Forum:CT:Nebulax vote

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Nebulax vote


This page is an archive of an administrator 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 Jack Nebulax's next ban will be permanent. - WhiteBoy 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Since the discussion for Jack Nebulax has gotten nowhere and it's obvious that his cabal of apologists want it that way, I have taken the initiative to start a vote in a thread not so cluttered with evidence and obfuscations. The choices are: Option 1, to uphold the permaban; and Option 2, let the one-week ban stand as is and move up the punishment chain from there once the Forum: Multiple 3RR's thread is finished. Kuralyov 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Compromise. Option 3: Ban him for six months, or a year, or whatever the new 3RR punishment list decrees appropriate. DarthMRN 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 4- proposed by Havac in IRC. If Jack were to violate the 3RR policy once more after this warning, he would be banned permanently. — Havac addendum: This is the current compromise that was hammered out; I see no need for it to be entirely overturned; moreover, I see no need to go back to one-month blocks as if this were Jack's first offense and not his eighth. Havac 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting

THIS PAGE IS RESTRICTED TO SYSOPS ONLY. ALL REQUESTS FOR UNLOCKING WILL BE DENIED.

Option 1

Option 2

  1. This topic has seen too much attention. I'm sick of it. Let's finish the relevant thread, establish a policy and go from there. If he breaks it again, he'll be punished, but it'll be by POLICY this time, and not solely on admin discretion. Admin discretion is good, but basing it on policy is better. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm just tired of it. -- SFH 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. We pretty much all agree that what is needed is better-defined blocking policy for 3RR violations. We will consider it a lesson learned, and Jack's punishment will increase from here according to policy, if necessary. WhiteBoy 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 3

Option 4

  1. Havac 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. There's a lot that should and shouldn't have been done regarding this issue. The problem wasn't that we didn't have a clearly defined policy. We did have a policy, and it was enacting that that got this whole thing started in the first place. What we really need is to work out just what the proper procedure is if someone (particularly another admin) wants to contest an admin block, because this way clearly hasn't worked. Anyway, this being Jack's sixth "real" block (one was revoked for being justified, and one has no explanation on the revoke, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt there), and given everything that's been said by myself and others about him being detrimental to the wiki, I think giving him "just one more chance" is more than enough, and it ought to mean what it says. - Lord Hydronium 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. See comments below. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Having helped author the original compromise that Sikon needlessly overruled, I have to vote for this option. Darth Culator (Talk) 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'll reluctantly move to support this. Although I'm sure once this comes to pass, Sikon will just overrule it again. Kuralyov 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. I've been debating what to do about this whole situation for a while. I've got a lot to say about Jack, but each time I've tried to write something, my comment just sort of dies on me. So here's the short version: Jack Nebulax has been disruptive in a wide variety of ways beyond simple 3RR violations (or 8RR violations, for that matter). While his edits are prolific and often at least marginally beneficial, they have never been indispensable, as his recent absence demonstrated. Jack has been given more "last" chances than were ever warranted, always complicit on behavioral changes that never happened. Thus, the original ban should have stood . . . but since that seems an untenable position in this environment, I'll vote for the next best thing. jSarek 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Not to sound cliché, but it sounds fair to go with 3 strikes and you're out. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. - breathesgelatinTalk 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. No comment. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'm tired of this whole thing as well, but it seems to me that banning him now, after the amended block has expired, is worse than either blocking him indefinitely in the first place, or repealing an arguably justifiable permanent block. Let's at least be consistent and transparent with our policies. I'm also moving my vote to this option, since consensus seems to be moving in this direction, and I think it's a reasonable solution. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Banning is a matter for community vote now? I assume we'll give the same courtesy to every vandal too. - Lord Hydronium 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This is an absolutely pointless thread. It will lead to nothing. If an admin hadn't set it up, I'd delete it, too. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can we just shut the fuck up about Nebulax?! This has been going on for over a week and is too trivial to deserve so much attention. Obviously, blocking policies need to be defined better so this can be handled more efficiently. Until then, just let it go!--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know which side to come down on to be honest, since I'm very much still a relative outsider to this community. It does bear mentioning, however, that if someone continues to break a policy, even if that policy is analogous to jaywalking (which when you look past the text stream to the data stream is actually a sensible law), then they have to at least suffer some kind of retribution. Without just enforcement and discipline after due process, laws and policies become meaningless..--Goodwood 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lord Hydronium, Jack is not a deliberate vandal whose only goal is to mess up this wiki. He is a controversial user who's been at the centre of numerous conflicts while trying to improve things. That's why blocking him indefinitely and repealing that block has resulted in discussions and attempts to refine policy. Rest assured, blatantly disruptive users will continue to be blocked without the need for weeks of discussion. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't mean to imply he was. It's just that if we turn bannings into votes, either we do it just for Jack, in which case we're giving him special treatment he doesn't deserve, or we open ourselves up to everyone else trying to demand that they get the same thing. We've never had community votes on whether bans were allowed (and with the protect, we don't this time either; I'm just addressing the earlier situation); were we to have had one here, we'd be setting a precedent, and one that could easily be abused. - Lord Hydronium 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The precedent was set for Sikon when he decided to give Jack preferential treatment in the first place and start the other thread. Kuralyov 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe it's come to this. Without getting into a debate about whether Jack's a force for good or evil, there are a couple of things I'd like to say. First, he didn't break any rules. This is kind of important. It's called the three revert rule for a reason and, since he only reverted twice, it doesn't apply here. Even if he had broken the rule, the policy as it stands dictates a day ban only (although I agree that changing that could be a good idea). Now Jack may very well have gone on to break the rule again, but we'll never know since he got banned before he had the chance. Banning him permanently for this is like hanging somebody because you thought they were about to steal an apple. Second, when Culator shortened the block to a week he said he wanted it to be permanent next time Jack broke the rule, not that he should be given a permanent ban after the week one expired. Third, the fact that we've spent over a week debating such a trivial issue is quite pathetic. Let's just take the need for a better 3RR policy out of it, adjust that, and drop it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First I disagree that the original discussion has gotten nowhere. At the very least it has lead to defining a blocking progression for 3RR's. Second, I think what happened is what should happen when another admin contests an admin block. The admins talk about it and decide what should be done. WhiteBoy 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't what happened. It started with Havac permabanning Jack according to the blocking policy, which says there should be a permaban after four blocks. Sikon disagreed with the policy. Fine so far. Here's how things should have gone next:

      1) If Sikon disagrees with the policy, he starts a discussion on it. 2) If anyone disagrees with Jack's block in particular, they take that to Havac and/or the other admins, and the admins discuss it.

      Here's how things actually went: 1) Sikon undid the ban. 2) Sikon started a community discussion on whether Jack should be permabanned (not on policy, mind you). 3) After all that, you finally started an actual discussion on the policy. 4) Kuralyov started a community vote on Jack's ban. 5) Ataru locked it and it finally became an admin discussion.

      There are two separate issues here. Policy is a community discussion, and Jack's ban is an admin decision, and the two should only be related insofar as Jack's ban was what incited the discussion on policy. But instead the issue became about Jack, a thread made about Jack, and this whole big public stink raised over the question of Jack. And the issue that should have been at question, the one that was supposed to be the impetus behind this, namely whether 5 3RR violations are worthy of a permaban, somehow took seven pages of discussion to be addressed. - Lord Hydronium 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Havac's comments from IRC: That's not what happened. A circus happened. A public circus. It wasn't any kind of constructive discussion. Admin discussion would have been a good idea, but that isn't what happened. - Havac 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Good summary of the events, and hearing it like that I agree that there were better ways to handle the various aspects. I have to say that, though I generally agree with Sikon on this issue, he could have handled things differently. There is one fundamental thing I will still point out: the original perma-ban does not fall under the blocking policy that you referred to. It falls under the 3RR policy, which says 24 hours and allows an admin to go longer for repeat offenders. WhiteBoy 07:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry to keep going on about this but it doesn't fall under the 3RR policy either since he reverted twice. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this was an admin issue that got dragged out into the community, I'm glad that this is now an admin only vote. Let the admins decide what to do with Jack, seeing how it is, oh gee, I dunno, OUR JOB to decide how he is to be punished. Of course, all this could have been avoided if the original block was respected (which it wasn't). Instead, Sikon abused his power (yet again) to create a new policy out of thin air, then that newly created policy was used for the community to discuss Jack's punishment. Since when does the community discuss the blocking of people? Whether or not to block someone is an admin's decision, not the community's. Otherwise, what's the point of having admins? The sad part about this is that giving Jack this special treatment has now set a precedent for other troublesome editors to request an Arb thread, and we begin the cycle anew. How fun. As for Jack, I feel he has been given enough chances, and he keeps saying he will change, but yet he doesn't appear to. Giving him this one last chance will prove that we mean business. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a 3RR issue. It was that he had a history of edit-warring, I saw an edit war coming, and told him not to. He chose instead to pursue an edit-war as aggressively as possible. He was warned by an admin not to engage in negative behavior in an attempt to head off 3RR at the pass. His response was, in essence, "Fuck you." I could have reverted it again and waited for him to go to three, it's true -- but then I would have been edit-waring myself, even if it didn't fall under the strict 3RR definition -- which has always been more about spirit than about "Wait for it . . . wait for it . . ." Frankly, I would have felt that I was baiting him into breaking the rules. Instead, I had given him a warning and he chose to blow it off completely. I moved from there and took his long history of edit-warring into account; to me, edit-warring isn't some tiny offense -- like going 3 mph over the speed limit -- that it's been painted. It's Jack's whole pattern of bullying, better-than-everyone-else, self-aggrandizing, incredibly harmful-to-the-community behavior that I took into account when making the ban, and I feel that was warranted. -- Havac by proxy, via IRC, 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • 3RR = edit-warring. Again I find myself (mostly) agreeing with what Havac is saying (I'd better stop that!), just not the level of punishment. WhiteBoy 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this is a distinct possibility, what happens if there is no consensus? Does the universe come to an end? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it's merely concentrated on our own galaxy. Seriously though is the real question here to ban for one year (Option 2) or to ban indefinitely (Option 4)? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • To be more exact, it is on his next offense (assuming he has one) do we ban him according to the yet-to-be-determined 3RR policy (Option 2) or permanently (Option 4). WhiteBoy 16:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)