She's kind, polite, helpful, and a woman. Exceedingly rare on Wikipedia. I dare say she might even have the starry eyed innocence and naivety of a girl not a woman. The opposition in her RfA did seem to see something along those lines. A certain lack of foresight. Or indecisive/cautious nature. She does however say she is 21, and at least in her case several Wikipedians can attest she is an adult, having met her in real life. Indeed, rather disturbingly, she seems to have been ever so gently persuaded by attendees of a WikiConference to run for Admin. They seemed very keen to blood a youngster.
She believes in Wikipedia, and has a very personal reason for doing so, having alluded to a potentially traumatic childhood where at 13 she disavowed her upbringing as a Jehovah's Witness and became an atheist. She now wishes to improve these topics, presumably to bring a greater understanding of the religion. To which she admits she has "complicated" feelings. One can only hope she hasn't exchanged one cult for another, having gently pushed back on the suggestion the JWs are a cult.
She's so committed to Wikipedia she's got a long running pet project, a user survey. It's quite popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clov ... eflections
It's fascinating stuff. If someone would only analyse the results in a structured way, it could tell people a lot about Wikipedia. Anecdotally, It seems to show Wikipedia still recruits mainly by being rubbish. Thereby causing the impulse to fix something, resulting in the dopamine hit of having immediately fixed something on the internet. Alas many of those editors then forget where they're from and become Administrators, weary and battle hardened, who advocate for a more closed Wikipedia.
It also shows Clovermoss herself wasn't exactly the usual recruit.....
.....all of which perhaps goes a long way to explaining all her many good qualities.I created my account in 2018, shortly after my sixteenth birthday...... I wanted a cool hobby and I knew that Wikipedia was open to newcomers and impactful, so I decided to join and be a part of something great. I came into all this wanting to be a Wikipedian so I knew what I was getting myself into for the most part. I also noticed that there were some pretty serious gaps and quality issues in content I was interested in improving here on the project...... I was quite proactive in getting myself help and very engaged with the community from the start.....I'd say my experience as a new editor was really positive and people did their best to be welcoming to me. I will say that whenever I didn't reach out to people it kind of felt like everything I was doing was going into some sort of void because I wasn't getting any feedback unless I asked for it. That resulted in me being somewhat anxious and constantly worrying if I was doing things the "right" way or messing things up out of ignorance.......me. I will say that it was incredibly thrilling as a 16 year old to see an article I wrote show up on the main page of Wikipedia. It felt like such a massive accomplishment!.......I wouldn't be surprised if I'm still hanging out here in 2100. Of course it's impossible to guarantee that and I can see some situations where I might quit if I become disillusioned with editing here or something. Being a Wikipedian has been very important to me and I don't see that changing in the longterm even if my activity might ebb and flow. Being a Wikipedian has helped give me a sort of social outlet and helps me feel like a productive member of society that's capable of making a difference. I became an apostate as a 13 year-old and that had serious ramifications on my social life, so it was nice to feel like I wasn't completely evil for existing and that I could just talk to people.
It also makes me deeply sad. This really shouldn't be what Wikipedia is for. Someone in her position should be able to find what she needs without being exposed to the downsides of Wikipedia. She can't possibly have known at sixteen what being a Wikipedian entails. Or even now at 21. She's scratched only the surface I think. Her confidence may be entirely misplaced.
I fear for her, I really do. Wikipedia should be the natural home of starry eyed idealists, but for lots of very sad reasons it often doesn't live up to that ideal. It is more often a case of exploitation of the naive and the manipulation of those not strong enough to realise their situation. At least not until it has inflicted deep harm.
She's already had to deal with Tryptofish casting a neutral vote in her RfA because he was getting some bad juju off her. He didn't know what, didn't even seem to know himself. I mean what's a girl supposed to do about that? It showed Wikipedia has a long way to go, since forcing a candidate to have to show they are on the side of the angels by speaking in the defence of such a horrible act, seems extreme. But she passed the purity test, and was duly thanked for being a "good sport". Ick.
Well, not quite. Four months on, and there's this deeply disturbing exchange.....
I'm not totally sure why there hasn't been a really rather extreme reaction to this deeply unsettling behaviour. Or how Tryptofish hasn't ended up being met with the most severe consequences.Vibes
Hi, I'm not sure if this will help the "vibes" feeling you expressed at my RfA, but I'm pictured in this photograph. This is from when I attended Wikipedia Day a few months ago in Toronto. I'm in the green. Umm... maybe this isn't quite the reassurance you were looking for and you still have whatever you saw in me that concerned you. If that's the case, I do hope that maybe I can alleviate that concern someday. Clovermoss (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Clovermoss! I'm actually quite flattered that you (or anyone, for that matter) would care enough about my opinion to still be thinking of what I said then. But to whatever degree my opinion at that time has caused you any discomfort, please let me very sincerely apologize to you for that.
Since you've brought this up, I'm going to try to explain where my concern came from, without disclosing anything that I cannot disclose publicly. A long time ago, I happened to see you post a comment on a talk page, that reminded me of someone who is banned from Wikipedia. It sounded to me like something they would have said, and they are known to be a prolific and skillful socker. That said, it's 90% likely that the similarity was just a random coincidence, in which case my suspicion would just be an injustice to you. That's why I only went "neutral" and no further: I wanted to see if what I did post would ring a bell with anyone else, without posting anything that would be explicitly unfounded and a personal attack. Nobody else shared my concern, and I think in hindsight that I should not have even posted what I did. Sorry.
For reasons that I cannot post, I have a hunch that I know who the sockmaster is, and what they look like. (It's not, to my knowledge, a view held by others, and it rests on some questionable evidence, not enough for me to forward to functionaries.) I've just been looking very closely at your photo, and some photos of them. And I hate to say this, but there's a resemblance, just enough that I don't feel comfortable saying outright that I was wrong. It's not quite an exact resemblance, so I was probably wrong. That's where I'm at: I'm probably wrong.
I know that's terribly unfair to you, if as is probable, I'm insinuating something that isn't at all your fault. But I want to be honest in what I post in this reply.
But here's what's more important than any of that. As far as I'm aware, you've been doing an excellent job as an admin, and as a member of the community. For Wikipedia purposes, that's what matters. Not some fish's idiosyncratic hunch. Keep up the good work, and know that you have nothing to worry about from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to try and put your mind at ease since obviously something about me bothered you. And I've always been relatively open about myself so sharing a photo didn't seem like a big deal since I've attended events. I admit to being a bit disappointed that it isn't enough and that you apparently see a resemblance. Clovermoss (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm sincerely sorry that I ended up leaving you feeling disappointed. Please don't let this make you feel bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The only other thing I can think of would be this? That's me at WCNA. It's a bit more than a photograph and you can hear my voice (it's before I cut my hair a few months ago, it used to be quite long). I think it's human nature to find situations like this disheartening. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how I could prove that I am exactly who I say I am, but I've come to the conclusion that it's likely going to be impossible to convince you 100%. I know you've said that you think I'm a good admin but it's kind of hard not to focus on the you think I resemble a banned editor part. I think my reaction to that is quite reasonable, all things considered. Clovermoss (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what I think. After all, as I often say here, it's only a website. And for that matter, I'm only some random person on the Internet. I recognize that it's true that it's only human nature for this to keep tugging at you, but I really wish that it didn't. I'm 68 years old, and I can certainly think of many times during my own life when someone's criticism of me stuck in my mind much more than someone else's compliments, and much more than, by rights, I should have let it. But I can also give you my sincere advice to just let this one go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The video didn't do it then? I can move on, I was just hoping that (like the photo), it might be enough. Clovermoss (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The video actually looks even more like that person. Alas, probably just a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedians are right to be on their guard, paranoid even, given the recent incursions of that which they previously thought inviolate. But this goes too far, surely. Clearly.
You're left with the disturbing thought that such things might not be occurring because, in her naivety perhaps, Clovermoss is consenting to it all. One wonders if she is even aware how deeply wrong Tryptofish's behaviour is. How much it goes against the core values of the Foundation.
And alas, there are troubling signs she's already lost her innocence and the ways of the veterans are rubbing off on her. She recently showed that very naivety or lack of foresight and made the mistake of reverting a change made to Jimmy Wales' user page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1220399424
A bit of harmless fun, experimentation, by a relatively new editor. Something Jimmy encourages. As he says so rather openly on that page. All part of recruiting more people to Wikipedia. She'd never seen it, doesn't know Jimmy isn't like all the other assholes on Wikipedia, and rather naively babbled about permission. Not a great look. All very cultish.
Hopefully she can learn and grow and won't dwell on this tiny misstep.
Perhaps on a rather more serious note, it's disturbing to see her on that very same day, posting this to Jimmy.....
This stretches the principle that all Wikipedians are equal, to breaking point. In another time in Wikipedia's history, she could have been quite roundly mocked or even warned for this post. Its presumptuous tone. Its starry eyed view of the God King. Two wildly contradictory positions it seems to me. Its total lack of awareness of Jimmy's role, experience and knowledge. And to echo the user page misstep, his common practice. The God King moniker is satirical. He's always been approachable and he has always reached out to other Wikipedians.Emails
Hi, it's come to my attention that you are emailing other Wikipedians as well. I would suggest you not ask for personal information initially or make it clear to people that they don't have to share it if they're uncomfortable with doing so because as I said earlier, most Wikipedians are more hesitant about this sort of thing. To the extent that people's initial reaction can be to be worried if your account is compromised (I know I actually asked a few other admins at the time you emailed me weeks ago, because getting a personal email from Jimbo falls into the "is this really happening?" territory). Anyways, just wanted to reemphasize the fact that most Wikipedians value their privacy and would find those questions to be invasive. Clovermoss (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
My fear grows.
Do not ruin this one Wikipedia/ns. She is special. Although her sheer rarity really does rather paint a bleak picture for Wikipedia, if It is minded to shift to a more closed model where it only recruits the young and the driven who are generous of their time and effort in the hopes of a tangible, meaningful, return on their emotional investment.
That is perhaps what troubles Jimmy now, once he had heard of and digested her survey findings.
