From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@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)