Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss

Clovermoss

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (138/1/1); Scheduled to end 14:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Clovermoss (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I've been editing Wikipedia since September 2018 and I plan to stay around for the forseeable future. I'm not an expert at anything but I do try to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone :) I'm finally succumbing to the peer pressure – many editors have been trying to convince me to consider adminship for the past two years or so. Yesterday I even recieved the honour of becoming an "administrator without tools". I don't think I'll ever consider myself truly ready for adminship so I'm taking a leap of faith and trusting that when other people say they think I'd make a good admin, they're not lying. I have never edited for pay and I don't plan to ever do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2023 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: So people will stop asking me to become one or offering to nominate me. On a more serious note, I think that although I wouldn't be that active in most admin areas, the small contributions I can confidently make here and there could still worthwhile. I think I'd be capable of dealing with obvious vandals, username blocks, and some of the requests at WP:PERM. I don't think I have much need for the tools (but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review#Issues identified has made me feel less insecure about that aspect). That said, I'd still be taking a really cautious approach to everything. If an experienced admin is willing to take my under their wing for when I have questions, I'd really appreciate it.

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

A: My long term goals are improving content about the Niagara Region and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm nowhere near satisified in my efforts there, but I have tried. Most of my content creation is bits and pieces here and there. The only super impressive thing I've ever done was write a GA – Katherine Hughes (activist). My biggest contribution outside of mainspace would be my ongoing feedback about the android version of the Wikipedia app. I have a subpage dedicated to this if people are curious. I also have a super long talk page thread over here.

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: Yeah, I've had some conflicts. I was very stressed out when I filed an ArbCom case earlier this year and also during this ANI thread. I've found that the best way to deal with stress is to step away from the keyboard and go for a really long walk in the forest, listen to music I like, and get some sleep if I need it. Basically, my typical strategies for dealing with stress in real life. I think I did reasonably well with keeping my cool during these discussions (although I'd probably do some things differently in retrospect) even if I find stressful situations uncomfortable and I'd rather avoid them.

---

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.

Optional questions from WaltCip

4. I find it interesting (in a good way) that you don't feel you'd have much of a need for the tools but nevertheless you had self-nominated. Notwithstanding your jokey remark about trying to get people to stop asking you to become an admin (😉), let me ask you this: We are in the hypothetical near-future in which you have been given the mop; what would be different about any typical day for you on Wikipedia, knowing that you are now an administrator as well as an editor?

A: I think that the only thing that would substantially change is what I would do if I encounter something that might warrant an admin action. If I see ongoing vandalism where the individual has already been adequately warned, it makes more sense to consider whether I should block them myself than to file a report at WP:ANV (Yes I know that shortcut is unusual but I like it). More generally, I think it's wise to triple check all the PAGs before I take admin action(s) even if I think I'm relatively familiar with them. With great power comes great responsibility and I want to make sure that I'm taking my actions seriously and not messing up. As for my typical day, I expect it wouldn't change much, other than occasionally looking at admin-related pages when I'm wondering if there's something I could do to help. I'd imagine the difference would be like how I was before I would check the new pages feed vs after. If I have questions, I ask a more experienced reviewer. When in doubt, I skip pages or watch them to see what other people do. So I think that's relatively comparable to the concept of learning from a more experienced admin about what should be done if I encounter a confusing sitation. As for the not much need, many hands make less work. I'd like to think that the cumulative impact of people doing a little where they can makes a difference. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

5. And namely, still in that hypothetical future, how should people view your presence and your contributions any differently knowing that you are an administrator?

A: Well I'm still the same person, so I'd rather people continue to treat me like they have before. I think every experienced editor, regardless of whether they're an admin or not, should try their best to be the best Wikipedian they can be and not abuse their perceived authority. It's the newbies that have less experience to understand how things work around here, after all. Despite my ideals, I realize that people probably will perceive me differently in some ways. So I will try to be a good role model and be someone that people feel comfortable reaching out to if they think they need an admin's help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Manboobies

6. I found your answer about editing Jehovas Witnesses notable. Are you a Jehovas Witness, and do you feel that being one could impact on your neutrality when editing and administrating the article (potentially leading to stonewalling)?

A: I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I am no longer one. I stopped believing in the religion when I was 13 and I have since considered myself to be an athiest. I don't think you have to be religious to be a good person and I don't think being religious inherently makes you a bad person, either. All that said, I have a basic understanding on what it means to be involved and I wouldn't be taking admin actions in the areas in which I edit. I have some complicated person feelings surrounding the subject matter and I've always tried to be careful when editing articles where I feel that way. All that said, I do have an interest in improving articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, not just the main article. While it's true I've made 100 edits to that page, I've also created articles like Lamb v Benoit and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. I've noticed an overreliance on primary sources in the topic area which I'm trying to address. Here are some examples of that: [1][2][3] I have 9 books about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm slowly making my way through them. I try to add content that's relevant whenever I see a need to do so, like when I created this section. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

7. How do you feel about allegations that the Jehovas Witnesses are a cult, and about having a full section on that allegation in the article? I note that the article you are passionate about doesn’t have substantial sourced discussion of external commentary on whether it is a cult in the article, yet it’s a commonly heard real world comment on the JWs I hear frequently. Manboobies (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A: I think it's wise to be cautious when using words like cult in an encyclopedia. MOS:CULT exists for a reason. It's possible that an attributed POV using the label could have its place in the article, possibly somewhere in the criticism section, but it's important that undue weight is not given to this. For what it's worth, I actually have some prior experience dealing with an argument about whether or not to use the word "cult" in an article at BLPN. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Fermiboson

8. Please choose a moment in your editing career where you came closest to violating WP:ADMINCOND, or otherwise exhibited bad judgement in an administration-related area, and describe how you would correct the mistake if the event took place when you have the mop. Fermiboson (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A: Well I'm not an admin, so it's impossible for me to have violated or to have come close to violating WP:ADMINCOND as it hasn't been applicable to me. That said, I think it is an important policy and I think that I've always been acting within it in spirit as a general editor. I'm not a saint that does everything perfect always, but as that page states: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. What one person sees as a big deal another can see as a nonissue, so I always try my best to address people's concerns in good faith. I'm already welcome to feedback and criticism for my non-admin actions and that wouldn't suddenly change with an admin toolkit. I've always tried to be someone that's approachable when someone wants to talk to me about their thought process. Obviously I'm self-biased here, but if there's anything in particular you're concerned about, feel free to offer a follow-up question and maybe that will assuage your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from EggRoll97

9. Assuming you succeed in this RFA, how would you approach an area you are unfamiliar with?

A: Well before I do anything at all, I would start with reading and rereading everything that can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. I also wouldn't be afraid to rereference it as many times as nessecary. Even with the areas I'm already somewhat experienced in, I think it would be wise to triple check that everything I think I know is what should actually be done. It's also important to know about the how part. I'd always rather err on the side of caution. Nothing is so important that I would have to be the only person who could do something and I think watching and seeing what other admins do in similar situations would be incredibly insightful. I also think I'm likely to ask other experienced admins (especially those active in that admin area specifically) what their thoughts are if I'm confused or have any specific questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

10. How will your interactions with other editors change if given the mop, and why? That is to say, would you interact with others any differently than you do now?

A: I believe I already answered a similar question at #5. Is there anything in particular you would like me to elaborate on? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from Homeostasis07

11. Hi Clovermoss. Could you elaborate on the purpose of User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections? You left messages about it on quite a few user talk pages in the two weeks leading up to this RfA.

