Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Old discussion

I defined this as best I knew, based on a request. But is this content encyclopedic? it's self referential, anecdotal and possibly apocryphal. Hmm... maybe my first AfD listing? Someone talk me out of it, quick! ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's in the Wikipedia namespace, so of course it's self-referential. And no, it shouldn't be deleted. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, d'oh. I for some reason thought this was in article space (no idea why, really!!! it was late last nite, what can I say), so no, I agree, it's not something to delete. Glad the deffy was of some help! (I suppose someone COULD write an article on it too but I think it'd be hard to go beyond the definition) ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

(After the definition has gone up.) So I knew what "wheel war" meant after all. I've been using Linux for awhile and I do know all about the wheel user group. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant did a great rewrite of this, taking it from a weak definition (no idea why I couldn't find the original definition, but hey, it was late!) to an actual guideline/policy/proposal page.... I suspect all this old discussion could just go away or be archived, it's not that key any more... ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement against wheel warring

Discuss please. Radiant_>|< 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the 3RR already apply? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. It isn't that difficult to stop and explain one's concensus before blindly taking action. -ZeroTalk 00:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it does, but in the opinion of a small group of editors (including several arbiters, apparently) it is entirely acceptable to wheel war if you consider yourself to be in the right. Even if in the end, you turn out to have been wrong. I mean to make absolutely clear, through a vote if there really isn't another way, that wheel warring is not acceptable. Radiant_>|< 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's pretty sad that we need to have a vote to establish this. If anything, delete/undelete or block/unblock wars should be subject to 1RR. android79 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've long been of the opinion that any battle involving admin actions (deletion, blocking, editing mediawiki pages) should result in the swift (though perhaps temporary, subject to reconfirmation or somesuch) de-adminship of those involved. — Dan | talk 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Been tried didn't work.Geni 00:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cheack the buracrat log for my nick or for the full version see here.Geni 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that's different. Ed Poor, in a bold move, deopped four warring admins. But he didn't say for how long (indeed, his statement implies that it was permanent removal), and there was no consensus beforehand. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But that wasn't the grounds people objected on. The whole case is interesting becuase it was one of the first (if not the first) wheel war. If you look at people's reactions it is pretty clear they don't know what to do. since they haven't been in a wheel war before.Geni 12:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The Ed Poor case was vastly more complicated than you make it seem; one major factor was Ed's personality and history of unilateral decisions. In summary, no, this has not been tried. — Dan | talk 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement with both android79 and Dan. Any admin who engages in a wheel war needs a 31-hour block after 1RR, or 2RR at the latest. Just as admins are given more powers than we regular users are allowed to have, so should admins be held to a higher standard than regular users. Instead, they seem to usually be held to lower standards. --Aaron 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Enforcement of wheel wars will lead to wheel wars over the enforcement of wheel wars. It's unfortunate that the ArbCom doesn't get how damaging they can be, but it's not clear to me how we could effectively 'enforce' such a 'thing' with more than a flinching chance of success. -Splashtalk 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If we had a clear policy of enforcement, there would be no wheel warring over that (along the lines of the 3RR, e.g. "performing the same admin action twice in one day is grounds for a 24-hour block"). It's either that or revive WP:RFDA. Radiant_>|< 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)The only way I see to stop wheel warring, removal of blocks placed for wheel warring, et cetera is to make certain enforcement actions mandatory. If you make absolute rules that all admins must block anyone wheel warring (3RR violation with admin powers) for 24 hours, any mandatory block which is removed must be re-instated (and re-instatement not subject to 3RR), anyone unblocking themself from such a mandatory block must be de-admin'd, et cetera... then it isn't just a matter of admins with one opinion vs admins with another opinion. Mandatory enforcement short circuits wheel-warring by making it a question of admins who follow the rules vs those who don't. Obviously mandatory enforcements could only be for things which are widely agreed to be 'bad' <tm>... but so long as admins know they can 'get away' with things they will (inevitably) continue doing them. --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Admininstrator rampage

