[WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

[geni]

On 4/23/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > * Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, what the second admin should do is discuss the case with the first
> admin, rather than unblocking.  Maybe the first admin has evidence
> that the second admin is unaware of.  If the second admin has
> conclusive evidence, then the first admin will undoubtedly unblock. If
> not, then there is a dispute, and the second admin should not wheel
> war.  In any event, admins should not act under the bad faith
> supposition that *they know better*; that is what starts the wheel
> war.
>
> Jay.

In the mean time an inocent user may stay blocked. Not good. Remeber
the first admin was also sure enough that they knew best in order to
block.
--
geni