Requests for Comment/Involved discussion closure

As some of you may know, an uncodified but important convention among Stewards is that we don't (usually) close discussions (such as Requests for Comment, Requests for global rights/permissions, etc.) where we have participated/are involved. For example, if I vote in a Request for Comments, I cannot close it even if it has unanimous support and a while has passed since the request has opened. While really no request is urgent, it would be nice if involved Stewards could close a discussion after some while has passed and no uninvolved Steward has been able to close the discussion just so we can bring it to a close and not stall any processes. Uninvolved closures will always be favored so the proposed conditions for a Steward to close a discussion are there so that this only occurs rarely when a lot of time has passed and no uninvolved Stewards have had time to close a discussion. Agent Isai Talk to me! 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Involved closure if)
Stewards who have participated in a discussion and are 'involved' may close the discussion only if the support ratio is of at least 70% and if at least 21 days have passed.

Support (1)

 * 1)  As proposer, per foreword. If a discussion has been open for a long time and consensus is obvious, there should be no issue in closing the request.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems fine. I would however encourage Stewards to refrain from closing if there's any possible doubt about the result and rather leave it to someone uninvolved unless really necessary to close. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  I agree with the rationale. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 17:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  This seems like a solid step forward in governance, gives clear guidance to avoid perception of conflict of interest or Supervoting behavior. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  With influence from the detracting votes I think this can be situationally okay when we're particularly barren on volunteering power as we've been quite a few times as a platform. However I urge the maximum degree 'don't even think about it unless it's an unchallenged hailstorm in favor'. It's not an ideal scenario and it's not a practice I would want to put into much use if I came back unless there was nobody around, period, and the consensus was basically unanimous. If the volunteering situation were to shape up in the future I'd support a move to undo this. --Raidarr (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I, like, am supporting this out of necessity given the current steward count. I'd argue these numbers are also too definitive, and that we should trust stewards to have situational awareness, given that we're basically already trusting them with the entire platform. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  That depends on the discussion. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ideally, this is a good change so involved stewards can close discussions including RfCs with unanimous support. However, it can be controversial in some situations, so why I support it weakly instead. TF3RDL (talk &#124; contribs &#124; FANDOM &#124; Wikipedia) 11:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

 * 1)  I was originally leaning towards strong support as I think (and still believe) that both involved Steward closure will occasionally be necessary and a 'minimum guidance' is needed to avoid further appearance of conflict, however John has raised significant points around declaring a threshold and has shifted my thinking on the matter.  Rather than switch to oppose, I'll leave this decision to community consensus instead. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Thank you  for pointing out John's point.  I wasn't sure what to make of this proposal.  Clearly, this issue has been very well thought out and I would like to pass / abstain / etc. until I know more... Imamy (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

