Misplaced Pages:Wheel war: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 15:23, 21 October 2007 editCBM (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →[]: expand wikilawyering part (edit conflict)← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:30, 21 October 2007 edit undoCBM (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →Examples: I was confused by "parties" as groups of peopleNext edit →
Line 35:		Line 35:
	{{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.}}		{{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.		Although no admin is repeating his actions or undoing the same action twice, the result is nevertheless a wheel war between two groups of admins. 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 ==		==Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom ==

Revision as of 15:30, 21 October 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

This page in a nutshell: All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule.

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. 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.

A wheel war starts when a privileged action is repeated without an attempt to form consensus after it was reverted. Thus a single reversion of a privileged action (for example, one admin deletes a page and a second admin undeletes it) is not considered a wheel war; a wheel war would start if the page was deleted a second time without an effort to find consensus. Although admin actions may be reverted once, it it often worth discussing the original admin action before undoing it, especially when it is not clear whether the original action was appropriate.

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 through the arbitration process. 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.
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.

Examples

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 groups of admins. 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 current version, so is stopping a wheel war not an endorsement of the current state.

Cases of wheel warring used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom

External links

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Wheel war: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages