User talk:D.M.N./Three Strikes and You're Out

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copied from WP:AN[edit]

Opinions on the page? D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:FIRED and see the talk page. Your best option is to revive WP:AMR. A large number of editors support it. —Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We-e-e-e-e-ell, I think that the situation is that if there is sufficient support for the premise then you could form a policy proposal on that basis. You cannot simply gain sufficient support and say, "This is policy". There are other parties to consider, such as the Bureaucrats, and whether the current RfA process is robust enough to handle someone who is already a sysop, etc. If you gain traction for the suggestion then you can create a proposed policy page and throw that open to comment.
Kudo's for suggesting it at the Admins Noticeboard, though. I take it you have also suggested it at WP:Village pump (policy)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, have done. I brought it here as many admins visit this page, and I would like input from many admins from this before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you expect administrators, who are currently appointed for life, to come forth in droves supporting your idea? Term limits are forced upon those who do not want them for the benefit of the community. There is no other way. People with power do not voluntarily give up that power. At least not on this planet. —Viriditas | Talk 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this idea anyway. We seem perfectly capable of removing administrators that are abusive. --Deskana (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume you speak of the force used by arbcom. Term limits would place that force in the hands of the community at large; Some would argue that's where it belongs. Others will counter with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy." —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Admins are really the right people to take part in the discussion; you are likely only going to get those who are wishing to protect their interests. It would be extraordinarily difficult for a sysop to discuss the matter under the aegis of an "just an" editor. Since Admins are nominally an instrument of community wishes I would presume that most would simply await the result of the decision.
Contrarily, many of those non-admins taking part may fall under the shadow of having problems with one or more admins and will support any proposal which gives an opportunity to remove those that they consider are restricting them, rather than not benefiting the community. Not all of these, however, will necessarily be trolls or vandals, but simply self interested individuals. Resolving who is arguing with regard to improving the encyclopedia and those toward self interest will be extremely difficult (and even harder to weigh the argument - self interest may not be default reason to disregard an argument).
Obviously, the only way to test this is to run the experiment. However, first of all you need to set it up. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposals like this always flounder on the problem of who issues the warning/strike? Other admins? Anyone? Disaffected trolls who don't like the admin enforcing policy? As a community we can't decide on anything collectively without major drama and recrimination. This also falls on the premis that admins are perfect and can't be expected to make any mistakes. This doesn't work in real life and what admins need to be judged on is whether they learb from mistakes or keep repeating them. If the latter then RFC and RFAR follow. To give a clear example of why this doesn't wash think about my unbvlock of Davnel03 just after I got the tools. I ended up at the wrong end of an RFC over the action and under this system would undiubtedly have recieved a strike. Would this be fair I ask? Especially given what a solid and valuable contributor the reformed Davnel03 has turned out to be. Spartaz Humbug! 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is too black and white - why should an admin that does something just bad enough to get a strike 3 times be desysopped while one that does something not quite bad enough to get a strike 100 times doesn't? These things need to be decided on a case by case basis, as they are now, trying to set everything in stone won't work. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This adds more drama than it solves in my opinion. Spartaz said it perfectly - who decides if a strike is issued? Seeing as some most won't just accept a strike from anybody, are we going to now have a category called Administrators open to receiving strikes as long as you have at least 150 mainspace edits, rollback, and no blocks, and....? Are we going to have a new type of RFC called an RFS (request for strike)?. And after three strikes and desysopping, then we'll have an RFRAARTSASTHP? (Request for Re-Adminship After Receiving Three StrikesTM And Some Time Has Passed). This seems to be adding layers of democratic bureaucracy to an already overly-bureaucratic system. With Three StrikesTM, it just smacks me as being a bit overcooked. (and not because I'm an admin, but because I'm a human who was never very good at baseball). Keeper | 76 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does it take to even consider removing an admin? Multilpe AN/I reports followed by an RfC, then formal mediation, and finally, an arbitration case lasting a month involving only a select group of people discussing a very specific set of circumstances. Now compare that with a term limit that comes due once a year for a period of seven days giving the entire community a chance to comment. The result? Accountability and efficiency that isn't possible in the present system. And this is somehow more bureaucratic? How? —Viriditas | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your talking about term limits. I'm talking about Three StrikesTM. We're not even talking about the same thing. I reread the proposal that is being discussed and I don't see that to include anything about term limits, but I see you introducing term limits in your first comment, which is not in the proposal. So, to sum up, we're talking about two different things. Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can address two ideas at once? —Viriditas | Talk 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I can. In my post I was addressing the Three Strikes and made no mention of Term Limits. You responded to my comment with a comment about Term Limits and not Three Strikes. Can you address two ideas at once? Keeper | 76 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often address four or more. —Viriditas | Talk 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! You've made me laugh out loud. Right now, I'm chewing gum, typing, reading, listening to the radio and juggling flaming knives. Beat that. Keeper | 76 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Term limits have been suggested before and have been rejected as completely unworkable. Just take a look at Special:Statistics, take the number of admins, divide by 52 and you'll see the problem (even if you only look at active admins, it's still a very big number). --Tango (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the 1,478 admins are active? If "term limits" consist of yearly evaluations, you're talking about four reviews a day. AfD is workable, and I note 130 nominations today alone. —Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a bit to the proposal that I hope addresses some of the concerns. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My other concern is that - even under the best of circumstances - mistakes happen. Doctors make mistakes, lawyers make mistakes, construction workers make mistakes, and admins make mistakes. Many admins deal with - literally - THOUSANDS of administrative actions a month. Mistakes are going to happen, particularly with that high volume. Under your proposed system, how would you deal with legitimate mistakes versus actions taken with malice? How do you prove malice? Who judges them? I'm open to admin accountability, but I am not open to a system that runs off some of our very best contributors because they happen to make more edits than others and thus have a higher propensity for a RAW number of mistakes (which may actually be a much lower ratio of mistakes to administrative actions). - Philippe | Talk 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about simple mistakes. We are talking about the Jayant Patels and the Jerome Kerviels. —Viriditas | Talk 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat part of my concern: who acts as judge and jury? Don't we already have ARBCOM in place to take action when the mistakes rise to the level that they become significantly damaging to the encyclopedia? Also, how do we define when something is "bad enough" to count as a strike? I'm sorry, I know I'll be painted as obstructionist and ... evidently ... unwilling to give up "power" (clearly, anyone who think of admining as power has never spent two hours at CSD), but this process will do more damage than good. We have RfC and ARBCOM. I believe them sufficient. - Philippe | Talk 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I don't mean like penalising people for accidents (for instance a recent example with deleting the main page), but other admins who are unwilling to accept their actions, and will in turn face the consequences. If an admin is willing to apologise no need for a strike. Things that I'm on about is for instance:
  1. Protecting a page, then using the protection to edit it themselves.
  2. Edit-warring on controversial subjects
  3. Threatening behaviour towards others (personal attacks)
  4. Blocking others without a viable reason
  5. Deleting pages without a consensus.
Don't forget this is a proposal. I am happy for the proposal to be edited, changed in one way or another - hence why I set up for discussion before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many variables. Too much subjectivity.
  1. Who decides if a protection was warranted in the first place?
Now that's what I mean. If an admin protected a page without discussion, and proceeded to edit it, would have a strike struck. D.M.N. (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Who decides what is a "controversial subject?" What if I edit war on Watermelon?
This page is what decides what a controversial topic is. D.M.N. (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Who decides what is "Threatening behavior?". We all have different skin depths.
  2. What is a viable reason for blocking? Who decides "viable"?
  3. Don't we have DRV for this? What about speedies where consensus isn't even a part of the equation?
Just my thoughts. Good work D.M.N. Keeper | 76 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every single instance that you set up can be dealt with through RfC and ARBCOM. Why another process? I'm not opposed to process, but I am opposed to process when we already have one that's set up. And frankly, if admins are blocking others without a viable reason, I don't want a three-strike system, I want ARBCOM involved. I appreciate that you set up a discussion page for your proposal, but my input is that the proposal isn't needed. If the community wants "term limits", that's okay by me - though I caution people that term limits have the end result of driving talented and experienced people out (by definition), but I think back dooring it isn't appropriate. Keeping up a list of "strikes" for minor things is inappropriate. Keeping a list of strikes for major things doesn't do the jobs, because ARBCOM generally acts very quickly with major admin issues. No one has demonstrated a need for another process to me. - Philippe | Talk 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three strikes, in my opinion, is a silly idea, but I applaud D.M.N for having the courage to discuss it. Sports metaphors just aren't going to go over well in a place like this. Know your audience, my friend. —Viriditas | Talk 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 strikes and term limits are both silly ideas IMO. 3 strikes will have all the same problems as 3RR and even more. Most policies are somewhat vague for a good reason. Really exclusive rules tends to lead to rules lawyering, loopholes, and bureaucracy. As for the suggestions of what would be a strike:
  1. I always add the protection template after I protect the page. Could someone who doesn't like me give me a strike?
  2. Edit warring is not an administrative action. Sanctions for this should be restricted to editing restrictions.
  3. Some people consider a threat of a block to be an "attack." Can I get a strike for that? And you don't need admin tools to be able to make a personal attack.
  4. "Viable" is far too subjective. What if we block, request a review here, and it is found to not be viable? Do we get a strike even though we asked for review?
  5. Ever? What about situations where no one would actually contest it? Could someone who doesn't like me just contest it so I could get a strike?
If you make admin removal too easy, no admin will be willing to do anything in a controversial area and admins would be going through unnecessary process for fear of getting a strike for exercising a little bit of discretion. Term limits would have the same effect. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing admins should be as easy as creating them. Term limits, as I would like to see it, would be more of an annual community review based on discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I piss off one person with 20 friends I should lose my adminship? That would probably be enough to fail most RFAs. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is not, as discussion has more weight than votes. When someone brings a personal dispute to an RfA, RfC, ArbCom, or even an AfD, it's usually recognized immediately and the person is encouraged to put up or shut up. Wikipedians aren't stupid. The Gracenotes RfA could be seen as an example of this, so regardless of admin reform, the threat exists. It's a non-issue in relation to this proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... isn't the proposed policy page the place to be debating this, folks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Realisticly, looking at it now, I cannot see it working because of the above comments from other users. However, should I create the proposed page, simply for historical interest? D.M.N. (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not create such a page in your userspace, invite those that have contributed here (and copy over the comments above and below) to add their thoughts and work on it a bit? Perhaps later you could put it up at Wikipedia as a discussion document or an essay, depending on how things come out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would duplicate WP:AMR. Go to that talk page and make your proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the term limits idea would. But there's something else between "3 strikes" and "term limits." If I'm repeating somebody else's proposal of long ago, please forgive-- that's the nature of these things, and fixing it is actually part of what I suggest: Basically, an Administrator/Sysop Rap Sheet (WP:SRS). Basically, it's a page which every administrator is forced to keep (not just a TALK page where everything goes) which has ONLY negative comments about that admin, and his/her rebuttals. Keep the barnstars someplace else: what we want to know are the complaints, arrests, convictions, high crimes and misdemeaners. Everybody gets to add, nobody gets to (sustantively) subtract. I see no reason why the Admin can't add defenses, but there should be a rule about deleting complaints. Then, any time somebody has a problem with said Admin, it's easy for them to look them up to see if a bunch of other people have had the same problem. A LOT easier than fishing around for old ANI complaints.

