On 4/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So, clearly a definition of "reverting any
administrative action counts
as wheel-warring" doesn't work.
It's because it focuses on the "what" - it needs to look at the
"why".
Take the example above of A blocking and B unblocking. Why did B
unblock? Was it because the block was some sort of mistake (blocking
the wrong range, or blocking an AOL proxy for too long, etc) or was it
because B disagreed with A's interpretation of the user's edits? If
there was such a disagreement, then why did B not discuss the block
with A? It's that part which most people find problematic, the attack
on someone's judgement, not the actual action of unblocking.
I would expect B to give a brief explanation of why he unblocked. But
nuance the issue a bit more: A blocks for 1 week; B reduces the block to
24 hours. Do you consider that to be a revert?
Ec