Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masssiveego (talk | contribs) at 08:25, 5 September 2006 (→reblocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Please insert comments here.

Orphan images with regards to RfAs

I don't believe a user having orphan images shows misunderstanding with image process. I for one don't check all the images I've uploaded to make sure they're used, and delete them if they're not. I do feel you're being overly harsh, here. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sp?

Hi, I don't know if it's deliberate, but your user page shows "Truely" where it should read "Truly". Sorry, I'm awful with spelling edits :) T. J. Day 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking

Why are you mass welcoming accounts that don't seem to have any edits at all, it just seems a little odd -- Tawker 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, it looks like a good idea to me, maybe it will spark some more users :) -- Tawker 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hour "limit" on RfA questions

Do you keep an eye on the questions to see if they're responded to do you keep an open mind with respect to your vote. 24 hours may not always be reasonable, RfA candidates are allowed to have lives :) -- Tawker 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:CCLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CCLogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear MEgo, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. For the future, could you rework the questions to make them more relevant? Thanks and please LMK if you need my help. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Welcome back

Topic says it all, welcome back, hope your off wiki time was a stress reliever -- Tawker 05:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank You!

Hi,

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. I have always appreciated those with high standards in adminship decision-making, and, honestly, fully expected that I would not be worthy of your support. I can only hope, by using the tools wisely, to gain your confidence over time. As an administrator, I am your servant -- please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any help, or if you see me making a mistake of any kind. I always consider feedback an honor to receive, especially criticism aimed at helping me improve. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA

Ross Jeffries talk page

Hi Massiveego, what you wrote on the Ross Jeffries page was interesting to me as a member of the community. I left in the first paragraph of what you wrote, because it was on topic, but the rest was an extremely long advertisement for Ross that is not an appropriate use of the talk page (that is why it is being deleted). --SecondSight 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego, perhaps it was incorrect for me to delete your posting from the talk page. Still, I do hold that what you posted was advertising, because it contained the names of several of Jeffries' products. Misplaced Pages talk pages are not a place for your, or anyone else's, opinion pieces: see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and Misplaced Pages:What wikipedia is not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. I won't delete your writing, but perhaps I can persuade you to leave it out as a matter of taste. Surely you don't need such an incredibly long essay (which happens to mention several commercial products) to rebut the claim that Ross Jeffries runs a cult; wouldn't one or two paragraphs suffice (which is the amount I left in)? The person making that claim doesn't sound terribly reasonable anyway, so I don't think there is much danger of lots of people believing him. Such a long essay might actually backfire and make people think that those in the seduction community are fanatical and cultish, which I don't think either of us wants, and which is one reason why I wanted to remove the text. I would suggest that you post opinion pieces on a blog or another website, and link to it from the talk page, rather than posting it directly on the talk page. Thanks for hearing my concerns. --SecondSight 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "Everything listed in the talk page is more for expressing question, comments or opinions for discussion as to determine what should be edited into the article, or side notes about the article." Ok, but as I understand the talk page guidelines, discussion is supposed to focus on the editing of the article. Since nobody was actually proposing inserting a word like "cult" into the article, I would say that an extensive essay rebutting that idea seems excessive and unnecessary (although a short rebuttal might be warranted). Sometimes, a long reply to an accusation which isn't worthy of any real attention can actually add the appearance of legitimacy to that accusation. Really, I don't think there's any need to go through product by product; you risk playing into the hands of whoever made that comment by taking it seriously, and it is skating very close to advertising in my book. It seemed that you provided a perfectly good rebuttal to the guy trashing Jeffries in the text that I left in, so the rest really seemed like overkill, and I was worried that it might scare people away from the seduction community. If you really, really, insist on putting your essay on the talk page, rather than on a blog or a web page and link to it from the talk page (which is what I think should be done for any posting of that length, regardless of content), then maybe mediation is a good idea. --SecondSight 07:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for Talk:Ross Jeffries. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

kiddy grade Peer review

First things first. The Ah! My Goddess page is almost defiantly the BEST anime/manga page on Misplaced Pages, and through a brief trawl of its history, you appear to be one of the people who made this so. I would be most grateful if you could read the Kiddy Grade article and its subsequent pages a take part in a peer review of the pages? I would be most thankful. The peer review page is here to provide feedback, and if you are not familiar with peer reviews, though as the AMG page was I doubt it, the guidelines are here.

Thank you!!!

--Crampy20 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

RfA opposing

Just wondering why you oppose nearly every users RfA? Is there any particular reason why?--Andeh 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Robdurbar

Do you want to strike your vote as well, the two opposes both struck their votes and you opposed per above.... shall we take it that your objections are being sent to /dev/null/ too? -- Tawker 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, The point being, both of those reasons were proven incorrect and stricken from the record, it really is a tad hard to oppose on them if they don't exist. If you want to oppose go ahead, but the "per above" line just looks a little funny and likely won't be taken seriously by the closing crat if there is nothing above :o -- Tawker 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more blunt, the first oppose was unfounded and came from a permanently blocked user. The second oppose was also found to be basically incorrect and was withdrawn by the opposer. Neither claim has merit. JoshuaZ 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the harassment. Users like... well I guess I cant say their names, but the you-know-whos never correctly cite policy when they try to intimidate good users, like yourself, into leaving. Keep fighting the good fight, Tchadienne 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA

Hi Masssiveego! Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I will look into the others' comments and improve from there.  G.He 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Renata3's RfA vote

Hi, could you please expand on your reason to oppose this candidates RfA?--Andeh 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with Alphachimp's RfA.--Andeh 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of which policy?--Andeh 08:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Massive, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. I hope I meet your criteria by the next time I pop up on RfA. Cheers :) --james 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

Disruption

"Voting" oppose on every RFA without any sort of meaningful reason is becoming disruptive. Quit it and find something better to do, please. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Cyde. At least explain your criteria, please, as your current comments give no information to the candidates on how to improve or what to work towards, which is the most important thing for failing RFA's - improvement. Thanks. Cowman109 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I have been annoyed and responded sarcastically to your voting in Alphachimp's RfA, I don't think it's disruptive, per se. However, I would have to agree Masssiveego, that it would be helpful if you could put your reasoning on the page itself and not just in the edit summary, so that people don't have to go to the history to determine your reasons. Even if we don't agree with you, it's helpful to be able to quickly determine why you are opposing.--Kchase T 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, RFA isn't technically a vote. We are allowed to ask the reasons for any statement, either for or oppose, that someone says in an RFA, and if there is a user who is consistently refusing to explain himself there may be consequences. "Per above" isn't good enough, by the way. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the consequences ought to be that his comments are ignored or held at a lesser value because he refuses to explain them. Blocking for this seems a bit excessive. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the crats already do this. In any event, this really isn't our concern unless it becomes far more disruptive than it is. JoshuaZ 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree more with Joshua than Clyde(it seems that's the consensus), but I'd also like to say that it would only help you out if you had a link to what your criteria actually are. Attic Owl 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I noticed that you have opposed my RfA on the grounds of "Fails my criteria". Could you please elaborate, so that I know where I need to improve? Thanks Martinp23 09:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I am starting to get annoyed by your repeated admin oppose "Fails my criteria". I know you have been told several times to please elaborate and I am asking you nicely to do so. Actions like these disrupt the progress of Misplaced Pages and you need to stop or start giving reasons why you feel a user is unfit for adminship. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me if there are further questions. --WillMak050389 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I, and many others, find it disruptive, and though you do have the right to vote your way, I believe users will not accept your vote as genuine due to its lack of reasoning. Please at least add a link to your criteria when voting. Thank you. --WillMak050389 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering adding a link, there are users that do put "fails my criteria" (or something similiar) with a link, and these votes are considered fair reasoning. Thanks again. --WillMak050389 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposing RFA's

I've seen you oppose many RFA's, and I guess you've been asked several times, but here's a new one: Let's say *I* want to become an admin, I am certain you will oppose me as you have opposed many much stronger users than I. How would I go about achieving your criteria? (The subtext is the question: is your criteria attainable?) Themindset 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is an intimidating list. I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain all that to me. Themindset 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Zsinj 2

