Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
moving unasked for and per Ritchie's user talk unwanted nomination to the support section
rm
Line 46: Line 46:
#: {{ping|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. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#: {{ping|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. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#::{{reply|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. {{u|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. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">——Serial</span>]] 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#::{{reply|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. {{u|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. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">——Serial</span>]] 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
# I've had my eye on putting forward Clovermoss for adminship for some time. They have a good mix of content (including the GA [[Katherine Hughes (activist)]]), contributions to the maintenance areas, including [[WP:NPP|New page patrol]], and lots of work on the [[WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]]. In particular, I've found their contributions in discussion to be sensible, level-headed and detailed - and I consider good communication to be an important foundation for any admin. I hope you agree. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#'''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'.) --[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#'''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'.) --[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support''', four stars on the list of potential administrators. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support''', four stars on the list of potential administrators. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:04, 13 December 2023

Clovermoss

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/0/0); 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)[reply]

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:
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:

Discussion

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)[reply]
  2. +1,000,000. I am beyond thrilled that you started this, Clovermoss. HouseBlastertalk 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I don't see anything that would raise any concerns. Noah, AATalk 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. A fully qualified user. Probably twice the editor that I will ever be. The Night Watch (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Nothing but positive interactions Sohom (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Support, four stars on the list of potential administrators. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. ResonantDistortion 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks good to me, good luck! :D Justiyaya 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very happy to see this! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: well qualified candidate who isn't afraid to ask questions :-) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  17. Support of course. Spicy (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. With great delight. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


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. HouseBlastertalk 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clovermoss&oldid=1189715295"