          Now, we do this for citizens and that's why cops have computers in their cars. Somebody noted that doctors make mistakes. Well, that's why there's a national database for hospital complaints and malpractice suits against physicians. And so on. Cops themselves have personnel files, and you can bet that those who screw up in the same way more than a few times, end up as P.I.'s in Nevada or something. Why should administrators not have the same privileges and responsibilities as anybody else doing a responsible job which requires care? SBHarris 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Mistake" is highly subjective. Under the above 3-strikes-your-out proposal, would any DRV that overturned a closure be proof of a mistake on the part of the closing admin? Admins might start avoiding tricky areas out of fear of getting desysopped. Proving a mistake and handling the admin would duplicate the processes already in place: blocking policy, community ban policy, admin recall, and RfC/Arbcom. Or we could expand AfD to include "Admins".  :) The Transhumanist 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post AN discussion[edit]

You need a definition of "wrong action"; something that is more than a mistake, yet not a violation so serious as needs bringing up as part of a WP:AN discussion, RfC or RfAR, I presume? Or are you considering this as an alternative to the first two options? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody makes mistakes, and there have been no big ones made by admins in recent times, just little slip-ups here and there that were corrected very soon after they were made. Scientizzle and East718 are the only ones who have made any mistakes worth thinking about over the last few months, and I certainly don't want to see them de-sysopped. I see us losing a lot of great admins if this policy is introduced. There is no real problem with administrators making mistakes, so I see this as rule creep and I certainly don't think we should introduce it.--Phoenix-wiki 12:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be brought up on the project page, like with SSP. A structure will probably be decided in due course. D.M.N. (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that "three strikes" is a good idea. I'm an admin open to recall, accountable, etc. and no one's tried to recall me yet. However, under this system, I'd probably have 2 or 3 strikes. It really doesn't make sense to allow for so few mistakes. A great admin would be one who made a mistake maybe 1 in 1000 times. That's a great success rate—99.9%—but that admin who did 3000 administrative actions would be desysopped. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should look at the section below which sort of addresses your concerns. D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions and worldwide view[edit]

