Misplaced Pages

:Wheel war: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:25, 20 November 2006 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 editsm Reverted edits by H Bruthzoo (talk) to last version by Tjstrf← Previous edit Revision as of 08:13, 21 November 2006 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits clarify, and better paragraph on stopping wheel warsNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:


A '''wheel war''' is a struggle between two or more ] in which they undo another's administrative actions — in particular, unblocking or ] a user; ] or redeleting; or ] and reprotecting an article. A '''wheel war''' is a struggle between two or more ] in which they undo another's administrative actions — in particular, unblocking or ] a user; ] or redeleting; or ] and reprotecting an article.

Undoing another admin's action once is not considered a wheel war, although it is still preferable to discuss it with the other admin first. Doing it twice, or repeating your admin action after someone has undone it, ''is'' wheel warring.


Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are a ]. Just as ] is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, wheel warring is not considered proper behaviour for an administrator. Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are a ]. Just as ] is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, wheel warring is not considered proper behaviour for an administrator.
Line 39: Line 41:
The most often questioned example is of the '''slow-motion''' wheel war: The most often questioned example is of the '''slow-motion''' wheel war:


⚫ :Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X.
{| class="wikitable"
! case !! interpretation
|-
⚫ | Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X.
| style="background: #f9fff9;" | No admin has violated 0WW ''policy''. From A to F, it is increasingly likely that an admin has violated 0WW ''guidelines''.
|}

While the slow-motion wheel war is indeed a wheel war, it is ''hazardous'' to '''call''' it a wheel war while it is ongoing. '''When exactly has it become a wheel war?''' Depending on circumstances, even Admin A's first action may have been taken in bad faith and with hostile intent to ''provoke'' a wheel war. Or, perhaps A through F have all acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Any attempt to abort the wheel war by '''calling''' it a wheel war and declaring the last actor a violator is likely to backfire by escalating the conflict. When did good faith become bad faith?


Although no admin is repeating his actions or undoing the same action twice, the result is nevertheless a wheel war between two parties. Perhaps all have acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Nevertheless, dispute resolution is in order here. At some point, it should be pointed out that this is a wheel war and both parties must stop. Just like page protection is not an endorsement of the ], neither is stopping a wheel war an endorsement of the current state.
It's better to allow the slow-motion wheel war to blow itself out. The most committed admins each weigh in with their ''one'' action permitted under 0WW policy ''and then retire''. This must inevitably lead to a war fought by more moderate admins; soon all involved admins are reasonably '''neutral''' and able to form an effective compromise. After conclusion, involved admins may indeed be sanctioned for violation of 0WW guidelines ''but'' all have had their say, no single admin has taken more than ''one'' action, an effective compromise is in place, and the conflict did not escalate. This is the fastest, least messy choice among a host of messy alternatives.


== See also == == See also ==


* ] * ]
*] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

Revision as of 08:13, 21 November 2006

WP:WW redirects here; you may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words (shortcut: WP:AWW) or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly (shortcut: WP:WWPC).
The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.Shortcut
  • ]
This page in a nutshell: Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.


A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — in particular, unblocking or reblocking a user; undeleting or redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article.

Undoing another admin's action once is not considered a wheel war, although it is still preferable to discuss it with the other admin first. Doing it twice, or repeating your admin action after someone has undone it, is wheel warring.

Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are a bad thing. Just as edit warring is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, wheel warring is not considered proper behaviour for an administrator.

Causes

Causes for wheel warring include when

  • Admins get too distressed to discuss something.
  • An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation.
  • An admin deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) to implement his preferred action or version of an edit.
  • An administrative action is repeatedly performed and reversed (by anyone).

Sanctions

Sometimes, admins are temporarily blocked for wheel warring, but this can result in a wheel war itself: an escalation of conflict, therefore to be avoided.

Wheel warring may result in loss of administrative privileges via arbitration process; alternatively, the violator may be reprimanded or cautioned.

Wheel warring has been used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom in a few cases. See summaries of these cases as they pertain to wheel warring.

Alternatives

If you feel the need to wheel war, try these alternatives:

  • Discuss the substantive issue with opposing admins.
  • Post the issue to AN and wait for comment from other admins.
  • Seek dispute resolution, just as you would in case of a potential edit war.
  • WP:TEA

Misplaced Pages works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling.

Examples

A table of example cases is available. Note that these are intended merely to illuminate the bright-line policy, not to modify it.

The most often questioned example is of the slow-motion wheel war:

Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X.

Although no admin is repeating his actions or undoing the same action twice, the result is nevertheless a wheel war between two parties. Perhaps all have acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Nevertheless, dispute resolution is in order here. At some point, it should be pointed out that this is a wheel war and both parties must stop. Just like page protection is not an endorsement of the current version, neither is stopping a wheel war an endorsement of the current state.

See also

External links

Category: