<DIV>If consensus is in the 80% range, why was 168... allowed his sysop rights back? The vote in that case was far from consensus.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Erik wrote:<BR>>I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to <BR>>officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should <BR>>be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.<BR><BR>IMO, Jimbo isn't needed to sanction all policies. Most are developed by<BR>consensus on Wikipedia itself. <BR><BR>There does seem to be very wide general support for this 'rule to consider'. <BR>See:<BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Revert_wars_considered_harmful<BR><BR>So far there are 27 people supporting this rule and 8 against. That comes to<BR>~77% in favor of the rule by my calculation. For polling purposes, we consider<BR>80% to be consensus and thus binding, no? <BR><BR>Thus all we may need to make this policy is a vote or two more in favor of the<BR>rule. <BR><BR>I encourage everybody to consider this issue and
vote their conscience. <BR><BR>--mav<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools?tool=1">Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard</a> - Read only the mail you want.</a>