A: I was inspired by my experience attending WikiConference North America and meeting other editors to see what we had in common. Not everyone attends in-person events (this was my first one!) so I figured learning more about what has helped other experienced editors stay would be insightful. All my questions had something to do with something I'd discussed with someone at some point. I wanted to have a diversity of perspectives so I asked many active editors I've seen at some point what they thought, hence the talk page messages. I normally wouldn't do such a thing, especially because in discussions where people can !vote this would be canvassing. I didn't want to spam people's watchlists (and I encouraged people to organically contribute without a formal invitation and they still can!) so I only did a few handfuls at a time over the course of a few days. I don't really have any specific intentions for it other than finding the experience valuable in itself and it had nothing to do with this current RfA. People did kind of gang up on me at WCNA saying that they thought I'd make a good admin, but I was fairly insistent on turning them down like I have been whenever people have emailed me about it. But it was the first time I had a bunch of people bringing it up at the exact same time and I suppose it maybe had a subsconcious impact on my decision making? There was also a whole session dedicated to trying to get more younger editors involved with Wikipedia (I'm currently 21 so this stood out to me in particular). The main event that influenced me to step up today was yesterday's honour of becoming an administrator without tools. I almost didn't do it, but I thought that if so many people keep telling me I'm ready, maybe they have a point. I did seriously consider politely declining like I always do, or saying "maybe sometime in the next 80 years". If there's anything you'd like me to elaborate on, feel free to ask follow-up questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from JPxG

12. You're in a RecentChanges, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see several newly created user accounts. Their names are as follows:

• User:Tortoise On Its Back
• User:BellyBakingInTheHotSun
• User:Weanus
• User:Maodidnothingwrong1966
• User:Love Too S. My Pants

What action, if any, do you take regarding these?

A: The first two don't seem problematic to me at all. The fourth username would draw my attention because it appears to be a reference to the Cultural Revolution. Except in particularly egregious circumstances, which I'm not sure #4 would qualify as (it might but I wouldn't make that judgement call myself right this second), accounts that have not edited are not blocked for possible username violations. Seeing them in recent changes means they have edited, but I would check the relevant diffs to see if anything in particular is problematic. For example, if #4 edits Cultural Revolution and replaces its content with Mao did nothing wrong, those "scholars" deserved to die, that would be disruptive and I'd hardblock. I'm less familiar with the history of the PRC than other people are, but it seems like the figure we're talking about encouraged violence and thousands of people died as a result of his actions. Unfortunately, that would be an accurate accessment of various politicians. If I suddenly see anyone engage in persistant vandalism and not stop after being adquately warned, I would block them for that. If #3 and #5 edit in good faith, I would encourage them to change their username to something else. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Robert McClenon

13. What experience do you have in resolving disputes between users? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A:

Discussion

• Links for Clovermoss: Clovermoss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Clovermoss can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support. On my to-do list for next week was sending an email urging Clovermoss to run / possibly offer a nomination. Kind, open to criticism and feedback, and good understanding of policy. I see others posted on her talk page before me. Her recent editor reflection collection shows she's keen to improve editing for new editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. +1,000,000. I am beyond thrilled that you started this, Clovermoss. HouseBlaster^talk 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see anything that would raise any concerns. Noah, AA^Talk 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Glad to be part of the first supports. Our interactions have been nothing but positive. The editor reflections project shows how you are here to build an encyclopedia, and has been very nice to read through. Thanks for initiating the project and running for RfA! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
5. A fully qualified user. Probably twice the editor that I will ever be. The Night Watch (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Nothing but positive interactions Sohom (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Excellent choice of nominator with an eye for an excellent candidate. (Sorry, hadn't noticed the co-nom; you could have self-nom'd.) ——Serial 14:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC).

   @Serial Number 54129: That's because I did self nom. Ritchie333 has co-nommed as an IAR action, see the page history. I appreciate the intention behind it but the main reason I nominated myself was because I didn't want to have to pick between the several people who've reached out to me in the past about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Clovermoss: Apologies, so you did! As you say, I should've checked the page history. Except, I suppose, one doesn't usually need to, as nominations are generally sacrosanct from outside interference. Ritchie333 FTR self-noms should be encouraged and it certainly doesn't improve the culture of RfA if people think you're waiting in the wings with your stirrups, spurs and another cowboy action, however well-meaning your intentions. This is an outrageous refactoring of a nomination based on little else than a bad-faith supposition. The only good thing is that Clovermoss will pass and this pass will occur in spite of you not because of you. @Bureaucrats: , FYI. ——Serial 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   I have moved the support into its chronological order rather than staying as a co-nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   Noting for the record that Ritchie removed the moved vote. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

