Requests for Comment/User close policy

NOTE: This Request for Comment is a local RfC and only affects Meta

This RfC obviously references Wikipedia's Not now information page, however this RfC is to propose a policy to prevent wasting user's time. If you look at several requests pages (notably Requests for Stewardship and its archive) you will see a large number of very new users who request Stewardship either because they don't understand what it does or for trolling reasons. The issue is that currently only a Steward can close any requests and these ridiculous requests waste everyone's time as everyone votes to oppose these evidently unsuccessful nominations just because users don't have the right to close them. It has also been shown in other former RfCs that users don't want Stewards to have minimum edits or something. So that's why I am proposing a policy that allows users to use common sense and be able to close any nominations that are obviously unfit. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * Autoconfirmed and confirmed users are allowed to close any request for permissions as unsuccessful (global rights and local rights) if it is clear to them that the request is being made too early by a largely inexperienced user. In case of any doubt or an unclear case they should leave it up to a Steward.

Support

 * 1) proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) "It is clear to" me that Proposer shouldn't be allowed to edit! No, seriously, can we define "too early" and "largely inexperienced user"?  It's a good idea to resolve that users other than Stewards be able to close requests that aren't credible, but can we agree on language that gives them some guidance?  This would help make those closures mechanical and avoid drama.   18:06 23-Dec-2019
 * maybe base it on the current votes? Can’t think of a solid enough definition that isn’t too weak or too strict and not babying. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is so nuanced that we can't codify how a volunteer should do it, maybe he shouldn't.  18:16 23-Dec-2019
 * Personally, SNOW closes require an air of common sense rather than black and white rules. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * Stewards may overturn any user closes if they believe that they are made in error.

Support

 * 1) proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Goes without saying that Stewards can correct errors resulting from delegating their tasks.   18:08 23-Dec-2019

Proposal 3

 * If a user closes too many requests in error, Stewards may choose to deny them the right to close requests in the future.

Support

 * 1) proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Again, terms need to be defined. As Proposal 1 would give the power to all confirmed and autoconfirmed, does this mean that the offender gets de-confirmed?  Or do Stewards keep a separate list of Confirmed but not Trusted?  Appeals?  Rehabilitation?  Etc.   18:13 23-Dec-2019
 * Sorry for the confusion. They would still be confirmed but they would have a sort of 'topic-ban' to close requests. The rest is at the discretion of Stewards. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)