UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Matthew Fahrenheit/2007

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Matthew Fahrenheit » 2007

09:12, 23 August 2007

Closed the voting on the Battle of Blackmore a bit too early. It went upon 18:08, 9 August 2007 (BST); he closed it 04:58, 23 August 2007 (BST), which is 16 hours too soon.

I normally wouldn't care fuck-all about this, but he's been a total dick lately. And since he's so keen on the letter of the law, I think it can bite him in the ass for once.--Jorm 05:39, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Yeah, he protected the page (Mod Action, and in this case, misconduct). Thats a moderator action, and it was 13 hours, 10 minutes early. I have reopened the voting, you have ten hours to flood it with remove votes Jorm. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 09:12, 23 August 2007 (BST)

You should at least try to sort the issue out with Matt or some another mod before starting official proceedings against him. Rushing straight to Misconduct is assuming bad faith. --  T   09:28, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, bad faith is not a requirement in a misconduct case; merely that they were in the wrong.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:49, 23 August 2007 (BST)

To elaborate. Even a good faith misuse of moderator abilities can cause considerable damage. Not that it cant be undone eventually by another moderator, but its a major pain in the arse since only a moderator can undo it, and if one isnt around to undo it at the time, the damage can be quite disruptive and lead to OMGWIKIDRAMAOHNOES!!! Moderators are users who are given special powers to serve the rules, the spirit of those rules, and the community with their best judgement where rules do not yet apply. Unfortunately, in this case, the letter and spirit of the rules were the same, and the they were violated. Since it isnt terrible, id lean towards a single warning and be done with it (Im waiting for Matthew Fahrenheit to come and explain himself before any ruling is delivered). --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 18:04, 23 August 2007 (BST)

I think you should see the part where I said "he's been a total dick lately". I absolutely think this was bad faith, based on every comment he's made about the entire process; he should have recused himself from being involved in the historical/popular/wtfever voting system from day one because, especially in this specific instance, he has an agenda, and he's been lightly pushing it. Minor things, mind you. But it's still pretty obvious.

So yeah, I think this actually is "bad faith." And hey, I've tried with Matt. He started off his side of the conversation by issuing personal attacks against me in his votes. I even went a made a little policy for him so he'd shut up - and all he did was call me Hitler and try to start a pissing match with me. So I'm kind of done with "working things out" with him.--Jorm 16:53, 23 August 2007 (BST)

My defense?

Well, let me recall this... how many things did I do yesterday? Yesterday was one of those days that I say "hands on!" and start to do what I consider Administrational work in order to, well, help people! If you check at my contributions, yesterday or today (depending on in wich time zone you are, because to me it was kinda past midnight) I:

• Welcomed around 50 newbies checking each one's contribitions individually (not an easy thing to do I must say, yet I do it twice every week or so).
• Corrected some newbie's mistakes in the form of Criterion 9s
• Fixed some typos.
• Told Boxy that Swiers Promotion bid needed his input: about this I do not know if he's forgetting about them (the same happened with Mobius promotion) or waits on purpose, but he's one of the users that won't be complaining about a lil' good faith hint coming from me and so I told him just in case.
• Responded a A/SD request. I would have responded two but Vantar is getting too quick on this. Or, at least, not as slow as me =P.
• Removed the Battle of Blackmore page from voting and protected it because there's a lot of precedent of people voting after deadlines by mystake or in bad faith.
• Attended a vandal report on A/VB.
• Helped a newbie with his request on my talk page concerning the Suggestion's talk page.

Out of what I would consider Administrational work, I voted on some suggestions (I wasn't voting since months ago). I probably did because I had the Suggestions page opened because of this newbie's request and so I got curious. Aaaaaaaaaaaand, now that I check my contribs myself, I voted on the scheduled protections on Historical Events because for me they should be treated the same as Historical Groups, and I was the one to point Vecusum towards it: It would be rude to vote against now.

Now, you're trying to say that the Battle of Blackmore part was bad faith. For real, I deleted a page I myself created while attending the Criterion 9 I mentioned above (recreating it immediately) and, in order to make you understand that the BoB thing was the least I would worry about, I wondered if that deletion was going to get me on Misconduct even when I swore it was good faith, not THIS!

