Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mangojuice


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

Mangojuice
Final  (66/0/4) ended 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

– Mangojuice is perhaps one of the best personifications of what a sysop on Wikipedia should be. In my experiences with the user, I have found him/her to possess an almost encyclopedic knowledge of guidelines and policy relating to Wikipedia and, more importantly, how they should be used and enforced. (S)He is a top-notch vandal-whacker and a defender of the integrity of Wikipedia. On the other hand, (S)he is also always civil in his dealings with other users and is brimming with assumptions of good faith. If you look through his/her edits and his/her talk page, you will find dozens of messages from users thanking him/her for kindly pointing out issues with their edits. When confronted with a hostile or semi-hostile user,(s)he calmly defuses the situation and builds the sort of bridges that turn potential trolls into potential admins (note:I stole that from somewhere, thought I should mention that). Giving this editor the mop will help contribute to the goal of producing a top-notch encyclopedia for everyone.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Mango juice talk 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Seen user's work, no doubts for me. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support this user will definitely not abuse the admin tools and meets all my standards for adminship. (S)he made one mistake, which CrzRussian pointed out, but that is not a reason to oppose for adminship, especially now that Mangojuice apologized. — Mets 501  (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good number of edits, and as I always support those who commit to the vandal fight, I give you my support, good luck with the nomination. Abcdefghijklm 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Have found editor to be helpful and assertive.  GChriss 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support with cliche, "I thought this editor was an admin". Well articulated answers, clearly states philosophy on user and talk page, does great work, well qualified. Agent 86 20:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good editor Jaranda wat's sup 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I like what I see. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per nom. Roy A.A. 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I believe the incident involving db-corp was a learning experience, and the lesson was learned. It's necessary for one to make mistakes so that they are exposed and solved, if not, both the user and the project will be harmed. Yanksox (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I liked his approach to the academics notability guideline. I have no concerns about giving this user admin powers. -- Avenue 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. DarthVad e r 00:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) I support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. -lethe talk [ +] 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support While I do not condone circumvention of policies and guidelines, I am not so shocked by this occurrence as to vote oppose, nor do I see it as an indication of the nominee's character. I've come across him many-a-time, and from those experiences and his answers to the questions I see a level head and good knowledge of policy. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. - I'm familiar with MJ almost entirely through his work in the crypto corner. I've found him to be an excellent WP'ian and expect he would be well-suited to adminship. I've had a couple of disagreements with him, but nothing that can even be remotely characterized as a conflict. His work on getting Cryptography through the featured article process has been excellent. Knowledgeable, and steady. ww 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support --WinHunter (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. He deserves the mop. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - excellent debugging with a template parameter [#Template:ifdef =] issue. --&#160;Omniplex 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support  Jo  e  I  14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - excellent candidate with firm experience and a willingness to do the work of an admin --Vengeful Cynic 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support, generally. bd2412  T 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Will be a good admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, The one negative comment below appears to be a simple indiscretion on Mangojuice's part and I don't think it is indicitive of any attempt to circumvent process.--Isotope23 20:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) M e rovingian { T C @ } 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - MangoJuice is a wonderful editor, and a helpful user. He would certainly be a great admin. andrew... 04:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 07:52Z 
 * 33) Support. Mangojuice handled themselves very well in the VaughanWatch/Eyeonvaughan et al debacle, and I've not seen anything that presuades me that they would not be a good admin. Thryduulf 10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support per the standing exception to my admin rules, i.e. that if I have mistaken someone for an admin at least once, I generally support them. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. I also agree that Mangojuice handled themselves well during VW/EoV, both here and over email.  Other interactions with Mangojuice show a commitment to the project and a mature outlook. Syrthiss 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support ON WHEELS - Constructive criticism towards my RFA, seems helpful to editors. --Sunholm(talk)  17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per nominator. Polonium 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support as per the nominator. RFerreira 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support RN 23:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Ixfd64 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support -Blnguyen | rant-line 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support per nominator, constructive contributor. Yamaguchi先生 07:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support -- Jay  (Reply)  16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. My interaction with MJ was positive when he deprodded an article that I had prodded. My review of his history is positive, and I like the answers to the questions. Cheers, Lbbzman 17:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support good editor, will be good as an admin &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Meets my criteria for support. --Wisd e n17 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support per nominator. *~Daniel~* 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support, gread editor, meets my criteria--TBC TaLk?!? 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support — The King of Kings  02:41 July 01 '06
 * 50) Support per the "no big deal" clause, because Mangojuice seems like a decent and reasonable editor, and because what you don't know when you are given the mop, you learn soon enough. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support No problems or general weirdness detected, grab that mop!! TruthCrusader 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support - I see no problems with this user. Iola k ana |T  23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support Looks like the tools wouldn't be abused... --08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Changed to support so as not to poop party. Great editor, one mistake, community doesn't give a flick, JzG thinks it's no big deal, why not? - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Unfortunate but Firm Oppose . I think Mangojuice is a terrific editor, and has many quantities that would serve s/him well as a sysop. I have known the user a long time, and can attest to s/his dedication, especially to the prod patrolling project. S/His deproddings, though more frequent than I would have preferred them to be, have always been well-reasoned and often correct. I had even offered to co-nominate s/him in the past. HOWEVER, one incident absolutely compels me to oppose this RfA. On May 30th, less than a month ago, I was reviewing CAT:CSD, when I encountered a template that Mango created, Template:db-corp, which redirected to db-bio. This was an awful misreading of policy and widespread community consensus that articles on companies are absolutely not speedyable under WP:CSD A7. As a result, I cannot support at this time. However, should this RfA fail, I will be more than happy to support in three months, if Mango demonstrates improvement in s/his knowledge of policy. My apologies to the nominee. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, I haven't studied the policies I can't apply myself as much as the ones I can. I know notability guidelines and WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT much better, for instance, because I as an average user have to work with those policies.  It's been my impression that you feel that creating db-corp was akin to creating a new criteria for speedy deletion: I don't think that's true, and that wasn't the intention.  My intention was to create a template to help people espouse a reason for speedy deletion; I had seen at least a handful of articles tagged as speedy candidates for this kind of reason, often with db-group, so I created db-corp to point to db-group (and then, probably, noticed the double-redirect and made it point to db-bio).  As soon as Crz brought this to my attention, I agreed to deletion of the template, and if I'd been aware of this specific discussion beforehand, I wouldn't have done this.  Mango juice talk 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Thought I already did. Werdna (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I've come across Mango frequently in the crypto corner, and he's impressed me as one willing to entertain alternative views. My major qualm is an unfortunate lack of admiration and respect for my own glorious prose, but I suppose few would regard this as a drawback. Unlikely, as nearly as I can foresee, to abuse vast adminly powers (are there any? I've never heard myself!), and his committment to the WP enterprise seems firm (save fot the aforementioned lack of respect). A good choice, I think, and it's well he's lunat... enthuiastic enough to be interested. With this much support, I suggest our bureaucrats will have an easy job this time. ww 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC) This is the result of temporary neural defect, but I'm glad to see my opinion was the same in both, independent, instances. Oops. ww 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Removing the number from the tally, because ww voted already; see #17) Mango juice talk 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support; excellent editor, level headed and calm; good answer to AOL question no. 5 below; likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus  (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Meets my criteria, excellent contributor, and is quite level-headed. BryanG(talk) 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, over all shows positive commitment to the project (wikipedia) and most likly make a greater positive contrabution as a admin.