Forum:Closure Requests

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Closure Requests
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 January 2010 by Rwojy.

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)

Discussion

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). Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 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. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 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? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 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. --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 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? --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 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)
Be patient, you have gotten what, 5 comments? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to poke people into discussion Wink --Serenity1137 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'd revive a dead discussion instead of just close it. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

Please change it as necessary; I just think we should close this thread about closure. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:43, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It seems very good. One thing, do you think that maybe you should add if the proposer requests for it to be closed? scoot4.pngscooties 06:48, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - I just realised I wrote nothing about closure requests which was the general idea O_o Fixed now. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:54, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nicely written. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:30, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is basically just common sense, written down in a policy. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:05, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very nice. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Evil FredeTalk 11:19, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Yanks Swiz Talk Review Me 14:19, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure Support - Per Swiz. --Iiii I I I 14:24, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ya, sounds goods Per 7Is.--Degenret01 14:30, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yay for solutions. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:08, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's nice to finally get some closure on this, lol. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 22:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Definitely clears things up. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:04, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks good and keeps it relatively simple. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 00:04, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Oooohhh the irrrooonnyy!!!! I've added the above paragraph to RS:CONSENSUS. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 00:52, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - As there isn't any opposition to the proposed additions, they will be added to RS:CONSENSUS. POHQLBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC)