Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Creffett

Curiosity
What is a creffett? Natureium (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A small creff. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 03:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The opposite of a tefferc. Better yet: a cross between a cravat and a ruff. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An expression of frustration on a new line?
 *  Eff it!
 * --Cabayi (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for returning my carriage, I've been looking for it forever. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , :::groan::: Are you even old enough to know what carriage return means? —valereee (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * StopShopCarriageReturn.JPG&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)]]
 * , yes, just barely, but old enough that it made me really happy that someone out there thought I wasn't old enough to know what carriage return means! Peter Pan's got nothing on me! Anyway, everyone knows a carriage return is a designated area in a store's parking lot where people return their typewriter carriages.
 * Shopping carts are called carriages somewhere? That's just wrong. So unromantic. Carriages have footmen, preferably magicked from mice. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, New England's not known for romance, but in fairness, people do ride in the shopping carts. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If I ever start a dance company, it'll be the creffettes. creffett (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jack - I want a creffett with egg, sausage and cheese, and an orange juice. Atsme Talk 📧 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly the creffettes would be a precision dance team ala Kilgore College Rangerettes, not a mere dance company. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The creffett is a small mammal of close relation to the ferret and the civet. Hibernation patterns of 3AM to 11AM UTC are characteristic of the creffett. Natureium (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy's oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Candidate wants to work in speedy deletion but they are making mistakes, even quite recently, that give me pause:
 * 2) *This G11 not only does not meet the definition of G11, but also demonstrates that the candidate either has not looked at the talk page (which contained a notice of a previous AFD) nor the page history or does not know the A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible rule of WP:CSD. Not sure which is worse.
 * 3) *This A7 is in the same vein as the G11 above but the candidate at least looked at the revision history after tagging (not sure that is the right order, is it?)
 * 4) *Re-tagging a previously declined A7 (WP:OTHERPARENT)
 * 5) *A7 for a band that received reviews in reliable sources
 * 6) *Another example of not checking the history before tagging
 * 7) *A7 for composer of music for notable films (that also had multiple links to coverage in The Times of India, a RS, e.g. )
 * 8) *A7 for label founded by notable musician (to be fair, the candidate reverted themselves shortly afterwards)
 * 9) *A7 for band with four notable members (also a self-revert)
 * 10) *Another tagging before checking the history
 * 11) *A7 for academic who is General Editor of a prestigious monographic series
 * 12) *A7 for artist with notable award claim. The candidate realized their mistake after tagging (a notable trend) only to tag it as G4 which had been declined only five days prior (and contested twice before). This example combines the candidate's apparent hastiness when tagging with their inability to check previous revisions.
 * I concede that the candidate does a lot of taggings and that these only represent a small share of those taggings (although I have not checked deleted taggings). However, these examples also demonstrate that the candidate is either far too hasty when tagging (and does not always catch their hastiness-related mistakes) or is not sufficiently familiar with the requirements of CSD. Both would be troubling in any candidate, but they are even more so in a candidate who explicitly wants to handle such requests. If the candidate approaches such requests as an admin as they do as an editor, i.e. without sufficiently checking the article and/or its history before deletion, we risk losing valuable encyclopedic content. There are enough editors who are quick to tag a vandalized article instead of restoring the previous revision that we have to rely on admins to do the necessary checks the taggers often don't. At this point, the candidate does not appear to be able to fill this role. Regards So  Why  06:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect your !vote and I'm not trying to change your mind but I wanted to provide some context for those reading. By my count, creffett has tagged over 4,500 pages for CSD and unambiguously with an error rate well under 2%, which is a truly impressive combination no matter how we slice it. I think all of us have been overly hasty in editing on occasion, and errors represent a very tiny proportion of the candidate's tagging, particularly in G11, which makes up a majority of his taggings. He's indicated (Q4) that he's not planning on deleting for A7 himself, which should alleviate many of the points you've mentioned. As you note, many of these taggings were self-reverted minutes later, where there was absolutely no harm done. More importantly, I want to echo in this context a point made at another current RfA that the responsibility of being a "card-carrying admin" often changes an editor's editing style (Atsme says it much better), and I'm confident that Creffett's work as an admin patroller will be exemplary. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't decided how to !vote yet, but the argument that they make mistakes because they make so many actions was very quickly given no weight during the RHaworth ArbCom case so I see no reason for it to be valid here.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 07:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please tell me this is sarcasm or a joke. —valereee (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither, but perhaps it was worded poorly. I'm saying that people brought up the quantity of RHaworth's actions in an attempt to show that "only x% were wrong" and yet that didn't help his case. I'd assume that someone with more edits would make more mistakes but I'd also assume that someone with more edits knows how to make less mistakes, as much as that seems like a contradiction. If after 4,500 CSD log entries we're still nominating this there may be a problem, especially if the user wants to work in this area.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry to ask for clarification a second time, but are you actually saying that because arbcom doesn't understand statistics, we should ignore them too? Yes, anyone can make the occasional major mistake, even someone with tons of experience. What I want to see is for those mistakes to become over time more rare, not for them to never happen again. Perfection is too high a barrier. And that article shows all the signs of undisclosed paid editing. —valereee (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree; we can't hope for perfection. With this said, I don't think it's suitable to argue an acceptable error rate for anything: whether it's 2 out of 100 or 20 out of 1000, it's the severity that matter. CSD should be used in unambiguous cases every single time. I know that I've made some contentious nominations in the past (check my RfAs), but until explains their reasoning behind those nominations, I will not !vote.  Anarchyte  ( talk  &#8226;  work ) 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's about "understanding statistics". No one disputes that more actions means more likelihood for errors. But as with everything in life, the question is not whether someone makes no errors but whether someone makes unnecessary trivial and extremely obvious errors. Making a mistake with an A7 or two is perfectly okay when you are doing a ton of them. But not checking the history before tagging (to an extent you have to revert yourself time and time again) is not simply an error because it reveals a fundamental problem with how the candidate approaches an article. Which also means that many of those deleted contributions might just have been them being lucky that the history contained no other information - or more likely might include a number of deletions where the deleting admin chose the same approach. Regards So  Why  12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I understand. And I want to make clear that I'm not trying to badger here. I probably should have replied to Anarchyte in the comments, my apologies for turning your perfectly reasonable oppose into a major discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm a big believer in RFA being a discussion and not an election. Regards  So  Why  12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUESKY: under 2 percent error rate is optimal. El_C 12:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I explicitly mentioned that I was aware of the number of taggings before making my comment and if I believed those errors to be acceptable "because they make so many actions" (as Anarchyte puts it), I would have opined differently. On a side note, please remember not to confuse "rate of deleted pages" with "error rate". Just because a page was deleted does not mean the tagging was correct in the first place. I have not checked any of those but I would be very surprised if there were no errors (I might do so later but I probably need to automate it somehow).As for the other thing, while an editor might comport themselves differently as an admin, we only have their conduct as an editor to judge how they might act if granted the mop. Regards So  Why  07:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had some spare time so I looked through all the unarchived mainspace CSD tags in their log. I disagree with a few deletions: Oregon Federation of College Republicans should've been redirected, Rizobalouch was tagged and deleted within ten minutes (I note the possible CoI, though), and Hacin + Associates has nineteen years of awards (all unsourced, but might prove significance). I'm waiting on responses to my questions before I decide whether to support or oppose.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 08:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hacin + Associates was not an a7 it was a G11. G11 has no credible claim of significance provision, in fact something actually notable can be deleted under G11. All those awards contribute mightily to the G11 nature of that former article. It was a good tag, not even borderline in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, oversight on my behalf. That was a good G11.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 12:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * in fact something actually notable can be deleted under G11 - this sentence sums up a lot of what I think is wrong with Wikipedia at the moment. Why do administrators want to delete notable topics? My best guess is that it's harder to maintain an existing article and clean it up, and much easier just to demolish it. I'm reminded of this essay (it's about code, rather than articles, but I think the general point stands). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess WP:TNT speaks to more people than WP:FIXIT. A credible claim of significance should be able to prevent any CSD tag, but it's limited to A7 and the like so that's how everyone responds. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 14:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , speaking only for myself but I take it as a personal affront when an employee or paid freelancer expects me to do work for them for free to promote a company (or less often but still occasionally a person). I come to improve the world's knowledge not improve the world's advertising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , and all 3 of the articles in Q5 show very clear signs of being not just employees but paid freelancers, two of whom are expert in how to avoid looking like what they are. They open an account, turn their username and talk blue, do ten edits in unrelated articles in the same general subject over four days, upload a completed article, hang around for a short while, and (this part I'm assuming) go collect their paycheck. Employees are way clumsier. :) —valereee (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I do not subscribe to it, I can understand WP:BOGOF and similar. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the 95 CSD tags he has placed so far in May, only three are blue links. In one case it is blue because after being deleted, the userpage was recreated by an admin posting a “blocked” notice. In another it is because the user has recreated it, exactly as it was, still a promotional page and needing to be tagged again. The third is the Capital-com case currently being discussed. In other words, his accuracy this month has been 94 (or possibly 95) out of 95. I dare anyone in this discussion to do better. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at some of the articles listed, and I'm 100% in agreement with Valereee, Barkeep49 and MelanieN. My apologies for responding to Ritchie333 at the RfA but I didn't realize the discussion had moved here until after I posted. I'm sure we all agree that AfC/NPP are our first lines of defense in keeping promotion out of the encyclopedia, and assuring our readers that they're not being sold a bill of goods by the marketing arms of various companies or paid editing. When an editor spends a great deal of time at NPP, they are zeroed in on weeding out promotion and non-notable material without losing sight of what is or isn't encyclopedic. We have some pretty strict guidelines per WP:CORP and WP:GNG whereas entertainers, singers, movies, sports, and the like are more relaxed, (and shouldn't be) despite some of it clearly being promotion. We know companies/PR firms/COI editors are utilizing our encyclopedia for marketing, promoting schedules and appearances, and making announcements for new products, etc. That's why 2 heads are better than one in the CSD process.  It's not like Creffett is going to use the tools as a reviewer at NPP/AfC and start deleting scores of articles per G11 or A7 - he was acting as a reviewer and bringing those articles to the attention of admins. I do still believe that a high percentage of the time, when one is given full responsibility in the decision-making process, they naturally tend to be a bit more studious and cautious because when one finds themself as both judge and executioner executor, they have a lot more at stake to consider. And let's also keep in mind, that the decision over whether or not an article should be deleted and how one should go about it is still based on opinion and one's perspective, and we are all susceptible to making mistakes under those circumstances - the ultimate goal is to learn from our mistakes and limit them by bringing other opinions to the table. My collaborative experiences and other interactions with Creffett are what guides my decision, and I feel confident in my choice to support this nom. Just my 5¢ worth Price reduction - get what you pay for.... 2¢ worth. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 16:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , price gouger. Opinions go for 2 cents in normal times. —valereee (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Val - I trimmed it down to 2 cents worth in an effort to curb inflation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Late to the party but I would like to explicitly refute the notion expressed above that arbcom entirely rejected the argument that error rate percentages were important. The case decision in question, if you care to read it, mentions not only deletions that were entirely out-of-process but also issues of being dismissive and/or downright rude when concerns were raised, eight ANI threads wherein they promised they understood the issue, and issues with them reversing a checkuser block. All of this put together was what led to the desysop, it was much more than just a few bad deletions or "arbcom doesn't understand statistics". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333's oppose

 * 1) Oppose per SoWhy. I did a quick spot check of the candidate's mainspace contributions, and the first thing I saw was edit-warring over an A7 tag on Capital com (which IMHO is probably notable as the sponsor of the major Spanish football club Valencia CF). No thanks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the validity or otherwise of the tag notwithstanding, do you really consider it edit warring for a patroller to reinstate a CSD tag that has been improperly removed by the article's author? He didn't touch it again when an independent editor declined the tag. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because to me it's a very obvious rookie error that no administrator should make. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, can I just check - do you mean that the addition of the A7 was the rookie error, or reinstating it after the author removed it? I've got to say that I do this - if I tag a page for deletion (more normally a G11, I don't do many A7 tags), and the author removes it, I will reinstate the tag and point the author towards the bit where it tells them not to do that. Am I edit warring when I do that? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not an edit war. I'm concerned Ritchie thinks otherwise. Nick (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that as that the candidate didn't appear to read the article and evaluate the appropriate circumstances for it given on what they saw (in this case, being a sponsor for a major football team, which implies something other than deletion). It's an old cliche, but comment on the content, not the creator. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Girth and Nick. For one thing, Capital.com is a startup (late 2017) with a trading app as its flagship product. The sources used are questionable and what they published reads more like marketing PR that may have been submitted by a paid PR firm for Capital.com - it is pure promotion.  I certainly hope we are not accepting articles based on the sports team a company sponsors, especially when it's only a one year sponsorship - ...newest sponsor of top-flight Spanish football club Valencia C.F. until the end of the 2018/19 season.  - that is obviously being done for their own marketing and promotion  - and remember, notability is not inherited - now look at the creator of the article. Got COI?? It may be innocent but it looks suspect. Final question, how does anything in that article qualify as encyclopedic beyond their ability to market themselves? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And there's a previously deleted non-notable promotional guffery at Capital.com. Nick (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I believe Girth Summit is concerned about your labeling of the candidate's actions here as "edit warring". This is a very serious accusation, and it unfairly describes the candidate's actions. It is not edit warring to restore a speedy deletion tag removed by the person who created the page, because removing a tag from a page you created is explicitly against the speedy deletion policy. If the candidate made a "rookie mistake" here, surely it was not "edit warring" by restoring the tag after the creator removed it. Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that was indeed my concern. We can argue the toss whether it's a valid A7 or not, but the words 'edit warring' are loaded with implications. I think it would be quite normal for a nominator to reinstate a tag that an author had improperly removed; either I'm wrong, and need to amend my practice, or I'm right, and those words aren't appropriate. I have a lot of respect for you, and I know that many others who read RfAs do too (if only based on the number of serving admins you have successfully nominated!) - you should of course vote in line with your judgement based on the tagging, but would you reconsider whether it's fair to accuse him of edit warring, given the likelihood that others will be influenced by your words (without, perhaps, looking into or fully understanding the actual context)?  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, looking at the refs on the sponsorship, they are just one of the companies associated with the team. The article on the team doesn't mention them. There is no indication they are the primary sponsor. Still, it's in my opinion enough to prevent an A7. The place to resolve this particular point is at AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Creffett never engaged in edit-warring with the single-purpose account who created the article. He only reverted the removal of the CSD tag, even with a clear edit summary, because The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag, according to the rule in WP:CSD. If Ritchie still thinks that this is an edit-war, then it's worrisome. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 23:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What’s more worrying with you lot is that in these instances, civility and assuming good faith go out of the window and you start calling people names in a manner akin to Trump. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  05:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a bit strong isn't it? Where have I been uncivil towards you, or towards anybody else? I am sorry if I've pissed you off with these questions, I tried to make my respect for you clear. I think I've been clear about what my concerns were too; I can't make you address them if you don't want to, but I haven't called anybody any names. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean me, but comments such as "non-notable promotional guffery" and referring to contributions as "crap" are unhelpful. I'm sure we all like to think "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when booting off a pro-Nazi troll, but there's no need to do so - be the better man. Additionally, if somebody is trolling the site, yelling at them and name-calling means the troll is effective and works, so they'll consider doing it again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll consider myself exempt from your 'you lot' comment then, because I've never used language like that to anyone, from outright vandals through alt-right trolls to obvious spammers. FWIW, I haven't seen Creffett address anyone like that either - he certainly didn't say anything of the sort to the person who wrote the article we're talking about. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That may have been me. I referred to this source as crap at the Capitol com talk. I use 'crap' all the time to refer to sources, and likely to UPE-promotional articles, too. I didn't realize it was that offensive; I'll stop using the word. The source does not appear to be a reliable one, as on their site I can find no evidence of editorial oversight. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be mildly unpleasant, but it isn't certainly shouldn't be offensive. I have no idea why Ritchie is taking issue with the above comments. I don't see any name-calling, so I'm completely bewildered by the Trump analogy. Frankly, comparing other editors to Trump seems more unhelpful than saying stuff like 'non-notable promotional guffery' anyway. I get that these are tense times, but let's please not start nitpicking people for stuff like this. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hardly offensive at all; and how much worse than describing edits as waffle or pathetic I don't know. :)   serial   # 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as a word I don't think it's offensive at all. I think it would be pretty rude to say to someone directly 'your article is crap', or 'why are you adding crap sources?', but that's more about the confrontational and unwelcoming tone than the word itself. If you're talking to uninvolved people about something you think is crap, I don't think it's remotely offensive.
 * If anyone cares to comment on the edit warring question, I've started a thread at WT:EW about putting an explicit mention of reinstating CSD tags that have been improperly removed by an article author into WP:3RRNO. I'd welcome any thoughts. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that the same Ritchie I remember from classic edits such as fuck off, fuck off and fuck off, nationalist ? Nick (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On the nose, old man  :) (although as it happens the last two links are the same?)  serial   # 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Too many to choose from, maybe. I dunno. Nick (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That last one was verging on the blockable. It's one thing to tell a nationalist to fuck off if they are demonstrating their nationalism disruptively, but "fuck off nationalist" in response to an IP's sole edit to the project being to change "founder member" to "founding member" is completely bizarre. serial   # 13:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR does tend to get some of us hot under the collar. Apparently "founder member" is British English and "founding member" is US English and there has been quite a lot of back-and-forth on that particular article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)