As I briefly mentioned in the previous discussion, this title isn't going to work. The baseball metaphor is American and the title alludes to a very controversial American criminal law called the Three strikes law. Wikipedia is an international project, and we need to approach all policies and guidelines with a worldwide view. It's also grammatically incorrect. It should read, "Three Strikes and You're Out". —Viriditas | Talk 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the grammer mistake. I am willing to discuss a new title, if necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, short and sweet always works. If you aren't going to consider term limits, why not repackage your idea in terms of report cards, certification, and ratings? Be a watchdog. You could setup a statistical admin rating system to educate editors about admin actions. You could also use a bot to analyze admin actions, and your crteria could also be used to submit to WP:DR so that those appointed by the community to desysop have the necessary information to make that decision. Good, background reading material concerning previous proposals can be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where your coming from. Maybe (just a rough idea) we could like have a set criteria (which can be decided upon this page if you wish) and see if the admin that is coming under fire has done this good or badly, and rate the criteria out of 10. Maybe a "commitee" could be set up to decide whether the admin in question has acted in bad-faith in the situation. A score of 10 = Good; 0 = Bad. The lower the score; the more concern I guess. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're on the right track. I recommend reading WP:FIRED and mining criteria from that page. At a glance I see the following:
  • Controversial use of page protection and unblocks (How do you define controversial use? Read the cases)
    • Failure to explain a disruptive block
Make a list. —Viriditas | Talk 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list based on the WP:FIRED cases (comments; improvements; suggestions appreciated):

  • Failure to explain a disruptive and pointy block.
  • Campaigning to remove content from Wikipedia (such as explicit content).
  • Protecting a page, only to edit-war on the protected page. Protecting a page without prior discussion on talkpages, or a request at WP:RFPP.
  • Deleting pages without proper proceedures or discussions on related pages or talkpages.
  • Reverting a good-faith block made by a administrator with past consensus to do so. A strike should only be given here if no discussion has taken place to unblock the user.
  • Wheel warring with another administrator. (In this case, if this did happen, should both receive a strike for causing disruption?)

The following should require a account being de-synsopped immediately, and a block indefinitely (this therefore does not fall under the proposal)

This is just what I've thought of from looking at other Wikipedia related pages, and current threads at WP:ANI. Please make constructive comments, and new suggestions to add to the above. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not rename this "Admin audit"? This will give you an incredible amount of flexibility, so that if you realize that "three strikes" will not work, you can continue to reach your goal by focusing on other aspects of the same idea, such as reporting and licensing. Admins who meet your audit can be "licensed" with a seal of approval. One of a dozen ideas I have. The beauty of this, is that you won't really need consensus for it. You can just go ahead and do it! Someone might try to shut you down, but who in their right mind would fight quality assurance?? —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation RfA[edit]

Would this be run under the same premise as an ordinary reconfirmation/returning RfA? i.e. A non-vote discussion which should achieve appx. 80% approval for the 'crat to confirm? I doubt very much that many admins would be able to get that level of support, perhaps especially for sysops who are pretty active in controversial areas - where interpretation may also give rise to claims of "wrong action". I can see otherwise good admins being bought up before an RfA because of a few disputed actions in a contentious area, and never getting the bit back, because of the number of enemies made over the span of legit admin actions. So, will this require there to be a majority !vote for desysop rather than the normal percentage of support to keep? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be like a reconfirmination RFA. You may wish to see the topic directly above and this section on the main topic page. If a user has done something bad (set out by the proposed criteria above), I would on the whole expect the community to of lost faith in the admin and therefore they will effectively have their tools removed, however, saying that, they may have another go at RFA in the future. D.M.N. (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Some people in the threads above have said that this proposal may mean that admins may not wish to do controversial things - for instance in the thread above.

