Wikipedia talk:Wheel war

message: I'm sitting here trying to figure out why this is called a "wheel" war. The article doesn't appear to give any explanation as to the origin of the phrase. Would somebody care to explain what sort of wheel is being referred to? Matt Gies 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wheel war. —Centrx→talk • 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, you should imagine a boat with two people simultaneously trying to turn the steering wheel in the other direction. >Radiant< 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wheel" war? Etymology? 

message: In November Radiant inserted this text:
Undoing another admin's action once is not considered a wheel war, although it is still preferable to discuss it with the other admin first. Doing it twice, or repeating your admin action after someone has undone it, is wheel warring, unless a significant period of time has elapsed between the initial administrative action and its repetition.
I find this highly dubious; according to whom is this true? If one reversion of an editor's edit counts as a "revert", the surely one revert of an admin action starts a "wheel war".  Was there consensus for this change to the page? Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of undoing an admin action that are emphatically not wheel warring: unprotecting an old protected page, blocking a user who after being previously unblocked has turned to blatant vandalism, deleting a copyvio despite the page being restored on other grounds... The list goes on and on. Also note, the clear analogy is that wheel war corresponds to edit war not wheel war corresponds to revert. That said, this paragraph does conflict with the policy in defining "wheel war" solely in terms of doing and undoing an action without any reference to consensus or changed circumstances, i.e. any undoing of an admin action can be completely warranted if the circumstances under which the first action was taken change, or if there is otherwise agreement with the specific admin the reverse the action. See  & the bolded sentence of the first paragraph currently. —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the wording could use some tweaking. In general it'd be fair to say that undoing an admin action once is not necessarily a wheel war (and in fact happens reasonably often without much controversy, per Centrx's examples), and undoing it twice (without discussion and so forth) is necessarily a wheel war. Note also that in november this page was subject to heavy scrutiny and debate, which was eventually resolved, so it's fair to say that there were no unnoticed changes. >Radiant< 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once is not a wheel war? 

message: Wooyi asked me to explain this on the talk page, so I am doing so:  I removed the picture he put on the article because, in context, it was stupid. Nandesuka 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining. I will not put it there again unless consensus compels me to do so. Regards. WooyiTalk to me? 01:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be nice to have some picture here, just like we have on e.g. the snowball clause or WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed the picture 

message: I've inserted the following, which should be self explanatory:
: Beware of restoring any deleted page whose deletion summary indicates that it was deleted under the biographies of living persons policy. The arbitration committee has ruled unanimously that such undeletions must never be performed unless these is an actual consensus.
Basically it's a big sign saying "you need to talk about this and don't do anything unless you've done that and there is consensus." --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of living persons

message: I often look into  requests to protected pages. In some cases, it is apparent from the protection log that the article was protected because of some temporary situation, and it has been months since then. In such cases, the routine behavior is just to unprotect the page, and I have never heard anyone call this "wheel warring". If there are changes to the wheel warring guideline, it would be nice for this sort of thing to be explicitly addressed. One way to do this would be to point out that as the time between the action and its reversal increases, the chance that there is a wheel war decreases (without giving explicit timetables). Undoing an actions after 4 hours is different than undoing it after 1 month.  — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I'd say that the issue should be 'fore-knowledge of controversy'. It should be fine to unprotect even 'after four hours' if the parties have resolved the dispute which led to the protection in the first place... or if it were the featured article of the day temporarily protected due to a huge surge of vandalism. People do these kinds of reversals all the time... because they aren't controversial. Further, if it turns out that there was a secondary dispute being discussed elsewhere (e.g. a centralized discussion page) the unprotector still wouldn't have done anything 'wrong'. --CBD 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that I think this entire discussion was started by the Zscout incident, and apparently he did not have a "fore-knowledge" that the unblock would be particularly controversial. Personally, I'm not sure it's possible to come up with anything better than the current guideline to describe our very nuanced practice on undoing admin actions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he didn't have foreknowledge that it would be controversial, what did he do that we should be making a rule against? Starting with the a priori goal that we need to—by any means necessary—make a rule against what he did, is putting the cart before the horse. It won't change anything either - the fact that he was desysoped for an action that was absolutely not against either the letter or the spirit of the rules at the time of his action still remains. —Random832 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the purpose of this discussion is whether to change the written guideline to match practice better. But I don't think it's feasible to switch to 0rr in general, and I don't see any clear way of explaining the difference between blocks that can be undone with no fuss vs. blocks that should not be undone without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline DOES match practice. Jimbo's actions in the Zscout370 case did not match either. You seem to be confusing this with a disconnect between the guideline and practice (understandable, as Jimbo keeps saying that he did nothing that wasn't common practice for such supposed "wheel wars") [edit conflict on reword 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that undoing page protection after 4 months, unless the protecting administrator had left a note requesting permanent protection, would not be wheel warring.  Let's clarify the  wording to make this clear. - Jehochman  Talk 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment: page protection and time between actions

