Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood

Pbsouthwood

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (59/8/4); Scheduled to end 06:27, 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 Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_145#RfC:_Populating_article_descriptions_magic_word 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:

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:

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:

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:

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)
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)
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)
25. 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)
26. Support No concerns. Good to see an established content creator. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
27. Support. Has clue, net positive, etc. Obviously would know how to properly use the mop. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
28. Support GoldenRing part 2. 14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Lourdes
29. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. Support not a jerk and has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
37. 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)

38. Support - No issues here. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. Support per nom and answers to questions. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
41. 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)
42. Support. No good reason not to. Not the first single-use rfa either. Sro23 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. Support per nom. Froswo (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
45. 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)
46. Support, a model editor. A Train^talk 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
47. Support Because volunteering for maintenance jobs is something that should be supported Zarasophos (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
48. 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)
49. Support. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
50. 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)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. 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)
56. Mahveotm (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
57. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
58. Support with extra points for the self-nomination which shows laudable independence. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
59. 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)

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 sire — 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)

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)

3. Oppose: This user is misusing rollback flag. Re: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. 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,[7] 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)

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 [8][9][10]. 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)

   (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)

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 a 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 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)

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)

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)

   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)

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)

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)