| Revision as of 15:18, 21 October 2007 editMoreschi (talk | contribs)19,434 edits This nutshell is very odd and somewhat misleading, better alternative← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:09, 17 September 2024 edit undoAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,529 editsm Reverted edit by 112.204.162.43 (talk) to last version by NagsbTags: New redirect Rollback |
| (106 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{dablink|] redirects here; you may also be looking for ] (shortcut: ]) or ] (shortcut: ]).}} |
|
|
{{policy|WP:WW|WP:WHEEL}} |
|
|
{{Nutshell|All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Rcat shell| |
|
A ''']''' is a struggle between two or more ] in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, ] and reblocking a user; ] and redeleting; or ] and reprotecting an article. |
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are a ]. Just as ] is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, so is wheel warring considered improper behavior for an administrator. |
|
|
|
{{R with Wikidata item}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
A wheel war starts when a privileged action is repeated without an attempt to form consensus after being reverted. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible indications == |
|
|
Possible indications of wheel warring are: |
|
|
|
|
|
* 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 ] or ]) and implements his or her 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. However, this can result in a wheel war itself, which creates an escalation of conflict and should therefore be avoided. Wheel warring may result in loss of administrative privileges through the arbitration process. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for sanctions by ] in a few cases.<ref>]</ref><ref>]</ref><ref><span class="plainlinks"><font color="002bb8"></font></span></ref><ref>]</ref><ref>]</ref> (''See ].'') |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alternatives == |
|
|
If you feel the ''need'' to wheel war, try these alternatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Discuss the substantive issue with opposing admins. |
|
|
* Post the issue to ] and '''wait''' for comment from other admins. |
|
|
* Seek ], just as you would in case of a potential edit war. |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages works on the spirit of ]; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Examples == |
|
|
|
|
|
The most often questioned example is of the '''slow-motion''' wheel war: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|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 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 all parties must stop. Just as protecting a page is not an endorsement of the ], so is stopping a wheel war not an endorsement of the current state. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom == |
|
|
<references /> |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links == |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|