly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Competent editor with a great deal of content creation. Clearly a net positive. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I came across Onel5969 when one of my missing article projects started turning more and more blue, and I've been impressed with his content work. I can't see him doing much worse with the bit than I've done, and it's always good to have more admins helping with the geography articles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'm familiar with his hard work and constructive input at AfC and AfD, and am confident he'll handle adminship responsibly. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - After digging into the history of Onel5969, I think we can trust him with the tools and his answer above more than satisfied my concerns regarding his activity and wiki break. --  Dane talk  03:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Seems more than adequately experienced, capable and affable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support - I think 95% of the user's contribution comes from reviewing pages which are also automated edits, meaning one review would give them three automated edits by using the reviewer's tool. I think the editor has experience of a "10,000 edit" editor but still decent work so I vote for weak support. - The   Magnificentist  11:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Why not? - F ASTILY   11:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Moved to Oppose -  F ASTILY   08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good mix of content, AfD and CSD. The recent spurt of RfAs comes from a couple of us making a concerted effort to dig out all the people we vaguely thought should file an RfA and finding the time to write decent nomination statements. While it's obvious that I loudly assert my dislike towards The Sun, The Daily Mail, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, I think Wikipedia is systematically biased towards politically left-leaning people full-stop, it's nothing specific to here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Baby miss fortune 13:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think we've never bumped into each other, and what I see from the User talk page is a lot of helpful advice and competent responses. Let me point out one thing I didn't like, for reconsideration: Onel5969 slapped an A7 Speedy on Mon Line, not realising that A7 has limited applicability. That's not good but easily forgivable. The action that followed, placing a prod on the same page 1.5 hours after the speedy-declining admin had offered the opinion that railway lines probably all survive AfD, is IMHO questionable. The timestamps are misleading in this case. In fact the prod was before the 'would survive AfD' comment, which means there is no issue here at all. Apologies. --Pgallert (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Candidate checks all the boxes on my list. Their record is impressive for three years. No red flags and the currently sole oppose is unpersuasive. This looks like a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as my default stance since I see no reason to oppose. Steel1943  (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support no issues. Jianhui67T ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as I can find no reasons to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support An asset to WikiP in several areas and having the mop and pail will only increase that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. My review of the user's edits does not come up with the kind of bias noted in an oppose !votes below. Calling the edits on Americans for Prosperity "whitewashing" sounds to me like a failure to assume good faith. Onel5969 disagreed with statements in the article, made changes, discussed them, then—and here's a key point—accepted the consensus when it went the other way. The article as it stands is FULL of Koch references, including in the lede. Onel5969's ability to drop the stick shows exactly the right temperament for an admin. agt x  17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Excellent candidate who will make an excellent admin, The opposes are unconvincing. – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seen Onel5969 at AfD a lot, find his comments generally spot-on. Friendly, has clue. I have concerns about issues raised at the opposes. I would like to support someone who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but I now see too many signs of political bias undermining the nominee's commitment to NPOV. Mduvekot (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Evidence of both good non-sysop administrative work and good content work. I sympathise with the political opposes below, but I personally wouldn't count it against them. Give them a break, admin candidates shouldn't be penalised for having an active interest in a contentious topic area. Deryck C. 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't believe I've ever interacted with Onel5969 except the occasional close at AFD. Surprising since Onel5969 is such a prolific editor; not surprising since I've always been a gnomish editor. 's endorsement is all I need to support this candidate as I trust her judgement implicitly. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No reason to believe this editor will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per candidate's answer to Q5. — ATS &#128406;  talk  20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have seen many of Onel's contributions and I am convinced he will be a good addition to the admin community. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - net positive. GiantSnowman 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - After seeing the answers to all the questions, I feel that I don't even have to ask how this editor will deal with new editors—I feel that they will help them with their questions and will encourage them to contribute. They also seem to be very wary about making edits that they feel are possibly controversial, instead asking more experienced contributors before editing. Overall, they would be amazing admin. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Has good article creation and works at AfD a lot. Seems like a positive addition to the crew. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support An AfC prodigy and a massive benefit to the project. Full support. Winner 42 Talk to me!  22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - per Agtx, who said what I was going to say about the edits on AfP. Banedon (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Suitable and qualified.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
 * 13) Support per . Being able to take a step back is very important.  Risker (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Clear writer and communicator. Good temperament. Experienced and will work in areas that need constant attention and sometimes are short on it. I have no problem with an editor or administrator who takes a break and comes back refreshed to continue to work on this volunteer project. The nominators do an excellent and reliable job of evaluating candidates in RfA and their judgments are entitled to weight. (A few other careful nominators have put forth good candidates recently, as well, and this is good to see). Per on the single article/issue objection. I think the candidate has established trustworthiness and has shown considerable care in contributions and approach. Donner60 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - no previous interactions, but no issues, either. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 14:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I can see the concerns of the people voting oppose, but I've had some fairly positive interactions with this editor. They have shown that they are willing to learn and I honestly think that we can trust him with the admin tools. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Valid concerns in the "oppose" section but I don't think the candidate is as one-dimensional as some of the opposition would have us believe. As agtx says, the candidate seems to have handled the dispute in question fairly well, even if his changes and comments were misguided; a truly problematic user looking to push an agenda might have engaged in a full-blown edit war or tried to bully other users into submission. Ultimately, the candidate severely missed the mark several times in the course of that discussion, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't represent any sort of pattern. Everything else suggests a net positive. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, no concerns about the candidate's overall demeanor and judgment. Everyone has a POV about something, and we trust people to avoid administering those areas in good faith. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - reading through the discussions regarding potential political bias, I don't see anything in particular that causes me concern in this candidate's editing or responses. Sometimes neutrality can appear to be biased when viewed through our own biases. From an editing perspective, this candidate appears to be exemplary, and should make a good administrator. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - I see nothing to suggest that Onel5969 would be unsuitable for adminship. Kurtis (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, everything looks good to me. The opposition has provided no substantive reason for me to think the candidate will be anything but an asset with the mop. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 24) Support good content creation, many longer articles as well as stubs, very hard worker at AFC and NPP Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 25) Looks like a good candidate overall. I trust that they will take the NPOV concerns to heart, though I fail to see how this would affect their sysop business unless they start mass-deleting right-ring pages. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Excellent candidate, Clear net positive. Opposes are unconvincing, although I would advise the candidate to use extreme caution with the mop in the area of recent American politics  Tazerdadog (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 27) Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 02:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I fail to see an issue with his behavior. Opposing someone because they hold different political views than I do is simply wrong. Come back if he edit wars or makes personal attacks. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The opposes are not based on his political beliefs, but rather, on his total misunderstanding of one of our most fundamental policies: WP:NPOV. MartinZ02 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I am well aware of the issues raised in the oppose section. Yes, he did make a few errors but he handled the situation well. Juliancolton sums it up really well. It was a one time incident where the candidate accepted the consensus which shows the right temperament, as noted by Agtx. Other than that I have seen Onel5969 many a times here and there. I have always had a positive impression in my mind from those encounters and I still very well do.  Ya  sh  !   04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate. I'm sure he will take the concerns of opposers into consideration going forward.  lNeverCry   09:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Quite frankly, I don't see your point here. So what if 5 candidates run at the same time, some of whom share a similar belief? Does that imply some sort of admin-pushing movement here? In other words, when you say "this does not seem to me to be a coincidence", what do you think it is a result of? Thanks. Joshualouie711talk 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The nom's objections to Americans for Prosperity were about removing the Koch Brothers funding of that organization, which the nom felt was overemphasized (and therefore UNDUE) because "News coverage in the US is skewed to the left". This in spite of the fact, as MrX points out in the discussion, "It's very difficult to find any news coverage of AfP that does not prominently mention the Koch's" and Fyddlestix's comment, accompanied by a large number of citations that "there are literally hundreds of high-quality reliable sources that highlight the funding AFP receives from the Koch family."  (See the entire discussion here.) In other words, the nominee determined that something was UNDUE because of his own personal political beliefs, He is not qualified to be an admin.  Not only that, but I'm getting a little suspicious of this spate of RfAs – to an extent I've never seen in my 11 1/2 years of editing here – all happening one right after the other during the holiday season, with several of them consisting of people with clear feelings about left-wing bias on Wikipedia and in the news.  This does not seem to me to be a coincidence, and, believe me, I am not prone to belief in cabals or conspiracy theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to quickly reply because I feel partly responsible for the "spate of RfAs"; I've decided to make an effort to find suitable candidates and nominate them, rather than endlessly discussing how broken and horrible the process is. In doing so I've made no judgement of the candidate's political beliefs, and indeed have had absolutely zero knowledge of them prior to the RfA going live. For what it's worth my views are firmly on the left, so if I was trying to elect admin candidates with the same political views as me it would seem I'd be doing a pretty bad job of it. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sam, I didn't intend to impugn your motivations, and I'm sure you were sincere - however the "Wikipedia  desperately  needs admins" meme has been vastly overemphasized, and we're clearly in moral panic territory now. You know what would be an admin "crisis"? Appointing unqualified people to be admins because we're afraid we don't have enough of them. I suggest you stop looking and let the process play out as it would.  As for this candidate... well, all I can say is that I deeply disagree with whatever criteria you're using to nominate people, this one appears to me to be clearly a dud. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you mean by "Not only that, but I'm getting a little suspicious of this spate of &ndash...all happening one right after the other during the holiday season, with several of them consisting of people with clear feelings about left-wing bias on Wikipedia and in the news. This does not seem to me to be a coincidence..."? First, are you saying that because several similar candidates are running, this one is less qualified to be an admin? Second, what are the other similar candidates you are referring to? There are 5 current RfAs, and this seems to be the only one with the issue that you mentioned. Third, how is this relevant to this candidate? The nominations were made by several different users.
 * No, possible political bias was a stated concern at Ad Orientem's RfA, which was closed on time, without extension, despite the fact that the percentage of supports had been continuously dropping for 3 or 4 days, and was approaching the 75% mark at which Bureaucrats generally talk about what to do with the bid. I'm not casting any aspersions on the close being in any way politically motivated, but I happen to think that it was a poor decision, and that the RfA should have been extended for a while to see if it continued to fall, or if it stabilized. There is really no hurry, and 7 days is simply a convention, not a hard and fast number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just adding some hard evidence to that: looking at Ad Orientem's RfA graph, the general trend you identified is definitely present. I went through a bunch of historical RfAs, and similar drops are visible in BU Rob 13 and Oshwah's RfAs, both of which were closed on schedule after 7 days. (Vanamonde93 also had a steadily dropping support percentage, but it was less severe.) It doesn't look like the crats did something out of the ordinary in closing Ad Orientem's RfA on schedule to me, although waiting for the percentage to stabilize might be a worthwhile thing to do. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very common for RfA percentages to drop over time. It happens in almost every RfA, since it takes more time to identify a rationale to oppose than a rationale to support. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not only common, it's downright usual, because the moment any RfA is posted (barring the obvious NOTNOWs and SNOWs) at least a dozen people will automatically post support votes, and that trend will continue as the RfA proceeds. It often takes a while for the first oppose to be posted as -- and I've said before -- there's a general community inhibition preventing opposes (many choose to go neutral instead). In any case, once the first oppose vote is posted, the graph is most likely to go down, given that we go by percentages, and it takes a number of support votes to "counter" every oppose.  The real question is how quickly it goes down, and does it get anywhere near the 75% mark.  In the case I cited above, it was clearly heading there, and my feeling is that the proper decision for the 'crats would have been to extend for a couple of days to see what happened.  It could well have stabilized, or even gone up, but we'll never know, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume the Kochs aren't ashamed of the organization they founded – they may even be proud of it. Removing them from the lead may be seen as denying them due credit, no matter what some "lefties" might say. Hence not necessarily politically motivated one way or the other. Debouch (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , moved your comment down to make the threading easier to read; hope you don't mind. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a valid argument, but it's not the one that the nom made at the time. His argument centered on UNDUE which he attributed to a left-wing media. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5 RFAs in the Green at the same time is a rare sight in recent years, but you mentioned an 11 and a half year time period, that takes you well into the era when only five live RFAs at the same time would have been unusual, there are years when we averaged more than one new admin a day.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Although I've been editing for 11 1/2 years (a little longer, actually, if you count some time editing without an account) I did not in my early years even know about RfA, much less participate, so my experience of RfAs is somewhat less then my editing time would indicate. Because of account name changes, I can't actually identify the first RfA I !voted in. Actually, it seems to have been in February 2008, almost 9 years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My first was also in 2008! I've found a more recent five in the green, 13 people passed in the month I wrote this signpost article, six of them passed in one six day period so we've gone higher when we've put out calls for candidates.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I can't support giving the mop to someone who made a series of edits (beginning here, diff here) that removed all mentions of the Koch family from Americans for Prosperity. This was a massively POV whitewash, as even a cursory glance at reliable sources (see  for many examples) makes plain. Those edits were from a while ago, but when this came up last, Onel seemed confused about NPOV policy (ie, stating that "this has nothing to do with NPOV, but is a discussion of WP:UNDUE" - when they're actually the same thing), accused other editors of "canvassing" for bringing the matter up at NPOVN (where the issue belonged), and promptly announced that he was semi-retired when another attempt at a whitewash of the page failed to stick. That was in May this year. I have a lot of respect for this editor's content contributions and work at AFD/AFC but I cannot support granting adminship to someone who seems to be willing to ignore (or to misunderstand) NPOV to such a degree. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note as well that Onel's statement above that "I did not object to including the participation of the Koch brothers' funding of the organization, merely it being mentioned in the lead" is not accurate - as the diffs I linked above shows, in June 2015 he made a series of edits that removed basically any mention of the Koch family at all: before,after, diff.) Note that in the "after" version, the word "Koch" appears once in the article text, but 26 times just in the titles of the sources. That alone should tell you something - but this goes way beyond an argument about the lede and amounts to a rather transparent whitewash of the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your oppose only shows that other editors can have different opinions than you. I see nothing in your diffs that would give me reason to believe Onel would abuse administrative tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that grumpily announcing your (semi) retirement and labelling the consensus as the work of "Pov pushers" really counts as an acceptance of the consensus. And my point isn't that Onel would abuse the tools, it's that he appears to either not understand, or to have no problem selectively ignoring WP:NPOV. I'm going to try not to get into an extended back and forth over this, and happy to accept that the community disagrees with me, but personally I think that's a deal breaker. I can't support someone who rewrote a contentious page in such a blatantly non-NPOV way. (and please, look at the RS here. The NPOV violation was really blatant). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point - I can certainly understand that sentiment. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I want to begin with a repost of a statement I made at Articles for deletion/Gambacher Kreuz. "This is the same nominator [Onel5969] who ran off some of our content contributors with multi-language skills, starting last Summer [2015], by attacking our coverage of Kreuzes and Dreiecks. I don't maintain a log, but last time I checked, the count was three valuable content contributors lost. Looking at his/her contributions list, you will see that his/her decisions are done in mere seconds, at a pace that doesn't suggest depth of analysis and due consideration.  I have consistently treated this contributor with respect, and in return I have been told that my input is not needed.  This cookie-cutter nomination is nothing new, IMO shows poor learning skills given the existing refutations for these arguments, and IMO shows disrespect for the community in not preparing the community for the specific AfD discussion at hand.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)" An earlier exchange occurred at CommonOutcomes, see .  This is where I was told that my input was not needed.  When I asked the editor why he had gone beyond WP:BRD to Bold-revert-revert-discuss to start a discussion, and asked what he didn't understand about my revert, I was told that there was no point to his answering these questions. I waited two months before approaching him about some category edits, but no amount of patience or careful detailed reasoning seems to help with this editor.  See . An analysis of the AfD work shows that his typical AfD !vote is one line of text; and sometimes directly from WP:ATA, such as at Articles for deletion/Idomoo.  At Articles for deletion/Biocom, the closer notes, without specifying any names, that "several of the 'delete' opinions are very superficial".  At Articles for deletion/American corporate media lobby, he does not express an opinion.  Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg is an example of his work in nominating articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, at least for now, but I am receptive to persuasion. Two of the above opposes don't bother me, but when I looked at the diffs provided by Fyddlestix, I really do think that I am seeing a problem. Please keep in mind that I am quite ready to support RfA candidates whose personal opinions differ from my own, and actually did just that quite recently in another RfA (Ad Orientem). But Fyddlestix is correct that the edits removed mention of the Kochs from much of the page, not just the lead section, despite the answer to Q4, above. I went through the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity, and the candidate's role in the discussion seems battleground-y to me. And the very recent confusion about WP:UNDUE actually being a part of WP:NPOV is unsettling. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking back a day later, my concerns are growing more serious. The diff cited below by Mkativerata, about Obama supposedly being disbarred, makes me feel increasingly that this is not a case of a one-off incident at one page, and that the answers to questions may be disingenuous. It's becoming less likely that I will move out of oppose unless some real good explanations emerge. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that "Obama" in that diff was a mental typo for "[Bill] Clinton." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad. That very well may be, and I had not thought of it. But I am still feeling very uncomfortable with the answers to questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per the observations by Mkativerata and Floquenbeam (thanks, both of you), I'm no longer buying it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose subject to the candidate declaring himself involved in relation to US politics and thus unable to exercise administrative tools in that field. With statements like "News coverage in the US is skewed to the left", the edits on Americans for Prosperity mentioned above, and the tin-foil-hat talk about Barack Obama being "forced to surrender his attorney's license" , the candidate cannot possibly act impartially in this topic area. I'm otherwise happy to support; a simple declaration of involvement would alleviate my concerns, particularly given that his editing in the area of US politics is quite limited and that there is much else that he does on the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A nitpick here: to me that reads as if your oppose is conditional on the candidate declaring himself involved. But I think you mean that you oppose unless he declares himself involved. Peridon (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that "Obama" in that diff was a mental typo for "[Bill] Clinton." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. It's a common right-wing lie about Obama. Just google it instead of wasting my time. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it was clearly a good-faith suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'm sure it isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Fyddlestix and Tryptofish, and based on the link provided by Mkativerata. I was about to echo Mkativerata about changing to support if they agreed not to act as an admin in the US politics topic area, but if they're willing to POV push in politics, they're willing to do it elsewhere too. I'm disappointed people can look at Fyddlestix's and Mkativerata's links  - and compare them to Onel's description of the edits - and still support.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Lack of understanding of WP:UNDUE.--Catlemur (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose with the misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE shown by Fyddlestix and impulsive contributions as observed by Unscintillating, it leads me to believe that this candidate is likely to make some critical mistakes. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, due to NPOV concerns. It's one of the five pillars, after all, and BMK and Fyddlestix' concerns echo my own.  Mini  apolis  19:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose It's fine to have a POV, we all have one for some subject or an other, but it's imperative that one edits with the Wikipedia's POV in mind. The edits brought up by Mkativerata and others are hard to accept as having Wiki's POV (which is to say NPOV) in mind. I fear that this would reflect on the candidate adjudicating disputes in the area where they let their POV effect their editing. Valeince (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Having read through some of the Americans for Prosperity talk page, I am not comfortable that this otherwise-well-qualified candidate is capable of putting personal politics aside and enforcing NPOV with administrative tools. The last thing we need are political warriors anxious to leap in and lock down personally-favored versions of contentious articles. My concern is that this is a potential conservative POV warrior. Deeper analysis of the edit history is needed. Carrite (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose- admin judgement is also knowing where not to go before you go there - to claim the mantle to right the wrongs of a large swath of reliable sources (news coverage) is not it, particularly when discussing controversial topics, nor is saying you only objected to a lead, when your editing was to the article body, or worse, casual spreading of untrue things about living persons . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose—per Beyond My Ken and Fyddlestix. This editor appears to have a poor understanding of WP:NPOV. He determined that something was WP:UNDUE on the basis that "[n]ews coverage in the US is skewed to the left". He called other editors "biased" simply because they disagreed with him, and accused them of "canvassing" for bringing the matter to WP:NPOVN, where he then stated: "This has nothing to do with NPOV, but is a discussion of WP:UNDUE."—WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV, and anyone with a reasonable understanding of WP:NPOV, and thus also WP:UNDUE (including those who don't know that they're the same), would probably not come to the same conclusion as Onel5969 did. With that said, I don't believe we should have admins who misunderstand WP:NPOV to such a degree that one may reasonably suspect that they are systematically ignoring it; admins are supposed to be NPOV enforcers, not POV enforcers. I'm also concerned about his answers to question 4 and 5, particularly these sentences: "That being said, the discussion lasted for less than a day, and I abided by the consensus on the talk page. That alone should be the standard upon which that discussion is judged by." and, "There is not a single instance where I have not abided by consensus, or contested consensus". The first two sentences makes it sound like everything is fine as long as he follows the consensus in the end, and that everything else that happened was irrelevant—it's like saying that it's OK for an editor to be disruptive until ten experienced editors tell them to stop; that's not OK, because there's already community consensus in place, in the form of policy, which says that such things are unacceptable. Then there's the third sentence, where he says that he has always followed consensus—that's false, since he violated WP:NPOV, a policy (i.e., a documentation of already existing community consensus).  —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fake news about Barack Obama are really disturbing, and shows a lack of understanding of WP:BLP (per Glrx), and WP:Burden. At this point, no kind of explanation will be able persuade me into withdrawing my oppose, as those explanations should already have been provided. The candidate has showed a total misunderstanding of two of Wikipedia's core content policies—WP:NPOV and WP:V—as well as another very important policy: WP:BLP. —MartinZ02 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Fyddlestix's starting diffs. Removing the founders from the "Founding" section is jaw-droppingly bad. Shaping articles with an obvious edge is too revealing. Completely disowning those past motivations and demonstrated understanding of policies is the minimum requirement here. Shenme (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I cannot support a candidate who spreads an ugly lie about Barack Obama's law license on a talk page and tries to strip information about the Koch brothers highly notable involvement with Americans for Prosperity from that article. I am happy to support conservative candidates for administrator as long as they are fully committed to NPOV and BLP policy. I am not convinced of this candidate's commitment to such core policies. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  01:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Fyddlestix's evidence (which came after my initial support). Both the misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE and the misrepresentation of his behavior at Americans for Prosperity in Q4 are troubling for reasons that go well beyond American politics, and it sure doesn't help that the subject is a highly contentious topic. I'm left with significant doubt as to Onel's ability to consistently follow and enforce NPOV, and I can no longer support his adminship. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Per BMK, Fyddlestix, Mkativerata, and others. I don't care about the candidate's politics; I care about accuracy and NPOV. I don't like the way the candidate has performed in the argument. BMK raised an issue. Q4 claims BMK "was not entirely accurate in his description", but then goes on to inaccurately describe BMK's oppose and minimize that his edits were only to the lead. BMK rebuts. Q4 also sidesteps the question; there is no mention of political bias. It should not be the case that editors insert a left, right, or corporate bias into an article and then cross their fingers that no one will object and trigger a consensus discussion. Editors should always have an eye toward accuracy and neutral point of view. Candidates are especially careful with answering questions at an RfA, and I do not see appropriate care in Q4. I am not comforted by Q8. Even on a talk page, the ref to Obama's law license is WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Glrx (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I cannot support a candidate who doesn't appear to know what WP:NPOV is, or knows what it is and chooses not to abide by it. Brad  v  02:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add, further to my oppose, that I very much appreciate this candidate and his contributions to Wikipedia. I am in awe of his outstanding contributions to AFC, and have never encountered a problem with any of his interactions with the new and sometimes difficult editors encountered at that project. Overall, he is definitely a net positive to the project. However, I share the concern of others about giving tools to people with such obvious political bias. (It's not that you can't have political biases — but we shouldn't be able to find them quite so easily on Wikipedia.) Brad  v  02:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, rather regretfully, because I appreciate the contributions the candidate has made. This is not about their political orientation, and for me it never has been. I've said it before: I think a variety of political perspectives are a healthy thing for Wikipedia, and the fact that folks with otherwise incompatible perspectives can work together here is something which constantly amazes me. But, the thing which enables us to do so is Wikipedia's policies, which provide a common framework, which we need not agree with, but that we need to agree to work with. As administrators, our job is to use the framework to keep the site running. In the course of doing this, it is inevitable that the candidate will need to evaluate NPOV disputes at some point, even if they choose to work in the most straightforward admin areas, namely AIV and RFPP. What I find here is that the candidate seems to have a misunderstanding of NPOV that is not restricted to a single incident: I find the diffs presented by Fyddlestix and Mkativerata particularly concerning, but there are other issues. In this light, I find the otherwise-somewhat-acceptable answer to my question worrying, because it does not address the concern that the candidate might use their own perspective about "leftist bias" (presumably in the rather narrow sense that the term is used in US politics) to apply a "correction" to our policies. Wikipedia does have a systemic bias, written into our policies: we are biased in favor of the preponderance of reliable sources. In some areas that results in a "liberal" (in the American sense) bias, in some areas a right-wing bias, frequently a western bias, and so on and so forth. These are non-ideal situations, which we can try to correct by putting extra effort into searching for sources, by having projects to organize that effort, by using meta-sources that analyze said bias, or by using the resources of the project to expand our base of sources to historical sources or ones in different languages. The moment we use our personal perspective to "correct" the narrative found in the preponderance of RS, our framework begins to break down, and I am unwilling to support a candidate who has not just done this (I've made similar mistakes myself) but has not acknowledged that they have done this. As with others, I would be willing to support them in the future, should they address this issue. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, the diffs provided by Fyddlestix, Mkativerata, and BMK are (regrettably) persuasive. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Tryptofish and others. I especially echo this comment: "The diff cited [above] by Mkativerata, about Obama supposedly being disbarred, makes me feel increasingly that this is not a case of a one-off incident at one page, and that the answers to questions may be disingenuous." I hope this is not the case, and a good answer to NYB's question may sway me, but I simply cannot support at this time. Thank you for your work, and I hope you continue with your work regardless of the outcome. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Tryptofish and what I wrote in the neutral section below. Fake news of the kind cited by has no place on Wikipedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Concerns about accuracy and NPOV that have been raised have regretfully led me to oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above, concerns with user's poor understanding of NPOV. -  F ASTILY   08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above, particularly NPOV, BLP, BURDEN and UNDUE. Yes, WP probably has a left-leaning bias that should be mildly realigned, but not at the cost of our more heavyweight policies. (Note: This is not a !vote against the candidates politics in any way: it is based on the disregard for the policies.) All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I come across Onel5969's AfC reviews frequently when I'm wearing my edit-a-thon coordinator hat. Much respect is due to anyone working on the AfC backlog. It is difficult to ensure you are being thorough while also working a giant backlog rife with spammy, COI-laden submissions. That said, I feel that Onel5969 can be overly strict and under-communicative when declining AfCs. Onel5969 is sometimes the most active reviewer at AfC, with the AfC Review History tool showing 4,824 reviews. He has declined 74% of them and left comments in only 2.4% of the reviews. Compared to other active reviewers, this is a high frequency of declinations and a low incidence of comments. Also some of the declines/tagging that Onel5969 