Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:28, 3 July 2008

What's in a "wheel war"?

Bishonen writes "George has not wheel-warred". I find myself disagreeing with this, not because of any difference of opinion over the facts, but because we apparently disagree over what constitutes "wheel warring".

Maybe I have hard line about this, but my understanding is that any time an administrator willfully undoes another administrator's intended action without bothering to discuss it either with them and/or with the larger community, then he has engaged in a wheel war.

I may be mistaken, but my reading of the time line is that George did not engage in discussion with anyone prior to reverting WMC, and neither did WMC engage in discussion before reverting George. Hence, by my personal standards they have both wheel-warred. Avraham is marginal. He involved himself in the dispute way more quickly than I think is reasonable, but he at least had the benefit of some discussion at WP:AE.

Apparently Bishonen believes that George gets the first revert for free, i.e. his actions don't amount to wheel warring until he repeats them. Personally, I think this is both bad policy (i.e. admins should never revert each other without at least cursory discussion and pursuit of consensus), and that it is not in keeping with the traditional understanding of what consititutes a "wheel war" as I have understood it. Dragons flight (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The first sentance of the policy "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting a page. " on clear language reading supports your definition. The second and third sentances, in bold on the policy page "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion." then seem to imply "re-" doing is what constitutes a problem. The language should be clarified, and I support Dragons flight's interpretation.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring is to administrative actions as edit warring is to editing actions. Both can encompass a variety of different behaviours, and whether a given action constitutes wheel or edit warring depends on the context in which the action was taken. Discussion (both by the person taking the action, and also contemporaneous discussion by other people) is undoubtedly an important consideration. --bainer (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I see any administrative action that would need to be undone with such speed that a comment on the originating admin's talk page couldn't take place first. Perhaps I am missing something.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wheel_war/Examples has:

• Case: "Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin A blocks User X again."

  Interpretation: "Admin A has violated 0WW." (Nothing on Admin B)

• Case: "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"

  Interpretation: "No admin has violated 0WW"

According to that page, Geogre hasn't violated 0WW, and I support Bishonen's interpretation. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The bottom of your examples gives:

"Misplaced Pages:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable..." -- "Jimbo Wales blocked Joeyramoney for a week, and Karmafist subsequently intentionally removed the block." Remedy given: "For wheel-warring with Jimbo Wales, Karmafist is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed...."

In that case, a single reversal was sanctioned as wheel warring. Your examples page refers specifically to "bright-line" examples in the top of it's presentation, and I do not consider it an exhaustive list. In cases where A undid action by B, it may not be a bright line since mitigating factors like discussion exist. If they then continue to war, they will definitely cross a bright-line for wheel warring, but I'd consider that the state of engaging in a wheel can exist before that. In the example before us here, I consider George's actions to have been part of a wheel war since no attempt at any amicable resolution was made.

In addition, even if you don't want to call it "wheel warring", I would certainly agree with Arbcom that "undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable". Dragons flight (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Consider the relation between those bright-line examples and wheel warring in general as akin to the relation between the three-revert rule and edit warring. --bainer (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Injunction at proposed decision page

Not everyone may have watchlisted all the pages yet, so dropping off a note here to point out a temporary injunction that is being voted on: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#Blocks of Giano prohibited. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A show trial?

I have not been following the ArbCom's activities since last year. Now that I look at the page, it seems they have only two sorts of cases - secret trials and show trials. As if the arbs think a show trial may counterbalance a secret trial. Why don't you resign, guys, to make everyone's life easier? Only you are to blame for where we are today. --Ghirla 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)