I don't think we require strict rules Phil Welch
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.
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. This is why
I proposed on [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] that 'crats be given the
authority to desysop/block in a wheel/edit war to defuse it and get
discussion flowing again. This doesn't have to indicate that the
warriors' initial actions were wrong -- all it indicates is that their
warring was wrong. No need for legalism when the existing rules are
already being disobeyed. Just give the rules teeth -- I can think of so
many loopholes in Phil Welch's proposal that it just wouldn't be
workable -- it'd basically make mistakes close to unpardonable.