Anyways, about the BoB voting... As I said, I protected it because, being so massively promoted inside and outside of the wiki alike, I was sure than some wiki newbie would have voted on it after I closed the vote. I didn't actually check the exact hour, but I checked the day. You can check the vote counting: It' as NPOV as I could formulate it. I even pointed out to the talk page for questions as I always do when protecting votings; not that I protect that many votings, mind you, but is what I feel must be done and so I did it. If you call that bad faith I dunno what good faith is. Also, protection is a naturally reversible thing and I would have reversed it should an user ask for it showing me that it was necessary, even when personally I don't think the course of the voting could be changed. All of this was not so complex and convoluted as I put it: it was natural, a second's thought, like everything else I do.

That's all I can say for my defense. I didn't realize someone had started a Misconduct case against me while I was doing that bunch of work and probably I would have reversed the protection should someone point to me it was necessary. Of course, the user that reported this didn't intend to do the best thing for the community but gain a "victory" on what he considers a personal vendetta, and as such made this report that, as I see on the history, looked vexatious at first (even with the reporting user admitting this) but was with time oddly legitimized.

If Misconduct deffinition is the abuse of Administrational powers and/or the abuse of the Administrational status as a badge of authority I really didn't do that. About breaking the rules, there's plenty of precedent of Sysops protecting pages that they believe in good faith shouldn't be edited by normal users anymore, like some of the Administrational pages and archives that ARE NOT scheduled to be protected nor have been subject of vandalism as the Guidelines state. Anyways I still want to hear other Sysop's POV on the issue before any ruling is made. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:56, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Ok. Heres my ruling:

1. The policy for that page does not include anything about protecting votes after they are done.
2. The vote was protected early. In circumstances where votes are made after the deadline, a person can simply use the helpful strikeout template to remove those votes that happened after the vote expired. It is absolutely no trouble at all to do this, and was part of how suggestions votes were, and presumably still are, tallied. Thus there was absolutely no need to protect the page. In fact, it shouldnt have been moved to its own page in the first place, and it seriously fucks up the archival process. That, however, is something to take up with hagnat in this instance though.
3. Your claim of not checking the time of the votes commencing is merely saying that what you were doing wasnt intentionally bad faith, but just plain negligence. I personally do not find either to be an excuse.
4. Also, as other cases have shown in the past, misconduct doesnt need to be bad faith. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If i banned someone whom i genuinely believe to be a bad influence, like, say, MrAushvitz, for the good of the wiki, i would be quite rightly brought up on misconduct charges, publicly flogged, and possibly demodded.

As a result, i am forced to conclude that as there was no policy in place to protect the page after voting, and you protected the page early, which would have resulted in at least one legal vote, maybe more, from being counted had i not stripped its protection that this is valid misconduct. Saying "Oops" doesnt make it ok. I am forced to rule against you. Unless another moderator other than the accused logs a complaint by the time i get home from an interview, i will log a warning for you on the vandal data page. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 00:06, 24 August 2007 (BST)

I know I have at least once cleared out speedy delete Crit. 12 Queue on day 4.75 instead of on day 5 but anything over 12 hours too soon is a little too much to just ignore. While I don't think he should get anything more than a slap on the wrist for what he did I still have to side against him on this one. He ended voting early and he shouldn't have, much like This Sysop he was trying to be helpful but he went about part of it the wrong way. - Vantar 01:00, 24 August 2007 (BST)

I accept the ruling, however a vandal warning seems too much for such a minor offense that doesn't imply bad faith. Vantar seems to agree with me, and there's precedent about minnor offenses such as this one punished with no warnings at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:51, 24 August 2007 (BST) EDIT: I wanted to add that the policy itself doesn't include anything about removing Historical status, but that's another thing. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:54, 24 August 2007 (BST)

I consdier a vandal warning is pretty much a slap on the wrist (In fact, in other cases i have ruled on, its been used as such). They go away with good behaviour these days, and i dont believe you will have any trouble avoiding getting in trouble again for the three months or so it will last. And you need to get in trouble twice for it to be any real problem. This case is closed, and ill archive it shortly. In other news: Welcome to those of us who have had misconduct cases leveled against us Matt :D --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 03:25, 24 August 2007 (BST)