Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood

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

Pbsouthwood

Final (213/62/12); Closed as successful by Worm^TT(talk) at 07:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) – Pbsouthwood edits Wikipedia mainly as a content creator, but does some maintenance work, is moderately active in policy discussions, and is a member of a few WikiProjects which are relevant to his primary subject interests in underwater diving and citizen science. He is a member of the recently reformed Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, where a major drive to improve the system of portals on the encyclopedia is under way. This work is expected to include the deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages. which is a significant amount of work. Pbsouthwood, as a member of the project, is willing to take on some of this work, but to delete pages, the admin bit is required, hence this RfA. Pbsouthwood is an admin on other WMF projects, and has not yet recieved complaints of inappropriate admin actions or uncivil interpersonal behaviour. He would be quite happy to get just the necessary subset of admin permissions to do this job for the duration, but that is not currently an option. This RfA is in response to a specific and current need, hence the self-nom. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone.

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

A: My work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, including one FA and a few GAs, a moderate number of articles brought to B-class or created from scratch, and a fair amount of re-organising of the related content by way of merges and splits. I enjoy collaborative work, but too often there are not enough collaborators where I am busy.

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: Sure, who hasn't? I try to be patient and assume good faith until proven wrong, and to remain civil and discuss problems using logic, reasoning and evidence. Also listening to people and trying to make sure I understand what they are trying to communicate. It usually works. I can change my opinion when sufficient reason is provided. I tend to edit in mostly uncontroversial areas, so it has not been much of a problem for me. Bold-revert-discuss almost always works for me, particularly the discuss part. I have no immediate plans to change.

---

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 question from OhKayeSierra

4. Administrators are expected to be good at communicating their actions to avoid misunderstandings and bad blood. Usage of edit summaries is, IMHO, crucial to achieve this. You have not been using them consistently, especially on minor edits or removal of content. Why is that and do you plan to change this?

A: I often work on the same article for several consecutive edits, When I go through my work after saving, I often find trivial errors, which I often correct without providing an edit summary. On other occasions I just don't consider the edit worth describing, and sometimes I just plain forget. It is hardly ever a problem. On the rare occasions that I get someone reverting or otherwise disagreeing with my edits, there is no noticeable distinction in frequency between whether I have left an edit summary or not. In summary, I try to remember to leave a summary where I consider it likely that anyone will want to know why I have made an edit, If they want to know what the edit was, they can look at the diff, which is what I do myself. When someone disagrees with an edit or reverts it I discuss it the matter before continuing. I do not plan to change this significantly, as it works for me. If at some stage it appears that changing will make a significant difference, I will change.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from JustBerry

5. Per the AfD tool, the "total number of unique AfD pages edited" by you is 12. Yet, you have mentioned using your tools to help with the "deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages." 150, 000 pages is a lot of pages, particularly if some of those page deletions are (even somewhat) controversial. Even though you may have been trusted with sysop tools and appropriately performed deletion work on other Wikimedia projects, the English Wikipedia arguably has a more specific set of principles and policies (than other smaller wikis, that is). If not through AfD, how have you demonstrated your knowledge of principles and policies related to deletion work?

A: The 150 000 pages that are expected to be deleted will not be controversial cases. This is a cleanup drive, they will need a little personal attention to make sure there are no frivolous requests, but mostly it will be pretty boring and repetitious work, and someone will have to do it. My thoughts are that it will be convenient for all if there is someone in the associated project who can do this. If there are some cases which need to be undeleted, this can be done on request. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Yintan

6. You write that after the deletion work is done you "would be willing to consider other admin work on request". Does that mean that if nobody requests anything, your mop will just gather dust?

A: More accurately, I will be willing to consider other admin work on request during the cleanup drive. It is somewhat premature to speculate how things may change by the time the work is done. If I do not have any use for the mop afterwards, and if anyone wants me to hand it in due to lack of use, they may request its return, and if there is sufficient reasonable consensus that this would be a good thing, I will cheerfully hand it back. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Iffy

7. How would being an administrator (specifically being able to use the delete button, but also in general) assist you with your content creation work?

A: Not much at all. I need the deletion button mainly for the WikiProject Portals upgrade project, which will be mainly maintenance. It would be occasionally useful for my content creation work, as I have occasionally needed to request deletion, as when a page has been misnamed due to a typo. I have found this facility useful on the other Wikimedia project where I do a lot of content creation, but it is not important. I am generally available to help people with any tools I have access to when requested, as long as I am within my comfort zone. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Ammarpad

8. Please shed more light on those "specific and current need[s]..." which you said are impetus to this RfA.

A:There is a drive to clean up Portal space by rewriting portals so that they are largely self-maintaining. This is expected to result in a very large number of redundant subpages in Portal namespace. As far as I am aware, there are currently no admins who are members of WikiProject Portals, so these pages must go up for deletion through the usual channels, and will be extra work for the usual admins working on page deletion. I am willing to take on some of this work because I am a member of the project and support its goals, but cannot do it without the delete permission. As a member of the project I watch the project talk page and will see when a new batch is due for deletion, so will be able to clear up the backlog, so that other admins can concentrate on other work. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Kudpung

9. Several thousand of your recent edits have the summary Revert redundant short description template as now included in disambiguation template or similar. Can you please explain what this is and how you have been doing and if you have been using a script for this. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A:WikiProject Short descriptions is another project I support. The requirement for short descriptions on Wikipedia articles is also a large task, and I started adding them to disambiguation pages using AWB. and to other article pages manually. When some editors with template coding skills are showed that it is more convenient to add simple short descriptions through the disambiguation template, I stopped adding them with AWB, and started deleting those I had added to dab pages. As the AWB edits had made other improvements, and there were other occasional benefits to reverting manually, I chose to take a brief look at each page before removing the redundant short description, and check that the dab templates were appropriate at the same time. This was done manually, so took a little longer, and may not have been worth the extra effort, but it was done. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from JLJ001

10. You say you plan to assist in deleting portal pages, which is a CSD G6 matter. Would you consider finding and deleting unused pages by your own initiative, or would you limit deletions only to those already tagged or listed?

A: I have no desire to hunt down and delete other unused pages, It is not a fun job. If I run into some and it is sufficiently clear that deleting them would be useful in some way I might tag them for deletion, but I would prefer not to delete pages I have found and tagged myself unless they are also pages I created myself, or are part of a project in which I am sufficiently active to be well aware of their lack of value. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Usernamekiran

11. This is sort of a follow-up question to #1. In your answer there, you said you would be primarily working on wikiproject portals, answering requests, and "not outside the comfort zones". Would you please be a little precise regarding the areas that you would work in administrative capacity? Like, which requests you would comply to, and what are the areas where you feel you are comfortable/knowledgeable enough to use the tools? Thanks :) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A: It is difficult to answer this question with specifics, as there are potentially a very large range of tasks where I would not be comfortable with the tools. I would have to judge each case on its merits. For borderline cases I would take advice from another admin known to be active in that area, until I develop sufficient experience and confidence. There is no need to rush in. I expect the portal namespace deletions to occupy enough of my time in the near future, and I do not intend to seriously cut back on content creation.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhkohh

12. If you are admin, how will you deal with WP:MfD, WP:AfD, WP:AIV, WP:RPP WP:CSD, and WP:SPI and why?

A: If or when the need arises, I would start by refreshing my understanding of the policy by reading it, then proceed with caution. Some of these are outside my experience, so I would be reluctant to take action without discussion, others are more straightforward. I would not delete an article if I was involved in the deletion discussion. Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Noyster

13. Hello Peter, this ties in with Q9. Apart from your portal work you have also been among the prime movers of WikiProject Short descriptions, a project to add a short description to every article, independent of Wikidata. Please explain what steps you have taken to ensure community consensus for this undertaking. Do you consider those steps to have been adequate up to now?

A: It is a long story, and not particularly entertaining, so I will try to keep it short. For more detail refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#History.

• WMF started using article descriptions from Wikidata as disambiguators for Wikipedia article titles returned by searches. In principle, not a bad idea, as it is potentially useful to the reader, but
• Some of these descriptions were seriously inappropriate, so some Wikipedians objected, started an RfC, and WMF gave the impression they would stop, but didn't.
• There was another RfC to try to sort out the problem. Wikipedians came to the consensus that this was unacceptable and must stop. WMF said they would provide a magic word to provide the short descriptions via the API, and when Wikipedia has 2 million short descriptions of articles they would stop drawing them from Wikidata.
• As the consensus of the RfC was that Wikipedia would provide short descriptions and the descriptions from Wikidata must immediately stop, and the way WMF decided to handle it was by providing a software tool (the magic word) without any further consultation with Wikipedia, and a condition of 2 million short descriptions to stop using Wikidata, we are stuck the only practicable method of stopping WMF from using Wikidata being adding short descriptions as fast as reasonably practicable while ensuring that they are policy compliant, accurately describe the article, and are easily editable on Wikipedia. It is a highly unsatisfactory imposition to many Wikipedians who took part in the RfC, but the basic consensus to add short descriptions is noted in the closing statement, and I concur.
• I consider that the consensus of that RfC combined with the lack of any practicable alternative is sufficient community consensus to add short descriptions to all articles. If anyone wants to start another RfC to confirm this interpretation, that is an option, but as I don't see any practical result other than what we are already doing, or reversing the decision not to allow Wikidata descriptions, which are not required to comply with Wikipedia policy, notably for NPOV, RS and in particular, BLP, I don't see much point. This view is presumably shared by the other members of the WikiProject. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Amorymeltzer

14. It seems that, if it weren't for the portal system, you wouldn't have filed this request. Why do you think this case requires its own sysop given that these will not be controversial cases? Put another way, can you expand on your answer to question 8 by explaining what you specifically bring to the table aside from watch[ing] the project talk page?

A: I don't think the project needs its own sysop. I think it is going to create a lot of work for sysops as a by-product of its activity, and as a supporter of the project I am volunteering to deal with as much of that extra work as I feel I can handle. If there is no need for this assistance, it is no problem to me. If there is other work I can do that is useful and within my skills, I can do some of that too. I am not here to be an admin, but if by being an admin I can make enough of a difference to be worth the hassle, I feel morally obliged to make the offer. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

15. As required can you please confirm that have never edited for pay or any other form of compensation or rather "required to disclose"

A: I can confirm that I have never edited for any form of compensation other than personal satisfaction. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Power~enwiki

16. How would you assess whether there is a consensus for tasks that involve large-scale deletion of portal-related pages?

A: At this stage editors are nominating lists of subpages for deletion. These are the same editors who have recently changed the coding of the associated portal to make those subpages redundant, i.e. the de facto maintainers of these portals. If there is no objection to the change of portal structure fron one based on multiple transcluded subpages to one based on the new templates on one page or a smaller set of subpages, it would be reasonable to conclude that there are no other portal maintainers watching the specific portal who have any objections to the new style and developments, and the redundant subpages truly are redundant, in that no-one will read their content again except as a maintenance item. Either the content will have been transferred to the new style portal, or new content on the portal page will have superceded the subpage. The project is applying the new stucture only where there is no objection from portal maintainers - the option of retaining a sub-page structure is being respected. There is no current project consensus for a waiting time before deletion to allow for portal page watchers who are not active daily, but I think that a reasonable waiting time would be prudent. My intention is to check the portal talk page in each case before deleting the subpages to ensure that no objections to the new system are present and unresolved, allowing local consensus in each case. This procedure may change as we gain experience. If you (or anyone else) have any suggestions for a better process, please let us know at the project talk page, we do not want to disrupt Wikipedia in our enthusiasm to improve portals. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Jbhunley

17. Above you say "if anyone wants me to hand it in due to lack of use, they may request its return, and if there is sufficient reasonable consensus that this would be a good thing, I will cheerfully hand it back." are would you be willing to expand that to make yourself subject to general WP:RECALL should the community ever form a consensus that you no longer have the community's confidence?

A: I note that general recall does not claim to be binding, but it is a process that I agree with on principle, so have no concerns with accepting the process. I will not offer to simply hand back the mop as soon as the project is completed, as it is quite possible that by then I would have developed a need for other tools, or a further need for the deletion button, and it would be rather pointless to do this all over again if there are no problems. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Serial Number 54129

18. On behalf of User:Joe Roe, and with the additional benefit of clarifying a potential ambiguity, can you tell us where you are an admin "on other WMF projects"...

A: English Wikivoyage and Wikimania 2018.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:PCHS-NJROTC

19. What is your thoughts on {{schoolblock}}s and {{anonblock}}s? Some administrators put extended blocks on shared IPs (educational or otherwise) for long periods of time (a year or more) over one or two recent edits, would you do this if you were granted the tools? What is your thoughts on blocking entire /16 ranges representing entire U.S. states' department of education network for extended periods of time (more than one year) for no other reason than to prevent "school vandalism"? Do you think this practice is appropriate in an encyclopedia that bills itself as a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

A: Rangeblocks are an occasionally necessary evil. Wikipedia may be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is also the encyclopedia that anyone can edit badly, and the only tool available for preventing bad editing is blocking. When the volume of bad editing from an IP becomes unmanageable or an excessive burden on editors it is useful to block long enough for the problem to go away. I have no personal experience with managing this problem, so would only resort to a rangeblock in the face of a major problem with no-one better suited to deal with it around. I would block the smallest effective range identifiable for long enough for someone more expert to become available to look at the problem. I cannot imagine a scenario where a rangeblock as extensive or as long as mentioned above would be appropriate. One or two recent edits is insufficient provocation for any block, though I would be hard pressed to state a general limit. This is not my field of expertise, so I might in a perceived emergency block an unnecessarily large range, but not for long. Schoolblocks and anonblocks are more focused and appropriate for long term problems. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

20. You are an administrator, the current date is May 23, 2016, and someone is asking you to help with a backlog at WP:AIV. Someone has reported this IP address for a vandalism spree. The report has been there for four hours, and no edits have been made from the IP since the last edit, which was someone claiming to be from the IT department to say that the person vandalizing was disciplined for it. How do you respond?

A: Taking the example at face value, I don't see a need for any action. The address has history, but a later check that the contributions remain unproblematic should be sufficient. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pkbwcgs

21. There are lessons to be taken away from this RfA, and this could go either way. However, in case this RfA doesn't succeed, what would you improve and do to ensure that your next RfA is successful?

A: That is hard to say. I volunteered here out of a sense of community and to do my bit with some grunt-work which I still think will be fairly straightforward. The arguments that there is no need for me to have the tools and no need for me to help with the work at this stage suggest that perhaps the need for more admins is less pressing than we are generally led to believe, or that admins are only needed in areas that do not currently interest me. If the community does not think I am needed I am quite happy to go on with my content creation and related projects. Maybe next time I need a tool it will be an unbundled one, or the need will be greater. Maybe the need will never occur again, this is the first time in 10 years that I thought I needed an admin tool enough to apply for it. It is not a big deal either way. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from AlexEng

22. Could you please discuss your understanding of WP:CFRD and give some examples of content you would consider for redaction under criteria two and three?

A: I take them at their face value as written. Since I have never to my memory personally encountered a case of either of these problems, I have no examples to quote. If or when I do encounter something that appears to match these criteria, the guidance is available for reference. If I am uncertain whether it is a good match I would ask a second opinion. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

23. What do you think the hardest part of having the mop will be?

A: I really have no idea. I am sorry I cant give you a more useful answer, but it would be speculation without sufficient data. I have not found anything particularly hard about my admin actions on Wikivoyage or Wikimania 2018, but they are completely different sites and cannot realistically be compared, and I have seen admins getting orders of magnitude more flak on English Wikipedia - sometimes even deserved. I am not overly put out by accurate, relevant and realistic criticism, and can simply ignore ordinary incivility and work through it in most cases. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from 5 albert square

24. You have said that you would only really be willing to do admin work that is in your comfort zone. However, admin work, a lot of the time is working outwith comfort zones. Why only within your comfort zone?

A: Is it really true that a lot of admin work is working outside comfort zones? I agree that some things can be tricky, and require careful assessment, but when in doubt, there are many other admins who may be quite familiar with those aspects who will advise, and there are some things that require tecnical understanding which I lack. Those are the areas where errors are more likely, and it would be irresponsible to accept a high risk of error just because one has the access to do something and that thing needs to be done. I come from a professional background where one does not take unneccessary chances. Few people are likely to die if a Wikipedia admin messes up, but these habits of caution are ingrained by now. I suppose it also depends on how ones defines comfort zones and what level of comfort is chosen as the limit. Maybe we differ on this point. Risk assessment in situations where other people's lives could depend on it was part of my work. Another part was getting the job done without undue cost or delay. As you may imagine, these requirements can conflict. One becomes comfottable with these circumstances by taking gradual steps and consulting experts when indicated. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Tavix

25. As part of your answer to Q12, you stated: "Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree". Could you clarify what you meant by that?

A: If I agree that the assessment of consensus is valid I would delete. If I am uneasy about the assessment of consensus I would not delete. If I disagree strongly I would request the closer to explain. They may have good reasons, or may not. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Billhpike

26. How do you feel about WP:Wikipe-tan?

A: Mostly harmless? Not a thing that I have thought about much.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

27. As an admin, would you use {{Administrator topicon}} with the tan icon option?

A: No, not my style. I am more of a mop and bucket person.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Pbsouthwood: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Pbsouthwood can be found here.
• Some user stats posted to talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Support

1. Support precious! I trust that you won't block (if at all) without talking to a user first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Gerda, If it is possible to get the user to respond I will try to communicate first. Sometimes it may happen that they don't respond and a block may be urgent. I am not fond of blocking in principle, and would be quite happy if the need never arises, but this is Wikipedia, and I expect the need to come up occasionally. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

2. Support - I'll stick my neck out even though I haven't come into direct contact with this user. I don't see anything to give me concerns. And well done for having the courage to self-nominate in the present climate. Deb (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. Great and experienced editor. Very active since 2016. Make sure to use more edit summaries. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Since you ask so nicely, I will try. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Support There will definitely opposes and complaints on self-nom etc, and lack of experience in deletion; but what matters more than that is whether they have a use and whether they'd do well with the tools. They communicate well in my experience and know their policy. I think in areas where they don't have experience they'd stay away, and they'll respond well to concerns if they make mistakes, and thus I expect mainly/solely positives from them having the tools. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Expanding, since a lot of people are commenting on "need"; he's coming here with a purpose, so it is hardly that they aren't going to use the tools to help, so I don't really understand those opposing on that basis - what exactly would be a "real need"? Maybe in a few months or a year the work will be done, but that doesn't undermine the benefit accrued in that time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

5. (edit conflict × 2) Support I am not well acquainted with this user, but I have found nothing to be concerned about. They have virtually no participation on the drama boards, which is good. Their AfD record is sparse but contains nothing to be concerned about. Their article contributions seem very solid, and the GA and FA reviews of their work (and their review of others' work) show them to be collegial and polite. I see no reason why they would be unable to use the tools well in the area they wish to work in, and I think they are clueful enough to avoid areas where they do not have enough experience. Vanamonde (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Support While I have slight trepidation with their desire to be a single-issue admin involved in deleting things when they've only cast 10 AFD !votes in 10 years and have a 71% match rate and no CSD log, the specific task of deleting portals seems more clerical than adjudicative. Their overall content creation credentials look good (more than 100 articles, seeing several through to GA), there is a clean block log, and established tenure. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
7. Support - I trust hat e will stay within his area of competence nd be a net positive within it. It's worth noting that portal subpage deletion is utterly uncontroversial, and the easiest G6 imaginable. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Support: Deleting redundant portal components is something that numerous people are doing by the truckload with all the portal cleanup going on and needed. I personally think Peter comes over well in discussions and knows what's going on. He seems to be an existing admin on Wikivoyage and Wikimania which is probably a good indication of something. Update: Very pleased with the response to my question, showing that Peter intends to only make clear-cut deletions tagged by other people unless it's blindingly obvious.JLJ001 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

8. Support: Impressive work in mainspace area. The user already has adminship experience on other WMF. Nothing negative found. Pratyush (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
9. Support, what I've seen of their work was good and gives confidence that they won't abuse the tools. Fram (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
10. Support not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
11. Support - I have reviewed some of the work submitted by this editor for GA & FA promotion, and was pleasantly surprised by his patience, editing skills, attitude as a collaborator, openness to criticism, and focus on the article and task at hand; all of which I find to be desirable traits in an admin. He pays attention to detail, and takes the time necessary to do the research and I believe he will apply those same positive characteristics as an admin. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
12. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
13. Support. Was a little concerned about the single-issue side of things, hence my Q6, but since you indicated in your answer you'd be open to recall, I see no problems. Self noms and edit summaries don't bother me. Good luck. Yintan 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
14. Support: (edit conflict) I didnt have any concerns before commenting in the comments section, nor during the time when I asked the question. As Amory pointed out, lack of visibility to other editors is understandable. Peter's contrib history clearly shows patience, and civility. Wikiproject portals will certainly take a lot of time, and as Tony has pointed out in the comment section below, G6 deletion isn't sexy, but it is frequently needed and having someone who is actually interested in doing it so that someone who doesn't care can spend their time elsewhere is a great benefit to the project. In the meantime, Peter would certainly learn about the toolset. This RfA is not a lot similar, but a little similar to Cobi's RfA. A little similar because Cobi required purely to be a "sys-op", not an "administrator"; whereas Peter needs the toolbox for a primary reason, during and after which he would mutate into an admin. I cant imagine any misuse from his side, and he would be a net-positive as an admin. So no reasons to oppose. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
15. Support Looking to do a thankless job and definitely has the insight to do it. Would be a huge positive for Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
16. Support WikiProjectPortals needs someone to do this job and Peter's the right guy for it. He'll be great and only use his power for good. Unqualified support. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
17. Support Only minor concern is the edit summary usage, which isn't really enough to consider oppose. He'll make a fine admin. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
18. Support. Featured vital article automatically passes content creation (I hope you enjoyed writing it), good work on short descriptions and participation at portal discussions. Thoroughly inconsistent use of edit summaries is the only concern. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (Moved to oppose) wumbolo ^^^ 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Moving back to support per this diff which shows enough understanding of the deletion process that he would never improperly influence a deletion discussion (I don't know how to put it better). wumbolo ^^^ 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
19. Support, I do have some issues with the candidate, but I believe they are net positive and can become a good administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
20. Support - no issues here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
21. Support - demonstrated need for the tools, communicates well (outside of edit summaries), collaborative, good answers to questions, demonstrates CLUE in areas outside the Portals, adminship highly likely to be of benefit to Wikipedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
22. Support - a sensible editor and a sensible requirement for the tools. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
23. Support, while I am not sure that deletion is necessary for many of the old portal pages, I do believe the candidate should be made an administrator. Make sure to leave summaries even for trivial admin actions, though -- unlike regular edits these can't be checked by everyone. —Kusma (t·c) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Strongly per adminship experience on other Wikimedia wikis. —Kusma (t·c) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

24. Support - likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Support after reading the answers to the questions and Amory's oppose. I see a very good editor who will not use the mop much, except when there is an obvious mess to be cleaned up. That's the kind of admin I want, rather than someone who is gung-ho to do everything they can. Being an admin in other projects without any issues (AFAICT) also helps quell any doubts I may have. Besides, there is a clear need for more admins and we have a qualified candidate willing to put in the work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Withdrawing my support for now. Q12 concerned me that the candidate may not be familiar enough with deletion policy, and the answer to my follow-up Q25 did not alliviate my concern. It is important to be familiar with deletion policy since deletion is the reason the candidate requested the tools. In particular, I resonate with Steel1943, Double sharp, and Iffy's votes and discussion underneath. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

25. Support No concerns. Good to see an established content creator. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Support. Has clue, net positive, etc. Obviously would know how to properly use the mop. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    (Moved back to "neutral".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    (...And now moved to "oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

26. Support GoldenRing part 2. Lourdes 14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    I see many of my friends and admins I respect in the oppose section. Having read all the opposes, I'm reiterating my support to the candidate. As I've mentioned earlier (to I think Rambling Man), if adminship could be transferable, I'd have no qualms handing over my bit to PBS. We need mature editors who won't screw up the tools big time; and who would have the sense to converse with civility and to accept and correct mistakes as they learn from them. The tools are not keys to crashing the project. They're there to help keep the project prim on a few fronts. If PBS wishes to contribute to a narrow area than a broad one, that's commendable. And if he's made mistakes and is learning from them, more commendable. Let's encourage such volunteers; just like you all encouraged me over the years. Lourdes, 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I meant to reply to you earlier — I don't agree that this is like GoldenRing's RfA. Sure GR was "underexperienced" compared to the typical successful candidate, but he did have experience in some of the relevant areas. Opposes there were often for "length of experience" whereas here many are for "complete lack of experience." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    Hi Amory, as I wrote earlier (about friends et al), I shan't debate with you (and you know why). I think your opposition (and those of most of my other fellow editors below) is quite fair and absolutely relevant here, and more so as I think that the many inexperienced fly-by editors who're !voting above and below need informed and knowledgeable comments to hone their decisions. Honestly, I am pleased when someone writes "Per Amory" while opposing than writing some other irrelevant reason. My point of view has also been placed in the same lines – for editors to know why I and others are supporting PBS. I honestly don't believe PBS would screw up. We need to change the way we hand out admin tools. It's not about inexperience for me – it's more about maturity, which in my opinion PBS has dollops of. So while I respect (hugely) your viewpoint, I hope the community – and you especially – agree with my point of view. I know I'm fishing, but it would be wonderful to have you reconsider your opposition. I'm hoping against hope, but perhaps you might (no?). And for you (only for you), if you do change your oppose, I'll immediately apply to get my admin flag back. What say? Love as always, Lourdes, 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    Ahh you know me too well! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

27. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
28. Support, see no reason to suspect abuse will happen. If he wants a mop to clean things up with, then give him one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
29. Support - seems like a competent candidate. If they do evolve beyond portal work, I hope that they take it slow and review the relevant policies and guidelines. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
30. Support - this candidate has just about half of their contribs on this wiki, with another 40,000 or so on other WMF projects ([1]). They're an admin already at WikiVoyage and on the Wikimania 2018 wiki, and they have advanced rights on 4 more wikis, not including enwiki where they also have an impressive contribution history and set of trusted privileges. I would normally be wary of a candidate saying "I just want the tools for this one temporary thing" due to the known difficulty of having an admin's tools removed if they mess up and won't give them up voluntarily. But I think this candidate has already demonstrated they have the competence to admin without breaking things or ruffling feathers, and I trust they'll ask for help if they run into trouble. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
31. Support Well-rounded editor and an admin on other projects that will be a net positive as an admin here. I would encourage User:Pbsouthwood to consider the advice that I and other editors gave regarding edit summaries, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Edit summaries, even the most succinct ones, are a good best practice, not just for admins, but for any editor that wants to minimize the potential for miscommunication or misunderstandings. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
32. Support - I'ver long thought we need an assistant admin role that would be more limited in abilities and could be more freely given out and which would provide a path to full admin status or just equip an editor who wants to specialize in certain chores. This would be a prefect use, but since such a role does not exist and this editor has a long record or responsible behavior, I support.--agr (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
33. Support. I can appreciate the concerns of anyone who opposes the idea of conferring admin rights for a single specific purpose, and there have been cases in the past where I was opposed. But if it's a candidate I would trust with all of the admin toolkit and to work on general admin tasks anyway, then that would override such concerns. Pbsouthwood is one such candidate, and I'm happy to support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
34. Support not a jerk and has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
35. Incorporeal support per the numbers. If, as PBS states, there are 150,000 admin actions to make in the new future, and equally near in the future no admins who are(apparantly) willing to make them, then that is a pretty convincing sum. I was almost / very persuaded by Amory's oppose—and specifically, in fact, his reply to Tony, in which they point out that, far from being easy, G6 arguably demands the most nuanced treatment of all the CSD criteria. I also acknowledge the paucity of the candidate's deletion work. I still, in fact, agree with much of their reasoning. I've landed here, however—both because of the self-nom, which I admire, and in spite of the use of third-person, which p*sses me off prodigiously—with the suggestion that PBS spend a week or two with under G6-mentoring, just to get a feel of the thing. Meh, maybe that's not necessary. But at the end of the day, I have no reason to doubt PBS' premise regarding the number of potential deletions nor the lack of admin activity in that area, and that's an equation in urgent need of a solution. We regularly give the bit to those whose sole interest is in clearing backlogs, and this seems to be writ large. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Well, I offered, for one, and without volunteering others by name, we have plenty of sysops who regularly delete a bunch of boring crap. As Maile66 points out below, batch deleting pages is easy, it's the reviewing that's difficult. As these 150k pages are liable to need quick but easy reviewing, I do not believe it will be a major burden on us. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Amorymeltzer: Yes, I was wondering whether to suffix my post as "Per Bbb23" as well :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    To clarify, I find Amorymeltzer's arguments phenomonally convincing; I am further minded by Ansh666 remarks that the work does not nvolve as much heavy lifting as we might have assumed. By their calculations (1000 in 20 clicks), it works out at the whole lot taking ~7500 mouse-clicks to resolve. I wonder if we need to appoint a new admin to do what may only be a fortnight's work, taken all together. And if we do, we have some rather vague promises to look at other stuff—which by now it seems to have been established they have no experience in. I suppose they could return the tools after the project is complete; tere doesn't seem to have been an acknowledgement—or, to be fair, a suggestion—of that though. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Support - No issues here. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Moved to Oppose, sorry. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

36. Support for obvious reasons. I don't think he will be a single issue admin. The foot in the door metaphor applies. Once in, other tasks will magically appear. scope_creep (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
37. Support per nom and answers to questions. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
38. Support The purpose is positive for the project and given his track record I see no danger of misuse. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
39. Support. No good reason not to. Not the first single-use rfa either. Sro23 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
40. Support I prefer the honesty of "I want to do this single task and need admin rights to" over blowing sunshine up our asses with "I am going to watch X, Y, and Z noticeboards". If he decides to move onto other work which falls under the admin workflow, that's great, but I see no reason to deny the admin toolset, because they intend on only using part of it. Until such time as the toolset it's broken down into the various tasks, it's all or nothing, and I see no reason to deny because they only want to use 25% (or less) of the technical options included. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
41. Support per nom. Froswo (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
42. Support – a conscientious and good faith editor. I'm sure he'll use the tools well. No doubt, he will expand use of them as time goes on.    — The Transhumanist   17:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
43. Support, a model editor. A Train^talk 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
44. Support Because volunteering for maintenance jobs is something that should be supported Zarasophos (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
45. Support I have some trepidation that the candidate lacks experience in deletion, policy and dispute resolution discussions however he has said he will stay away from areas outside his comfort zone and will spend time taking advice and learning from others should he later decide to work in such areas. The candidate has s specific, large task they want to accomplish and has a long history as a respected able and contributor to Wikipedia. The clincher for me is he has said he is willing to resign the tools if ever there is a community consensus for him to do so. Jbh ^Talk 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Noticed he only agrees to recall for lack of activity. Asked question about willingness to be subject to general recall. Last edited: 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
46. Support. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
47. Support – I've had few interactions with this editor, but I accept their offer to support limited areas of the project and their promise of caution in areas outside of their usual orbit. This seems like an unusual request, but I can easily see the need for delete permission in their proposed work and no other way to get it. Does this mean we need to consider that some admins are "specialized"? – I think that's already true but this might be a more extreme example. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
48. Support Can sysop without exploding the enecyclopedia. I agree that multiple small edits in a row don't necessarily require an edit usmmary, but do support you using them more often,a nd appreciate how open you are to suggestions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
49. Support I am sure they will grow into the admin tools. Strong editor with a long history of community trust. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
50. Support Suitable candidate, I am not phased by the issues presented by those in the oppose camp. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
51. Support per Doc James. We need more admins, to replace the ones we're losing monthly through lapsed accounts, and competent enthusiastic editors with years of experience and a level head are a good sort to fill that void, even if they haven't done much admining hitherto.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
52. Support. Doesn't appear likely to do anything stupid with the tools. Particularly appreciate the complete openness about being willing to give them back - not that I think he should, but it speaks well of him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
53. Mahveotm (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
54. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
55. Support with extra points for the self-nomination which shows laudable independence. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
56. Strong support. I am much more active at Wikivoyage than here & I know Peter from there as both a long-term contributor (e.g. large chunks of voy:Scuba diving and its child articles, and see voy:Talk:Cruising_on_small_craft/Archive#Any_sailors_about?) and someone who has been a competent (though I do not think particularly active) user of admin tools for several years. Pashley (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
57. Support I like self-nominations and single-function admins. I like his willingness to give up the mop (though he might be more specific about it). In short I like having somebody who will add to the diversity of our admin corps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
58. Support Let the ayes have it, they indeed can see that this is a good choice for an admin. talk to !dave 20:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
59. Support - Some people have taken issue with the "just for one purpose" element of the self-nom. I say if we can trick responsible, experienced users into taking adminship through a single "gateway portal drug," then let's do it. Haven't seen any cause for concern. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
60. Support have always had good interactions with the user, clearly has the experience, and single issue is a good way to start using the tools. Just because you have them, doesn't mean you need to use them all the time for everything. Sadads (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
61. Support - no concerns about this editor. bd2412 T 23:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
62. Support I rather liked this recent suggestion to make a list of all Wikipedians with over 10,000 edits who are not admins, and give all the non-insane ones the permissions (...said, I trust, with only affection for the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved from the mop) and since we’re closing in on four score votes without indication of anything disqualifying by that standard, I say, sure, and thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Gonna go ahead and make my reasoning more explicit as it seems like that might be necessary: longstanding, trusted user who has mastered complex (in terms of both policy and interpersonal skills) Wikipedia processes like GA and even FA without making apparently even one person think he is a jerk! Has a well-defined purpose for the tools and plenty of clue with which to learn other aspects of the toolset if he still wants anything to do with us after his first 100,000 admin actions. Would be delighted to see more candidates this promising. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

63. Support, don't see why not. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
64. Support, per Johnbod, Bish, Cas, etc. etc. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
65. Support. I find the third-person nomination strange, but I have no concerns about the trustworthiness, maturity or competence of this user. Rhododendrites also has a good point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
66. Support Not convinced by the opposes. I really don't see a downside here. Nobody is throwing out any convincing reasons why they should not be an admin apart from the narrow scope of their need. If they work through what they want and never use the tools again we have lost nothing. If they do become involved in other administrative areas then we have gained an admin. I wouldn't put much weight into opposes based on philosophical grounds. I have run into Pbsouthwood a few times at GA talk pages and although I disagree with them occasionally they have always been easy to talk with. Dedicated to the project and clueful. I say give them a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
67. Support It's a rare occurrence to see RfA candidates tackling areas other admins rarely deal with. And those work are desperately needed and appreciated. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
68. Support. Is this the strongest candidate ever for adminship? Of course not. But we're handing out useful tools to ordinary editors here, not panning for demi-gods. This user has been calm, collected and conscientous, and has responded diligently and accurately to suggestions and criticisms. Really, that's all one actually needs to be a good admin. We have a tendency to obsessively worry about a lack of experience, because it indicates an increased risk of error. But suppose he does make an error. What of it? Pages can be undeleted, closures can be oveturned, blocks can be lifted, et cetera ad infinitum. Indeed they happen all the time. It's not the end of the world. As long as nobody starts wheel warring or losing their heads, everything will be fine. And I don't have any concerns that either will happen here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
69. Support. I would trust them with the tools, based on my interactions with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
70. Illeism is a bit odd, but Jonathunder supports. Jonathunder (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
71. Support.A few words- Would be a fine administrator. Bingobro (Chat) 03:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
72. Support This feels like a nearly perfect testcase for the community's willingness to trust someone who has proven trustworthy - just not in "admin" areas. I for one see nothing to indicate that if we trusted them with the admin mop tools that they wouldn't behave as responsibly as they have in other areas of their Wikipedia endeavors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
73. Support I am grateful when a respected, experienced editor is inspired to take on a task like this, which I'm sure he'll do well. Giving Peter the mop will save other admins many hours of work.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Others have pointed out that other admins could do this particular task quickly via mass deletion, but I still support giving Peter the mop. Picking up a bit of admin work is one way for longtime editors to get a change if they're bored. That's a good enough reason for me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
74. Support I trust the editor with the admin tools. --Enos733 (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
75. Support- I don't know this user, but there's some heinous opposes down there that need cancelling. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Quite so. Nobody has come up with a single reason why this is anything other than an exemplary editor, or any reason to suspect they would do any single bad thing with the tools, yet the RfA is starting to creep down towards the dreaded 75% mark. I thought the days when RfA was a warzone were over, but clearly there are some who still like it this way.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

76. Support. I'm more familiar with him from Wikivoyage, where he has been an admin for 5 years. I have no reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. Nurg (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
77. Support. It's time we try to make adminship less of a big deal, and a calm, competent, thoughtful user with a specific (if specialized) plan in mind, demonstrating an avoidance of drama and restraint from jumping too far into the unknown too quickly, is a good place to start. Martinp (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
78. Support. Sorry, but the oppose section is too ridiculous for me not to end up here. This editor is clearly trustworthy with the Admin tools, and has shown need for them, yet the perfect seems to have become the enemy of the good... once again. Come on guys. Great editor, plenty of relevant experience, trustworthy, with a project that requires the admin toolset. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I get where you are coming from, but I also get where the people in the oppose section are coming from, considering we have administrators wanton softblocking /16 ranges that literally affect millions of people with no policy or consensus to back their actions and they get away with it per "community trust" in administrators. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Could you share what comprises plenty of relevant experience? I have been unable to find much, whether around deletion or other sysop-relevant activities. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Please let's not be mechanical here. I seconded Amory's question. Pease share with us –preferably with diffs– the plenty of relevant experience that he has. Be it AfD, CSD, UAA, AIV and any other admin-related work. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

