Editing Encyclopedia:Administrators (section)

== Misuse of administrative tools ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:TOOLMISUSE}}<!--
  ALSO COPIED TO WP:ADMIN/TOOLS, DUE TO IMPORTANCE.
  TRANSCLUSION USED TO ENSURE IT'S UP TO DATE.

  Link to edit this section:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse_of_tools_section&action=edit

  THE TEXT INCLUDES #ifeq: EXPRESSIONS TO MODIFY WORDING BASED ON THE PAGE USED. TAKE CARE. :-)
-->{{Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse of tools section}}

=== Reversing another administrator's action ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RAAA}}

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

==== Special situations ====
In some situations, the usual policy for reversing another administrator's action does not apply:
* '''Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee:''' Blocks authorized by the Arbitration Committee must include a clear indication of their source, such as "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{t|ArbComBlock}}". Administrators must only place, reduce, or remove such blocks with the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: {{Section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions}}.)
* '''CheckUser blocks:''' Blocks designated as "CheckUser blocks" (that is, blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the CheckUser permission. Appeal of these blocks may be made to the [[WP:UTRS|Unblock Ticket Requests System]] (which has a designated "checkuser" area) or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators were reminded [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on checkuser blocks|in July 2010]] that they may not reverse CheckUser blocks without prior consent from the committee or a checkuser.
* '''Oversight blocks:''' Blocks designated as "Oversight blocks" (that is, blocks relying on information that has been suppressed) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the oversight permission. The Arbitration Committee ruled [[Special:Permalink/542990142#Oversight-related blocks|in March 2013]] that oversight blocks cannot be reversed without prior consent from the committee or an oversighter.

=== <span class="anchor" id="Wheel war"></span>Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring") ===
{{redirect|WP:WW|text=You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers]]}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:WHEEL|WP:WW}}

When another administrator has ''already'' reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a decision by consensus. [[Wheel war]]ring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.

<div style="border: 2px solid #990000; background-color: #FFCCCC; border-radius: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; color:black;"> <!-- Color:black does actually change something; the default color is *not* black! (Yes, really!) -->
<strong style="font-weight:normal;">Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve administrative disputes {{underline|by discussion}}.</strong>
</div>

Wheel warring usually results in an immediate [[WP:RFAR|request for arbitration]]. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first-time incidents. There have been several relevant [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] cases on the subject of wheel-warring.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Wheel war|UBX war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring|Pedophilia userbox wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe|Freestylefrappe]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war|Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war|Sarah Palin protection wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]].</ref> The phrase was also used historically for an administrator improperly reversing some kinds of very formal action.<ref>e.g., "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Karmafist|Wheel warring against Jimbo Wales]]" and "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop#Wheel-warring against BLP special enforcement|Wheel warring against BLP special enforcement]]"</ref>

Wikipedia works on the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles. There are few issues so critical that fighting is better than discussion, or worth losing your own good standing for. If you feel the ''urge'' to wheel war, try these alternatives:
* Seek constructive discussion, and aim to cool the situation and bring it back to normal processes, if able. Adopting a deliberately calming manner and approach as you explain may help. In some cases, [[WP:EMAIL|email]] may allow heartfelt personal advice to be given that could not easily be posted on-wiki.
* If concerned by improper conduct, move the issue to [[WP:XRV]], [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] and wait for input. For <strong>serious and egregious misuse of tools</strong> consider [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|filing an Arbitration Committee case request]]. 
* If you are concerned that not acting (or the delay needed for dialog) could quickly cause the situation to get much worse or would be grossly inappropriate, it can sometimes be sensible to [[WP:AC|email the Arbitration Committee]] and let them know about the situation or request intervention or speedy advice. (This might be the case where non-public information or harm could result).
* And remember that you have hundreds of colleagues: you are not alone and most issues are made worse by poor judgment. If you are seen to conduct yourself well, usually the matter will blow over soon, however bad it may seem. Sometimes it's best simply to [[Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down|take a break and calm down]].

The term "wheel" comes from the description of [[Wheel (computing)|highest privileged accounts]] on the [[PDP-10]] and [[TOPS-20]] mainframe computers, where "wheel" was used the way "root" is used on Linux/Unix systems.<ref>{{cite web|title=Wheel |url=http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/W/wheel.html |access-date=8 June 2021|work= Jargon File 4.4.7 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Wheel bit |url=http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/W/wheel-bit.html |access-date=8 June 2021 |work= Jargon File 4.4.7 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond }}</ref>

==== Exceptional circumstances ====
There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle. (Note: these are one-way exceptions.)
* '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]]''' – Material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if reinstated, if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant.
* '''Privacy''' – Personal information deleted under the Foundation's privacy policy may be re-deleted if reinstated.
* '''Emergency''' – In certain situations there may arise an emergency that cannot be adjourned for discussion. An administrator should not claim an emergency unless there is a ''reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency'' (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon with administrative tools), and should immediately seek to describe and address the matter, but in such a case the action should not usually be reverted (and may be reinstated) until appropriate discussion has taken place.
* '''Page protection in edit warring''' – Reasonable actions undertaken by uninvolved administrators to quell a visible and heated edit war by protecting a contended page should be respected by <strong>all</strong> users, and protection may be reinstated if needed, until it is clear the edit war will not resume or consensus agrees it is appropriate to unprotect.