On 23/04/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)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.
Steve