On 10/01/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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