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)

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)

Comments (1)

 * I personally see 21 days as perhaps too long of a window and look forward to this passing. 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 gaining 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)

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)