Wikipedia:Editor review/Cindamuse

Cindamuse
While I registered in March 2007, it wasn't until June 2008, that I jumped in and actually created an article. Me and my big ideas. This new article was about the founder of the organization that I served as co-founder and VP. Major conflict of interest. While I was working with the organization, I didn't have much time for writing and editing articles. Overall, since my time was spent writing on a regular basis, I just needed to "veg" at the end of the day. When I left the organization, I eagerly began editing Wikipedia. I've been an active member of the community since May 2010. I have served with the Public Policy Initiative, Education Program (as Online Ambassador and member of the Steering Committee, as well as a member of the Grants Advisory Committee. I resigned my membership on the GAC in February 2013, due to health concerns. I'm currently serving as one of the moderators of the Gender Gap mailing list, which primarily equates to blocking a whole bunch of spam. Overall, I'm looking for areas in which I'm doing well and other areas, uh, not so much. I appreciate your feedback! Best regards, Cindy  ( talk to me ) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * In February 2011, I began working with the Education Program and in October was elected to serve on the Steering Committee. Early in the program, there were some successful accomplishments in working with students in university programs throughout the US. Then I gave it all up for lent. 2013}}, I'm serving as moderator of the Gender Gap mailing list and working to develop and expand articles in support of narrowing the gender gap. I'm also becoming involved in Dispute Resolution. I also enjoy assisting others listed in the [[CAT:HELPME|Wikipedians looking for help category. I work on articles here, primarily checking out CSDs and PRODs for subjects that may meet the criteria for inclusion, but may just need a bit of help. I thoroughly enjoy writing and developing biographies. I also enjoy expanding articles whenever I can. I have a workshop here, where I keep a list of some articles in progress. (I jump around quite a bit.) Overall, I enjoy the collaborative process of Wikipedia and the positive interaction with others. As far as particular articles that I have enjoyed working on, I would consider the one about David Ellwand residing in the top tier. David initially created an article that was speedy deleted in accordance with the G11 CSD. He was not a happy camper and left Wikipedia quite upset. When the article about him was created, I was intrigued and did some research. While the initial article was clearly promotional, David was clearly notable. My research showed that he is a bestselling and award-winning author and photographer. I followed up with David through email and offered my assistance in helping him recreate the article. While he was initially hesitant to work with Wikipedia again, he soon acquiesced after we discovered some common interests. He also offered several photos that he thought would enhance the article. I invited him to join the Wikiproject to help create and expand articles about photography, to which he responded positively. Afterward, He shared his positive Wikipedia experience with some of his colleagues, which resulted in other photographers joining Wikipedia and working to develop articles about photography. Overall, it was an enjoyable experience working on this article. Other articles I've enjoyed working on include Jack Geraghty and Washington: A Life.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * ''Disputes on Wikipedia for me generally involve a frustrated editor who has just had his article deleted or nominated for deletion. I generally just follow the guidelines and process established and it all works out in the end. I'm not easily stressed. Other than that, I would venture to say that some of my biggest frustrations have been my involvement with the Wikipedia Education Program. As a Steering Committee member, I was dismayed with an overall lack of direction or focus on identifying successes and failures with the program. Within a short time of joining the Steering Committee, I learned that the members had been figuratively working from a playbook written when the program was established, not knowing that the WMF had long been playing a different game. For whatever reason, the WMF failed to communicate these changes to the SC members or WP community, leaving previously empowered Ambassadors and community members feeling somewhat dismayed. Vested individuals on both sides of the aisle became disappointed and disillusioned in the other. The WMF Outreach team wanted to expand the program and called for more Ambassadors, but we simply didn't have the interest from the community. Regardless, the WMF dismissed our concerns and continued to expand the program. One quarter, I was personally working with over 300 students. It was disillusioning. In my role as an Online Ambassador and member of the Steering Committee, I received complaints on a regular basis from irate members of the community. I always attempted to validate concerns and work to constructively address issues that were within reach. That said, we were regularly used as a sounding board, oftentimes becoming the focus of the community's wrath in response to the burden that the program placed on the Wikipedia community overall. While we were voicing the concerns of the community, the WMF Outreach team was touting the successes of the program. It was like we were crying out that the emperor had no clothes... to no avail. Soon after the debacle of the IEP, the Education Program and Steering Committee began going through a retooling process. Many Ambassadors chose to resign from the program. The SC was eventually disbanded by the WMF, with some Steering Committee members leaving Wikipedia in full disillusion. What have I learned through this? While I've experienced a part of Wikipedia that should never exist, it's expanded my perspective in working with other WMF staff members. An ability to communicate from a base of patience and understanding. I tend to extend grace to others where I've received none. On Wikipedia, based on my involvement in the Education Program, I've been on the receiving end of others assuming bad faith of me where none existed. While I can readily recognize and respond to vandalism or disputes without batting an eye, I tend to always assume good faith about others, until they prove me wrong. Disputes? My professional background includes working in state government, where I have taught classes on the Unemployment Insurance process and the legal rights and responsibilities of each applicant. I have often encountered frustrated, angry, violent, and suicidal applicants. I have served as an arbitrator, where skills in dispute resolution came into play when working with both employee and employer to identify the issues that brought each party to the table, then determine a resolution to the dispute in accordance with state law. These skills are easily transferable to my involvement on Wikipedia. Listening, validating, assuming good faith, and responding with grace. Everybody deserves my respect (assumption of good faith)—it doesn't have to be earned. And yet, respect can easily be lost. When this happens, a display of good faith, (or convincing proof) must be shown before it can be earned. I often think of a statement made by Thomas Paine. "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead". The ability to bring resolve requires the ability to reason on the part of all parties. Outside of this, while attempting dispute resolution is vital to the community, it oftentimes just comes down to establishing or communicating a bright line in expectations. Overall, when editing gets to be a bit frustrating or tiresome, if the source of my irk isn't violating policy, disregarding guidelines, biting new editors, or destroying the project, I will often just disengage. I figure the encyclopedia will be there another day. And I'm not the only one here. Sometimes, I will simply choose to stop watching a particular page. A personal boundary, if you will. If other seasoned editors have made changes or reverted vandalism to the article, chances are that others are watching it as well. In this way, I'm not easily stressed.
 * ''Disputes on Wikipedia for me generally involve a frustrated editor who has just had his article deleted or nominated for deletion. I generally just follow the guidelines and process established and it all works out in the end. I'm not easily stressed. Other than that, I would venture to say that some of my biggest frustrations have been my involvement with the Wikipedia Education Program. As a Steering Committee member, I was dismayed with an overall lack of direction or focus on identifying successes and failures with the program. Within a short time of joining the Steering Committee, I learned that the members had been figuratively working from a playbook written when the program was established, not knowing that the WMF had long been playing a different game. For whatever reason, the WMF failed to communicate these changes to the SC members or WP community, leaving previously empowered Ambassadors and community members feeling somewhat dismayed. Vested individuals on both sides of the aisle became disappointed and disillusioned in the other. The WMF Outreach team wanted to expand the program and called for more Ambassadors, but we simply didn't have the interest from the community. Regardless, the WMF dismissed our concerns and continued to expand the program. One quarter, I was personally working with over 300 students. It was disillusioning. In my role as an Online Ambassador and member of the Steering Committee, I received complaints on a regular basis from irate members of the community. I always attempted to validate concerns and work to constructively address issues that were within reach. That said, we were regularly used as a sounding board, oftentimes becoming the focus of the community's wrath in response to the burden that the program placed on the Wikipedia community overall. While we were voicing the concerns of the community, the WMF Outreach team was touting the successes of the program. It was like we were crying out that the emperor had no clothes... to no avail. Soon after the debacle of the IEP, the Education Program and Steering Committee began going through a retooling process. Many Ambassadors chose to resign from the program. The SC was eventually disbanded by the WMF, with some Steering Committee members leaving Wikipedia in full disillusion. What have I learned through this? While I've experienced a part of Wikipedia that should never exist, it's expanded my perspective in working with other WMF staff members. An ability to communicate from a base of patience and understanding. I tend to extend grace to others where I've received none. On Wikipedia, based on my involvement in the Education Program, I've been on the receiving end of others assuming bad faith of me where none existed. While I can readily recognize and respond to vandalism or disputes without batting an eye, I tend to always assume good faith about others, until they prove me wrong. Disputes? My professional background includes working in state government, where I have taught classes on the Unemployment Insurance process and the legal rights and responsibilities of each applicant. I have often encountered frustrated, angry, violent, and suicidal applicants. I have served as an arbitrator, where skills in dispute resolution came into play when working with both employee and employer to identify the issues that brought each party to the table, then determine a resolution to the dispute in accordance with state law. These skills are easily transferable to my involvement on Wikipedia. Listening, validating, assuming good faith, and responding with grace. Everybody deserves my respect (assumption of good faith)—it doesn't have to be earned. And yet, respect can easily be lost. When this happens, a display of good faith, (or convincing proof) must be shown before it can be earned. I often think of a statement made by Thomas Paine. "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead". The ability to bring resolve requires the ability to reason on the part of all parties. Outside of this, while attempting dispute resolution is vital to the community, it oftentimes just comes down to establishing or communicating a bright line in expectations. Overall, when editing gets to be a bit frustrating or tiresome, if the source of my irk isn't violating policy, disregarding guidelines, biting new editors, or destroying the project, I will often just disengage. I figure the encyclopedia will be there another day. And I'm not the only one here. Sometimes, I will simply choose to stop watching a particular page. A personal boundary, if you will. If other seasoned editors have made changes or reverted vandalism to the article, chances are that others are watching it as well. In this way, I'm not easily stressed.

