[WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

[Peter Mackay]

> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org 
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee

> 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.

It would inevitably add to the workload of the ArbCom. Your suggestion has a
lot of merit, because having Jimbo step in to stomp on fingers should be a
last resort (and as you point out, he could be doing something else at the
time), and if a problem has reached wheel-warring stage, then admins aren't
going to be able to fix it decisively in the heat of battle.

While I don't like the legalese and penalty clauses, I do like the basic
thrust of Phil Welch's proposal - that an admin action may be reversed ONCE
by another admin and after that discussion is mandatory. Make it a
guideline.

Peter (Skyring)