79. Support Has been around since 2009.As per Net Positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
80. While I respect the individuals in the the oppose section, I don't agree with their arguments. In particular it does not bother me if a candidate has no AIV reports when they are intending to start out at deletion (or conversely a candidate who has no deletion tagging but who intends to start in blocking). Years ago we had a process of admin coaching and a flow of candidates who had methodically ticked the boxes by doing a bit of each of the things that were on their coaches check list. That day is over, and we should no longer expect candidates who look like that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Without wanting to speak for the other opposers, I think the problem is that the candidate intends to work in deletion but doesn't have any experience in deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I too think lack of experience in admin related areas is not really a reason to oppose. My concern is the single issue that Pete intends to work on is something he doesn't necessarily need the tools for, and I am reluctant to support candidates whom in face of controversial areas would simply turn away, which is my impression so far from reading the statement and answers to questions. Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I somewhat disagree. I do think lack of experience in admin areas is a reason to oppose. I appreciate WereSpielChequers's sentiment about admin coaching "ticking the boxes", but at the present, we are asking a prospective administrator to apply the nuances of speedy deletion policy when they have literally never requested speedy deletion in some of our more nuanced categories (e.g. A7). I know it's not rocket science and can be learned on the job, but consider the amount of community time spent on noticeboard discussions when administrators make questionable calls and weigh it against the option of waiting a bit before getting the mop. I have no doubt that Pbsouthwood will not actively abuse the tools, but I worry that his lack of practical experience might lead to accidental misuse. Mz7 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Sure, but most admins accidentally misuse tools at some point. But that doesn't break the wiki because it's all fixable. The most common reason admins get blocked is they block themselves by mistake. What you need to be asking is not "will Peter make a mistake?", but "when Peter makes a mistake will he learn from it?" Ask anybody who's worked with him and the answer is a resounding "yes". Peter is a very experienced diver and people regularly put their lives in his hands - that teaches you to be meticulous. We shouldn't be worrying about his ability to learn how to push a few new buttons on a website. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

81. Very weak support - For the most part, the answers to the questions seem sensible, I'm seeing a low risk of you abusing the tools, you are a long term user, and you get bonus moral points for be willing to go through the "week of hell" for such a specific reason. Your answer to 20 was good, and your answer to 19 was reasonable but imperfect, though you admit that anti-vandalism isn't your area of expertise, and I wouldn't expect perfection from someone who isn't going to be focusing on vandal-fighting. If you ever venture into vandal-fighting, I sincerely hope you use common sense with blocks, particularly {{schoolblock}}s since you have stated that they are "appropriate for long term problems"; the reason I say that is because certain IP addresses represent thousands of people, there is no established policy or site-wide consensus to prevent (or make it more difficult for) students from editing Wikipedia other than "community trust" of administrators, it is absurd to associate five year old activity with current activity from a four year high school or college, yet some of the current administrators do exactly that, and we don't need anymore administrators like that in my opinion (actually, I would like to see the ones who do that lose their mop). Furthermore, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters since you are primarily going to focus on deletions, it is an essay written by a wise, but now retired administrator. I realize you're going to be focusing on a very specific niche here, but it's still wise to be careful with deletions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
82. Support This is a tough one, and I've been on the fence. I had no problem with the self-nom, but was put off by its third-person aspect (took me a moment to realize that it was a self-nom :-)) and PBS' vagueness about advanced permissions on other WMF projects. Although it seems like we have enough experienced admins at the moment to cope with existing backlogs, the projected portal backlog would be much larger than, say, the Neelix redirects were. For this reason, PBS seems like a net positive to me. Miniapolis 13:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
83. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. This is a long-term editor who knows the community and the policies and has no red flags that indicate that they'll abuse the extra tools or ignore feedback if they get in over their head. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
84. Support, largely along the lines of Miniapolis. Some concerns, sure, but a long-term adminship on enwvoy cancels those out to me. Courcelles (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
85. Support Most of the opposes have no concerns other than narrowness of need, which I believe is a weak reason to oppose.--I am One of Many (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
86. Doing my small, futile part to resist momentum in the wrong direction. I don't know Pbsouthwood, but he seems an honest sort, been here a long time as a content creator, appears open to collaboration and discussion, and doesn't seem to have a desire to wield power over other people. Anyone with admin criteria stricter than that is really doing the project a disservice. (A few months away certainly helps clarify how silly this place can be; things that I realize are par for the course really jump out at you when you haven't used your that's-just-Wikipedia-being-Wikipedia filter in a while. All the carefully worded "I'm not opposing because of his use of the third person, but it bothers me enough that I highlight it first in my oppose" comments ... being upset that he won't seek out drama (sorry, I think it's worded "deal with the tough cases an admin has to be able to handle") ... claims that you can't learn adminning on the job (n.b.: yes, you can) ... the "demonstrated need for the tools" canard ...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
87. Support, having the admin tools is not a big deal. I don't care if he only uses 10% of the tools 5% of the time, he's not going to misuse them, and we should be working towards making every experienced, competent and active editor an administrator to demystify the whole thing and to address the decline in administrator numbers. I find many of the oppose votes to be rather specious. Fish Karate 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
88. Support, trustful and net positive to the project. Let's not make this process unnecessarily difficult for good-faith users who need the mop, however small that need might be. No such user (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
89. Support Based on a short review of contributions, I support. I trust this editor to use the tools selectively and wisely. --joe decker^talk 15:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
90. Support. 76% of contributions to mainspace Y Over 43,000 edits Y 98% of edits are still live Y clean block log Y no drama at the administrators' noticeboard Y Has a need: deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages in the portal space Y That's certainly something that I don't want to be bothered with (I think that Google is the portal, but whatever). Lamest oppose section I can recall. After this, I hope I never see any more articles about adminship's sails. Good luck, and please ride this to the finish line. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
91. Support per my positive interactions with this editor, their track record of contributions, and the lack of anything that makes me doubt their judgment. I think it's long past time that we abandon resisting someone's RfA for reasons like "they need only part of the toolset". Adminship is no big deal and I'm happy to see the tools in the hands of any capable editor. --Laser brain (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
92. Support likely to be a net positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
93. Support I'm confident they will do a good job at the task they plan to do. Based on their editing experience here and their admin experience at WikiVoyage, I trust them to do the right thing if they choose to "grow into" other admin roles. Not all admins need months in the anti-vandalism and new-page-patrol mines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    In response to some of the opposes based on this being a "single-purpose" candidacy: I'm not supporting this as a single-purpose admin candidacy; I hope the candidate will engage in other admin work, and trust them to do so responsibly. I completely fail to see why the lack of CSD tagging (for example) makes it more likely they will be a rogue admin which the community might want to recall. The opposes based on Q12 and Q25 are more compelling, but IMO are a reflection of avoiding AfD; if a significant part of community feels that 100 AfD votes should be required of admin candidates, I encourage them to start an RfC to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

94. Support They're an admin elsewhere, so I don't believe that technical competence with the buttons is an issue. I don't see any evidence from anyone in the oppose section that the editor in question will likely misuse the tools. I don't see the problem. Adminship should be no big deal. SQL^{Query me!} 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    But it is. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood#"No big deal".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

95. Support No indication that he would misuse the tools. He seems like a thoughtful person who will review relevant policies to better understand any other areas he might need to venture into. I am an admin and don't know relevant policies in many (most?) admin areas, but I don't make admin actions where I don't know the policies. I trust him to be appropriately conservative if/when he expands his areas of work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
96. Support Per all of the above. Needing the tools for one area of admin work is sufficient reason to have the mop in my book, so long as the editor is trustworthy. Vadder (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
97. Support. Trusted editors with a great editing history can easily be trusted with admin tools. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
98. Support per BD2412. Hiding T 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
99. Support - the nomination wording is poorly judged; it's in the third person, it's vague about the admin roles on other projects, and it's asking for a single purpose use for the tools, which is not even needed, given the nature of that purpose. So, given that, it's understandable why people are voting oppose - the nomination wording suggests a moment of poor judgement and a lack of taking care. If you are going to self-nom, then make damn sure you get it right. We are a collegiate project, and there's much to be gained from getting someone to look over your nomination even if you intend to do a self-nom. But, that aside, what I'm seeing is an experienced, useful, and willing user who has no genuine red flags. If they had consulted with someone, and that person had nominated them, avoiding the mistakes that Pbsouthwood has made in his wording, we would be likely seeing a 100% support at this time, as Pbsouthwood is a viable candidate. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC).
100. Support as per Boing! said Zebedee and kelapstick. Although Pbsouthwood's immediate goal may be to acquire the delete button only to support portal cleanup, until the complete admin toolset is un-bundled, I must consider his aptitude for all potential admin functions in the future. Given his contributions to date, I have no problem with this and expect that he will in time go on to help the project in other ways. Even though I may agree with some of the points made by the oppose voters to date, I do not agree with their rationale that those points alone are sufficient to oppose the addition of a considerate, experienced editor to the admin ranks. Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
101. Support No reason to believe they will misuse the tools or position.--MONGO 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
102. Support Content creator with a good editing history, and as a rule such editors should have access to the tools. The portal cleanup will take a lot more work than I think some people realise. I have concerns about the suitability for adminship of those disturbed by a third-person nomination. There's more than one way to handle writing an article, or performing an admin action, and just because someone does it differently to you does not make them wrong. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
103. Support established editor, no serious issues, and adminship shouldn't require more. As to those worried about someone deigning to suggest he might, upon becoming an admin, try things he hadn't previously thought of, there are so many things out there that it's completely unrealistic to expect anything else; when I ran I thought I'd mostly do CSD, but within months I focused on AE and somehow avoided destroying everything in sight. Seriously, people, this isn't appointing a Special Counsel for the FBI. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
104. Support I've had the pleasure of working with Peter for a considerable time on scuba-related articles, and more recently with him on work concerning short descriptions. He is unfailingly polite, perceptive and constructive in all of his interactions. He is experienced in many areas, especially in content creation, and I have no doubt that he would be a valuable asset to the project no matter what field of activity he turned his mind to. It's at this point that I'm going to ask all those who oppose on grounds of "no need" to have a careful think. No admin needs the tools, because everybody is replaceable. Many admins from pre-2008 weren't required to jump through that hoop because the judgements were based on trust, and Wikipedia wasn't broken by that, even in its period of ballistic growth. What you should be asking yourself is "is this somebody who I can trust to do admin work?" If you insist on raising the bar for adminship beyond that fundamental question, you will perpetuate this horribly broken system, and quality editors will continue to shun the opportunity to take on extra tasks that they could perform very competently. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
105. Support it is enough for me that Pbsouthwood is "long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead" - his contributions show that he is happy contributing within areas of his competence & I am confident that he will continue to do so. Find bruce (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
106. Support per Find bruce. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
107. Support, tentatively. The candidate's use of the admin tools would certainly make them a WP:NETPOSITIVE, and they wish to serve in a historically underserved area. I find all of the "oppose" votes in the below section extremely unconvincing. I once believed that a candidate must demonstrate a "need" for the tools, but I've long since dropped that from my RfA Criteria. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
108. Support: I don't normally feel the need to weigh in at RfA but it seems like every vote will count this time. Giving the admin toolset to this editor will likely result in a net positive. I commend them for seeking the tools to benefit the community. Enwebb (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
109. Support Am unconvinced by the reasons others have given for opposing. Brustopher (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
110. Support: The proposed use of adminship (portal maintenance) is an obvious need for the tools, and an experienced editor like the candidate is likely to be competent in other areas as well. Esquivalience (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
111. Support per Vanamonde, SQL and Gerda Arendt. This editor has a clue and appears to know about content. Admin-ship shouldn't be a big deal. We are still the encyclopedia anyone can edit. (Despite being the 5th most visited website in the world). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
112. Support. true, broader experience with admin areas would make this a no-brainer but Pbsouthwood is nevertheless a fine candidate: clueful and willing to do boring admin stuff (and not a jerk as TonyBallioni pointed out above). I can't see how giving him admin rights would be detrimental to the project. Pichpich (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
113. Support, per Find Bruce. "Long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead" is a pretty good summation of my RFA criteria.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
114. Support. Perfectly fine candidate. Happy to support. -- œ^™ 02:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
115. Support, fully-qualified candidate. kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
116. Support Given the shortage of candidates as of late, I don't see a demonstrated need for the tools as an important criterion for adminship. Pbsouthwood seems like a qualified candidate to me, and I'll take qualified new admins any way we can get them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
117. Support This is a trusted, productive, long term editor with a niche request for administrator's tools. The opposition seems to be based on the unusual aspects of their editing interests, combined with the obvious observation that some other administrator could do the work that this editor is willing to do. I say, give them the tools and let them do the work they want to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
118. Support. The candidate has a good track record of quality content creation and demonstrated need for the mop (deletion during cleanup). His leadership position in Wikimania 2018 shows that he can be trusted to be an accountable Wikimedian. I think most of the opposition's comments have been unduly harsh so I land firmly on the support side. Deryck C. 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
119. Support There doesn't seem to be any reason for opposing, as per general comments above. Nigej (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
120. Support. This is my first !vote, but I had to. I think that the opposition has compelling points, but the candidate seems trustworthy and I think that it's important to have more administrators that are helpful, active, and dedicated. Zoom (talk page) 13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
121. Support. I trust the user not to misuse additional user rights. --Gereon K. (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
122. Support To quote Tryptofish: "Each day since this RfA opened, I've come here, debated with myself between support, oppose, and neutral (having seriously considered all three), and then decided to sleep on it for another day before I could feel comfortable making up my mind. And I'm still not really confident that I am correct in ..." Well, Tryptofish ended up in the oppose camp and I ended up in the support camp. I really sympathise with the rationale for wanting to help out with a task that can only be performed by admins that looks daunting – deleting 150,000 pages. When Ansh666 mentioned that "I've done probably about 1000 of these deletions now with probably less than 20 clicks" I sat in the oppose camp for a while. But then Barkeep49 put forward an argument that really resonated with me: "This feels like a nearly perfect test-case for the community's willingness to trust someone who has proven trustworthy – just not in "admin" areas." The candidate is, beyond doubt, trustworthy and has all character traits that make a good admin. So with such a solid track record, I think there is very little risk for the applicant to go off the rails. Best of luck, Peter. Schwede66 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
123. Support I see no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. I am unconvinced by the arguments (or lack of) of the opposers. --rogerd (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
124. Support the user seems trustworthy and in an era of declining adminship any we gain, even if they don't do much with the tools, is a win. God knows I barely use the bit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
125. Support. Trustworthy candidate. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
126. Support Solid and well-rounded editing history. Being an admin takes some on-the-job learning, and the candidate's prior history gives me no qualms that they will use the tools well. Has my trust. Spencer^T•C 22:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
127. Support – Should be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
128. Support Always seemed a solid, sensible type, pretty astute. Many of the opposes don't ring true to me; some fine and widely respected admins are more "content" than "admin action" orientated, and thus at important points add a different perspective to those purely concerned with process and literal, rather than pragmatic or "spirit of", interpretations of policy. And per RexxS, would prefer a new admin with a proven record of general competence, rather than a record of 10000s of bureaucratic actions. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
129. Support I've seen Peter's excellent content and non-content contributions on Wikipedia and other Wikimedian wikis over many years. He will be a great admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
130. Support. Per no big deal. Let there be more admins, the site is creakier than before for the lack of them. It is harder to become an admin here than to get into a good college. Outriggr (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
131. Support This user is reasonably qualified for this important task, and I’m happy to support him. Zingarese (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
132. Support A candidate that has the collegiate improvement of the project firmly in mind and is prepared to do the grunt work. Just the kind of contributor the project should be encouraging to take on more responsibility. Poltair (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
133. Support. I do not share the concerns of the opposers. It sounds like he'll use the tools a damned sight more than (for example) I do. I see nothing to call into question his judgment. I trust that he'll learn relevant policies before using administrative tools in them. Steve Smith (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
134. Support as there's no reason to believe that this editor will not be trustworthy with the tools. schetm (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
135. Support per Steve Smith - if he doesn't know what he needs to do in a certain area he'll consult the policy beforehand. Net positive, wanting to work in an area others don't, won't delete the main page, no big deal. -NottNott 17:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
136. Support While I see a lot of reference to Q12 in oppose, I actually support because of Q12. The candidate is conscientious of areas that they lack experience. I trust them to proceed with caution in these areas. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
137. Support I was a little unsure at first which is why I asked my question and thought over the answer to it. However, I believe that they can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
138. Support. I trust him to use the admin tools within his capabilities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
139. Support. Expect this editor to use the tools wisely and that the tools will better help this editor to improve this reference work!  Painius  ^put'r there  20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
140. Support Seems to be trustworthy, and we need more admins. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
141. Support I believe the candidate is competent and would not abuse the sysop tools. He has also stated he would be open to recall so there are few negatives, in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
142. Support Seems sane. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
143. Support. Has reasonable grounds for requesting tools, and based on answers and temperament I see no reason to suspect they'll be abused or misused. Station1 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
144. Support. Committed, mature, reasonable. WP:NONEED is a valuable essay and answers most of the concerns expressed in the section below. Even though the candidate may not now need all of the tools, he may find them useful. And Wikipedia (we are told) needs more administrators. Kablammo (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
145. Support. Wikipedia needs more administrators for routine mop work. Those without experience in all areas will be able to grow into the job. I see no compelling reasons advanced by opposers. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
146. Support - Barkeep49 and Schwede66 (supports 71 & 121 at the time of this writing) summarize the question before us well. This is a perfect test case of whether an editor who has shown good judgement for 40,000 edits and several years should be granted administrator rights solely on the basis of that track record, or whether a candidate needs to explicitly gear up for an RFA for [at least] several months by checking the boxes in a bunch of different areas beforehand. I understand those who say the later, but I am satisfied with the former. To quote Edgar181 (#96):"Trusted editors with a great editing history can easily be trusted with admin tools." MarginalCost (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
147. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Despite the candidate's expressed need for one tool, I hope he will help in other areas, and I believe he will do so responsibly. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
148. Support. I believe the candidate is competent, committed, mature, reasonable, trustworthy, and would not abuse the sysop tools. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
149. support net positive. every little bit helps.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
150. Support. The mainspace contribution percentage speaks for itself. I believe that no one has an immaculate edit hystory because we're humans and we all do mistakes. The question is the gravity of the mistakes and willingness to learn from them. The candidate, in my opinion, is commited and trustworthy to be trusted with sysop tools. Robertgombos (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
151. Support. A classic of it's kind really. If you have spent enough time getting involved you will have accumulated sufficient enemies and mistakes to prevent success at RfA, if you have not done that you have failed to demonstrate enough enthusiasm to pass muster. I sympathise with Beyond My Ken's comments about unbundling etc. but I reach the opposite conclusion - namely that as we are losing our ability to effectively police the bad guys, unless you can be shown to be one, you deserve a try. Ben MacDui 08:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
152. Support. The candidate can be trusted with the mop and may make some use of it so why not? The opposes (nom in 3rd person, only 1 uaa report etc) are, imo, very weak. DexDor ^(talk) 08:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
153. Support Good answers (example "Rangeblocks are an occasionally necessary evil"). An admin does not need to be expert in all admin areas and Pbsouthwood appears to have the right approach. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
154. Weak Support - was leaning as an oppose early on, but rethinking about it perhaps it is better that Pbsouthwood is only focused on a specific area for application of the admin tools. Adminship like most roles in Wikipedia has a natural learning curve to the lack of experience brought up in the oppose section is not that worrying for me. Nomenee's content work and attitude is fine, net positive. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
155. Support. It is disturbing how the prevailing attitude seems to have changed from WP:WTHN to "candidates need to be using the tools 24/7 in order to get my !vote". I see no reason to believe Pbsouthwood will be incompetent in the tasks he has listed, and frankly I think that admin experience on the English Wikivoyage and Wikimania 2018 should count for something. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 13:39, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

