Forum:CT Archive/Jack Nebulax

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)

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.


 * 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.)
 * 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.)
 * 1) *Cleared: 09:48, 19 June 2007 Sikon (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (Me! Me first!)
 * 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)
 * 1) *Cleared: 10:45, 18 June 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (Per IRC agreement)
 * 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.)
 * 16:33, 28 February 2007 Jaymach (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (Three revert rule)
 * 19:55, 19 February 2007 Silly Dan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (three-revert rule)
 * 1) *Cleared: 20:11, 19 February 2007 Silly Dan (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs)
 * 18:52, 2 February 2007 Atarumaster88 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 hours (Personal attacks; cooldown)
 * 21:47, 1 January 2007 Darth Culator (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jack Nebulax (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (3RR violation.)
 * 1) *Cleared: 10:27, 2 January 2007 Sikon (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jack Nebulax (contribs) (visited IRC, promised not to complain about the ban)
 * 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.)
 * 1) *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)

Relevant policies

 * Blocking policy
 * Three-revert rule

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 [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] 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: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)