Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
>Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably
>did not either understand that the vote was about
>bannings. If that is what the vote is about and not
>just a guideline.

Guidelines and rules to consider become policy when broad-based
consensus is reached on those items. Breaking polices have consequences. The 24 hour time-out was proposed and it is up to Jimbo to decree this remedy for
breaking this policy.

-- mav

-------

So, the consensus is currently not clearly in favor either of a guideline nor of a rule.
The poll indicated "do you agree with this as a guideline"
Unfortunately, some people voted for that proposition "as a rule".

Should we take care of opinion of people who voted under the wrong header ? :-)

Second...there is nowhere in that poll, indicated that
voting "yes I agree for a 3 revert rule as a guideline"
meant "yes, ban the user after 3 reverts".

Since that is not indicated, here is what I remember I voted for
voting "Yes, I agree for a 3 revert rules as a guideline"
meant "yes, protect this page from this user after 3 reverts for 24 hours".

I like this option. The community will decree this is a good option.

For more on the proposition, look at the bottom of the 3 reverts page in question :-)