     It's disturbing how acceptable it's become to put words in the mouths of opposers. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     Reluctant opponent here. I can say that some of the other opposers' arguments, at first glance, sound like "I don't implicitly trust Peter with admin tools because he won't use them often". However, the question is not whether Peter will use admin tools often, but whether he will use admin tools at all outside of this one task. A lot of the evidence in the "oppose" section points to the fact that Peter doesn't participate in any admin activity at all, so there is no way of knowing whether he will be able to use admin tools responsibly. At least, with the other trusted users who don't participate in admin activities often but still gained adminship, the key word is "often". epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     With no disrespect to either Joe or epic, frankly, it's disturbing to see the trend of supporters being badgered for being honest about their opinions. Lourdes 16:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     Perhaps Joe could've been less snarky, but I think there is a difference between badgering and making a clarification when you feel that your viewpoint is being misunderstood. Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     That sounds a fairer description. Lourdes 23:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     Re there is no way of knowing whether he will be able to use admin tools responsibly, I disagree with that. Responsibility doesn't mean the same things as complete understanding, it means a willingness to admit when you don't know something, learn from others, and seek advice and consensus. We have plenty of evidence that Peter will do that as an admin, because by all accounts he's done things that way throughout his time on the Wiki. The only possibility for something to go wrong is if he suddenly "goes rogue" after he's granted the bit, and starts going round doing inappropriate admin activities, which would be completely out of character, given what we know about him. But that sort of rogue behaviour could take place with any promoted RFA candidate, even one who had worked extensively in admin areas before. It's why temperament is probably the number one thing people look for in their candidates.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     Even if Phsouthwood never uses admin tools at all outside of this one task, what harm is done to the project? Wouldn't making them an administrator still be a net positive? --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 18:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

     @Amakuru and Ahecht: I'm not trying to speak for all the opposers, nor am I trying to convince supporters to change their opinion. I'm just stating what seems to be the prevailing argument in the opposing section - in this case, that there isn't enough evidence to determine Peter's judgment. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

156. Support Don't see why not. And paraphrasing one comment I saw in the Oppose section, I too won't respond to comments or questions.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
157. Strong support Fully engaged, responsible, and trustworthy editor. The excellent answers to the questions demonstrate everything that would otherwise be lacking in experience or "need". Has contributed more to the project than I ever have. None of the opposers have anything bad to say about him, and indeed, many are heaping praise on him. I don't think adminship was ever meant to be so exclusionary and restrictive that it was off-limits to editors such as this. I would definitely want him on the team, even with the unfortunate fact that he would be too busy with his own work to help out with the admin backlog, and I would hope that in some point in the future he would become more involved as an administrator. Swarm ♠ 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
158. Support No reason to think they'd misue the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
159. Support. The candidate is of course not perfect. But I have supported imperfect candidates. Who is perfect? All the hand-wringing over arbitrary statistical criteria finally irritated me to the point of supporting. Pbsouthwood is also an admin on other projects, and appears to have used it responsibly. Does anyone seriously think he'll suddenly go rogue here? His content work in the diving field makes him an overall net positive, and that's why I support his candidacy. Biblio (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
160. Support – When in doubt, I feel that the most important consideration is whether the candidate can be trusted with the admin tools, based on their past experiences throughout Wikipedia. From what I've seen of this user in the past, I find it unlikely that they would use the tools inappropriately. Even if they only wish to do one task with the tools, it would be a net positive for the project, as other admins won't have their valuable time taken up by the extra chores. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
161. Support: While I maintain some of the original concerns, after thinking about this for several days, I feel it would be wrong to oppose an candidate with such clear introspection ([2]). Adminship shouldn't be a big deal; not as in it doesn't come with responsibilities, but this very mindset should never change despite of the changing environment in the past ten years. The moment we take ourselves too seriously over any process on Wikipedia is the moment the site is heading toward the wrong direction. Alex Shih (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
162. Support - Nearly every RFA includes a candidate admitting they're not comfortable or familiar with some area of admin responsibility or another. Everyone gravitates toward certain areas of interest. For most admin candidates, that's AfD, AIV, RPP, SPI, etc. This may be different in scope, but it's no different from an admin candidate who will specialize in vandalism or sockpuppetry. I'm sure there are very few admins who use all of the buttons that the bit makes available to them. While I'd prefer some version of unbundling to handle cases like this, this is a user volunteering to take on a thankless task to improve the encyclopedia. Isn't that more or less the short definition of admin? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
163. Support I have been thinking about this for the past 24 hours. As I mentioned in my oppose, it is a philosophical debate about appointing someone on the merits of their character, or their experience and potential to do harm. I was very impressed by the comment highlighted by Alex Shih when they moved from oppose to support. I am reminded that the fundamental truth that the human element that must come first and ahead of all our policies, guidelines, and worries. Mkdw ^talk 03:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
164. Support – Third-person nom showed a disconcerting obliviousness to context and procedure, and I felt that the urgency for admins at the portals project was overstated; but the questions were answered with intelligence and poise, they've done a lot of work, and they've already been entrusted with two adminships on other wikis. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
165. Someone who appears competent enough to recognise those areas in which he's not competent and stay away from them, and who's participated in lengthy discussions with some of Wikipedia's more vocal personalities while remaining calm and patient. I find the opposes based on "candidate doesn't have experience of insert name of admin task"—which appears to be a significant proportion of the opposes—completely unconvincing. No admin, and certainly no prospective admin, has experience of all aspects of the admin toolset; we're not looking for experience in everything, we're looking for the self-awareness to know what to stay away from and when to ask advice from other people. ‑ Iridescent 06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
166. Support - Per nomination and answers to questions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
167. Support Solid candidate with good answers to questions. JMHamo (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
168. Support - Believe he will be a good candidate. Admin skills will come with time and experience. Conlinp (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
169. Support Has established trustworthiness through long tenure, many edits and great contributions. The does not have need for the tools argument only works for me when the candidate does not have a long and good record and can articulate no need in addition. Under the circumstances here, I think the candidate will not abuse the tools, will be careful in getting into areas with which he is not familiar and will continue to contribute to the project in a positive way. I trust, at least with some degree of confidence based on his record, that he will not venture into areas with which he is not familiar without some study and help. I would certainly have liked him to have had more than minimal familiarity with a few more admin tasks but I think he has shown the overall skills. Any contribution to the admin tasks will be helpful. A net positive, a good demeanor and good interactions; that is certainly more than enough to justify giving him the mop. (I come to this conclusion after considering this for a few days and despite seeing users and administrators in the opposes who I frequently agree with. I would agree with their concerns enough to tip the balance in many cases, but I conclude we are on the other side of the line here.) Donner60 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
170. Support A trustworthy contributor may as well have them.💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 11:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
171. Support mostly per Iridescent. To sum up, he's an intelligent person willing to help out who is prepared to stay away from areas where he currently has no experience or expertise. Sounds great to me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
172. Support While the focus on the admin tools are very specific, Pbsouthwood appears to have the temperament and the wisdom to avoid doing anything controversial with the tools. The user will actually use the tools for something, which is more than can be said for many admins who either never use the tools or make a pointless edit once every few years to hang onto the bit. If Pbsouthwood wants to branch into other admin-areas, I think it will be done with the correct amount of research and common sense (the admin experience in other, similar sites is a plus), and if a mistake is made, well there are plenty of checks and balances built into Wikipedia. That said, I do agree with the ideas raised on further tool-unbundling and think it would help create higher productivity in areas that need help. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
173. support Per ZettaComposer. We need more admins, and I would trust Pbsouthwood with the tools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
174. There is nothing that indicates to me that the candidate would abuse the tools. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
175. Support, net positive to the project, displays good character and judgment. Opposers who are trying to turn this into a referendum on tool bundling should be disregarded. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
176. Support A long-term, solid content contributor who's level-headed, conscientious, and can clearly be trusted. Fraenir (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
177. Support I have been thinking all this from the first hour or so, however I coulld not be convinced by the opposes. The candidate is trustworthy, regardless their flaws, so, why not? Net positive. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
178. Support seems like a good character, will use the tools constructively as discussed, and there is no reason to believe this will be a negative for the project. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
179. Support happy to support, not seen anything that shows he will abuse them.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
180. Support after thinking about this for a day. I still find myself uncomfortable on principle with single-purpose admin candidacies, but as Alex Shih has written above, I cannot oppose someone with this level of introspection. With that level of introspection, I think that it really will be enough for Pbsouthwood in particular to simply read the policies before diving in. What really led me to move here is the fact that the misunderstanding of Q12 and Q25 is one that I didn't pick up on and made as well in my !vote; as a result, I think it's unfair for me to expect more of him than of myself, since XfD is not an area that either of us have much experience in. But more importantly, I think it is a natural misunderstanding if you go to XfD infrequently, only when the subject is something you can contribute to in mainspace, and simply follow the usual principle of "consensus comes first" – which is a sentiment that is hard to argue with it, so central it is to WP. In any case, all these places that we call "admin areas" (XfD, AIV, PP, etc.) are not the main attraction of WP. The main point is and has always been writing articles, and all of these side processes are simply the needed organisational structure to support that. And any mistakes that come from understanding the spirit of policies, while not understanding the letter, often may as well not be mistakes. Based on this and the excellent rationale of Iridescent, Pbsouthwood now has my support. I still have concerns that users who only really understand one area of WP may make difficult-to-reverse mistakes in other areas if they have the tools, but I am convinced that Pbsouthwood is not one such. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
181. Support very little risk and high reward. Any additional assistance, even if limited to only certain areas, is greatly appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
182. Support Was thinking about sitting this one out but what the heck, we need more admins. This is a quality user who will be an asset with the mop. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
183. Support It looks to me like he's genuinely trying to help, and I see no reason to fear he might abuse the tools. Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
184. Support. He has a clean record, a long history of constructive and helpful editing, and a clear need for the tools. I am impressed by his answers to questions, which reveal an understanding of policy combined with a recognition of his own limitations (and I absolutely agree with him about adminning within one’s own comfort zone). I trust him with the tools and I think the project will benefit if he has them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
185. Support - I have vacillated on this RfA since it began, but have finally decided to support after resolving that the entirely reasonable arguments below don't really move me. From my research and reading here it seems that this user has enough clue to not blunder in to areas they do not understand, and can be trusted not to do something monumentally stupid with the sysop bit. I would however recommend that they look into automating the mass-deletion of uncontroversial portal subpages (as Amorymeltzer said below - make damn sure they genuinely are uncontroversial!). I'll happily help you with the technical side of that - just ask. :) ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
186. Support. I've waited a while before voting and read the oppose votes, but I'm going with support. He seems to be a reasonable person, and the only way for adminship to be "no big deal" is if people treat it as such, and stop expecting admin candidates to have a perfect record and experience in every area. It's a process that needs reforming, but this candidate is fine. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
187. Support. I am more compelled by the arguments in favor than those against, which is arguably a tautology given my vote, but simply because I personally write more detailed edit summaries and am puzzled by those who don't isn't a good reason to vote against someone who seems quite unlikely to do anything foolish with the tools and who will almost certainly find, once he has them, that there are other fine ways to use them besides the one that he's thinking of in particular. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
188. Support. WP:NOBIGDEAL. Moreover, the user has done some great content creation and has a calm and collected way of interacting with other editors. The editor's recent edit summaries (see Special:Contributions/Pbsouthwood) suggest that the user is slowly incorporating edit summaries into their edits; this is a small, but noticeable, sign of their willingness to receive feedback and change their actions. The editor has come to this RfA with a major, permission-needing task that they would like to help with, showing their genuine commitment to bettering the encyclopedia rather than solely hat collecting. The user is already a sysop on en-wikivoyage, so the user has already gained the trust of a Wikimedia project community. The candidate is open to recall. --JustBerry (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
189. Support. I am convinced by the comments that candidate Pbsouthwood has a lot of good content creation and has commitment to maintain the policy and guidelines. I understand some oppose vote argue that being an admin requires interest, competency and experience in maintenance work. I'd rather have a system where the requirements are splitted. There are people who is trusted with their judgement and integrity to be put in the seat of a judge, and people capable of doing maintenance work implement the judgement. I vote support for trusting Pbsouthwood's judgement and integrity. (First time vote here, if I technically did it wrong please advice me.) Xinbenlv (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
190. Support: The candidate is trustworthy. --B dash (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
191. Support: Perhaps this RfA demonstrates a need for a provisional or partial-admin (e.g. - in this case - allowed just to delete in this cleanup drive - with a subsequent full RfA) - however the candidate is a trustworthy, long standing editor, and per the User:Kudpung on the Signpost the project is quite lacking in admins at the moment (and I'll add that in addition to no RfAs and retirements, we also have long-standing admins (often acquiring the bit years ago) who do not really admin, but 99.9% of the time edit - which is perfectly fine, but leads to a lack of admins).Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
192. Support: By my calculations we've gained 4 admins through resyssop and RFA and lost 41 through de-sysopping this year. A qualified, trustworthy candidate such as this one is a good addition and a welcome boost to the admin team, a team lacking in numbers currently. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
193. Support This is a trustworthy candidate. Vexations (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
194. Support - not seeing any sign that they are likely to go wild with the tools. At this point, after nine years and over 45,000 edits, I'm thinking if they were likely to do stupid things with the tools, we'd have seen some sign of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
195. Support - I too reflected on the person behind the User page and so changed from oppose to support. History shows that this editor has earned the trust of the community ―Buster7 ☎ 12:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
196. Support Seems like a trustworthy candidate that has a need for the tools. Strikes me as a thoughtful person that will not haphazardly jump into areas they are not familiar with. --Imminent77 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
197. Support as per Iridescent and ZettaComposer. My previous interaction with this editor showed him to be a conscientious and meticulous individual. Cwmhiraeth 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
198. Support. My view is similar to Iridescent and several others. It's unrealistic to expect every nominee to be experienced in all the relevant areas. (Or every admin. I've had the mop for over eight years and there are some functions I've never performed or have done only a handful of times.) Temperament and judgment are far more important, and Pbsouthwood appears to have what is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
199. Support felt the need to register my support for this one; trustworthy candidate. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
200. Support – mostly per Cullen328 and Iridescent. I understand most of the opposition's concerns, but still consider that the candidate can be trusted with the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
201. Support: Echoing FlyingAce immediately above. PBS is trustworthy and competent with a suitable temperament for the mop, in spite of a lack of experience in admin activity. ebbillings (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
202. Support per Iridescent, others.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
203. Support - At the risk of sounding like a relic from a bygone era, I still consider adminship to be no big deal. I have no reason to believe that Peter will be less than a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator, even if his focus is narrow in scope. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
204. Support. It is clear that the candidate requires the administrator mop bucket toolset in order to properly carry out the needful work intended for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned preceding. For example it is no big deal to close an AfD. With these works completed they are sure to be a very well respected administrator candidate. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
205. Support based on their temperament and need for the mop. Deadman137 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
206. Support per Iridescent.~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
207. Support I've been going back and forth for this entire RfA and have finally landed here. I am satisfied with the answers to the questions and the candidate's content contributions. Checking the candidates interactions with others I see someone who is calm, rational, not easily ruffled, and well-spoken. I think he has the temperament to be a good admin. My doubts are twofold: the candidate has no experience in admin areas and although I know we need more admins, I don't know that we need more admins who don't do much with the tools. In the end I decided that he won't abuse the tools and if he ends up doing nothing more than the one deletion project, the encyclopedia is no worse off. If he does contribute by using the tools then the encyclopedia is better off. Ca2james (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
208. Support per Iridescent. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
209. Zero harm will arise from providing the tools. Stephen 03:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
210. Support per all. Good enough for the mop. Stikkyy t/c 04:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
211. Support. The content creation is good. Ultimately, this user appears to have a WP:CLUE, and adminship is supposed to be no big deal, anyways. This is probably someone worth taking a chance on, as it doesn't appear likely that the tools would be misused here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
212. Support', no concerns with this editor. Nakon 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
213. Support, We need more helpful admins, especially someone with a task they can focus on. There have been no non-trivial demonstrated concerns with temperament. The Moose 06:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Quite familiar with Pete's excellent work, so I am surprised to see this. My RfA criteria are as low as the next person's, but I'd like to see an actual need. This RfA is, as Pbsouthwood has admitted frequently above, solely to deal with portalspace cleanup. We do not give the sysop bit to humans for one-off projects or cleanup drives. I am unconvinced that the need is dire — as Pbsouthwood has admitted, these will not be controversial cases — and we have plenty of sysops (myself included) who are happy to slog through boring, uncontroversial deletions (just ask Plastikspork). I admire the gung-ho attitude, but I see no evidence that the project needs Pbsouthwood to delete those pages. Since January 2016, Pete has made over 28,000 edits. In that time period, he has made exactly 0 reports to AIV, 0 reports to RFPP, 1 report to SPI, 1 report to UAA, and participated in: 5 AfDs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); 1 RfA (Harrias reconfirmation (although he tried to participate after-the-fact for Cordless Larry); one MfD; and three TfDs (1, 2, 3). In that time period, there have been only two succesful PRODs (sorry, sysops only) (1 and 2); as for CSDs, I see only four (in addition to yesterday's portal taggings) (sorry, sysops only): a G11 userpage, a malformed page name, a self-created typo, and a self-G7. Pete's content contributions are excellent and he has clearly spent a lot of time helping projects where his interests lie, but I see not a single thread of evidence before this RfA that he has any experience or interest in sysop work. There is some evidence Pbsouthwood has at least thought about the concept of adminship before (see here and here), however there is nothing but nothing to show any experience, understanding, or even interest in any sysop-related work. I am surprised at nearly all of the supports — adminship is no big deal, but it has to require at least something to show ability and interest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I have to say that I'm surprised this is the first oppose; I'd have expected a lot more honestly by now. But I think, even if we have admins willing to boring deletion work, there is always more of it, so more admins to do that would always be helpful. IMO, we shouldn't be so averse to giving people the tools they need/can use to help, even if it is somewhat "one-off". Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Yeah, I'm a little surprised by that too. I expected a few "doesn't need it", "not enough experience in X" or "why the self nomination written in the 3rd person" type objections. It's an encouraging sign though. In my view anyone competent, experienced and willing, with no civility issues or other red flags, should be promoted to admin. We do need to keep replenishing the corps, and it's likely that Pete will step up and help with other areas in due course. I applied for adminship mainly because I needed it for RM work, but now I participate in CSD, ERRORS, and even a judicious block if I come across a need for it. I'm holding fire until the experts have scrutinised this one, but I expect to add my support to it.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Indeed, especially that "why the self nomination written in the 3rd person" haha; 29 supports and counting is around 5 times as many as I'd thought there'd be before my prediction of "There will definitely [be] opposes and complaints on self-nom" would come true Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I don't really disagree with either of you but I think there's a vast difference between Won't use 'em much, can be trusted and Won't use 'em much, can be trusted, and has no measurable track record at any admin activity. I looked at every projectspace edit for nearly 30 months, and if Pbsouthwood had been active at even one area I'd have supported. I found basically nothing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Indeed, I'm not enthused by the lack of activity in any admin area. However, I see the positives - help out doing some boring work - and I don't see too many negatives -they will make some mistakes, but would respond to feedback and thus would not repeat them to cause real problems. I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with opposing as you are, because indeed not really participating at any admin area is concerning. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Amory has put forward a detailed report there and it's well reasoned. However, I personally think that as there is over 10,000 pages per active admin there should be some obligation to replace the deceased admins with people from best qualified remaining long term contributors. Even if Peter's scope will be limited, it's still useful. Plus he could get involved in other areas at a later point. JLJ001 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   After seeing the increase in oppose iVotes based on this one comment alone, I am concerned that the big picture has been obfuscated as it relates to "actual need", so I hope editors will look forward to see that our actual need for the project is administrators of the quality that Pbsouthwood brings to the table. Too much emphasis has been placed on this one oppose, and the result may well be unfortunate in that an excellent candidate will be denied the mop for all the wrong reasons. We should look at the greater need and not focus on a single comment. The evidence of this editor's capabilities is before us and there is nothing I've seen to date that indicates he will not morph into the kind of administrator the community expects and needs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

   You say [T]he evidence of this editor's capabilities is before us, but while I have provided what I feel to be quite comprehensive evidence showing a complete lack of either experience or activity indicating capability, I have yet to see any evidence of "capabilities" from my friends in the support section. This is not a request for autopatrolled. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

   As the diff du jour makes the rounds, and at the risk of being rude (not my intent!), I want to reiterate my oppose. This opposition was never about lack of introspection or a vague sense of maturity, it was always about experience. I remain uncomfortable giving the bit to a user who, by all accounts, has actively avoided any relevant work or experience until two weeks. Adminship is more than autopatrolled, a reasonable tenure, and a clean block log. Also, since folks are using his sysop status at Wikivoyage in their support, I figured I'd link the (rather amusing) WikiVoyage RfA in question. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

   Humor, and looking at issues with a lighter mind, thankfully, are some of the best qualities I would look for in an administrator, apart from trust and maturity. If only RfAs here too follow the path of the WikiVoyage one. I agree with you that these are all vague terms because you cannot quantify them. But it's only us who make it vaguer by believing that adminship needs to be much, much more than autopatrolled, a reasonable tenure and a clean block log – to this I'll add civility and knowing what not to do with the tools (which PBS absolutely understands). What risk do we engender when we promote admins who have the sense of humor, have contributed as content creators, are trustworthy, have a great tenure and a clean block log? We as a community need to change our view; I'm still hoping that you'll be one of those who'll be at the vanguard of this change and that you'll reconsider your oppose (and my offer still stands for you). Love, Lourdes, 04:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Amory. I will not respond to comments or questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   @Bbb23: I will not respond to comments or questions. Is this a vote or a discussion? 72.139.206.172 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I got concerned by @Bbb23: saying that as well (and I'm not even a support !vote). Rather harsh on someone brave enough to come to RfA to refuse to even discuss his application Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   ”Per Amory” means they endorse that user’s objections. That’s contributing to the dicussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think it was the "Per Amory" bit that was being objected to. It was "I will not respond to comments or questions" - discussions require 2 way communication Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

   It's because Bbb23 (since they've said they won't respond, I'm not sure of the point in pinging them!) knows that early / unpopular 'Oppose' votes have a tendency to get WP:BLUDGEONed, and they were simply advising that anyone who did so would be wasting their time because, as they say, they are voting along the lines of Amory's thinking, and will not be per/dissuaded from that. That's my reading of it anyway. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

   What leads you to believe that a monologue (and an explicit refusal to even begin any kind of dialogue) constitutes "discussion" in this context? 72.139.206.172 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

3. Oppose: This user is misusing rollback flag. Re: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I don't see any vandalism in these revisions. According to WP:RBK, Rollback should use to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. But he just used rollback to revert his own edits. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   To clarify re rollback: Your examples 1–3 are of the candidate rollback his own edits, the 4th is from 6 months ago, and the 5th is reverting extreme spam and thus permitted as anti-vandalism. WP:RBK also says that To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made) is a legitimate use. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   @Siddiqsazzad001: To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made) —WP:RBK. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   So basically he has had one false positive with rollback and you're opposing??? It happens to everyone to screw up when reverting vandals. I just made a false positive here a couple minutes ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   If you look closely at that one false positive,[8] which reverted an edit resulting in clearly malformed output, I don't think many people would call it a false positive. Considering it was ten hours later and the IP made only this edit, I expect not many would demand a more useful edit summary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Please see this: [9]. He just used rollback for 6 time without any significant clear case of vandalism. So it is WP:HATSHOP because admin give us rollback flag to fight for vandalism. But in this case, there is no use of this flag. So it appear to me as hat collecting. Also I agree with Amorymeltzer. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Siddiqsazzad001: As your WP:CVUA instructor, I'm embarrassed. As others have mentioned, your assessment of the candidate's use of rollback is wrong, and I'm baffled as to why you are still defending your statements. It's true that rollback is primarily used to revert vandalism (which the candidate has done: [10][11]), but notice how the sentence you quoted in your vote says that it can also be used to revert other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. You have to acknowledge at least that there was no misuse of the rollback flag here. Additionally, the candidate has stated very clear reasons for why they want adminship; there is no hint of hat collecting going on here. I have opposed this candidate, but I want to make clear it is not because of your reasons (and frankly, a number of the support comments are starting to look convincing...). I would recommend that you strike the comments you've made which you know are wrong. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

   I entirely agree with zzuuzz that this seems a perfectly legitimate deletion that satisfies the bit of WP:RBK that says Rollback may be used: 1. To revert ... edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. So this particular Oppose gives 5 example of alleged misuse of tools and all 5 allegations seem wrong. Is there any way of flagging the Oppose to make it clear that checking it out will almost certainly waste your time (as it has wasted mine)? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

4. I don't know Peter and have no reason to think that he is anything other than an excellent editor. But I'm afraid that, on the basis of the nomination alone, I have enough concerns about his suitability for adminship to move me into the oppose camp. I can get on board with a self-nomination, but talking about oneself in the third person is not a good start. More seriously, his statement explains why he wants the tools, but presents absolutely no reason why we should trust him with them, other than the fact that he is an admin on unspecified "other WMF projects". He says that he will work solely in deletion, but gives us no evidence that he understands deletion policy or has any experience in applying it. A competent candidate really ought to have known that those are the things the community would be looking for. Even if asking for the tools for a specific task. Especially if they then acknowledge that they would use the tools beyond that task.
   I'm also not convinced that that task, and hence Peter's need for the tools, exists yet. What are the 150,000 subpages that will need to be deleted? Where is the consensus to delete them? What will be the process for deleting them? Despite the recent discussions about portals, I notice that the last three MfDs of them were closed as keep [12][13][14]. If mass-deletion is on the cards, I suspect it will be a while coming. If/when it does, I would rather see it done by an admin already experienced in using the deletion tools and acting on consensus.
   My vote might be different if we could put restrictions (technical or otherwise) on what an admin uses the tools for. Or if it were easier to desysop someone we took a risk with. But we can't and it isn't. – Joe (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Those 150,000 subpages would not mean deleting the portals themselves but would be part of replacing the subpage based system of portals with having one page portals using various templates; those deletions are thus uncontroversial cleanup of now unused pages. It isn't that easy to desysop someone, indeed; however I do have confidence that they would quickly resign if things go south with the tools. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Galobtter, sorry for bothering you, but I'm getting rather confusing mixed messages here. Saying that you are confident that he would resign tends to suggest that you know Peter well. Referring to Peter by the gender-neutral plural 'they' instead of 'he' tends to suggest that you don't know him at all. Which is it? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

   Well, I have seen and interacted enough to be reasonable confident on that. The gender-neutral just feels more natural, dunno; they're obviously a dude, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)To clarify the portals issue, these are mostly portal subpages. The WikiProject is cleaning things up, using selective transclusion and other methods rather than relying heavily on subpages. Some (most?) of the pages are being collected at User:Wpgbrown/Portal Pages to Delete per the wikiproject. Well over 1,000 pages have already been deleted in the last 24 hours. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for clarifying that. It would have been more reassuring to see this information in the nomination! I do see only ~40 pages on that list, which is quite a few short of 150000, and indicates to me that we probably don't need the extra hands so badly. As does the fact that 1,000 have apparently been deleted with no fuss. – Joe (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I got curious. In the seven days prior to this RfA being transcluded, 2,100 portal pages were deleted and 357 portal talk pages have been deleted. The overwhelming bulk of those took place on just two days. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I would note that if you look at the edit history, you can see the pages I have removed from the list. I (and others) have deleted a fair few not needed subpages using the list. Wpgbrown (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   The words "easier" and "desysop" do not belong in the same sentence together. I can think of a few that ought to be desysopped, but good luck with that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

5. I'm not particularly fazed by edit summary usage (they use edit summaries for all the important ones, it looks like), and Siddiqsazzad001's rollback examples and the use of third person in the nomination have not entered my thinking here at all. I am mostly concerned about Pbsouthwood's limited experience with the deletion process, which is the area that he wants to work in. Looking at Special:DeletedContributions/Pbsouthwood, in the past few months, Pbsouthwood has requested a number of G6 deletions for redundant portal subpages and a few G7s. Beyond that, I see 1 correct G11 in January 2018, 1 uncontested PROD in November 2017 – but it doesn't look like his next successful deletion tag appears until this uncontested PROD in November 2016. They've only participated in a handful of AfDs in their time here, and while their opinions there have been fairly sensible, their overall involvement is on the low end for what we typically expect editors with the "delete" button to have.
   I can understand the desire to grant the candidate the tools for a specific use case that they are familiar with, but adminship is a lifetime appointment, and I think we should consider whether the candidate has sufficient experience to apply the tools in other areas, especially since they are willing to apply them "on request" in those other areas. There is no doubt in my mind that Pbsouthwood is an excellent editor, one of our most valuable contributors, but I think a bit more experience in the back-end of Wikipedia would be beneficial to the project before they take up the mop just yet. Mz7 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
6. I'm afraid I'm another vote in opposition. Having finally rushed out my RfA criteria, I have a few issues which I'll condense here. First, I don't think there's a need. The Portals project (of which I'm a member) is humming along right nicely, and I don't much think we need a dedicated administrator for clean-up, issues of current deletion rate aside. Second, I'm worried about Peter's record of experience, but Amory's made a better case in that regard than I ever could. In short, it's the other administration tools, deletion aside, that worry me: no track record means no way of knowing how Peter might react to some situation or another that requires administration, and that just doesn't sit right with me. Third, the edit summary thing is not to my liking, but it's a minor thing at best.
   I'm admittedly impressed by the mainspace edit count, but I just don't think it's time. This is not meant to disparage Peter's contributions, by no means; but administration is a lifetime appointment, after all, and a lack of experience in the back-end is worrisome for would-be administrators. So I'm an oppose as well. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
7. Per Amory, I don't think the experience is there to trust them fully with the toolset. I know I probably don't deserve to make that statement, given what I said my own RfA, but this specific need is so narrow - and so easy to fill compared to other special-need admins (i.e. pre-template-editor template editors) - that I'm not comfortable with the request. I've been working with User:Wpgbrown on this whole portal subpage deletion thing, so I do understand the situation. ansh666 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Ansh666, the candidate statement refers to "a specific and current need." Below Above it's noted that there isn't really a backlog. As someone involved in these deletions, does it seem like a backlog is likely to develop? Dekimasuよ! 20:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   As long as there is a single active admin willing to use batch delete (and, I guess, willing to trust the judgment of the people tagging the pages, which I certainly am), there will not be a backlog. If there isn't, then we've got bigger problems than whether Peter should be admin. ansh666 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply. That's concerning, then, in the context of Q1, Q8, and Q11. I still don't think there's much chance of tool abuse, but in that case it seems like there's not much chance of tool use, either. Dekimasuよ! 20:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

8. Potential administrators should have significant experience in admin-related areas, to ensure they can use the tools correctly. These areas aren't rocket science but there are things you need to know and you can do damage if you screw up, and someone who doesn't know what they are doing at all is quite likely to screw up. The candidate has very little experience of these areas, which is fine (most editors don't) but I think it's problematic in an RfA candidate. Being an admin on Wikivoyage and the Wikimania 2018 wiki (the "other WMF projects" referred to in the nomination) doesn't do much to address this. I'm sure Pbsouthwood would be perfectly capable of deleting unnecessary portal subpages but that is a very low bar and there wouldn't be anything to stop him from doing anything else. As an aside if there is going to be a big backlog of portal subpage deletions which can't be dealt with through the normal mechanisms (which I doubt) then I'd suggest looking into automated or semi-automated mechanisms to speed it up instead of appointing special admins. Hut 8.5 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I have nothing in particular against this editor, but as long as administrator capabilities cannot be unbundled, and there is no community-based desysopping procedure, T am opposed in principle to granting editors admin rights for a specific project which will last a finite period of time. I take Pbsouthwood at their word that what they want the bit for is to do a specific task, but there's nothing whatsoever to stop them from using their rights to do anything else an admin can do, and there's no way to guarantee that they'll voluntarily turn in the bit after the project is over (which I don't believe they've said they would do anyway). I think handing out bits under circumstances such as this is a bad precedent to set, and suggest that instead of Pbsouthwood (or anyone else) being made an admin for the needs of the Portal Project, the Project should attract the attention of one of the many admins who underutilize their powers to help do the necessary deletions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   @Beyond My Ken: I don't think I follow your reasoning here - given that wikipedia is a volunteer service, we can't assume or expect that admins can be made to show up for a task they aren't enthusiastic about on the grounds that they are somehow "under-utilising their powers". We will always need people who want to step up and do something. This is also pertinent to James Allison's !vote rationale. 148.87.23.13 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'm sot sure how I could be clearer: Pbsouthwood gives as their reason for self-nominating for admin the need to delete articles in connection with the large-scale restructuring of portals. I am philosophically opposed to handing out bits for specific purposes such as that as long as admin capabilities cannot be unbundled and the community cannot desysop. What could possibly be clearer than that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

10. I don't really see a need for sysop tools. Other than the deletion for WikiProject Portals (which I am proudly part of), there doesn't seem to be that much where this editor would benefit from sysop permissions. He said himself that it wouldn't be used much in his normal editing. It's not that I don't trust that this user would be using the tools constructively; I'd just like to see a need before supporting. Vermont (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose Lack of experience in admin-related areas. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I see a lot of the "great editor" comments in support, but you have to be a little (ok, a lot) more than a "great editor" if you are granted the admin tools; for starters, you actually need experience. There is no guarentee that you will limit the use of the tools to your specific project which is a little worrisome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose: Per Joe Roe and Mz7, I was immediately turned off by talking in third person, but it is certainly no grounds for opposing. Contrary to what Amory suggested above, I think there is precedent of adminship given to editors for essentially "one-off projects" (a somewhat similar example: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth); the difference being that was a far more specialised role; deleting uncontroversial portal pages is not. I am unconvinced that potential administrators necessarily needs to demonstrate experience in admin-related areas, particular when it comes to editors known for their content creation (in Pete's case, they are administrator at Wikivoyage, but that is hardly an indicator of anything here). What I am concerned about is the minimal "demonstrated need" and lack of willingness to confront controversy to much extent, which is why I am opposing, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Moving to support. Alex Shih (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose Ability to remain civil in discussions and keep a level head is commendable and required of all editors. That said, there's quite a bit more to administration. I've never been one concerned with automated edits, but with the high percentage, there's not much that makes me confident that there's a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the community policies and guidelines. I support the recommendations made by Kudpung above and look forward to seeing you again in the future. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:370:72:8D10:2CD6:D554:C18F:CDFE (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Striking - sock puppet user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

13. Oppose -- However, I would move to Support if he pledges to resign adminship when he finishes the project. I don't think he's qualified now for full admin rights, having very little experience in those areas, but since he appears to be a responsible editor and desires to perform a particular tedious task that requires the bit, I'm willing to give it to him, for that single purpose. So, yes, this !vote amounts to support for a de facto (or maybe it's ad hoc) unbundling of an admin power. DonFB (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Let me say that I considered that option, but I don't think that such a pledge is actually enforceable. If Pbsouthwood were to get to like adminning, and think that they would help to improve the project by not returning the bit, there's no way that I am aware of to force them to do so. 'Crats certainly wouldn't do it, as it is not in their remit, and I doubt that it would qualify for any of the circumstances by which ArbCom would desysop. Again, with due respect to Pbsouthwood -- whom I am not familiar with -- think of those Tea Party people who were elected to Congress with the pledge that they would serve no more than X terms, but who decided to stay on, I'm sure with the best of motivations from their points of view. Here on Wikipedia, history shows us that admins hold on to their bits for as long as they can do so -- again, with the best of motivations, I am certain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose on principle per Amory and Beyond My Ken. That being said, this RfA seems likely to pass, and as long as Pbsouthwood listens to feedback and moves only slowly at first into other admin areas I do not think there will be real problems. What pushes me here nonetheless is that we have no guarantee that he will do so, and I don't think unbundling would solve this because deletion is one of those tools that everyone seems to agree should be admin-only. I have nothing against Pbsouthwood, and I'd like to be optimistic, but I'd have to see more experience to be convinced personally that my optimism isn't going to be misplaced. Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (moved to Support) Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Looking at this almost eight hours later, I think I might have phrased it a little more clearly, so I'll do so now. I think Pbsouthwood is a great editor. However I don't see much experience in admin areas and I'm therefore worried that he may unintentionally make significant mistakes in his use of the tools, at least at first, even if he has the best of intentions. He would indeed almost certainly learn on the job, but I think that admins should show some experience beforehand so that they have already done a significant part of the learning before getting the job, and thus make smaller and fewer mistakes when they do become admins, because a mistaken admin action is harder to reverse than a mistaken non-admin action. Without the ability to confidently predict that these mistakes won't happen, I can't support in good conscience. Additionally (and relatedly), I don't think editors should be given the sysop bit just to perform one task. We can evaluate him very well for that task indeed, but the sysop bit lets him do many others which we can't evaluate him for yet. I am uncomfortable with relaxing this, especially because (as Godsy mentions below) the task that motivates this RfA can be solved without severely increased inconvenience by compiling a list of pages to be deleted and having an existing admin batch-delete all of them, so that this isn't even a situation that would convince me that unbundling another tool is a good idea. To me, at least the block, delete, and protect buttons ought to remain admin-only. If this RfA passes, I would encourage Pbsouthwood to tread carefully at first into other admin areas, and perhaps participate in them without using the tools at first to emulate the way most admins would learn "before the job". Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am, BTW, somewhat concerned by the Q12 answer, but that's not the biggest issue for me because it can be interpreted multiple ways. Closures are subject to review, after all, and there's a difference between disagreeing with a closure because one doesn't like the outcome and disagreeing with a closure because one believes that it wrongly interprets the consensus of the discussion. I would be interested to see an answer to Q25 for clarification; it probably won't sway me, given that I have bigger concerns, but it could change my mind for a future RfA. Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I am happy with the new Q25 answer, which addresses all my concerns on Q12. Nevertheless, I am still opposing for other reasons, which I have previously stated. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
          • For the record, incidentally: I did support a user with little experience (Vin09) in admin areas in this March 2017 RfA, but that was when I was relatively new to participating at RfA; my views have changed significantly since towards "learning before the job" rather than "learning on the job", as I now think that the admin tools are powerful enough that they are not quite "no big deal". I would not support Vin09's RfA today, FWIW. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Interesting! I take the answer to Tavix' Q25 to be very much in agreement with his previous statements (Q12, the discussion down in Iffy's neutral !vote) — that is, he doesn't have a clear understanding or familiarity of the role of admins when it comes to XfDs. More experience with the deletion policies and process would likely help that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Similar to Amorymeltzer's statement, I also took the candidate's answer to Q25 as being unfamiliar with the XfD process as a whole, further validating why I eventually had to settle on putting myself in the "oppose" section. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
                • (I didn't like the first versions of this reply, so I rewrote the whole thing.)
                • Hmm, yeah, that completely slipped my mind. I must have encountered the inability of non-admins to make delete closures outside TfDs before, because it does ring a bell, but since I don't do much more at XfDs than comment in topics I'm familiar with, I must have forgotten about it. I'm really sorry for !voting based on familiarity with admin areas and then demonstrating that I'm not clear on them either. <m(__)m>
                • Now that I am reminded of it, though, I continue to think that it's the most important issue. What would likely happen with this particular misunderstanding is that if he finds a delete closure that he finds doesn't reflect consensus, he'd find that the article has already been deleted. A reading of the policy at this point (if he hasn't done it already), which he has stated he would do in his answers, should inform him that this is normal practice. Then he can still request the closer to explain if he disagrees strongly, as he said he would. I don't see much damage arising from this; instead I am pleased that it shows the value he places on respecting consensus, which is what made me pleased with his Q12 and Q25 answers. What I am more worried about is mistakes that actually require admin actions to overturn, but in this case he is not making such a mistake but reversing one. That doesn't make me less worried that in other admin areas he might make such mistakes due to his lack of experience, though, and I still don't think he really needs the tools for what he seeks to do with them. @Amorymeltzer:, @Steel1943:: thank you for making me think very hard about my !vote, and I am sorry that I based part of it on a mistake – particularly when my oppose is based on the possibility that the candidate would make such mistakes! <m(__)m> Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
                  • (I moved to support above after thinking further on this.) Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

14. Oppose - I do not believe another mop needs to be created because "[portal] work is expected to include the deletion of something in the order of 150,000 subpages." Whoever closes the respective deletion discussions can implement the deletions. If expedited deletion is approved, a list can be compiled for an existing administrator to nuke batch delete. If the candidate wishes to run for continued work within one or more established areas in the future (and can demonstrate sufficient experience in those areas), then I would be happy to consider their request. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Aditionally, the candidate's answers to Question 12 and 25 show a clear misunderstanding of discussion closures. Editors are not allowed to close discussions with an outcome that they cannot personally implement (WP:NACD). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

15. Oppose - Don't get me wrong... I believe that you're a great editor... a fantastic one. You create content and you do so very well. You have plenty of content creation experience to show, and your content creation is a shit ton better than mine :-). Unfortunately, the narrow focus on your intended use of the tools is why I sit here and with some regret. You state that your primary purpose is to process the deletion of Portal pages in your answers to questions 1-3, but you state nothing more than that. Your narrow intended use of the tools draws me pause, and your lack of experience in sudo-administrative areas (no edits to AIV or RFPP, only two total edits to SPI, one report made to UAA and extremely little work in CSD, AFD, UAA, and other places) where experience (let alone, presence) is expected in potential administrator candidates - is far below what I want to see. When Yintan asked above about what you meant by "on request" in question 6, I feel that the user was concerned about your narrow focus and was asking you, "what 'other' areas are you talking about that you'd work on if that was requested"? Your answer, "I will be willing to consider other admin work on request during the cleanup drive. It is somewhat premature to speculate how things may change by the time the work is done." and then mentioning that you'll "hand your mop back" if people ask you to due to not using it after the cleanup tells me that your only focus is to perform deletions of Portal space content, and pretty much nothing else. Your lack of experience in sudo-admin areas supports this assumption, and I'm sorry to have to oppose you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
16. Oppose I can easily join the bandwagon of support and nobody will query me, but that will actually be betrayal of my conscience. This user–while with good intention of deleting 150K portal subpages that current admins fail to? –has next to nothing experience in admin areas in entirety and this is something so obvious that even the supporters neither doubt nor refute. Vague answer to question (Q8) doesn't instill confidence either. The correct and straightforward answer is that "Specific need is deleting 150K portal subpages", but unfortunately we don't need emergency admin to do that. As explained by Amory, thousands have already been deleted and I am sure entire 150K pages will be deleted before this RfA closes, once there's consensus to do that. Therefore 150K portal pages deletion (The chief reason of wanting to be admin) is completely nonexistent problem.
    Several excellent candidates have been opposed in the past because of mere one or two mistakes in CSD, UAA or AIV, and the mistakes only exist because they participated in the area. This user chose to refrained completely from these areas so no adequate metric to assess his competency objectively, except I like him, give him. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I do get your point about "the mistakes only exist because they participated in the area"; however we'll never have a perfectly "fair" standard. We should instead evaluate each candidate individually, and rather than opposing candidates because better ones were opposed, to continue supporting all qualified candidates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    You did got the first point, but I am afraid, not the second. I am not opposing him because (those excellent candidate who failed) were opposed, but because I evaluated him individually and found him lacking the minimum experience which can be used to assess him objectively. He lacked the necessary experience were the admin-tools are meant to be used, because he elected not participate in the area and his sole reason of wanting to be admin –deleting 150K portal subpages– turns out even a bot can do the work. Since he doesn't have the requisite experience, I am left with two options: either to oppose him until such time when he do participate in the admin-related work and gain the necessary experience to be objectively assessed with; or to support him because of 'I like him'. I went for the former, because the later is unethical. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

17. Oppose I have been thinking about this carefully and I decided to oppose. Firstly, my admin readiness score is 956 (see [15]) while Pbsouthwood's is only 839 (see [16]). However, this is not my main concern. My main concern is that there are 0 edits to WP:AIV and 0 edits to WP:RFPP from Pbsouthwood. This is showing me that the candidate is not ready to be an administrator. I can't understand how the candidate got the rollback tool without a single edit to AIV and RFPP. Unfortunately, in order to become an administrator, sufficient experience is required in areas like AIV, reverting vandalism, nominating pages for speedy deletion and AfD. Therefore, I sadly have to oppose. Also, this is not even from months ago, only yesterday I saw the candidate add a local description to two policies and despite the user has stopped, we never add a local description to any policy pages. However, the main reason for opposing is lack of experience in core admin areas like AIV. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    The other thing I am not happy about is the vague answer to question 12. The candidate only talked about deleting articles but they haven't talked about how they will handle vandalism incidents as an administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

18. Sorry to oppose the RfA of a polite, articulate and committed editor. However, with persistent doubts and objections being expressed over the approaches being taken on both Portals and Short descriptions, I would prefer to see administrative tasks arising in those areas being passed to an experienced admin not so heavily invested in those very projects: Noyster (talk), 08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Beginning with the well-reasoned oppose by Amory and echoed by others amongst opposers, I decidedly oppose per Oshwah.In addition, the incomplete and unresearched answer to question 12 is the final and most overwhelming concern for me. Administrators must come aboard already prepared for all aspects of the assignment and use of the tools. This is not an apprenticeship position where one can look up the answers in the training manual if / and when needed. Sorry. I have no problems here with temperament, so here is a good editor that is plainly not now for adminship. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 13:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
20. Oppose Like many in this section, I regret the necessity of opposing and I want to make my admiration for your editing explicit and also praise you for opening yourself up to criticism by nominating yourself. That all said, the admin toolset is a broad set and the user group change is a long-enduring one. You clearly want that set only for a limited purpose and a short term. Unfortunately, we have no mechanisms to implement such a limited-duty or limited-term adminship. We really, really should have those mechanisms specifically to allow for situations like this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
21. Oppose - I genuinely wanted to support but there are 2 things preventing me from doing that, The first being them talking in 3rd person - Perhaps not something to oppose over but I don't see why you'd need to talk in third person at all,
    The second reason being "I need the deletion button mainly for the WikiProject Portals upgrade project" - They have no desire to help with the admin work around here and will primarily work with Portals only, There's not a real need for the tools and as such any deletions can be made with Twinkle (whether that's CSD or MFD). –Davey2010^Talk 14:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
22. Oppose. It would be nice if we had some system to grant adminship for a temporary project, only to be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, we don't, and appointments are for life. Not enough experience in administrative areas for me to be comfortable with a lifetime appointment. I don't suspect you would wish to become more involved in administrative areas, but if you ever did, your work there is "sight unseen" as of now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I think that starting a proposal to allow temporary sysopping would be a worthwhile thing to do, and would gladly participate in the discussion if someone were to do so. I think also (although I could be wrong about this) that the WMF has, in the past, given the bit to staff members temporarily for specific reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Beyond My Ken: This has been proposed before. What I really should have said is "It would be nice if we had some system to grant adminship for a temporary project and it had no negative effects whatsoever". The legitimate concern expressed in the past has been that the community would start expecting temporary adminship before an RfA (or even stop electing any permanent admins altogether), leading to lower overall admin activity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

23. Unfortunately, I will also have to oppose. Pbsouthwood's content creation is impressive at any rate, and he is level-headed from what I have seen. However, I don't think that there is a need for what is basically a single purpose adminship. He says in his nomination above, For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above ... but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone. For this issue, there are admin-bots that can quite easily delete a list of selected portal subpages. I think some editors have also stated above that Peter hasn't made any reports at all to the anti-vandalism or page protection noticeboards, which makes me think that he also doesn't have a pressing need to perform blocks/page protections on a regular basis. epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
24. Oppose - a great overall editor from what I'm seeing, but sadly this RfA is asking for a kitchen when all they need is a knife. As others have said, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Surely we can find another way for them to accomplish their goals without having to become a full-fledged admin? - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose - the editor immediately above me phrased it perfectly to sum up my views. I thank the candidate for putting themselves out there for consideration and the corresponding scrutiny, however. Strikerforce^Talk 15:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Moving to neutral. Strikerforce^Talk 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

25. Strong oppose. Completely unnecessary request that can be adequately handled by the existing sysop userbase, not to mention the lack of AfD experience. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
26. Oppose Editor wants access to the set of tools that include the block button, and plans to use it if needed. I cannot find any edits that show that this editor is qualified for that tool. The need for the admin tool set listed is also unconvincing since many opposers have shown that there are plenty of admins that are handling the deletions. Valeince (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
27. Oppose due to lack of a meaningful track record in "admin-ish" things, over-focus on one activity (we don't need an admin whose primary goal is thousands of page deletions of one narrow kind; extant XfD processes can already deal with it), and a standoffish that's-how-I-roll attitude. E.g., the answer about poor use of edit summaries isn't an acceptable response in my book, for multiple reasons; either the candidate doesn't understand community norms in this regard, or doesn't care about them (both are disqualifiers to me). And in either case he's made it clear he's not going to change unless arm-twisted into doing so. That's a giant red flag. Hint: if it comes up at RfA it's already an issue people have concerns about, not something someone might have concerns about some day. If it comes up in the formal questions section, everyone here's going to read it with particular scrutiny. The personal-cleanup-drive focus is the real show-stopper for me, though. I'm pretty much a die-hard gnome here, but I would not run for RfA on the basis that the tools would help me do one particular kind of gnome drudgery more efficiently and with less process and oversight, which is basically what we're being asked to support here. The fact that it's about massive numbers of page deletions is inherently problematic, too. We'd need to see well-reasoned WP:NAC closures, a deep understanding of CSD, and a solid and diverse XfD record, but it's just not there.

    I agree with above assessments, including by other opposers, that the candidate is a net positive to the project as an editor. But that doesn't auto-translate into a likely net positive as an admin, especially when the admin criteria most of us expect to see have been skipped over, the ask seems to boil down to "make my obscure work easier" rather than "help me improve the project broadly", and there's a self-righteous attitude issue already evident. One thing I've learned over a decade as a "don't want to be an admin" editor who does use several formerly admin-only tools like page-mover and template-editor is: "If you care a lot about it, use the lengthy process not the expedient tool to deal with it." Otherwise there will be an assumption (based on actual likelihood) that you're misusing the tools to WP:WIN. I can't support an RfA that not only fails to understand this, but is predicated on the reverse idea, that the more the tools will help you get your desired outcome in a sweeping but highly particular change you're devoted to, the more you deserve them.

    On the up side, the editor is long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead. Suggestion: finish your cleanup drive the normal way, get the broad admin-leaning experience we expect to see, remember that your edit summary usage is for everyone else not for you, and try again in a year or so. The main question we ask ourselves at RfA is "Would the tools be consistently used appropriately?" Don't let the answer lean toward "no" – for what seems to just be an over-focus reason – next time.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    PS: I'm not in any way put off by the third-person self-nom. It's not "weird", it's just how people write short bios (e.g. at a company website). It's a common and well-known approach, just not common at RfA. I'm also not put off by self-noms. I do consider whether the candidate studied RfA history and expectations (and thus would know that some do object to self-noms and that first-person statements are typical), but I'm not going to penalize someone because they didn't try to "work the system" and instead just showed up enthused to volunteer to take on the role. Not everyone is a politician or wants to act like one (even if enthusiasm isn't by itself sufficient).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

28. Oppose - I also thank the editor for standing for the admin post, but don’t believe they have made nearly a strong enough case for the tools. Just today an admin got a 24 hour block for behavior that I find unbelievable, and that should have been dealt with before now. But no. The admins have become a caste, and since this editor is up for a lifetime power pass, which it is very difficult to take back, or even meaningfully discipline in a timely fashion, I want to see some evidence of experience in the admin realm. Since I haven’t got it, I will !vote oppose with regret, but with the strong belief that this is the best move, preferring to err on the side of caution. Advice: Do some AfD work, a good chunk of anti-vandalism effort, things like that. The phrase “...other admin work on request...” is vague and disturbing. May your deletions go well, but you do not need the block button for them. Adminship is indeed a big deal, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
29. Oppose - According to https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?, I am 17/12 more efficient at AfD than the candidate. This shouldn't happen. Pldx1 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    The tool is only as useful as the brain power put into interpreting it, and I'm inclined to believe that the latter was missing here. First off, after doing some statistical evaluations, it appears to me that you got your 17/12 by dividing the number of times you have voted at AfD by the number of times he has voted at AfD, and then said that you are 142% more efficient than him, when all you've really proved is that you have voted 42% more times than him. The number of times you have voted is literally the worst metric you could use to calculate "efficiency": By that standard I am 259% percent more efficient than you, but if you actually want to analyze my votes, you'll find that I suck at actually voting with consensus (my 67% versus your quite commendable 85%). And even that isn't perfect. If you look at the AfDs where Pbsouthwood voted against the eventual consensus, you'll find one instance where he nominated a page for deletion because he wanted consensus to redirect it, was told to boldly redirect it and then withdrew his nomination, resulting in a speedy keep closure, which AfD stats considers to be antithetical to a delete vote, instead of the redirect that actually happened, which AfD stats considers a match. Really, there's only one time that Pbsouthwood voted against the eventual consensus, out of nine decisive closures, which I would consider to be a skilled ability to understand and apply policy at AfD for someone who has sworn no interest in closing discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Dear User:Compassionate727. Perhaps are you planing to run yourself for a RfA. In this case, you should consider that having edited a grand total of 61 AfD is too short, and that remarks about "brain power" could raise some eyebrows. Moreover, describing 61/17 as 359% percent, even if read as 359 per cent, is questionable since 17 is largely lower than 100. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Perhaps more substantively: Raw number crunching about AfD is actually lamer than Compassionate727 suggests. Moving details to talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

30. Oppose - firstly, kudos for their article creation work. Article creation is hard work and often undervalued. I look for article creation in potential admins so that, when they delete articles, they understand, first hand, the hard work they are undoing. However, article creation requires a different skill from being an admin and that alone is not sufficient. The candidate's cavalier attitude to edit summaries, which fails to recognise why they save work for other editors, concerns me. I am also concerned by the statement "would be willing to consider other admin work on request,". I would expect a potential admin to have identified areas where there are backlogs, gained experience in those areas and volunteer to assist; not waiting and hoping to be asked. I would encourage a future application when they have gained broader experience in admin areas. Just Chilling (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    I realize you name other concerns but just to the matter of having identified areas where there are backlogs, gained experience in those areas and volunteer to assist; not waiting and hoping to be asked—the candidate learned of a 150,000-item backlog, got acquainted with the area, and self-nominated to help there! Don’t know how much more proactive we can really ask (or want!) an admin to be. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    Well, as noted on this page, there is a user (Wpgbrown) meticulously going through portal pages, tagging them with a specialized tag, and manually maintaining a list so that it is dead-easy for a sysop to delete them in an instant. That seems like what Just Chilling might have had in mind with that line. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

31. Oppose per above, unfortunately. Concerns with limited experience in administrative areas of the project. -FASTILY 22:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
32. Oppose. No demonstrated permanent need for the tools at this time. I am also concerned about poor answers to some questions and inadequate edit summary use. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
33. Oppose. No need for adminship, and the request is for one singular task; that's not how administrative status works. If there's a lengthy task that tools would expedite, report it and ask for help. The fact that the candidate is self-nominating, referring to himself in third person, has little or no experience in administrative areas, doesn't use edit summaries, and still lacks substantial knowledge about a whole lot of Wikipedia after all these years and all these edits, means this is a candidate unsuitable for adminship. I urge the candidate to return to doing the good wiki-work they were presumably doing before this RFA, and ask for help in whatever large-scale task they wish to accomplish. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
34. Based on the concerns expressed above regarding need for the tools and experience. Sandstein 10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
35. Oppose per all the reasons stated by SMcCandlish (I couldn't put it any better myself). The lack of any track record related to activity in areas that admins are generally expected to be involved with (i.e. AfD) is problematic. Some suggested the ability to have "short-term" or "limited" admins, but I agree with the other viewpoints that someone appointed an admin should have a broad enough interest and experience level that they can and will involve themselves in the many responsibilities admins are generally expected to engage with, and for the long-run. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    In response to this and other opposes on a similar rationale..why? Like why do admins need to engage in a broad range of tasks? If all he focuses on is portal deletion, it'll still be helpful; even if he doesn't help in the long-run or in many different tasks, that doesn't mean whatever tasks he does do wouldn't help whittle down a backlog. I also find SMcCandlish's rationale to be a way overreading of what Pbsouthwood is saying. It seems the very opposite to me, indeed; he could as well leave the work to the current admin corps or other members of the Portal project, but is instead volunteering to do it himself Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    This, I think, is the crucial difference of opinion in this RFA in a nutshell. For you (and some others), adminship is an appointment with an expectation to take on a range of responsibilities. For me (I #voted support above) and others, it is merely access to a broader toolkit, with the expectation that it will not be abused. In my opinion, if Pbsouthwood merely does a bit of specialized mopping, and then never anything else, it will be a net positive (regardless whether that mopping could potentially be done by someone else). If he cautiously and occasionally does other janitorial work, so much the better. It's merely a problem if he goes rogue and starts doing Bad Stuff, which given his experience and demeanour seems rather unlikely. Martinp (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Galobtter: I have an opinion and I expressed it - I shouldn't need to justify that. I considered the broad range of opinions expressed here and noted that many more favour support, yet I agreed with the points made by SMcCandlish. This isn't a vote on character or contribution (for which there seems no clear rationale for opposing on that alone), but each person is entitled to decide and express what they expect from someone seeking to become an administrator; I happen to think a person ought to be making some kind of broad, long-term committment and be able to demonstrate the desire and understanding to do so effectively. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

36. Oppose This is a great example for why we need a community-based recall process. It looks like this is an experienced editor who can be trusted but is currently not qualified for the whole range of admin tasks due to a lack of experience with many maintenance work, a good example is their limited understanding of how AfD works. I would give them a shot if we could reevaluate after a while. However, as there is no way of doing so, I have to oppose regretfully. wikitigresito (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
37. Oppose There's no real need here. We have batch delete, we have Twinkle's delete. The user could even ask someone to make a bot - have a new category of files to delete, get agreement for that list from involved editors, and then an adminbot (even mine) could do the whole lot in one run. No problem. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
38. Oppose. Lack of experience in administrative areas. Answer to the question 12 is incomplete. Capitals00 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose per answer to question 12, which shows that he is not familiar with WP:PAG, in this case the Deletion process guideline. wumbolo ^^^ 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Moved back to support per this diff demonstrating enough deletion knowledge. wumbolo ^^^ 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

39. Oppose The answer to Question 12 really just put me off. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    I know you're new here, but the answer to Q12 is spot on. That is exactly what we require and look for from administrators. I'm not sure what kind of answer you would have liked, but I can't possibly imagine a better one. Swarm ♠ 00:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    It's mostly technically correct, but while that may be what we might look for at WP:PERM or WP:CVUA, I don't believe it is what we look for in sysops; for sysops, we look for understanding. The first sentence admits he isn't familiar with any of the relevant policies, but nobody thinks he is anyway, so it's a fine start. Likewise, I would not delete an article if I was involved in the deletion discussion is about as rudimentary a statement as one can make, but it is correct, so fine. The real issue folks (myself included) have is with the final line: Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree. That, as backed up in Q25, shows that he does not understand how our deletion discussions take place. Again, that's not surprising, as nobody has suggested he is familiar with deletion policy, but I wouldn't characterize it as exactly what we require and look for from administrators. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Sure, we normally look for a high level of policy understanding in each of those areas, but that basic level of clue is an even more fundamental qualification for being an administrator. The basic level of clue where he simply says "I'd read up on policy and proceed with caution." That trait alone is most of what's required. So he doesn't even know about the technicalities of WP:NACD. But, if he wanted to get involved in that area, we could trust him to familiarize himself with policies and procedures first. Yes, most RfA candidates are familiar with most of these areas beforehand, but this user has been too busy contributing to the encyclopedia to become immersed in administrative/behind the scenes areas to do so, and I'd say that's a feature, not a bug. Swarm ♠ 01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Swarm: I don't see how the answer to Q12 can be spot on. The final sentence reads 'Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree.' If an administrator closes a AFD he's going to check it out and delete if they agree? The candidate's answer shows they are clueless about how articles are taken care of after a AFD is finished....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    See my reply above. Swarm ♠ 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

40. Oppose mostly because I don't believe there is a need for adminship here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
41. Each day since this RfA opened, I've come here, debated with myself between support, oppose, and neutral (having seriously considered all three), and then decided to sleep on it for another day before I could feel comfortable making up my mind. And I'm still not really confident that I am correct in opposing. First of all, I have no problem with an RfA for the express purpose of using the permissions for just one thing, and I've tried to think of a way that I could support on that basis. And I tend to think that the deleting work with portals would be a net positive. Furthermore, I like it when a candidate admits to not knowing about some things, and I much prefer that to someone who might rush into something unprepared. But I also think that SMcCandlish makes a very good point about choosing to do some tasks the slow way, so I do not see an absolute need for the tools, more like it would just be helpful to have them. So the question is: what happens if the admin then decides to do other admin tasks, beyond the specified portal work? I see some reason to believe that this candidate can be trusted, based on their track record, to act responsibly in that event. But I also see some reasons to lack that confidence. Some of the edit summary stuff does strike me as doing things one's own way, without much caring what others think. And that third-person nomination is, for me, something far-from-trivial. It's really bizarre, and off-putting. It really concerns me, because it was a conscious choice about how to present oneself. And that leaves me, regretfully, with just enough worries about giving all of the tools that I'm only part-way confident about giving trust. Ultimately, then, I'm just slightly over the line into opposition. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    As I continue to watch this RfA, I want to acknowledge that the diff presented by Alex Shi could be a valid reason that I might be wrong. I'm not changing my position at this time, but I do want to be honest about my uncertainty. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Tryptofish I think it's perfectly fine to remain uncertain. Adminship does change the way many editors approach the project. Sometimes having the tools will even negatively impact editors on their contributions to the project (reduced content creation, elevated stress, feeling the necessity to do the maintenance works etc). I am convinced that this wouldn't be the case for Peter based on the openness and frank nature of his comments about this RfA, but people should rightly feel justified to continue to feel uncertain based on many of the valid rationales that have already been presented. Alex Shih (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Thanks Alex, that's kind of you to say that. I figure the goal of RfA discussions should be to try to get at the truth, rather than to try to win an argument, and I don't claim to always know what is right. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

42. (edit conflict) Oppose. The candidate's answer to Q12 leaves me with the impression that the candidate has no understanding or prior knowledge of WP:NACD, or how {{Db-xfd}} is only supposed to be used when an administrator closes a discussion to "delete", but forgets/neglects to perform the deletion themselves (though there are some exceptions with WP:TFD.) That answer left me with very little confidence that the candidate understands the basics about a rather important guideline in regards to deletion discussion closes ... and lacking that understanding is just something I am not comfortable with in an administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    ...And the candidate's answer to Q25 further validates my concerns. I really don't think the candidate has an understanding of how XfD works on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

43. Oppose. While this user seems to be reasonably qualified, I'd like to see a bit more experience on AfD and elsewhere around the project. I therefore regretfully oppose. This is a not quite yet, and in if you come back in a few months with more contributions to AfD I might be inclined to change my mind. Tamwin (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
44. Reluctant Oppose This is an outstanding editor, particularly in content creation. However their track record in admin related areas is just too thin for my comfort. Happily this is an easy fix. I would encourage them to spend some time at Afd CSD and related activities over the next six months or so and come back. On a side note I would like to address the perennial "need for the tools" question. The fact is that very few editors have a practical need for the tools. However the community has a real and growing need for competent editors who are able and willing to take up the tools and use them for the benefit of the project. The whole "why do you need the tools" question has been one that to my mind demonstrates a misconception of what RfA is about. We are not giving a tool set to people who have a specific need for them in their area of interest. We are giving a broad set of tools to editors who have demonstrated a record that shows clue, competency, and a desire to help the project where their having the tools would benefit the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
45. Oppose.I am not convinced by the way he answered the questions. -–Angelo6397 ^{T A L K!} 03:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
46. Oppose It's difficult because the site needs more admins, and the community has set some sort of imaginary bar based on criteria that people have plucked out of thin air. In this case, however, it's quite straightforward - they only want the admin tools temporarily and that's something that, at the moment, simply can't happen due to the lack of a recall process. Maybe one day people will see that some sort of "Probationary Admin" period is needed, but until then... Exemplo347 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
47. Oppose We don't need temp admins to solve one issue. We already have too many admins. Doesn't it make more sense to encourage current admins to participate in that project? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
48. Oppose as per what has been said above. User does not seem to be familiar enough with various wiki guidelines, the answer to #12 is putting me off. He doesn't seem to want to work outside of his comfort zone or niche area. Not enough experience in my opinion.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
49. Oppose - I had initially supported this RfA, but after reading other's concerns about Pbsouthwood's lack of experience in Admin areas, that is a big red flag for me hence the change in vote. WP:NOTNOW. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Class455: You might want to read WP:NOTNOTNOW. That essay is for real newbies to the site, not editors of nine years with over 40k edits. -NottNott 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

50. Oppose - I thought of this for the last several days and I just can't get on board with a candidate with so little admin-like experience on the English Wikipedia asking for admin rights. He is a great editor and no doubt that I would definitely support at a later time if he demonstrated more admin-like work for a bit. The need in this request is also temporary and i'd prefer that anyone with the admin tools is willing to dive into other areas. -- Dane ^talk 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
51. Oppose The tools are not necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Reluctant oppose There once was a time when RFAs were passed simply on whether the editor was "trustworthy" or not. Unfortunately, for better or worse, adminship has evolved into something completely different and feelings about it have changed within the community. It is now a requirement for anyone seeking adminship to be a jack of all trades due to it being an indefinite appointment (barring no trouble) and the wide range of tools granted. This is addressed at WP:RFAADVICE and the candidate would have also received this feedback at WP:ORCP, or by seeking an experienced editor familiar at RFA to nominate them. Until the tools are unbundled, a very recent discussion on a widely discussed Signpost article, I do not see this changing. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Moved to support. Mkdw ^talk 03:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

52. Oppose Pbsouthwood mentioned in response to question #8: "As far as I am aware, there are currently no admins who are members of WikiProject Portals..." If one would have taken five seconds to look at the participating users, one would find admins who had added themselves to the list well before the start of this RFA. Considering that this is the main reason that Pbsouthwood requested the mop, there is regretfully no possibility that I am able to support. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
53. Oppose Lack of demonstrated need and no experience in really any administrative area. Many administrators have offered to help with your sole reason for wanting the right, so I would suggest taking them up on their offer. Nihlus 03:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
54. Oppose. There's no point in my detailing exactly which of the well-taken objections I find particularly compelling. I do believe that if we're going to authorize an SPA (special purpose administrator) system, it should begin with a broad policy consensus rather than an individual RFA. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
55. Oppose: per Dolotta's above oppose among other reasons. Due to the response to Q11, "there are potentially a very large range of tasks where I would not be comfortable with the tools," I am slightly concerned about the total access to administrator functions, especially if they are outside of the candidate's comfort level. Given responses to other questions, I also get the indication that the candidate has potential to act without consideration out of impulse or panic. Given Q14 there does not appear to be a real need for the tools (even more so with Dolotta's reasoning). The candidate also realizes that "there is no need...to have the tools and no need...to help with the work at this stage suggest that perhaps the need for more admins is less pressing than we are generally led to believe," and there really is not so much need to add more admins at this point. Overall, I could not find a good reason to support. dross (c · @) 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
56. Oppose Not enough involved in admin-related activity. Too careless in editing and implementing Wikipedia:Short description without clearer consensus process. ("all articles should...", really?) All of which makes me nervous for granting them tools to make judgment calls when I'm not sure they know the rules particularly well. Great editor, though. Thanks for your contributions! Daask (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
57. Oppose Of his 43,188 edits, and before 6 months ago, I can find only 120 contributions that are not creating SCUBA articles, and most of the 120 are regarding obtaining Good Article status or Featured Article status for his SCUBA articles. I see little "walking around" and little breadth of interaction. His pet died, he wants to create an Afrikanns glossary for SCUBA, he went to Austrailia to count Fish, he is interested in Wikimania 2018 Cape Town. The only articles not SCUBA related were regarding suicide/asphyxiation, Richard Dawkins regarding creationism, Wikipedia_talk:Harassment, Portals_are_moribund, Request_for_Huawei_Honor_8_Pro_article, and Featured_article_candidates. Edit summaries show co-operation, his lack thereof is an unco-operative character flaw, especially since you can set a preference to remind oneself. Only recently (last 8 months) has he been active in policy comments. Not enough involvement in admin-related activity.Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose - I am a stickler for using edit summaries. They are part of the "manners" of the editing community that engenders cooperation and understanding. They help the communication between us. His reply shows a possible disregard for the concerns of others and a blindness to his own manners. ―Buster7 ☎ 05:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Moved to support. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

58. Oppose - per Amory's question (and the answer to it), and concerns raised by other editors, including Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's mention of a potential separate concensus of a special purpose administrator system. This individual RFA does not seem to be sufficiently proven necessary. --HunterM267 ^talk 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
59. Oppose - I'm sorry to have to oppose, as you're a wonderful editor. Much like others who have previously commented, I am concerned that the reason for your RfA is a bit too narrow. I'm not certain that I approve of single-purpose mop tools in general, especially when we have other admins who you could work with to complete this task so that you won't have to use tools that you yourself seem a bit unsure about having (in your answer to Q7, you indicate that you would be perfectly fine with giving up the tools when they aren't needed by you anymore. While being free to relinquish tools at any time is a good quality for an admin, it almost seems prophetic that you will end up not needing or using the tools after your task with WikiProject Portals is completed.) Although I think your edits are great and you could certainly be a sysop with your general knowledge about the project, I just don't think you require access to the tools right now for this specific purpose. Nanophosis (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
60. Oppose per candidate's answer to Q12. I don't see how the answer to Q12 can be spot on. The final sentence reads 'Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree.' If an administrator closes a AFD he's going to check it out and delete if they agree? The candidate's answer shows they are clueless about how articles are taken care of after a AFD is finished....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
61. Oppose Q5 did it for me. Purely on the surface, stating that there's nothing controversial about deleting 150,000 pages should be a major cause for alarm. I'm going to dig deeper. In recent years, we've seen a scenario where one specific WikiProject, namely AFC, has been allowed to hijack an entire namespace, namely the draftspace. There was an RFC questioning the propriety of this. You may have not noticed. That's because it was shut down before any discussion challenging the status quo could occur. One of the editors at the forefront of gaming process to shut that discussion down was ol' Roger Dodger. Do those of you who asserted that I had no basis for opposing his RFA still feel that way? Just curious. Moving ahead to the present, from what has come across my watchlist since the RFC has closed, I see the exact same scenario, namely WikiProject Portals hijacking the entire portal namespace. I didn't have time to participate in the RFC, but my take on it was that it part of the ongoing war against local consensus and against those who come to build the encyclopedia organically, rather than build a "one size fits all" product that's obsessed with looking a certain way at the expense of considerations such as whether the content is credible or useful. As there is no savings in disk space in deleting 150,000 pages, the objective must be to continue the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attitude that a small subset of the community have towards the rest of the community and the readership in general. Rather than mass-deleting content which isn't harmful, a better solution would be to mark it as historica, move it to project namespace and let individual WikiProjects choose whether or not they find particular elements useful to their own purposes in improving the encyclopedia. Then again, it's the issue of "one size fits all" and the war against local consensus. Many of the more active WikiProjects serve as venues to push the POV that their favored cherry-picked sources = "the only reliable sources in all of existence". The vast majority of the remainder of WikiProjects are in such a moribund state that it's questionable why they even exist. I see no net benefit to all this except to further indulge the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" crowd. Also, Q10 suggests that we would wind up with yet another admin who is more interested in being reactive than proactive. I'm not very familiar with the short description issue. From what I've seen, though, stopping Wikidata creep from overtaking this project is a good thing, so there does appear to be a positive from his work. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
62. Oppose I refuse your self-nom. We do not hand over mops for temporary clean-up projects. You cannot claim to be an admin just for two specific tasks when the mop, itself, does not have limitations within the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Placeholder comment while waiting for answers to Questions 5 to 8. Iffy★Chat -- 08:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) I was going to move to support following the answers to questions 5 to 8, but this part of the answer to question 12 Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how deletion discussions work. Cannot move to support given the primary reason for requesting adminship is to use the delete button (but as AFD is not their focus, not going to move to oppose either). I hope that if this RFA passes, then they re-read the deletion policies before venturing in to AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 13:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I could be wrong, but I was reading that not as "I disagree, therefore it shouldn't be deleted" as much as "I don't agree, another mop can do the deed". I'm not sure anyone should be forced to take an action they disagree with when there are lots of others who can also push the button. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   I'm not interpreting that either of those ways, "I disagree, therefore it shouldn't be deleted" is obviously dealt with by !voting keep, and I don't believe this user would close a discussion while thinking "I don't agree, another mop can do the deed". My problem is that they don't fully understand how admins close and implement deletion discussions right now. Iffy★Chat -- 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   Iffy, You are right that I would !vote keep if I thought it should be kept, I would also not close a discussion myself after !voting either way, as being involved. However if I saw a close where I disagreed with the finding of the closer I would not delete. If mildly uneasy would I leave it to someone else, or If I disagreed strongly enough I would discuss it with the closer, who might have good reasons, or might not. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   @Pbsouthwood: I think the point being raised here is that, with the exception of TfD, users aren't allowed to close discussions they aren't technically capable of implementing. Therefore, if someone closes a discussion as delete, they'll be an admin and will just delete the page themselves. They might do things differently on the other wikis you edit, as discussions probably receive much less attention. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

   I think this is an under-appreciated thread, especially now in light of similar comments in response to Q25. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral. I'm leaning support, but the "Oppose" comment from Amorymeltzer has me sitting here, and at the present time, I'm unsure if that is going to change. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   (Moved to "Support".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

   After reading some of the "Oppose" comments, my concerns with the seeming fact that the candidate had little experience in administrator-related areas is still a concern of mine. It's not enough for me to oppose since the candidate obviously has clue and good faith, but it's not enough for me to support either. The candidate just needs more experience with boards/forums/etc. that needs administrators to handle. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

   (...And now moved to "Oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Neutral The low AfD participation and edit summary usage bothers me greatly. I've only had positive interactions with User:Pbsouthwood however, and they appear technically competent, so it's regretful I can't support. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I have nothing against a Mop candidate wanting the rights for a major one-off: no doubt they'll always find another use for it afterwards. The problem is a lack of any real way to determine how well they'd handle it (outside of the one-off, where i'm sure he'd be good). Any significant history at all in any of AfC, AfD, CSD etc etc would give me something to go off. There's nothing to suggest an oppose, but that's because there isn't really anything to suggest, at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning support. I have had productive interactions with Pbsouthwood at Wikipedia talk:Short description, where I came in with the impression that he was attempting to implement something that the community didn't really want but ended up with no real cause for complaint (aside from annoyance at WMF for imposing short descriptions). Pbsouthwood seems likely to take responsibility for his use of the tools and not use them for self-serving purposes, which is the core qualification for adminship. It doesn't bother me that he has little experience related to administrative tasks in which he does not show interest, because I don't believe he'd start work in those areas without studying up. However, I do agree that WP:CSD#G6 is one of the hardest of the speedy deletion criteria to apply as noted by Amorymeltzer. It can cause a lot of unintentional disruption to believe that a deletion is uncontroversial and then find out later that it wasn't. In that sense I would prefer to have seen more experience with AfD/CSD in the context of this particular RfA. And again, please always use edit summaries! Best of luck, Dekimasuよ! 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I see little about this editor that is a negative, and I think the project can use additional admins. I also think that the project can use admins that can provide help in specialized areas over large parts of the project. I’m just a tad uncomfortable with the full admin toolset used by an editor for, more or less, a specific task in a specific Wikiproject. Having said that, I respect the offer to take a major part in a time consuming task and would be happy to see my concerns proved silly. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Neutral - just placing a neutral vote here to register my participation. It's an edge case and I can't make my mind up. I would like to thank Pbsouthwood for answering my question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

   Yep, it's a tricky one. Thought about it for a few days before I finally made up my mind. Schwede66 05:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

7. I think more experience in admin areas would make me feel better about supporting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Neutral much like Kudpung, I can't figure out if this is an example of a process failure or what. We have a candidate I'd never heard of before (no offense but true) basically saying in his responses to questions 6, 11 and 12 that he's not interested in sysopping but needs some project specific cleanup tools. Headscratch. Maybe the comment that the project should compile lists for mass del by an admin is better solution? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Neutral - I see this editor as someone that can help the Portal project but I feel strange about giving someone all the admin toolset just to delete a bunch of old portal pages. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
10. Neutral With an urging that the person get active in the broad range of AfD discussions, and not just seek an ad rem power. What this RfA is doing is bringing to the fore the issue about devolution of admin powers over all, and will someone please start such a discussion? I could easily see the utility of limited admin power for mass uncontested deletions at some point. Meanwhile, outside of this issue, the candidate seems to be someone we should have as an admin. Collect (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Neutral, from oppose. While I still believe the candidate is asking for more than they truly need to accomplish their stated goals, I don't see the mop being granted as a net negative to the project. Strikerforce^Talk 14:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Neutral There are good points made in both the support and oppose sections. Perhaps if the candidate had expressed clear interest in another admin area, or sounded more enthusiastic about admin work in general than the (to my ears (eyes?) somewhat grudging) willing to consider other admin work on request, or conversely, planned to hand the mop back upon completing this one task, I'd feel more comfortable supporting him. Equally if I saw some clear problem with his work, or thought there was a real prospect of his misusing the tools, I'd oppose him. As neither is the case, neutral it is. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

General comments

* Hmm, edit count, content creation, maintenance and all is impressive. The users been here for nearly 10 years and that's good. The only problem is the usage of edit summaries is less tan 50% (49.9%) that's the only concern otherwise I'm supporting. Bingobro (Chat) 06:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• on the edit summary thing, I have to say that I think seeing how they actually communicate (my impression is good) is more important than whether they put " " or "add" when adding a sentence or two content Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I may be mistaken or missing somthing, but X-tools appears to show a different figure. See talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, don't know where Bingobro got that figure. Anyhow, my comment in general still stands; also they do indeed seem to miss leaving edit summaries quite a bit (except for semi-automated stuff) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The 94% ES is for general edits, all namespaces inclusive. While the 49.9% one is for main namespace only, and that's actually where it is important and hence what people care about –Ammarpad (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that section of Xtools Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

[ec] Galobtter, Ammarpad, I think that there may be a difference in the way the tools assess the presence of an edit summary, but I am only guessing. My guess is that the global one counts section headings saved as part of the edit summary, which would give an inflated value, and the other one only counts what I have actually added to the summary box which would be in line with my own estimate that roughly 50% is close to the mark. I do often forget, and feel it a bit of a waste of time when I have an under construction notice up and do a couple of dozen consecutive edits, many of them typo corrections or similarly trivial edits, to write an edit summary which may be an order of magnitude longer than the actual edit. If someone is going to look at those diffs they are likely to look at them all at once. I am actually less likely to use an edit summary outside of mainspace as I don't see the point. Taking that over 75% of my edits are in mainspace, the global edit summary count should be slightly less if different at all.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• the editor has been here only for ten years, not sure if thats long enough. Jokes apart, I havent seen the editor much; need some time before putting the vote in. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Likely related to lack of projectspace participation — 90% of their edits are to Main/Talk/User, so it's not odd for folks to have limited interaction. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Usernamekiran, I do contribute to RfCs and policy discussions when I feel that I have something useful to say. Your username is familiar. Perhaps we have not disagreed enough for you to have noticed me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pbsouthwood: Maybe I should start disagreeing with editors more often lol. I am familiar with your name, but not much :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• I didn't place this in my support, which I like keeping succinct because I think my incredibly low standard for RfA support is important to maintain, as advanced twinkle really isn't that big a deal. This is a self-nom, which is going to get more scrutiny, as I think it should, but I also think this is a case for when being more open about handing out adminship is beneficial to the project: G6 deletion isn't sexy, but it is frequently needed and having someone who is actually interested in doing it so that someone who doesn't care can spend their time elsewhere is a great benefit to the project. It helps preserve one of our most precious resources, volunteer time. I have no problem granting adminship for this reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is more appropriate as a response to your support Tony, but since this is here I am replying here. I'm with you on the minimal criteria, but I disagree on G6s. It's not that G6s aren't sexy, it's that G6 is one of the vaguest CSD criteria, and those noms sometimes require particularly thoughtful consideration and judgment. More to the point, Pbsouthwood has not indicated any desire to help with the usual G6 deletions like blocked page moves, merely to delete 150,000 portal subpages. As he has little to no experience in any deletion process, I would expect G6 to be the last place he should participate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To add onto Amory's comment a bit, while I certainly think it's important to add qualified candidates to the team who can tackle specific backlogs that no one else wants to handle, I think a little bit more caution is warranted by the fact that a lot of volunteer time is also spent when administrators make questionable calls. Seeing the candidate's admittedly limited record of experience with the deletion process, I'm not completely sure whether this candidate would truly save volunteer time yet, especially if he intends to continue administrating after all the portal subpages are deleted. Mz7 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• I don't think I've had interactions with Pbsouthwood unless it's to delete portals at CAT:CSD. Just having experience at deleting portals at CSD, I personally feel more comfortable if it is at least a 2-step process - nominated by one editor, and deleted by another. CSD has a Batch Deletion function that is available to admins. An admin sees a lengthy list of portals nominated for deletion, and they can delete a batch of hundreds in a matter of seconds. I'm estimating that there have been a few hundred portals processed this way recently. But as I say, I feel more comfortable with it being a two-step process - the editor who deletes is not the same as the nominator. If someone is part of the WikiProject Portals that is involved in the nominating of those deletions, I don't know the impact. Given that the nominator wants the whole bundle of otherwise unrelated tools for facilitating this specific function, I just don't know how I feel about that. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Maile66, I agree with you on the two step process, with the exception of pages created by myself, where I feel it is extremely unlikely that there would be a conflict. I do not expect to nominate even a tenth of the potential pages in the Portal cleanup, leaving plenty of work to delete those nominated by others. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• @Serial Number 54129 and Joe Roe: Regarding Q18, that information is available at Special:CentralAuth/Pbsouthwood. Pbsouthwood is a sysop at English Wikivoyage and also the Wikimania 2018 wiki. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't ask Serial Number 54129 to ask that on my behalf and I've asked him to remove that part of his question. – Joe (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

@PCHS-NJROTC: You might want to review the rules. You can only ask 2 questions follow up. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

@Godsy: If the portal page creations were each performed by different users, Special:Nuke would not yield any benefit ;-)... unless you were just referring to "nuking" as simply deleting one-by-one? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I believe there is a script or something of that nature that can essentially "nuke" (i.e. mass delete by one button click) a list of pages (either bulleted or numbered) if my memory serves correctly. I thought it might be an actual extension of Special:Nuke but I guess not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay. I'm not aware of such a script, but if it exists and does what you describe please let me know where so I can add it! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: batch deletion of twinkle? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Yes! — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: See Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting#Batch deletion and the first item in Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting#Tools. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I've seen that before but... anyways, I understand what you were referring to now. Thanks for clarifying for me, Godsy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Anytime . — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Galobtter: Moved this down here to keep up there uncluttered. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I feel like a lot of the comments here, both support and oppose, and perhaps even the candidate himself, have been misled by omission (not deliberately, of course). This isn't hard, long, grueling work that Peter is applying for. I've done probably about 1000 of these deletions now with probably less than 20 clicks. Going through and checking and marking them is hard work, and I thank those who are doing it, but the actual admin action of deletion is absolutely not. And given the discussion with Maile above, I'm not even sure that having the tools would help that much. ansh666 06:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

We need admins - editors who are content creators, with the patience and willingness to be excellent collaborators, a plus if they have FA/GA experience, and even better if they have global experience with admin status on another project as what this candidate is offering. It isn't often that we have such an excellent candidate before us - one who is willing to take on the responsibility of this thankless job of administratorship, so please forgive my incredulity over the reasons given for opposing. This year alone, our community has experienced issues with some of our admins ranging sadly from death, to retirement to being topic banned, yet the only reason I can see for opposing this candidate is because he has expressed his willingness to help perform some of the tedious work that needs to be done. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a big reason why I voted support. I think a lot of these administrators are out of touch with the content contributors, they shoot first and think later. Heck, I used to be like that as a vandal fighter. When sysops trivialize real good-faith contributions from IPs and IP ranges representing thousands or even millions of users, no matter how small, and choose to softblock large corporations, government agencies, universities, and K12 schools because stopping common test editing, like people writing "hi" or "poop" that is easily recognized and reverted (which isn't really even considered vandalism, per WP:Vandalism) apparently trumps potential new editors' ability to edit without going through the process of requesting an account, they've apparently forgotten what it is like to be a new editor. I don't think any of us just woke up one day and said "I want to be a Wikipedian," in many (if not most) cases it was a matter of finding something we were interested in expanding, perhaps did some IP editing, and ultimately created an account. Indeed, we need more administrators who can relate to the content contributors rather than just (to be blunt) trigger-happy Barney Fife wannabes (which I admittedly was at one time). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

What's up with the sockpuppets voting? Is that typical in RfAs now? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I see only one vote struck. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Look at the page history, several comments and votes have been removed rather than struck (probably per WP:DENY). I probably shouldn't have even said anything because it encourages them, but I am curious. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I just got my monthly administrator newsletter, and apparently we lost five admins in May due to inactivity. We have an opportunity here to add a new admin to replace just one of those five. An experienced editor for whom no evidence has been found to support any fears that he might misuse the tools. And every reason to think he'll proceed with caution, bring himself up to speed, and perhaps contribute to reducing the backlogs in future. I personally think we should take that opportunity.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Define "misuse." Is blocking the entire Kentucky Department of Education or New York City Department of Education for several years without any discussion misuse of the tools? I think it is, but a small group of administrators do those kind of things routinely, and the only recourse is to go to one of the drama boards, only for the discussion to fail to reach consensus. (I'm intentionally not providing links because doing so would be calling someone out on their block, and I don't see anything productive coming of that.) While I don't know see evidence that this user would act like that, I'm not confident that he won't act like that; he admittedly lacks the involvement in that administrative area to judge one way or another, and while I did support the candidate, I sincerely hope he will not make me regret that vote if he succeeds in this RfA. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We get it, you're anti schoolblock, but this is starting to verge on WP:FORUMSHOP. We've seen no evidence that this editor would inappropriately block schools, and despite saying you don't see anything productive in calling someone out on their block, that is exactly what you are doing here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I voted support, and this comment hasn't anything to do really with whether or not this candidate will be a heavy-handed blocker and more to do with the fact that I can understand where the opposers are coming from. There's more to "misuse" of the tools than deliberate misuse or heavy-handed blocking. Perhaps it's a matter of protecting pages that don't really need to be protected? Perhaps it's a matter of deleting things that don't need to be deleted? Perhaps it's a matter of unprotecting something that should remain protected, unblocking someone who should remain blocked, or undeleting something that should remain deleted? From what I can see, this candidate seems to have a level head, but I can understand why people want to scrutinize those seeking the tools. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Thought this is firmly in crat chat territory I hope the candidate will not withdraw. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah hopefully not. I'd like to think that the crats will analyse the oppose votes, decide they're not massive red flags and promote. But who knows, I'm not a crat. The percentage has been gradually dropping, but with 133 supports it would need 72 opposes to drop below the magic 65% level so hopefully we're safe from that for now...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  Unfortunately...I think unless the opposes can be shown to actually be flawed / based on false premises / misunderstandings of policy, they will probably be forced to conclude that there is no consensus to promote (rather than, as it were, no consensus not promote, if you get my drift). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  I think it's probably best we don't attempt to do the job of bureaucrats for them, but as long as we're subtly canvassing, I'd like to think anyone judging consensus would consider the weight of the arguments and evidence for each. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  Quite, and really I was just discussing the procedure that will be followed at the end of all this. Although through the lens of the fact that I !voted support above, which is on the record. My understanding is that if the vote percentage is between 65 and 75, then it's up to the discretion of the crats to promote or not promote as they see fit. They could even decide to promote or not promote with values outside that range, but that would be much rarer.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  If the crats respond to RfAs like admins respond to AfDs, I think it will depend on how close the vote is, and how many of the supports/opposes give actual reasons to support or oppose vs being per someone else or just "I like/don't like this guy." As for whether or not the candidate should withdraw, I would take it to the end unless it were clear I wasn't going to succeed. I wouldn't take rejection so personally that I would withdraw to avoid it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I believe that the summary for crats would be – the opposing community believes the editor is trustworthy but does not have experience; the supporting community believes the editor is trustworthy and that lack of experience does not matter. My past review of crat closures shows less weight given to experience and more to trustworthiness. But as Amory correctly mentions above, I don't think second-guessing the crats here is appropriate. So I'll drop the discussion here. Lourdes 00:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • • Well, I don't know anything about second guessing anyone or doing anyone's job for them, none of that was my intention, I am merely providing encouragement to the candidate to actually let the crats do some work for once, as history shows that many candidates withdraw, and I imagine the stress of the situation is pretty bad, to be this low and have 5 days left. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Right, and I would certainly echo that encouragement to Pete to stick the course and see where we end up in three days time. This stands a good chance of passing. In my experience candidates usually withdraw when it becomes obvious that the thing is snowballing into definite no-promote territory. The last RFA before this one was, although it was still in the discretionary range at the time of the candidate withdrawing, was unusual in that it amassed huge support with little opposition in the first few days, and then started sliding steadily down. This one, on the other hand, other than the first day, when the support % was up higher than now, has had a trickle of both supports and opposes in roughly a 70-30 ratio throughout its life. I also remain hopeful that a few of the opposes may decide in the coming days that actually community norms on this issue have changed since 2013, and that trustworthiness and experience trump demonstrated need and active participation. But we shall see.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Pbsouthwood, please take note of this encouragement. I would also urge you to let this run its course, as stressful as that may be for the time being. Schwede66 01:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  That's also what I was going to say. Your support percentage is going back up of 0.8%. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  It has risen 2 percent since a low of 72% - could even get past the magic number of 75% at this rate! Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't intend to withdraw. It is not very stressful, and I want to see what happens. I think some people have not understood that when I say getting the mop is no big deal, I mean that to me personally, it is no big deal. I can live with it or without it. No problem. The advantages and disadvantages to my personal life appear to be small and fairly balanced. That kind of reduces the stress to not very much. I appreciate the goodwill and encouragement nevertheless, as they reinforce the feeling of community which motivated this RfA. The bigness of the deal is in the eye of the beholder and depends on one's perspective. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  The tide appears to be turning. A flurry of supports today and two opposes struck.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  Peter - when I read your comment "It is not very stressful...", I had to chuckle, of course thinking about the level of stress in your RL line of work, and the level of calm that's needed if/when forced to make a life or death decision at ≥56 m. I added an extra 20 pts to the pro side under ability to think and respond reasonably under pressure on my pros vs cons list. The few areas where you'll need experience (and will eventually find yourself overworked *lol*) shouldn't even be an issue. I don't know of any admin who was experienced at being an admin before they actually became an admin, so determining which areas of adminship are most important is best left for the iVoters to decide. I also considered your adminship status at wikivoyage, and quite frankly, I wish we had more candidates like you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Interesting to see so many neutral votes (more than even in GreenMeansGo' RfA where people were rather split). Presumably this is more of a side effect that the oppositions are fairly non-controversial, with most seemingly premised off "just wish we had one (more) grounds to judge from". Certainly calmer than some RfAs. If it does tick back down into 'Crat territory, presumably they'd take a look at those as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

---

• Assistant admin needed As I said in my support vote, this is a perfect example of why we should have a position with some but not all admin capabilities, call it an assistant-admin, sub-admin, factotum I, or what ever. It would have more limited capabilities, say maximum 12 hour block, a time limit, say one year renewable and maybe a supervising admin. The assistant privilege could be granted with much less drama than our current RfA gauntlet, and the holder's record in the assistant position would be a more objective basis for evaluating promotion to full adminship. This idea seems so obvious, why hasn't it happened?--agr (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Two points come to mind (beyond effort needed to put it in place etc):

1) Some of the powers that would have to be given for it it be a functional power (processing CSDs etc) are some of the most difficult, yet taking them off renders the position not a very good example.

2) RfA is prone to such inflation that I am pretty confident we'd get significant numbers who wouldn't lower their standards significantly, and become a full admin would become even more biblically difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

nosebagbear I agree some of the powers can require difficult decisions, but wouldn't it be better to grant those powers initially on a time limited basis, with some supervision, rather than the all-or-nothing, admin for life process we have now? And if we have some objective criteria for assistant admin candidates (years on the project, number of edits, some distribution of activities, no major bad behavior, etc.) the 'hasn't demonstrated walking on water' opposes can be more easily discounted.--agr (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I like ArnoldReinhold's idea about having a role of Assistant admin needed If you propose that in WP:Village pump, I will vote support. Xinbenlv (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

...and still won't achieve anything; see Wp:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Objective criteria have also been declined as a grounds (in numerous different formats, minimums, suggestions, for specific rights/rights groups etc). And your comment doesn't actually address my 2nd point which is that becoming a full admin would be even more nightmarish. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would having an actual record of performance in different admin roles make evaluating candidates more nightmarish? (And yes, I know this idea has been rejected in the past. My point was that this RfA is a good example of why we should reconsider.)--agr (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If this RFA ends up going through, it seems like a good example of why we shouldn't reconsider. As I've said above, we should promote people to admin who are trustworthy and experienced, with no civility issues, and let them grow into the role, even if their initial need is just for one narrow niche. We need more admins and we may just be about to get one.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

---

All things considered, although this may or may not be within the discretioary range, this may be a very good example of where an RfA should be considered on the sterngth of the arguments rather than the traditional numerical votes. It is always assumed that any Wikipedia debate is 'not a vote'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2018 (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.