8. Support Granted, could have a bit more experience under their belt, but from what I've seen the 'attitude' (and I put that in quotes for a reason) is spot-on, and that's what counts more for me. Also, kudos on the brave self-nom! (And like Femke, I was very impressed by that 'editor reflection collection'. Not that doing stuff like that is a requirement for the mop, but again, shows a very positive 'attitude'.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
9. Support, four stars on the list of potential administrators. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
10. Support. ResonantDis_tortion 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
11. Support looks good to me, good luck! :D Justiyaya 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
12. Support. Very happy to see this! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
13. Support: Sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
14. Support: well qualified candidate who isn't afraid to ask questions :-) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
15. Support: I've seen this editor around many times and would be happy to have her as an admin! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
16. I could not be more pleased to support Clover's RfA. She has a fantastic passion for the work we do, strong knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and an even stronger ability to act in the ways we'd hope admins to act. Just so so pleased to see this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
17. Support of course. Spicy (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
18. With great delight. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
19. Support whole-heartedly. DrowssapSMM 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
20. Seems like a great all round editor and no major issues I can see. AryKun (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
21. Support (t · c) buidhe 15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
22. Support definitely! Qualified, dedicated, knowledgeable. I'm really happy to see this RfA, and thank you for volunteering. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
23. Support, a nice person, and I trust them. Everything else can be learned. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
24. Strong support I evaluated Clovermoss some time ago, and strongly encouraged her to run; I'm very very glad she did so. She is a committed editor, she has a variety of experience, and she has the even temperament and willingness to discuss things that is so crucial to a good administrator. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
25. Support yes!! jengod (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
26. Support 100%. Beyond the qualifications, she certainly has the attitude needed for wielding the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
27. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
28. Support - no issues. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
29. Support - No reservations. Glad to see this pop up! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
30. Support Seddon ^talk 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
31. Support I've seen Clovermoss around and I'm confident she will make a fine admin. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
32. Support - eminently qualified. I want to take a moment to refute the "not active enough" oppose. We have a massive problem with the amount of volunteer time available to us (see this excellent essay) as it is. We should be thanking people for volunteering to do even more work than they already do, not holding them to some arbitrary standard of activity. Doing this risks losing excellent contributors and admin candidates because they feel that they "can't be active enough for it to matter". I realise that there are nuances here around being active enough so that the community can judge temperament and behaviour, and being responsive under WP:ADMINACCT, but I don't think those apply in this case at all. firefly ( t · c ) 16:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

    If I hadn't already come to the decision to support, this would almost be enough on its own. firefly ( t · c ) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

33. Support: thank you for running. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
34. As one of the people who offered to nominate, I'm very, very pleased to see this. We need case-hardened admins who make prolific use of the tools to protect the encyclopaedia but we also need patient admins who are always ready to assume good faith and take the time to explain things, even if they don't use the tools as much. Adminship is a role that you can grow into and find your niche but stick AIV (or ANV!) and UAA on your watchlist and you'll quickly start learning the ropes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
35. Support, easily. It's been clear for a long while that Clovermoss has exactly the right attitude for adminship, and her humility in declining the many nomination offers she has received recently only bolsters that impression. I had the privilege of meeting her at WikiConference North America last month, where her commitment to the project shone through brightly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
36. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
37. Support - no reservations, excellent candidate. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 16:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
38. Support. Clovermoss is cool; I like her. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
39. No reason not to. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
40. Support Excellent candidate. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
41. Support, with no concerns. Clovermoss is kind, thoughtful, and well-spoken. An excellent candidate indeed. – bradv 16:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
42. Support, should have been nominated years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
43. Support Terasail^[✉️] 16:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
45. Support - I've had only positive interactions with the candidate and have no concerns at all. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
46. Support Happy to support, great editor, no concerns. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
47. Support, a kind and thoughtful editor that is willing to go to the mat when she sees a problem that needs addressing. More than active enough, as every action she'll take is one fewer that falls on the existing admins. I have confidence that she won't abuse the tools and not every administrator needs to make 5000 blocks a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, and concerns about not needing for the tools don't convince me. There's no reason to believe she'll abuse the tools, so give the woman a chainsaw and she'll find some trees. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