 Reviews 


 * Quite frankly I'm not sure why you feel you need an editor review. Your talk interactions are unfailingly civil even on contentious issues, your citations and copyediting look top notch, 98% edit summary rate. Ignoring sports ( where the notability rules are a mess, even to admins), your csd call rate looks fine. If you don't have any specific diffs, conversations or articles you want me to comment on, I think I'll hand you a cookie and go on to someone else with less experience. Alanl (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but I just wanted to say, based on first-hand experience, that Cindamuse is a wonderful editor! I have edited as an IP over the past few months and there were several times where I needed Cindamuse's help. Every time, she was amazing. She responded not only quickly, but always in a very friendly and supportive manner, even though I was an IP. And whatever problem I had, she always solved it. She even told me at the end of each issue that she was always there to help if I ever needed it. In fact, I just wrote her for her help on an issue a few minutes ago. That's when I noticed a comment on her talk page about this review. So I wanted to let everyone know how great she is. I'm not sure if she has any interest in ever being an administrator, but I think she would be a great one. Based on my dealings with her, she's a great editor and a great person. If I wasn't allowed to comment here, you can just pretend that you didn't read anything I just wrote. ;) --76.189.112.132 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand if you feel invalidated and unappreciated after so much work. You are a good editor. One of the best. I'd like to say that your story was unique, but it is not. I was involved in a completely viable outreach project that fell in a heap when the Grants Advisory Committee tried to micromanage it. But yeah, the encyclopaedia will still be there. We hope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I imagine this ER is a precursor to an RFA down the road. I look forward to adding my support when the time comes. Mkdw talk 07:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)