-- blue 520  08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. David | Talk 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems skilled at having a calm, polite dispute, per answer to question #3 and Talk:Shock site. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Mango-a-go-go support! Ideal adminship material.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, one more can not hurt can it? Sorry Guy 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Looks a like a win for Wikipedia... if they become an admin. Nephron  T|C 05:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. His great job at getting Cryptography motivated me to look closely at his edits, and he is likely to be a good admin. Schutz 09:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: yes. --Bhadani 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Good editor, but I like a little more experience in my administrators. Maybe in a few months I will reconsider, but as for now, not yet. -- Will Mak  050389  19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't mean experience in time, do you? Because he's been around since January 05, not 06. — Mets 501  (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * less than 4000 edits since Jan. '05. Mangojuice needs more time to devote to Wikipedia if an adminship is in order. -- Will Mak  050389  19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral failed to respond to my query left on his/her talk page.-- Andeh 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mangojuice has since responded to the message including an apology.-- Andeh 23:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral (I'm editing without logging in so I can't vote even if I wanted). FWIW there's evidence of occasional misjudgment, based on my one and only experience with this editor.  Earlier in June, Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album) was marked WP:PROD, citing WP:HOAX - No such album (not in Elvis Presley discography, image is from a 1960 single release)
 * Mango deprodded it, with the comment "it's for sale", leaving the inappropriate image in place and not bothering to do anything else, such as update the Elvis Presley discography article or figure out why the cover of a single release was used to illustrate an article about an album. It was left for someone else (me, as it happens), to figure out what was really wrong with the article, and I did so without any background in the subject matter.  Mango is a self-described "proposed deletion patroller" &mdash; I would expect such an editor to pay particular attention to the reasons cited in a PROD, and to investigate any inconsistencies.  Since Mango didn't pay attention to the specific reasons cited for the original proposed deletion, I'm concerned that Mango may in the future carelessly overlook some detail that would lead to the misuse of admin privileges.   02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Neutral you don't pass nor fail my criteria. Anonymous_  _Anonymous  09:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I dont care if he becomes an editor or not, I just care that if he does become an admin he should be careful not to be as mean as some of the others. Kitia 23:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.-Good Luck!!
 * So that's a neutral vote because of your past experience with other admins!?-- Andeh 13:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

All user's edits. Voice -of- All  21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Mangojuice (over the 3979 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 488 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 28, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 27, January, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 50.23% Minor edits: 92.37% Average edits per day: 15.46 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 318 edits) : Major article edits: 98.87% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 3979 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.53% (21) Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 5.53% (220) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 17.64% (702) Minor article edits marked as minor: 55.67% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2362 | Average edits per page: 1.68 | Edits on top: 15.93% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 26.41% (1051 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 14.93% (594 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.54% (658 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 39.38% (1567 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 39.48% (1571) | Article talk: 6.48% (258) User: 2.64% (105) | User talk: 22.9% (911) Wikipedia: 19.88% (791) | Wikipedia talk: 3.22% (128) Image: 0.38% (15) Template: 4.02% (160) Category: 0.48% (19) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0.03% (1) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.5% (20)
 * See Mangojuice's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username Mangojuice Total edits 3921 Distinct pages edited 2444 Average edits/page 1.604 First edit 16:54, 27 January 2005 - (main) 1548 Talk 255 User 103 User talk 894 Image 15 Image talk 5 Template 160 Template talk 14 Help 1 Category 19 Category talk 1 Wikipedia 777 Wikipedia talk 128 Portal talk 1
 * Edit count.
