Steve Bennett wrote:
On 23/04/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Funnily enough, my definition works here as well. Someone whose 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.
So someone whose poor judgement has been questioned is perfectly justified to impute bad faith! Seems that you're arguing that his two wrongs would make things right.
Ec