  • Just tossing an idea into the mix which might be relevant, but I was thinking recently about what would happen if an admin went rogue (in other words, deliberately decided to go on a big vandalism rampage). I came to the conclusion that the only way of really stopping it would be some kind of emergency bureaucrat desysopping. Of course this is all very unlikely because admins are subject to approval mostly to make sure they don't do this, but it is possible. David | Talk 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not even 'crats can de-sysop; you need a steward for that. android79 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, there is the theoretical problem of true rogue admins, but in practice it's possible to get a steward to them on short notice. On the other hand there's the very real problem of admins that prefer wheel warring over actual discussion, that in practice poisons the atmosphere, but nothing is really being done about it. Radiant_>|< 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Historicaly deadmining in emergenices has fallen the devs.Geni 03:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • De-sysoping subject to reconfirmation seems too harsh for a single instance of wheel warring. Given that any admin who has been around for a while will have some enemies the resulting reconfirmation would be needlessly troubling. On the other hand just saying "stop it" on WP:ANI seems too weak. Even if its effective, people will probably think its not. I suggest that any instance of wheel warring be subject to a temporary injunction against using any admin functions. This injunction should be viewed as a block, it can be "applied" by any admin but requires notification of the user and WP:ANI. If a user repeated violates such injunctions, this would then be ground for de-sysoping (like repeatedly unblocking onceself). In addition, the number of these injunctions would provide some evidence of the propensity of an admin to wheel war and could be used in an WP:RfAr. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In line with the jargon dictionary entry calling it larval stage behaviour, wheel warring seems, at least to me, somehow sort of juvenile and unprofessional. I think evidence of admins fighting amongst themselves might drive newer editors away, unless those newer editors decide they could have some fun warring too, and those seem the wrong sort of editors to attract. I find the present tendency of certain admins to have these recurring wheel wars and then say "what I did was for the good of the encyclopaedia, and I'd do it again" as a defense (as if whatever article or userbox or image or whatever it was that that was at the root of the dispute was so critically encyclopaedia threatening that it couldn't wait a few days to get a consensus on what to do) is wrong. It smacks of hubris, frankly, and I don't use that term at all lightly. I don't know if new rules/processes for explicitly desysopping are a good idea, per se, as others pointed out, but I'd certainly support significant length blocks. Further, if an admin comes before arbcomm for a matter and there was wheel warring involved in it, arbcomm needs to take that very seriously when deciding what remedy to suggest. Much more seriously than it does now (I voted against every candidate that I knew had wheel warred or that I thought was sympathetic to the practice). So if this guideline gets put forward with strong wording (so strong that arbcomm would ignore it at their peril) about unacceptability in just about every circumstance short of an actual rogue admin, that would be a good thing I think. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • PS, I found this quote in what Geni provided to be rather apt, ironically enough: What is this about running out of time? Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --user:Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've suggested this a couple times here and there, kzollman above also mentioned it. I think we need to hand problem admins a temp block from admin powers. It wouldn't affect normal editing but the admin powers would be taken away (either by injunction or by removing the admin bit). This has gotten crazy and I think a taste of being without admin powers would make people a little more conservative and focus their attention on the fact that they might be straying a little too far from the pack. WP:IAR has it's uses but it can be taken too far. A single bureaucrat should be able to assign this type of block if something's getting disruptive or there's a wheel war starting and let everyone else catch up. Rx StrangeLove 06:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of wheel-warring

