User talk:ConMan/Involvement

Admins resolving disputes
I don't think you can say that an Admin who has been called to an article to resolve a dispute is "involved" in the dispute. The entire reason he was asked to opine and give a ruling on the dispute is that he is not "involved". Perhaps you could include a differentiation between an Admin that is acting as an Editor of the article, and an Admin that is acting as an Admin. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Watching what admins do at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be instructive. If an admin is pulled into a case due to a noticeboard posting, and tries to sort out a perceived policy violation like a defamatory article, whatever he does from that point on enjoys (in my opinion) an aura of uninvolvement. He ought to recuse if a case comes up on the noticeboard involving an issue he has himself gotten into before, if he thinks his judgment might be affected. Being frank about anything that could be viewed as involvement helps. E.g. article editors who are seen to have a technical COI at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard are often given a lot of leeway if they explain where they are coming from, and what their affiliation is. Having to pry the information out of them reduces their credibility. (I have a tiny bit of concern for this issue due to my own frequent posting at WP:COIN). EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that they shouldn't be considered "involved", but I've noticed that there are some particularly dirty disputes both present and past where any admin action taken against one side (particularly if it involves some interpretation of policy, such as "disruptive editing") instantly taints that admin with being "involved" in favour of the other side, and hence the disruptive editors will use that to question everything the admin does in relation to the case from then on. I'm not going to name any specific cases, but try searching the WP:AN/I archives for "uninvolved admin". Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found WP:Third opinion to be a quite helpful source of "uninvolved" opinion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)