[WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

[John Lee]

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. 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.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])