Per your request at the above-linked RfA, I've moved the discussion regarding your repeated oppose votes to the discussion page, here. Please consider replying there. RandyWang (/_{fix me up}) 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also responded to your concerns at that discussion page and I invite you to read them. Thanks! --Zsinj 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello! Hope you are feeling great. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to explain the reasons for your vote in my RfA. Your comments would be a great help to me with regards to becoming a better editor on this project. Moreover, I personally admire your strength of character in dealing with users who are against you. Lastly, I would like to know if you are an admin on this project. Thank You! --Siva1979 02:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your votes on Rfa's

My personal opinion is that your purpose is to disrupt Misplaced Pages...maybe even for the sake of WP:POINT. I see this as harassment...what say you on the matter?--MONGO 10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For instance, on the Rfa for Stevietheman, your edit summary states "3r oppose", I assume for a 3RR violation, but that block was from a year and a half ago!--MONGO 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO I ask for the higher standard, it's fails to be a clean record. A legitimate reason to fail any candiate. Boothy443 was found not to have been a disruption for his voting style by arbitration committee. People should never be afraid to vote on Misplaced Pages that their opinions would be see as "wp:point" or a disruption. If they have a legitmate reason, or no reason at at all, all can vote as they please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs)

I got news for you masssiveego, you're unqualified to do much of anything except be disruptive and your ongoing nonsense about your rights are simply an effort to continue this disruption. You don't know how to format, you rarely actully provide accurate diffs which demostate much of anything to substantiate your vote and in keeping with your abusive choice of username you are simply nothing more than disruptive much of the time. When you do actually justify your opposes, you sometimes simply copy and paste conversations from the users talk page...so what. You obviously have zero real understanding of what adminship is and I'll take this time to inform you that you need to start working on something other than harassing the Rfa process. It also needs to be noted that Booty443 did a lot more than just vote on Rfa's, which seems to be where you spend most of your time. I also hope you realize that in the majority of situations, the crats simply ignore such trollery, so you're wasting your time which might be better used actually helping fix articles.--MONGO 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will second MONGO on this: I see little, if anything, constructive coming out of your votes, and your repeated opposition to new candidates without proper explanation leads me to believe that you're deliberately disrupting the RfA process. Please stop. Consider explaining your votes in detail, providing links to the URLs to specific diffs that you believe illustrate your point, and suggesting briefly how the candidate needs to improve. RandyWang (/_{fix me up}) 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been detailed explaination when time allows, and when requests were made from the canidate. RandyWang is exactly what I do not want to see in any admin canidate, tempermental, barely does any research, and way too judgemental. Not voting makes it easy to stick in unqualifed Admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs)

Yes, please refrain from continuing. Your votes are becoming more and more disruptive. --Pilotguy 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, disruption cannot be applied to an RFA vote if all the rules are followed. --Masssiveego 18:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(go here from you village pump question). Ok so my tuppence worth. Assuming you are not making a WP:POINT in your votes and that they are in good faith then I think there are still issues to address in tyour voting. For example opposing someone for a 3rr block a year ago is fine (in a way I agree with that) however you should at least try and explain your self in your vote - that way at least it makes your vote seem substantial. After all it isn't actually a vote but a method of consensus. Theoretically a person with hundreds of oppose that were not explained or founded and with a handfull of well thought out and comprehensive support votes could be promoted. It is not the sheer numvber of votes that counts. As a result insubtantiated and short oppose votes really count for nothing anyway.

Secondly I would say you ahve not explained your criteria well on that page you link to. Especially as one of the items is must have a good graps of english (or something to that effect) despite the fact that most of your criteria list makes no grammatical sense! Also I thing you are setting standards very high (of course this is my opinion and so you are well entitled to your own judgements) especially things like 30 edits a day and 3 FA's. If your asking for that I would say that 50+% of our current admins wouldnt meet your criteria - even some of our best!! --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(I also got here from village pump) I have tracked this discussion thread but have not been monitoring RFA votes recently so I am commenting based on the discussion not based on the actual RFA votes.

1. Simple oppose votes should not be considered disruptive although it would be courteous to explain why and a good explanation would further the discussion.
2. I think your standards for Adminship are too high but that's your prerogative. I do think every vote you make should link to your criteria so that others can decide for themselves how much weight to give to your vote. I suspect that your vote would count for little if you simply said "fails my criteria". Your vote might count for more depending on what specific criterion had triggered the oppose vote.

--Richard 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. I would be interested in knowing what your reaons for opposition were? Thanks/wangi 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Feature article review

Feature article review is a process in which we review and assess existing featured articles. The intent is to uphold and maintain the quality of feature article. Therefore I removed your three recent nominations. If you wish for a review please go to Peer review. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns

I have added a reply to your comments here. Thank you for pointing out your concerns and reasons for opposing my RfA. This would only motivate me to improve my edits on Misplaced Pages. Best of luck for the future! --Siva1979 08:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain something about your RFA criteria?

Some time ago, someone asked you what your criteria for RFA approval were and you provided them. There was one sentence that was unclear to me. Here it is:

"If I find too many templates placed without enough of an explanation or difficulty tracing the conversation of the template it is an automatic failure."

I don't quite understand what you mean by "templates". I use Wikiproject templates all the time to indicate that an article is within the scope of a Wikiproject but I don't think that's the kind of template you're talking about.

I don't often use {{merge}} or {{requested move}} templates mostly because I'm lazy and let someone else do the work unless I feel more strongly about it than anybody else.

I also use {{fact}} templates all the time but I think those are fairly self-explanatory.

I'm sure there are all sorts of {{POV}} and {{totally disputed}} type templates that I could use but frankly I just prefer to fix the content than slap on a template.

Are these the kind of templates you're talking about? Are you saying you will fail people who slap on {{totally disputed}} type templates without explaining what is disputed?

I think I would pass on this criterion because I am very conservative in my use of those kinds of template.

Can you confirm that I am interpreting your criterion correctly?

--Richard 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for your anrics on your RfA, which are clearly an attempt to draw fire from RfA participants. I did the same to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you avoid personal attacks against Blnguyen or any other users. If you would like suggestions about your editing, try Editor Review. An RfA is not the appropriate place to solicit such opinions, particularly given your history of RfA contributions. alphaChimp 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart move - Glen 06:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the stuff Glen pointed out, I've lengthened the block by another day. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation here is not the same as The Mad Bomber - I saw the entire series of edits you made, and the subsequent reaction to them as they happened. In my mind, the series of rationales given for blocking The Mad Bomber do not apply here.

Having said that, Massiveego, it would be reasonable to say that over time, a certain level of animosity has built up between you, and those who frequent the RfA related pages. I am also certain that you are aware that this is not the first time in Misplaced Pages's history that this has happened.

In some sense, the block is not impartial - but it is also something that is arguably reasonable to do. There has been consistently a volume of edits generated in response to your editing behaviour, and generally speaking, I would say that the sentiment is that it does not necessarily contribute healthily to the project.

Some of your concerns (I suspect) are beyond the capabilities of the Wiki to solve, but this in and of itself, should not be a reason for you not to raise them. I do not like to see it when the Wiki appears hostile, but a more constructive interpretation of what has happened today is that the community simply requires a different method of delivery for your concerns and criticisms. Perhaps a bit euphemistic, but I think you are apt to agree. Some of the feedback I have seen of your behaviour on the Wiki I find a bit condescending, and I might carefully go as far as suggesting that it exacerbates the situation somewhat.

I'm well aware that unblocking you is controversial - but at the moment, this is what I feel more comfortable with. I think this is also a minority opinion as well, but one that is worth considering. Whether Misplaced Pages has a systemic problem with "abusive" administrators is besides the point - this is an opinion that is expressed with increasing frequency in this project, and in some sense, it is necessary to demonstrate that even in situations such as this, administrators can still act with, say, a certain level of professionalism that for example, you might expect from a project such as this.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no rush to block - any administrator can easily waltz in and reapply a block. They might have access to information or insight that I don't have, and I will give deference to that. However, in my mind, such a block would not be effective - it would simply defer solving certain problems into the future, and I think that is not what we would like to do here. I would like to add that if you'd like a sounding board, I'd be glad to be of service.

