Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Derek.cashman


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

Derek.cashman
(5/11/5); Scheduled to end 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW by ··coe l acan 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

- Derek Cashman has been editing since July 2005 and has racked up a highly-impressive set of accomplishments. As a biophysicist with publications on anthracyclines, Derek is one of our expert editors and a core part of the WikiProject Pharmacology. He also reviews Good Articles and has experience of dealing with contentious topics such as Anne Coulter and Criticism of Wal-Mart. A mature, highly-experienced user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Tim Vickers 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Tim for the nomination! I graciously and humbly accept. Dr. Cash 07:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I see myself continuing to be actively involved in the wikiprojects that I am involved in, and through the pages that I watch there will be able to be involved in reverting vandalism. I also plan to watch WP:ANI and WP:AIV, and help to deal with any incidents as they come up. In the past, I have also patrolled Special:Newpages from time to time, and have participated in several WP:AfDs, as well as WP:SPEEDY. As a matter of fact, I'll probably be watching the new pages a bit more closely with the recent decision to open up page creation to anonymous users again (although I see now that this may or may not happen; nonetheless, I'm sure my skills can be used in this area).


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are associated with three main WikiProjects; WikiProject Good Articles, WikiProject Pharmacology, and WikiProject Cities. I have been involved with the GA project pretty actively since last spring/early summer (and somewhat less actively before that). I participated in the summer GA review drive, and the sweeps program after that, and in September I received several GA Medals of Merit for the having the highest number of both quality and quantity of GA Reviews. I try to focus my review comments on building complete reviews aimed at actually improving the article, and try to put a good deal of thought into each review, instead of simply, "This article is good. I pass it." I think this approach is the best way to improve our encyclopedia, and especially builds rapport and trust with some of the newer editors interested in improving articles, and provides for their education into how to work best with the GA criteria and our manual of style. Also, I have recently launched a new WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter at the beginning of this month, aimed at increasing communication among all reviewers and trying to both decrease the WP:GAN backlog and increase the quality of reviews.


 * I am primarily interested in the Pharmacology wikiproject as a professional researcher in Pharmaceutical Sciences. I'll admit, it's somewhat disappointing over the relative lack of quality in drug articles on wikipedia; I think there's a very strong focus on editing articles on some of the illegal drugs, and less interest in editing articles of actual medical importance. But hopefully we can change this. I recently was pretty actively involved in the WP:FAC for Buproprion in August, and also started a Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month, aimed at improving pharmacology articles. I reorganized and refreshed much of the informational content on the main WP:PHARM page, and try to keep it updated. I also try to review articles on this topic at WP:GAN and WP:FAC as they are requested.


 * I was probably first involved in Wikipedia through WP:CITIES, and continue to be involved there, although have reduced my focus to primarily cities that I have actually lived in, and GA reviewing. I was involved back in 2005 in bringing Louisville, Kentucky to featured status, and bringing Flagstaff, Arizona and Richmond, Virginia up to GA status. I also contributed heavily to organizing the guideline/template for US cities, and worked with Susanlesch to develop this template, which ultimately helped Minneapolis, Minnesota to get to FA status.


 * 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: Of course I've been involved in conflicts over editing in the past! Anyone that says they haven't is probably lying! I think the best way to deal with conflicts is to handle them in a calm and rational manner. While I do tend to be bold in editing, and have no problem reverting an edit that I feel is clearly wrong, it's very important to keep WP:3RR in mind, and if you're approaching that third revert, perhaps the best solution is to take it to the talk page instead, and try to find some sort of middle ground there.
 * I think one of the best examples of how I have dealt with conflicts is with the Wal-Mart and Criticism of Wal-Mart articles. As many of you are probably aware, this area was the subject of a major edit war probably around two years ago or so, with many editors (including Wal-Mart employees themselves) either writing seriously POV statements, or whitewashing (removing them entirely). My approach to dealing with these articles was first to wait for a lot of the heat to die down. Once that died down a little bit, I was able to gradually (and I mean slowly) go through the article and rephrase information. I have to say, WP:CITE is your friend here, as a lot of the information can be fixed and made more neutral by simply reading the various citations, formatting them properly, and searching for and adding additional citations as needed. Unsourced material would either be marked with a tag, or removed (but actually copied to the talk page where I would explain my rationale for its removal). I also find that a lot of POV comments can be resolved quite easily by simply reading any citations that are attached to them, and searching google for better, more reliable sources, and then making a better edit comment or talk page comment to specifically describe what you're doing instead of merely reverting. Also, at one time there were 4 or 5 articles dealing with various criticisms of the company, and these were gradually merged into Criticism of Wal-Mart to eliminate the content forking issues. It also helped to bring both articles through the WP:GAN and WP:FAC processes, as I was able to leverage a lot of changes based on the comments provided by other reviewers against some of the more POV-biased editors. Both Wal-Mart and Criticism of Wal-Mart now stand at GA status, and Wal-Mart is a current WP:FAC.
 * In the future, I see myself handling conflicts in much the same way as I handle reviews of articles. For example, I think a lot of conflicts occur because material is added by less-experienced editors who are unfamiliar with the formatting, manual of style, neutrality, verifiability, and other guidelines and policies of wikipedia. Most of these can be resolved by educating users in the proper format and technique, and help them to find the proper reliable sources for material that they want added.

Clarifications on issues raised
I wanted to take some space here to clarify my standing and my actions on the issues raised by some editors.


 * First, regarding the ElinorD incident, this was really a misunderstanding on my apart. What I initially observed was that a quite obvious fair-use image [[Image:Apo-crest.jpg]], which was later re-added by another editor with the appropriate fair-use tag, was deleted rather abruptly in an article that I watched, without any type of notice being posted to myself or any of the other users that watch the article. In fact, I found out that what really happened here was that notice actually was posted prior to deletion, on the talk page of the user that posted the image. Unfortunately, the user was no longer active on wikipedia, so that notice was ignored. Personally, if I was the admin in this case performing the deletions, I would have also left a message on the talk page of the article as well as the talk page of the user, so as to inform a wider audience, and if that was done in this case, the entire incident would not have happened. In retrospect, though, calling for ElinorD's desysopping was going a bit far, and I apologize about that. Though, while my initial response on her talk page was quite bold, I don't think it was particularly uncivil. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, regarding the NeutralHomer/CapitalR incident raised by Fvasconcellos, I can't really offer much of an excuse for these actions. Although I think it is definitely a very isolated incident and not characteristic of the vast majority of work I've done on Wikipedia. While I did sort of explode over what, in retrospect, it was a very minor issue that really didn't matter. But it should be pointed out that I also did fairly quickly realize my mistake and back off, and to my knowledge, it didn't result in any WP:3RR violations, nor was I blocked for a 3RR violation or vandalism. I think the main reason I was a bit upset about that situation was that I was being treated somewhat poorly to begin with -- they posted a generic "welcome to wikipedia" when it was clear I wasn't a newbie, and continually referred to me as a "vandal" (though I admit, I did refer to them as "vandals" as well). This was just a bad situation, and I was stressed over other things that were happening in real life, and some really minor actions by one or two users just set me off, which I apologize about. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Derek Cashman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Derek.cashman:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Derek.cashman before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support, as nominator. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nearly beat the nominator support - I like your work at the good article stuff. R udget zŋ 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Guess I waited too long to propose an RfA nom...I've been impressed by Derek's well-rounded and valuable work here and believe he would be an asset to the project as an administrator. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support He looks good, and we could use an expert in this field with a mop. -- Bearian (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) After brief review of the issues raised by the opposer's I feel that they are not enough to sway me away from giving the mop to a good editor. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) For the following reasons: accusing ElinorD of going rogue when she had been deleting images, and then posted this thread to ANI, accusing her of abuse, losing community trust, and believing that she required desysopping when in fact all she had been doing was her job. -- Acalamari 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue was also discussed on the admin's talk page at User_talk:ElinorD. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was an error on my part, and quite a stupid one at that. Through this accusation, I did learn a lot about the image deletion process, and now understand what ElinorD was doing at the time. I cannot say that I am incapable of making mistakes; I am only human, after all. I offer my sincerest apologies to ElinorD over this incident. -- Dr. Cash (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Has there been a prior apology? Did you take responsibility for this error before today? Could you provide the diff? JodyBRoll, Tide, Roll 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Took away numerous good edits from the Fark article without any good explanation. -- Keepscases (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note The edits in question ('farkisms and cliches') that the user is referring to have since been deleted from the article by later consensus and other editors. -- Dr. Cash (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of the deleted neologisms is at Talk:Fark.com/Archive 3. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That section is indeed deleted now, but that's not the point. A look through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fark.com&offset=20070404030732&limit=500&action=history shows the numerous times the user wiped out perfectly good edits by other users, while keeping his own questionable contributions within that list.  "Naked Walmart Greeter Guy" is a Farkism, but "fb- is the father" isn't?  