Wikipedia:Admin involvement at a CTOP subtopic

In general admins are considered involved only at a particular article or with a particular editor. But the community has briefly discussed under what circumstances an admin might be considered involved at an entire subtopic of a contentious topic. Previous discussions may indicate broader community input on the question of whether the policy needs updating should take place.

Data points to consider

Editing within a subtopic of a CTOP

Edit counts

Edit counts within the subtopic are not necessarily an indication of involvement. It's a data point.

• Are their edits to talk pages admin work or other noncontroversial edits such as creation of archives, moderation or closure of discussions?
• Are their edits to articles fixes to typos/grammar/formatting and noncontroversial copyedits rather than content work?
• Have they made multiple content edits at multiple articles within the subtopic?
• Have they participated in multiple content discussions/RfCs at multiple talk pages within the subtopic or about the subtopic at noticeboards?

Content creation

Creation of content within the subtopic does not necessarily indicate involvement at an entire subtopic of a contentious topic. It's a data point, neither necessary nor sufficient.

• Not necessary because many editors are not content creators.
• Not sufficient because many content creators create articles they aren't particularly interested in but are simply recognizing there's a missing article, doing the research to prove it's notable, writing it to the best of their ability, and publishing under the assumption other editors more familiar with the sources will come along and fix whatever's wrong/add whatever's missing.

Primary editing interests

Is the overall CTOP subtopic a primary editing interest?

If the admin's primary editing interests are outside the CTOP subtopic, can their edits be explained by a connection to their primary editing interests outside the subtopic?

Opinions of other editors

Other editors' opinions and the circumstances of the admin's interaction with those editors may be considered when assessing these opinions as data points.

• Have editors with whom they've interacted at the subtopic expressed the opinion they're involved?
• Have editors with whom they've never directly interacted as an admin at the subtopic expressed the opinion they're involved?
• Have editors with whom they've never directly interacted anywhere as an admin expressed the opinion they're involved?

Questions to ask oneself

For additional data points, an admin can ask themselves:

• If the community decided you were involved in this subtopic of a CTOP, would you be interested in editing/discussing content within that subtopic, or would you simply take those articles off your watch list?
• If the community decided you weren't involved at this subtopic, but now that you're aware at least some editors have that concern, would you:
  • Walk away from all editing within that subtopic and only admin there?
  • Walk away from all adminning within that subtopic and only edit there?
  • Continue to both edit and admin within that subtopic (but of course not within particular articles where you acknowledge you are involved.)
• Of those editors who have expressed the opinion you're involved at a particular subtopic, especially any with whom you've never interacted anywhere as an admin, are there some whose opinion you typically respect?

Previous discussions

There have been previous discussions of whether an admin is involved at an entire contentious topic or subtopic of a CTOP; none have affected policy, although the closer at September 2024 (1) recommended further community discussion about the wording of INVOLVED.

• September 2024 (1); closer found that "under the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, [the admin] should be considered involved and refrain from participating as an uninvolved administrator on the topic of the 2023- Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no consensus that this involvement spreads to all of the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Furthermore, a significant portion of the commenters believe that the phrasing of WP:INVOLVED is outdated and may or may not be an accurate representation of the current consensus. There is no consensus on whether the wording should be made more or less strict. The community is advised to discuss the issue in greater depth and determine if any revisions are needed."
• September 2024 (2); discussion archived unclosed.