Of edit wars and felonious monks - WikiEN-l

22 Feb 2006

As a party to the arbitration on WebEx and Min Zhu
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_M…)
I note that FeloniousMonk is criticised for using admin powers in a
dispute in which he is involved.  It seems to me that Felonious was
not involved in an editorial capacity, only in the prevention of
reversion of certain content - which he saw (in good faith) as
whitewashing, which is vandalism.  I happen to disagree - I would
always err on the side of removal where living people are concerned -
but I have come to trust Felonious' good faith even while disagreeing
with him.  

Be that as it may, at what point does an admin become "involved" in a
dispute to which (s)he has been called to stop an edit war?  I'm a bit
concerned that use of admin powers in a dispute where one takes a
watching brief without actively editing content might still be
interpreted as abuse, by extension of this precedent.

Or is it that Felonious' reviewing of the evidence and taking a stand
was, in effect, placing himself in the editorial dispute?

My problem here is that once an admin has been called into a
firefight, one side or the other will invariably see them as partisan
almost immediately, and I am not at all certain that I know when to
stop providing administrative support against vandals by request of
trusted editors in contentious articles: at what point am I "involved"
and needing to step back?
Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG