On 20/04/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
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:
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.