On 4/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
* Steve Bennett wrote:
Funnily enough, my definition works here as well.
judgment is being questioned will accuse their reverter of wheel
warring. Someone who made a mistake won't.
In other words: If the person you reverted accuses you of wheel
warring, then you wheel warred.
I almost agree, but in some cases that person might still be operating
under mistaken assumptions. Say they found some evidence which suggested
that a particular user was a sockpuppet of a blocked user and placed a
block on the 'sockpuppet' as a result. However, the second admin then
uncovered proof that the person wasn't a sockpuppet and unblocked. The
first admin might well accuse the second of 'wheel warring' and reblock,
but only because of a failure of communication. The second admin wasn't
'opposing the judgement' of the first, they were just working off a
different set of facts. The second admin shouldn't have to discuss the
matter before taking an action they know to be correct... though it would
be a good idea to send the first admin a note to fill them in on the details.
No, what the second admin should do is discuss the case with the first
admin, rather than unblocking. Maybe the first admin has evidence
that the second admin is unaware of. If the second admin has
conclusive evidence, then the first admin will undoubtedly unblock. If
not, then there is a dispute, and the second admin should not wheel
war. In any event, admins should not act under the bad faith
supposition that *they know better*; that is what starts the wheel