Steve Bennett wrote:
On 20/04/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly right. Some admins have adopted a definition of "wheel warring" that excludes the first revert of an admin action -- so that if X blocks, and Y unblocks, Y is not wheel warring. But if X restores the block, X has started the wheel war. This is nonsense. The first person to undo the original admin action has started the wheel war, and it's that first undoing that shouldn't be happening as a rule.
How's this for a definition: X blocks Y unblocks
If X disagrees with Y's unblock, then Y has wheel warred. If X reinstates the block, then X has wheel warred too.
This covers the situation where X makes a mistake and Y fixes it - X agrees with the mistake, and no damage is caused. If Y fears that X may accuse him of wheel warring, he shouldn't be undoing X's actions. (or should be prepared for the consequences)
Anything but a one free revert policy makes no sense at all. There are just too many reasons why one admin might revert the actions of another. Some are good reasons; others are very bad.
Not allowing one free revert sets up the presumption that the original admin was right to do what he did, whether or not he included an explanation. The first revert, which should at least have an edit summary lets it be known that there is a difference of opinion. The one point where I disagree with Steve it that Y could be retroactively declared a wheel warrior for an honest expression of opinion.
If X disagrees with Y's initial revert, he too owes us an explanation.
Ec