Of course, I trust that when you find out you are unblocked, you'd read this message carefully. I cannot be on the Wiki all the time, but I'd like to think that in my absence, a ruckus would not be caused by whatever posts which might be made regarding this incident. We are mature people here, and we need not be told how to be intelligent and forthcoming. I am going to say that I think you know what that means. For my own sake, I'll reserve the trump card of blocking you for "disruption" when I return - but I can tell you that I don't plan on using it liberally. I know that you know better not to put me in a situation to do so, and I know that you are sensitive enough to be aware that a tremendous number of users will be watching the fallout of my unblocking you quite carefully. In fact, as I am writing this, your block length was just extended to 192 hours. You might even remark that it would be rather capricious to overturn 2 (or perhaps 3 considering posts your talk page) opinions on your blocking.

To be honest, I am afraid that my own contribution to this situation might inadvertantly cause ill. However, the times in my Wikipedian career I have done this exceedingly sparingly, and as far as I can tell, more good than evil has resulted from it. So, let's give this opportunity a shot - if you honestly want to go through an RfA, I will volunteer my time to prepare something reasonable for you in the future. If you honestly have something constructive to say, I'd rather that it be heard and addressed properly, rather than rendered part of the litter in the digital ether. Of course, I am aware you also have something unwritten to say - we'll address that too, but first, let me see you're willing to come on board and work constructively first. That way, you can relax, I can relax, and the community at large can relax. We can't do anything useful for Misplaced Pages if nobody is listening properly. I don't know how others might think, but from my perspective, it would be worthwhile to give this simple thing a chance. --HappyCamper 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

reblocked

I have reblocked you for trolling. See WP:AN/I for my rationale. --W.marsh 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was serious about running in the RFA. I was not trolling or disrupting, I was advised that I should run in the RFA to see how it was like, and I did so. There should have been more questions during the RFA if there was any questions about sincerity. The RFA was not a joke, it was serious. I feel I should have been made an Admin and then would have been the better example.

I felt that there was a possibility for confirmation and this should serve as example for other users to be afraid of self nominations to the RFA, even when there is clearly a poll support for running in the RFA. As I am truely afraid, shocked and dismayed at the admins response. As it seems now there is a new rule, if the admin feel you are faking your RFA, they can block you with zero assumptions of good faith.

19:19, 4 September 2006 User: Nandesuka (Talk | contribs) blocked "Masssiveego (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Reinstating block. We should never encourage this sort of behavior.)

It's obvious being bold and try new things in Misplaced Pages is severily discouraged. Had I known there would be a block for trying out for the RFA, I would have never attempted it. This is just shocking. It's not about attention getting, as following a process to learn how things work.

To answer Dan: I feel this block is unjustified. Admin quality control is by voting in the RFA. This is clearly another reason why we must select our Admin better to avoid these kinds of problems in the future.

--Masssiveego 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego has posted his RfA and I have blocked him for it

Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   Good call -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       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 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been closed. Support block. – Chacor 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

               Hey should I close it then? It's already WP:SNOWballing with opposes and he is blocked after all. - Glen 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - 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 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                       I added an extra day to the block for  and . CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   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 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – Chacor 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

           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 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   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 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       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 Misplaced Pages at the moment. The Land 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   * 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!) 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
   * I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. Haukur 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
   * 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 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       * 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 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
       * (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 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
             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 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                   + 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 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                   + 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 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                         # 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 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                   + 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 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                   + 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 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                         # 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 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   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 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       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 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

           This is a good block. He's not being banned for "submitting an RFA." He's being blocked for trolling. Nandesuka 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

               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 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                   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 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

               (after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Misplaced Pages... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate. --W.marsh 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                   He didn't 'quietly talk about it'. He said it several times and was encouraged to do it. See User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey. While you were (as you say) unaware of it note that the person who originally blocked him was not... because they told him to do it. And then blocked him for doing so. Indeed, both prior blockers, Blnguyen and CanadianCaesar, told him to put up an RFA. --CBD 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                       The issue here is not that Masssive put up an RfA. Rather, the issue is that the RfA he did put up was a joke RfA attempting to annoy people. Nobody would have blocked him if his RfA had been a serious attempt at adminship. -- Steel 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                       Agree with Steel - your description is semantic flim-flammery. The relevant metaphor would be if someone asked you "Can I go to the bathroom?" and you said "Sure!" and they yanked down their pants and went on the floor. Nandesuka 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                       Ok, then tell me... does anyone seriously claim that there was ever any possibility of a 'Massiveego RfA' PASSING? Anyone? No? Does anyone think that he didn't know that? I'm sorry, but the 'oh it was bad because it was not a serious attempt to get adminship' excuse doesn't wash. Everyone knew when they encouraged him to do it that it wasn't going to be a 'serious attempt to get adminship'... because that was completely impossible. Anyone who didn't know what his RfA was going to be like when they encouraged him to do it must have been completely ignoring their critical thinking faculties... because it was obvious. --CBD 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                           Now who, exactly, isn't assuming good faith? In my time at Misplaced Pages, I have seen many RfA's brought by people whom, six months previously, you would have said had no chance at passing (off the very top of my head, Aaron Brenneman, who was blocked and publically castigated for vandalism but whom through hard work redeemed himself in the eyes of the community). The only person responsible for the contents of Masssiveego's RFA is masssive himself. I absolutely believe that had he brought an RfA that's wasn't an obvious troll, he would not have been blocked. Would he have passed? Well, maybe not this time. But a serious attempt might have laid the groundwork for the future. Trying to pin the blame for his trolling on other people for not psychically predicting it and then talking him out of it ahead of time is ludicrous. Nandesuka 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                           (edit conflict) Of course everyone knew an RfA from Masssive would never pass. The fact is, if Masssive had written a serious nomination and provided serious answers to the questions, which I for one was expecting him to do, he would have received 100+ oppose votes, but no block. Comments such as AmiDaniel's on that voting survey page suggest that I wasn't the only one who was expecting a serious request. -- Steel 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                           Furthermore I don't know about other users but if it had been a serious request I for one at least would have considered it. I think his behavior in regard to RfAs indicates an inability to work well with others and I might oppose or neutral for that reason. But the assumption that a serious RfA would have been 100 oppose votes and nothing else is unwarranted. JoshuaZ 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                           So, he's blocked for a non-serious RFA? Sounds like your punishing him, unless you think he's going to disrupt Misplaced Pages by constantly making non-serious RFA's. I think both blocks are a little inappropriate. Rx StrangeLove 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                               It doesn't matter that the RfA actually caused little to no disruption. It doesn't matter that he was encouraged to file it by the very people (save W.marsh) who blocked him. It doesn't matter that it was entirely predictable that any current RfA from him would not be serious given the obvious fact that it would not pass. He's unpopular and there is a pretext... so hey, block for a week. Which sadly does more to make the case he has been saying about the actions of some admins than anything else he might have ever accomplished. Oh well. 'The admin community has spoken'. --CBD 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                           As I've said, he does very little but troll for attention, the RfA was an obvious example of that. That's disruptive, in my opinion. Misplaced Pages shouldn't exist to ammuse trolls. --W.marsh 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   By blocking Massiveego you gave him that attention he actually may have wanted ;-). I don't see how an RfA should warrant a block. Blocking won't help here. A bit oppose piling and then everything would have been done. Now you guys and girls are blowing up the whole thing here. Not very intelligent. --Ligulem 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       I'm inclined to agree at least in so far as Strangelove is right that he isn't going to repeat this presumably. However, given his past behavior we may have a serious worry that he will find some other way of trolling. As of now however the block does seem more punitive than preventative. JoshuaZ 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
       The trolls have figured out that they can always count on some admin to be a dissenter and argue in favor of even the worst trolls, thus creating the disruption they wanted in the first place. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

           The block is preventative because he showed no signs of slowing his trolling efforts. Ideally the community could just ignore them, but this thread is a sad testament that we're ignorant of trolling 101 here. Well said Cyde. --W.marsh 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

