Misplaced Pages

:Wheel war guideline: 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 23:37, 21 April 2006 editJohn Reid (talk | contribs)4,087 edits →Oppose (7): more severe than the emerging general consensus← Previous edit Revision as of 09:56, 23 April 2006 edit undoJohn Reid (talk | contribs)4,087 edits major refactor; see talkNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{proposed|]}} {{proposed|]}}


Misplaced Pages '''admins''' (also known as '''sysops''') are editors granted special powers within our community. These powers include blocking editors and deleting pages found in violation of our policies. Admins may also protect pages against editing to avoid future violations of policy. We consider admins ''trustees'' of these powers; they are pledged to use them only for the benefit of the whole and not to advance personal agendas. However, some admins can and do abuse these tools.
This page concerns a '''proposed wheel warring policy''' to enforce sanctions strictly against wheel-warring on Misplaced Pages.


All policies are subject to interpretation and we need admins to exercise good individual judgement in doing so. Because they are human, they are able to apply policies more flexibly and appropriately than any machine; but also, because they are human, they do make mistakes. Every day, there is a large quantity of tasks that must be done by admins; we are forced to accept human error along with good human judgement. Our solution to this paradox is to permit ''other'' admins to reverse admin actions by unblocking, undeleting, and unprotecting.
==Proposals==


This leads to situations in which admins who disagree may use their powers in opposition, repeatedly reversing each others' actions. '''This is unacceptable.''' For historical reasons, this is called '''wheel warring'''. The goal of ] is to reduce the frequency, intensity, and scope of wheel wars. Ideally, no wheel war would ever take place. Practically, we must balance the nuisance and disruption of a wheel war against the unintended consequenses of ] and the ] it generates.
The following proposals are proposed additions to ], and would be considered policy. Discussion over the drafting of these proposals is available at ].


===Philwelch's proposal===


== Policy ==
In the spirit of the ], '''no sysop action may be reverted more than once in any given dispute without sufficient discussion'''.


<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="''No admin shall repeat any admin action in the knowledge that another admin opposes it.''" style="{{divstylered}}"><center><b>''No admin shall repeat any admin action in the knowledge that another admin opposes it.''</b></center></div>
*Suppose Admin A decides to protect a page. Admin B disagrees with this decision and chooses to unprotect. Admin A accepts Admin B's reasoning. In this case, no violation has taken place.
*Suppose instead that when Admin B chooses to unprotect, Admin A reprotects (thus reverting Admin B's unprotection). Admins A and B discuss the situation and come to agreement. No violation has taken place.
*Suppose instead than when Admin A chooses to reprotect, Admin B unprotects again, and Admin A reprotects again. At this the situation has degenerated into a wheel war and both Admin A and B would be in violation of this policy.
*If, in the midst of this wheel war, Admin C comes along and unprotects after Admin A, Admin C is also in violation of this policy. Unlike the ], the wheel-warring policy is applied "per side" or "per issue", not per user. Similarly, the time limit is not 24 hours, but rather however long it takes to settle the dispute and achieve ]—or, failing that, decide the issue via standard Misplaced Pages processes.


== Sanctions ==
Edit wars over protected pages, while arguably wheel warring, fall under the policies regarding edit warring instead of this policy. Edit warring by admins, however, is in particularly poor form—the position of trust that admins hold requires them to be held to a high standard of conduct.


Violators of '''1WW''' are subject to a range of sanctions appropriate to the seriousness of the offense. Wheel warring is considered ''extremely'' disruptive. Violators may have their admin powers removed. ArbCom process is available but not required to enforce this policy.
Violations of this policy are to be posted to ]. Any administrator who violates this policy will have their administrator privileges stripped by the stewards pending further review, with obvious exceptions in the case of simple vandalism by a "rogue admin".


== Aggravation, mitigation, and defense ==
====Statement by Philwelch regarding proposal====
Just as the ] puts an end to edit warring, not by a vague ban on "edit warring" but rather by an objective limit, my proposed wheel-warring policy places objective limits on reversions of admin actions. Vague, unclear policies only lead to rules lawyering. Wheel warring admins try to say "I wasn't wheel warring!". Maybe not, but if they broke the 1RR on admin action, that's another thing entirely. — ''']''' '']'' 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


The '''scope''' of an admin's action is a critical factor in our evaluation of a charge of wheel warring. Factors in aggravation or mitigation may include, but are not limited to:
===Carnildo's proposal===
:Wheel warring consists of two or more administrators repeatedly using their admin abilities to undo each other's actions. Any admin engaging in wheel warring may be de-sysopped for up to 24 hours, much the same way that any editor engaged in edit warring may be blocked.


* '''Time:''' Actions which are repeated within minutes or hours are more serious than those repeated within weeks; actions repeated within months or years may not be actual violations at all.
===Theresa's proposal===


* '''Range:''' Actions that affect large numbers of pages, highly prominent pages, or heavily-used Template or MediaWiki namespace pages are more important than those that involve a single obscure page. Multiple cotemporal violations of '''1WW''' aggravate one another.
Admins should not engage in Wheel wars. Those that do risk having their admin powers removed permanently by the arbitration committee or Jimbo. The best way to avoid wheel wars is to talk the matter over with other admins before taking any action.


* '''Intent:''' Actions that ''clearly'' demonstrate disregard for community policy are more serious than those taken in clear good faith. An allegation of bad faith intent does not establish a violation of '''1WW'''; but an established violation is aggravated by clear demonstration of bad faith. A clear demonstration of good faith may be sufficient to exempt an admin from sanctions.
=== John Reid's proposal ===


* '''Talk:''' Actions performed subsequent to civil discussion on talk are presumed to be more amicable than those without. Neutral, honest, polite edit summaries and discussion prior to action go far to mitigate violations of '''1WW'''. Hostile talk comments and edit summaries (or none) aggravate.
''No admin may do any admin thing twice in the face of admin opposition.''


* '''Coviolation:''' Violating another policy in the same action aggravates a violation of '''1WW'''. The other violation must be established as if there were no violation of '''1WW'''; only then can it be considered in aggravation.
===Locke Cole's proposal===
An adminstrator may only undo another admins action one time (this includes the originating admin redoing their action after having it undone). If any adminstrator exceeds this limit, their sysop access may be removed by ], a ], or a ] (when and if they are able to remove sysop access in the future), for a period not to exceed 168 hours. Nothing in this proposal precludes Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee from removing an adminstrators sysop access.


* '''Repeat offender:''' Having violated '''1WW''' in the past does not establish that an admin has violated it in the present. But if a current violation is established then a prior violation is an aggravating circumstance.
Examples:


The '''context''' of an admins action may influence the finding of wheel warring. Few defenses are able to succeed. Possible defenses include:
* Sysop A blocks a user (Sysop A is the originating admin of this sequence of actions).
* Sysop B unblocks the user (Sysop B has used their '''1WW''').
* Sysop A reblocks the user (Sysop A has used their '''1WW''').
* Sysop C unblocks the user (Sysop C has used their '''1WW''').
* Sysop A reblocks the user (Sysop A has violated this proposed policy and is now subject to having their sysop access removed for a period of at least 24 hours).
* Sysop D unblocks the user (Sysop D has used their '''1WW''').


* '''Single action:''' It is quite possible for any single action to violate some other policy but this is a certain defense against '''1WW'''. Violation requires repetition.
Please note that '''1WW is not an entitlement'''. Administrators should, ideally, never undo eachothers actions. This proposal only serves to set a hard limit on those actions when they do, unfortunately, occur.


* '''Necessity:''' The defense may be made that it was necessary for an admin to violate '''1WW''' in order to uphold some other policy or vital principle. Such argument may be considered in mitigation with the caution that it is ''extremely unlikely'' to be suffcient defense. Admins are advised to enlist the support of other admins in upholding policy.
=== Kelly Martin's proposal ===


* '''Ignorance:''' The defense may be made that an admin was not aware of admin opposition before repeating an action. However, we presume that an admin is aware that another admin has reversed an action before he repeats it. Admins who repeat a block should know if the previous block has expired or if another admin has unblocked. Admins do have a positive responsibility to review comments made on their talk pages.
''This was originally proposed at ] on 2006 March 8.''


* '''Amity:''' The defense may be made that an admin repeated an action after coming to an amicable agreement with all admins who initially reversed it. This is a good defense against a charge levied by an admin who did not participate in discussion. If the charge is brought by an admin who ''did'' participate in discussion, then the contents of the discussion must be examined for evidence of amicable agreement, absent which the defense of amity fails.
{{policy in a nutshell|Do not repeat any reversed administrative action within 24 hours. </b>(Or a Steward may remove your administrative privileges.)<b>}}


== Commentary ==
The Admin zero-revert rule (or '''0RR''') is a proposed policy which would apply to all Misplaced Pages ]s.


Following are a number of (refactored) comments made in relation to wheel-warring policy. While none have effect equal to the policy itself, all may serve as a guide to interpretation.
The policy states that, if an administrative action (deletion, undeletion, blocking, unblocking, protection, unprotection, rollback, etc.) is reversed by the action of another administrator, it may not be redone within 24 hours by the same administrator who previously performed it.


* ''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.''
The only exceptions to this rule are situations where not immediately repeating an administrative action would present a clear and immediate danger to a person, to Misplaced Pages, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, or when the action to be repeated has been performed by Jimbo Wales or at his explicit direction as an "]".


* ''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.''
This policy is not intended to apply to cases where the situation has clearly and significantly changed between the undoing and the redoing of the admininstrative action in question, especially where the stated reason for undoing the action no longer applies. For example, if an article unprotected after a vandalism spree is over, and the vandalism later begins anew, the same administrator who originally protected the article may protect it again. It is also not intended to apply to cases where consensus to redo the action has been established after discussion in a relevant forum, such as the ].


* ''Discussion is warranted, not reversing action.''
This rule specifically does not apply to:
:*repeated cycles of creating and deleting content which may be ]; the content must be undeleted by another admin to create a 0RR situation;
:*repeatedly blocking the same user within 24 hours, where the original block expires in the interim; the user must be explicitly unblocked by another admin (or the block explicitly shortened) to create a 0RR situation;
:*any situation in which an admin reverses his or her own action ("self-reversing").


* ''Any policy that makes exceptions will be open to interpretation, and thus fail to entirely prevent wheel warring.''
An admin who inadvertently violates this rule is expected to immediately reverse the offending action as soon as possible. Failure to do so may result in the temporary or permanent loss of administrative privileges.


* ''Page protections are not generally supposed to be permanent but they do not automatically expire like blocks do.''
The purpose of this rule is to curtail ]s. Admins who feel that they have been improperly reversed by another administrator are required by this policy to either convince the admin who reversed them to reverse themselves and reinstate the original action, or seek the assistance of other admins to reach a consensus decision.


* ''Appeal to authority tends to polarize the discussion. The rogue admin has little incentive to participate in real discussion. All he/she has to do is be obstructionist enough to polarize the discussion and argue that consensus has never appeared. "I don't have to seek consensus because I can drag this out until Jimbo gets involved."''
Admins who feel the need to reverse another admin's actions should carefully consider whether the action truly needs to be immediately reversed. Any admin who believes that another admin has acted incorrectly is strongly encouraged to request the acting administrator to reverse the action himself, and to wait a reasonable time for a response (preferably at least a day) before reversing. If the original admin is unavailable or does not agree that the action should be reversed the issue can be brought up at the ] or another appropriate forum.


* ''Benefit of doubt should lean towards curtailing admin powers.''
Attempting to "game" this policy (by repeating without discussion just past 24 hours), or deliberately and repeatedly reversing another administrator without discussion as a form of harassment, whether or not in violation of this policy, will be viewed as ] and can result in the loss of administrative privileges.
** ''No, ] should apply to admin decisions.''
** ''Assume Good Faith applies to the admin who decided to revert the action, too.''


* ''Please, no automatic deadminning. This should be like user blocking: preventive of disruption rather than punitive of the user.''
'''See also'''


* ''Edit warring over protected pages is very disruptive.''
* ]
** ''A stronger policy against edit warring on protected pages may be wise but '''this''' policy is focused on use of non-editing admin powers.''
* ]


* ''Whoever reverses an admin action is responsible for any problems that result.''
=== Kelly Martin's second proposal ===
No admin shall revert the action of any other admin without first discussing it with that admin. Failure to discuss a revert will result in desysoping. The only exception to this rule is when the reversion is performed by or at the direction of an official of the Wikimedia Foundation, acting in that capacity.


* ''Some wheel wars are conducted by admins who each believe they are Misplaced Pages's sole defender against some threat. An admin needs to remember that he does not stand alone against the forces of chaos; he can enlist the aid of another admin.''
==Straw poll==


* ''Putting in an exception for vandalism invites attempts to surf the loophole thus created.''
This is a straw poll to see which proposals have high levels of support. The straw poll begins 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC) and ends seven days (168 hours) from that date and time. This is sort of like approval voting—you can support more than one proposal, and if more than one proposal has sufficiently high levels of support, we'll deal with that later.


* ''This should be per-user, otherwise the admin who takes action first is protected from having their action undone by '''anyone'''.''
===Philwelch's proposal (1)===


* ''Keep in mind that deadminning requires ] intervention and most stewards will require evidence that a '''consensus''' exists on the project; they cannot be expected to review underlying rules to determine if a violation of local policy exists.''
====Support (1)====
# '''Support''' my own proposal, of course. — ''']''' '']'' 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' one the condition that if a third admin really did not check the log first (didn't know there was a wheel war), s/he should not be punished.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#:This is the problem with this proposal. Admins may very well violate it accidentally because they didn't think to check the logs. ] | ] 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#:Admins *should* check the logs before they block or protect, or failing that, immediately afterwards. Upon discovering they've wandered into a wheel war, they should be able to revert themselves and escape sanction. I think it's important to prevent tag-teaming, which is why this provision is in there. — ''']''' '']'' 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' is clear and seems reasonable. Punishment for violation is left unstated, which is less good. ] 14:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Any of them are better than none. People are nitpicking, and we need something to stop the nonsense. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


* ''I like to see standards of conduct sharp and explicit, penalties for violations adjustable to fit the crime. Violations should never be common enough to demand rubber-stamp justice.''
====Oppose (1)====
# '''Oppose''' I'm not a big fan of the bit about "Admin C". This should be per-user, otherwise the admin who takes action first is protected from having their action undone by ''anyone''. —] • ] • ] 01:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' -- Sorry; too complex. ] 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I don't think as a hard rule this works. --] 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' We have to enforce our rules and establish accountability at an individual level. This attempt to regulate according to blocs is not in keeping with our principles or goals. It's also just too hard to enforce. ] <small>]</small> 07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' as it doesn't make clear when a "dispute" has ended. ] ] 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' : It turns it into a tic-tac-toe game, that can "lock" an article into a protected status without the user's recourse, OR ban a user without oversight until the issue is resolved? No thanks. ] ] ] ] ] ] 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' according to my logic below. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#I '''oppose''' any wording with strict limits. I'm sure that not every single one of our 800+ administrators act in a reasonable and fair manner 100% of the time. In some rare cases, undoing another administrator's actions repeatedly is the only way for me to protect innocent users. ] // ] 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', tortuous, nothing like the 1RR in spirit, letter, or effect. ] 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too complicated. There are several hundred admins; to expect them all to learn these complex niceties and hold them in their heads at all time won't happen, no matter how good an idea it would be. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Excessively complicated, instruction creep, which even specifically fails to include edit wars over protected pages as admin actions.. --] (]) 06:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
# Too complex. - ] 14:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --]]</font>]] 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I agree with Rossami and Locke Cole about the "per side issue". ] ] 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' as per Locke Cole. This gives too much priority to the bold. And I say this as one of Misplaced Pages's bolder admins. ] (]) 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


* ''Self-reverts to correct one's own mistakes are allowed.''
====Comment (1)====
#
#
#


* ''We can tolerate all the divisive, biased admins on Topic X weighing in, each throwing his single stone, and stepping aside. Eventually they will all have exhausted their single shots and more neutral admins can come along and clean up.''
===Carnildo's proposal (2)===


* ''If one side is obviously wrong, they will probably run out of admins to vote for them sooner than the other side.''
====Support (2)====
#'''Weak support''', doesn't contain anything I object to. ] // ] 01:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Any of them are better than none. People are nitpicking, and we need something to stop the nonsense. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Defines wheel warring broadly, suggests a remedy, intuitively understandable. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


* '''''1WW''' might suggest to admins that what they're doing may be wrong, even if they're allowed to do it once.''
====Oppose (2)====
#'''Oppose''' -- viz "repeatedly"; cf ''can i do it until i need glasses''; sorry ] 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Also fails as a hard rule. --] 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. We need an unambiguous rule. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too vague, and the threatened penalty too weak. A 24-hour desysoping is too weak a penalty for wheel warring, especially since it often takes more than 24 hours to get someone desysoped in the first place. Keep in mind that desysoping requires steward intervention and most stewards will require evidence that "a consensus exists" on the project to revoke administrative privilege; they cannot be expected to review the underlying rules of a project to determine if a violation of local policy exists. In practice, the only way to desysop someone without an ArbCom order or a lengthy discussion is for Jimbo to do it himself, and we can't rely on Jimbovention to resolve all conflicts. ] (]) 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


* ''This has the problem of rewarding the aggressor, if only two admins are involved. Admin A blocks, admin B unblocks. Admin A can't reblock and if no one else gets involved, admin B got his or her own way by being the aggressor.''
====Comment (2)====
** ''This objection is based on the "sole defender of the wiki" theory of adminship. We're a community, and I should think that most admins have made contacts within the administrative community who can be asked to review a situation and reimpose a reversed action.''
#
** ''The "only two admins" scenario seems like a red herring to me. It's not as if we didn't have WP:ANI, user talk pages, e-mail, and IRC. You can always find another admin.''
#
#


More information may be found by examining the contents of the discussions that led to the establishment of this policy. ''See , ], ].''
===Theresa's proposal (3)===


====Support (3)==== == Examples ==
# I support my idea. It has the advantage of flexibilty. It states no predefined punishments but allows the AC to decide the best course of action. ] | ] 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# Support ] 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Clarifies existing policy. I want to note that my support is contingent on the spelling error in Theresa's proposal be fixed. :) Note however, that as this is effectively current policy, I don't know if codifying it is necessary. --] 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#I can live with this one. ] // ] 01:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Any of them are better than none. People are nitpicking, and we need something to stop the nonsense. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Leaves room for broad discretion and casuism. Also note that it's not mutually exclusive to any of the other policies; in fact, it's compatible with all of them. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


These are some specific hypothetical example scenarios of admin actions which explore the question of whether any admin has violated '''1WW'''. These examples do not pretend to exhaust all possible applications of this policy. While none have the effect of policy, all may serve as a guide to interpretation. Note that in any such case, real or hypothetical, one or more admins may well have violated ''other'' policies and guidelines, such as ''civility, neutrality'', or ''process''. Here we only explore possible violations of '''1WW'''.
====Oppose (3)====
#'''Oppose''' -- Too vague, too harsh; sorry ] 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#*I can understand that you may think it too vague. (I prefer flexible to vague personally) But too harsh? It doesn't have any set penalties. ] | ] 16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#** Um, ''...risk having their admin powers removed permenantly by the arbitration committee or Jimbo...'' -- that may be appropriate in some circumstances; in others it might be about right to make the offender stand in the corner for 15 min. It's just my bias -- I like to see standards of conduct sharp and explicit, penalties for violations adjustable ''ad hoc''. ] 08:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. We need a hard rule, sorry. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' fails to clarify existing policy. Arbcom's operational definition of a WW, from at least one recent case, seems to be "first strike is decisive". (i.e. that the "wheel-warrer" is always the original undoer of an admin action.) If that's the definition to be used here, '''even stronger oppose'''. ] 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per my comments below. —] • ] • ] 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. A penalty as harsh as desysoping is too harsh when the term "wheel war" remains vague. ] ] 15:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Wheel war isn't defined. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#<s>'''Weak Oppose'''. Mere restatement of existing policy, which has been demonstrated to be insufficient given the number of wheel wars which have occurred of late. However, a formal statement that the ArbCom can desysop for wheel warring is a good thing to have on the books, even if rarely used. I may change my vote if I end up opposing all of the proposals. ] (]) 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)</s> Too weak. A more stringent policy is necessary in light of recent events. ] (]) 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


====Comment (3)====
*This pretty much restates how things are now. I do think we should bave a ]-style wheel war (let's call it '''1WW''') policy though, but not as Phil Welch has defined it. A 1WW policy would discourage admins from engaging in repeated wheel war actions, but not allow a single admin to effectively hold the action they performed hostage (as Phil Welch's proposal seems to allow). —] • ] • ] 01:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
** '''1WW''' is a good name for whatever washes out of here. ] 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
***Agreed. —] • ] • ] 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*This seems like a recipie for ArbCom cases to me: I would support it if it were clearer on the enforcement mechanism. For whatever choice we come up with, I would suggest a page such as ] (or ] or ], whatever), along the lines of ]. ] ] 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
**Wheelwars are sufficiently rare that ] would be enough. — ''']''' '']'' 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
**] seems reasonable (it's very low traffic at the moment). As Phil says, they're rare enough that a subpage seems like overkill. —] • ] • ] 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
***I think requests for enforcement would get lost on ] (remember that were asking for '''steward''' action here); and having a seperate page would effective "name and shame" warring admins, and act as a deterrant in itself. ] ] 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


{| border=1 cellpadding =2
=== John Reid's proposal (4) ===
! colspan = "2" |case !! interpretation
|-
| rowspan = "4" | Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X.
| Admin A blocks User X again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|-
| Admin A blocks User X again. Admin B unblocks User X again.
| Admins A and B have both violated 1WW.
|-
| Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X.
| No admin has violated 1WW.
|-
| Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin A blocks User X again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Admin B writes on Admin A's talk: ''Do not block User X.'' Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X.
| No admin has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Admin A protects Page P. Admin B unprotects Page P. Admin A protects Page P again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Admin A deletes Page P. Admin B undeletes Page P. Admin A deletes Page P again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Admin A deletes similar Pages P1, P2, P3, P4. Admin B undeletes Pages P1, P2, P3, P4.
| No admin has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Admin A deletes similar Pages P1, P2, P3, P4. Admin B undeletes Pages P1, P2, P3, P4; then leaves a comment on A's talk: "Don't delete this kind of page." Admin A deletes a similar Page P5.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|-
| colspan = "2" | Page P is nominated for deletion. Discussion ensues. Admin A deletes Page P with edit sum ''speedied as patent nonsense''. Admin B undeletes Page P with edit sum ''restoring out-of-process deletion; XfD process must complete''. Admin A deletes Page P again. Admin B undeletes Page P again.
| Admins A and B have both violated 1WW.
|-
| rowspan = "4" | Admin A blocks Anon (IP) N for one week. Admin B receives an email stating ''I edit from IP N, which is widely shared. I am not in violation. Please remove this block.''
| Admin B unblocks Anon N. Admin A blocks Anon N again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW. (Responsibility to check block log.)
|-
| Admin B declines to unblock; block to expire soon. Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again.
| No admin has violated 1WW. (Unopposed.)
|-
| Admin B declines. Admin B replies by email, saying ''Admin A was wrong to block you.'' Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again.
| No admin has violated 1WW. (Ignorance.)
|-
| Admin B declines. Admin B messages on Admin A's talk page, saying ''You were wrong to block N.'' Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again.
| Admin A has violated 1WW.
|}


====Support (4)==== == See also ==
# '''Support''' -- Clear, unambiguous, simple, short. Doesn't address so-called tag-team ww; but are these the most common problems? If (say) 4 big-endian admins protect ] and 5 little-endian admins unprotect, then we've run out of endians and the war is over, so long as none of the 9 re-enter the process. Penalties are deliberately ''not'' specified; violations should never be common enough to demand rubber-stamp justice. Let the ]. ] 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' 1RR for admin actions (with the obvious caveats about self-reverts and subsequent actions as a result of consensus). ] <small>]</small> 07:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Actaully I like it better than my own idea. ] | ] 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' this should lead to better discussion of issues, but I'd like to see a little morte clarification. Obviously it means block the same user twice for example, rather than simply blocking, and there also needs to be some position on consensus derived actions. ] ] 20:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. ] 14:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', simply because it effectively means that given equal numbers of admins on each side, the "default" state is unblocked, unprotected, undeleted until consensus is reached. All the other proposals keep things blocked, protected, or deleted until things are worked out, as far as I can tell. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as per Simetrical. It's the simplest and seemingly the most effective proposal. <font color="#08457E">]</font> | <font color="#CD5700*">]</font> 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as reasonable compromise between my position and doing nothing at all, with the proviso that it be less ambiguously phrased to prevent wiki-lawyering. — ''']''' '']'' 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- it seems like the fairest proposal, it's simple without any pretentious Wiki-legalise, and unlike other proposals, avoids being instruction creep. --] (]) 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Brevity is the soul of wisdom in this case. I support any proposal in this area over nothing, but this is my favorite. ] 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This really ''is'' in the spirit of the 1RR. Would support additional non-binding guidelines on the undesirability and courtesy implications of "non-0RR" actions, and especially tag-teaming actions, without at least attempts at prior discussion, but wouldn't want to try and make that iron-clad. ] 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – clear and simple, sums it up perfectly – ] 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', so long as it is understood self-reverts to correct one's own mistakes are allowed (as we do for 3RR). I like the simplicity of this. ] 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This holds admins to the high standard they ought to have. ] <small>]</small> 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Any of them are better than none. People are nitpicking, and we need something to stop the nonsense. How about change this to say admin 'action' so it doesn't sound so goofy though? - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', simple and a third admin is able to step in if one of the others is being unreasonable or has gone insane, which seems to happen from time to time. It won't stop all wheel warring, as an admin can get their friends to do their bidding, but it will help reduce it greatly. Also, if one side is obviously wrong, to an outsider, they will probably run out of admins to vote for them sooner than the other side. Perhaps an addition should be made so that the default condition is that a user is unblocked and a page is unprotected, if different admins keep coming and reverting. I would not make that addition now. We should see if something like that is necessary after it is put into practice. -- ] 11:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', perfect, although ientical to Looke Cole's proposal. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as best proposal on the topic of the bunch. ] <small>(])</small> 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Straight, simple and effective. ] ] 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' a one-admin-revert rule as laid out here, though I would prefer the language be changed to "No administrator may twice perform any admin action in the face of admin opposition." I also suggest using '''1AR''' and not '''1WW''', as explained in the Comments section below. ]]] ] 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Weak support''', basically the same as my original proposal, below. ] (]) 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Support'''. This is defacto how I already thought things were. Except I would like to see it per side instead of per admin. I liked Phil's proposal, but way too wordy. Basically if you take an admin action and you get reverted, it should immediately be kicked up into some kind of community process. The privilege of individual admins to impose their judgment ought to end the minute two admins are in conflict. (Same goes for IAR.) ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. WHS ''] ]'' 23:19 ] ] (UTC).
# Support. Better than no policy and seems to be gathering sufficient backing.--]] 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


* ]
====Oppose (4)====
* ]
#'''Oppose'''. Bad idea. Too inflexible. --06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|Improv}}
* ]
## 3RR is inflexible and it's one of our best rules. ] <small>]</small> 20:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#'''Oppose'''. I would support of the wording was more clear. Does the first action count as against opposition?.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 21:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
## No. If Admin A does something she ''knows'' will annoy Admin B, it may be rude but it's not a ww yet. If Admin B undoes that action without talking it over with Admin A, it may be careless and below the standard expected of admins, but it's still not a ww -- if it stops there.
* ]
#'''Oppose''', isn't clear as per Voice of All, and doesn't specify any enforcement for violators. —] • ] • ] 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#'''Oppose''' as per locke cole, also leaves issue of admins getting friends to chip in un-addressed. Why not make it "do any admin thing <u>once</u>..."? No admin should ever be acting against voiced admin opposition, no? ] 11:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
## In a better world I would agree with you, Stevage. Ideally, no admin should ever undo another admin's action ''for any reason''. (If B disagrees with A, they work it out and perhaps A undoes his own action, perhaps not.) But this is an imperfect world and admins are imperfect people. I think it's fair and reasonable for ''every'' admin to take one shot -- good, bad, cheap, whatever. It's not the ideal climate in which to work things out -- and I certainly hope admins ''will'' discuss things in sidebar (at least sometimes) without slogging through a stone-throwing war, however measured. But the true current state of affairs is recurrent ww and there's nothing to keep the whole raft from going over the falls. I think we can tolerate all the divisive, biased admins on Topic X weighing in, each throwing his single stone, and stepping aside. Eventually they will all have exhausted their one shots and more neutral admins can come along and clean up. Remember, '''1WW''' is a hard, bright line. Crossing it is impermissible; simply stepping on it reflects unfavorably upon the stepper. ] 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#The wording is too vauge. Do any admin thing twice? I thought it was a joke at first. (The opposition part is nice and clear for me, it's the "thing" that is unclear because it doesn't say something like "do any admin thing ''on one user or article twice''".) ]] 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#* Everyone already knows pretty much how to interpret the three-revert-rule. Would it be sufficiently clear if we reworded it to something more like "Admin actions are subject to a one-revert-rule"? ] <small>]</small> 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#**The xRR are applied per 24 hour period, the 1WW would be per-dispute. — ''']''' '']'' 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]
#I '''oppose''' any wording with strict limits. I'm sure that not every single one of our 800+ administrators act in a reasonable and fair manner 100% of the time. In some rare cases, undoing another administrator's actions repeatedly is the only way for me to protect innocent users. ] // ] 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#:Can you clarify why you're then supporting a different measure which prescribes temp-desysadmining for doing so? And doesn't this envisage a situation where you're the ''only'' admin "protecting innocent users", in the face of unspecified numbers of others re-doing the action in question? Cut and paste opposes seem to imply a certainly lack of differentiation between the practical consequences of several very different measures. ] 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#::If an administrator is in the process of blatantly ignoring all other policies, I can't count on them following this one. Improper blocks have the potential to cause enormous amounts of harm and ill will, and rectifying those immediately is of the utmost importance. Ideally other people would be unblocking, but one can't always count on others immediately noticing these things. ] // ] 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#:::Unless, say, one informs them. You didn't comment on the apparent inconsistency of your support for Carnildo's proposal. Are you distinguishing between "No admin may do" and "may be de-sysopped"; or between "more than once" and "repeatedly"? (I assume not the latter, given your claimed need to do exactly that.) ] 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too inflexible. Also, so badly worded that no person who loved language could be happy to be governed by it. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. This would mean if admin 1 blocks and admin 2 unblocks and no one else gets involved, the unblock stands, so the person who started the wheel war by being first to undo the admin action gets his or her way. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too weak. ] (]) 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


== External links ==
====Comment (4)====
# '''JYolkowski''' writes: ''In some rare cases, undoing another administrator's actions repeatedly is the only way for me to protect innocent users.'' This may indicate a basic difference in our understanding of how collaborative editing works. My theory is that there is ''nothing'' that I must do twice, even as a plain editor. Indeed, there is nothing I ''must'' do ''once''. I feel compelled to respond on talk to questions directed to me; I may ''undo'' things I've done wrong; and of course I try to shoulder my fair share of the burden as and when I see it. But I must believe that the wiki will roll on with or without me. Were I an admin I would hold to the same view regarding admin actions -- no matter how strongly I feel that ''something must be done'', if nobody else feels the same way, then I'm probably wrong. So, it's enough that I do any given thing ''once'' -- and if it is undone by another, then perhaps a third party will redo it. Certainly some editors -- and some admins -- do destructive things and we all have a responsibility to oppose this. But I cannot take the entire burden of policing even one word on one page; and I think it would be a dangerous attitude for me to cast myself in the role of the ]. ]
# Ok, I may be over-rhetoricking this, but can we call it something besides '''1WW'''? I feel as though this says "you may wheel-war, but only a little bit." So as to be in line with 1RR and 3RR, can we call this 1 Admin Revert, or '''1AR'''? Picky, perhaps, but if our goal is to ''eliminate'' wheel-warring, we shouldn't ''enshrine its use'' in the language we choose to use. ]]] ] 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
#: Actually I felt '''1WW''' might remind the person abusing it that what they're doing is wrong, even if they're allowed to do it once. —] • ] • ] 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
#::As Theresa pointed out on the talk page, not all administrative reversions are wrong. If John Q. Bannedforvandalism promises me he'll be good from now on and some other admin blocked him, I think it's perfectly legit for me to unblock him so long as I make sure he keeps his promise. — ] (]) (]) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


* ]
=== Locke Cole's proposal (5) ===
* ]

* ]
====Support (5)====
* ]
#'''Support''' as author. —] • ] • ] 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
* ]:
#'''Weak support''' I can agree with the points that say that this enshrines a "right" to undo other admins actions, and I can also see ways in which this would not stop the worst of wheel wars, but this seems the only proposal which has teeth and which is based on an already functioning model. ] ] 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
*: 9.1:
# '''Support''' This allows other admins to express their views and indeed show a majority or even consensus (i.e. Admin A blocks, Admin B unblocks, Admin A reblocks, Admin B reunblocks, Admin C blocks, if admin B comes in and unblocks it shows he's at the very least going against a majority....especially if Admin D E F and G are waiting to reblock.) ] ] ] ] ] ] 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*:# Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
#]|] 22:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Things degenerate into a wheelwar the moment one admin does something twice. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what's happening and an admin can be asked to undo, for example a block by the affected user. "Admin C" shouldn't be punished for intervening unless it was clear they were aware of the disagreement between the first to editors. - ]|] 22:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*:# Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
#'''Support''' for future development as well. — ''']''' '']'' 04:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
*: 9.2:
#Fine by me. ]] 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
*: If you are having problems with another sysop, you should first try to work it out via ... conversation with the other sysop.
#'''Weak support as second choice'''. In effect much like option 4, but with "lengthened and worsened" wording and provisions. ] 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
*
#'''Support'''. Any of them are better than none. People are nitpicking, and we need something to stop the nonsense. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like this better than John Reid's proposal. A bit less unambiguous, although the wording could be worked on.
#'''Support'''. This is a proposal in the same spirit of the 3RR for edit wars. That rule works pretty well, and I think this one will too. ] ] 15:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''', I suppose, because at least with this one, admin 1 blocks, admin 2 unblocks, admin 1 gets to reblock, so that's fairer. But I would prefer none of these; just an agreement that we won't undo each other's admin actions, at least as a rule of thumb. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#<s>'''Weak support''' with caveats: one, I think there should be a time limit after which one can revert anyway (to prevent stonewalling or obstruction caused by nonresponsive admins), and two, I disagree with the 7 day maximum desysopping. Indefinite and/or permanent desysoping must be possible penalties for wheel warring. ] (]) 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)</s>
#:Regarding the 7 day max, this is why I included language allowing for the ArbCom (or Jimbo) to remove access as they see fit. Presumably 7 days would be enough to open an ArbCom case and impose a temporary injunction removing the sysops access until the conclusion of the case. And I may not have mentioned this explicitly in the proposal, but I read it as "7 days ''per offense''"; so if someone wheel wars five times, that's 7 &times; 5 (35 days max). I'll have to think a little more about the stonewalling admin issue (but my gut says either it'll be worked out on AN/I, or it'll be taken to the ArbCom). —] • ] • ] 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
#::Speaking as a former Arbitrator, I tell you that if you say the penalty is seven days for wheel warring, some idjit '''will''' argue before the ArbCom that he can't be permanently desysoped for wheel warring because the policy says the maximum penalty is seven days. Yes, I know, the proposal has the "no limitation" clause, but that won't prevent the argument, and it won't stop people from getting behind the arguer in support, too. No, I think it's best not to set a maximum penalty. Let's not make ArbCom's job any harder than it already is. ] (]) 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

====Oppose (5)====
#Oppose, no right to undo another administrator's actions should exist. It might be appropriate or necessary to do so, but that should be a rare action that has to be justified. ] 13:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#*It's not a right, it's a ''limit''. Preferably no admin would undo anothers admin actions. But in the event this occurs, this sets a stringent limit of '''one''' time only. —] • ] • ] 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#Yes the problem is with the ''An adminstrator may only undo another admins action one time''. This reads as if he allowed to do it once. I don't want a situation to develope where low level wheel warring is the norm. ] | ] 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#*Note the words "may only", it's not "shall only" or "will only". If there's a way to word this such that it doesn't sound like an entitlement I'm all ears, but I did my best to not word it so it would be read as you seem be reading it. —] • ] • ] 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#I don't like that if there are only two admins in the dispute, the originating admin can redo his original action. I prefer John Reid's version (which is otherwise identical to this, wording aside). &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#*The idea is to give preference to the admin who did the action being undone. If two admins disagree (that is, the originating admin and another admin) then they each "wheel war" once. If a third admin disagrees with the originating admin and undoes it as well, then there's basically a small/minor consensus against the originating admins actions. At this point the originating admin can't redo their action again without violating this proposed rule/policy. —] • ] • ] 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#**I realize that's the idea, I just disagree with it. What this policy would mean is that if Bob protects a page and then Jim unprotects it, Bob can immediately reprotect it, and it will stay that way until further admins are called in. Granted, the latter might not take long, but it may, particularly if the reversing admin isn't paying attention/goes to sleep/whatever. I could foresee disputed blocks or protections going on easily for 24 hours longer than necessary if only one objecting admin spots them quickly. ], and blocking all the more so. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#***This isn't meant to change your mind, but the reason I built that in was because I'd like to ] on the part of the originating admin. Obviously if it degenerates into a back and forth wheel war, it'll take neutral non-involved admins to decide if the block/protect/etc was really necessary, but when it comes to just ''two'' admins, I think we should err on the side of the person who made the original call. If another admin objects (and it only takes one), then the original act can be overturned. (I should have explained this in my original reply, so sorry for being verbose again). And don't forget, this can also be used the other way around; an admin unblocking a long blocked user (or unprotecting a long protected page). —] • ] • ] 05:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#I '''oppose''' any wording with strict limits. I'm sure that not every single one of our 800+ administrators act in a reasonable and fair manner 100% of the time. In some rare cases, undoing another administrator's actions repeatedly is the only way for me to protect innocent users. ] // ] 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#*I think you just described precisely '''why''' we need a 1WW rule with strict limits. Otherwise we'll have admins claiming they were doing what was right (and wheel warring in the process). If you're really correct, make your case on ] or ] and let a neutral non-involved admin undo the action if they agree. —] • ] • ] 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too complicated. There are several hundred admins; to expect them all to learn these complex niceties and hold them in their heads at all times won't happen, no matter how good an idea it would be. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#*Actually it's not really complicated unless you're interested in enforcing it. To avoid violating my proposal you just need to remember that you shouldn't undo another admins action more than one time. Unlike some of the other proposals though, mine provides a remedy and assumes good faith on the initiator. Spelling these details out requires some level of complexity I'm afraid, but I think the tradeoff in good faith and providing for a remedy for violations is a good thing. —] • ] • ] 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. For complexity, partly over this whole ''1WWW'' thing and specified suspensions. An admin reversing another's actions is not the end of the world; more than one reversion very likely indicates a specifically abusive administrative action by either the reverter, or the admin who was reverted a second time. The policy document can't know who, therefore the nature of the penalty and who's penalized should be left as a matter of discretion of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo: In other words, we don't need a provision to specify 1WWW is automatic ''168 hours'' desysop, that just takes proper discretion out of the picture. --] (]) 07:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#*... '''''If any adminstrator exceeds this limit, their sysop access may be removed for a period not to exceed 168 hours.'''''. ''May''. ''Not to exceed''. Not enough discretion? I intentionally left it open to judgement by the b-crat/steward handling the complaint. —] • ] • ] 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', too weak. ] (]) 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

====Comment (5)====
# This one reads to my eye like a more verbose version of my proposal, so far as the standard of conduct is concerned; and resembles TK's in the penalty section. I think we're gravitating toward some sort of consensus: '''1WW'''. ] 08:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
# I propose an extension to this rule. After first violation is reverted, no other actions are allowed untill a consensus is reached. That is, in the situation given in the proposal, NO E Admin could come in and use his/her 1WW. Anybody doing anything after Admin D is subject to block and/or desysop. Now the question is what to do if B reverts A's actions? (i.e. B also violates 1WW). ] 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
#

=== Kelly Martin's proposal (6) ===

====Support (6)====
# Of course. See talk page. —] <small>(])</small> 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
# Yes, something is better than nothing. There's no urgent need for many admin actions, and we can wait to discuss re-implementing them if need be. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
# Wordier than John Reid's proposal but I think it says basically the same thing. I can live with it. ] <small>]</small> 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
# <s>Support</s>. SlimVirgin's objection is based on the "sole defender of the wiki" theory of adminship. We're a community, and I should think that most admins have made contacts within the administrative community who can be asked to review a situation and reimpose a reversed action. The reason why the reversing admin is favored over the nonreversing admin is that the status quo ante ought to be the default state of affairs; by allowing the initial administrative act to be reversed we favor the state that existed before the first administrative act. A "true 0RR" favors the state that exists ''after'' the first administrative act, and that rule gives insufficient protection to nonadmins who might otherwise fall prey to an admin who abuses administrative authority to, e.g. win an edit war, or to harass. (Locke Cole's proposal, which is weaker than mine and much weaker than the full 0RR, also suffers from this defect, but not as much because the original admin has to be persistent in maintaining the rightness of his/her action to reinstate the status posteriori.) The full 0RR basically prevents overly bold acts, and even irrational acts, from being reversed. Note, for example, under a full 0RR as proposed by SlimVirgin, I could block any admin I wanted, and that admin could not be unblocked without "consensus", which as we know can be very hard thing to find on Misplaced Pages. A true 0RR gives administrators a great deal more power to harass, and I think that would be a bad thing indeed. My proposal was intended to protect nonadmins from abusive admins, more so than to protect admins from one another. ] (]) 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

====Oppose (6)====
#'''Oppose'''. Again, this has the problem of allowing the admin who starts the wheel war to be decisive, if only two admins are involved. Admin 1 blocks, admin 2 unblocks. Admin 1 can't reblock and if no one else gets involved, admin 2 got his or her own way by being the aggressor. 0RR should mean precisely what it says. Do not undo another admin's actions, unless the situation is urgent or the circumstances exceptional. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- -->
#*The "only two admins" scenario seems like a red herring to me. It's not as if we didn't have ], and user talk pages, and e-mail, and even (''shudder'') IRC. You can always find another admin. —] <small>(])</small> 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too weak. ] (]) 10:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', deopping should ''never'' be the response to a first offense of this scale. --] 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

====Comment (6)====
*I don't see how this would prevent the slow-simmering wheel wars - i.e. usual wheel wars are admins reversing each other every half hour or so - this seems to merely make it every 24 hours. Isn't the purpose of this to prevent wheel wars altogether? <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

=== Kelly Martin's second proposal (7) ===
====Support (7)====
#In light of recent events, it's clear to me that a MUCH FIRMER policy against reverting is necessary. ] (]) 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
#: Would you please enlighten the rest of us? What recent events are you referring to? ] <small>]</small> 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
#:: The recent event of Eloquence deciding that he's entitled to unilaterally reverse without discussion a protection imposed by Danny, one of most trusted administrators. That was wheel warring. He deserves to be desysoped (and was desysoped, although that punishment, while originally imposed by Jimbo, was subsequently reversed by Jimbo for reasons that frankly make no sense to me) for that. Not every case is as severe as this one, but we need to have the policy so that it can be enforced when needed. ] (]) 13:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
#::: Those interested in the case can see what happened on ] and in . Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with Kelly's characterization of what happened, and am deeply disturbed by the underlying authoritarianism.--]] 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
#:::Apparently, Eloquence is no longer one of our most trusted administrators? --] 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

====Oppose (7)====
# Pending an explanation of the need for such a draconian policy, my initial reaction is to oppose this as overly strict. While discussing a contested matter with me would be a courtesy, if I do make a mistake, I would not want it to go uncorrected just because I'm not on Misplaced Pages for a few days. If strictly interpreted (which the wording certainly seems to imply that we should do), this would also make some of our established practices illegal. For example, it would no longer be allowable to simply undelete and list a contested speedy-deletion or to unblock an anon IP when the block is having unintended consequences on signed-in users. ] <small>]</small> 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
#Abso!@#$inglutely not. I'm very disappointed with this proposal, and really opens the door for cabals who do controversial things, get reverted by an admin, then get a crat to dispose of them. Among many other things that scream that this proposal is bad. --] 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
# Oppose; this is more severe than the emerging general consensus. ]] 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

====Comment (7)====
*Define "discuss with the other sysop"; do you mean literally leave a message on the talk page and wait for a response, etc.? Or do you mean simply leaving a message indicating why you're reversing their action (and then being able to reverse the action; but still discussing if the other sysop responds)? In principle, I agree with it; many sysops have ignored ]s clause regarding undoing other sysop' blocks; specifically:
{{quotation|'''If you disagree with a block'''<br />

If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter. Some reasons you might want to unblock would be:

<ul><li>The user was blocked in violation of this policy</li>
<li>The reason for the block no longer applies</li></ul>

Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin. Because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's edit history what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than performing the unblock yourself.|]}}
* And really, it's only become more common place to undo another sysops action without discussing it with them directly (which needs to stop, IMHO). But I agree with {{user|Rossami}} that it seems rather draconian. A temporary desysopping until the Arbitration Committee has had a chance to consider/review the situation would be more appropriate. If you make this change, I'll support. —] • ] • ] 11:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*: The Arbitration Committee is the wrong entity to be enforcing this policy anyway. Clearly a new entity is needed. ] (]) 13:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*::In any event, if you would change the language to defer to an entity (ArbCom, or something new) on the matter of permanent desysoppings I'd support this. —] • ] • ] 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Refactor ==
----
Please see ]. ] 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
----

Revision as of 09:56, 23 April 2006

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
  • ]

Misplaced Pages admins (also known as sysops) are editors granted special powers within our community. These powers include blocking editors and deleting pages found in violation of our policies. Admins may also protect pages against editing to avoid future violations of policy. We consider admins trustees of these powers; they are pledged to use them only for the benefit of the whole and not to advance personal agendas. However, some admins can and do abuse these tools.

All policies are subject to interpretation and we need admins to exercise good individual judgement in doing so. Because they are human, they are able to apply policies more flexibly and appropriately than any machine; but also, because they are human, they do make mistakes. Every day, there is a large quantity of tasks that must be done by admins; we are forced to accept human error along with good human judgement. Our solution to this paradox is to permit other admins to reverse admin actions by unblocking, undeleting, and unprotecting.

This leads to situations in which admins who disagree may use their powers in opposition, repeatedly reversing each others' actions. This is unacceptable. For historical reasons, this is called wheel warring. The goal of this policy is to reduce the frequency, intensity, and scope of wheel wars. Ideally, no wheel war would ever take place. Practically, we must balance the nuisance and disruption of a wheel war against the unintended consequenses of instruction creep and the wikilawering it generates.


Policy

No admin shall repeat any admin action in the knowledge that another admin opposes it.

Sanctions

Violators of 1WW are subject to a range of sanctions appropriate to the seriousness of the offense. Wheel warring is considered extremely disruptive. Violators may have their admin powers removed. ArbCom process is available but not required to enforce this policy.

Aggravation, mitigation, and defense

The scope of an admin's action is a critical factor in our evaluation of a charge of wheel warring. Factors in aggravation or mitigation may include, but are not limited to:

  • Time: Actions which are repeated within minutes or hours are more serious than those repeated within weeks; actions repeated within months or years may not be actual violations at all.
  • Range: Actions that affect large numbers of pages, highly prominent pages, or heavily-used Template or MediaWiki namespace pages are more important than those that involve a single obscure page. Multiple cotemporal violations of 1WW aggravate one another.
  • Intent: Actions that clearly demonstrate disregard for community policy are more serious than those taken in clear good faith. An allegation of bad faith intent does not establish a violation of 1WW; but an established violation is aggravated by clear demonstration of bad faith. A clear demonstration of good faith may be sufficient to exempt an admin from sanctions.
  • Talk: Actions performed subsequent to civil discussion on talk are presumed to be more amicable than those without. Neutral, honest, polite edit summaries and discussion prior to action go far to mitigate violations of 1WW. Hostile talk comments and edit summaries (or none) aggravate.
  • Coviolation: Violating another policy in the same action aggravates a violation of 1WW. The other violation must be established as if there were no violation of 1WW; only then can it be considered in aggravation.
  • Repeat offender: Having violated 1WW in the past does not establish that an admin has violated it in the present. But if a current violation is established then a prior violation is an aggravating circumstance.

The context of an admins action may influence the finding of wheel warring. Few defenses are able to succeed. Possible defenses include:

  • Single action: It is quite possible for any single action to violate some other policy but this is a certain defense against 1WW. Violation requires repetition.
  • Necessity: The defense may be made that it was necessary for an admin to violate 1WW in order to uphold some other policy or vital principle. Such argument may be considered in mitigation with the caution that it is extremely unlikely to be suffcient defense. Admins are advised to enlist the support of other admins in upholding policy.
  • Ignorance: The defense may be made that an admin was not aware of admin opposition before repeating an action. However, we presume that an admin is aware that another admin has reversed an action before he repeats it. Admins who repeat a block should know if the previous block has expired or if another admin has unblocked. Admins do have a positive responsibility to review comments made on their talk pages.
  • Amity: The defense may be made that an admin repeated an action after coming to an amicable agreement with all admins who initially reversed it. This is a good defense against a charge levied by an admin who did not participate in discussion. If the charge is brought by an admin who did participate in discussion, then the contents of the discussion must be examined for evidence of amicable agreement, absent which the defense of amity fails.

Commentary

Following are a number of (refactored) comments made in relation to wheel-warring policy. While none have effect equal to the policy itself, all may serve as a guide to interpretation.

  • 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.
  • Any policy that makes exceptions will be open to interpretation, and thus fail to entirely prevent wheel warring.
  • Page protections are not generally supposed to be permanent but they do not automatically expire like blocks do.
  • Appeal to authority tends to polarize the discussion. The rogue admin has little incentive to participate in real discussion. All he/she has to do is be obstructionist enough to polarize the discussion and argue that consensus has never appeared. "I don't have to seek consensus because I can drag this out until Jimbo gets involved."
  • Benefit of doubt should lean towards curtailing admin powers.
    • No, Assume Good Faith should apply to admin decisions.
    • Assume Good Faith applies to the admin who decided to revert the action, too.
  • Please, no automatic deadminning. This should be like user blocking: preventive of disruption rather than punitive of the user.
  • Edit warring over protected pages is very disruptive.
    • A stronger policy against edit warring on protected pages may be wise but this policy is focused on use of non-editing admin powers.
  • Whoever reverses an admin action is responsible for any problems that result.
  • Some wheel wars are conducted by admins who each believe they are Misplaced Pages's sole defender against some threat. An admin needs to remember that he does not stand alone against the forces of chaos; he can enlist the aid of another admin.
  • Putting in an exception for vandalism invites attempts to surf the loophole thus created.
  • This should be per-user, otherwise the admin who takes action first is protected from having their action undone by anyone.
  • Keep in mind that deadminning requires steward intervention and most stewards will require evidence that a consensus exists on the project; they cannot be expected to review underlying rules to determine if a violation of local policy exists.
  • I like to see standards of conduct sharp and explicit, penalties for violations adjustable to fit the crime. Violations should never be common enough to demand rubber-stamp justice.
  • Self-reverts to correct one's own mistakes are allowed.
  • We can tolerate all the divisive, biased admins on Topic X weighing in, each throwing his single stone, and stepping aside. Eventually they will all have exhausted their single shots and more neutral admins can come along and clean up.
  • If one side is obviously wrong, they will probably run out of admins to vote for them sooner than the other side.
  • 1WW might suggest to admins that what they're doing may be wrong, even if they're allowed to do it once.
  • This has the problem of rewarding the aggressor, if only two admins are involved. Admin A blocks, admin B unblocks. Admin A can't reblock and if no one else gets involved, admin B got his or her own way by being the aggressor.
    • This objection is based on the "sole defender of the wiki" theory of adminship. We're a community, and I should think that most admins have made contacts within the administrative community who can be asked to review a situation and reimpose a reversed action.
    • The "only two admins" scenario seems like a red herring to me. It's not as if we didn't have WP:ANI, user talk pages, e-mail, and IRC. You can always find another admin.

More information may be found by examining the contents of the discussions that led to the establishment of this policy. See Proposed wheel warring policy (7 forks), Talk Archive, Talk (current).

Examples

These are some specific hypothetical example scenarios of admin actions which explore the question of whether any admin has violated 1WW. These examples do not pretend to exhaust all possible applications of this policy. While none have the effect of policy, all may serve as a guide to interpretation. Note that in any such case, real or hypothetical, one or more admins may well have violated other policies and guidelines, such as civility, neutrality, or process. Here we only explore possible violations of 1WW.


case interpretation
Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin A blocks User X again. Admin A has violated 1WW.
Admin A blocks User X again. Admin B unblocks User X again. Admins A and B have both violated 1WW.
Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X. No admin has violated 1WW.
Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin A blocks User X again. Admin A has violated 1WW.
Admin B writes on Admin A's talk: Do not block User X. Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. No admin has violated 1WW.
Admin A protects Page P. Admin B unprotects Page P. Admin A protects Page P again. Admin A has violated 1WW.
Admin A deletes Page P. Admin B undeletes Page P. Admin A deletes Page P again. Admin A has violated 1WW.
Admin A deletes similar Pages P1, P2, P3, P4. Admin B undeletes Pages P1, P2, P3, P4. No admin has violated 1WW.
Admin A deletes similar Pages P1, P2, P3, P4. Admin B undeletes Pages P1, P2, P3, P4; then leaves a comment on A's talk: "Don't delete this kind of page." Admin A deletes a similar Page P5. Admin A has violated 1WW.
Page P is nominated for deletion. Discussion ensues. Admin A deletes Page P with edit sum speedied as patent nonsense. Admin B undeletes Page P with edit sum restoring out-of-process deletion; XfD process must complete. Admin A deletes Page P again. Admin B undeletes Page P again. Admins A and B have both violated 1WW.
Admin A blocks Anon (IP) N for one week. Admin B receives an email stating I edit from IP N, which is widely shared. I am not in violation. Please remove this block. Admin B unblocks Anon N. Admin A blocks Anon N again. Admin A has violated 1WW. (Responsibility to check block log.)
Admin B declines to unblock; block to expire soon. Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again. No admin has violated 1WW. (Unopposed.)
Admin B declines. Admin B replies by email, saying Admin A was wrong to block you. Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again. No admin has violated 1WW. (Ignorance.)
Admin B declines. Admin B messages on Admin A's talk page, saying You were wrong to block N. Block expires. Admin A blocks Anon N again. Admin A has violated 1WW.

See also

External links

Category: