Misplaced Pages:Wheel war: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:20, 5 November 2007 editJehochman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Alternatives: grammar← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:39, 9 November 2007 edit undoCentrx (talk \| contribs)37,287 edits Even if this were accurate and even if there were consensus to add this; convoluted legalistic prose with subdefinitions would not be the way to go about itNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{dablink\|] redirects here; you may also be looking for ] (shortcut: ]) or ] (shortcut: ]).}}		{{dablink\|] redirects here; you may also be looking for ] (shortcut: ]) or ] (shortcut: ]).}}
	{{policy\|WP:WW\|WP:WHEEL}}		{{policy\|WP:WW\|WP:WHEEL}}
	{{Nutshell\|Tenable administrative actions should not be reverted without discussion. Think long and hard before reverting another administrator's actions.}}

	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.		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. '''Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.'''

	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.		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.

	A '''wheel war''' starts when a tenable privileged action is reverted without ]. Consensus can be obtained by discussing with the original administrator, or posting on one of the administrators' noticeboards.

	Untenable actions include: anything done in error, such as blocking a different user than the one intended; anything done in bad faith, such as deleting the main page; and anything forbidden by policy, such as blocking a user while engaged in a dispute with them or protecting a page while edit warring. Tenable actions are those for which a reasonable case can be made; the use of sysop tools in cases where reasonable administrators may disagree is considered tenable. Disagreements are to be resolved by discussion.

	A privileged action based on new circumstances is not considered a revert, even though it may have the effect of reversing an earlier action. For instance, if a page is protected due to edit warring, and the warring parties come to an agreement on the talk page, the article may be unprotected without need for discussion.

	== Possible indications ==		== Possible indications ==
Line 21:		Line 15:

	== Sanctions ==		== 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~~ ]'') ~~and by ] in the case of another administrator undoing one of his blocks.<ref><span class="plainlinks"><font color="002bb8"></font></span></ref>~~		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 from the arbitration process. On the other hand, the violator may simply be reprimanded or cautioned. 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 ==		== Alternatives ==
Line 29:		Line 23:
	* Post the issue to ] and '''wait''' for comment from other admins.		* Post the issue to ] and '''wait''' for comment from other admins.
	* Seek ], just as you would in case of a potential edit war.		* Seek ], just as you would in case of a potential edit war.
	* Have ].		* Have ]

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

	==Recommendations for avoiding wheel warring==
	Prevention is better than cure. Administrators can help to reduce drama by posting a rationale for any privileged action at ] or its subpages for review. This also helps the editor community to understand actions which may have been taken on the basis of information which cannot be shared publicly (e.g. in response to ] complaints).

	Before reverting another privileged action, see if any such debate is already underway. Wait until a clear consensus is established before reversing a privileged action. Ideally, the original administrator should be the one to reverse the action.

	==Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom ==		==Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom ==

Revision as of 05:39, 9 November 2007

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).

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.

Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are a Bad Thing. Just as edit warring is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, so is wheel warring considered improper behavior for an administrator.

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 WP:ANI or WP:DRV) 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 from the arbitration process. On the other hand, the violator may simply 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.
Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down

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

Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom

External links

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Wheel war: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages