Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wheel war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Siebrand (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 8 November 2006 (+nl). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:WW redirects here; you may also be looking for Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (shortcut: WP:AWW).
Shortcut

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — in particular, unblocking or reblocking a user; undeleting or redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article.

Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are not good.


Policy

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

Guidelines

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

Wheel warring is indicated when:

  • Admins get too distressed to discuss something.
  • An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation.
  • An admin deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) to implement his preferred action or version of an edit.
  • An administrative action is repeatedly performed and reversed (by anyone).

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

Application

Wheel war policy is a bright-line rule; wheel war guidelines invite balancing tests.

Wheel war policy, above, is unambiguous. Violation can be determined from a simple examination of logs. Intent need not be shown, only that a reasonable admin should have been aware of opposition at the time of repeating an admin action. No judgement is made on the substantive issue; neither side is endorsed. Violation of this section is a violation of 0WW in the first degree.

Wheel war guidelines, also above, are somewhat more open to interpretation. Intent is germane; log summaries and talk page comments may be weighed. Substantive issue is germane; the actual propriety of the action may be weighed. Guidelines extend the prohibition against wheel warring beyond the bounds of policy; an admin may violate these guidelines on his very first action. Violation of this section is a violation of 0WW in the second degree.

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

Sanctions

Sometimes, admins are temporarily blocked for wheel warring, but this can result in a wheel war itself: an escalation of conflict, therefore to be avoided.

Violation of 0WW in either degree may result in loss of administrative privileges; the violator may instead be reprimanded or cautioned. First-degree violation is more serious than second-degree violation but neither is petty; either may invoke the full range of sanctions.

Wheel warring has been used as grounds for sanctions by ArbCom in a few cases. [1] [2] [3] [4] See summaries of these cases as they pertain to wheel warring.

Preferred actions

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.

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

Commentary

Main page: Wikipedia:Wheel war/Commentary

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

  • As a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her.
  • If your action is reverted, you may not re-revert it: you must either discuss it or allow some other admin to take the action.
  • Discussion is warranted, not reversing action.
  • Whoever reverses an admin action is responsible for any problems that result.
  • If one side is obviously wrong, they will probably run out of admins to vote for them sooner than the other side.
  • Wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.

Examples

A table of example cases is available. Note that these are intended merely to illuminate the bright-line policy, not to modify it.

The most often questioned example is of the slow-motion wheel war:

case interpretation
Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X. No admin has violated 0WW policy. From A to F, it is increasingly likely that an admin has violated 0WW guidelines.

While the slow-motion wheel war is indeed a wheel war, it is hazardous to call it a wheel war while it is ongoing. When exactly has it become a wheel war? Depending on circumstances, even Admin A's first action may have been taken in bad faith and with hostile intent to provoke a wheel war. Or, perhaps A through F have all acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Any attempt to abort the wheel war by calling it a wheel war and declaring the last actor a violator is likely to backfire by escalating the conflict. When did good faith become bad faith?

It's better to allow the slow-motion wheel war to blow itself out. The most committed admins each weigh in with their one action permitted under 0WW policy and then retire. This must inevitably lead to a war fought by more moderate admins; soon all involved admins are reasonably neutral and able to form an effective compromise. After conclusion, involved admins may indeed be sanctioned for violation of 0WW guidelines but all have had their say, no single admin has taken more than one action, an effective compromise is in place, and the conflict did not escalate. This is the fastest, least messy choice among a host of messy alternatives.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wheel_war&oldid=86470509"