Does revert waring in the mediawiki namespace count as wheel waring.Geni 12:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok but would you want to be the one to deadmin a board member? Impact is varable. If the edit war is over commented out text it is quite posible that no one will notice.Geni 12:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the one on mediaWiki:sitenotice would qualify as a revert war in the mediawiki namespace. Revert waring on hidden text happens from time to time although I'm not aware of it happening on a protected article.Geni 12:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I forsee arguments over what counts as a revert war. Deltion, protection, blocking. All have the advantage that they are easy to quantify measure and describe.Geni 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me but as a note, I think edit warring in areas where only admins can edit, is more serious than regular edit warring. Admins should know better. So (probably tangentially to this proposal), I'd support harsher blocks for admins edit warring (in any space) and still harsher for edit warring in areas where only admins can. (the theory of restriction is presumably so that only serious soberheaded people with experience of the impact can make the changes in the first place)... ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, higher standards and all. But I'd like to see it limited to a day or less for the first offense and then progressively longer, which probably only makes sense. But all in all, this would be an effective way to roll up a newspaper and give someone a good whack. Is this something bureaucrats would be willing to take on? Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of an injunction type block rather than actually resetting the "bit". If it turns out that people would rather literally take the power on a temp basis then you're right, we'd have to find another way. Perhaps a request by a bureaucrat to a dev or steward. The reason I'm sticking to the bureaucrats is that they seem to be generally more in touch with what's happening on a day to day basis and could act faster. If that assumption is not accurate then devs/stewards are perfectly acceptable to perform this. Rx StrangeLove 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll

Please take a look at this poll to gauge community opinion on several admin-related issues. Radiant_>|< 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that additional questions have been added to this straw poll, if you went and visited it early. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Has this been common??

The only time in Wikipedia history I know of is in March-April 2004 between succession boxes and Calmypal's Presidents template. Any other times this has happened?? Georgia guy 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, the things general users don't know about Wikipedia politics would be enough to fill a bank vault (and kill a man). --Cyde Weys 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not particularly, no. There are about three admins that are involved in wheel wars about once per week or more, and about two dozen that have been involved in one or two wheel wars in the past half year. To the best of my knowledge, at least. If you want to be sure, Special:Log is the place to check. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Very common, or only somwhat common or even not at all commn, it's still too common, seems to be the thinking. At least that's my read of the sentiment, and my personal feeling... ++Lar: t/c

There were several cases of wheel wars during last April Fools Day, with edit warring over the Main page, over some of the tabs in the MediaWiki namespace, and over some of the hoax articles themselves. There was at least one RFAR filed, but basically ignored by the ArbComm with the excuse that it was unlikely to happen again. It would be great if someone could go through WP:AN and WP:AN/I to create a list of some of the bigger admin vs. admin editing, page move, page protection, and blocking wars. BlankVerse 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Can someone do a database query for "users/pages that have been blocked/deleted/protected more than twice", that should help. Or "more than once within 24 hours". Radiant_>|< 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it takes two to wheel war!

I think this is a valid comment and was sorry to see it go. I guess technically it's a wheel war if one person changes something back but it's not much of one if the other side then lets it stand. The point it is making is important, though... if one starts and you step away, it's over unless someone else keeps it going. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I've added it back. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it again because to state that it takes two is to define a wheel war in a very specific way. If an admin blocks someone, and another admin unblocks without discussion, the second admin has started a wheel war. If the first admin responds to continue the war, it doesn't mean the first admin started it. It was the second admin who started it.
Similarly, if an article is deleted after an AfD, and a second admin undeletes it, the second admin has started the wheel war. It takes only one to start it, though it may take two, three, or more to keep it going. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Very valid. How about "it takes one to start a war, but it takes two to KEEP wheel warring... consider letting it go and seeking other processes to resolve the issue"? That's the key idea... you can STOP even if you started. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to that, though I think it's a good idea to stress that the onus is on the person who starts it, not to start it, and that all disagreements about blocking, deleting, and protecting should be discussed and not undone unilaterally. My worry about stressing that it takes two (to start it or to keep it going) is that it removes or reduces the responsibility of the admin who first undoes the action. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

Why has this behavior been named `wheel war'? Would `admin war' be just as useful, if not more informative? Thanks, Gchriss 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think "wheel war" is just as understandable by people who have no idea what wheel war means. If you set aside the computing jargon, you're left with the impression that it's like warring over a steering wheel of an automobile (presumably while it's in motion, which I think anyone would believe is bad). I think that's easy enough to understand. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of wheel wars?

After the unfortunate mess caused by the latest wheel war, I'm interested in reading more about historical wheel wars in the hope of learning from our mistakes. Is someone maintaining a list of past wheel wars and the outcomes? Deco 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wheel_war/Archive_1&oldid=1081079699"