Wikipedia talk:Solicited administrator actions

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Appearance of bias

I agree that soliciting a particular administrator can create an appearance of bias, but I think the reasonability of that appearance is contextual. The essay provides the following example: 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. I agree that it's unreasonable not just for an administrator, but for anyone, to close a discussion where they've been solicited in a biased manner; WP:CANVAS says as much. By contrast, take a different example: requesting a specific administrator to take administrative action in a contentious topic where they have regularly acted in a neutral administrative capacity. I would say in that case there's no reasonable argument that the administrator taking action creates any appearance of partiality.

Apart from that, I have some concerns that I won't share per WP:BEANS. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I'm open to improvements. I just want to have a place to point when I explain to editors that I will not fulfill their requests that I close a particular discussion. BD2412 T 04:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator will, over time, shw tendencies in some direction or other. If some user explicitly requests a specific admin, there is the appearance of bias by said user towards this administrator's tendencies. Animal lover |666| 17:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to take a similar approach to what judges do when they recuse. Not just any apparent conflict leads to recusal. It needs to be an objectively apparent conflict based on what a reaosnable person apprised of the facts would think. Obviously this is Wikipedia, so the standard doesn't need to be that formal, but something like that would be clearer and lead to less issues IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an explicit request for one specific administrator to close a specific discussion is, in most cases, an apparent conflict of interests. The only exception I can come up with is if several potential closers have participated in tne discussion, resulting in a claim that there is no one left to close it, in the same discussion where the admin is requested to do so and before his name is mentioned. The mere suggestion (except as outlined in the previous sentence) is all that is needed, in my opinion. Animal lover |666| 08:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]