AVID:Requests for Comment/Clarify Who can close a proposal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:04, 17 March 2023

The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal 3

Passes.

Clarify who can close a proposal

I've noticed that there is not much clarity as to who can close an RFC among staff. AVID:Site Staff currently states that only a bureaucrat is capable of doing so. However I've seen on occasion some administrators have closed them. Hence, I am making the following three proposals to clarify who can close them. (Lets chat!) 07:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Bureaucrats Only

Make it so officially only Bureaucrats can close RFCs.

Support

Abstain

Oppose

Comments

2. Bureaucrats and Admins

A bureaucrat or an admin is capable of closing (admins only in the case of SNOW closure or author retraction)

Support

Abstain

Oppose

Comments

Comment: gonna be real, this is the proposal I'd be most likely to vote for had I not created the proposal. (Lets chat!) 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You have every liberty to vote on a proposal you created, the only part that is discouraged is the closing bureaucrat voting on the proposal. --Raidarr (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

3. Any Member of Staff

Anyone with a staff role can close (Admins and below only in the case of SNOW closure or author retraction).

Support

Support, because it really makes sense to allow all staff to do it. 13:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support for all members of staff being able to close requests where the author has retracted their request, however... Luke2505 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Per above (Talk to Me!) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per all Compooper (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

Oppose

Oppose for moderators doing SNOW closes. This should be kept for Admin and above, imo. Luke2505 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: (edited): I couldn't read, disregard 90% of this comment. Only issue I have now is with all staff including moderators doing this. I'd support admins determining snow and bureaucrats the rest.

There needs to be definition on 'how SNOW is SNOW'. I wouldn't be comfortable with just any moderator making this call as this proposal entails. Best practice would be only admins should make this call when it is very strictly clear to make, not just because they feel 'well it's going well/poorly so I'll close it now'. This invites confusion and possible chaos in a process that can have extreme consequences on a wiki. That is why for Miraheze in general, it is preferred these closures are only performed by bureaucrats in the first place. Unless we can get that fixed I'd rather this be decided at the bureaucrat level and if bureaucrats aren't catching up, see if someone qualified is willing to step up so their ranks are healthy. I'd be fine seeing admins perform some closures if, again, SNOW is better defined. If it is, this could extend to RfPs as well (in the case of too many opposes and/or withdrawal). --Raidarr (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If you check the RFC landing page, you will see we do indeed have enforced stipulations for SNOW closure

(Lets chat!) 14:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Archive top|Proposal 3 {{Approved|Passes}}.}}
 ==Clarify who can close a proposal==
+I've noticed that there is not much clarity as to who can close an RFC among staff. [[AVID:Site Staff]] currently states that only a bureaucrat is capable of doing so. However I've seen on occasion some administrators have closed them. Hence, I am making the following three proposals to clarify who can close them. [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:EternityMediaGroup]] ([[User Talk:EternityMediaGroup|Lets chat!]]) 07:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
-{{InUse}}
-I've noticed that there is not much clarity as to who can close an RFC among staff. [[AVID:Site Staff]] currently states that only a bureaucrat is capable of doing so. However I've seen on occasion some administrators have closed them. Hence, I am making the following three proposals to clarify who can edit.
+==1. Bureaucrats Only==
+Make it so officially only Bureaucrats can close RFCs.
 ===Support===
@@ Line 10: / Line 13: @@
 ===Comments===
+==2. Bureaucrats and Admins==
+A bureaucrat or an admin is capable of closing (admins only in the case of SNOW closure or author retraction)
+===Support===
+===Abstain===
+===Oppose===
+===Comments===
+{{Comment}} gonna be real, this is the proposal I'd be most likely to vote for had I not created the proposal. [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:EternityMediaGroup]] ([[User Talk:EternityMediaGroup|Lets chat!]]) 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+:You have every liberty to vote on a proposal you created, the only part that is discouraged is the closing bureaucrat voting on the proposal. --[[User:Raidarr|Raidarr]] ([[User talk:Raidarr|talk]]) 13:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+==3. Any Member of Staff==
+Anyone with a staff role can close (Admins and below only in the case of SNOW closure or author retraction).
+===Support===
+#{{Support}}, because it really makes sense to allow all staff to do it. [[File:Sonic-default-dance.gif|50px|link=User:Sonicfan19198282]] 13:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+#{{Support}} for all members of staff being able to close requests where the author has retracted their request, however... [[User:Luke2505|Luke2505]] ([[User talk:Luke2505|talk]]) 15:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+# {{Support}} Per above [[File:Sickminecraft45 Signature Icon.jpg|link=User:Sickminecraft45]] [[User_talk:Sickminecraft45|  ('''''Talk to Me!''''')]] 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
+# {{Support}} '''per all''' [[User:Compooper|Compooper]] ([[User talk:Compooper|talk]]) 11:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
+===Abstain===
+===Oppose===
+#{{Oppose}} for moderators doing SNOW closes. This should be kept for Admin and above, imo. [[User:Luke2505|Luke2505]] ([[User talk:Luke2505|talk]]) 15:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+===Comments===
+{{Comment}} '''(edited)''': I couldn't read, disregard 90% of this comment. Only issue I have now is with all staff including moderators doing this. I'd support admins determining snow and bureaucrats the rest.
+<s>There needs to be definition on 'how SNOW is SNOW'. I wouldn't be comfortable with just any moderator making this call as this proposal entails. Best practice would be only admins should make this call when it is very ''strictly'' clear to make, not just because they feel 'well it's going well/poorly so I'll close it now'. This invites confusion and possible chaos in a process that can have extreme consequences on a wiki. That is why for Miraheze in general, it is preferred these closures are only performed by bureaucrats in the first place. Unless we can get that fixed I'd rather this be decided at the bureaucrat level and if bureaucrats aren't catching up, see if someone qualified is willing to step up so their ranks are healthy. I'd be fine seeing admins perform some closures if, again, SNOW is better defined. If it is, this could extend to RfPs as well (in the case of too many opposes and/or withdrawal)</s>. --[[User:Raidarr|Raidarr]] ([[User talk:Raidarr|talk]]) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 [[Category:Requests for Comment]]
 __NOTOC__
+:If you check the RFC landing page, you will see we do indeed have enforced stipulations for SNOW closure [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:EternityMediaGroup]] ([[User Talk:EternityMediaGroup|Lets chat!]]) 14:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)