This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with ((subst:rfan|dm|name of section header)), indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

@Ritchie333: see notes at support vote 7. I'm not going to revert your extra nom unless Clovermoss actually asks for it (which I doubt they will since why mess with a supporter) --- however, I suggest you pull that and convert it to a Support !vote instead to lessen any confusion. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been moved and removed. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and thanks for the change Ritchie333; your participation in the numbered or general section of the request is certainly still welcome. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this threw my off-guard a bit because obviously I wasn't expecting a co-nom, I really do appreciate the intention behind Ritchie333's enthiuastic support there. To some extent, I'm honoured that they think I'm so great that they just IAR'd a co-nom and it's not like it's some unforgiveable mistake. We're all human. I think it's best for everyone if we just move on :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I hate to break the news, but Ritchie went from being sufficiently keen on the candidate (whom he "had my eye on") to IAR-nominate, to withdrawing his support entirely. From Nom to Nowhere in 20 minutes. Depth of commitment to candidate to be adduced. ——Serial 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to him of course, it is certainly possible they just didn't want that specific statement used in the discussion, other than if it was a conom. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find Lightburst's rationale amusingly similar to this humorous essay. — Frostly (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: It is better to ping people when you talk about them. Try to focus on the other part of my oppose. No need for tools, and no expertise. We can contrast Clover with the other person running right now that has a need for the tools and 15 year quarter million edit body of work. But the other person did not blow kisses and sunshine at everyone so they are not supported as vociferously. Also try to imagine what would happen if I added my oppose ivote the same way you added your support. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why but yourà reply reads harsh to my ears. Why should Clovermoss' request for the mop be declined? If he has a GA, that means they understands a thing or two about content creation and would be able to make a good judgement in times of dispute, and would help in AfD (that's left for Liz and a handful of others btw). So, you see, they need the tool. If we’re trying to lessen the stress at RfA, I think we should always remember that adminship is really not a big deal. If I’m reading the opposes at Ellsworth's RfA, I think communication if key for the encyclopaedia, don’t you think so. I’m not trying to badger you though. Just my 2¢. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Reading Beans: Sorry for harshness perceived. I avoid using gender specific pronouns for the very reason that you can get it wrong or offend someone. But back to the tools... for every permission one has to demonstrate a need. Want to be a page mover? Go to perms and see if they give it to you without demonstrating a need. Want to work in NPP? Try to get the perm if you have very little content creation. So being an admin with a lifetime appointment is not WP:NOBIGDEAL, in fact it is even more significant and with no margin for error. The candidate says give me the tools even though they demonstrate zero need for the tools. This is backwards IMO. It seems that the support folks are saying, I met her once, she is really nice, she is kind, she talks nice, so lets give her the tools. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst,
My apologies for not pinging you; that was an oversight.
Clovermoss’ self-nomination states that they would aim to deal with obvious vandals, username blocks, and some of the requests at WP:PERM if selected as an administrator. Could you please clarify the reasoning behind your comment regarding “need for the tools”?
As for my !vote, note that Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. (WP:RFA.)
Thank you for participation in this essential community process. — Frostly (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clovermoss has an average of 10.39 edits per day. I wonder if that's a lot? Of recent successful candidates: Ganesha811 3.482; JPxG 31.657; 0xDeadbeef 7.434; Hey man im josh 197.8; theleekycauldron 17.3. So pretty much average. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you lop off my long period of inactivity from 2013-2017 or so, I'm probably up around 9-10 edits/day, so directly comparable. But the only important measure of admin activity, in my view, is whether they will be around to answer questions and clarify their actions as needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, Ganesha811 and Leeky and others that passed RFA had a need for the tools. This is a curious RFA, when I said Clovermoss did not have a need for the tools SFR actually said this: give the woman a chainsaw and she'll find some trees. I have been participating in RFAs for many years and this is a first for me. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, the number I find more interesting is that the person deriding 10 edits per day has only averaged 6 edits per day over their wiki-career. It's not common for editors to complain that someone else "only" has an editing rate that is 170% their own.

WP:Editcountitis is a persistent problem. I've been looking at my watchlist in despair recently, as I see articles with 20 edits, but not a single sentence added. In the discussions around the Wikipedia:Large language models, I've sometimes had to go back more than a year to find even one edit in which an editor opining about content creation actually added a non-trivial amount of content (the LLM "detectors" do best with 150+ consecutive words) – and sometimes, I go through their entire contributions without ever finding a full paragraph added to an article. We often value editors who show up with confidence in their own rectitude, who can name the most WP:UPPERCASE (and we don't necessarily click on the shortcut to find out whether their claims about what's behind that shortcut are accurate), and who revert other editors. We know this isn't good – some of us even know what the Wikipedia:Editing policy says about Wikipedia being its best when we have the most information – but we do it, because "spent two hours making sure that sentence was right" doesn't turn up in XTools' Edit Count, but reverting everyone else does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake mentioning the ten edits - and @WhatamIdoing: I am not running for anything but FYI, I took about six years off from editing and still managed 6 per day? Not bad huh? In my vote I was commenting on the sporadic and low monthly editing patterns of the candidate but after quoting ten edits it invalidated all other truth or fact in my vote. So talk amongst yourselves and reinforce your strong feelings about this editor's need for administrator tools to do something... not sure what but something. I feel more strongly about opposing the candidate after I saw that 11th hour schmooze job the candidate did with the "survey" of the muckety-muck Wikipedians (see general comments section). I will now leave this nomination to do other WP work. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a candidate about their religious beliefs and suggesting that those beliefs could impact their neutrality is wildly inappropriate. Bureaucrats, please consider removing the question. Brandon (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already taken a look and given my thoughts. If another crat feels that the questions should be removed I will not stop them, but I will note that traditionally once a candidate has answered a question we do not remove them, as it indicates they were willing to do so. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a crat so my opinion doesn't mean anything in terms of the moderation decision but in this instance if I had been a crat I too would have left the questions. However, as someone who cares deeply about the RfA process and who talks to a lot of RfA candidates and potential candidates, I do feel OK saying that the repeated sop that a candidate could just not answer a question should be retired. Candidates are under tremendous pressure to answer questions and if anything a crat making an explicit decision that the question is with-in bounds makes it harder than if a crat says nothing to avoid answering a question. If candidate after candidate after candidate, even the ones who are passing with-out any real opposition show through their actions that they don't feel comfortable skipping questions I think crats should stop blaming the victim when a bad question is asked and the candidate then answers it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see us draw a hard line at asking candidates about their religious affiliation (and race/ethnicity/sexuality/etc.). While absurd questions are fine as they give us good insight into how the candidate will react in administrative settings, candidates are under a lot of pressure and may provide personal details that they may later regret sharing. What if someone opposed this candidate now on the basis of their religion? We'd obviously strike that, so similarly we should strike the question. – bradv 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wildly inappropriate" is absolutely right, if an understatement, and Manboobies should be blocked for trolling. We don't allow questions as to editors' politics, and their religion or lack thereof should be no different. ——Serial 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 based on a discussion at WP:BN there is a belief that we actually have no rules about questions at all, so if we want to prohibit any of those things we need to pass a new rule. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]