Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cindamuse


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

Cindamuse
'''Final (97/17/2). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Nomination by Pedro I'm delighted to offer up a nomination for Cindamuse a.k.a Cindy. Cindy approached me on my talk having seen me name at WP:RRN requesting feedback. After review, I'm fully convinced that Cindy is a near ideal candidate for the extra bits. A tenured wikipedian (active since June of 2010 but signed up for much longer) and with over 32,000 edits, Cindy is not just active as an editor (over 9,000 main space edits) but also assists at OTRS. Her tact in dealing with editors can be seen, for example, here and here. Her policy knowledge is sound, as can be seen here and here.

On speedy deletions, Cindy maintains a CSD log here. At first glance I was concerned that there seemed ot be a number of blue links. However, further detailed examination shows that the vast majority of tags are correct, with examples such as this showing where two editors requested speedy deletion, and when declined Cindy took time to revisit the article and add maintenance tags accoridngly. It's worth noting (admins only, I regret) that Cindy has well over 5,000 additional deleted contributions.

Housekeeping
 * Clean block log
 * Sensible user page, username and signature
 * Already granted rollback, reviewer and file mover flags

All, Cindy is a thoughtful, cautious and knowledgable editor. Other than a slight dip in editing at the end of last year (due to personal injury), she is consistently active and will, I believe, use the additional tools effectively and wisely. Pedro :  Chat 09:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept this nomination. I appreciate your time and consideration. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 23:35, 9 January 2014 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would initially start out in utilizing the tools to assist me in OTRS work, including article and image deletion and restoration. Access to the tools would expedite the process when addressing vandalism and researching copyright violations, both in articles and media files. Without the tools, I'm left to seeking assistance from others, then waiting for a response. And many times, the deleting admin has either left the project altogether or has taken a wikibreak. I'm left to hunting down another administrator to review or restore deleted material. I would also begin working on areas where I am most familiar, including responding to CSDs, PRODs, RPP, and UAA. I would also like to begin learning and then performing history merges, resolving copy/paste page moves, and deleting pages to reverse redirects. Overall, I would help anywhere needed, while remaining cautious, making sure to never step into areas until I was able to fully understand the process needed to carry out the specific area of responsibility. In those areas where I have questions, I would confer with other more seasoned editors and continue working in accordance with the guidance set forth.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would probably say my best contributions focus on article creation, editing, expansion, and sourcing. Articles of which I am most pleased with include Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury; Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury; Khrushchev: The Man and His Era; and The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo. I'm mostly found editing new articles, helping out new editors, and sourcing material. I monitor the admin dashboard and try to help fill in the gaps when admins aren't available. For example, I'll answer the help-me requests for both general support and admin requests. I also review new articles, then either decline or edit and expand both PRODs and CSDs where I can.


 * 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: I'm not often rattled or stressed, but I'm not superhuman either. When I encounter stressful situations, I attempt to respond to concerns through reason, rather than reacting through emotion. I try to listen first. I let others know that it's nothing personal and let them know why I made a particular edit or decision. My initial desire is to spend time addressing issues personally through editing to bring an article into compliance. Some people learn through reading, while others learn through visual examples. When I communicate with others about editing concerns, I temper the vocabulary used to include phrases such as "We need to find sources," rather than "You need to find sources". I make an effort to work as a team with other editors, rather than as an adversary. It works well. For the most part, I allow the other person to speak, hear their thoughts, validate their concerns, and then present some guidance, explaining how their concerns either align with or differentiate from the community's policies and guidelines. When all is said and done, I try to let others know that their work is appreciated and that I am always available to lend a hand or respond to any concerns they may have.


 * Questions from  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 
 * 4. What is your understanding of the BLP policy on gossip and allegations that may not be true? Can you give some suitably anonymised examples from your editing or OTRS work that would involve this aspect of BLP?
 * A: Thanks for the question. I often respond to concerns from individuals formerly working in the sex industry. Many former sex workers request deletion of their article. When notability is clear, I explain the guidelines and the deletion policy. However, there was recently an article that had disclosed the subject's real life identity and provided the current location of the subject, who is now working outside of the adult entertainment industry. This information was sourced to an online forum. While the subject has at different times threatened legal action if the article is not removed, we had the content oversighted, rather than deleted. (Notability was established through participation as a featured performer in a national reality television series and supported through reliable and independent sources.) In all cases, my primary response is to review the article and sources provided. If the content is appropriate and the sources meet the threshold for reliability, I let the writer know. In another article, the subject was opposed to the addition of statements that she is a former sex worker. However, as an international sex slavery abolitionist, it is appropriate to provide a background to her career. Undue weight is not present. At the same time, she has written a memoir that supports the content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that offers articles based on reliable secondary and third-party sources. [I explained to the subject of the article that] contentious material about a living person can be removed if unsourced or poorly sourced. While the subject stated that content was added based on poorly written, inaccurate articles, the sources provided in the article are reliable. There is no validity to questioning the integrity of The Queens Courier, The Daily Telegraph, or The Washington Times. While the subject pleaded with me to remove the content, I continued to go over the policy with her. I made sure to retain the article on my watchlist and continue to monitor the article for any inappropriate content. I'll also revisit the article as my knowledge of community guidelines increases, just to make sure I haven't missed anything. Hope this response addresses your question appropriately. If you would like me to expand further, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for taking the time to participate here and ask a question. Edited to add: for further expansion, please see my answer to comment #1 in the Neutral section below.


 * Additional question from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah
 * 5. Can you please comment on the diffs from 's oppose statement below? I find them troubling, although they are old.  I would like to hear how you feel now about your attitude, tone and actions at that time.  And this one too, if you don't mind:.
 * A: When the Public Policy Initiative started in 2010, I began serving as an Online Ambassador. While the program was initially considered by the WMF as successful, as it expanded into the Global Education Program, it put undue burden on the Wikipedia community and became highly controversial. Many editors were adamantly opposed to the program; Sandy was one of the more vocal. In 2011, I was elected to serve on the Steering Committee. This role came with some requirements for discretion. During this time, members of the WMF Outreach team, along with the Steering Committee became dismayed with the seemingly aggressive opposition of the community to working with students. The WMF Outreach team at the time provided guidance in our approach with the community in addressing these concerns. Professors were becoming very frustrated with the lack of community support for the program. We were looking for a balance and the WMFO was attempting to forge a compromised approach with the program as it continued to expand globally. During this time, I would regularly Skype with different WMFO team members and receive feedback and guidance on how they wanted to address the community's concerns. My communication with others in the linked discussion offered by Sandy was an extension of the guidance provided by the WMFO. As a member of the Steering Committee, I was the messenger in this regard. In response, I became the target of a lot of personal attacks. My involvement with the Education Program became very disillusioning. Some of the other Steering Committee members resigned from the project altogether. Rather than walk away, I chose to refocus on other areas of the project. Since my involvement with the program, which ended two years ago, I would venture to say that my thoughts on the debacle fall more in alignment with Sandy's thoughts on the program and guidance presented at the time. I no longer agree with or support the guidance that I offered on behalf of the WMFO in the links provided. In all honesty, my involvement with the Education Program is not something that I look back on with fond memories.


 * Additional questions from Ktr101
 * 6. I understand your disillusionment with the Education Program. For those Wikipedians who have no idea what the issues with the program were, can you please elaborate below?
 * A: I think the identification of the issues with the Education Program likely differs from one person to the next. It’s like seeing a collision in the middle of an intersection take place. With one person standing on each corner, they all see the same accident, albeit from different perspectives. In my own experience, the Education Program was poorly designed and organized from day one. I quickly became concerned with the lack of organization and discrepancies in the program. The Steering Committee essentially existed from one meeting to the next, lacking the establishment of objectives and goals or assessment of program quality. There was a lack of accountability and consistent guidelines for participants in the program across the board. There were no goals in the program or short-term/long-term plans. Everybody was flying by the seat of their pants. I was delegated with the responsibility to review the branding and visual imaging of the EP and Ambassador Program to include presenting the role of the Steering Committee. To that end, I was asked to streamline the various pages on both Wikipedia and the Outreach wiki that presented the Education Program, Online Ambassadors, Campus Ambassadors, and Regional Ambassadors. It quickly became apparent that the WMF, the SC, and the Wikipedia community were not on the same page. Additionally, not all WMF Outreach team members were on the same page. I was tasked with researching the conflict with a goal to solidify the role and responsibilities of the SC and Ambassadors. I requested a response from each member of the WMFO and the SC to detail their understanding of their individual role and the role of the committee, along with their understanding of the areas of responsibility that were delegated. Each response that was received was diametrically opposed to the others.  When I worked with the EP, various members of the Wikipedia community contacted me with expressions of disillusionment over the status of the program. The common areas of concern included a lack of communication and collaboration between the SC, Wikipedia community, and the WMFO. The common theme was an overall failure of the Outreach team to communicate in a mutually beneficial manner with Ambassadors and the community at large. While the WMF was touting the successes of the EP, the Wikipedia community was essentially crying out that the Emperor had no clothes.  The WMF took a position of ownership of the EP and Ambassador Program, leading to the resignation of Ambassadors with expressions of disillusionment and a sense of being taken for granted. We had thousands of students editing, with a limited and dwindling number of Ambassadors. At one point, I was working with over 300 students. Actions and decisions made by the WMF disregarded input from the community and Steering Committee. We were told that the Wikipedia community's input didn't matter. I was told that the EP was a program of the WMF. It was not a Wikipedia project as the community understood it to be. I was told that the WMF didn't need permission to run it the way they wanted to. Eventually, the Steering Committee made an official proposal to the WMFO, attempting to address the lack of direction, failures of the program, and concerns of the Wikipedia community overall. For three months, the WMF failed to respond other than to say that "a response was coming". In the end, their response was to disband the SC, stating that they were going to do their own thing, then reorganize as an independent nonprofit corporation. I believe that it is still in the process of trying to find its legs today. In all regards, the issues were many. I'm sure I've missed some blatant ones here. If anyone has additional questions, please feel free to drop me a line.


 * 7. Can you also elaborate on why you believe that users needed to consult professors before reverting their student's edits, and if you still feel that way today, since you have left the program?
 * A: I don't believe that. This was the position of the WMFO. It was their program and I was asked to communicate as such. Following my experiences with the EP, today, I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to ensure that all edits comply with community policies and guidelines. No matter where they came from or what their bent.


 * Additional question from Snowolf
 * 8. What do you think is the role of an administrator?
 * A: Hi Snowolf! Thanks for the opportunity to answer this question. I see the role of the administrator much like the construction of a home, i.e., serves as support beams and retaining walls to uphold the structure. The administrator serves as a support (or servant, if you will) to other editors and to the project overall. They are individuals of the community who are given access to maintenance tools in order to assist in moving the project forward. These tools include the ability to review deleted material; delete and restore material; protect and unprotect pages; block and unblock accounts; assign and remove selected user permissions; assist in mediating complex disputes; and assess and determine consensus at noticeboards, RFCs, and deletion discussions. Thanks again, I appreciate your time. If you have additional questions or would like me to expand on my answer here in any way, just let me know.


 * Additional question from Guerillero
 * 9. Do you now or have you ever edited for pay or other consideration without directly disclosing it to the community? If you engage in editing for income in the future, will you proactively disclose that?
 * A: Hi Guerillero! Thanks for the timely question. I have never edited for pay for exchange of funds or otherwise. While I couldn't imagine myself ever editing for pay, I would certainly disclose this prior to engaging in such practice. I will say that after I wrote The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo, which was honored with the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Biography, I was contacted by the author, who sent me signed copies of his books, The Black Count and The Orientalist. I was stunned. (While it was a nice surprise and totally unexpected, I would have rather had chocolate.)


 * Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
 * 10. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?
 * A: Hi Pharoah! I appreciate your participation here. While I have a public account that I set up in anticipation of editing away from home, I haven't used it. I have never set up or used any other account outside of this one.
 * 11. What is the Difference between a Keep and No Consensus closure in a WP:AFD both retain the article ?
 * A: Consensus is determined by assessing the weight of the predominant recommendations made in accordance with policy. Administrators are tasked with assessing consensus and reminded to consider the spirit of the applicable policies involved. They are also called to assess recommendations made in good faith, disregarding those that fall short as such. Bad faith recommendations include socks and accounts established merely to participate in the discussion to their own end. The process does not include counting votes, but assessing the strength of the recommendations made. When prominent rationale to keep in accordance with policy outweighs those to delete, merge, redirect, or userfy, the decision is made to keep the article. While there may be valid points made in the discussion recommending deleting or keeping the article, oftentimes, the balance in recommendations is not clear, which results in a decision to refrain from taking action on the nomination at all.


