Forum:CT:Jack Nebulax

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, and moved to an admin discussion. - WhiteBoy 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This thread is intended to work sort of like Wikipedia's requests for arbitration page. Except we don't have a designated arbitration committee and probably won't. Instead, all Wookieepedians are welcome to state their opinions. The final decision will be discussed by the admins collectively.

We're going through this because I think that we should not unilaterally permablock long-term contributors without prior discussion.

What is needed:

1. Objective evidence of his disruptive behavior.
2. Objective evidence that all other means of dispute resolution have been tried and failed.
3. Public comments from Jack himself, directed at no specific users but at the Wookieepedia community in general.

Whatever the final community decision is, I will respect it, and I urge other administrators to respect it as well.

I ask other admins for cooperation rather than unilateral action, regardless of their views on the matter. We're talking about a long-term contributor here, and permablock is, effectively, "capital punishment" that, I feel, should not be applied to long-term contributors. If you believe that I'm abusing my power by starting this public process... go ahead, delete this thread and put me on RFRA. I won't object. It will only mean that a compromise of any sort has completely and utterly failed.

- Sikon 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jack Nebulax
• Havac, Darth Culator, Lord Hydronium
• Sikon, WhiteBoy

Evidence

Jack Nebulax has been blocked many times

Most of these are for the violation of the 3RR. Please add any others that I may have missed.

1. 13:37, 19 June 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Shortened from permanent to 1 week. Delaying the inevitable.)
2. 19:50, 18 June 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ("Persistent habitual unreconstructible edit warring." Per Havac's very well-stated message on your talk page.)
   • Cleared: 09:48, 19 June 2007 Sikon (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (Me! Me first!)
3. 10:24, 18 June 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Continuing edit war after admin warning)
   • Cleared: 10:45, 18 June 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (Per IRC agreement)
4. 08:46, 18 March 2007 Imperialles (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (Continuing the flamewar after repeated warnings.)
5. 16:33, 28 February 2007 Jaymach (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (Three revert rule)
6. 19:55, 19 February 2007 Silly Dan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (three-revert rule)
   • Cleared: 20:11, 19 February 2007 Silly Dan (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs)
7. 18:52, 2 February 2007 Atarumaster88 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 hours (Personal attacks; cooldown)
8. 21:47, 1 January 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (3RR violation.)
   • Cleared: 10:27, 2 January 2007 Sikon (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (visited IRC, promised not to complain about the ban)
9. 19:26, 28 September 2006 Jaymach (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (24 hour cooloff ban, as I said would happen, due to breaking the 3 Revert Rule on the Mustafar page.)
   • Cleared: 19:38, 28 September 2006 SFH (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (Edit deemed justified.)

Over-zealotry

Well don't forget his major stint with (Perplexed-4E-Turnitee) over some additions into the Grand Army of the Republic article. For more see Forum:SH Archive/Complaints on an overzealous Wookiepeedian, User talk:Kuralyov/Archive3 and User talk:Jack Nebulax/Archive 12. Though that guy was probably on the wrong side as well, Nebulax was overreacting and kind of harsh towards him. Zainal 09:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Jack Nebulax also made four attempts to attain the position of administrator but was defeated by the vast majority of Wookieepedians. For more, see User:Jack Nebulax/Requests for adminship which I found at his own user page. Mynz 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant to the case. - Sikon 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it does provide some (not a lot) background on his past behavior to those who are unaware. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Sikon there. I'm sure that if I were to apply for adminship, it wouldn't go through either. If I had repeated rejections, would that be enough to permaban me? I hope not. Jack's rejected requests do not tell us anything about him as such, but only that other Wookieepedians don't like him. I don't think this is suitable as evidence, at least not good evidence. To get an insight into his behavior, people should track his edits and have a look at them first hand. Note that I'm not defending him, it's just that a permaban is a serious thing, so I'm just pointing out that the evidence should be more substantial than what has been presented so far. KEJ 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it can be used as evidence as that others don't think he is suited for adminship. Too impatience, controlling, defiant. It also shows that he really hasn't learned to take a long break and simply concentrate on behaving, then run. Chack Jadson 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • All it shows, imo, is what other people think about him. That's not objective evidence. KEJ 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • True. Chack Jadson 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • It should be noted then that whenever the popular opinion turned against him, he basically sulked and played a pity card. --Redemption^Talk 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
              • The adminship votes failing, I agree, are probably irrelevant. What I am reminded of with those, is how he has promised to change and do better, but in the long term did not. And I do believe that is relevant. WhiteBoy 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
                • That's the trend that I saw while reading through it. Greyman^(Paratus) 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• According to some rules of evidence that I've read (exact source not divulged for privacy reasons)- Character evidence is admissible to prove "habit and routine practice" of a witness. The definition of character evidence that I found basically includes records of past actions that are used to prove a trend, which this is. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that this would not be relevant unless he made the claim that he makes in the userbox on his userpage: that he is a "de facto" administrator, whatever that means. Obviously the claim has no meaning because he neither has the powers of an administrator, nor does he act like one. I don't have a strong opinion on his failed nominations one way or the other, but I've been very annoyed for a long time that on his user page he basically calls himself an administrator, which could mislead newbies and frankly seems false and self-obsessed. I realize that he was not the one who originated such an idea/title, but to splash it so confidently all over his webpage as if to give himself an air of authority? This really rankles me. I think it is deceitful and evidence that he believes in his correctness and authority even in the face of vast consensus against him for adminship. I think in conjunction with this userbox, this grievance is indeed relevant. - breathesgelatin^Talk 03:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Now that I consider his "de facto" admin userbox, I agree that he should get rid of it. There's too much potential for confusion, for one thing. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And as for his claim of not wanting to be an admin anymore...bullshit. If someone offered him the chance, he'd take faster then it would take for you to offer it to him in the first place. --Redemption^Talk 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page craziness

Talk:Mohrgan#Death_image is perhaps the classic example. I almost want to believe that Jack's a comedian of sublime genius. --McEwok 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Aayla Secura#Main_image comes in a pretty close second and got him one of his cooldown bans. Seriously, Jack says some really contradictory stuff on this page. "That was his opinion. He's entitled to it. You shouldn't scold him for that."—Jack Nebulax. I only wish he took his own advice. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Check out his talk page. Look at the "Executor" section. Chack Jadson 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring and revoking of decision with no evidence when he thinks no one is looking

Copied from comments section by Havac, because he thinks it's important and relevant

• I have next to no edits and spend very little time here, but I figured I'd offer my opinion as a kinda-sorta outsider: Nebulax doesn't make contributing a very pleasant experience. Now, I've only run abreast of him once, when removing fanon speculation from the Imperial Sentinel article-- so, be warned, I'm not a terribly informed commenter. It was a cut-and-dried case: no sources whatsoever supporting the "two sentinels were Luke clones" theory that had been in there previously, and I had not only personally checked all the relevant sources but also opened a thread in [TFN's] Lit forum in order to be absolutely sure that I wasn't missing something. Nebulax reverted without any explanation with a warning of "Don't Remove It Again." I took it to the talk page, figured the issue was resolved, and came back almost six months later... to find that Nebulax had put back in the fanon speculation bit again. So, since the issue had previously been resolved-- there was no source at all-- I removed the speculation bit. Only to have Nebulax almost immediately revert. It finally went back to the talk page, where he insisted that we come up with a compromise. Which is silly, since the bit he wanted included was, y'know... complete speculation. Anyway, Culator resolved the matter by protecting the page, but the point of this long rambling (and mostly inane) story is: at least for this casual contributor, Nebulax's attitude doesn't really encourage taking the time to correct or change even minor, inane, and obviously incorrect things, since doing so could involve fighting a lengthy battle as well. And, apparently, rechecking the article repeatedly to ensure the fix wasn't snuck back out.

So, yeah, there're my two cents. For what they're worth. --Trip 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC

Relevant policies

• Wookieepedia:Blocking policy
• Wookieepedia:Three-revert rule

Statement by Jack Nebulax

• Exactly how is Jack supposed to make any statements in his defense when he's blocked right now? - JMAS 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, what would he say that he hasn't already said? Promise to change his ways AGAIN? Whine about how everyone is against him AGAIN? Kuralyov 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • He can come to IRC and ask to be temporarily unbanned to make a statement here. - Sikon 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like Jack has some supporters here already who would be defacto lawyers or attorneys. What we need here would be a form of jury or a judge. I suggest communicating to him through his user page or emailing him to invite him to enter this forum. He'll have to be unbanned however. Jack Nebulax may be a nice guy if you are on his right side. Once, I helped save his user page from being attacked by that infamous "Crumb" vandal and when the vandal when after my user page, Jack was there to revert it. However, we can't ignore the "bad things" he has done like being abusive towards anonymous and lesser registered users. Let this be both a defense and yet a critique of Jack Nebulax. MyNz 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • He can edit his talkpage still, can't he? He can make his statement there and have it copied over. Edit in: I'm really not sure how much good that would do us, though. The problem is that there are two Nebulaxes. There's the normal, genuine Nebulax, who runs around day to day doing stuff, snapping at admins who tell him not to edit war and acting as if he's above the rules, and then there's the Nebulax we see when he's banned or when he's called on his behavior and reminded he isn't actually above the rules. He's very subdued, very mopey, claiming he's ever so sorry and it won't happen again. It's an act. If it were genuine, he would have changed by now, but instead his ban rate has increased. He plays the pity card masterfully. But he's not sorry for what he did. He's sorry he got caught doing it. He claims over and over again it won't happen next time, just give him his eighty-second last chance. He keeps up the mopey behavior for a while. Then, once he figures everyone has forgotten about it and no one is looking, he goes right back to normal Nebulax. He talks the talk like a pro. But he utterly and completely fails to walk the walk. Which one is more important? Jack can make his statement. But he has given us, time and time again, absolutely no reason to trust his word in these matters and every reason to mistrust it. Havac 01:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • He can't edit his talk page: one repeatedly blocked user was abusing the privilege, so it was taken away for everyone. He could make a statement on a wikia where he isn't blocked, but that's all. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is from Jack Nebulax, with no changes made to original text:

Statement by Havac

OK, I just want to get everything out into the open here. I'm having login troubles, so I can come in here, check my watchlist, and after that one action I'm pretty much logged out. So I checked my watchlist, found that an edit had been made to Parck, and checked it out. Jack had made some changes, the most important of them to me being the removal of several images which were not of Parck, but illustrated points being made in the article (there are only, I think, two actual pictures of Parck in canon). I looked at his edits, changed some, like the images, and kept most of it, except the galaxy/Galaxy capitalization, which was simply too tedious for me to edit back in (it was easier for me to work off the earlier version). That edit was as an anon. Jack performed a blanket reversion. It was clearly impossible, given the time involved, for him to actually have read all my changes. I set it back to my compromise version. I then posted on his talk page, telling him that his blanket reversions of any changes to his edits were unacceptable edit-warring behavior. I was a little steamed at this point to have my edits not even considered, but I intended to make the point that I would not tolerate an edit war. This edit was as an anon, but I appended my name to the message, and my userpage very prominently states my situation.