48. Support: what is exciting about this candidacy is something too rare at RfA: someone who clearly has deep connections in the community and puts effort into building and maintaining relationships with other editors. This is exactly the kind of editor who should be empowered to judge, facilitate, and implement consensus. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
49. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
50. Support! Chlod (say hi!) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
51. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
52. Support Clover has always made a positive impact! BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
53. Support! - Clovermoss is a true beacon of the community, and I really enjoyed reading User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections! An extremely supportive, understanding person that would make Wikipedia a brighter, snowier place by joining the admin team! Oh, and most importantly - how could I not support a fellow asexual? <3 🖤🤍💜 Brat Forelli🦊 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
54. Frostly (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
55. Exceptional candidate. –xeno^talk 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
56. Support. I'm not super familiar with Clovermoss' work, but from what I've seen, and given the emphatic supports above me, why not? Good luck! Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
57. Support based on prior interactions, not a jerk, has a clue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
58. Support - No concerns upon review, and I especially appreciate their answer to Q5. I understand the concerns about inactivity but I don't think it's an issue; I had a much longer period of relative inactivity during that same timeframe for example. Sometimes activity lessens on Wikipedia for various reasons, but their recent activity levels aren't concerning to me and I don't think this window of inactivity is necessarily any indication of future concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
59. Support Met this editor last month at WCNA 2023 and again on a Zoom conference last weekend. Very good impression. Her commitment to the project cannot be understated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
60. Support. Great editor and I'm especially a fan of User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
61. Strong support I've met this individual in-person at WCNA 2023 and came across her editing on Canadian contents online. Her contributions are good. She is polite and outgoing in my interactions with her. I think her nomination for adminship will benefit the project. I am entirely unconvinced by the opposer's rationale because this is all volunteer "work". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
62. Support. Experienced, clueful, no big deal; I am sure they will find a use for the tools. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
63. (edit conflict × 2) Support of course. This is an RFA to get excited about. Clovermoss is an up-and-coming Wikipedian that is well-liked by many. It's been a pleasure to collaborate with her on things like Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Archive 5#Newcomer experience + new article creation and NPP. I predict she'll do great things! –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
64. (edit conflict × 2) Not very active at the moment but glanced at my watchlist and knew I had to come support this. I was lucky enough to meet Clover in person and was very impressed with her commitment to improving Wikipedia—solidifying what I'd felt in this interaction on my talkpage, where she took proactive responsibility and sought help for a minor mix-up with a pagemove. That's the exact kind of accountability we need to see in admins, old and new. (Although there was no need to offer to hand in the perm! But better overdo accountability than underdo it.) I'm excited at the prospect of getting to work with Clover on admin tasks ( Kinehore). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
65. you love to see it! a kind and competent editor. (if you've got no use case for the tools, I'll be pestering you to help out at DYK :P) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
66. Support Banks Irk (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
67. As I said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
68. Support no concerns, and gynecomastia isn't an issue for me. Nick (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
69. Excellent candidate, happy to Support.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
70. Support Not a jerk, has clue. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
71. Support with special commendation for gracious handling of the uninvited nomination. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
72. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
73. Support as appears to be a suitable candidate. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
74. Support Leijurv (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
75. Support very glad to see Clovermoss stepping up here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
76. Support - No concerns, and I'm impressed with this editor's communication style. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
77. Support - Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
78. Support. I'm a bit concerned that Clovermoss expressly stated that they would not be active in most admin areas and does not see themselves as someone who needs the perms, but I'd prefer an admin who doesn't use the mop over one who shouldn't use it. All of my interactions with Clovermoss have been nothing but great and they are definitely qualified. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
79. Support: Clovermoss is a kind, dedicated editor who I have the greatest respect for. She'll make an excellent admin. Cremastra (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
80. Nardog (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
81. Absolutely. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
82. Support A great fit ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
83. Support Clovers are supposed to be lucky I believe, and we're lucky she's willing and able to take on this role. Regards,  Spintendo  22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
84. Support - wholeheartedly. Definite asset to the program and can be trusted with the mop. Has more than a clue.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
85. Support: Niche subject-area experience is a nice quality and the (perhaps self-destructive) desire to work in addressing PERM requests is very welcome. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
86. Support per Lightburst's oppose. Averaging 10 edits a day is more than enough to indicate dedication to the project. Aside from that, not a jerk and has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
87. Support This is probably piling on at this point but she seems to understand community norms and will probably be a net positive. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
88. Support Good luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
89. Support per Lightburst's oppose. I'd rather see someone make 10 quality contributions per day, than 100 or more shite ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
90. Support. Net positive, no concerns and I like your responses to the questions. Although I've never encountered this user before, I think Clover will become a great admin. Good luck! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
91. Stephen 00:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
92. (edit conflict) I've never directly interacted with her to the best of my knowledge, but my impression of Clovermoss from what I've seen in passing is overwhelmingly positive and aligns closely with Femke's !vote. No reason not to support. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
93. Support - Solid answers to Q1-3, and the links in response to Q3 show a level-headed approach to emotionally charged disputes. Great answers to Q4-7 which give a practical sense of how the candidate would act as an admin. My only suggestion is that the candidate reach out more often on user talk pages in cases like those linked for Q3, but it's minor and doesn't disqualify a candidate that showcases good communication.TROPtastic (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
94. Support. LGTM. Would also be the first admin that has me added on Discord. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
95. Support From the interactions I've had with Clovermoss (which were not many), I do not have any serious objections to her RFA. I enjoyed reading her responses and I would love to have her join the sysop team! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