 * Additional question from John
 * 12. What have you learned about paraphrasing from the discussion at Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2?
 * A: Hi John! Thanks for the question. There wasn't much mentioned in GA2, outside of one questionable sentence and a statement that there "appeared to be" multiple instances of very close paraphrasing. I took Nikki at her word. This was the impetus for requesting more guidance regarding her concerns. I valued then and continue to value her input. As well as the other individuals who have opposed based on copyvio concerns. I appreciate correction. This is how we learn and improve. Nikki mentioned a subpage of her userpage at User:Nikkimaria/Owsley, which I never actually saw before this discussion here. She mentioned in an email that she would be setting up a subpage and copying the review over there, then stated that she would go to the library and get the biography of the subject to help in the assessment of the article. Then I never heard back from her. I sincerely appreciated her help, but I didn’t want to bother her further. At that point, I chose to spend more time focusing on reviewing the various policies and guidelines that were addressed in the first and second discussions. I'm not perfect. While some have been offended by my earlier statements about my writing background, it wasn't made to tout my background. It rather served as a magnifying glass exposing my lack. Clearly, I'm not the end all-be all. I haven't arrived. My technical and business writing skills do not equate to an ability to write appropriately for an encyclopedia. I'm still learning and growing. Improving as I go along. In business and technical writing, we don't "reinvent the wheel". We do what works. It comes down to facts, which are stated straightforward. When it comes to writing and participating in editing encyclopedic articles, I've learned more about the "letter of the law" and sentence structure in writing, in regards to copyvio. Previously, I viewed facts as fair game. However, I've since learned that while facts are not subject to copyright, the structure or arrangement may be protected, and is therefore identified as close paraphrasing and inappropriate. When I edit or write articles now, I don't rely anymore on my "belief" that it was written in my own words. I spend time checking and double checking like a maniac. Then I run everything through automated detectors, run sections through Google, and ask others for input. Because of my experiences and failures here, I'm probably now more extreme in addressing copyright violations with myself and others. I make doubly sure that it doesn't occur in my own work, while also making a sure to determine the presence of copyright violations when reviewing the work of others. If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