Instead of responding constructively and trying to hammer out a compromise, Jack reverted it back to the "pure Jack" version with an edit summary which attempted to boss me around. "Reverted, again. Do not change it again," were his words. He then posted a very rude reply on his talk page basically saying my version was utter crap, his was infinitely better, and I had better not edit again (or what?). In his words, "Your version is horible. I'm cleaning it up for this wiki. Do not revert it again. The only thing I considered when looking at your version was how to improve it."

I had told him not to edit war, and he continued to do it in the most aggressive way possible. I looked at his block history and found that he had been blocked eight times already, seven for edit warring. This was his eight edit warring offense. In my opinion, the fact that he was able to cry until he got a compromise on some of those cases was not relevant to the fact that he had offended and been banned. This was his eight offense. I checked WP:BLOCK, and it proscribed an infinite ban after the fourth offense. Again, I did not consider it my fault that prior admins had taken lenient positions on his first eight bans. That was their right. However, that does not obligate me, IMHO, to act as if this had been his second or third offense. It wasn't. I wasn't responsible for other admins' behavior, but I was for mine, and I would enforce policy without giving Jack special dispensation. I said in my adminship questions that I would strive to treat established and unestablished users equally, and I believe that that is what should be done. The fact that the community is acclimated to Jack's presence does not erase or ameliorate his offenses, and I don't feel that he deserves special treatment for having been around two years fixing commas, or that anyone else would if they offended.

I looked at his past history of behavior. He had been warned time and time again about the unacceptablity of his juvenile edit warring. He had promised to change every time. Every time he got banned, he played the pity card, he played the contributor card, he played the repentance card. Not a single time did he change his behavior pattern one iota. He's had eight chances, not even taking warnings into account, and he has blown each and every one. In fact, his rate of banning (and presumably of offending) has picked up with time. I had no reason whatsoever to think that any ban of any duration would cause him to change his ways. Instead, it enabled him and allowed him to continue the drama show that feeds his massive ego (really, is there any other reason to have a "de facto admin" sign on your userpage?). It was apparent that the only solution was a permanent ban, because nothing whatsoever could get through to him. I've no doubt whatsoever that when he gets back, he will mope and claim he's learned his lesson and poor pitiful picked-on him will be a model user. And for a week it'll hold. Then he'll forget about it, get into an edit war, and get permabanned. It's his behavior pattern.

So I prepared the statement permabanning him. I logged on to IRC and posted the statement for review, to see if anyone thought I was out of line. Universal response was that it was a hard line to take, but my reasoning was completely sound and my action was justified. The only other admins present, Darth Culator and LordHydronium, supported my action. Having consulted with all the community I could get on short notice, I posted the statement. As I was logged out and could not log in, I had to ask Culator to perform the actual ban.

It was late and I had to go to bed. I logged on the next day to find that Jack had gone crying to IRC, where the issue was taken over my head and behind my back to give Jack his five hundredth chance to blow. Frankly, I felt rather disrespected that I had not been consulted before action was taken to reverse my penalty, which I felt was justified and in line with policy. I contacted the parties that I had been led to believe were involved in the compromise (being Sikon, WhiteBoy, and Culator) and expressed as much and questioned just why Nebulax deserved special treatment. WhiteBoy suggested that it wasn't proper to permaban without an explicit warning saying permabanning was next. I personally feel that a quick look at WP:BLOCK should be all the warning Jack needs, but I totally understand that position and an therefore willing to work within the compromise.

Sikon, however, expressed a belief that established users should not be permabanned under any conditions (he was actually the first that I spoke with). I pointed out that this was not in line with policy, and he responded that he didn't agree with policy and would not allow it to be enforced. Not just that he wouldn't go out of his own way to enforce it, which is understandable, but that he would not allow anyone else to enforce it themselves. I responded that administrators have an obligation to play by the rules, and that if he will block the enforcement of any rules he does not personally care for, he is effectively setting himself up as dictator. Sikon felt that anything less would compromise his personal style and moral sense. He said that the only possible way he would compromise would be to set up an arbitration committee. When I pressed him on the issue of enforcing the rules, he abruptly left. I now find that he has set up this thread, without any IRC consensus (that is where the discussion took place) to do so.

Frankly, I don't recognize the validity of an arbitrarily and unilaterally set-up process with no precedent in policy and see no reason why the entire community is needed to ban a user, no matter how high an editcount he might have. Rules are rules, and Jack broke them time and time again. This entire thread is a form of preferential treatment I do not feel he or anyone else deserves, and I don't see how it's the community's job to do the administrators' jobs for them. Frankly, I'd like the compromise to stand, and this illegitimate tribunal to be shut down. A vote can be taken at any point to set up an arbitration committee. But until that step is taken, Sikon does not have the authority in and of himself to dictate policy and structure of this wiki. Havac 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with basically everything Havac has said, except that I don't think this is an illegitimate tribunal. If Sikon had been wheel-warring, and overriding the desires of the rest of the admins to keep Jack blocked, that would have been bad. But this thread basically moves this question to a "committee of the whole" for comment, which is probably the best thing to do at this point. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• My main problem is that Sikon, with no consultation or justification, has set up a system with the power to ban or unban users. Next time there's any controversy -- even if it's a new user who gets banned -- they're going to demand a community vote. It's preferential treatment for Jack. If any user with his behavior pattern, other than he himself, were involved, there would be no question at all. But he moves a lot of commas, so admins are stripped of their power to ban him and a new system for bannings and precedent for such a thing to happen again is set up with no consultation by an administrator who has effectively declared himself above the rules. There's no community consensus established for it before it was created and given these extraordinary powers, so I don't see what legitimate justification this thread/system has for its power. Or what if, next time Redemption offends someone, that user sets up a CT called "Redemption: In or out?" calling for the community to vote on banning him? I think we need to establish firmly that, no matter who you are, you can't just invent a new process and give it incredible powers on your own personal authority. Havac 02:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I suppose what would aid in that, Havac, is the establishment of a new, realistic but absolutely ironclad system that is applicable to everybody. As DarthMRN below has pointed out, a LOT of valuable people would be perma-banned now by the old rules. This wouldn't be the first time in history that a problem has given rise to revised and improved policy that supersedes the old one. Happens all the time: slavery, conduct in wartime, and right now immigration is under discussion. We're not at all on THAT level, but there IS precedent. As to the inevitable follow-up question of: what happens then the next time someone subverts or overrules that policy, I don't have an answer. I'm sorry. But one day we may very well have to do this again. If history teaches us anything, it's that there is no final solution in matters involving human interactions. Erik Pflueger 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Query: How the hell did I manage to become involved in this? As I recall, Havac proposed about why it should be a perma-ban and Culator is the one who carried it out. Where did I fit in into all of this? --Redemption^Talk 04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• What exactly happened here? Kuralyov 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Let's see. Nine blockings five of which have been cleared or "canceled". That leaves us with four blockings. That's hardly enough to permaban a long term contributor who has made a great number of good contributions. Moreover, four of the blockings (three out of which ended up being "canceled") were performed by the same user, about whom at least one complaint has been made - admittedly, there's not much meat on that complaint, but still it's a complaint. Based on what we have now, I don't think we have much of a case against Jack Nebulax. (note: this user has no personal ties with Nebulax or the other user mentioned in this post; just stating the facts). KEJ 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree. Jack's pattern of behaviour has concerned me for some time, as has his attitude. QuentinGeorge 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine, but more evidence is needed than a list of blocks half of which have been canceled. KEJ 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I actually just heard about this as well, and need a little bit more in depth explanation. Apparently Havac blocked Jack permanently for once again edit-warring on a topic (However, this time it was on one of his expanded articles (Voss Parck)). Havac's reasoning can be seen on Jack's talk page. Sikon and Culator apparently decided to overrule Havac's decision, as we have always been fairly lenient with Jack in the past. Havac objected, and now that brings us...here? Correct? Cull Tremayne 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I understand it Havac was editing while logged out (he's having some trouble logging in) and Jack got into an edit war with him. Culator blocked Jack for a day but removed the block as long as Jack agreed to stay away from Voss Parck. Jack made his own version of the article on a user subpage (and possibly did something else) which caused Havac to request that Culator give Jack a permanent ban, which he did. Jack came on IRC yesterday and asked that it be shortened to a day. I agreed that it was a little harsh as did WhiteBoy and Sikon, who removed it entirely. Culator later reinstated the ban but after much discussion on IRC agreed to reduce it to a week provided he can make the next one permanent should Jack get into another edit war. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nebulax's days of glory under the sun are long gone. Around early 2006, I though that he was a model Wookieepedian but that soon changed over the course of the year due to his attitude towards other users particularly "thinking that only his way is right". I lost much respect for Nebulax as a result and though we have given him many chances "to change to a new leaf", he has not changed on bit. Most of his edits are dedicated to patrolling the Recent Changes and that causes confrontation with other users. I am aware that Jack Nebulax was once voted Wookieepedian of the Month because of his amount of edits. But now his time is over. I know that this will sound cruel but Darth Culator should have been allowed to ban him infinitely because there's a very good chance he'll get into another edit war. So why not save him from any further trouble by preventing him from using Wookieepdia. I am not slandering him, I am stating the plain truth about him from my perspective. I have made mistakes here particularly at Forum:SH Archive/Sensitive issues on user pages|Forum:Sensitive issues on user pages but unlike him, I learn from them and never do it again. MyNz 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with MyNz. At one point, after his third or fourth adminship, he started to behave, but has since reverted back to his old ways. He seems to consider himself above the rules, and like MyNz said, he constantly reverts things, often causing confrontation. Jack just thinks the rules do not apply to him. Having said that, I think a permanent block would be too harsh. I say, block him for about two weeks, but make this his last chance. If he messes up one more time, ban him for good. I'm very sorry to say that, but I feel it's what's best. Chack Jadson 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How are Jack's contribs nowadays? I hardly see him around anymore. Maybe he left the site already. Anyway, if his track record is only half what it used to be, I can't say it would be cost-effective for Wookieepedia to permaban him over transgressions like those listed. He is being overprotective of pages, which can be said for many users here, even respected Admins. He is beeing somewhat rude, but Redemption knocks him right out in that department. Overall, getting into conflicts in cases where there is cause for reasonable doubt over what should be included in an article, and getting engaged in 3RR's, which requires two people after all, doesn't seem to me to be enough to make it cost-effective to permaban him. In my experience, the only harm he does is prevent edits where the sources are questionable or vague, which in light of the new sourcing policy is an asset to the site rather than a flaw. As for being disruptive, I think someone like him has earned the privilege of getting temp banned a few more times before the equation goes up enough for a permaban. DarthMRN 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Jack's been a long and loyal member of Wookieepedia, to be sure. However, most of his blocks have been for 3RRs, but some also for personal attacks. It seems to me that he becomes involved in edit wars and the like too much, but not enough IMHO to merit a permaban. I recommend a "scale of escalation" on restrictive measures. 1 day blocks usually get the point across, but repeat offenders should move up the scale- i.e. a week, a month, a year, infinitely, or however. This goes for anyone who has been blocked repeatedly- if you've had three one-day blocks for 3RR and you break it again, I will give you a three-day or week long block, fyi.

