Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss

Clovermoss

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (29/1/0); 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)

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)

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)

   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 people 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)

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)