In a way, maybe that could be do, but there is a completely different thing between "Controversial, but Consensus" and "Controversial, No Consensus". The latter is likely to have consequences. As stated here, if you for instance made a controversial page protection, with consensus, then there should be no problem with it. In my view, it only is controversial if there is no prior consensus. If you don't discuss things, you won't get a consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The decision to unblock Davnel03 was undoubtedly controversial and met vociferous opposition from the project F1 crowd. You may recall the furore. I seriously doubt that a consensus to unblock would have emerged in this environment and going alone was the only way guaranteed to get the block lifted. The result under your system would inevitably be a strike against me. I'm curious that you haven't addressed this point. Do you think this would be fair? Do you honestly think I would have unblocked him in the full knowledge of the liklihood of getting a strike for it? Fact is, the unblock looks like being my best admin decision yet but your system would have prevented it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Could I change the above point to:
    • Reverting a good-faith block made by a administrator without the admininstrators permission or past consensus to do so. A strike should only be given here if no discussion has taken place to unblock the user.
In which case, here, you wouldn't get a strike, as you did contact Yamla before unblocking me if memory serves me right. However, again, I would probably have to appoint people to determine whether the admin action is correct. If I didn't I could easily have three biased users (e.g. in my case from WP:F1) stating you were in the wrong. D.M.N. (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yo, hold on: There is absolutely NOTHING in WP:BLOCK which requires that there be any kind of "concensus" to unblock a user blocked by some other editor. All that is required is some attempt at discussion with the blocking editor, first. Nothing says you have to come to any agreement (and WP:BLOCK discusses that in "ambiguous cases.") Quite often, no consensus is reached. The spirit of an indefinate block serving as an effective ban, however, requires one: If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future. But this is concensus to continue the block, and it needs to be universal. The language of "not one administrator being willing" to lift a block, that more or less requires and expects that sometimes a single administrator may act alone to unblock someone (otherwise, what's the POINT?). I submit that the whole idea of a community ban is it involves somebody who's done something so eggregious that not a single administrator is willing to take the responsiblity alone, to unblock. Not that no administrator ever should for anybody in any case. In ambigious cases, dispute resolution and disussion is required. But dispute resolution and discussion doesn't always end in concensus (there is a cases on AN right not that is preserved to show you just that). In such cases, the default should be (but for some reason is not always) to unblock, in the same way that the default in the legal system should be (and is) "not guilty." That one administrator who is willing to unblock, is a lot like the 1 juror in 12 who refuses to vote "guilty" (see Twelve Angry Men). So I think somebody or other above has the wrong idea about how the system is supposed to work. There's been some odd creep lately toward "Guilty automatically by accusation of one person, unless concensus is arrived at later, for innocence." Conviction requires mere single accusation, successful appeal requires concensus. Say what?? That's pretty wicked and bass-ackwards. SBHarris 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpile[edit]

I've made some changes to the page, to remove some weasley language, firmup and shorten some redundant grammar and address some dog-pile issues. We don't want to weasle using "should", and "can" too much which only allows slippery fish to remain slippery. Also more dog-pile needs to be addressed in the form of time expansions, we don't want RfC's overnight to strike or to de-strike either. Community consensus needs to be applied as currently. Admins can make mistakes, we need to ensure with wide-input that something is an honest mistake "Moocow told me to do it, I didn't realize Moocow was a rogue admin with a bad rep cause I was so stressed out studying for my Physics exam tomorrow", or an admin-gone-wild "BeatleJuice is a disruptive vandal constantly reverting my own well-sourced quote that Hillary had sex with a mule".Wjhonson (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the page, a strike shouldn't be given without consensus, otherwise it should be reverted. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without specificity you'll find that "consensus" can take on a wide range of meanings. If this becomes policy we don't want wide range of meanings.Wjhonson (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus unlikely to form[edit]

Having looked at the comments above from other users, as a whole, I believe that this proposed policy is unlikely to work as a whole. Some above have stated that they dislike the proposal, and community consensus seems to be against this proposal. Despite saying that, I am happy that I brought this up, and thanks to the users that have joined in with the discussions above. I have no regrets bringing this up. I hope that this rejected proposal page should stay, and should consensus change in the future, I will be happy to reopen this so that the community can discuss the proposal again. Thanks to those that have joined the discussions above. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D.M.N./Three_Strikes_and_You%27re_Out&oldid=1142950183"