96. Support - No objection in the least bit, I feel that the candidate has made good, extremely helpful contributions to Wikipedia, and can be trusted with administrative rights. -- ThatOneWolf (^Chat_Edits 01:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
97. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
98. Support. A high quality candidate with a mentality that is extremely well-suited for adminship. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
99. Support Thank you for coming out. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
100. Support User seems qualified and capable. Has done good work so far, the kind of person we need with the current admin shortage. Generalissima (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
101. Support! ~ Tails Wx 02:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
102. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
103. Support. Seems to be a reasonable and thoughtful editor who is likely to made production use of the admin tools. Appears unlikely to go on a power trip. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
104. Support. Although never talked to her directly, I have seen her good work on Wikipedia. WanderingMorpheme 05:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
105. Support Why not? -Fastily 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
106. Support, anyone who can think to start a page like User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections deserves my !vote. Graham87 (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
107. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
108. Support Many hands make light work. (I am also happy about the stories being collected at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
109. Seeing the editor opening the Editor Reflections page is such a great idea, and so will drop a support for the candidate, despite stating that she would not be that active in admin work. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
110. No red flags and has a clue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
111. Support Not a jerk, has a clue. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
112. Support with apologies for breaking the 111/1/1 score. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
113. Support ZettaComposer (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
114. Support Looks good and I like the self-volunteering.North8000 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
115. Suppport, I mean, why not? It’s not like they’re going to delete the main page with the tools. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
116. Support - If the only reason to oppose is that the user "doesn't need the tools", that's just even more reason to give them to her. In the immortal words of Fastily, "Why not?" Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
117. Support, not only have my interactions with them been positive, but they also have a subpage in which users can fill out a few questions, they clearly seem to want to seek insight from other editors, which means they aren't afraid to ask questions if they don't know, and also shows that they know that others have more things to tell. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
118. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
119. Support In addition to what everyone else has written, Clovermoss' conduct following the disagreement on the talk page, plus further correspondence off-wiki, leads me to conclude they have outstanding conduct skills and will be an excellent administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
120. Support I think that they have demonstrated a need for the tools. Willbb234 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
121. Support Legoktm (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
122. Support - I have no issues. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
123. Support - A great editor, and will become a great admin! – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
124. Support- No concerns.   Aloha27  talk  20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
125. Support Maybe not a need for the mop, but this one probably should fall under no big deal. I don't have any concerns about the candidate, and they are clearly experienced and trustworthy. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
126. Support. I honestly thought this person was already an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
127. Support, seeing a lot of positive contributions and clearly has the judgment/temperament needed.Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
128. Sure, despite the meager, uh, ten edits a day or whatever. — Fox 22:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
129. Support. Helpful editor that has good inter-personal communication skills. Loopy30 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
130. Support CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
131. Support Sincere and helpful person. I think this editor will learn the role quickly and contribute to the longterm success of Wikipeida. -- --Jaireeodell (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
132. support (with notes). Ah, look at that name, Clovermoss. Surely this candidate will finally succeed in fulfilling the dreams of Plantipedia editors. Let's see here. Good article. Cleaning up vandalism. Friendly invites to editors to participate… Wait. There is no plant editing here! Once again I have been baited and then denied! That's it, I'm calling Poison Ivy to see if she'll destroy this editor for crimes against plant names. Though, by the rules, I do have to support them for RfA, because they're a good editor. So, Support, but also sending a Supervillain to destroy them. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
133. Support I'm not personally familiar with the candidate, however, I have a low-bar criteria for adminship (track record of content creation, experience with permissions-requested tools, good AfD percentage, no recent blocks, and generally congenial attitude) and the candidate easily meets it. Chetsford (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
134. Support Nice attitude and has a GA under their belt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
135. Strong support as she's a trusted editor, and I have the confidence that she won't abuse "the mop". Clovermoss, if you are reading this, I have faith in you. – 64andtim ^(talk) 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
136. Support I've never worked with them but I've seen their work a lot. I can't see a reason to vote against them. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
137. Support About time! So glad to see this. – SJ + 04:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
138. Support Will make a good admin. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 05:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose means well, but has no need for the tools and no expertise. The statements above are along the lines of... "So many people want me to do this". The candidate has one GA which is admirable, but they do not regularly edit the project. Some months they do not edit at all, and some months they have less than thirty edits. Over their entire WP career they average 10 edits a day. I would say come back when you have a need for the tools and when you have time to edit regularly. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   10 edits a day isn't regular? ltbdl (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   I did take a year wikibreak between May 2020 and 2021, but apart from that, I would say I've been an active editor. I usually make more than 100 edits a month, but our opinions appear to differ on what it means to be an active editor. If my argument over there doesn't change your mind, so be it. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you see that I mean well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   In the interest of not badgering opposes: is it really necessary for non-Clovermosses to give further response in this thread? There's a talk page for a reason. jp×g🗯️ 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   There are times when it can be healthy to take breaks from editing; people's lives change, and certain demands in one's own life reasonably are higher priority than Wikipedia. The only prolonged period in which the user did not make edits appears to be between May 2020 and April 2021—that the candidate took an extended break from editing during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic doesn't cause me particular concern.

