Forum:"Request for closure"

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > "Request for closure"
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 September 2009 by Soldier 1033.

I never used to see this but recently (as in the last few months or so) I've started to notice that someone almost always adds a "request for closure" to a Yew Grove discussion. Personally, I find it extremely annoying because they aren't necessary and we already know how to determine when a discussion has reached a consensus. In many cases I've seen people make closure requests when it is quite clear that there is no consensus yet, and I've even seen them on RfAs which I think is incredibly rude because everyone has the right to a full 2-week nomination if they want it.

Therefore I am proposing that we disallow requests for closure unless the person making the request is the person that started the discussion and they can only make such a request if the community isn't in the middle of a discussion.

Discussion

Support - as nominator. Andrew talk 18:59, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Andrew. It's not exactly correct to say "Ohz yes, the wiki is towards one way". As said by many before, and many after, me, we are not a democracy. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:09, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure Support. We have discussions for a reason.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

19:26, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

i c wat u did thar Andrew talk 19:27, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree that sometimes it can be annoying, but so what. Its not worth making a rule that only those people have power over the discussions. Any early closure requests are a strikeout or revert away from existence. I have also seen that there are only three-four people making these requests far too much, so instead of a new rule, why not a post on their userpage about how to know when the criteria for closure have been met? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:34, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Support - We can all read RS:CONSENSUS if we want to, so this won't really change much. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:00, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Support - A general agreement will happen when it happens. Requesting it to happen is simply not how it works. If a discussion goes on for two months before it ends, just be patient and let it. Also per what Cash said, I suppose. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 23:49, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - To me, a user requesting closure of a thread is a way of asking an admin to take a look a the thread and determine if consensus has been reached. It doesn't mean that consensus has definitely been reached, but I think a user should be allowed to push a stale or exhausted proposal along. Sure some people are going to call for closure early, but I think people should be allowed to ask this. Also, how would you even enforce this proposal? Delete the comment? (I disagree with that), Block the user? (too harsh), Leave a message on their talk page? (we don't need a rule for that). Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 02:44, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tollerach Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 10:23, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - All users are equal. In the wiki it is usually admins that close discussions cause they have the rights to protect the page and generally know how to do it properly, but I think if the common user wishes to express there view of the consensus, why not let them? I often use this myself. If a user thinks a consensus is achieved they should be allowed to call attention to it.

Bonziiznob Talk

22:46, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


Oppose - Per Bonzii/Tollerach. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:51, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tollerach. In general, I think RS:AEAE applies, and people can identify when consensus has been reached just as easily as an admin can. If a particular person tends to do this prematurely, then it can be handled on the respective talk pages. --Quarenon  Talk 15:57, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all other opposes. I do think that if no active contribution to the forum has been made for some time, it could just drop to the bottom of the list. The user posting that would be just stating that they believe some sort of consensus has been made, and just raising the issue. But, I don't like to see a thread with active contribution have someone post that, which in that case, could be taken to the talk page of the user. ~MuzTalk 16:07, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

RS:AEAE is irrelevant here, the point of this discussion is because it only serves as an annoyance to others. -.- Andrew talk 16:08, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tebuddy. This reeks of instruction creep. Butterman62 (talk) 16:15, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am really getting sick of you linking that as if you're accusing me of something like that. Andrew talk 16:17, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
How is he accusing you with a link? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:31, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I could have worded my opinion more nicely; however, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of anything as far as I'm concerned. It's just I think we need to refrain from reaching the point where we make policies for relatively minor things that, ultimately, provide a cumbersome and bureaucratic hinderance to the flow of the wiki. Instead, I think we should assume good faith that we have the best interests in mind for the wiki, up to such matters as requesting closure. If we feel someone is requesting closure too early or not at the right time, we can always let them know. Butterman62 (talk) 00:49, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If consensus hadn't been reached and closure was requested, and an admin closed it, then that is the admin at fault, and sure hope our admins can recognize consensus. — Enigma 18:31, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Um..Enigma..that was the whole point of this discussion. Admins can recognize consensus which is why requests for closure are unnecessary. Andrew talk 19:44, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per TEbuddy, Muzzy, Bonzi and Tollerach. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  22:24, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to archive this then. It's clear that it won't achieve consensus and it seems the opposition doesn't understand the point I'm trying to get across or where I'm coming from. Andrew talk 22:30, September 27, 2009 (UTC)