`  asssiveego has posted his RfA and I have blocked him for it  Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masssiveego which seems like a clear attempt to draw fire from people bitter with his own antics on RfA, with a minimalist nomination and tongue-in-cheek answers to the questions. He seems to have induced a bite from Pschemp at least. This lasts for a week. I previously did this for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg   Sounds about right. Cyde Weys       Good call  Samir धर्म           I don't see any issues with this block. Pure WP:POINT. Can we close the RfA? (Or does it need to be a 'crat?) alphaChimp laudare   I was thinking of blocking him myself, so obviously I endorse the block. It's rather obvious that he's trolling for attention with all this RfA stuff... let's just not feed him and move on. W.marsh   RFA has been closed. Support block. – Chacor                   Hey should I close it then? It's already WP:SNOWballing with opposes and he is blocked after all. - Glen  - shit - 4 edit conflicts later its been done S                      Sheesh, if you use the shortcut at least shorten the verb to WP:SNOWing. I want snow! P – Chacor                           I added an extra day to the block for [33] and [34]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?   [edit]  Exhausting community patience?  Once again, it's time to bring this up. He's coming close to exhausting the community's patience, in my view. Thoughts? – Chacor       Not yet. I would not have blocked him at all for starting the RfA. In fact i think SNOWing this RfA was a bad idea. Rather I would have let it run the full 7 days. Having 100+ opposes might have finally gotten through to this editor that he needs to reconsider his approach. But with the RfA snowed, he's got ammo to say we aren't treating him right, etc. ++Lar: t/c           Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – Chacor               Is this user a flat out troll? Sure, close the book right away... Or, is he rescuable? if rescuable is it worth the effort? that's how I evaluate the question of whether community patience is exhausted. I don't think ME is a flat out troll. His contributions are light so not a LOT of effort is justified but I'm not convinced he is not rescuable. Contrast with Tobias, next thread. CLEARLY not a troll, has a big contribution record, therefore worth a fair bit of effort, but I'm starting to think... not rescuable. Make sense? ++Lar: t/c   Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg       Hard to say. I'm not too sussed either way but I did want to throw out that on balance, gratified or not, this is one time that SNOW isn't the right thing to do. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c           I think closing it was the right thing to do to avoid disruption. Blocking him... I don't know whether he's a good faith user or not, and I suspect probably not, but I'm generally upset by the level of blocking going on in Wikipedia at the moment. The Land       * I think the Masssiveego's RFA voting is a problem and unhelpful, but I think imposing blocks for it is a rather drastic measure. A much better ``penalty`` would be for the RFA closing bureaucrats to systematically disregard his votes. Regarding the RFA, I agree with Lar that I would not have blocked him for that either, and that a hundred ``oppose``s on what is in effect an editor peer review might convey the message far more clearly than a block ever will. Sjakkalle (Check!)      * I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. Haukur      * Users are allowed to use whatever criteria they like in RfAs. His are high and somewhat arbitrary, but that's his perogative. He feels that there are problems with some admins and thus that the process should be more strict/changed. He has a right to that opinion and should not be persecuted for it. Obviously his RFA self-nom wasn't meant to be a serious attempt, but I also don't see where it caused any significant disruption justifying a block. CBD           * It was obvious trolling. I think it's really not good as a community if we just let people do that. I really don't think I'd mind if someone opposed every RfA, at least I wouldn't want to block them for it, if I felt they were doing it in good faith. With his comments... it just seems like he's clammoring for attention most of the time. As a community we need to be aware of situations like that, and stop them. W.marsh          * (edit conflict) He hasn't been opposing RfAs on the basis that he thinks the candiates will be bad admins, he's been opposing them to annoy people. The whole ``Masssiveego is allowed to vote using his own critera`` is what has allowed him to continue trolling for so long.  Steel                o The above look like assumptions of bad faith. It seems clear to me that Massiveego votes the way he does because he legitimately believes there are problems with admins and the process for appointing them. He has repeatedly said that is the case. These claims that he is 'lying' seem wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the history IMO. CBD                      + It's bad to assume bad faith, but that absolutely does not mean that I can't conclude bad faith, and this is a situation where I'll do it. This defense of an obvious troll is kind of sad. Let's go work on writing the encyclopedia. W.marsh                      + I thought he was acting in good faith as well until this latest RfA. CBD have you read his statement and answers? Given how many of his edits are to the RfA pages he would know that suich an RfA would merit automatic opposes no matter who it was from and he himself has opposed before per people saying the answers to the questions are too short. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. JoshuaZ                            # Let's talk about AGF. Blnguyen blocked Massiveego, for a week, for posting that RFA. Blnguyen also told him to post that RFA. Can I really be the only person who has a problem with that? If it were such a terrible thing to do then the same people damning him here should not have been telling him to do it. CBD                      + Masssive has also shown here and here that he considers RfA a joke (I realise those RfA's are from a while ago, though).  Steel                      + I find this recent thing of many editors who should know better interpreting ``Assume good faith`` to mean ``turn off all of your critical facilities and never act against people who are acting in bad faith`` to be a somewhat disturbing trend. Nandesuka                            # Thanks for the needless insult. Personally, I find the inability of many admins to behave in a remotely civil fashion a ``somewhat disturbing trend``. CBD   [edit]  Reblocked  Okay, I reblocked him. If you look at his RfA (where someone tells people not to encourage him, then he replies flippantly ``Please vote, your opinion counts!`` this is just classic ``Pay attention to my trolling!`` stuff. Then after his comments on his talk page after the block... I mean come on, this guy is clearly playing us for attention and shows no sign of stopping, and the block was widely endorsed. Let's not keep feeding him. W.marsh       Seems like an improper block and wheel warring to me. The user has been saying that he was going to run for RFA (following suggestions that he do so) and preparing the form for about a week. Nothing surprising here. Nobody told him 'no do not do that'... nor should they have. Someone should not be banned from submitting an RfA just because they often vote against other users. CBD           No, but if the RfA is obvious trolling... it's not good that we sit around and give him so much attention, it's exactly what he wants. W.marsh               This is a good block. He's not being banned for ``submitting an RFA.`` He's being blocked for trolling. Nandesuka                   Semantic flim-flammery. If this was such a heinous thing then someone should have said so when he announced, repeatedly, that he was going to do it. Not waited until it happened and then blocked him for doing what others had encouraged him to do. CBD                       I think the people on WT:RFA and whatnot may have assumed his RfA was going to be a serious attempt at adminship, rather than the attempt to troll which it turned out to be.  Steel                   (after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking a