Misplaced Pages:Wheel war: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:16, 8 November 2006 editSiebrand (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,954 edits +nl← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:09, 17 September 2024 edit undoAcroterion (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,605 editsm Reverted edit by 112.204.162.43 (talk) to last version by NagsbTags: New redirect Rollback
(174 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{dablink\|] redirects here; you may also be looking for ] (shortcut: ]).}}
	{{shortcut\|]<br />]<br />]}}

			{{Rcat shell\|
	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.
			{{R to section}}

			{{R with Wikidata item}}
	Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are not good.
			}}

	<br clear="all" />
	== Policy ==

	<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="0WW" style="{{divstylered}}"><center><b>''Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.''</b></center></div>

	== Guidelines ==

	Just as ] is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, wheel warring is not considered good behaviour for an administrator.

	Wheel warring is indicated 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 ] or ]) to implement his preferred action or version of an edit.

	* An administrative action is repeatedly performed and reversed (by anyone).

	An action intended to provoke a wheel war is itself wheel warring.

	== Application ==

	Wheel war ''policy'' is a ]; wheel war ''guidelines'' invite ]s.

	Wheel war ''policy'', above, is unambiguous. Violation can be determined from a simple examination of logs. Intent need not be shown, only that a ] should have been aware of opposition at the time of ''repeating'' an admin action. No judgement is made on the substantive issue; neither side is endorsed. Violation of this section is a violation of ] ''in the first degree''.

	Wheel war ''guidelines'', also above, are somewhat more open to interpretation. Intent is germane; log summaries and talk page comments may be weighed. Substantive issue is germane; the actual propriety of the action may be weighed. Guidelines extend the prohibition against wheel warring beyond the bounds of policy; an admin may violate these guidelines on his very first action. Violation of this section is a violation of ] ''in the second degree''.

	The distinction is analogous to that between ] and simple ]. Many conflicts fail to cross 3RR but they are still edit wars.

	== 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.

	Violation of ] ''in either degree'' may result in loss of administrative privileges; the violator may instead be reprimanded or cautioned. First-degree violation is more serious than second-degree violation but neither is petty; either may invoke the full range of sanctions.

	Wheel warring has been used as grounds for sanctions by ] in a few cases. ]] ]] ]] ]] ''See ].''

	== Preferred actions ==

	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.

	== Commentary ==

	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Wheel war/Commentary}}

	The topic of wheel warring has brought forth much comment. Both policy and guideline may be examined in this context.

	* ''As a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her.''

	* ''If your action is reverted, you may not re-revert it: you must either discuss it or allow some other admin to take the action.''

	* ''Discussion is warranted, not reversing action.''

	* ''Whoever reverses an admin action is responsible for any problems that result.''

	* ''If one side is obviously wrong, they will probably run out of admins to vote for them sooner than the other side.''

	* ''Wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.''

	== Examples ==

	A ] 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:

	{\| 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?

	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 ==

	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	*: ''If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter.''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	== External links ==

	*
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]:
	*: 9.1:
	*:# Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
	*:# Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
	*: 9.2:
	*: If you are having problems with another sysop, you should first try to work it out via ... conversation with the other sysop.

	]
	]

Latest revision as of 04:09, 17 September 2024

Redirect to:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:

To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.

From a cross-project redirect: This is a redirect from a title linked to an item on Wikidata. The Wikidata item linked to this page is Misplaced Pages:Wheel war (Q4048307).
- Use this template only on hard redirects – for soft redirects use {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}}.

When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.