General comments

 * Links for Cindamuse:
 * Edit summary usage for Cindamuse can be found here.
 * Editing statistics are posted on the talk page. Tyrol5   [Talk]  03:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support As nominator. Pedro :  Chat 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongest Possible Support I was supposed to have nominated Cindy back in September, but real life distracted me (big time) and I couldn't complete it. Cindy is one of the finest administrative candidates we got. She is a voice of reason in various areas of the project and already is entrusted with OTRS access. Huge net positive. Secret account 00:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support based on interactions with her over the years. Was always open to constructive criticism and studied policy to make a decision when prompted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This user is a very qualified candidate and will be a net positive for the project. -  t u coxn \ talk 01:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support From what I have seen, Cindamuse has the experience and right disposition to be a great administrator. Mike V  •  Talk  01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support; user knows her way around images and her non-Twinkle user talk posts are articulate and easy to understand. Demonstrates the needed abilities; a superior candidate. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Cindamuse is a competent editor who will benefit Wikipedia as an administrator. I have no concerns and wish her the best.—John Cline (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I reviewed a sampling of the candidate's content and back office contributions, and I'm convinced that she has a solid understanding of how the wiki works and will help keep it running smoothly.- MrX 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Excellent candidate. Trusted and experienced user with a great attitude and approach. INeverCry  01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I thought she was already an admin. Long overdue nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Strong candidate with no issues I can see. I am One of Many (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Yep. Epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support well qualified Dloh cierekim  02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Support . About time. I  have interacted with  Cindy  many  times and have always been impressed with  her interaction  with  others. I  have no  doubts as to  her knowledge of policies and guidelines and for what  she doesn't  know already I'm sure she will  not  hesitate to  ask  for advice - as we all  did, and still  do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) -- John Reaves 03:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns with this candidate! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. No concerns, shows reasonable decision-making skills, communicates well, and has the sense to ask questions. Risker (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support x2 I have had nothing but good experiences in interacting with this editor. My only regret is that I wasn't able to co-nominate her.  Mkdw talk 04:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - great candidate. Will benefit the wiki. Gizza ( t )( c ) 04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A very good candidate with very good communication skills. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cindy and I had a disagreement once, a long time ago. I don't remember what it was about. What I do remember is that our debate was respectful, professional, and that when the issue was resolved, I was convinced of her fairness and commitment to this encyclopedia. I am pleased to support her.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Strong RfA candidate, no concerns. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with the candidate, and I remember thinking that I should nominate her for adminship myself. Not actually doing so was obviously an oversight, but I'm glad that she's choosing to run now. Will make a fine admin. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Clearly the right sort. Already seriously involved in assisting the project and trusted in significant roles. We need more people like Cindamuse to help out.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) —Kusma (t·c) 09:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Happy to support - Mop Please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 09:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong candidate who could help, whynot! James of UR (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Certainly. While we haven't interacted, Cindamuse is a familiar name to me; I've always thought that she is a sensible editor with good judgment. Picked Pedro to evaluate her, after all! :D I trust her and I'm happy to support. Acalamari 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Clueful and considerate, can be trusted to use the tools wisely. Gobōnobō + c 10:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Very strong support I was going to co-nom with Secret, but I'm glad to see that Pedro's stepped in. I remember being very surprised when I first found out that Cindy wasn't an admin, and wondering why not. Polite or firm as the occasion requires, and a great communicator. I've seen her around a lot, and worked with her, and not seen any problems. Peridon (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - seems like a great editor and will make an able admin. GiantSnowman 12:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - She'll make an excellent admin, I'm sure. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, a competent and honest editor. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) Support certain to become an able admin. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 21) Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Although I haven't had any personal interaction with the candidate yet, they're qualified and I trust the nom.  Mini  apolis  14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Great candidate who will make a brilliant admin! - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  14:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) Support: A good candidate who is a net positive. (See below for downgrade) - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Very good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 26) I like how this afd went down, I like the detailed replies she always leaves when people challenge her for something she did, and from my interactions with her even long ago I'm confident she'll be a fine administrator. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 27) Support — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - (1) She meets my usual standards; very amusing user page. (2) I trust Pedro. (3) We need more admins, desperately, and more cultural diversity would be good, as well. Bearian (talk)
 * Support - I've not encountered Cindy, but what she does looks impressive. --Stfg (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I like the answers to the questions and don't see anything in the edit history that concerns me, and a lot that I like. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yes please!--Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  19:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Impressed by her answers to the BLP questions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Well qualified candidate, thanks for answering my question.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update. I've reviewed the education program related opposes and the candidate's response. I rarely oppose over something more than a year old, and I really see no reason to do so now. Lessons appear to have been learned.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Kraxler (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No concerns benmoore 23:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Interesting user. ///Euro Car  GT  01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sure...<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">Herald<font style="color:Green"> talk with me 12:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, candidate has shown a levelheaded attitude over an extended period of time and I see absolutely no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 7) Support good candidate, strongly suggest seriously considering Collect's excellent advice below. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -- only possible concern I see is from Collect below, but knowing your overall personality, I think you'd take that advice into consideration when using your admin tools. Overall, excellent candidate. <font color="Blue">Sports <font color="Orange">guy17  (<font color="Blue">T • <font color="Orange">C ) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. An easy call for me – what an outstanding candidate! Plenty of appropriate experience, a track record of working to make Wikipedia a better place, obvious cluefulness in the answers here, and an excellent demeanor in interacting with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it's important to look in again at discussions to see if anything might change my mind, and I've just looked closely at the three opposes as of this time. It's a heartbreaking situation, and I can understand both perspectives, but at bottom I don't see anything at all that should be disqualifying in an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back here again, the three diffs about the Education Program provided by Sandy made my head spin, and very nearly moved me from here to oppose. However, regardless of the time that has passed since the candidate said those things, I've also looked at the answers to Q5, 6, and 7, and (as stated very clearly in the reply to Q7), the candidate has made it clear that she now rejects those views she expressed earlier (and expressed them originally in a good faith, although misguided in my opinion, effort to help the WMF), so I regard that as past mistakes that are not disqualifying now. To be clear: no editor needs a professor's permission to disagree with student edits. Ever. (I'll also shamelessly plug WP:ASSIGN.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  Wizardman  21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Satisfactory answers to questions and good points mentioned by Pedro. Great work done in the article mainspace and the administration part of Wikipedia. An Intelligent and well qualified candidate, no concerns at all. ~<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser <font color="DeepPink">(talk)  22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Why Not? The opposes do nothing for me. It will certainly help her at OTRS - there's always one noob who wants to know why his "great" article was deleted, difficult to answer when all you can see is the deletion log.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 02:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support because my experience with Cindy has always been positive. However, I am sympathetic to Draco's feelings below and I think we all need to be mindful that just as there are different types of people, there are also different types of women.  