 * 1) This is bad for the involved policy, number creep, and honestly feels like something a certain steward removed a few months ago would have come up with. Naleksuh (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I must oppose this proposal. If we are to take something more acceptable I would have preferred not only an even higher support ratio (even 85%) but 21 days is also too little time to wait as some RfCs can still have activity until that time. I also would have liked to seen a proposal that mentions whether current Stewards are active and that attempts must be made to contact them. In addition it is difficult to see why this proposal is necessary since we currently have four stewards and I think I have never seen a case where all of them voted in a proposal. There is also generally no urgency to the closure of RfCs and if a Steward is not particularly active to close until a certain time I do not believe that is a tragedy. It appears in many cases that Stewards and others are in a rush to close RfCs or requests for permissions which I, in most cases, find it difficult to understand why it is necessary. Finally in case this proposal passes I wish to strongly recommend that Stewards do not close involved unless the result is more than clear and they really tried to contact an uninvolved Steward. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a more succinct conclusion I think this adds an unnecessary risk of a tainted or a closure that can seem not legitimate for the sake of an RfC being closed a few days early or for the never seen before occasion where every Steward votes for an RfC. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  As a steward, I recuse from discussions as there is a sufficient community to discuss policy proposals unless I have a strong opinion on a matter in order to prevent needing to have an involved closure. We've had a few situations in the past where even uninvolved steward closures have been heavily contested as the personal opinion of the closure had clearly shone through - for an involved closure this increases the risk. Stewards should be facilitators of community discussion, not the loudest voice to influence an outcome. With 4 stewards, arguably only 1 steward at a time needs to engage in a community discussion to !vote at a time. The irony behind all of this, is this will require an involved closure as there's a divide amongst even stewards of involved closures which is the root of the problem as either outcome of this RfC could be contested as being unduly influenced by whoever closes it regardless of outcome. John (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd (earnestly) like to better understand your position to inform my own on two points -- 1. given that there are a limited number of stewards, is there any threshold you'd find reasonable, or is it your stance/preference that stewards should fully recuse to better serve as stewards of the platform? 2. Given that many RfCs are raised or co-authored by stewards/individuals with elected roles, would a similar recusal from closure be warranted in a situation with unanimous consent from voters?  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 07:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that I agree with the principle that John mentions and ideally there should never be involved closures. My main issue is the situation where there's very few Stewards and there's no one who is able to close an RfC in time? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the problem at hand scales indefinitely - if you had not participated in this discussion - would you have been involved enough to close it? If we have 100 stewards and all 100 participate in the discussion, you need to have an involved closure, but you can't argue that there are not enough stewards able to close the discussion. The problem lies with the need and necessity to get involved vs facilitating the discussion at hand. I feel strongly on this topic, so I have chosen to put my view across - If I agreed with having involved closures, I wouldn't have participated as the consensus at the time was tending towards allowing it. To response to the above points by NotAracham is I don't personally find any threshold necessarily appropriate - not one that we should write into a policy. There are legitimate situations where sometimes an involved closure is needed and we have had a lot of those in the past in the early days (less more so now with 4 stewards), but I feel if we put in to policy that a Conflict of Interest doesn't exist if a certain situation, we'll get into a situation where arguable if you have a discussion on 65% support (which is borderline), what would stop a steward supporting the proposal that they want to pass, pushing it to 70%, to then close it per this policy? John (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, this is helpful extra context in shaping my thoughts as well. I had originally seen this proposal as 'this is setting a minimum bar, different situations will still allow for flexibility under other criteria' but your point is well taken.  Reducing my support to neutral accordingly as I still think the proposal has merit but see the problems you raise.

Comments (1)

 * I personally see 21 days as perhaps too long of a window and look forward to this passing hope a minimum standard to allow for clearly-appropriate involved closures does pass, even if the guidelines proposed here may not be the right ones. It has now come up a few times where no steward has been both available and uninvolved in order to close discussions/changes in policy with clear consensus.  Miraheze is a rare gem with increasing visibility as a wikihost, I'd hate to see it fall prey to bureaucratic sclerosis and be unable to adapt to the challenges of a growing userbase. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 21:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (No involved closure)
Stewards who have participated in a discussion and are 'involved' may not close that discussion.

Support (2)

 * 1)  I do not necessarily support a blanket ban on involved closures but this principle is better than the wide exception proposed above. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (2)

 * 1)  Staying neutral until I understand how RfC works Imamy (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

 * 1)  It would nice to be able to close a discussion if a lot of time has passed and no other uninvolved Steward has closed the discussion.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  A full ban isn't necessary but again as far as possible invovled closures should be avoided and shouldn't be frequent. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Given the absolute rarity of users with steward role at the moment, this seems counterproductive compared to the first proposal. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I concur. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 01:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Without a steward's involvement, how the hell can you expect a proper closure?  Damn, that was poorly worded. I meant to say if there was no involvement, then what exactly is there to do? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you on about? I assume you misunderstood the intention as 'involvement' in this proposal has always been in context of 'steward involved in the discussion', not trying to logic-block stewards out of even closing a discussion entirely. You can otherwise expect a proper closure because a steward has presented no stakes in the matter and so they cannot be seen as a biased party. --Raidarr (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps I did misunderstand what was being said here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider striking your vote, or editing your original vote to something that makes more sense. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 15:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I struck out my comment, and added something else on it. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is now a slightly less crude phrasing of the same unintelligible point. --Raidarr (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)