   After coming back from a pandemic wikibreak, Clovermoss has made edits in every month dating back to May 2021, and has made over 100 edits in all but one month since April 2022 (Clovermoss made 82 edits May 2023, per XTools). That's over two-and-a-half years of editing monthly, and over one-and-a-half years of consistently editing on a regular basis.

   @Lightburst: Would you be willing to help me better understand where your particular concern about when you have time to edit regularly comes from? Is there something I'm missing here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think the likely answer is that we just have different opinions about what it means to be an active editor/good admin. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions. I appreciate that people are already coming here to defend me, but I'd prefer to keep badgering to a minimum. Not everyone has to like me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @Red-tailed hawk: Even 100 edits per month is an average of only three edits per day - that is casual editing. You took a year off of editing and still managed 17 edits per day. Also there is no need for the tools. We should not be rushing to hand out a lifetime admin appointment to an editor who has no expertise or need for the tools. I request that the oppose comments here are not moved - going forward if others wish to comment further please start a new thread on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Lightburst Your concern about activity may require some closer observation about what the candidate did during that time. I make an average of 21 edits a day, but does my edit count really matter as much when two-thirds of it is automated countervandalism that any promising newbie could do? Am I editing casually when I've created GAs in 30 to 40 edits when I could do the same number of edits instantly while performing a large-batch uncontroversial RM? Maybe you should consider the quality/weight of contributions the candidate has made, see whether or not they understand current policy, and then assess their behavior to answer the all-important question of whether or not they will respect and protect content creators. The Night Watch (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I’m happy to amend my vote based on the answers to the optional questions I asked, but I have concerns around potential admin stonewalling of critical commentary on the Jehovas Witness article. Manboobies (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   I would urge you to retract or rephrase your two questions. First of all, the candidate's religious upbringing is already self-disclosed on their user page. Even if it wasn't, asking them to, essentially, defend a religious group against criticism from vaguely-defined people in your social circle, is hardly a fair or relevant question at RfA. If the candidate has an interest in a particular topic, that's hardly unusual or surprising. Clovermoss has authored less than 10% of that page, at present, per XTools. There are millions of Jehovah's Witnesses and there's nothing that inherently precludes someone who once was a JW from editing Wikipedia neutrally, as your questions seem to imply. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   A link to what Ganesha811 is talking about can be found here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

General comments

While not strictly related to this RfA, I wanted to drop a link to User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections somewhere. It is a fascinating read, and I would encourage any editor participating in this RfA to reflect on their own experiences. HouseBlaster^talk 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note for those going in more depth on the candidate: Startist query for discussion sections opened, Xtools, AfD stats, pages created. jp×g🗯️ 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: Interesting in that link you provided: just days before this RFA they invited many influential editors to participate in their "survey". I see nearly every one many of them turned up here to support. The list appears to be mostly admnins and arbs and yourself. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My rough count differs. I count ~107 editor experience survey responses prior to this RfA, with maybe 45–50 admins? Less than half. And a handful of functionaries, maybe ten or twelve? Around thirty of the respondents have supported above. Folly Mox (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: Thank you for helping me make the language more precise - I corrected it. It was interesting to me that they schmoozed the electorate of the active powers that be. Perhaps if they had asked me to be a part of the survey... Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't lie: it looks really clever in retrospect. A bit of a flex, but I don't see it as a problem. Thanks for making the initial generalisation that prompted me to look into it! Folly Mox (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoa. "schmoozed the electorate of the active powers that be"? Whatever happened to assuming good faith... –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems AGF to me, but I took the comment as admiration. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is free to contribute to that page. I don't care if they participate in my RfA or not. Lightburst, feel free to do share your own experiences there, too. I wasn't trying to be strategic here because I wasn't planning on running for RfA at the time. The only advantage I could think something like that could give me is a known quality, but most of the people who've commented there have interacted with me before in other ways. I think hearing from non-admins is just as important from hearing from people who are admins/functionaries. Afterall, it is an editor reflections page. I will admit I've been surprised by just how much people seem to be impressed by my concept as it's mostly just been an exercise in having the community reflect on their own experiences. It's not like I'm the one writing 100+ responses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

---

•  Bureaucrat note: I was asked by multiple editors to look at questions 6 and 7. I believe they are more suited to the article's talk page than an RFA, but not so problematic as to remove them outright (though I would encourage Manboobies to do so themselves). That being said, I would like to remind Clovermoss (and any other potential RFA candidate) that there is no obligation for an RFA candidate to answer every question asked (though you are of course also welcome to answer them if you think it a useful expenditure of your time). Primefac (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Question 10 seems similar to Questions 4 and 5, so if the candidate chooses to answer it, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is similar to the ones given before. TROPtastic (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

---