does happens so quickly that I wonder whether time was taken to properly consider the action. For example, on March 7, 2016, from 7:35 to 8:05, Onel5969 racked up 50 G13 notices while declining 15 AfC submissions at 7:35, 7:38, 7:41, 7:42, 7:44, 7:46, 7:47, 7:47, 7:53, 7:55, 8:00, 8:01, 8:03, 8:05, and 8:05. Many of the declines came in the same minute as other edits, calling into question whether an adequate effort was made to determine whether the subject met WP:AFCSTANDARDS. There have been multiple times where Onel5969 declined articles even though they clearly didn't have the type of problems that would result in a deletion at AfD. During the 2015 and 2016 Art+Feminism edit-a-thons, several of us spent time rescuing articles that had been declined by Onel5969, some that shouldn't have been declined in the first place and others that only need small fixes (Sissel Tolaas, Michelle Facos, Janet Kigusiuq, Füsun Onur, Malkia Cyril, ). Since then, I periodically double-check Onel5969's AfC history to be sure that articles haven't been held up there. Looking at Onel's AfD votes, 81.9% are to delete and I am concerned that the same type of deletionist supervote phenomenon would happen there. I have also been discouraged by the tone of some of Onel5969's comments. As an AfC reviewer, he is a de facto Wikipedia ambassador to our newest editors. Many, many newcomers ask for help or clarification on Onel5969's talk page after he declines their articles. While he is often helpful, there are times when he has not demonstrated the temperament I would expect of an admin. The exchange at Talk:Americans for Prosperity also gives me pause.  gobonobo  + c 11:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per BMK, Fyddlestix and Mkativerata. J3Mrs (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral  Shows technical work on BLPs but not content work on them looking back.   Shows a huge propensity for "delete" at AfD.  Almost an "oppose" as a result, alas. Collect (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here after returning and reading oppose #2. On the face of it, that's a pretty blatant violation of NPOV. Without an adequate explanation, I'll be in the oppose section. (I hold roughly similar views to in oppose #4). Ed [talk] [majestic titan]  Moving to oppose
 * 1) Awaiting further explanation of oppose concerns above and awaiting time for my further review before stating oppose or support. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Ed above. POV editing (even unwittingly) is made more dangerous as an admin, if only because of community norms around what is expected of them. — foxj 14:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning oppose per Floquenbeam and Tryptofish, who say it better than I can. Waiting on a couple of answers before I decide. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Vanamonde (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't normally show up in the neutral column, but I thought I should note something after asking a question. I think the incident associated with my question is problematic and that the nominee still doesn't really seem to grasp just how problematic it was.  That said, his answer addressed many of my worries.  So I'm here. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I would outright oppose if not for the nominee's body of work and positive contributions/interactions overall. What's been turned up by the Oppose !votes has disturbed me enough to think the nominee needs to spend a considerably longer time getting in line behind the site's NPOV pillar and meaning it. But his point about mass media bias (in general, not as a specious argument in an article dispute) is useful to consider overall with respect to how we look at sources in the long term. However, I would respect the nominee a lot more if he would figure out the truth about the true bias in mass media.  It's left all right -- left corporatist/militarist in some venues, but then it's right corporatist/militarist in others.  The Wikipedia really has taken no significant strains to shield its presentation of facts from this reality. (and no, I'm not seeking to become an admin :)).  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 01:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments
Note that good faith IP comments are allowed in the "General Comments" section; it doesn't matter if this is formatted in the form of an oppose vote, it's not in the oppose section, so should not be removed. I've replaced the # with a * to hopefully ease people's minds that this is some kind of "illegal vote" (and hopefully the IP editor doesn't mind my minor TPO violation). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for declining a same AfC submission three times. The creator - an experienced editor in this case, not some newbie - initially gave a fairly reasonable reason for notability, but Onel paid scant regard to it and immediately redeclined. Subsequently, the creator makes an explicit request that a different reviewer evaluate the submission. But again, after 14 days, Onel is back to decline the same draft with a no better reason under his belt than a lame "it fails GNG". While the declines by themself may not be problematic, what is problematic is that the editor seems to have a shallow understanding of WP's notability policies (the article is now in mainspace, moved there by another editor) and that he does not have the decency to recuse himself and leave the task of declining the draft to another editor, since he has already done that twice. This is hardly what you call decorous behavior. 103.6.159.87 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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