User talk:MusikAnimal/RfA/Mz7

Review

@Mz7: I think all three answers look excellent! At quick glance (literally), Q3 looks bad as if you have a lot to confess to. On the contrary; your superb examples illustrate how you handled what could have become much larger disputes, but instead were diffused into constructive discussion. I have noticed how well you communicate not only with newbies but with seasoned admins. I find this quite admirable, and frankly I believe this sort of temperament is among the most important traits of someone wielding a mop. Q1 and Q2 are also well-written. In my opinion you are ready for adminship, and that's ignoring the recent influx of RfAs that may or may not influence the WP:NOBIGDEAL mentality. With your permission I'd like to move forward with it when you feel comfortable doing so. Perhaps we'd even prefer to wait till things die down, it's up to you :) Samwalton9 might have more to add — MusikAnimal ^talk 08:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I also think your answers are great, and I have no issues! I have one question for you, that I suspect could come up as a topic of questioning in your RfA, about your history at AfD (to be clear, it's not an issue for me, just something I'd like you to think about beforehand). While there's nothing wrong with your votes, I did notice that you've spent a fair amount of time relisting discussions. What is your approach to relisting discussions, in terms of your criteria for relisting rather than leaving for a discussion to be closed, and what determines whether you vote in the discussion or relist it? Sam Walton (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you for this question! Here's my general approach that I've developed. I believe that most AfD patrollers look primarily at "today's log", and given the high number of AfDs that get nominated every day, it's understandable that a few might not get seen. Once they aren't seen on the first day, it's even less likely that an AfD regular will see them later, unless they stumble across the discussion by other means. A relist places the discussion back onto "today's log" for another opportunity to be seen and receive further input. The first things I look at, accordingly, are the amount of discussion that has taken place (did it "slip through the cracks"?) and the quality of the arguments in that discussion. If there have been few or no comments, and the arguments present valid reasons for deletion (i.e. it's not a "speedy keep"), I will then take a look at the state of the article and its sourcing.

Sometimes, I will fully agree with the nomination and add a delete !vote myself, and sometimes, I see something that might have been missed and leave a comment. In cases where it's not obvious to me at first glance, and there hasn't developed a rough consensus, and especially if there has been at least one objection to the nomination, I will relist the discussion as a way of soliciting additional input. There may be contributors who know more about the topic than I do. Per WP:RELIST, I generally won't relist a discussion more than twice. The spirit of our deletion policy is that article deletion should be the last resort, and I believe relisting is worth it because many, many relisted AfDs result in an alternative to deletion that wasn't considered in the first 7 days.

I will note, however, that there is currently an active proposal to change the way we treat AfDs with no comments after 7 days. The proposal, which has received a lot of support, asks administrators to treat such AfDs like PRODs, prioritizing deletion above relisting if there are no obvious objections to the deletion. I've been ambivalent about the proposal (as I noted there in my "neutral" !vote), but if it passes, I would certainly change my approach to be consistent with the consensus. Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal and Samwalton9: I did notice the lengthiness of Q3, and I agree that it may look bad at first glance, but I feel encouraged by your evaluation of it. I would accept your nominations if you guys think it's ready to proceed. Regardless of what the outcome may be, I just want to note that I have a lot of respect for both of you: you guys are the experts at keeping a cool head in the face of disagreements, and I deeply appreciate the positivity you two bring to this community. We say this to newcomers a lot in places like {{Welcome}}, but I think we should say it more often to experienced editors too: thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)