I am perpetually confused as to when closure requests are appropriate or who can make them. When I've brought this up in the past I've been referred to the consensus policy but having read this several times I still don't have a clue...
My proposal is that we add something specific to the consensus policy detailing who can make closure requests, and when they can make em.
--Serenity1137 22:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator
Neutral/comment - When you close a thread you are essentially saying that the issue is either dead or there is a major landslide in one direction without opposition. The reason I referred you to the consensus policy when you requested closure was because I was still fervently supporting a proposal and there were still supporters besides myself. So I probably should have said that the issue could not be closed based on the process that we use to determine consensus. And Because all editors are equal, anyone can request closure as long as it meets the criteria (aka dead and or everyone agrees). TEbuddy 01:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Requests for closures need to be put when it seems that some form of consensus has been reached. Anyone can say it, but it is never guaranteed to pass. Doucher4000******r4000 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well can we add that to the consenses policy, because I don't think the majority of members are sure about that - when I asked on the cc yesterday no-one out of the 12 people on knew... --Serenity1137 09:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. I'm going on a closure requesting streak : D --Serenity1137 10:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Support/Comment - It would be nice to know when something can be closed. What TEBuddy commented above sounds good; something along those lines should be added to RS:CONSENSUS. It's not defined anywhere there. And where would it be appropriate to close per author request, and where would it not be? 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about that if the author requests it for closure, it needs to follow a few rules.
- No active conversation is going on for a while.
- That it was either recently created, or has been running for a while.
Possibly those could be the reasons, as closure should not result if an active conversation is happening, or that it has been running for a while, which usually results in an active conversation. ~MuzTalk 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
comment - I thought that sysops could close it if they feal a consensus exists or the thread writer could close it if he felt that it was no longer needed. --00:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the author should have no more right to close than any other initial supporter. People should be able to request closure under the any of following conditions
- All people in the discussion are very clearly one way or the other
- The vast majority are, and those who aren't aren't coming up with anything new
- It is clear no consensus is on its way to being achieved, meaning the status quo prevails untill a new proposal is come up with
- --Serenity1137 07:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- but the writer of the proposal should be able to just discard it so we never hear from it
- again, sometimes that is something you feal like you have to do. for example, if somebody
- made a yew grove thread called "lol kittens!" and wise up a minute later and wants to remove
- it, why shouldent they? -- 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If it has gained support then they shouldn't be able to discard it just because they changed their minds. --Serenity1137 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well are we going to add summat to the consensus policy?--Serenity1137 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Add the following to RS:CONSENSUS:
== Closure ==
Consensus may or may not be reached, but either way, the discussion needs to be closed in the end. The discussion may only be closed if one or more of the following has occurred:
- There is unanimous or near unanimous support or opposes and discussion has ran for a few days.
- All arguments have been refuted and there is general consensus on which is the better and more accepted option.
- The topic has been open for a long period of time and the discussion has reached a standstill with no sign of consensus. The topic should be closed, on a basis of No Consensus.
- The topic is listed on Forum:Previously rejected proposals - READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST and no new arguments have been brought up, or the author is unaware that it is listed.
- The topic does not affect most or the whole community and is irrelevant and/or unnecessary.
- The topic is meant to be in another area of the Wiki, such as RuneScape:Votes for deletion.
Only administrators may close discussions, although all users are welcome to request closure, if they believe one or more of the above has occurred. Other users may support or oppose the closure, and an administrator will eventually decide on what action to take, using the above guidelines.
- Reply - I just realised I wrote nothing about closure requests which was the general idea Fixed now. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:54, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Request for closure Support - Per Swiz. -- 14:24, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Ya, sounds goods Per 7Is.--Degenret01 14:30, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Yay for solutions.16:08, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's nice to finally get some closure on this, lol.22:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)