MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't think we require strict rules Phil
Welch suggested them.
It's easy to make a mistake by overlooking a certain discussion or some
entry in a log, which could easily make the number of admins dwindle and
cause a lot of people to leave the project.
I think we should encourage people to discuss more. If something turns into
a wheelwar, all the parties involved should receive a warning not to
continue. This would leave good faith unblocking after user requests open
without any fears for the involved admin.
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At
such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Mgm
I agree. We already know wheel warring is bad. Everyone does (except
some rogue admins). If the action being (un)done is so bad that it
destroys the encyclopedia, don't bother wheel warring when so many
people disagree -- just take a wikibreak, fork and/or leave. If other
people are in the wrong, an examination of the facts should bear this out.
Unfortunately, cool heads rarely prevail in wheel/edit wars.
Normaly once the intial peak of intensity has died down things work
out all right.
--
geni