On 10/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that concensus can (and does) change is an important principle on Wikipedia. Any kind of double jeopardly rule would go against that, however restricted its application. I don't think it's worth it.
The fact that vandals continuously increase an editors load means that we get them. Why is it different for people who continuously want to remove information against previous decisions? A rolling consensus only has so many useful purposes. There are only so many times an editor will say the same things in a discussion before they just give up on Wikipedia as a messy bureaucratic system.
If the community aspect is less important than always being able to challenge the current situation than so be it, but dont say that you didn't realise that the community could be hurt by the decision.
BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping articles?
Peter