* 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.