Forum:Thread closers

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Thread closers
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 November 2010 by Haloolah123.

I propose there will be a group(no, not another usergroup) of users who are known to have a neutral point of view, or have another reason to be supported, to get the right to close discussions. This will be for people who want to close discussions, but are not allowed to because they are no sysops. As becoming a sysop is hard, VERY hard these days, people who are good at closing threads don't have the ability to use it, and many threads are not closed while they can be, because sysops are too lazy or get headaches when they have to read a whole discussion and decide the consensus. It is just to solve the problem of 1 pages in the Category:Requests for closure.


Discussion

support - As nom. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:30, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Is this some sort of joke...? A group to close threads? I think that speaks for itself. Andrew talk 21:48, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, thread closers must implement any successful proposals or otherwise make changes to things. Non-sysops might have a problem here. Why not just ask existing sysops to step up their game? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

"because sysops are too lazy or get headaches when they have to read a whole discussion and decide the consensus" like i said in the proposal. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - (edit conflict) If something's been in Category:Requests for closure for a while, just ask a sysop in the IRC or CC to close it. It seriously doesn't need an entire usergroup. Real Mad 21:55, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

"(no, not another usergroup)" like i said in the proposal. It is just a group of people who are allowed to close threads, not another usergroup with rights or something.

Oppose - Then we'd have RS:AR filled with Requests for semi-protection for those closed threads, and then it would still be work we'd have to wait on sysops for. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:15, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Also the only reason why we had 93 pages in that category is because someone changed the {{Closure}} template without testing it, and messed it up to where it always kept it in the category instead of removing it. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:27, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
And? semi-protecting is much less work than reading the whole thread and deciding what the consensus is. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well... if you disliked that reasoning, how about you answer this instead. How will we determine who is good enough to determine consensus? It will have to be a process similar to an RfA so we can get community approval on the person to close the threads. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:42, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I can change the template so archived threads no longer appear in the RFClosure category, solving that half of the problem. If a user is trustworthy enough to determine consensus, they obviously (in my opinion) meet the criteria to pass an RFA. With that said, I don't see this as a valid solution, so the answer is for administrators (including me, sigh Lol) to stand up and do something. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:35, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:CategoryFunctions is not installed here, so ignore the deleted text. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:43, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that "sigh" confirms my "because sysops are too lazy or get headaches when they have to read a whole discussion and decide the consensus" at the proposal. If there are more people closing threads, that will be less "sigh" for admins, who can do other things then. And if people can close threads, that is not enough for quite some people to let someone be sysopped. "we don't need more sysops"... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
It's mainly because of the rule that states that the closing administrator must put the consensus into effect, which is sometimes such a large task, it has to be performed by the proposer and several others. Determining consensus in and of itself is not time consuming. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:24, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Zammy nailed it. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 23:38, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - No way, Jose. There's no reason for this whatsoever. ʞooɔ 23:47, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

"Jose"? wheres the S in Joeytje50? Wink

Oppose - Your last sentence - "It is just to solve the problem of 10 pages in the Category:Requests for closure." --Iiii I I I 01:46, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

He's using an automatically-updating "magic word" for that number. Originally, there was an error causing all pages with Template:Closure on it to appear in the category, but this has since been fixed. I believe it was somewhere in there range of 80-100 when he put it there OMG!. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:58, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? and Super Strong Oppose - We got 79 admins... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:50, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

... Who are not all active... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Seriously, there is no need for something like this. It won't improve the workload for any admins, in fact, it will increase it. It's also immensely bureaucratic - how will we know if a user is "trustworthy" and knowledgeable enough to close threads, will we need another Requests page? "Requests to be able to determine consensus"? We'd also need a list of such users, and this list will have to constantly referenced to when someone closes a thread. As far as I kniw, the only positive reason I can think of is a possible redundancy check - user closes, another admin checks the consensus; and that is not enough reason to create such a thing. 222 talk 05:20, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't need more and more user groups for small abilities like this. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:42, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

"(no, not another usergroup)" like in the proposal. It's just a list of people who are allowed to do this. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Lol... Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 10:06, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure Oppose - Let's have a usergroup for thread makers too.   Swizz Talk   Events!   16:16, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just because it's not called a "usergroup" doesn't mean it's not a usergroup... It's a group of users that's allowed to do something. If you put their names on a page, it's really not any different. Personally, I don't really understand why it's a problem when there's a bunch of pages in the template; obviously it's underused and not needed, and, if you really want to get the proposal closed and into effect, you can leave a message on RS:AR or someone's talk page. I guess I'm kind of neutral-leaning-towards-apathetic here. Leftiness 16:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Yeah, let's also have protecters, mergers, splitters, deleters and blockers. bad_fetustalk 19:24, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

You forgot signature makers, HTML tidiers, page categorizers, VfD nominators, ....... Andrew talk 21:55, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
R u rly that dumb? closing threads is an admin-only thing, those things u said are allowed for evryone already. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:40, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
R u rly that dumb? we dnt need a grp to clse threeds   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:00, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
It amuses me to think that you are trying to call me dumb, yet you are missing the painstakingly obvious sarcasm and the point I was making in what I said. :) Andrew talk 00:50, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - An overly bureaucratic attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. Nothing further from me. --LiquidTalk 00:05, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per liquid... --Aburnett(Talk) 00:36, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Because an admin still needs to semi-protect closed threads. Per other opposition. Ryan PM 16:04, November 15, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Thread closers. Request complete. The reason given was: Withdrawal. Nobody seems to want to speed up closure of threads when it's needed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:31, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus and author has withdrawn thread idea. I'll see what I can do...HaloTalk 17:33, November 15, 2010 (UTC)