Hello.
The proposed policy is this:
In this way, no single sysop has too much power, and unblocking is a relatively easy process if the original block was unjustified. In obvious cases of vandalism, three sysops can be mustered easily, while in more controversial cases, it will be impossible to act unilaterally.
So, let's vote!
Vandals (as descibed at ) may be blocked as now (see ).
Disruptive users (The Types Of Users Formerly Known As Trolls) may be blocked if three sysops agree that a block is warranted, and no sysops consider a block unwarranted.See for details.
Additional note: Blocking policy says of the "disruptive quality" in question: Such disruption includes changing other user's signed comments, or making deliberately misleading edits. I suggest that this be defined as such rather than simply including it: i.e. "A disruptive user is one who changes other user's signed comments, or makes edits that meet the definitions of vandalism" [which covers the deliberately misleading]. this would provide better objective yardstick against which to measure 'disruption'. 80.255 22:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Favor:
Oppose:
I propose the following definition to apply should either of the above policies be passed, in order to clarify exactly the behaviour this applies to:
A troll or disruptive user shall mean solely a user who
(definition taken from "disruption" section of blocking policy)
Support:
Oppose:
This about reducing the power to ban people. Right now, any single admin can block you (or me) without notice. He/she has to be prepared to justify the action and take any heat that arises, but is free to act as he/she judhes best. This three strikes proposal is about reducing that admin power, about requiring three admins to consult and agree before acting. Tannin 13:43, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The policy proposed here is about increasing admin power, not reducing it, using this process to avoid using arbitration and quickpolls. Jamesday 14:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)