 * ITIS User Statistics. Icey 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: My interests shift over time, so I anticipate getting involved in all the chore areas. In particular, I'm interested in helping out with speedy deletion and closing AfD debates.  I often look over articles proposed for deletion, so I could help there as well.  I also would like to help out with the copyright violation backlog, and page protection and unprotection.  I also would benefit from the rollback tool; I have VandalProof access, but (1) I sometimes edit from an incompatible OS, and (2) I fight vandalism but I usually don't sit down and look for it specifically, so having the tools integrated with my web browser better would be useful.  However, what I want to get involved with most is blocking and unblocking of users.  I will deal with such users with patience and kindness, which may or may not get them to be good Wikipedians, but is least likely to turn them into insufferable antagonizers of the project.  Mango juice talk 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm working right now on getting Cryptography to featured status, so I'm pleased with that; it seems to be going well. I've written a few starter articles on other subjects in cryptography as well, such as Plaintext-aware encryption, and made full articles out of stubs such as Oblivious transfer.   I made a big rewrite to Contract bridge (quite a while ago now) that I was proud of.  I'm happy about my work on Notability (academics) as well; I found it very frustrating how unevenly articles on academics were often treated, and I think those guidelines will help.  I'm proud of starting WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling: the efforts in coordinating between patrollers hasn't worked out as well as I would like, but I think it's been good as an initiative, especially in helping educate people about the PROD policy.  Mango juice talk 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Cryptography is now a featured article. It doesn't make any difference now to my RFA, but I'm excited about it, so I wanted to say so. :)  Mango juice talk 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Several times, in some cases on purpose (that is, I have found some conflicts and deliberately gotten involved).  I have found that most conflicts arise as a failure of communication between the parties involved.  When I'm involved in such a conflict, my approach is pretty simple: (1) make sure there is a discussion going on.  (2) try to steer the discussion so that it remains focussed on the idea that what we're doing here is writing for an encyclopedia.  (3)  focus on the relevant policies, and talk about the writing of the article.  In general, I try to respect everyone I interact with in a conflict, but make it clear to them that the policies of Wikipedia are more important than our conflict, and once I get that recognition things usually work out.  I would say certain users have caused me stress, mainly when they weren't interested in discussion, because it's very hard to get someone to discuss when they don't seem interested.  As a particular example, I have done a lot of work on the Shock site article.  This isn't in the greatest shape, but we used to have edit wars, spam, trolling, lots of uncited stuff, and there were many deletion debates about the List of shock sites article, partly as a result of editors ignoring WP policy and edit warring with those who didn't.  I got involved deliberately when I realized what was going on, and I think the change has been positive (although the article still isn't great).  Mango juice talk 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz 1. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he returen before you start to do longer blocks?
 * If it's a username, I'd follow standard practice there, but I'm assuming you're asking about an anon AOL vandal. I'd start with a 4-hour block, I think, because of the ip-jumping AOL accounts do.  I don't know about longer blocks: is there a point?  If vandalism gets particularly bad in a short period, I'd be in favor of a temporary rangeblock, but obviously I wouldn't just do that on my own, I'd discuss with other admins.  Mango juice talk 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

2. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
 * Not during the whole block, no. I'm not on Wikipedia ALL the time. :)  But if I ever did a rangeblock of AOL or anywhere else, I'd make sure it was well-publicized among the admins, so anyone could respond to queries.  If I knew I would be unavailable for a long period, I'd ask another admin to do the actual block.  Mango juice talk 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
 * I probably will. I feel that autoblocking for users blocked for inappropriate usernames is of dubious value in general.  I support it for obviously disruptive usernames, but otherwise, I think any collateral damage is worth considering as a reason to remove the autoblocking.  Mango juice talk 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
 * I'm empathetic. I actually have been blocked b/c of a range block, and it was sort of annoying, but admins were gracious and responsive.  However, I think in some instances, collateral damage is a price worth paying.  Mango juice talk 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

5. You are a soldier in Iraq, and you are under attack from heavy arms fire. Your attackers are in the vacinity of several innocent civilians. Is it better to shoot your attackers even though you may kill some innocent civilians, or should you refrain from shooting?
 * This really doesn't have any relevance to what I'd be like as an admin. I think I've explained my stance on collateral damage well enough in your other questions.  But equating blocking an innocent user and killing an innocent person is just way too much for me, so I'll bow out of this one.  Mango juice talk 21:45, 27 June 2006 (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.