message: I carefully weighed the adding of appropriate because admins can and do apply powers incorrectly, and this needs the ability to be remedied without fear of sanction. The upper hand must always be with the sysop who acts legitimately, whether in the initial action or subsequently. LessHeard vanU 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very tricky issue. Two admins can look at the same action and call it 'entirely appropriate' or 'completely illegitimate'. That's why I prefer 'consensus' and 'existing practice/policy' to 'appropriate'. I can prove the existence of a very common practice of unblocking people who have agreed not to do the thing they were blocked for. I can't prove it being 'appropriate'... I just believe it is. Others believe it isn't. If a controversial action doesn't have a clear consensus or standard practice behind it then any determination of 'appropriate' comes down to nothing more than the opinion of the person(s) making the decision. If nothing else, I'd say that following consensus and/or common practice should never be INappropriate... even if it leads to the 'wrong decision' in someone else's subjective judgment. --CBD 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added changed circumstances as an exception.  Somebody agreeing not to make the same mistake (assuming they haven't done that before and been proven a liar) is a changed circumstance.  This would allow an unblock.  See below. - Jehochman  Talk 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Would also cover unprotection after time has passed or the parties had resolved the dispute. Situation changes, admin comes along and takes the action which seems appropriate to them under the current circumstances. --CBD 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. - Jehochman  Talk 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "appropriate actions" and upper hands

message: If this rule changes not to allow a reversal without a prior consensus to reverse, then the definition of a "community ban" has to be seriously reworked - The definition as "if no admin will unblock" is fatally flawed in the face if those admins who would like to unblock - even if they are the majority (since a significant minority still defeats consensus-building) - are forbidden to do so. The current definition of a community ban is absolutely predicated on "any admin may unblock". We may have to get rid of the idea of community bans altogether; if there's no consensus to move back towards a CSN-like system. —Random832 13:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, before anyone even comes in with this objection, yes there is a difference between a banned user and a blocked (even indef) user. [I'd written up an explanation with examples, now removed per WP:WEIGHT - the important part here is that there is one, not who falls into what category]. This distinction has, as far as I can remember, always been made - in discussion if not in written policy - in terms of whether someone would be welcome to come back and make constructive edits —Random832 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Bans

message: Example
(Note: All users here are fictitious!)
Wikipedia admin  deletes Joke article No.120404 citing WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#G3. 
Then another admin,  comes along and undeletes Joke article No.120404 without any discussion, claiming he's exporting it to his wiki (on a free wiki host, e.g. Scribblewiki) under the GFDL, then deleting the article again with the edit summary (Article moved under the GFDL to FooBarWiki)
How should the situation be dealt with?? Taking it to WP:AN or WP:ANI, or WP:RFC??
Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No action whatever. That's absolutely fine. Splash - tk 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this wheel warring - question?? 

message: This page has always struggled with a definition, but the bolded version "do not repeat an admin. action when you know another admin opposes it" overlooks some of the most serious cases of wheel warring that have occured, and is not very general. The key thing is that no admin should engage in an action on a disputed point in such a way as to cause another reversal of administrative action. Thus:
:Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals on a disputed point.
This allows "delete, undelete" by 2 admins, but not "delete, undelete, delete" by any number of admins during the dispute. I mentally refer to these as 'flocking' wheel wars, where everyone thinks they can be smart by only doing the thing once, even though its plain that admins are fighting over it, one reversal at a time. Splash - tk 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to retain the old sentence also, which explicitly forbids a simple action-reversal-reversal by only two admins. A "chain" can imply something longer and more involved.  —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flocking wheel wars 

message: I propose to add this section to the page:
It is not wheel warring if an admin undeletes a page deleted by another admin, and then exports it to another site running MediaWiki, per the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. However, they must use in their edit summary something like (Exporting to FooBarWiki per WP:GFDL, will delete when exported)
Is this a fair suggestion?? --Solumeiras talk 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (S left me a message requesting a comment) It's true that this is not wheel warring. But it's also not necessary in my view. If someone undeletes to export, they should presumably redelete when they are done, and both edit summaries should show what was going on. We could also put a bunch of other things that are not wheel warring in there but the best essays are short and to the point. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to undelete to export.  Admins can see the deleted markup from Special:Undelete and copy that ready for pasting, without undelete being needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section 

message: I've done some links editing:
# All examples exist on the examples page. So I've removed the list of citations from here (no other policy page has a long citations section of arb cases), and just noted that details of cases are at /Example.
# Move the examples link to the intro and make clear its examples and cites. Much more normal location and simpler wording.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor links editing re examples 

message: From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war:
:8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."
Could we please record something like this in policy?  As currently worded, the policy creates too much second mover advantage, and does not do enough to discourage controversial use of sysop tools. Jehochman  Talk 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do note that there are a variety of admin actions, unrelated to disputes between admins, that can and should be reversed without discussion, such as in ordinary maintenance. See above/archives for discussion and examples of this, which is why the policy does not simply say that the reversal of any admin action requires discussion. —Centrx→talk • 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, given admins have got tools on trust other admins reverting what we do if we disagree seems to me to be totally ok. For a lot of cases like blocks etc there is an enshrined process for doing this. I would rather not have my mistakes as an admin linger. There are courtesy issue s about telling me etc of course.--BozMo talk 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The blocking policy is already clear about seeking further discussion before reversals, I think this should apply to admin acts in general. Reversing each other's action is fine, but not without proper communication. Without discussion it is just edit warring with big tools. 1 != 2 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Read the perfectly legitimate examples of reversing admin actions at section #Once is not a wheel war? above. —Centrx→talk • 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly did not mean it should apply to non-controversial reversals like undoing an old page protection. But I do think there is way to much "I think your admin act was wrong so I am just going to reverse it without talking to anyone because I know I am right" going on. Not wheel warring, but not healthy to the Wiki either. 1 != 2 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting admin actions without discussion is also bad

message: There is now effectively a zero revert rule. This creates a bias toward deletion and blocking. Reversing a block is considered an insult to the blocking admin's judgement, but this means that the blocked user is presumed guilty (even if there's no consensus). Don't lowly users get any consideration any more? Then there's the rule that someone is banned if no administrator is willing to reverse an indefinite block, but they can't do that without wheel warring. (this was inspired by the Giano case, I don't know about the specifics of that case but it seems like an awful standard in general). 140.247.240.150 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given that the prohibition is against a repeated action, it is more like a one revert rule.  But I agree with the general concern: the key check upon administrative power is other administrators being able to revert one another.  As with edit wars this ought not to get out of hand - but that is because admins should be more careful about using administrative powers than editors are with editing articles.  I think AN is an important part of this discussion: perhaps if enough othe eadmins share a concern about one admin's act is, it should be easier to revert it; conversely if admins at AN are divided, it is wiser to wait for further discussion?  But th key must be this: administrators muct be free to act as their judgment dictates when they feel that there may be an abuse or inappropriate use of admin power and a check is needed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My own feeling is that it is disrespectful to overturn another admin's actions without consultation.  Instead, administrators should treat each other with respect, meaning that when one admin uses tools in a situation, their action should not be reversed without discussion, unless there was either a blatant error in the first block (such as an accidental block of the wrong user), or in cases where it was a routine kind of block that is usually rapidly overturned anyway.  For example, if a user comes in with a commercial username, we routinely place an indefinite block on them and tell them to change their name.  Then if the user requests unblock and says that they are willing to do so, an unblock can usually be performed by any admin, without requiring consultation with the blocking admin (who probably had done dozens of blocks that day anyway, and had already forgotten the user).  But in all other cases of blocks, it's really just common courtesy to contact the blocking admin and ask them what they think about an unblock, especially as they may have other information or history about the situation. Consulting the blocking admin also allows for compliance with the Wikipedia policy of consensus. As soon as there is any indication that there might be disagreement, it is better to engage in discussion, rather than just playing tug-of-war with someone's account access. --Elonka 05:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Elonka, I think that although the WP:OWN is only about articles, it expresses a core value at Wikipedia which is, this is not about ego.  Another policy that expresses this value is WP:BOLD.  We revert and edit one another all the time.  If I write something, and someone sees I made a mistake, or sees a way to improve on what I wrote, I do not expect them to consult with me, I expect them to go ahead an edit!  That is what wikipedia is all about!  If someone edits a paragraph I wrote without consulting with me, I do not see them as "disrespecting" me!  It is not about me, or my ego, or respect for me.  I am sure that they assumed I edited in good faith, and many times I find another editor really has improved what I wrote.  Even if they don't more often then not they are not vandals, but people acting in good faith, and we can always discuss it.  But I do not write articles expecting people to "respect" me, it is not about me, my ego, it is about the encyclopedia.  The same holds for admins who are mostly here just to do custodial-like maintenance work.  When it comes to edits of articles, we all have to use good judgment.  If it clear to me that there is an outright mistake, I just go ahead and fix it.  If I really am not sure what the editor meant, but have reason to think she meant something good and important, I will discuss it first.  And there is a range of situations in between.  The same goes for administrative actions.  In some cases prior discussion makes practical sense.  In other cases it is clearly unnecessary.  I think there is a middle-ground where discussion involving a wider circle of admins at AN may be called for.  But really, I didn't participate in Wikipedia because I am looking for respect!  I hope people respect Wikipedia.  But Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and no one owns. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not treat people as articles.  There is a fundamental difference between editing an article and blocking (or unblocking) a user. Jehochman Talk 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: No, but the point is that the process whould be somewhat open, transparent (as much as is possible, I know there are some limits to this) and not about ego.  I neglected to add, and wanted to, that discussion in principle is always a good thing.  If I wanted to take Elonka's point about respect very earnestly, and also Jehochman's point about people not being articles, I would says this: We should respect all editors.  No editor should be blocked unless there is a clear violation of a policy that calls for immediate blocking, like 3RR, or adequate discussion at AN/I.  ArbCom blocks people only after a lengthy discussion.  That is good: it respects editors.  Now a third case: ArbCom warns someone or puts them on parole.  This means that an editor may be blocked for doing something that would not otherwise cause an editor to be blocked.  I think the same principles apply: in some cases, the ArbCom ruling is so cut and dry that the block is automatic (and this should be explained in the block notice).  But in other cases judgment may be called for, it may not be quite so obvious that the person should be blocked.  Again, there should be discussion at AN/I and some small consensus among admins should be established that the editor in question violated parole and should be blocked.  Yes, this is how it should happen: this shows respect for the editor and for the community of admins, and as Jehochman says treates the person as a person and not an article.  Yes, there should be some discussion at AN/I and some consensus reached in these cases before blocking.  And in these cases the person should not be unblocked without going back to AN?I and having more discussion to see if the consensus can't be changed; if it cannot, keep the block. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with much of what you say.  I have often said to people things like, "Don't post at ANI for a block review after you place a block, do it beforehand."   We know that any block of Giano will be highly controversial.  However, when such a highly controversial situation has been to arbitration, and the Committee has authorized blocking, that arbitration ruling serves as consensus.  The only question for WP:AE was "Did Giano's behavior amount to incivility?"  My personal opinion is that it did not.  However, FT2 concluded otherwise.  The correct course of action for anyone disagreeing with FT2 was to state their case at WP:AE and generate a consensus that the behavior did not match the criteria for blocking, and that therefore the block should be undone.  SlimVirgin skipped that critical step, and now she's in hot water. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo the original poster's comments. Revert, discuss is the standard for editors when they encounter a bold action they disagree with or even just feel needs discussion. I'm not sure why this doesn't follow for admin actions. Will the unblocked user destroy the wiki? 86.44.30.246 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the presumption that admin's action is correct? 

message: I made an update to this page so that it would better reflect actual practice.  SlimVirgin, who is currently at arbitration reverted. I request that SlimVirgin should let other editors handle this policy during the pendancy of her case.  ArbCom is smart enough to look at the page history.  Changes made here will not be applied retroactively to her.  
It is important that all admins be suitably warned.  It has long been our custom not to use sysop tools for controversial actions without prior discussion.  Changing the policy to say so clearly will help others avoid trouble.  Jehochman Talk 13:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy - and practice - has always had a substantial but deliberate bias in favor of allowing undoing the original controversial action (such as a bad block) while that action remains controversial. You're reversing that bias (after all, the original action can be as controversial as anyone wants, since the person doing it can just claim ignorance that anyone would oppose them) with no prior discussion. And you're being disingenuous - if changes here have no consequence for her case anyway, what's the reason for her to have to stay off the page? --Random832 (contribs) 13:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons for my asking SlimVirgin not to edit this page is to avoid disruption.  She is the subject of an arbitration case.  There is a substantial concern that she'd edit the page to favor her case.  I've seen the arbitrators say over and over again (glances at User:FloNight) not to use tools for controversial actions.  When an admin has blocked somebody and says, "Don't unblock without talking to me first," only a very clueless person would unblock without discussing it with the original admin or at WP:AN. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin who feels the need to say "don't unblock without talking to me first" ought to know damn well their action is controversial and therefore, by that principle, should not have done it. The only sane principle is to default to non-blocked when there's disagreement as to whether an account should be blocked. --Random832 (contribs) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Random: I'd tend to agree with you if we didn't have a quite disconcerting practice of people going around doing just that... unblocking without any prior consultation. Some of this sort of thing is quite egregious... and ought not to be encouraged. Warning people (when the warning is implicit in every action) isn't bad practice. More talk and less unilateral action might be a good approach. But then some contributors seem like Meatball:VestedContributors to me... repeatedly acting like they are above the strictures that apply to everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  There are times when matters cannot be posted on wiki.  In this situations, per WP:BLOCK#Information provided by blocking administrator, admins are encouraged to state the need for consultation prior to considering any unblock.  Defaulting to non-block if any administrator objects is a recipe for drama and disruption.  No, we do not allow our most lenient or most gullible administrator to have the final say over the prevention of disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument fails when there is no suggestion that the blocking admin knows anything anyone else doesn't. --Random832 (contribs) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very common for me to spend an hour or two investigating the full facts of a matter before placing a block.  In those situations I'd want to be sure to explain everything fully to ensure that a block review was fair.  Any admin who drives by and spends two minutes looking at the matter superficially could come to the wrong conclusion.  Moreover, we do not want Wikipedia to turn into an ochlocracy.  Important decisions like blocking and unblocking should be not be made hastily.  There are many situations where the blocking admin does not more than anybody else. Jehochman Talk 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so hard for you to provide those explanations prior to actually making the block? My point was, while these issues are being resolved and controversy exists, the account should remain unblocked in the meantime. --Random832 (contribs) 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree.  Arbcom has no power to create policy.  This page operates completely independent of them.  Merely commenting on a case does not disqualify an editor from working on a policy page.  The main issue we have here is that the policy page gives administrators a false sense of security that they get one free revert.  No, they do not. Unless there is clear error, and by clear I mean that everyone would agree that its an error, sysop actions should not be reversed without discussion. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue here is that policy is what it is at the time an action is taken. I'm not opposed to changing this page to reflect current practice but it may not be fair to hold someone accountable for acting in a way that was congruent with what a policy page said at the time they acted. Even if the page was not congruent with practice. I'm concerned about there being confusion ahead for those who are referred to this page in the course of trying to evaluate what happened. We should be fair in our dealings, we should not distort the system, we should not rely on backroom machinations, we should not use the court of public opinion instead of dispute resolution processes, we should not use unanswerable  polemic as a substitute for reasoned discussion, even if we are dealing with those who are not fair, or who distort the system, or who rely on backroom machinations, or who use the court of public opinion unjustly, or who use unanswerable polemics. To do otherwise is to stoop to the level of those who do so. Which is unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not hold somebody accountable for changes to policy pages after their action.  However, we are dealing with a sophisticated group on ArbCom who are capable of pulling up an old version of the page.  In SlimVirgin's case, I don't think she would have much success claiming that the November 9 version of this page authorized her actions. Meanwhile, I think it would be valuable for the community to discuss, right here, right now, how this policy should operate in general terms for all administrators.  Perhaps a policy RFC would help. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a way can be found to avoid confusion (some temporary box saying "this is how it was, and this is how community practice was at the time" as a guide ??? I dunno) that would be fine. But don't move the goalposts and not leave a record of it. Do not take this as a defense of the action which precipitated some of this editing of this guideline, as it is not. I worry not for ArbCom's sake, I worry for those trying to follow what has happened and draw conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone is wrong on the Internet! Okay, let's drop it for now.Jehochman Talk 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with Jehochman that ArbCom does not make policy (and it never has); policy pages are created by the entire community, in practice, whatever segment of the community cares to involve itself.  I do not think we should make any change to a policy without sufficient airing by the community.  Clarifications are another matter, but I think should be made conservatively. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we're all in agreement then, that the page should be left alone until tis clear how it should be changed? ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds prudent ... let it lie for now, and when the time comes make an announcement are AN and other bulletin boards to attract a variety of views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page update