User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey

This is a straw poll. August 18, 2006 to September 5, 2006.

Results are nonbinding and only is used to determine opinion.

Do you think Masssiveego should quit voting in the RFA?

 * Support
 * 1) Yes. Until you have actual reasons for opposing every RfA you run into. SynergeticMaggot 07:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) David D. (Talk) 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) As these are not votes, how can you quit voting ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Stephen B Streater, you're not voting, you're trolling. I would love to see you stop trolling and begin voting. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what SBS meant, actually.... -- nae'blis 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think he meant that its not a vote. Could be wrong though. SynergeticMaggot 08:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant it was not a vote, but am also pleased the more subtle undertone of my slightly cheeky reply was picked up by the first reply. Personally, I am OK with Masssiveego sharing his thoughts with us, as this all goes into the consensus melting pot, though I think his input would be more constructive if it was more varied. Stephen B Streater 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Per AmiDaniel. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep what Amidaniel said. Rather than messing around over this issue just keep votoing - but understand your comments will mean little until you start a) substantiating them and b) realise the adminship is less of a big deal than people think. I woulds say to only vote if you feel strongly one way or another and devote the rest of your time to editing articles! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NO, I don't think you should stop voting...but you should come to understand that no one is going to be perfect so opposing based on some block from a year ago the editor had, or some other petty thing is ridiculous. My recommendation is that you spend your time helping us make articles better and let the Rfa process be but 2% of what you spend your wiki-time involved in.--MONGO 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No you should continue to participate but with realistic criteria. If at least 20% of candidates don't pass your criteria, they are too strict. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Feel free to continue as long as you become a realist :) &mdash; Deckill e r 02:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I totally disagree with most of his behaviour/conclusions, but no way should he be gagged from expressing how he feels as long as he minds NPA and CIVIL. Nothing wrong with being a stickler for accuracy like Kimchi.sg or Crzrussian, but Masssiveego doesn't really explain his criteria or standards all that well, leading people to not take him seriously (whether this is correct or otherwise).Blnguyen | rant-line 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not the question you should be asking. If it were rephrased "Should masssiveego explain his votes in adequate detail", it would be correct - there's no benefit in you not voting at all. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Masssiveego should run in the RFA?

 * Support
 * 1) If you want to, no one can stop you.  You almost certainly will not win, just like Boothy443, but it might help you gain some perspective.  I'd oppose. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Again repeating others: Per CanadianCaesar, it may be a good learning experience, though it won't succeed. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Nobody can stop you. I (like everyone else) would sure oppose though. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, Definitely. I look forward to failing you on your own criteria. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's not within you power to fail him. I'm surprised you made Admin with such a poor grasp of policy ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, I'll be failing him on his own criteria when I check him against them (the term you see used, quite often, is "fails my criteria", and that certainly is within my power) and then commenting Oppose. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. But you are assuming he won't meet his criteria. As you don't know when he will stand, I am interested in your apparent prophetic powers now. Stephen B Streater 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheeky little bugger, aren't you? I'm pretty sure that he'll never meet several of the criteria as they are written now no matter what he does. That doesn't require propehetic power, merely the ability to recognise inconsistency. (c.f. Martha Stewart and James T. Kirk) And should he change them to be non inconsistent? Well, there are those who opine that I hold grudges. Perhaps they are right. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like to check that negative sentiments can be justified. People are often unjustified with their condemnation and never find out because they are not held to account. Admins have a responsibility to maintain a high standard. Stephen B Streater 08:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Per above. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Lar. SynergeticMaggot 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Lar; well said. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) If this is how he wants, then yes. He should expect that people judge him by his criteria, though even if he passes them, people will likely oppose anyway because he has irked them.`Blnguyen | rant-line 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Not yet. There will be opportunities to show more generosity to other candidates first. Stephen B Streater 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no-one can stop you and I would support you doing so in the future but for now I think this issue and a few others means you won't be prmoted - hence I advise you not to for now. (Also I think you fail most of your own crioteria - so there is no point running until you can say that you would be able to vote for yourself!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Masssiveego is a disruption with his RFA voting?

 * Support
 * 1) Yep. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed. SynergeticMaggot 07:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a tough one. The crats have surely discovered by now to simply disregard your "votes," thus why they're not particularly disruptive. However, I do still think that this qualifies as intentional disruption. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Certainly. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) You are now, but you don't have to be forever ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) -=feeds=- &mdash; Deckill e r 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) i support his votes although i may not agree with them. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I wouldn't say disruption, but the criteria are so restrictive we would not have enough new Admins if they were applied more generally - which  would not be in the interests of Wikipedia. I'd like to know that whenever I need help with a difficult job, there is a brilliant Admin with expertise in that area. Contrary to popular belief, this Admin doesn't have to be an expert in everything else too. By good fortune you'll have a chance to show off your new found generosity and flexibility some time soon ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your votes are not, but your refusal to subtantiate them and insistence on creating pages like this are - not exactly disruptive, but time consuming..., --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because they don't raise any palpatations anymore. Why bother getting strung up? Blnguyen | rant-line 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)