At 01:09 PM 6/18/2008, Carl Beckhorn wrote:

...

A single reversal of an admin action isn't wheel-warring.

I would argue it is, although historically the WP:WHEEL page has been written to permit it. I would argue that the definition of wheel warring that permits one unilateral reversal of any action is detrimental to the project. It short-circuits dispute resolution in favor of the status quo; it actively discourages those who disagree with an admin action from coming to compromise with the original admin.

I'm not focusing specifically on BLP here, I'm thinking of the general principle. Once an admin action is performed to which there are objections, the correct course of action is to find a compromise thorugh discussion. This is no different than any other disagreement on Wikipedia.

I generally have in mind deliberative traditions. Wikipedia is designed for minimum bureaucracy, allowing many decisions to be made ad-hoc by individual administrators, who are not required to discuss them first. Any administrator, seeing an act of incivility after warning, can accuse and block at the same time. Often this will simply stand, because, most administrators being reasonable, it is efficient to allow this.

However, this was done without discussion. It then becomes legitimate for another administrator, seeing what appears to be an improper use of the tools, to unblock. Courtesty requires some level of communication on this, but it may be enough that the administrator reads the warning (or notes the lack of same), reviews the underlying incident, reads the block summary and other notes from the blocking administrator, and concludes that the block was improper. I'm stating that this is essentially the simplest possible review process, and that it should be able to conclude, ad hoc, that the block was improper and reverse it.

If the original administrator agrees, or at least consents, done. Presumably the unblocking administrator will likewise document his or her reasons, at least briefly.

This is similar to speedy process in deliberative assemblies. One example might be that a chair sees some action that the chair considers beneficial, and says, "Without objection, we will A, and is about to bang the gavel." If nobody objects, fine, it's done, immediately and without any fuss. But if someone object, *no action is taken," and if it happens that that hammer came down, the objection will still be taken and the action reversed, pending discussion. The original action and the discussion don't prejudice the result.

In deliberative process, no formal debate takes place without a second. If all we have is two people who disagree, it's a stalemate, and neither of these people have any right to impose their desired solution; except that there is a default, which in the case of editors, is that they aren't blocked.

I don't agree that if an administrator disagrees with a block, that they should go to AN/I or the like to get opinion. That's an option, but if the matter seems clear, and if the objectionable action was only that of a single administrator, unblocking seems most efficient and fair and balanced. It establishes an objection, and further action should require wider participation, which either administrator or anyone witnessing the incident can facilitate. I think of "wheel-warring" quite the same as "edit warring." We don't have an edit war if someone makes an edit and someone else reverts it. Once. It's when it goes back and forth, especially without attempting to seek and find consensus, that we start to call it edit warring.

I saw one example of a single unblock being considered wheel-warring, and it was a terrible example. Jimbo blocked an editor and disappeared, asking that the matter be stayed until his return. Bad example, Jimbo, not your finest day! After some discussion, and with quite a bit of disagreement in the community, an administrator unblocked. And, of course, all hell broke loose. I never did figure out why the block was considered so important that it couldn't have waited, but .... maybe there was a reason, I should review that case, I forget the names involved at the moment. In any case, another administrator reblocked. The sky did not fall. There was, indeed, wide discussion, and the only reason such a fuss was created was that the blocking admin was Jimbo who made a condition that nobody else would have made, I think, and the unblock was heresy.

BLP policy, legitimately, I think, makes the exclusion of possibly defamatory material the default. And because damage can be done by such material with every minute it stands, removal of such material could be considered the "status quo." However, what if the material is long-standing? The matter is too complex to reduce to simple bureaucratic rules. I think that administrators understand the principles, and can be trusted to generally get it right. Defining a single reversal of an administrative action as wheel-warring is going way too far.

It might still be improper. If an admin protects a BLP, and the protected article is inoffensive, unprotecting it to insert controversial material, without wider discussion, would be dangerous and could be administrative abuse. It still isn't wheel-warring, because all administrative actions -- it's very important --, in the presence of objection, don't stand unless backed up by wider consensus (in particular, to the extent that no administrator is willing to reverse it. That any administrator can reverse it, once, is a huge protection against abuse, just as we allow 1R even in articles under probation. If we allow "anyone to edit," we must allow "anyone to revert," in general, and only sanction going beyond that without discussion and broader consensus, if possible.)