While I've worked well with Jack in the past, he has demonstrated a bit of paranoia, disrespect towards others, lack of good faith, and overprotectiveness of articles- both on the Wookiee and in e-mails-and he can't get a whole lot of special treatment just because of his insanely high edit count. That's not fair. That being said, Jack's been a helpful part of the community, a dedicated RC patroller, a staunch defender from vandalism and fanon. I've seen him help new members out when they're first starting, and he's quite knowledgeable about the Star Wars universe. I have no desire to see him go or be banned from the Wookiee at all, but rules have to be enforced. We're all equal here- from a well-respected user like Kuralyov who has been here for a long time and has thousands of contribs to new users who signed up this month, and no one is higher than the community and its policies. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Two other things: Jack can't currently defend himself, due to a block. Also, I think this was a good idea, Sikon. Sometimes, this sort of action is needed, and I'd like to see us institute something like the arbitration committee to handle issues of this sort. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Arbitration is part of an admin's job description. Setting up a special committee for it, although sound as it may be, would only draw the same criticisms from the community the Inq did. Anyway, I can't really add anymore than what's already been said, but I echo the sentiment that we shouldn't give Jack special treatment because of his high edit count. People seem to place a lot of emphasis on edit counts around here, and they shouldn't. You have to admit, if he was lower on the edit count list, he would have permabanned a long time ago. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I also want to point out that a large number of his edits, at least recently, are extremely minor things, like adding in an extra space between categories and the Sources section, or putting in a link. And most of these are in articles that someone has just edited. A number of times, I have also seen him make an 'edit' that was just him saving the page as it already was. He has a tendency to always want to get the last word/edit in. I know this may sound hypocritical or catty coming from me, but the bottom line is that while he has a high edit count, a good number of those edits are really extremely minor and add nothing to the article. This may also sound hypocritical coming from me, but I definitely think that we should have acted on Jack a long time ago. Kuralyov 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I completely agree with Kuralyov and StarNeptune. Most of Jack's edits are very minor, such as capitalizing a letter in a template. And it does seem like he always wants to have the last word/latest edit. I think we should give him a two week block, then give him one more chance. If he seriously messes up once more, permablock him. Chack Jadson 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the whole point of this controversy was that we had already given him enough chances to change his tune. So far...no changes that I can see. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess. Or a stubborn one at that. --Redemption^Talk 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Something good is being brought up here: Should amount of contributions affect how much leeway you are given. I see some admins thinking otherwise, but personally I agree with that position. If we were a community first and a knowledge repository second, your level of contribution shouldn't give you extra points on the mistak-o-meter. But we aren't! We are an encyclopedia (or whatever) first, with the community coming second. Our primary interest is to compile as much as we can on SW. If we can do so with a happy comunity, that is great, but if one must be sacrificed over the other, is there a question of which would come out on top? Therefore I again bring up the point of cost-effectivness. Considering what we are, and what our purpose is, is it to our gain or to our loss to permaban someone like Jack? I'd say it is our loss. Considering how we are not a community first, I think it more than fair that number of good edits should affect how much leeway we are willing to give a disruptive, rules-violating user. It may cause some grief, and may not be morally desirable, but once the sabers are tucked in, and the dust has cleared, Wookieepedia will be stronger than it would otherwise have been. And since I see that as the foremost goal of this site and community, I feel good edits and WotM's should, not just in practice, but in theory as well, be grounds for leeway. It is not like Jack is a vandal or "wastes" Wookieepedia space. DarthMRN 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Though, if Kura is right, and Jack's days of contribution are over, we can still permaban him to prevent further disruption, and still enjoy the fruit of his past labours. But it is a gamble. Who knows if he won't someday return to his past glory, and we miss it because he has been blocked? Frankly, when viewed like that, banning him seems like a poor bet. DarthMRN 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think he should dealt with the same whether very active or not. It looks like he's been effectively blocked for a few days at the most so far. I agree with the earlier comment about progressive blocks and don't shorten them. Go to 2 weeks, 1 month, & 2 months before perma-blocking, imo. -Fnlayson 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DarthMRN: While I'd be the first to want us to be a happy community, and have done what I can to make it so by reaching out to those who were formerly opponents - The4dotellipses is the most recent example, but Jack Nebulax was the very first example of it - I agree that our first priority is to assemble all information about Star Wars; all other considerations come a distant second. And in the rush to add info, who knows how many mistakes can be made, grammar, format, or other? Jack is the one we can count on to clean up after us, and his loss only makes our task harder, not easier. Some of you think Jack is just a bottom-feeder, but you know what? Bottom-feeders are a neccesary component of an ecosphere: they clean up what others leave behind. If that's what Jack does, so be it; it's a vital part of what we do and it's something he need never feel any shame for. And we'd suffer a great loss if we allowed our emotions to drive us to rash acts that, in the end, will only harm us.

And am I defending him just because he defended me and my Palpatine article? Yes, I'll be quite honest about how I stand by those who stand by me. But as I've written above, that's not the ONLY reason I'm here. There are practical considerations here, and Jack serves a practical use, one that I don't see anyone else clamoring to fill. Others will surely do clean-up, but who would do so with the determination and time investment that he does? Jack is a singular asset, and removing him permanently out of anger would only be cutting our nose to spite our face.

So that's my call on Jack. But there's an underlying issue here. If if I may make a suggestion: we're at this impasse because no policy was in place before the issue raised its head. There is simply no precedent for dealing with large-scale 3RR complaints. There was a lot of tolerance, then just hour-long or day-long bans, and after years of it, suddenly someone wants a perma-ban which is only shortened to a week-ban at literally the last minute. That's inconsistent, and those who dislike how Jack operates could claim that there is no incentive to change one's behavior in that lack of an organized method. What we're dealing with now is the consequences of not having a proper disciplinary system already in place.

So what do we do instead? I say call the week-band the extent of it, then clean Jack's slate. Then, we start over with a new and firm system. The first 3RR gets a VERY firm warning that includes a list of punishments for further violations as I am now outlining, the second an hour-ban, the third a day-ban, the fourth a week-ban, the fifth a month-ban, the sixth a year-ban or perma-ban as you choose. Maybe perma-ban can be for the seventh violation, I dont know. But the hoped-for result is that violators will realize that they have something to lose by not changing their behavior, and if they keep digging their heels in, it only gets worse. If violators have a problem with whatever underlying editing issue caused the 3RR violation, they should have a regulatory body they can appeal to, maybe the Inquisitors, maybe something else, like this board. After deliberations, the body would make a final and binding decision, and to violate after that decision is made could get a serious ban penalty. Newcomers who reverse something can be informed of the decision and informed it is binding.

Does any of this sound good? Please feel free to comment on it right here; I'd love to hear critiques or alternate ideas. Erik Pflueger 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am one who thinks a permaban in this instance is not warranted. He does spend most of his time nowadays over at the SW Fanon Wiki anyway. However, I think going from several 1 day blocks from 3RR violations to permaban is over the top. I agree with whoever it was (I think DarthMRN) who said there should be a scale. A select number of 1 days bans > 1 week > 2 weeks > 1 month > 6 months > 1 year > permaban. Is Jack rude? Oftentimes, yes. There are others who are as bad, if not worse. Is he stubborn to a fault? Yes. We all can be on some issues. Is he to the point of warranting a permaban? No. I'd say he's maybe at the 6 month level, no more. - JMAS 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I hope I am not the only one when I say that permanently banning Jack Nebulax will be a very bad decision. Yes, Nebulax has been blocked several times. And yes, he has made his share of mistakes. But from what I see here, you people only look at the negatives. I guess I'll be the first to start looking at the positives: Nebulax is a great writer. He has made a lot of contributions with content, and has started some articles as well. Nebulax is fast. If there's vandalism going on at the same time he's on, he'll revert it in less than a minute. Nebulax is smart. Nebulax knows a lot about Star Wars, and always answers questions as soon as someone puts them on a talk page. Yes, he has made his share of 3RRs and personal attacks, but compared to the number of personal attacks he has recieved, that's nothing. If you block him, I know I will leave Wookieepedia forever. I know you don't care about me leaving, but once you block Jack, you will see Wookieepedia slowly collapse.--Darthtyler ^{(talk) (HSM RKY)} 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nebulax is a great writer. He has made a lot of contributions with content, and has started some articles as well.
    

The only edits I've seen him make are edits that a bot can do. Putting an extra space between lines. Adding a period. Etc, etc...
Nebulax is fast. If there's vandalism going on at the same time he's on, he'll revert it in less than a minute.
That's why we have admins.
Nebulax is smart. Nebulax knows a lot about Star Wars, and always answers questions as soon as someone puts them on a talk page.
Yet he lacks common sense. Without common sense, whats the point of being knowledgeable in a certain field if you can't properly interpret it and it's opposition like a mature adult?
If you block him, I know I will leave Wookieepedia forever. I know you don't care about me leaving, but once you block Jack, you will see Wookieepedia slowly collapse.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Nobody is irreplaceable. The guy "left" for a month and we were doing quite well without him.
--Redemption^Talk 00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why must everyone look at the negative side? No, he does not only do things that bots can do. I said hes created articles. Can I bot do that? And sometimes, admins are not on. He does have common sense. And nobody is replacable. We are all different in our own way.--Darthtyler ^{(talk) (HSM RKY)} 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Very off subject, but, technically, bots can create articles, using editarticle.py Pinky^Talk 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So now you're against me Pinky? And yes, bots can create articles, but bots can't really put content, as bots don't have these things called brains.--Darthtyler ^{(talk) (HSM RKY)} 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What articles has he created? That weren't simply a sentence or two long with a stub tag attached to it? What articles has he brought to FA status? He has ZERO common sense. Remember that flounce he pulled awhile back? Someone with some common sense would know that kind of behavior is very inappropriate. And don't even think about throwing that garbage of "we are all unique." Bullshit. The only thing about Jack that is irreplaceable is his whiny, self-centered attitude...and even that can be argued. --Redemption^Talk 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Lots to reply to here.  :)
  1. I like this thread that you have started Sikon, and think it's a good way to resolve the issue. I do not think there needs to be another committee setup to handle this stuff, tho. I think if it comes to that, then the admins would act as that committee.
  2. I agree with the ones who have pointed out that there is a hole in our policies. Our policies are generally good and we have most of it there already. As I've been thinking about it I was thinking something along the lines of the progressive idea that others have suggested, which would be very similar to what we already have in place with the blocking policy. But that should be discussed in a separate CT, not here.
  3. The number and quality of edits does not put someone above the policies that the community has established. By contributing to Wookieepedia, you inherently agree to abide by those policies, which are put in place to maintain organization and order on the site.
  4. And I dunno about anyone else, but ultimatums strike a very sour chord with me. WhiteBoy 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, you probabaly don't know this, or may not remember it if you do, but last month someone on the IRC laughed at the notion that you should be elected Wookieepedian of the Month considering personality problems other people had with you (I was not and am not now one of those people). I told him in all frankness that if personality were the sole arbiter, that's a pretty poor barometer for measuring someone's worth. What about what they do? And I argued to this man that you had done a great deal of hard work for the 'Pedia, and that's why you earned and deserved that nomination. I believed that then. I believe it now. And I apply it across the board, to Jack as well as yourself. One of your principal problems with him, if I'm reading you correctly (and in fairness to you, I may not be), is his behavior, his attitude. To you he's both a whiner and a jerk. Maybe so, maybe not, depending on the person he's interacting with at the time. I'll certainly accept that he's not treated you as you would wish, or else why would you take issue? But by saying "no one is replacable," you're assuming that someone else can be found to do everything he does that has a nicer disposition. And it's never wise to act in an irrevocable way on assumptions alone.

Please do not construe this to mean I'm making light of your concerns, my friend; I'm really not. The very fact that you HAVE a problem means it matters to you and needs to be addressed seriously. Your problems matter as much as anyone's, and your concerns about Jack's weaknesses need to be considered as much as his strengths do. So do Havac's, Sikon's, Culator's et al. Your problems matter. I'm just not sure that a perma-ban is the way to solve them. That's all. Erik Pflueger 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add a general thought: if we suddenly design policy on the fly just to get rid of somebody we don't like, how is that just? Surely it must be better to firmly establish a policy, and THEN give said individual the chance to hang himself on it, knowing what he's in for. A major part of the problem of having no set policy and system of punishment in place is that people do 3RR violations not knowing what to expect in reprisal. What makes someone worth sentencing is having a policy of law and punishment in place, and the person violates the law anyway. That's what makes punishments moral and legal. Am I wrong there? Erik Pflueger 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • • I know what you are trying to say. That Jack and I are one in the same. That we have more similarities then differences. Blah, blah, blah. But there is one key difference that is why we are here for him and not I. I simply don't give a damn. Hell, I know that I don't deserve that WOTM position. And truth is, I don't want it. For me, it's just entertaining to see the people who haven't gotten to the age to brush words (words that are online and have no voice or real value to them) off them. I do what supposed to and that's it. I don't whine to administrators when another user and I have a disagreement (okay, usually I'm the one at fault but at least I can admit that). As for him being a whiner and a jerk...much more so whining. He fights then curls up in a corner and whines about it.

And I know we can find someone else can do what he does: a bot. --Redemption^Talk 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because a registered user corrects punctuation and everything else a bot can do doesn't mean block them. You are going way to harsh on him. He is here to help. And he is not self-centered.--Darthtyler ^{(talk) (HSM RKY)} 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not the point. The point of blocking him is for edit-warring and constantly breaking the 3RR. The fact that all he does is correct punctuation is just a matter to end the rumor that he is a useful contributor. And you are absolutely right. He isn't here to be self-centered. Then...why is he so self-centered? This personalty quip is clearly causing a massive disturbance here...--Redemption^Talk 01:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Red, I'm not trying to say you're one and the same. I'm just saying I apply the same principle to you both: ability and effort matters more than personality to me. And I'm sorry, man, but with all respect, if you didn't care would you be here arguing for his dismissal? Something about this must matter to you. And that's fine if it does. But to chuck him over it? In general, as far as words not having any value, I've always believed that words DO mean things, and I try to speak accordingly. And the fact that you're humble and self-effacing is commendable. It speaks well of your character. But you have character flaws too, and everyone does. My point is that your WORK is what matters here, not your character. It should be that way with everyone here. And I do believe he does important work, above and beyond mere bot-work. And if it were otherwise, so what? Someone needs to do that work, and as I said above, there's nothing in it that's beneath any other kind of work here. I won't exaggerate things beyond credibility by saying the 'Pedia can't do without him, but why should it have to do so? Just because of whiner-ness? Not enough to me. Erik Pflueger 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have next to no edits and spend very little time here, but I figured I'd offer my opinion as a kinda-sorta outsider: Nebulax doesn't make contributing a very pleasant experience. Now, I've only run abreast of him once, when removing fanon speculation from the Imperial Sentinel article-- so, be warned, I'm not a terribly informed commenter. It was a cut-and-dried case: no sources whatsoever supporting the "two sentinels were Luke clones" theory that had been in there previously, and I had not only personally checked all the relevant sources but also opened a thread in [TFN's] Lit forum in order to be absolutely sure that I wasn't missing something. Nebulax reverted without any explanation with a warning of "Don't Remove It Again." I took it to the talk page, figured the issue was resolved, and came back almost six months later... to find that Nebulax had put back in the fanon speculation bit again. So, since the issue had previously been resolved-- there was no source at all-- I removed the speculation bit. Only to have Nebulax almost immediately revert. It finally went back to the talk page, where he insisted that we come up with a compromise. Which is silly, since the bit he wanted included was, y'know... complete speculation. Anyway, Culator resolved the matter by protecting the page, but the point of this long rambling (and mostly inane) story is: at least for this casual contributor, Nebulax's attitude doesn't really encourage taking the time to correct or change even minor, inane, and obviously incorrect things, since doing so could involve fighting a lengthy battle as well. And, apparently, rechecking the article repeatedly to ensure the fix wasn't snuck back out.

So, yeah, there're my two cents. For what they're worth. --Trip 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa! We have a policy saying four bans and you are gone? I though it was a matter of admin desicion. I'm a sucker for policy, so in that case I change my vote to kick Nebulax with immediate effect and if his userpage is any indication, Redemption too! Policy is there to be followed, and both knew the consequences. However, I agree with Sikon, and would like to see a motion to make it next to impossible to permaban longtimers. But until that has become policy, both Nebulax, Redemption, and Yoda knows who else, are in violation and should be kicked with extreme prejudice. DarthMRN 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, you're making a decision not taking into account the situation, but instead blindly following a policy. - Sikon 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup. I'm all for warning people who don't know, amending policy, and using interpretation when there is no policy in place, but when there is one, I'm a friggin Muun. You are the Admin, you can interpret policy. DarthMRN 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am somewhat hesitant to comment on this, especially given the fact that my contributions to the Wookieepedia are far more modest and small compared to most veteran posters. However, given my interest in this site and my hope for its future, I think I might chime in with a few comments. I have butted heads with Jack on numerous occasions, typically for any of the complaints listed above. In almost all cases, our disagreements and debates centered on him unwillingness to compromise on changes to a page. As other has also mentioned, he often gets short, rude, or downright hostile. However, I am a firm believer is giving a person one last chance. Some may argue (with good reason) that he has had too many chances. However, if he truly enjoys the Wookieepedia, the threat of losing his identity and ability to post here surely is enough to set him down a better path. Having read what DarthCulator posted on Jack's discussion page, I agree that one last chance is prudent. Should that last bit of faith be broken, then a permanent ban may be the only solution. AdmiralNick22 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, DarthMRN, I agree...once we have a policy, we should enforce it. The problem here is that the policy being alluded to does not count 3RR's as a violation. The only thing a 3RR could fall under would be "Disruption," but one would be hard-pressed to argue that a single 3RR carries the same weight (and hence the same punishment) as vandalism. This is why I have started the other CT to discuss what the blocking policy should be for repeated 3RR violations. WhiteBoy 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The other side would argue that it's NOT just one case of 3RR here, but many. But I agree, it's a question of severity. It's not usually committed out of malice or vandalistic intent, but usually ignorance. Someone THINKS they know better than the info just put down and so they revert it, rather than ask for confirmation, such as source and page number. That's called best intentions, not criminal intentions. And when they dig their heels in despite the evidence, that's stubbornness, and that IS admittedly a character flaw. But character flaws are not punishable offenses anywhere in the civilized world (unless you're Paris Hilton). So, no, I can't in good conscience classify 3RR violations the same as, say, going onto Kuralyov's personal page and altering the text to say things his mother wouldn't want to read. THOSE guys are malicious and deserve the boot, without a whole lot of chances for redemption, since no one can say they didn't read the policy and didn't know it wasn't allowed. Bad intentions leading to bad results deserve the blade. But good intentions leading to bad results? Erik Pflueger 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• But character flaws are not punishable offenses anywhere in the civilized world (unless you're Paris Hilton). Sorry, but I beg to differ. People are fired from their jobs because of character flaws all the time; character flaws which, for one reason or another, make them tarty, cause them to show up high on drugs or drunk, or which make them extremely distruptive to their coworkers. If you truly think that people should be judged based purely on their accomplishments and without regard for their attitudes, biases, and character flaws, then you have the makings of a dangerously screwed up system of morality. History is littered with truly nasty people who accomplished incredible things. I am not saying that Jack is a horrible, wretched person or anything, I am just trying to make a point. People have to be accountable for their behavior and it is obvious that Nebulax has been given ample opportunity to correct his mistakes.--172.162.254.143 05:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A.) It's "tardy," not "tarty."

B.) My words about the civilized world aside - a poor and exaggerated choice of words on my part - I'm talking about HERE, not about office jobs. No one's being paid for their time here, and there's no employers to feel they're not getting their money's worth out of an employee (and I maintain in any case that the Pedia very much DOES get it's money's worth from Jack, if there was money to pay). No one gets called on for coming here drunk or high, and while I admittedly don't know what EVERYONE's experiences were like, how are revert disputes "extremely disruptive?" Vandalism is extremely disruptive; 3RR violations aren't on the same level.

C.) If you don't think Jack is a horrible, wretched person or anything, then don't use the example of horrible, wretched people as a reason to perma-ban him. You may have been trying to make a point, but that's an unfair and innacurate point on its face. Laying any suppositions of my moral system aside, whatever Jack does hurts only feelings and egos. No one's died here, as if they were victims of those "truly nasty people who accomplished incredible things" you mentioned. It's not like he's the guy that established the murder-for-profit business in Hostel or anything, or raped children, or even committed vandalism like going to the Kyle Katarn page and saying, I don't know, "Kyle Katarn is a cocksucker," for instance (no offense intended to the Katarn fans).

Jack has a difference of opinion with other editors and he edits accordingly. It may not always be a best-informed opinion, but that's all he does. And he defends that opinion too fervently for people's taste sometimes. And his attitude honks some people off. Am I happy that those people are upset? Of course not! But this is not a capital offense, not to me. We're talking about the equivalent of life imprisonment for repeated acts of littering or farting in public. That's overkill any way I can look at it. Erik Pflueger 06:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's "tardy," not "tarty."
  Ha, yeah. Firefox's spellchecker does not seem to work on pages this long. *shrugs* can't catch them all.
  If you don't think Jack is a horrible, wretched person or anything, then don't use the example of horrible, wretched people as a reason to perma-ban him.
  I never advocated permanently banning him. I was merely responding to your comments which seem to imply that Jack's behavior should be ignored merely because he defended you once and because he has a ridiculously high edit count.
  No one's being paid for their time here, and there's no employers to feel they're not getting their money's worth out of an employee (and I maintain in any case that the Pedia very much DOES get it's money's worth from Jack, if there was money to pay).
  Obviously, it was an imperfect metaphor. I was referring to the fact that Jack has consistently broken the rules and he should have to face the consequences, nothing more or less.
  Jack has a difference of opinion with other editors and he edits accordingly. It may not always be a best-informed opinion, but that's all he does. And he defends that opinion too fervently for people's taste sometimes. And his attitude honks some people off.
  That is a pretty drastic simplification of the matter. The problem is that Jack is not just an innocent wayward lamb who needs to be nudged back onto the right path. The time for that is over. He has quite brazenly sparked half a dozen major edit wars and he has been warned/banned for trolling more times than I can count. At this point, Jack Nebulax's disruptions to the wiki have begun to override his contributions to it. This isn't just a minor matter. Jack isn't learning, which means that a lengthy ban is needed to give him some time to mull things over.--172.162.254.143 08:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• 3RR has been a rule since the start. It's the punishment levels that need clarifying. So a wiping the slate does not apply. There's been plenty of warnings with the bans before. A longer block seems in order. However, a perma-block does not, imo. -Fnlayson 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack isn't learning, which means that a lengthy ban is needed to give him some time to mull things over. Respectfully, what is being specifically debated here is whether Jack will be banned FOREVER, not for a lengthy period of time. Mulling things over means nothing if he has no chance to put that mulling to use by one day returning. That's why I'm arguing as I am. A lengthy ban is one thing; a perma-ban is quite another, wouldn't you agree? Erik Pflueger 12:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've already had two creds in this argument, but here's a bit more. 1) On second thought, we don't need an arbitration committee. The admins usually do a decent job. 2) I find just a bit interesting that two of the admins (besides Havac) involved in this case both have histories of "creatively interpreting" their powers under policy without much discussion (Sikon in the Trash Compactor debacle and Culator in deleting the User template). Given those two, I'm not surprised that they often pick and choose what and when or where to enforce policy. As a community, we either have to accept that type of thing (anarchy!) or find a solution- but that's a different issue. 3) I agree that punishment levels should be adjusted for the 3RR in the other CT, and then Jack should be given the rope, to hang himself with if he so chooses. 4) Again, going from one day to permaban, while within admin discretion under WP:BLOCK, especially over 3RR, is a bit draconian. Granted, Havac puts forth a good point, but I respectfully disagree with the length. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The room was quiet when Karohalva entered. Beside him the Senate Guard escort nodded a helmed head that he was now on his own. Looking about the amateur Wookieepedia raised an eyebrow. The room was filled with other users moving to and fro, something not unusual in itself but nonetheless bearing an odd feel. Then it dawned on him... The defendent was absent.

"Darth Sion's Honey Glazed Toaster Pastries!" Karohalva swore in a quiet voice. The curious Outland slang caused several of those nearby to look strangely at him and with good reason.

Karohalva smiled a thin smile. "This is a first!" he continued. "Here is a trial of an absentee user which is conducted by text alone!"

At this point a legal aide pointed out that such things had indeed been done before and to the same user no less. Karohalva shot the aide for interupting his professional sounding third-person ramble.

• That was a reading worthy of the epic poets, Karohalva, though I'm not sure it helps to make your points. Still, no harm in injecting a little levity to keep us all from going over the deep end here. But regretfully, as far as being a legal ace goes, you're no Denny Crane or Alan Shore. :P Erik Pflueger 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I mean, "Darth Sion's Honey Glazed Toaster Pastries?!" Oy vey... Erik Pflueger 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ataru, as usual, has very good points. And a new policy is needed. Chack Jadson 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• You know, Jack is hardly the only uncivil person here. And to be honest, Darth Culator blocking him for it is at best unjustified, at worst hypocritical. And Kuralyov, I do seem to recall you saying that you were taking a Wookieevacation because, and I quote: "Everyone is against me" "I can't stand it here anymore". I myself got into more than a few verbal spares with a few vandals, and though they were either moments of frustration or an attempt to slow them down, I am ashamed that I let it get so personal. Thus I say unto thee: "Let he that is without sin, cast the first stone!"...Oh my God, I'm turning into Quinlanfan. But anyway, there is the charge that Jack does only things bots do. Some people just aren't creators, they're fixers. There's the claim that Admins are supposed to fight vandalism instead of the users. The admins aren't always available, and there were times when admins would be offline or on IRC or just be unaware of what was happening, and the vandals would have up to hour long sprees. Jack was one of those who helped fight againts them. That is why I say, no permablock. -- SFH 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I said I couldn't stand it here. And when I could, I came back. Don't put words into my mouth to make a petty point. Kuralyov 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh. Sorry. -- SFH 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No one's suggesting banning Jack for being uncivil. They're suggesting banning him for repeatedly breaking rules. As for Jack doing whatever . . . Jack does what Jack does. But ask yourself . . . if he's permabanned, will there ever come a moment where you go, "Oh, God, I really wish we had Jack here"? If he's gone, vandals will get reverted ten seconds later by the next person to see it. "The Galaxy" won't be the Galaxy on every single article. Double spaces won't be turned into single spaces for another three and a half weeks. Sure, he does good things, but is he that crucial? Frankly, I don't see how the fact that he's capable of contributing positively means he gets a free pass to break the rules. Bill Gates is a huge humanitarian. He does a lot of great stuff. If he were brought up on charges of embezzling money with undeniable evidence against him, would you vote to acquit him simply because you feel his humanitarian work is so valuable that he deserves to be outside jail so he can do it, and it's not that big a deal if he embezzles some money -- it's outweighed? Or would you say that doing charity work doesn't make you above the law? And mind you that Bill Gates's humanitarianism makes a far bigger contribution to the world than Jack does to Wookieepedia. Is it a somewhat exaggerated example? Maybe. But it illustrates my point: doing or having done good things does not and should not equate to a free pass to break the rules. Havac 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I find that to be a poor example. The real-world law is meant to (ideally) protect people over their enterprises, and is based on certain moral credo which must be observed. AFAIK Wookieepedia policy is there for the opposite reason: the enterprise over the people. I said it above, and repeat it again: As long as the betterment of Wookieepedia outweighs the interests of the community (which by all accounts, it does), contributing good should be reason for leeway, at least if bandom was an Admin call, which apparently it isn't. If doing Humanitarian work was the ultimate and godgiven goal of all mankind, there is little reason to doubt that Bill Gates could have walked away with triple-homicide for his efforts. I still vote Jack should go unless Policy is altered, but I figured the cost-effectiveness argument was warranted as a response. DarthMRN 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So the rules mean nothing so long as you add a lot of brackets? I don't buy it. You're telling me I can go vandalize pages and add porn so long as I keep churning out FAs? I really don't like this "sticking it out for a year and having a high edit count means you're above the law" attitude at all. Havac 07:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You can't deny thay you would still be a tremendous asset to the wiki even if you did such things. But I didn't say you should be above the law, only that you should be given a fair amount fo leeway compared to your user value. It's not ideal, but Jack is living proof of why it is sound strategy. Or, was, at least. DarthMRN 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yet that leeway would consist of the rules not being enforced on me; therefore, I would effectively be above the law. And that's not something I think we should endorse, no matter how many FAs you write, or in Jack's case no matter how many spaces you edit in and out of articles. Havac 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • His contributions should not be a factor. Would folks say keep him if he did the same things but was a big writer here? I hope not.. -Fnlayson 03:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, to have trials before we have a Judiciary.- Doman Beruss, IIRC, in the The Krytos Trap. Now, I'm certainly not calling Jack Tycho Celchu, but I do want to point something out: Yes, blocking lengths is ultimately left up to admin discretion. However, we don't have a policy for repeated 3RR and NPA violations-more of a misdemeanour than a felony if you ask me. Yes, we block vandals for throwing vulgar slander on user pages, but telling someone who is already admittedly slanderous and argumentative to "go to hell" seems to be a different fruit from "You all can f***ing suck my [insert reference to genitals or posterior here]." Seems to me like some people are trying to hang the prisoner without any rope. I don't care about Jack's contributions and how many and what type and all that crap. No one's perfect, and anyone who has been here for awhile has most likely gotten into an argument or something here, so if we're going to take action on this sort of thing, we need to have a very clear demarcation and boundary in what we do. This will be precedent. For anyone insisting we not drag this process out, I say this: First, no. It won't kill you to wait and if need be we can "confine" Jack with short blocks. I don't recommend it because he has to defend himself eventually. Two, I question your motives. It's obvious that you just want to see punishment meted out to someone who has crossed you. Shame on you. That's all, until I have more to say. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• To avoid any appearances of singling Jack out, perhaps this new "clear demarcation" should not be retroactive. Yes, this might mean that Jack isn't permabanned as quickly. But it sounds to me like those who most want him permabanned would also agree that, under any new rule, he'd manage to get himself permabanned eventually. So patience. This would also deal with the very real issue of users getting into more fights initially and (in some cases) learning equilibrium and becoming great contributors. Also, I very much like the idea of sequential bans, each more punishingly lengthy than the last. The offender will get the message. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that a new policy shouldn't be retroactive: it strikes me as unfair (in most circumstances) to permanently block someone, then shorten the block, and then change our minds yet again and bring back the permanent block. I think we should let Jack come back after the current block expires (if he wants to come back, that is: he may have left for good after this, for all I know), and then escalate to a longer ban based on either Forum:CT:Multiple 3RR's or Wookieepedia:Blocking policy. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So if we were to implement a new policy (quite likely, it seems) the 3RR "counter" would be cleared? in other words, if Jack has broken the 3RR say, six times, it would be cleared? We'd give him and everyone else a clean slate? Chack Jadson 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If this policy was not made retroactive, then Jack would still have to be held to the old policy for this incident. Either way, he's past his limit already. I see absolutely no reason to absolve him of past offenses simply because there's a new counter in place which, even though it is more permissive, still calls for a ban for him. If we had someone who was permabanned for edit-warring four times and we move the limit up to six per the proposed policy, then it would be appropriate to unban that user but still consider him on his fourth offense. If we have a user who is on his eighth ban, then he's on his eighth offense. There's no retroactivity there whatsoever. He's not being banned for something that is OK now. He'd be banned for something that's still not OK. I don't understand how this is supposed to be some kind of trick sprung on him. Furthermore, Jack's current situation is that he has a week ban with the warning that if he screws up again, he's permabanned. This was because the first permaban came with no explicit warning. This is completely in line with policy; he would be on his ninth offense to be permabanned. Unless this . . . thing decides that permabanning established users is to be banned, for God knows what silly reasons, Jack should be subject to the conditions already in place and agreed upon by Culator, Sikon, and WhiteBoy. That's the fundamental question here. Can we permaban established users? If not, then policy must be changed. If so, then it's up to admins to enforce policy as-is. They're the ones who were voted the right, by the community, to ban users. Unless I missed the part where the community voted to express its confidence in DarthTyler, Redemption, and any other community member -- even a well-respected one like Erik -- to overrule admins and hand out or not hand out bans as they please, I don't see how its necessary for this thread-committee-thing to create some special case for Jack and Jack alone. Havac 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed. If the new policy still says Jack-in-a-ban, and all required procedures have been followed, kick him. As for the 'no-permaban of established users'-thing, you needn't worry, Havac. Banning is not a matter of Admin decision, but a matter of policy. And policy, by its very nature, requres hard and fast rules for everyone, which is impossible if you are supposed to differentiate between one user and another. What would constitute an established user? Should the admins decide? Should the community vote? No, neither would work, and as a result, longtimers must be permabanned along with everyone else. Not because I feel that is right, but because policy-wise, it is the only way to do it. On the other hand, though, if we were to say that no one could be permabanned, simply banned for a maximum of a year, that would effectively solve both problems IMO. DarthMRN 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
          • First, thank you for the complement, Havac. It made a difference for me on a crappy day. Second, if the fundamental topic for discussion now is should we perma-ban established users? then my answer would have to be no. By their very nature, established users are those who have demonstrated themselves to be worth keeping, for one reason or another, not to rid ourselves of. To take so radical a step, to me, requires a radical offense or series of offenses. And though I completely understand and appreciate your viewpoint on this - I really do - and while I regard you as highly as you seem to regard me, I respectfully submit that Jack's activities can at worst be regarded as "annoying," not "blatantly criminal." A lengthy ban may or may not be considered proper, but a perma-ban cannot be. Not to me. And not, I suspect, to a significant number of people who have involved themselves in this discussion.

And even if the majority votes to ban established users, how then do we define established users, if I may ask? That's something worth asking ourselves. I'm somewhat elitist anyway: I always thought, with the profusion of vandalism and pointless edits being carried out by anons (and if you want an explanation of why Jack is so hard on anons and newbies, that's as good as any, espeically since he's the one that usually has to clean up their messes), that the right to edit should only be granted to anyone who went to the trouble to establish an account and an identity. Where in that group we can divide between "established" and "not established" is something others would have to decide. But it is becoming clear to me that this discussion has uncovered a fundamental series of questions that have either been answered incorrectly or not answered at all. Before we ultimately decide how this impacts Jack, we may have to decide on those fundamental answers. And once we have, the system of rules for Wookieepedia may be quite different. Erik Pflueger 05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment as well. I'd have to disagree with your definition of established users, however. They're simply users who have been around a long time, but I don't think that makes them necessarily worth keeping. If length of existence were linked to worth, racism would be awesome. Am I saying Jack is as bad as racism? No, but I'm pointing out that simply managing to not get permabanned for a year doesn't make you inherently good for the wiki. At the root, I don't believe that doing anything, no matter how good, is enough to put you above the consequences of the rules. I believe that you can't earn a free pass and that everyone should be equal before the rules. Some people don't. I think that's just a fundamental divide that can't be bridged without changes of opinion on those matters, but I know which one I think is the right position to take. There's always some room for understanding and tolerance on minor personal quirks, but I think Jack's bullying behavior, use of the Wookiee as a tool to feed his massive ego, sense that he is above all rules, and constant edit-warring go far beyond tolerable or dismissable as personality quirks. They drive people away from the site, infuriate much of the community, and make it impossible to get anything done because Jack is more committed to preserving the status quo, no matter how incorrect it may be, and getting his edits in on top than he is to actually helping the Wookiee. I just don't see how reverting vandals (and a boatload of people who aren't vandals) ten seconds before the next guy does it and adding brackets has earned Jack such incredible leeway in some people's opinions. Frankly, I think it's a brainbug. Illogical conclusions. "Jack has a high edit count, so he must contribute a lot of actual content." "I see Jack on recent changes a lot, so he must be key to Wookieepedia operations." "He's been around a long time so he must be totally invaluable." "Jack reverts a lot of anon edits, so he must be the best vandal fighter ever and the only person capable of fighting vandals." "Jack acts like he's the god of this wiki, so he must have earned it." Where's the evidence of any of this? Havac 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack may have 55000+ edits, and he may be an established user, but is he indispensable? No. He does not write FAs like Havac, or Atarumaster. Having said that, I say that no one is above the rules. If one of those two starts consistently breaking the 3RR, they should be banned. Whether it's a guy who just registered last week, or Kuralyov, no one is above the rules. And Jack seems to think he is. So my point is, agreeing with Havac, Jack is not indispensable, and should not be treated like he is above punishment. He (and anyone else who acts like this) should be held to the rules no matter how many edits they have. Anyway, after several days, are we starting to form a consensus about this? Chack Jadson 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • After seeing Jack's statement, I think he is truly sorry. I believe he really intends to change this time. I say we give him one more chance. Chack Jadson 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How many times has he seemed truly sorry before? He's sworn up and down time and again that he's so sorry and he'll change and he never does. I just can't buy it. Havac 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Havac, please. There's such a thing as kicking a man when he's down. You've ably made all your points, as well as you could hope to make them. If he's to be given a perma-ban like you want, it'll happen whether or not you pile on him. If you really think Jack is the offender in this, my friend (and I still refuse to call what he did or does that offensive), you'll just undermine that by continuing to be on the attack when he's rolled over. Like it or not, act or not, he's playing humble, and if you keep pig-piling on him while he's doing so it makes you the villain, not him. Just some friendly and well-intentioned advice. Erik Pflueger 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of the tension between making my point and going overboard . . . but I feel like I'm not getting through at all. One look at his history shows the same statements over and over again to no effect -- I've pointed this out time and time again and warned against it -- yet all he has to do is say, "Oh, I'm sorry," and he's forgiven. So I guess I'll say it one last time and try to bow out: don't be taken in by the mopey, puppy-dog-eyes statements. History has shown they mean nothing. I don't want to be the villain, but when I believe I'm right I don't want to back down just so that delicate sensibilities won't be hurt -- especially when I feel it's an act to deflect criticism; I'm not going to just roll over for that. Maybe someone else could jump in; I've talked with other people and know there are others out there who agree with me; perhaps they feel that I'm holding up my end fine, but I feel like I'm on my own out here, and that causes me to try to cover every point and field every statement individually to each person, which I guess results in a lot of duplication of effort which could be seen as excessive hounding of Jack. Havac 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

First, if it helps, I hardly think you're alone, or not getting through. You're not, and you are, respectively. You HAVE held up your end fine. But that does not make it the last word on the subject; you've had several days and many entries in which to make your points, and Jack has only had one opportunity to answer, and then only via someone else.

But that's not my fundamental argument; this is: repeated 3RR violations are, in my mind, insufficient to merit a perma-ban, regardless of how many times he's done it. It's not that serious a crime. Outright vandalism is, and I've described how I define that, but 3RR violations are not. It doesn't matter what the rules say; the rules themselves are wrong, as well as Jack. Jack needs to change his attitude, certainly - I always want people nicer, not meaner - and a serious penalty could do that, but NOT a permanent penalty.

Which leads to my second point: if you feel Jack HAS run roughshod, it's because there's been poor enforcement of the rules until now, and the enforcement is not responsibly or consistently done. Slap him on the wrist several times, and then skip straight to the maximum punishment? No parent would get a well-behaved child if he worked that way. And the fact that he's violated the 3RR rule enough to get canned doesn't mean anything if he hasn't been given the intermediate steps of punishment. Improve the system and give the penalties more teeth if you must, and then give him the opportunity to violate those rules and get the punishment that comes to him. If he does it now he'll do it knowing what he's risked and what he's in for. If you want him gone, and he doesn't change his stripes, he'll get himself gone soon enough. If he does change, then you won't have any more issues with him anyway, will you?

So if all it takes is just a little more patience to either get him to behave, or hang himself, why the urge to do it now? If I may risk stepping on your sensitivities, it's not escaped my attention that you have pressed your case so fervently because Jack made you angry. I sensed that possibility from the moment you told him "You're done." And yes, he's likely made quite a number of others angry too. I'll not deny that, even though such an experience with Jack has been quite foreign to me for some time. Maybe I'm the exception, rather than the rule. And maybe he's run afoul of you one too many times, stepped on your very last nerve for the very last time. And you've said you don't care to have decisions like this dropped into a forum for review. But it seems to me like this was very much needed, because you were so angry.

It's not unusual for any lawmaking body to have a secondary review process, to keep decisions made out of intense feelings from getting passed, to the detriment of the whole. Ask any congressman. The House has the Senate, and on top of that there's presidential veto powers. Sometimes they have to deal with bills introduced under passion or anger, and they have to block them, at least until such bills are more carefully considered. Sometimes they get passed after all, sometimes they get voted down. And sometimes they reveal a greater problem that needs to be addressed instead. Even if they've been long-established laws, they sometimes need changing anyway. Slavery needed nearly a century to be changed, the prohibition of alcohol more than a decade, but they were found to be fundamentally flawed. I see no reason why Wookieepedians can't overturn the rules regarding 3RR and restructure the rules and punishments to be both fairer and firmer.

Please do not take my words as a roundabout reproach; far from it. As I've said to others here, you have every right to your feelins, Havac. I accept that your anger is justified; it must be, or else you wouldn't be here. I simply question whether your anger, however just, is enough to essentially execute someone for a lesser crime. Perhaps my perspective is unique, perhaps not, but I know what serious crimes are - I have a friend who was subjected to years of child sexual abuse, from a single-digit age onwards (five or maybe even younger). The abuser was just arrested, and even he deserves a trial with a jury of strangers who aren't personally involved in the case - again, to prevent passions from eclipsing true justice. Still, to me, that's a guy who deserves the maximum penalty, not somebody who's stubborn in his edits and commits 3RR. Be angry at Jack if that's how you feel - I won't say you shouldn't, it's your right - but I just can't share it, and I certainly can't follow it to the conclusion you have reached. I'm sorry.

I think that's all I have to say. Like you, I'm satisfied that I've made my points as well as I can make them. That's enough for me, and for you too, I think. Regardless of the issue, or its outcome, you're still my friend. Havac, and I still respect you. Just understand that Jack is my friend as well, and I respect him, too. And I had to do my part to help those who are my friends. If there's any comfort in that, it's probabaly that I'd be in your corner just as much, should the circumstances require it. I hope that's enough; it'll have to be. Erik Pflueger 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to delve away from the seriousness of the conversation but Erik...at least try to sum it up in less then 2 paragraphs. Nobody feels like reading an essay. And don't give me garbage about how you respect me or my opinion. Just shorten the damn thing so we can get on with our lives. --Redemption^Talk 04:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Kuralyov 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care how repentant he seems, he's crossed the red line, IMO. However, I an extremely uncomfortable with taking a vote to ban him or let him return. That is a dangerous, slippery precedent. Perhaps a vote among admins. But even then, it's clear he broke so many rules so many times, Culator's ban really should have stood. Kuralyov 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I love you too, Redemption :P. Seriously, if part of the issue with Jack is that he's a jerk, as you see it, shouldn't I try to be different? Be nice? How is that garbage? You can skip over sentences, you know ;) Erik Pflueger 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw a little support Havac's way, I have to say that I agree with everything that he's said. I also think this is the wrong way to go about reviewing a person's block. First off, as has already been pointed out, it supersedes the administrator's authority. Jack should have to go to Havac first to contest the block. Going behind his back like this and taking it to the community makes it seem as though there is no respect for Havac's judgment. Secondly, this kind of thing sets a dangerous precedent for vandal filibusters as well. If Jack deserves this kind of treatment, then any quick-witted vandal can demand the same leniency. Now on the issue of Jack being banned, if we give him one last chance and make it clear that the next time means infinite bannination, I think I could live with that. However, I do believe that he needs an infinite ban. Most established users here try to avoid Jack like the plague on talk pages, and do you know why that is? Because he is detrimental to conversation and consensus. Defending his side by putting the burden of proof on the wrong person is one example (see: Talk:V-150 Planet Defender) He is also detrimental by pushing new users away. He reverts legitimate information without checking, and reverts to old versions simply on suspicion. He accuses people of not taking disputes to the talk page, but he is the number one breaker of that rule. A good example for me was this revert. Yes it was an anon. Yes it wasn't worded particularly well. However, Jack obviously didn't even check if it was good information. The user was only trying to help, but after that abrupt response to helping, I doubt if they'd want to keep contributing. And this is just one example of many of the times that Jack has just reverted information from new users only trying to help, and perhaps turning them off from the site. A helpful user would try to guide that new person. Rewriting and asking the person are two easy steps, but Jack does neither and has never shown any inclination towards that. Back when Jack temporarily left the site I left a "final word" to him to express my feelings towards him, and I still stand by them. As has been seen, you revert legitimate info without checking or asking, you are rude to new users when they are only trying to help, and you defend defeated arguments to the end, never letting your opposition have the last word (even going so far as to type "Fine then" to end arguments). Have these behaviors changed? Have you treated your all of your fellow users with respect and courtesy? No he has not, and I believe that he will continue to act this way. So should we give him this "one last chance"? I severely don't think so; he's had plenty. However, if consensus is that an ultimatum should be given first, then so be it. Cull Tremayne 07:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• So frankly, I've been avoiding this thing because I agree fully with what Havac's saying, and I didn't just want to toss in a "Me too." Plus it's long. :P But yeah, Havac and Cull have said what I think. There are really two things about this whole business that I don't care for. The first is that "we should just give him one more chance". Now, I have nothing against that in principle. People can change. Problem is, Jack's had chances. A lot of them. And yet at the end of it all, he's still the same person. And after every chance, he lapses into the same behavior. We can give people "just one more chance" indefinitely, but frankly, at some point it needs to be said "No, they've had their chance, and this obviously isn't working." I think that time is now. Sure we could put Jack on probation, give him one last chance to shape up, then boot him if he doesn't. Would it hurt me, personally, if Jack's in my opinion inevitable permaban were delayed by a couple weeks? No; I won't pretend I like the guy, but I don't have any personal stake in this. However, why would we do this? When is the last last chance, or should we just keep on giving it "one more try"? That list has six distinct blocks that I'd say "count" (in that two of those reversals seem to be because of an agreement; I get the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Jack was still in the wrong, he just commuted his sentence). Five chances to clean up his act (plus the latest block), and yet none of that has worked. Is that magical sixth chance going to suddenly do the trick? Why does he, and apparently no one else, deserve chance after chance?
  
  But really, that pales next to the thing that really annoys me about this. Havac is an admin, used his judgment and the responsibility given to him as an admin to make the decision to ban Jack, and got two other admins to sign off on it. As Cull says, if Jack felt that Havac's decision was wrong, he can contact Havac, and if need be, have it discussed amongst the admins. And yet here we are now with a CT second-guessing Havac and giving special treatment to Jack. This is, simply, bullshit. There's a proper time and place to decide things like this, and making a community vote/consensus/whatever on whether an admin can do his job is nonsense. If Jack, Sikon, or anyone had a concern with the block, the proper thing to do would be to take it up with Havac, if needs be Culator or myself, and at the most talk about it with the other admins. Not to make it into a frigging public circus on whether Havac is allowed to make decisions, and certainly not all for the sake of one user, no matter how many edits he's made. - Lord Hydronium 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What Havac, Cull, and Hydro said. Why are we having this CT? Either admins can ban people, or they can't. Would we be having this thread for >any< other user? Did we have it for Darth Nuke, when I banned him permanently? Did we have it for Quiet_Mandalorian? No. Why is Jack getting special treatment? Because he made a lot of grammar edits? If you've got seven bans, it says something, doesn't it? I'd like to believe there's a change of heart, but then again, I wanted to believe that the last couple of times. Hasn't happened. And I don't have much confidence for the future. However, if I'm outvoted on that, fine, I am willing to be proved wrong. QuentinGeorge 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Had it been a year ban or six month ban instead of permanently, I doubt we would have had as much fuss and nonsense over this mess. Still, banning someone permanently mostly for revert-warring- and while a ban is certainly merited- seems a bit vindictive, even for this group. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree completely with Atarumaster (That short and sweet enough for you, Redemption? :P) Erik Pflueger 14:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ditto, exactly! Though I have not kept completely quiet in this, I find myself mostly agreeing with Havac. According to the 3RR policy in place at the time although vague it states "Chronic offenders may be subject to longer bans from administrators." It does not say how long an admin should or should not make the ban. But, as Erik stated, I think jumping from 24-hours to permenant seems too far to me. However, the policy also states that "Blocks may be lifted at admin discretion if the infringing editor expresses regret for having broken the rule." So no admin involved has broken any rules... only Jack. Culator's compromise of dropping it to a week stands. The question is "where do we go from here?" and that is being discussed in Forum:CT:Multiple 3RR's. I think the decision there should retroactively apply to Jack, but perhaps based on the punishment scale. I.e. Jack is currently banned for a week, so his next ban would be two months, and finally a year. I would hope that Culator would at least drop it to a year, assuming that is what the newly-formed penalty scale allows for. I see little harm in either of those two choices. WhiteBoy 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'll just throw myself on this bandwagon. If we by the rules shouldn't be second-guessing Havac, we should also refrain from permabanning someone without prior warning. Both are rules, as far as I've gathered, but neither are above questioning IMO. But they are rules, to be followed. DarthMRN 22:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with WhiteBoy's assessment. Jack can come back and edit when the current block expires, but will be blocked for longer if he engages in further edit wars. This might be a permanent block, depending on the decision over on the over thread. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
            • No. I'm willing to stand aside and let him come back but his fate should not be decided by idiots like myself. There is a reason why being an admin is such an exclusive position. The admins need to discuss this amongst themselves. This isn't a matter for the common-folk to decide. We aren't a community built on the will of the people or any of that garbage. --Redemption^Talk 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I disagree. I think we should still have a say. We care what happens. This community was built on the will of the common people. If you think you are unqualififed then don't vote, but I think all established users should have a say if they so choose. Chack Jadson 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Then what is the point of even having administrators? We don't decide who stays and who goes. There is a reason for this...if we go by your logic, then we might as well throw the entire concept of admins out the window. --Redemption^Talk 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Admins are crucial to Wookieepedia, I just don't think they should make this decision without any input from us regular users. Like I said before, we care what happens. We should have a say. Admins make many important decisions, but often times it's based on how the community votes. Shouldn't consensus from the whole community have an effect on this? Chack Jadson 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh. No. Banning users is an exclusive decision by admins. This is a matter in which we should have no say in. Do we vote on what to do with Paris Hilton and then the feds carry out OUR decision? Hell no. This sets up a poor precedent in which we will now have to have an entire freakin community vote on what to do with certain users who break policy. --Redemption^Talk 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A vote of users could turn into to a popularity thing. Besides, they can see how the users that commented think about it here and consider it. Let the judges (admins/bureaucrats) convene and decide. -Fnlayson 04:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I thought that I would add a contribution to this page even though I am a bit late. In in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I have not been a big fan of Jack ever since I first came to the site in Spring 2006, when he was almost immediately rude to me while I was a newbie. I called him on it and he was quickly very apologetic once he realized I would be a contributing user who was not going to put up with his crap: User_talk:Jack_Nebulax/Archive 2#Talk.2FQuinlan_Vos. At any rate, I have not had any particular run-ins with him since, except for this ridiculousness on the Cade Skywalker page, which wasn't really vociferous or anything and was more comical than anything.

The behaviors: At any rate, my major concern with Jack has been the way he scares off newbies, either by being rude to them or by automatically reverting their edits without consideration for the quality of their edits. Jack, in short, does not assume good faith. I think this is what leads to his repeated 3RR violations. I am also concerned by his egotistical behavior, such as the "de facto administrator" box, which lends supposed authority to his behavior and misrepresents our site and our community's consensus. I was also unimpressed with his recent "I hate you guys! I'm leaving!" behavior, which I think is an almost universal practice amongst problem users. (I moderate other internet sites as well and people who are "established users" bordering on trolls often perform stunts like this in order to rally support and draw attention to themselves). I find such behavior childish. This said, none of these behavioral complaints (rudeness to newbies, egotism, childishness) are necessarily cause for a permaban.

Bad behavior leads to policy violations: Yet there does seem to be a consistent violation of policies caused by these behaviors (3RR/personal attacks). I do feel that a permanent ban is justified. I do not feel that large amounts of edits gives anyone a pass for being rude to others or for violating policies that are clearly stated. I am not strongly opposed to giving him another chance, but I also doubt that giving him one more chance will result in any permanent change of behavior. So, while I have never really liked Jack, I think I am being neutral here in that he has real policy violations that can be demonstrated. Furthermore, I sometimes wonder if Jack's numerous edits and reversions could be harmful. Part of the idea of wikis is that they are dynamic and small tweaks can improve them. Here I am not talking about the difference of a space or two (tasks which Jack diligently performs but could also be performed by bots and do not detract from articles in major ways), but reverting almost every minor change to an article by an anonymous or new user. While in many cases this probably eliminates fanon and vandalism, I wonder that if in other cases he is eliminating legitimate edits and ultimately detracting from the quality of the wiki--both by preventing articles from being improved and by discouraging newer users. Usually it doesn't seem that he actually takes the time to check the revision but assumes bad faith--a principle contrary to the idea of a wiki. This would need to be studied more in order to take a firm stance one way or the other, clearly, but I think in some sense it could be considered a policy violation as well.

The cause of bad behavior: There is one final wiki principle that I think Jack has violated. This guiding principle is the one that is the most important to me and I have linked to it on my page for a long time. Jack is a dick. I have never accused anyone of being a dick before on this wiki. But Jack is one. He is often right but he is NEVER nice about it and I suspect that he is more concerned with being in control than the ultimate outcome for the Wookiee. His numerous apologies have not led to improved behavior because he fails to realize that the ultimate cause of his problems is not his policy violations and his anger but being a dick, which LEADS to anger and policy violations.

Obviously voting has not yet begun on this issue, but I wanted to make my opinion heard before it does. Clearly I am not a fan of Jack but I think for the most part this is based on his own behaviors and violations and not on our first encounter, which I am long over. - breathesgelatin^Talk 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• So what happens now? If, after all this, Jack gets unbanned and this goes nowhere, I will be seriously pissed, and probably take Sikon up on the offer he posted at the top. Kuralyov 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What's that supposed to mean? --Imperialles 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It means that this whole point was to decide what to do with Jack, and now it seems that it's going to be forgotten as he's allowed, once more, to be free to edit and disrupt the wiki, despite the clear opinions of the majority of admins and users alike here, and all because Sikon engaged in the same unilateral action he asked the rest of us obviously inferior admins to refrain from. And that is unacceptable. Kuralyov 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's see how the vote turns out before jumping to any conclusions about Sikon's future actions, eh? --Imperialles 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • What vote? All that's here so far is one giant filibuster. jSarek 02:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The vote that undoubtedly will be held in the near future, because the two sides in this thread are unable to reach a compromise. --Imperialles 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Because this thread is already so long, I have started a new thread for the vote. Kuralyov 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More general thoughts on the three-revert rule

• Just a point for discussion, not specific to this discussion, but prompted by thinking about some of the issues--perhaps a seperate page/forum/consensus track?
  If someone reverts a page to remove a flawed edit, then the person who added the original edit reverts, and a tit-for-tat situation arises... it's the person correcting the page who hits the three-revert rule first. This quirk means that clever trolls or opinionated users can bring about a situation where their version becomes the locked page, and the entire discussion descends into a turgid talk-page bore, which they can use to prevent any consensus being reached.
  Do we need to think about modifying the rule slightly? --McEwok 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is why I always protect the page *on* the third revert, rather than revert it myself and lock it. jSarek 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is that any better? In that case, if the correction is part of a non-revert edit, then the problem-causer reverts first, the problem-causer hits the third revert first... and you've still locked the page on their version, and bogged everything down in procedure. No worries, though--just an observation!! --McEwok 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No matter what, if there's any sort of legitimate dispute, someone will say "Argh, evil admins, you have protected the wrong version." If there's no legitimate dispute, than you've probably reverted something that shouldn't be there and the admins won't go after you for 3RR anyway. (Unless the admins actually are wrong: that's when you bring out the evidence, and the admins end up taking a position close to your and unlock the page.) Anyway, this section's comments should probably go to Forum:Multiple 3RR's. —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)