Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Clovermoss
Final: (218/5/4) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination
– 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 Requests for adminship/2021 review 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: 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 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)
 * I wanted to say I'm sorry to the concerned voters for making it seem like I was downplaying atrocities. I really am. I have no idea how to convey just how much I mean that. The article on Mao describes him as a revolutionary among other things but it also says his actions were responsible for the death of millions and not thousands. As I said, I don't know the history that well. I was trying to come at it from a not making hasty decisions where I'm uninformed way. I generally try to act with caution. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 18:19, 16 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: I don't have much experience trying to resolve conflicts between other users, but I do try to generate more light than heat. I think that trying to find common ground can be useful in consensus-building discussions. I also think that people have varying perspectives and it can be good to validate that you're actually listening to what each person has to say and focusing on the content rather than the person. I think my immediate instinct of encouraging others to be respectful to each other is a good idea, too. Sometimes in the heat of the moment people can't see the forest for the trees. We're all humans and ultimately, Wikipedians want what's best for Wikipedia even if they don't always agree. From an administrative standpoint, editors should be strongly encouraged to use the talk page of the relevant article (or after trying that, some other form of dispute resoluton) for content disputes. Sometimes one will edit war their preferred version of an article and see contributions they don't agree with as "vandalizing their hard work". But edits made in good faith are not vandalism and I'd calmly explain why that is the case if someone is genuinely confused about it. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from Idoghor Melody
 * 14. Thank you for nominating yourself. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?
 * A: I don't think my typical reaction to helping others would change all that much, because I already do a lot of that. I'm a mentor that does my best to answer questions from newcomers. I also go beyond not being bitey and do my best to encourage them. As for inquiries that have to do specifically with what admins can do, I'd take a close look at the context and background in each situation before acting (if I do at all, otherwise I would explain my thought process and provide relevant advice to the person who has reached out to me). Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15. Would you block an admin if there's an immediate need to do so, and under what circumstances do you think you'll carry out such a task?
 * A: If there's an immediate need to block an admin (e.g. a possible compromised account), I likely would not be someone whose comfortable making that call. If it's truly an immediate situation, someone else that's more experienced than me will be more familiar with what to do. I'd write to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org about my concerns, in the incredibly unlikely scenerio I'm the first person to notice something is amiss, as they can perform emergency desysops.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Clovermoss:
 * 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)
 * +1,000,000. I am beyond thrilled that you started this, Clovermoss. House Blaster talk 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't see anything that would raise any concerns. Noah, AATalk 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) 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! 0x Deadbeef  →∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) A fully qualified user. Probably twice the editor that I will ever be.   The Night Watch     (talk)   14:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Nothing but positive interactions Sohom (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) 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).
 * 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)
 * 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. 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., 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support, four stars on the list of potential administrators. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. ResonantDistortion 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support looks good to me, good luck! :D  Just ' i ' yaya  14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Very happy to see this! — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: well qualified candidate who isn't afraid to ask questions :-) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Support of course. Spicy (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) With great delight. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Support whole-heartedly. Drowssap  SMM  15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Seems like a great all round editor and no major issues I can see. AryKun (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Support (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16)  Support, a nice person, and I trust them. Everything else can be learned. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) Support yes!! jengod (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 19) Support 100%. Beyond the qualifications, she certainly has the attitude needed for wielding the mop. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 20) Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 15:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - no issues. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - No reservations. Glad to see this pop up! &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Seddon talk 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I've seen Clovermoss around and I'm confident she will make a fine admin. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 25) 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)
 * 1) Support: thank you for running. Schminnte &#91;talk to me&#93; 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - no reservations, excellent candidate. ~ Prodraxis  ( Merry Christmas! ) 16:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Clovermoss is cool; I like her. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) No reason not to. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Excellent candidate. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, with no concerns. Clovermoss is kind, thoughtful, and well-spoken. An excellent candidate indeed. – bradv  16:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, should have been nominated years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Terasail [✉️] 16:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I've had only positive interactions with the candidate and have no concerns at all. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Happy to support, great editor, no concerns. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Support! Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Clover has always made a positive impact! BluePenguin18 🐧  ( 💬 ) 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Frostly (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Exceptional candidate. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Support based on prior interactions, not a jerk, has a clue. signed,Rosguill talk 17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) Support. Great editor and I'm especially a fan of User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) 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". <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16) 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 and NPP. I predict she'll do great things! – Novem Linguae  (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) 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 . --  Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) 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)
 * 19) Support Banks Irk (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 20) As I said.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Support no concerns, and gynecomastia isn't an issue for me. Nick (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 22) Excellent candidate, happy to Support.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Not a jerk, has clue. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 24) Support with special commendation for gracious handling of the uninvited nomination. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 26) 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)
 * 27) Support Leijurv (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 28) Support very glad to see Clovermoss stepping up here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - No concerns, and I'm impressed with this editor's communication style. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 31) 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)
 * 32) 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)
 * 33) Nardog (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 34) Absolutely.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 35) Support A great fit ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 36) 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)
 * 37) Support - wholeheartedly.  Definite asset to the program and can be trusted with the mop.  Has more than a clue. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 38) 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)
 * 39) 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 40) 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)
 * 41) Support Good luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 42) 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)
 * 43) 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)
 * 44) Stephen 00:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 45) I've never directly interacted with them 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 &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 46) 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)
 * 47) 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)
 * 48) 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! ❤History  Theorist❤  00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 49) 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. -- <b style="color:white">ThatOneWolf</b> (<b style="color:white">Chat</b><b style="color:white">Edits</b> 01:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 50) Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. A high quality candidate with a mentality that is extremely well-suited for adminship. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  01:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Thank you for coming out. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 53) 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)
 * 54) Support! ~ Tails   Wx  02:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 55) Support.  No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 56) 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)
 * 57) Support. Although never talked to her directly, I have seen her good work on Wikipedia.   Wandering  Morpheme   05:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 58) Support Why not? -<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:120%;">Fastily 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 59) 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)
 * 60) Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  06:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 61) 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)
 * 62) 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)
 * 63) No red flags and has a clue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 64) Support Not a jerk, has a clue. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 65) Support with apologies for breaking the 111/1/1 score. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 66) Support ZettaComposer (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 67) Support Looks good and I like the self-volunteering.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 68) 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)
 * 69) 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)
 * 70) 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. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 71) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 72) 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 73) Support I think that they have demonstrated a need for the tools. Willbb234 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 74) Support Legoktm (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 75) Support - I have no issues. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 76) Support - A great editor, and will become a great admin! – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 77) Support- No concerns. <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 78) 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)
 * 79) Support. I honestly thought this person was already an administrator. Bgsu98   (Talk)  21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 80) Support, seeing a lot of positive contributions and clearly has the judgment/temperament needed.Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 81) Sure, despite the meager, uh, ten edits a day or whatever. — Fox 22:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 82) Support. Helpful editor that has good inter-personal communication skills. Loopy30 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 83) Support <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 84) 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)
 * 85) 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)
 * 86) 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)
 * 87) Support  Nice attitude and has a GA under their belt. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 88) 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)
 * 89) 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)
 * 90) Support About time! So glad to see this. – SJ +  04:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 91) Support Will make a good admin. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 05:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 92) Support A trusted user. Has a good temperament, which goes a long way. I am glad to see a candidate who does not feel the need to overcommit but will make contributions in various administrative areas with which they are or can easily become familiar. Any valuable administrative contributions in any area, which I am confident the candidate will make, will be helpful. In this era of a declining number of administrators and fewer candidates, Wikipedia can not afford to have good candidates rejected on minor or trivial bases unconnected to their general behavior and contributions. Donner60 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 93) Support There doesn't appear to be anything disqualifying about her, I see no reason to oppose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 94) Support. This candidate appears to be a genuinely nice person, with a willingness to listen that will make them a welcome addition to the admin corps. They once came to my talk page with a polite query and we had a good conversation. The Request for Arbitration that they started showed them respectfully and cogently presenting the issue, and thinking on their feet. Their deportment so far in this RfA has been impressive. I have come to regard the ability to calmly and clearly explain matters to editors who have fallen afoul of some policy to be one of the most valuable skills an admin can have; it seems to me that Clovermoss will be good at that. I have no concerns about activity levels; there used to be an essay statement somewhere to the effect that someone who could help out with a mop from time to time was a net asset, maybe put less crassly than that ... Since I didn't recall running across their article work, I checked their article creations and found they've written about 50 short articles. (I'm afraid I don't care about GA as such.) I didn't find any serious flaws with any, and the self-awareness and responsibility in their nomination of their own school article for deletion impressed me, sad though it is to lose an article. It appears that this RfA will succeed; my one concern is that when I was briefly an administrator, I saw some horrid things. Clovermoss, go carefully and ask advice and you'll do fine, and remember the stuff under the rocks is a very small part of the project. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 95) Support: Just as a general note, I really like to see the candidate respond to oppose votes themselves and the community not pile on oppose. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 96) Support. Clovermoss appears to be a fast learner, need more good candidates like her.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 12:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 97) Support, as one of the people who have bothered her about running already. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 98) Support Twilight Nawi (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 99) Support Why not? Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NGL,the answer to question 12 was pretty bad. However, I think the admin shortage is a much bigger problem than an RFA candidate with an unsatisfactory response to a WP:UAA question. Our username policy is not hard to learn, and I see no reason to believe that the candidate's problems will continue beyond next week. Thus, I am reaffirming my support. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: nice editor.  141  Pr  {contribs} 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Easy support. I have had the pleasure of interacting with Clovermoss in the past and believe her to be a good candidate for adminship. She is always civil and polite, I trust that she will take things slowly to start off with and ask for assistance if required, and I was honoured to be invited to write my editor reflections on her user subpage! Patient Zerotalk 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - No reason to oppose, and reasons to support. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Clovermoss is a friendly, helpful, productive editor. As for the oppose, nobody "needs" to be an administrator, and I would be skeptical of any candidate who claims they "need" to be one. The question ought to be "can this person be trusted to use advanced tools responsibly?". In this case, I believe that the answer is yes. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) ʇɹoddnS per above. Nothing but positive interactions, fantastic editing expertise; it would be a net positive to have her join the team.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 03:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, generally a name I'm happy to see around, and nothing in the opposes is remotely concerning to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Support usually when a lot of people are always asking someone if they are an admin or want to be one, it's a good sign. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - No problem here. Good luck! Bringingthewood (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - i haven't had any interactions with clover, but i've seen her around and have never seen any issues. she seems absolutely lovely and i believe she'd make a great admin. :) sawyer  /  talk  06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I only had positive interactions with this user. Their answer about being INVOLVED when it comes to JH was satisfying my only possible concern. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, precious and trying to generate more light than heat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Support; clueful editor based on my interactions /wiae /tlk  11:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Competent, trustworthy. Maproom (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Already on my list of potential admin candidates.  Mox Eden  (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: no temperament issues, able to write content well and has experience of keeping level-headed and polite during heated discussions. (I was recently contacted by Clovermoss about adding to "Editor reflections" and was happy to.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) A12 is incorrect:  only if you have "Account creations" unticked in your saved filters at Special:RecentChanges, otherwise entries from the User creation log will appear. Also, I agree with Toadspike below, in that User:Maodidnothingwrong1966 is egregious enough to block on sight, and the "lots of politicians have caused the death of thousands" comment reads as an incitement, but I can't fault the candidate for being insufficiently familiar with modern history. Also, she should have turned the tortoise right side up.Anyway though I dig the self-nom, the courage to respond to opposes where relevant so as to inhibit the badger–mushroom cycle, and pace Tryptofish, the vibes feel fine to me (despite concurrent retrograde of Mercury and Jupiter), so intentionally leaving my negative feedback in the Support pile. Folly Mox (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 19) Happy to support. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I still remember my first interaction with Clovermoss, which led to the creation of Erie and Ontario Railway. Clovermoss has shown consistently that she cares about the project, has the right temperament, and in general can be trusted to be an effective administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Support 🍀 . no drama – wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. I’ve never come across this editor, but seems a good person to have as an Admin. Springnuts (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 23) Support The most serious concern raised so far is, I think, the reply to Q12, but after consideration, I come down on the side of it not being a deal-breaker. Yes, the user name User:Maodidnothingwrong1966 would merit an insta-block (an account name like that would be juvenile trolling, at best). However, recognizing one's own ignorance and refraining from acting immediately is a mature position to take. If an admin is going to screw up, that's the kind of screw-up I'd prefer to see. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 24) Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 25) Glad to support this RfA.--John Cline (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 26)  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 03:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Excellent candidate. Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Bridget (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Good responses re JW and "cult" question. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 30)  Volten <span style="color:lime	">001  <b style="color:red">☎</b> 13:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 31) Support CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 32) Support – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 21:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 35) support no issues raised that concern me enough to object. Answers seem okay-to-good. Hobit (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 36) — Wug·a·po·des 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Seems to inspire trust, have experience, and be a good enough communicator. I normally wouldn't rush with a "me too" support in a well-attended, high support ratio RFA (there is no need), but this is to register my disagreement with the username-block related opposes. I would expect *most* admins to feel comfortable blocking *most* clearly disruptive usernames *most* of the time, but I don't find fault with any admin or admin candidate who is not sure a username (ditto more broadly, user, through their conduct) is disruptive and therefore takes no action. There are many admins, and someone who is more sure can take action if warranted. We have far more problems from admins who rush to take action when they've misjudged a situation as warranting it, than we do with admins who see no harm no foul and step on by. Even if they're wrong, others can step in instead. Martinp (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 38) Support – From what I have seen of this editor, and their responses to the questions asked, I think they would do a great job as an administrator.  Chris Wx  🌀 ( talk -  contribs ) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - I have no background on Clovermoss but have reviewed the discussion, questions and contributions and it seems to me that they have the experience, capabilities and temperament required of a good administrator. Seems to me they would do a great job. Takerlamar (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 40) Support I'd rather have a cautious admin who takes their time and is willing to recognize when they've made mistakes than an admin who rushes to block people. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 41) 🍀 Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. But I have serious misgivings about the answer to Q12. The first two don't seem problematic to me at all?! Are we about to get our first replicant sysop? -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. A good and excellent user. Just a random Wikipedian (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Solid candidate, opposes are unconvincing. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 45) Resounding Support Her Editor reflections gathering is a wonderment. She will bring a sense of fresh air to Administrative back rooms. I sense an editor with the temperment needed to be an excellent admin. Good luck to her. Buster7 (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 47) Maliner (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. Out in the wild, I've seen them display good judgment, a willingness to wait and learn more, and a well-developed apology muscle. I see those on display in this RfA as well. I agree with all of the opposes so far, in the sense that I agree that the problems they highlight are problems. I hope to see improvement and caution, and I've seen Clovermoss display both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 49) Support  Volunteer Marek   19:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 50) Support Thoughtful, cautious enough, and self-aware. Not afraid to be wrong and admit it, which points to being an extremely fast learner. Significant potential for future growth as admin. There are stellar admins today who probably started out with a lot less experience. Community-minded and committed to the project. Go for it. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 51) Support Can use tools, won't abuse tools. Nothing else matters. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Trustworthy candidate, has clue.  Spencer T• C 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 53) Support--JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 21:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Has a clue, is the farthest thing from a jerk imaginable. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And we cross 200! Yay! Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course. Also, her answer to Q12 is spot on – i.e., if unsure, leave blocking to others (the last thing we need is another trigger-happy admin). — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  23:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Solid contributor with good potential admin skills. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I turn away for one week, and what do I find? Clovermass Clovermoss at RfA. Thank goodness I checked in, because otherwise I might've missed an opportunity to support. And we can't have that now, can we? :) Kurtis (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Has every quality to be an admin. 100% support! <b style="color:#000">Quantum</b><sup style="color:#333">Realm  (<b style="color:#609">meow🦁</b> • <b style="color:#F63">pawtrack🐾</b>) 09:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Being an admin should be easy as long as there is no major issues. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   14:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I see enough to trust her. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Support lots to learn but have my trust at both using the access responsbility and to learn. Skynxnex (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Happy to support. El_C 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) Support First time I ever voted an Admin. Excellent candidate, sound people skills. Edit count? Pah! Admin is a job first for handling people and she also knows most the techie stuff. A sharp and willing mind will quickly take care of all.Jim.henderson (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Blythwood (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Had enough reservations to initially vote oppose, but this RfA has been a journey. Every user worth their salt makes a mistake once in a while, but the overall lesson should always be that you learn from that experience and utilize it to improve as an editor. Based on what I've seen at this RfA, that is certainly true of Clovermoss, who has one of the best and most collegial attitudes I've observed from a user in a very long time. Happy to support. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Support--Panian513 02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) Support – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Seems like a responsible editor. No objections.  Robertus Pius  (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Sugar, nearly missed this RfA, couldn’t bring myself to miss it or I’d never get a chance to support the candidate. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 08:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Got here in the nick of time with <1 hour on the clock! I've interacted with this user on Discord a few times and find them to be a level-headed candidate. The candidate's response to Q12 indicates more reserved judgement (rather than outright dismissal as some seem to be opposing for), which I'm fine with—and may even be preferable to someone acting more impulsively. We don't require admins to use their tools (and in fact, an admin that doesn't act on a report usually isn't even noticed). If Clovermoss comes across such a username and doesn't act upon it, the door is open for another admin to review; there is no conflict, and in fact that happens on a regular basis on AIV and UAA, where reports may be left on the noticeboard for another admin to weigh in on. I'm sure that Clovermoss is capable of learning on the job. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 13:40, 20 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? ltb d l (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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:NONEED Twilight Nawi (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Was in the midst of typing up a support vote when I decided to re-read the self-nom statement. While I appreciate Clovermoss's answer to my question above, and believe the user has solid content creation experience and an overall good temperament to boot, I noted they really never specified any need for the tools at all. Something I must have brain-farted over during my initial readthrough of the nom statement was the link to "this ANI thread". Reading it, I really can't help but feel like that entire situation could have been avoided had Clovermoss simply left a message on that user's talk page along the lines of "Hey, that userbox isn't WP:NPOV, to say the least. For your own good and for the good of the wider community, please remove it." Instead, Clovermoss removed the userbox from the user's page, self-reported their removal to ANI and it all led to CT drama. The user ended up deserving a TBAN from GS in the long-run anyway, but there were far better ways of dealing with a userbox on a userpage. Sorry. I genuinely wrestled with posting this, but since it won't make a difference in the long-run anyway, I just hope a little more diplomacy is on the cards in future. Good luck with everything. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was only about the userbox (although that still would have been a very big "only"), I'd see your point, although I do appreciate that you're hopeful the candidate will handle things differently once they get the tools. But SCB had, as noted, a long history of not really playing well with others, and in fact I got familiar with them through some ANEW reports on boxing articles ... I really had no idea about the GENSEX issues till after that, when he was community banned. Honestly, if it hadn't been the avalanche Clovermoss inadvertently started (and I count it further in her favor that she sought review of her own behavior, instead of SCB), it would have been something else at that point. It also doesn't help SCB in retrospect that one of his biggest supporters on that thread spectacularly imploded herself a couple of months afterwards, and is also now banned. Daniel Case (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only read some of the history here, but I do want to comment on one aspect of this. Whether the original deletion of the userbox was right or wrong, everybody makes mistakes.  Admins are not exempt from that reality.  What's really important is that you are able to recognize when you've possibly made a mistake, seek the advice of others, and be willing to take their advice on board.  Going to AN/ANI to start a "Did I do the right thing here?" thread is a time-honored way of doing that.  Sometimes you end up getting trouted, but that's how you learn and the willingness to seek out such a review is a big positive. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think Wikipedia sorely needs more admins. I have never opposed an RfA before. But Clovermoss's answer to Question 12 is completely unsatisfactory and personally offensive. The fourth username listed is highly problematic and warrants an immediate warning of the user, if not an outright block. Although I have little experience with the username policy, WP:ATTACKNAME says that among the usernames to be immediately blocked upon discovery are "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors...e.g. by...referencing highly contentious events or controversies." There is no ambiguity in the username example provided by JPxG. I find it personally offensive and believe it is an obvious and serious violation (WP:UAA/I) which an admin should take action on. That the candidate did not even suggest warning the user to recommend a username change is a serious misreading of policy. I am sorry that the candidate is "less familiar with the history". I hope they realize that describing the decade-long violent disaster under consideration here as an "accurate accessment [sic] of various politicians" is extremely offensive and was completely unwarranted in a response to a technical RfA question. I honestly do not believe that this particular policy mistake would have a great impact on the candidate's performance as an admin, but I cannot let the completely unwarranted offensive political statement slide. On a broader level, the failure to properly communicate with and warn also seems to have been the focus of the second Oppose above. Although the wider controversy there is too broad for me to get a full picture of, this may indicate an inability to communicate with potentially problematic users before deciding to take serious measures against them (or do absolutely nothing), which would further indicate that the candidate is unfit for adminship. <span style="font-family:'Rubik', sans-serif; color:#21a81e; text-shadow:#999b9e 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Toadspike (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While the username is contentious, I don't view it as blockable on that reason alone. Mao, despite being a totalitarian tyrant who ending up causing tens of millions of deaths, is not a universally condemned figure like say, Hitler (yeah, yeah, sue me). Would we block a similarly-named account defending Kissinger or Dubya, who were also responsible for hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths? Clovermoss's assessment seems reasonable to me; a person who cares enough about this to name themselves after this should be checked for POV editing, but absent that, the username alone is not blockable. AryKun (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited policy declares that [t]he following types of usernames are not permitted, and will be immediately blocked upon discovery... (emphasis in original) and specifies [u]sernames that praise highly contentious people, groups, events .... There is no mention of 'universal condemnation', because that is not the barrier for exclusion. The username is blockable and the wording of the policy – ... will be immediately blocked ... – requires that such usernames be blocked. I wouldn't personally have supported that policy, but it is policy. Regarding Kissinger: blockable. Regarding Bush junior: debatable whether he meets ... highly contentious ... rather than just contentious. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with AryKun, and would add that adminship is not supposed to be a trivia quiz. There are people in the world to whom Mao is a fairly distant historical figure, and the proposed username is no more significant than "DjevdetBey15" would be to you. BD2412  T 13:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Clovermoss Thank you for your sincere apology. Though I understand that making rapid decisions on large historical controversies is not easy, I advise you to be very cautious when making historical comparisons in future.
 * To the three users who replied to my !vote, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have read them and stand by my original opinion on this matter. As the candidate now seems to understand the repercussions of her writing, I see no need for further debate. <span style="font-family:'Rubik', sans-serif; color:#21a81e; text-shadow:#999b9e 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Toadspike (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be more careful with such comparisons in the future. If it helps any, I can explain what my train of thought was with my initial answer. I read this guide several times. I knew that block rationales went beyond username violations and kept that in mind as I was reading it. I said I'd watch for disruptive editing because I did sense that someone who creates a username like that isn't going to edit constructively. I didn't say anything about warning the user about their username because the username policy says to not do that if you're going to block. I did say in my initial answer that it might be egregious enough to be blocked based off the username alone, but I wasn't sure. I was thinking it might be because of WP:ATTACKNAME, which you mentioned.
 * The UAA guide mentions that interpretations of offensive username may differ. One of my most controversial actions on Wikipedia is what's mentioned in oppose #2. That experience taught me that different editors can have various interpretations of when something is an unquestionably controversial or offensive statement. As I said previously, I was also coming at this as someone whose really uninformed on Mao, so I wasn't sure if a hasty action like an immediate block would actually be a good idea. Our lead in that article mentions him as an influential figure for women's rights, among other things, while also mentioning the atrocities. So my instinct was to think he was a controversial political figure and that blocking a username based off that alone might be perceived as iffy. That's also where my distasteful comparison came in. Blocking users is one of the most controversial things an admin can do and I wanted to make sure people knew I wasn't going to take that lightly. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I rarely (if ever) !vote in RFAs but on this occasion feel compelled. Whilst I truly believe this user means well, I'm seeing a lack of maturity in some of the answers and in the way they communicate, and a few other things have just made me uncomfortable supporting at this time. Sorry. Glen (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * a few other things? ltb d l (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose users who can't pick out "Maodidnothingwrong1966" as an obviously disruptive username shouldn't be handling username blocks. Even supposing you'd never heard of Mao before, anyone called "[X]didnothingwrong" is almost certainly here to push a point of view. This should trigger a quick investigation into [X], which in Mao's case would reveal the username merits an immediate block. I'm surprised this hasn't attracted more comment from the experienced editors in the support column. – Teratix ₵ 16:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an editor in the support column who also patrols UAA, I'm not concerned because no one is obligated to place a block. Being unsure, or something not meeting your threshold for an immediate block, and leaving it for someone else is how it's supposed to work. There are a lot of those usernames, many that aren't obviously pushing a POV or disruptive in any way. Many of the worst ones are unblocked.
 * This is intended behavior. You have a lot of admins, some of them patrol UAA, some see a name and are unsure of the context or not sure it's disruptive. Another admin with different experience and knowledge takes action. Everyone is happy.
 * This also plays out at AIV, AE, and anywhere else tools are being used. No one is expected to have knowledge of everything, understand every context, or have the same thresholds for actions in different circumstances. I've placed blocks after another admin has warned because I saw context that they didn't, or weighed the disruption differently. Others have blocked after I've warned for the same reasons. Again, that's a feature. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * to everything SFR said. Expecting prospective admins to know everything about every part of adminship before they become admins is a recipe for not having new admins. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose but I'm not helplessly tethered to it. I had been expecting to support given the above body of work and was very pleased with the answers to my optional questions, but the answer to Q12 truly is astonishing, not so much for the Mao stuff but more that it somewhat missed the point of how an admin needs to respond to those types of borderline situations. Granted, one might argue that this is a "gotcha" question; it does not necessarily test admin knowledge of username policy but rather their cultural and historical knowledge. But I see it also as a test of their initiative and decision-making process. The issue here, I believe, is if you are not certain whether you see anything wrong with the usernames, then you must hold off on making a snap judgment on them as to whether they are right or wrong and should seek additional context, either through the user or from another administrator. Ironically, SFR's rebuttal to the above oppose somewhat fits my argument: You have a lot of admins, some of them patrol UAA, some see a name and are unsure of the context or not sure it's disruptive. Another admin with different experience and knowledge takes action. The candidate themselves said: it might [be egregious] but I wouldn't make that judgement call myself right this second but unfortunately the content of their answer did not reflect such caution. It is okay to take a step back and admit when you are unsure, and in some cases, that's what you actually need to do. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:46, 18 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 is talking about can be found here.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. This is just a neutral, carrying no weight, and nothing more. I cannot put my finger on why I feel this way, but something feels "off" to me. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. I very much appreciated participating in the Editor reflections page. And I don't want to associate myself with the other neutral or the opposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish If this "off" feeling stems from a certain recent adminsock case (who no one had met IRL), I'll note that several editors met Clovermoss in person at WCNA Toronto and can attest to her identity. If I remember correctly, she was the first audience member with a question after Sue Gardner spoke. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sort of, but not really. No one should treat my comment seriously, unless it makes someone else realize something, which it probably won't, because I'm probably wrong because I might be wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So why raise doubt? Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So why argue with me? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point as you did say "No one should treat my comment seriously". Struck. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I struck that part too. The reason that I raised it, is that I'm sincerely concerned about it. I'm trying to be responsible, and since I don't have evidence, I don't want to push too hard on it. But if you want to condescend to me, maybe I should move to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be condescending! I do apologies about that...should have previewed for tone. No hard feelings I hope. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that. No hard feelings from me. I was overly sensitive in my reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think I was the first person to ask Sue Gardner a question. I recall at least two people who spoke before me. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, if you're gonna neutral with "idk vibes are off", then might as well not !vote. At least you didn't oppose, unlike a certain someone...  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what a neutral is: not a vote for, or against. If you have a comment to make to that "certain someone", please direct it to them, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * don't forget the vibe detection radar equipment might be operating in slightly unusual conditions Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Moneytrees has offered a rebuttal and everyone else's comments since then have been rather uneducative. We already left our support votes, do we really have to reiterate that we disagree with the opposes and neutrals? It's obvious that we do, since if we didn't, we wouldn't have supported in the first place. I don't see the need to turn every non-support comment into Anna Karenina, it's embarrassing and it makes the candidate look bad. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Classic! :D and apt too, since I imagine 168 hours at RfA would make one feel like a character in a Russian novel!   ——Serial  15:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not nessecary for people to pile-on whenever anyone says something that isn't an obvious support. As I said before, not everyone has to like me. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to say thank you to Liliana for the strike-through, to JPxG for saying exactly the right thing, and especially to Clovermoss herself for being a good sport. My neutral should have no influence on how the crats close this, and I think that the happiest possible outcome would be if I were to be wrong. My feelings came from some things I saw well before this RfA, not from anything in the RfA. And I want to assure Clovermoss that this has nothing whatsoever to do with my not liking her; I don't not like her (sorry for the double negative), not at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Lack of foresight as to how to skip some potential future drama. That may be an overly stringent criteria for RfA though. fiveby(zero) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Like Tryptofish, I have a general concern about the candidate's readiness and temperament for the position that is too generalized for me to feel comfortable !voting oppose on this one, but which also prevents my supporting outright. For what little context and support I can provide to this feeling of uncertainty, I'll note that the only one time I can recall encountering Clovermoss on the project was just some while ago (maybe last summer?), after she unilaterally edited another user's user page to remove an infobox she found objectionable, on a culture war issue, rather than taking it to MfD or another available forum, and then only after the fact asked to have the decision reviewed at ANI.  And despite asking for this feedback, I felt like her reaction to some of it was suboptimal at a minimum,  thereafter.  The user whose UP she edited very quickly earned themselves an indef in the subsequent discussion, and their conduct once under scrutiny suggested the project was better off for that block, if I recall correctly.  But I still felt that the initial action was approached in a very out-of-process manner and the overall impression I got of CM was of someone reacting somewhat emotionally and without due care for pro forma standards.  All that said, as I recall also, CM references extenuating circumstances in their life at the time which meant this sole experience I had of the candidate may not have been in all respects indicative of their normal interaction style on-project, and even then, the conduct in question was certainly not enough for me to feel comfortable predicating an RfA oppose !vote upon, standing alone. Meanwhile, a cursory review of more recent activity sets off no alarm bells for me, and there's a not-insignificant number of editors (admins included) above whose opinions I put stock in, all of them giving full-throated support to Clovermoss.  So, neutral for me, all factors considered.  Mainly I've gone through the trouble of making an !vote here even so in the hope that Clovermoss (who seems close to certain to pass, at this juncture), will see my concerns and consider my observation that one quality I would expect in a good admin is that they are the type of person who, once they got the tools and the position of community trust they imply,  would become much more cautious about acting in an individual capacity on something they found personally offensive--even though they could arguably get away with more after passing that theshold. That is to say, the right person for the mop is someone who becomes more onerous about scrupulously holding themselves to process, the more technical authority and community trust they accrue. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm always willing to listen to feedback and I think I did a decent job doing so at the time. Since all this is a bit vague, I'll note for other !voters that the ANI thread can be found in my answer to question 3, a request for changing language that I interpreted at the time for allowing my action and how I responded to feedback from Snow Rise at the time. It's true that it was an emotionally trying time for me (I found out one of my family members had died via voicemail and had complicated feelings about whether or not I should attend the funeral), but I never insulted anyone and tried my best to listen to feedback even if I realize I could've done things differently retroactively (e.g. should've just been open with that I think the thread may have been closed prematurely, not creating an RfC about interpretation of PAGs immediately after a dispute because that's somewhat pointy, etc). However, I don't think I dealt with things quite so badly that it would've been readily apparent how much I was feeling at the time unless I hadn't been open about it. I do endeavour to take a cautious approach to everything I do, generally.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wish to note that was only temporarily indeffed in that discussion and I was actually the one to request an uninvolved admin's opinion on whether said block was premature after his reaction to his GENSEX topic ban. He was then unblocked. There was a later discussion in which he was community banned, but I did not participate in it.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, CM; that whole situation moved so fast that I completely misremembered the sequence of events. It was two discussions.  As in the first, I participated as an uninvolved respondent in the second ANI as well, and did ultimately support the community ban on that editor, despite serious initial reservations.  So it's worth saying that in the end, your read on the situation was validated, in that said editor continued to push the line on the same sort of behaviour, and ultimately had to be banned altogether. That said, I guess the point I am trying to emphasize here is that I for one think that the optimal admin is one who is hesitant to take unilateral action in policy grey areas, because, once they have the mop, there is a greater inequity of power between themselves and someone whose content they might WP:boldly revert, for example.   That is to say (and at the risk of sounding redundant) that just as I would prefer an admin to be proactive and act decisively to stop disruption in circumstances where they have a clear mandate under policy, I would equally like that same idealized admin to go softly in both areas that are less clearly circumscribed by policy and also areas where they feel a passionate call to action.  Because maybe they will often have the right end of the stick on the logical next step under policy or a general ethical principle, but both the tools and the community status confer upon any admin an extra amount of implicit ability to ride rough shod over rank-and-file community members (and especially newer editors). As such, I feel anyone who wants the position should accept that they have to trade in part of their right to boldness for an extra dollop caution. Informed minds may vary on that belief, but that's how I see it anyway.   For what it's worth, I agree that you did not at any point insult or act incivil towards anyone in the afore-mentioned discussions, and I hope none of my comments gave that impression: you were scrupulously polite, in fact.  Anyway, if the support of so many exceptional community members above are any indication, you'll quickly prove my reservations unfounded, but I hope you understand why I chose to raise a couple of points here, rather than !vote one way or the other.   <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:34, 19 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. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b>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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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., 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)


 * 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 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)

I don't generally care for "string of username hypothetical" questions, and I certainly don't regard the candidate's having missed the overtones of one particular hypothetical username as disqualifying. However, for future RfA candidates, please remember:
 * If you'd allow usernames whitewashing Chairman Mao
 * You ain't gonna make it at RfA anyhow
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is WP:INSTABLOCKMAOSTANS when we need it? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The other problem with those types of questions too, especially if they're hypothetical, is they can be as wacky, outlandish, devious, sneaky, or tricky as the creator wants them to. Unless these are based on actual usernames for which there have been real blocks, and unless the admin candidate specifically says they want to focus heavily on WP:UAA activities, then I don't think these types of questions should need to be answered. Of course, when the candidate does answer them anyway, it becomes a moot point... Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There was, at one point, consensus not to post this sort of question. I honestly do not remember if it was a sort of "gentleman's agreement" or if it actually came from a consensus-building discussion, but I will admit I was a bit surprised to see their return in this RFA. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Clovermoss specifically mentioned username blocks in her answer to question one, so it's not entirely out of nowhere. I still think in general this kind of question is not super helpful, though. With some searching I can't find any evidence of a consensus that these questions are inappropriate: so far as I can tell they've just gone back out of fashion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that the last time a hypothetical question was asked was in 2022 at ComplexRational's RfA. I am unaware of any consensus, formal or informal, about restricting those questions that has happened since then. I do agree with PF that not having these questions is better than having them and for me the best questions are the ones that directly ask about some (in)action/statement of the candidate rather than a general question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship does say The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.