Draco's experience, as a woman and from a woman's perspective, is vastly different than Cindy's (and others mentioned below) and her concern is based on that perspective which is a rather unique perspective on this project.  It shouldn't be brushed off easily.  On the other hand, I don't think Cindy was showing loyalty, I think she was explaining that administrators cannot supervote against consensus.--v/r - TP 03:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And on another note, I doubly think that no one should criticize Jayen - he may not be holding a grudge. Us married men know better than to cross our wives =) --v/r - TP 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support great work with deletion topics, no concerns here! <font face="Palatino Linotype"> <font color="#004000">smithers  - <font color="#004000">talk  04:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per DracoEssentialis, who opposed the RfA by way of linking to a discussion in which Cindamuse displayed poise and tact. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — Bgwhite (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support &mdash; A very strong candidate for this position. I would also like to offset the rationale that her views on the first Carole Waugh AfD are enough to preclude this request. Look, we have BLP in place for a reason, and we value that principle as Wikipedians (and more importantly, as decent human beings). I say this as someone who happens to agree with the result of the second AfD, in which the article was deleted due to an overall lack of notability. The first one was closed according to consensus on the AfD page by SarahStierch; if she had deleted the article because consensus did not reflect policy (which is a debatable point in itself), it would have utterly disenfranchised the highly tenured participants in the discussion and undermined the credibility of Wikipedia's administrators on an unsettling scale. No one can allow their opinions to supercede those of the community. In practice, WP:CRYSTAL can go both ways. Both Sarah and the rest of the participants were unable to predict that coverage would die down after a while, thus making its failure to satisfy GNG all the more unambiguous. Cindy defended the decision as being within policy. It may or may not have been the correct course of action, but there's no harm in coming to the defence of someone who had to make a judgment call. Kurtis (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. jni (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, nothing in my past interactions with her suggest anything to be wary of, and glowing reviews above reinforce that impression, Sadads (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per the succinct nomination provided by Pedro, and per the editor's contributions. Wifione  Message 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are sufficient. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Very competent candidate, no concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Ed's comments in the oppose section are worth worrying about, otherwise I didn't see anything that bothered me in that section or on a quick look around. Please don't worry about "undermining" the faculty.  If you can undermine them, they've got more issues than you... Hobit (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbelievableError (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Generally good contributions. A few borderline CSD tags, but the vast majority are good. The "oppose" crowd seems to be unusually harsh.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per nom. Acer (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I do find the diffs in the oppose part troubling, in particular the close paraphrase issues — someone who is working as a writer for 20 years must know what is a close paraphrase and what is an independent text — but I do not see any recent issues, and the candidate has demonstrated willingness to discuss her problematic calls, so I land in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, active and competent. – SJ  +  17:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Support active, competent no major issues, good luck. <font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000CD" size="3px">Alex <font face="vedrana" color="blue" size="2px">discussion ★ 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) SupportThe canditate's diplomatic skills are sorely needed around here. Alanl (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per noms, per answers, and opposes insufficiently demonstrate Cindamuse would not be a net positive.  78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) Cloudchased (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per my trust in Pedro and a number of other fine people above. Plus, I've only seen good things from Cindy. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Per nominator and responses to questions. I think her response to Ed's oppose below shows that she's learned from past mistakes, and it would be hypocritical of me to hold something against her that is over 2 years old, since my edit history was about that long when I went through RfA. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I agree with Kurtis on the AfD matter. I had come to the same conclusion for the same reasons. It was an unfortunate situation but I think there is too much reliance on hindsight to base a determination on this. While not opposing, I hesitated to support because of concern about the EP matter. I am in accord with the third entry by Tryptofish above. The answers to Q5, Q6 and Q7 have cleared this up in my view. I also think that the age of the few matters that form the bases for the opposers lessen their impact where we have an editor with a good overall record who appears to accept criticism and learn from experience. Now I think support is appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) Support --<font face="Comic Sans MS" color="black">Rzuwig ► 12:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 26) Support We make mistakes. If I see a pattern of carelessness, I oppose. What I see in Cindy is good work and good faith, admitting mistakes, correcting them to the extent possible and learning from them. I trust that pattern will continue when she makes a few mistakes as a sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Thanks for offering to take on these duties. Spicemix (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I think she very well understands the problems in some of our more difficult areas, and has suitable ways of dealing with them. There is essentially nobody who can deal perfectly with the sort of BLP concerns being discussed here because there is often no perfect way of handling them;, and her approach is perfectly consistent with our principles. The AfD is one of many where opinions changed as information became available: nobody has a perfect record here unless they confine themselves to echoing the obvious. I was personally quite bothered by the way she was supporting the WMF in the earlier stages of the educational program, but it is very clear she has learned from experience, which is not true of everyone initially involved,   I was one of those who did resign from the SC, and indeed from all direct participation in the program, rather than try to find a way of working with the utterly misguided and unrealistic practice of the  WMF; my balanced opinion is that I should have realized from the start that it was hopeless, and not tried to work within it.  That she stayed and learned from it, was and is  the better way to deal with it than my own, & I can only praise her for it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - The candidate and I have not run into each other that I recall, but the praise extended by respected editors here in combination with sensible answers, OTRS experience and an apparent ability to learn from mistakes have won me over. Opposers fail to convince. My thanks to the candidate for services to the encyclopedia to date and in the future, and best wishes. Jus  da  fax   08:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 30) Support User is a ORTS Volunteer and has been editing regularly since May 2010.User is trustworthy and experienced.Feel the Project  will only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 31) Stephen 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Well-qualified candidate who seems bound can be trusted to use the tools responsibly (and learn from past mistakes), from what I've seen. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Despite the close paraphrasing legacy, a net positive. I would like to see you take some time to review your more substantial contributions to check for any issues that still remain in your work. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. <font color="#0E0">Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - Looks like a strong candidate with good communication skills and WP experience. Despite the objections from some I see the candidate as an asset to the project.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 36) Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) No. No. No. Per this. As one of the few women contributors to Wikipedia, I would like you to know that I do *not* consider you an adequate representative of an all-embracing female perspective. Maybe that's not what you're about, but I wouldn't trust you to make the right decisions when it matters. Sorry to be a party pooper, but your application seems to be more about self-interest than making this project a slightly more welcoming place for women. We've already got Sue Gardner and Sarah Stierch and their exquisite double standards to remind us of how abysmally Wikipedia has failed in engaging female participants without a self-promotional agenda. I can easily think of about twenty male participants on here who aren't jonesing for "teh bits". All things considered, they would most likely be better at representing my view of the world than you and the ladies mentioned above. To us civilians, you, Sarah, Sue, and most of the other female Wikimedia insiders are not so much closing the gender gap but widening it. It'll be a cold day in hell before I feel that you and the likes of you are even remotely capable of representing any aspect of my life as a nondescript woman, lover, sister and mother. DracoE 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a vote by  is clearly  neither within the spirit  of maintaing  drama free RfAs nor  appropriate anywhere else on  W ikipedia. This is one of the most classic example of a 'No  good faith'  vote I  have ever seen on an RfA. It's also  uncivil  and a WP:PA. The discussion referred to  was nearly  a year-and-a-half ago and the comments by  Cindamuse were exceptionally polite and compassionate. I  actually  know of very  few editors and/or admins who  always give so  much  care and attention  to  what  they  say.  