That's just insane, and you don't need to take my word for it, just head over to TotalFark and ask about those...or "TotaLPhark", or "Poop Thread", or anything else the user saw fit to delete. Keepscases (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only other thing that's even worth mentioning about this moot case is that my ultimate response to this was to just sprinkle a few tags on the farkisms that needed citations, and walk away. Particularly after various TotalFarkers started vandalising my talk page (see:       ). Dr. Cash (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose for accusing ElinorD of abuse while she was just doing her job. If you provide a diff for the apology, I will support.   Sasha  Call   21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the issues regarding ElinorD and your apparent inability to use a preview button per : . Sorry. Pedro : Chat  21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Asking for Elinor's desysopping because you didn't understand what she was doing? Deleting copyright images is one of the most important, but equally stressful jobs on Wikipedia. Most admins don't do it, most admins stay far away from it; and at best, you'll need to apologize to her. I also ask that you stay away from image copyright issues if you do gain adminship, as I am a little uncomfortable with your judgement and knowledge towards it. --DarkFalls  talk 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per DarkFalls, totally inappropriate. Alison below makes a good point that this is one event out of a lot of good editing, but it's too recent and too blatant for any other !vote from me. If this is unsuccessful, I look forward to supporting a future RfA if/when it's created, because the period between this one and the next one would be a good guide to see whether you have learnt from your mistake.  Daniel  00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose - per the ElinorD diffs above. A super editor with a clean record - I know this guy well from WP:PHARM where he does excellent work - but he obviously has problems understanding copyright issues and the image deletion process. Asking for Elinor's de-sysopping in too recent times shows a tendency to not assume good faith coupled with a tendency to overreact and I find that worrying. Sorry - Alis o n  ❤ 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose completely unrelated to the above; rationale here, reproduction of which I find unnecessary. My interactions with Dr. Cash have all been very positive, he does sterling work on WP:PHARM and WP:GA, but I don't think it's time for the mop just yet. Sorry :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Oppose; a single incident would normally not be enough for me to oppose a candidate, but that one is quite a biggie, and much too recent for me to trust you with the block button just yet. Asking for a desysop was a tremendous overreaction, and I don't see any attempt to figure out what was going on before you started shouting for her head.  You're a valuable editor, and I'm sure that in a couple of months we will have had the opportunity to see how you have learned to react with more deliberation.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Sorry, but is too recent. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I was prepared to await your response to my question above but in light of the comment by Fvasconcellos above I must conclude that there are some issues with your civility. I do not think this has to be a permanent state of affairs but could be corrected after while with no further issues. These two are just too "fresh" for me to overlook. In my judgment, civility is an essential characteristic for an administrator. JodyBRoll, Tide, Roll 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Sorry, but the concerns pointed out by Acalamari are disturbing, especially the civility incident. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. After seeing the ANI, I cannot support, but user is experienced and a good Wikipedian. Jack 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Jack. NHRHS2010  talk  20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, though the candidate appears to be a quality editor. Having an expert with the mop would indeed be of benefit to the project, as noted above. However, I'm reserving further opinion until I have time to research the candidate's body of work. I'm (mildly) concerned by the ANI case item, though, especially given that it was just two months ago. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per Jack--evrik (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Soft neutral - listen, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately the events described above are recent and relevant.  However we sometimes fail to accentuate the positive, Derek is a massively keen promoter of engineering decent articles here and despite the odd failing, I maybe missed the bit where he said he'd spend all his time getting troublesome over image deletion.  Requests of others for desysop is extreme.  And usually unnecessary.  So that's a shame.  So, I'm quite happy to remain on the edgy bit of the fence.  I know he'd make a good sysop but the community has an issue with him which is troubling.  So, long story->short, neutral.  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2007 (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.