User:FT2/Involved

In general, administrators should not act in cases in which they have in the recent past^{(definition of recent past as a footnote)} participated as editors because they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter.

Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent:

1. Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the involved parties;
2. Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics;
3. Interaction strongly indicative of affinity or animosity towards one or more of the parties or previously expressed opinions about a subject such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome.

Past interactions

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in an administrative role. One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

To prevent gaming, an administrator also never becomes "involved" purely as a result of unilateral attacks, or by tendentiously entangling them in poorly founded, low-relevance, or ad hominem claims and their rebuttal.

Non-ownership

Administrators are permitted to deal with a topic area at length over many months, but should take breaks and request fresh uninvolved admins to take over enforcement and discussion-closing duties on such disputes periodically, in order to avoid the appearance of ownership by individuals or groups.

Exceptions where involvement is not usually an issue

The general norm of the community is that involvement relates to an administrator's likely impartiality to the issue. Certain limited actions that are minor or do not imply partiality, have historically been endorsed by the community, for example because they are routine or very old. Examples include:

• Reverting vandalism and offensive language, and spelling or article layout issues where these are minor and non-controversial;
• Admin actions where most reasonable administrators would clearly have reached the same decision, such as blocking blatant vandals or deleting revisions containing copyvios on pages the administrator has edited.

It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they check with other administrators, or request the matter be handled by another administrator, via the relevant noticeboards.

Handling involvement-related disagreements

Genuine concerns and disagreements over a user's alleged involvement should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard for others to review, rather than argued repeatedly with the same few users.