Fortunately, this vote will  not  have any  impact  on  the outcome of this RfA, and even if it  were to  be a borderline close, I am sure that  any  Bureaucrat  would choose to ignore it. If I  had come across such  a comment  elsewhere I  would almost  certainly  have issued a warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you been out in the real world of late? Talked to your real-life friends, like in the days of the typewriter? You'd be surprised to find out how little they care about World of Wiki. I have no interest in drama, and the wikidrama I chose to become involved with over the past three years has left me wounded and desperate. I'd like to see this place become more real. More compassionate. More all-embracing. More forgiving, not just of its insiders. I really don't give a care whether a candidate for adminship is female, male, gay, straight or whatever gorgeous representation of us humans they choose to be. Yes, I am a woman. I'm fine with being a woman. I never wanted to be anything else than a woman in spite of all the sad parts that come with it. I guess that makes me a minority on WP. Yet, in spite of that, I think that we women should be held to the same standards as you guys. I do care deeply about the people we write about. The people we should feel responsible for, in the best possible way. In the example I mentioned, Cindy chose sensationalism and loyalty to a WP friend over compassion. You may be more forgiving about such matters than I am. But please, at least try and understand where I, and so many women like me, who started editing WP and gave up in despair, are coming from. DracoE 01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I find statements like "" contradictory to statements like "" and "" and "". It comes off as hostile, sarcastic and to serve no other purpose than to make it personal and sensationalize wikidrama. Compassion is a two way street. It's the difference between sympathy and empathy. While you may have been scarred, and I know what it's like to be down there, it is not about bringing other people down there with you. You can still take the high road and respectfully oppose an RFA. Mkdw talk 06:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it is only fair to see more of the discussion here, which reinforces my view that she is nearly an ideal candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, and I would like to thank you for reminding me. The complete discussion is here. Cindamuse did snap out of the "just following rules" mindset, and posted a graceful apology that I appreciated. Still, the whole thing left me too demoralised at the time to go for that DR myself. (That someone else did was a pleasant surprise. Occasionally, there are pleasant surprises in Wikipedia.) :) Andreas JN 466 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Per marital loyalty. And that same vapid wikiwaffle re  linked above. Andreas  JN 466 00:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should both try letting go of such an old grudge. It just makes you sound petty and vindictive. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  00:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think it makes you look petty and vindictive, but I would need more for me to withdraw my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly didn't make her look "compassionate" and "forgiving." <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  05:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True and I have modified my support accordingly. See above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original vote was the right one, and I agreed with it. I hope you're not inferring you changed it because of me somehow. My comment about not being compassionate and forgiving refers to DracoEssentialis and her nasty hypocritical tyrades. Mkdw has summed it up very well above. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per "Human decency is defined and governed by community standards. ... I am able to carry out responsibilities in an objective manner. ... my personal emotions matter little. I have to question when others disregard consensus (which does not equate to a vote), claiming a loyalty to a friend in an effort to alleviate suffering that an article on Wikipedia brings." You're not fit to be an administrator here. Sarah got that first AfD close seriously wrong. She did the popular thing, and closed it per the vote not policy. When Jayen and Draco appealed to her to reconsider, she whimped out saying, essentially, that doing so might upset some people. You turned up bleating the above.
 * Anyone who subordinates their innate human decency to this community's standards on human decency is pathetic and dangerous to this project, our readership and our subjects. Anyone who berates and lectures others for urging an admin to reconsider a keep close (that was snow overturned in a second AfD a few weeks later) shouldn't be anywhere near AFD.
 * Regarding, "You have attempted to resolve the "situation" with Sarah, yet she has not responded in the manner in which you desire. Beating a dead horse here or on the article's talkpage has now gone beyond par. The community has determined in the AFD that the WP:NOTNEWS argument did not hold water in this regard.":
 * It is the closer's job to weigh the policy at play; in that case, the closer just did what the !voters wanted.
 * It is perfectly appropriate for a closer to reconsider a close. It is perfectly appropriate for editors to argue with the closer and try to change their mind. It is utterly inappropriate for you to insert yourself into that discussion as you did - lecturing two very experienced editors like some kind of naughty children, throwing in the dead horse analogy - quite aside from the egregiously inappropriate use of it in that situation, who the hell are you to decide when the "dead horse beating" has gone "beyond par?"
 * Hopefully, our paths will not cross again, so let me take this opportunity to tell you your sense of human decency overrides community standards set by the cluster of rejects, misfits and tools that dominate the policy and drama pages of this project. Respect it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cindamuse apologized for the "dead horse beating" formulation, you forgot to mention that. DracoEssentialis later send her a "conciliatory barnstar". "Human decency is defined and governed by community standards" is nonsense, yes. The close of the 1st AfD was not essentially wrong, although simple "keep" is insufficient reasoning in a complicated AfD discussion. The arguments of both the sides in the discussion were valid and there was no consensus to delete the article. Do you think that admins should ignore !voters and decide in accordance with their own interpretation of the policy? If I were in Sarah's place, I would renominate the article immediatelly after I would make sure that the complaint is valid and genuine, and it would be based on my own understanding of human decency. Both Sarah and Cindamuse pointed Draco to WP:DRV or to the option of another AfD. DracoEssentialis had the opportunity to end the dispute and start a new AfD based on new facts (WP:BIODEL might be applicable, as living individuals closely related with the deceased person asked for deletion and eventually it was the complaint which led to the second nomination). Paul MacDermott, the editor who developed the article and defended it against deletion in the first discussion, did that, and it was the best thing to do. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Refusing to perform or support a supervote close is correct administrative behavior that current admins and candidates should absolutely stand their ground on. The insinuation that consensus-based discussion closures reflect a lack of human decency is itself indecent. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having slept on this, I acknowledge that I've been overly harsh in my language. I do hope Cindy considers my genuine concerns, though, and those expressed by others in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for some disturbing approaches taken to student editing, discussed at length here, specifically:     "Regular" editors don't have to defer to instructors or email them to get clearance to remove bad student edits.  These posts and approach raised eyebrows even among those who were generally in favor of the education program.  I have other concerns, but can't find the diffs, so ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that TheEd17 has found a few of the older issues, I'll add that it's not so much the extent of Cindamuse's past misunderstanding of copyvio (also here, where she didn't understand Wikipedia mirrors) rather the attitude when confronted. It's surprising that someone who has "written professionally for over 20 years and have never had my work questioned in this manner" would not understand copyvio.   Regarding the answer to Question 5, some of us know better than to take our guidance on editing from WMF Outreach employees who may or may not have any editing experience; as  mentions above, basically, one's ethics should come from within, and not depend on external guidance. In other words, we need to have an "internal compass", not "situational ethics" (also, copyvio and plagiarism are ethical issues that a writer of 20 years should understand). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, partly per Sandy. I'm extremely concerned with the attitude Cindamuse has taken with regards to the Education Program. For example, she has advocated that editing the subjects of student assignments "usurp the professor's instructions and the educational process of the course", essentially saying that the Education Program takes precedence over the normal processes on Wikipedia. Furthermore, she later told the same use user that contacting students through talk pages undermines professors. She has also given a purposely wrong copyright-related answer to a student, instructing them to ask for permission to use a logo in a Wikipedia article, despite the exceedingly simpler option of using it under fair use. When questioned, she once again explained that "We should never undermine the professor." I'm also concerned with your past issues with close paraphrasing on Douglas W. Owsley (see GANs 1, 2). Last, even those these issues are from up to two years ago, I'm extremely put off by the complete lack of this material in your answer to question three. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I appreciate the feedback. I acknowledge the issues with the Owsley article. While wholly unintentional, it certainly served as a learning experience. While the close paraphrasing was deemed by some as borderline, after my own later review, it was clear to me that it was quite a bit more than that. There was a clear lack on my part that I found personally disappointing, not to mention, embarrassing. My understanding of close paraphrasing and copyright laws required addressing in order to bring my flawed understanding into alignment with the definition of close paraphrasing and copyright as determined by Wikipedia. In all honesty, since that review, I spent considerable time taking a step back in order to extensively study the applicable policies in order to make sure that this would not occur again. I've said this before, but I think I'm one of those that truly appreciates correction. Without it, growth and improvement are not only difficult, but oftentimes impossible. I didn't mention it in Q3, because it just isn't forefront in my mind. I'm not the type of person to dwell on my past mistakes. I would hope that since that time, growth and improvement would be evident in my editing and involvement in the project. If you ever see other concerns, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 04:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this note. I had seen Cindamuse be quite vigilant in the past about copyright—including close paraphrasing—and so I was very surprised to see this brought up here.  In particular the attitude of taking a step back to make sure this doesn't happen again is good to see. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ed, and Sandy. Yes, the Education Program is important to Wikipedia, but this does not make it any better than other Wikipedians. There are users who dislike the program and this is one of the reasons that is cited for that. The Education Program works with new users, and helps them become a part of the community, but they are no better than any other user on this site. There are many students who come in and fudge things up for us, but the wider community as a whole does not need to seek permission to remove any of their work. We are bringing students onto the site and sometimes their hand does need to be held, but this does not mean that we should, as a community, baby their bad work. Yes, it helps if a user explains to the student why they have messed up and what can be done to fix it, but if there are frequent patterns of abuse from the class, the project has all rights to block the users, as the professor is partially responsible for some of the work that goes on during the class, and it is up to them to make sure that everything is correct, as it reflects on them too. As a Regional Ambassador for the program, I understand where you are coming from, but our students are no better than any other editor, and this should reflect in our advocacy, not just our actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if/when we're going to see an oppose vote or even a diff that cites something that happened less than a year (or 2) ago? <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you drop it. Everyone who's opposing here knows when their diffs are from.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the spirit of these opposes which goes against the idea of AGF. Is the issue or issues ongoing? If not, why use such old issues against someone? I see another new oppose from 2012. I guess nobody gets to make a mistake in the past, and nobody can be believed to have grown and changed their opinions over time. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  04:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * INeverCry, you're badgering. It has happened before, but unless Cindamuse was extremely immature two years ago, generally people's basic character, ethics, moral compass don't change dramatically over a few years.  In this case, they don't seem to have, because there was no mention in Q3 of past issues that had caused a change in her thinking.  In fact, when challenged, she threw the WMF under the bus, essentially blaming them for things she should have known better not to do-- another indication that basic character doesn't change.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy. I didn't mean to badger anyone. I guess I'll say goodnight. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  04:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the answers to number five rub me the wrong way, and I am willing to elaborate more if asked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'd be more useful if you phrased your concerns as an additional question for the candidate?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ed and Sandy. Sure, it happened a long time ago, and I respect the candidate's disavowal of her actions at the time.  However, her actions in that situation, e.g. choosing to give false information to a student, choosing multiple times to "not undermine the professor" even though the actions of the students clearly contradicted Wikipedia policy, and so on, were so clueless that I have an unassuagable worry that she will behave aggressively and unpredictably in situations that we can not now foresee.  I don't trust someone to be a reasonable administrator who was ever willing to take such indefensible positions merely because someone from the WMF said it was OK to do so.  We've seen many examples, some as recently as two days ago, where the WMF has acted irrationally and unilaterally in violation of community norms.  We need administrators who have enough of a self-actuated ethical sense and feeling for the good of the project that they will not succumb to pressures of the sort the WMF will apply.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, I'm extremely worried that the whole student editing episode didn't come up until SandyGeorgia pointed it out and then I asked an explicit question about it. Surely if, as the candidate says, In all honesty, my involvement with the Education Program is not something that I look back on with fond memories., she might have thought to bring it up in response to question 3. What else is there like this out there?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The comments I see to begin Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2 are not any that I would want to see from any editor, let alone an admin. Concerns about close paraphrasing are an automatic oppose for me. I don't expect admins to be the most prolific content creators, but I would expect them to not cause problems in the content creation arena. --Rschen7754 03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An automatic oppose citing a 2 year old issue hardly seems fair. I would think an issue would have to be ongoing to remain a concern after so much time has passed. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few things that I automatically oppose over, even well after the event, because of the damage that they can cause to the encyclopedia. Close paraphrasing is one of them, because of its ability to go undetected for months across several articles. --Rschen7754 04:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just hope if/when someone makes such a mistake, they would get a second chance at some point. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  04:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked and found several issues still remaining. Yes they are from a couple of years back, but they are still there (e.g., see example). Second chance absolutely, but surely that requires the right action (i.e., cleaning up the original mistake) first? QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Sandy and Ed. The close paraphrasing brought up by Rschen is also concerning. Intothatdarkness 15:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: somewhat surprised to find myself in this section, but was reminded above of User:Nikkimaria/Owsley - this was an informal review following the most recent GAN, in which I noted problems with sourcing and paraphrasing that appear to remain in the article to this day. (Note: Cindy and I discussed this review off-wiki in early 2012, and she gave a reason for a delay but pledged to address the issues). With that in mind I looked at some of Cindy's other articles, and my findings - for example, the use of a gossip blog in a somewhat undersourced BLP (Todd Fisher) - in combination with WEP concerns leads me to oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose To add to the issues raised above, the edit in which Cindy nominated Douglas W. Owsley for its 3rd GAN also took the opportunity to remove two sections from that talk page . Remove, mark you, not archive -- and I would have considered even archiving these sections from such a small talk page to be questionable in the context of a GA nomination. The edit summary just says "GAN nom", without mentioning this removal. Also, if comments are made on prose, it's fine to discuss them and/or ask for clarification, but I'm unimpressed by "I'm a professional business, technical, and nonfiction writer, so I tend to speak in a more formal tone." -- discuss the issue, not the person. I agree with Sandy's and the later opposes, but was considering following the leads of Tryptofish and WereSpielChequers and taking the age of those edits into account. But this latest is one too many, and my ability to AGF is feeling overstretched, I'm afraid. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This was not an attempt to be evasive in any way, but rather a cleanup of the page while placing a GAN nom template. I removed (1.) a bot notice about an image regarding an issue which was subsequently resolved. The image was hosted on the Washington State Dept of Health website in error. They initially indicated authorization to use as a product of a federal employee's work, but the photographer challenged it. The State did not, in fact, have permission to release it as a work of the federal government. The DOH rightly removed the image from their website when the photographer contacted them. (2.) Communication directed toward me by an individual shown to be another Mattisse sockpuppet. I did not remove the sock's dialogue with another individual, just his communication with me. The conversation had carried over to my talk page. Again, nothing nefarious, just a quick cleanup. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 12:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cindy. I looked at the block delete log entry for that image and suspected that something like that might have happened. However, imo it would have shown better judgement to leave the bot notice in place and to reply to it in situ with the explanation you've just given. (2) The Townsend account was found to be a sock in January 13, whereas the post you removed was in February 2012. I'm not quite sure where that leaves us regarding the appropriateness of removing it. Let someone more knowledgeable than me comment on that if they like. I'm also unsure of removing a sock's comment addressed to you on an article talk page, when you did not see a need to remove their other comment. The removed comment was in relation to GAN1 (the review done by the Townsend account) and that hasn't been deleted. Moreover, it raised the issues of close paraphrasing that surfaced again in GAN2 (and may still be there, if  is right). At a very minimum, it would have shown better judgement to ask someone with no involvement to remove it, or to remove it in a separate edit with an informative edit summary and to replace it with a notice explaining you had removed material posted by a sock. To blandly remove both of these, without mentioning it in the edit summary, in the very edit where you nominate for GAN3, at the very least shows poor judgement. I'm afraid I must stay here. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Stfg. I will certainly keep your admonition in mind as I move forward. I appreciate your comments here. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per Rschen and Nikkimaria. If, as Nikki says, plagiarism problems still have not been cleaned up, this RFA should not even be considered until copyright violations and plagiarism have been expunged.  And the passage of time since such actions does not diminish them, but rather exacerbates the problems, due to the proliferation of mirror sites.  This candidate should devote her time to resolving those issues, rather than adding to her tasks by taking on the job of administrator.  Kablammo (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to  provide a rationale for this vote? It  is generally  presumed that  for the closer to  accord full weight to  an 'oppose' vote, a valid reason of some kind  is usually  expected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on the basis that, on top of the concerns about close paraphrasing, which the candidate says she has learned from, I had a look at Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury, which is her most-edited article, and found it to be a rat's nest of tabloid sourcing, including potentially defamatory claims about people who are still alive. I see much good in the candidate and would have no qualms about supporting six months or so down the line once she can demonstrate (rather than just state) she has learned about how seriously we take copyvio and BLP here. --John (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I learned more about writing in the first year after I became an admin than I did in the five years before. While a number opposed me (including many I now consider friends), I was fortunate that enough considered my intentions, judgement and trustworthiness over other (valid) concerns.  There is no perfect candidate, nor admin.  Most of us are simply "good enough".  For the record, when I was at RFA, my most edited article was a COI from a couple years before, full of blogs and unreliable sources, arguably worse. Anyway, I complete respect the sincerity of your vote, even while hoping you reconsider. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  02:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis, your tolerance does you credit. You write above in your support that you've "only seen good things from Cindy"; we've now demonstrated that she has been involved in adding closely paraphrased material and non-BLP-compliant material to articles. Here is where in 2010 she added scurrilous material on a living person sourced to a gossip rag, using a misleading edit summary. These are very much not good things, and I would much rather not take the chance on promoting someone with no demonstrated understanding of our two most important policies. These are policies she will have to understand in order to properly enforce, and I am not confident she will be able to do this. --John (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Admins are also supposed to be open to criticism and to answer reasonable questions about their conduct, not archive them unanswered. I have a horrible feeling about this candidacy. --John (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per all the other opposes. buffbills7701 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I respectfully oppose. I believe the world has way too many people who are foremost aggressive, and afterwards occasionally thoughtful. And I certainly do not believe that you should give someone with those qualities a loaded gun and permission to shoot - so they can ask questions later. Your propensity as a deletionist is what initially raised the flag for me, particularly for a collaborative encyclopedia whose Mission Statement says, the "mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content", not delete intelligent contributions, I believe is contrary to the Vision of Wikipedia which is to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". If that vision represents the ultimate mission, then deletionists must change their perspective. As such, I respectfully oppose. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This user came to my attention in one particular place, Nils Erik Bæhrendtz, where I saw her aggressive and disruptive edit warring against the author in the early history of the article. This behaviour at the article, along with the accompanying baseless warnings at the talk page of the author of the article (for removing Cindamuse's tags that were in no way either motivated or needed, nor explained at the talk page) is not the kind of behaviour I would like to see in a Wikipedia administrator. The article author in this case was admirably patient with Cindamuse, but this is the kind of behaviour that could easily drive someone else away. Is this characteristic? I don't know, but I am in no way convinced that it isn't. --Hegvald (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was in 2011, it is now 2014. Do you have something more recent that shows this sort of behaviour? As one of the supporters I'd agree with you that Cindamuse wasn't ready for adminship in 2011, and probably not in 2012. But my experience is that editors can change, and the lack of problems from the last year or so leads me to assume that that has happened in this case.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral
To my eye, the real issue here is Cindy's blatant ABF in response to MathewTownsend. Mathew's comments may have come across as nitpicking or even pedantic, and in hindsight maybe it could have been even more diplomatically worded; but Cindy's response avoids the substance of the disagreement and goes rapidly into an accusation of harassment and hounding. No editor should not react with such hostility to legitimate and politely-phrased concerns, and before giving her access to tools I would want to see some persuasive evidence that she now makes a more collegiate response to the criticism which inevitably comes the way of any admin. Admin actions often will be heavily scrutinised, and may sometimes be bitterly contested. Cindy's response to Q2 doesn't seem to match the reality of what happened here. Cindy, can you offer any more recent evidence of your response to criticism, which might persuade me that this is all in the past. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  On the basis that it is not that unsourced and poorly sourced contentious claims in BLPs "can be removed" - the policy states  should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. and I would like the candidate to take a stronger position about BLP.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Collect! I appreciate the feedback. I think we both agree and understand the policy as it states and you have indicated above. When I personally encounter unsourced and poorly sourced contentious statements in BLPs, I quickly remove it without question (and with glee). This is an area where I do not compromise, but remove on sight. I received numerous highly emotional email messages and Facebook messages from the editor mentioned in my response to WereSpielChequers's question above. When I encounter individuals who are angry and upset, I choose to temper my language. "A soft (or gentle) answer turns away wrath." I use this technique in my personal and professional life, as well on Wikipedia. The phrase "can be removed" was the reiteration of how I communicated with the individual that wanted reliably sourced content removed from her article. I explained to her how and why we remove contentious material, along with an overview of what is considered a reliable source. On another note, I also have a problem with "criticism" sections in articles and agree with Jimbo's statement, "In many cases they are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Criticism sections, in my opinion, too often tend to be a repository for unsourced contentious material, gossip, and innuendo. When I come across a criticism section, I will immediately review and edit it to remove unsourced contentious material, often eliminating the section altogether by incorporating appropriate content into the body of the article. Again, thanks for the feedback. If you need further clarification, please feel free to ask. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk ) 08:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case you might emend your prior answer? Collect (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made a quick amendment to my response to Q4 above, while also letting people know that I have commented further here. I certainly welcome your participation in this discussion regarding my viability to serve as an administrator. If you would like me to expand further or have additional questions, please feel free to let me know. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, I cannot support this candidate on the basis of what I have seen. I appreciate that Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2 was nearly two years ago, but Cindymuse's response to MathewTownsend is not what I want to see from any editor, and it is inappropriate from someone who seeks adminship.  I am happy to take Cindy at her word that since that time she has reconsidered her approach to copyvios, but my main concern is not with the substantive problems.  There are so many policies and guidelines that we all learn about various aspects of them as we go, and no editor can ever be fully conversant with them all.
 * The diff you present, dated 14:31, 14 March 2012, was Cindamuse's response to MathewTownsend (User:Mattisse) commenting at the GA2 review of Owsley. While Mattisse's comments seem innocuous when taken in isolation, and Cindamuse's words look like an over reaction, please note the situation was a lot more complex than that. I can see why Cindamuse felt overwhelmed and did not respond diplomatically to Mattisse's appearance at the second GA review, which had already been closed as a fail. I am not sure how I would have reacted; not well, I expect. Remember the standard for our administrators is WP:NOTPERFECT. My own Mattisse GA three-week-long horrorshow is at Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2; I nearly left the wiki it was so stressful.  -- Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree with Diannaa's views on the point of how Mattisse could drive one to desperation. But I would feel much better about Cindamuse's candidancy (reviewing all that has been covered and discussed since I opposed), if she were to go back and be absolutely certain to clean up her BLPs and check for any remaining paraphrasing issues. The deal for me is not the reaction to Mattisse, but that between the Education Program issues, the BLP issues, and the paraphrasing issues-- and considering how much those issues added to the workload of other editors-- our "janitors" should be diminishing our workload and cleaning up after themselves, rather than giving us more cleanup needs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with SandyGeorgia on the BLP and copyright matters, and was tempted to change my !vote as I found the copyright issues particularly alarming. But I did spot checks yesterday on two recent articles (Alfred A. Cave and Kris Lane) and found no copy vio or close paraphrasing, and her comments elsewhere on this page lead me to believe she now has a good understanding of copyright law, much better than she did two years ago. The nominee should check for and clear up any remaining copyright concerns and BLP sourcing concerns if there's still violations present in articles she has edited. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I had not realised that the editor she was dealing with was a sock of such a difficult editor; I appreciate that such ppl can cause tempers to fray.  So I have struck my vote. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I also noticed the blue links on her CSD log which I don't think are as harmless as Pedro suggests. For example, this example he mentions was in no way or shape eligible for A7 with clear claims of importance. It's nice that she added maintenance tags but that doesn't mean the tagging was correct. The same goes for this tagging which had a reliable source covering it and thus was ineligible for A7. In this case she tagged an album as A9 despite the fact that A9 requires that "the artist does not have an article" (both mentioned artists had articles). Add to that the concerns raised in the oppose-section and I can't support giving someone the ability to delete articles who makes such beginner mistakes tagging them. Regards  So Why  19:07, 16 January 2014 (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.