Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia administrators are tasked with acting as impartial facilitators and enforcers of the project's policies and guidelines. One of the roles administrators frequently take on is moderating or closing discussions, as with articles for deletion or requests for comment, to determine consensus. To maintain neutrality and the integrity of the consensus-building process, administrators must avoid even the appearance of bias when moderating or closing discussions.
This essay explains why some administrators may choose not to close discussions when specifically requested by one of the participants, particularly if the requestor has taken a strong stance on one side of the issue.
Avoiding the appearance of bias/favoritism
[edit]When an editor actively advocating for one side of a discussion requests a specific administrator to close or moderate that discussion, it can create an appearance of bias. Even if the administrator ultimately acts impartially, the mere fact of their soliciting by an involved party might lead others to perceive the closure as favoring the point of view of the requesting editor. This perception can undermine confidence in the process, potentially leading to lengthy and drawn-out disputes over the closure, and damaging trust in the neutrality of the administrator.
To prevent this, some administrators may adopt a policy of automatically declining to close or moderate discussions if they are directly asked to do so by an involved editor.
Solicitation as a breach of process
[edit]Many kinds of discussions are routinely closed according to a timetable established by the policy page establishing the discussion process. In other cases, talk page disputes lacking a formal structure foreclosure may linger for weeks or months on end. However, requests to close either kind of discussion can be added to the Requests for Closure noticeboard, without identifying a specific closing administrator. Requesting a specific administrator to close a discussion, particularly if that administrator is known to share a similar perspective, can be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome. While most editors act in good faith, soliciting a closure from an administrator perceived as sympathetic to one side may be deemed to violate the spirit of consensus.
This principle is especially critical when discussions involve contentious topics or polarized viewpoints. Administrators must not only act impartially but must also be seen to act impartially to preserve the legitimacy of Wikipedia's processes.