Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mangojuice

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC).

---

Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

---

Allegations: This overzealous administrator has inappropriately used his privileges in editorial conflicts to win "edit wars" against an entire population of Wikipedians who, on the talk page, widely agree with said edits, most notably on the Shock Site entry. The user has blocked articles from being edited indiscriminately and inappropriately. There are many comments from other users relating to such situations on their talk page. Aftli 05:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice has a personal bias against this page as noted in his vote to have it deleted in October 2006. Specifically see talk entries relating to Meatspin.com in the Talk page of Shock site where evidence was supplied and ignored.

Talk:Shock_site#Meatspin and Talk:Shock_site#Meatspin.com

Mangojuice claims he "did the right thing" by asking another administrator to protect the page. The fact is, that page is vandalized all the time, and the users/viewers do a great job reverting the vandalism on their own. Opportunity arised for Mangojuice when he saw a single act of vandalism, and he leveraged the situation in order to have the page protected; his sole interest being to win his "edit war" and not to protect the article. So, in fact he did not "do the right thing" - he only created a situation where he could place blame on somebody else. This administrator has "ruled" this article with an "iron fist" for long enough - it's time to let the real users and contributors take control of the page and again start making constructive edits - not destructive edits as Mangojuice has been making in his ongoing edit war. Aftli 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice claims he is "happy for more community input", and that "in fact, [he] really wish[es] more people would come around and help out". This administrator cares nothing about community input, as clearly evidenced by the overwhelming support against his decisions to revert constructive edits on the page. Not to mention the fact that I have offered to completely rewrite the page, to un-do all of the damage done recently, and the page remains blocked from editing for me. Aftli 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the the semi protected status to prevent damage from unregistered or new users. Consider evidence posted in the talk forum regarding inclusion of specific sites. Appoint a new Wikipedia administrator to oversee this page who has neutral point of view on the subject.

(sign with ~~~~)

1. 167.206.107.110 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. ViperSnake151 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Aftli 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Ciper 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   
2. Vala M 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. ak301 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Optrirominiluikus 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Bigtrick 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sheepeh (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I have not used my administrative powers inappropriately: I did not block anyone, and I got the page protected because of a lot of vandalism and IP editors trying to edit war sites onto the page without discussing, but I took that to WP:RFP and didn't make the move myself. The above users are upset because I have a "bias" towards Wikipedia including only verifiable information based on reliable sources, as is the well-recognized policy around here. Aftli just showed up as a user today but apparently made some edits previously as an IP editor to Shock site.

The dispute basically surrounds the fact that Shock site contains this poorly-conceived but apparently badly wanted list of examples. Over time, the list became merged with Shock site (it used to be at List of shock sites), and was cut down to include only items that are notable and that have some kind of at least vaguely reliable source backing up their inclusion. Most sites out there have no sources. Even the first, probably most prominent example of a shock site, Goatse.cx, has as its best source an article on a possibly related phenomenon from Snopes.com: see [1]. At least that is some measure of Goatse.cx being noticed.

About a year ago, when the list was being cut down, a lot of research was done to find references of any, even vaguely reliable sort for the sites in the list, after we had cut out ones that barely even get google hits or Alexa rank. For most sites, including Hai2u and Meatspin, I did a lot of research myself trying to find any reliable sources. Nothing has been found that can qualify as a reliable source for Meatspin, and the best thing I found for Hai2u was from the forum rules of an underpopulated Anime forum, mentioning that shock sites such as (short list including Hai2u) should not be linked, and people could be banned for this. These sites do get lots of hits from forums, blogs, and so on, and they have entries on Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica, but these have been rejected many many times by the community as reliable sources. Probably the best source is a list of shock sites the owner of a shock site put up after discussion at Talk:Shock site: he appeared to actually understand how Wikipedia works, and he put up his own list of shock sites on his own shock site webpage. Still, not independent, and as the individual opinion of one person, not reliable.

Normally, I wouldn't be aggressive about removing unsourced information on any article, but in this case, after so much research was done that came up empty on such a wide variety of material, I have been. I just don't think it's acceptable for that work to go to waste by giving up and allowing unverifiable material back in. See Talk:List of shock sites for the early history of the efforts to reduce the list; see Talk:Shock site/Archive 1 for the later history. Unlike the current talk page, there is a lot of attention from established users who actually care about Wikipedia policy.

If anything, I may be guilty here of trying to fight the fight all by myself. A quick look through the history of Shock site will point out the extreme level of IP contributions it gets. Other users do step in from time to time and revert vandalism (lots of vandalism on the page), but very very few established users get involved in discussions on the talk page. So, it looks to people like the users certifying this dispute like I'm autocratically controlling the article. To answer that: I don't really even want to, I just know there's a lot of constant cleaning up needed on the page, and I would appreciate the help, and have even asked for it. I'm happy for more community input. In fact, I really wish more people would come around and help out.

Note: There is now an RFC about the article issue at Talk:Shock site#Article RFC. People may wish to comment there as well. Mangojuice^talk 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mangojuice^talk 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blueaster 04:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tony Sidaway 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Declares his biases and requests a third party administrator to perform any administrative actions where he's an involved party. Exemplary.[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

The Shocksite page has been inundated with vandalism from new users and IP's. The page has also had many unsourced statements added, again, from new users and IP's. Mangojuice requested semi protection at WP:RFPP for the page to stop these edits and did not use his administrator tools inapproriately.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}
2. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dekimasuよ! 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. RalphLender^talk 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. --BirgitteSB 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Indeed. This RFC is based on a few misconceptions. >Radiant< 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice didn't protect the page, Royalguard11 did. Mangojuice did the right thing by asking for an outside adminstrator to review. This RFC should be mooted and Mangojuice commended for his actions but reminded to WP:IAR when appropriate.

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. DPeterson^talk 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorsed, except for the bit about WP:IAR - use of admin tools in a situation where you are currently involved, except for critical emergencies, is not a rule that should be ignored BigDT 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. RalphLender^talk 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Haemo 06:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse with same reservation as BigDT. WjBscribe 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. except the IAR part. Derex 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin discussing the issue, please note that I am a friend of the requester, and helped him with this RfC. My total involvement in filing this request can be found in the history. I will disclose the facts as I see them, however biased that may be. We are all biased in one form or another.

As far as I can tell, User:Aftli and many other contributors, some without usernames, have been adding information on a few shock sites, including such shock sites as "hai2u", "meatspin", "buster.tk", "fuck.org", and "deadbabies.com" (I'm sure google can provide links). I agree that many of these are un-notable, and probably shouldn't be included in this article. However, "hai2u" and "meatspin" are quite popular websites.

• "meatspin.com" has "about 2,110 results" on google.
• "meatspin" has "about 52,400 results" on google.
• Meatspin.com has an alexa rank of 44,810 and increasing.

• "hai2u.com" has "about 6,830 results" on google
• Hai2u.com has an alexa rank of 343,514 and decreasing.

Of course such statistics are not the only factor of notability. However, there is no real news source that covers such anomalies; And most turn to wikipedia for such information (as noted by Talk:Shock site). It is unfortunate that such notable topics are not covered by wikipedia because they are too "new" to be considered encyclopedic. Of course, there's an UNIX article, and a GNU article; But both of those have very few mentions in major news sources.

User:Mangojuice has been reverting such additions of content to the article as "vandalism". He had requested that this page be protected, presumably to avoid a 3RR violation (is that daily or weekly? I forget). Regardless, his actions were not necessarily unbecoming of an admin; However, I do believe that wikipedia policy with regards to internet phenomena need a reform.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jmax- 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aftli 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. ak301 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement for this RFC says "... used his privileges in editorial conflicts [plural] to win "edit wars" [plural] ... user has blocked articles [plural] from being edited ... ." All that has been presented was a single example where Mangojuice did not, in fact, use his admin tools. Royalguard11 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regularly deals with page protection issues [2] and in his judgment, the article warranted protection. There is no allegation that Mangojuice actually did anything and thus no reason for this RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. BigDT 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. RalphLender^talk 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blueaster 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. bibliomaniac15 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Haemo 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. WjBscribe 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Orderinchaos78 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. --BirgitteSB 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. no sysop misconduct alleged. Derex 11:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. -Mschel 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that some of you have been quick to comment on only a portion of the issue at hand. The abuse noted above is not only related to protected status that was requested. I understand it is a lot to read but the talk page for the original article (and the archive) contains significant data to support inclusion of sites that MangoJuice regularly removes from the listing. Most notably see the three sections related to MeatSpin. A shock site is a form of Internet phenomenon which spread primarily through sites with end user created data such as forums and blogs. The old saying "throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind when I look at the edit history of Shock site. I agree that the purpose of the page should not be to create a list of every page that exists but if edits were allowed to remain for a time then credible reasons for its inclusion could be gathered. So far the discussion page has been a repository of this information. If one of us was to gather and sort the relevant information for inclusion of a certain site would that satisfy the requirements?

Edit: It has been stated so far that blogs and forums cannot be cited as reliable sources. This makes it extremely difficult to site sources for the sites which qualify as the most popular. I took a few minutes to gather some information that I would like all of you to consider. Each on its own may not be enough to warrant listing but the sum of the parts should be enough

First I'd like to point out that the two requests for deletion have resulted in the wikipedia community agreeing to keep the page which at the time consisted of a large list of sites.

The Ebay auction for the Meatspin.com domain name ends on 02-06-2006 with a final bid of $2100 http://cgi.ebay.com/The-meatspin-com-domain-name_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ11153QQitemZ5860825100QQrdZ1

1337spin.com was created to pay homage to the popular Meatspin.com site. The 1337spin domain is written in leet speak and rhymes with meatspin.

WhoLinksToMe statistics as of 03-01-2006 shows 19344 links to meatpsin.com from the top three search engines http://www.wholinks2me.com/links/www.meatspin.com

Politicalcortex article from 2006 which mentions the user forums on Meatspin.com http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/17/13748/788

The urban dictionary entry with aproximately 600 independant votes for the site. (a significant number compared to most entries) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meatspin

Thank you Ciper 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

You have no dispute with Mangojuice. The fact that you disagree over article content doesn't mean that he has done anything wrong. This is not the appropriate forum for making the case for inclusion of the site(s) in question. If you would like to open an RFC about the article content, see WP:RFC#Request comment on articles for instructions. --BigDT 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bingo. I actually asked Aftli whether his problem was me or the state of the article. It seemed to me that these users were just not going to believe I was merely enforcing basic WP policy unless the community was here to back up my behavior. Mangojuice^talk 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Haemo 06:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Somehow I missed this on my first reading and duplicated these sentiments below--BirgitteSB 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may still spend the time to write a proper response to what has been said so far but I think this link sums it up nicely http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters/

Ciper 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have endorsed others who have said all I would have to say about Mangojuice's actions.

In response to Cipers latter additions: You do not really have a dispute over Mangojuices actions as and admin. You do have a content dispute. An article RfC would a much more appropriate step in resolving this dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --BirgitteSB 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks very much like a case of an involved and interested editor failing to understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not, and then whining when they can't get their way. Some might compare this behaviour to public spectacle, as seen on some popular TV programmes, but I won't stoop so low (oh, wait a minute ...). No foul, play on. Chris cheese whine 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.