               Who needs to 'argue in defense of trolls'. Some of us just argue against admins engaging in incivility (e.g. calling anyone a troll), excessive blocks (e.g. one week with no warning and no preventative basis), bias (e.g. this user is unpopular so it is ok), et cetera. Doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is... just that this isn't the way admins are supposed to act. --CBD 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                   So, CBD: When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife? Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                       Maybe that's meant as sarcasm, but it's late and I can't sense it, but I think that's going a bit too far. – Chacor 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                       It's a basic debate trap and logical fallacy... trying to change the argument so there's no answer that's "correct". --W.marsh 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                   Expanding on that a bit, while I agree that calling a good-faith editor a troll is incivil, there are people whom it is OK to call trolls: to wit, trolls. I do it, Jimbo does it, everyone does it. The idea that we're supposed to wear white gloves and pretend they don't exist is poor. My rule of thumb is that what is incivil is to call someone a troll to their face, since if true it accomplishes nothing and if false it's just insulting. However, using the term descriptively while talking with other admins is fine, so that we can measure appropriate response (and you may have noticed that most admins are not shy about disagreeing with the evaluation that someone is a troll, if they disagree). I think your characterizing what has gone on in this case as "abuse" is somewhat over-the-top, as my lampooning of your argument shows. Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                       While you are sadly correct that admin incivility and personal attacks are widespread... no they are not something that "everyone" does. This idea that 'if admins decide that someone is a troll then they can call the person a troll' directly contradicts Misplaced Pages policy. The same page even lists repeatedly calling someone a troll (even to third parties) as an example of personal attacks. I completely reject the principle that we are allowed to be incivil... 'because they deserve it'. No way. We should be held to higher standards. Not lower ones. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                   I really am bothered that an admin would apparently support an obvious troll over someone like me, who has clearly never editted in bad faith or even been accused of it. We really need to stop feeding the trolls, I'll say it again. --W.marsh 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                       This interpretation is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "supporting" anybody in anything. But actually, you can feed trolls by blocking them. The intention of trolls is to test the system. As long as they don't vandalise or mess up anything they should be simply ignored. I fail to see how a single RfA falls into this category. Please at least shorten the block to 48 hours or so if you really feel urged to block in this case. A week is way over the top. --Ligulem 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                       I'm sorry that you are bothered by this, but this idea that one user is 'supported over' another is completely wrong. There should be no hierarchy where 'recognized as better' users get to do things that others cannot. Calling people trolls is prohibitted by policy... doesn't matter who does it. Yes, even Jimbo has done that... and people called him out over it. Personal attacks are always a bad idea, no matter what the 'difference in status' between the two users. The entire mindset of 'who do you support' is a blight on Misplaced Pages IMO. I look at your actions and I look at his actions and I criticize each on their merits regardless of who they were directed at. He made a mildly silly RfA... following encouragement. Ummm... sorry, but that just doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. At most I might have said, 'ok, hah hah... knock it off, I am closing this down', and don't do it again. You placed a lengthy block for non-existant disruption (the RfA was already closed), called the guy a troll repeatedly, et cetera. Are you generally a nicer guy / better contributor / higher 'access level' than him? Maybe so... but entirely irrelevant to me. I don't judge situations on the 'hierarchical status' of the participants. We aren't supposed to and it's not good for Misplaced Pages when we do. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                       Given the massive admin support for allowing trolling and attacking good faith editors, I have decided to unblock him. --W.marsh 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

                           Thank you, W.Marsh. It seems likely to me that one of the folks above will re-re-block him, but I appreciate that you were willing to look at others' point of view. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                           I also appreciate your efforts to discuss this and apologize for what you took as "attacking good faith editors". It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'. I disagree with your action here, but there can be no question that it is a common view which you would have every reason to think 'right'. I strongly disagree with that view, but do not mean to 'attack' you. I don't know you (or Massive either, beyond being familiar with contention around his RfA participation). You may well be the nicest and most productive user on Misplaced Pages... and I didn't mean to say anything to imply that was not the case. We disagree, but that's it. --CBD 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
                           No, you and others have accused me of abuse. That is an attack. And it's in defense of a troll. I see where people's priorities are now... defend the trolls and talk about how abusive the good faith editors are. This is horrible. --W.marsh 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to respond to the points above, in case people are under the impression that I may have been trying to "trap" Masssiveego to block him. Firstly, I said that if he wanted to run in an RfA, then he would be free to do so . If anybody looks at the ten RfA nominations that I have prepared at User:Blnguyen/RfA as well as my answers to questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Blnguyen it is easy to see that I take things seriously and have a high standard of what a "proper" RfA is - with a proper nomination and answers to questions - indeed I have received some good-natured jibes about my statements being excessive. I honestly felt that his RfA was not serious, as in some RfAs he had complained about others' lack of attention to detail himself. I was not intending to punish him, I felt that there was a possibility he would try and respond to the opposes in similar ways as in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber. In no way was I goading him to trap and punish him - I have never indulged in retaliatory voting at RfA as can be seen by my record. As to whether the block actually made things worse and garnered attention - that may be the case and at no stage do I rule out the possiblity that a block may be a strategic mistake. I am not hurt/bothered that other admins may disagree with me and reverse my block, my decisions are not above scrutiny, nor should they be. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'm very surprised that you didn't anticipate the sort of RfA he would file, but perhaps I am benefitting from 20/20 hindsight. I apologize for having thought that oversight implausible. To the rest I would only say, "felt there was a possibility he would..." sounds like a reason to warn him not to do that. Neh? --CBD 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

       Maybe you should consider extending to your fellow admins just a fraction of the sort of good faith you expect them to extend to trolls, vandals, and disruptors, and then they wouldn't think you were being abusive. Nandesuka 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

           Hmmmm, I wouldn't have blocked over this, but I can see why it was done. I'm concerned that every time there's a block imposed these days people want to argue about the reasons why they wouldn't have done it, rather than appreciating that there's an element of discretion and judgment with these things. Two reasonable admins may take different approaches, and I think we should be fairly deferential to each other's judgment. Given that there was a block, it was rather long IMHO, but that could have been discussed with the blocking admins in a courteous way, i.e.: "Um, a week is rather long for a first block without a warning. Would you consider reducing it to 24 hours?" That's all that has to be said if we assume our colleagues who have undergone the ordeal of fire and water to become admins are reasonable people. (We should all be open to suggestions when they are put like that.) And yes, I do think we need to be as supportive of each other as possible unless someone does something obviously abusive or bizarre. Metamagician3000 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Come-on Nandesuka. If W.marsh wants to leave, this is up to him (although it is ridiculous. See also  ;-). Again, a block of a week for a single boring soon-to-be-failing snow-ball oppose RfA is way over the top. You are making an elephant out of a mouse here. Blocking is not intended for such a behaviour. As such, criticism is well appropriate. If you can't stand that, then don't issue such inflammatory blocks. --Ligulem 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
   Nandesuka, I'm sorry that W.marsh continues to see this in terms of 'only I or Massiveego can be right and these people support him over me'. I don't 'value Massiveego more than W.marsh' as he says, but there is nothing I can do about it if he continues to be fixed in that mindset after I have repeatedly said otherwise. I hope W.marsh will reconsider and/or realize that his stated reasons for being mad aren't true to begin with. Nobody here 'prefers trolls to valued contributors'. If you think it is "abusive" to disagree with personal attacks maybe you should try to get WP:NPA rewritten to say that admins can abuse users they don't like. --CBD 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a sorry mess this has turned out to be

I have agreed with CBD throughout most of this discussion although I think he probably got a little too sharp in his defense of User:Masssiveego. I'm sorry that User:W.marsh has been so offended as to want to leave. I agree with Ligulem that such petulance is a bit ridiculous, even to the point of being... uh, well, I guess I better not say that as it would be considered uncivil.

I think User:Masssiveego has a problem although I can't quite figure out what it is. I first became aware of his RFA voting via a query that he made asking if he could be blocked for voting Oppose on RFAs. The answer was "No although it would help to provide reasons". Someone asked him what his criteria were and he gave a defensible answer although the standard was very high. I actually was starting to develop some respect for him. I am very disappointed and disillusioned by this joke RfA.

That said, I think blocking was an over-reaction. Either a massive oppose vote or SNOWballing the RFA would have been sufficient. It's not as if User:Masssiveego was vandalizing or engaging in serial incivility.

I admire CBD for his principled opposition to the block although I think it was a bit too spirited. I can understand why he went "over the top" in the face of opposition from just about everybody else.

I hope we can close ranks and get back to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Best regards to all.

--Richard 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)