"

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