As a party to the arbitration on WebEx and Min Zhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Mi...) 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)