Requests for Comment/User close policy

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This RfC proposes a policy to close certain premature requests for privileges before they waste people's time. The proposal would only affect Meta.

Several Meta requests pages (notably Requests for Stewardship and its archive) contain requests for additional authority from very new users. The users might not understand the implications or might be trolling. Currently, only a Steward can close requests; typically, they don't close them until after much debate and voting. This RfC proposes to let any confirmed or autoconfirmed user close inappropriate requests, guided by common sense and subject to override and protection against abuse.

For an analog, see Wikipedia's Not now information page.

Proposer: DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Edited by Spıke (talk)19:58 24-Dec-2019

Proposal 1[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

# Support proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. Support. I suppose that would be nice, because we should assume good faith of older users. WickyHoney (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral[edit | edit source]

  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. Spıke (talk)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 - (     offline) 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. Spıke (talk)18:16 23-Dec-2019
    Personally, SNOW closes require an air of common sense rather than black and white rules. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (     offline) 18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Rhino, since before users did not vote for the black and white rules for eligibility we should also keep this up to common sense, we don't need to always have precise rules for everything in my view and we need to let users use their common sense. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

.

Amendment to Proposal 1[edit | edit source]

Autoconfirmed and confirmed users are allowed to close any request for permissions as unsuccessful (global rights and local rights) if 3 or more voters point out that the request is being made too early by a largely inexperienced user, and there aren't any valid (non-sockpuppet/meatpuppet) support votes. In case of any doubt or an unclear case they should leave it up to a Steward.

Support[edit | edit source]

  1. Support As the propser. Some clarifications made.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 05:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support As I've said before, I agree that if it is clear that a user is not nearly ready to get a local or global right and other users make that clear, experienced users should be allowed to close the request to avoid time wasting. Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Is better than the original proposal that I made... --DeeM28 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per Reception Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral[edit | edit source]

Proposal 2[edit | edit source]

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

Support[edit | edit source]

  1. Support proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Goes without saying that Stewards can correct errors resulting from delegating their tasks. Spıke (talk)18:08 23-Dec-2019
  3. Support. Sounds good. WickyHoney (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Is the status quo anyway, but might as well support. Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral[edit | edit source]

Proposal 3[edit | edit source]

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

Support[edit | edit source]

  1. Support proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Stewards, having delegated the power to close requests, should have the right to un-delegate it from any individual on terms they see fit. Spıke (talk)20:04 24-Dec-2019
  3. Support. Sounds good. WickyHoney (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support It is quite vague, and again would be the status quo anyway, but I guess a support won't hurt. Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Weak support I think too many should be defined. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 17:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral[edit | edit source]

  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. Spıke (talk)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)
    "Too many" still needs to be defined, but I'll support and leave definitions in the hands of Stewards. I had been thinking of "offender" as the newbie making foolish requests and not the confirmed user closing them. Spıke (talk)20:04 24-Dec-2019

General comments[edit | edit source]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on all proposals. I view this matter in two ways:
    1. It is a non-issue; and
    2. It is not that big of a deal to select specific Meta users to be empowered to manage requests (along the line of clerks).
If I were to have it my way, I would implement point 2, though I am not convinced that more users clerking/managing requests is necessary at this point in time. Feels pretty straightforward, and I don't have much more to say on this. dross (tcg) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's not the largest issue, but I wouldn't call it a 'non-issue' either as I've seen many requests for Stewardship that gather loads of votes for something that could've been closed really quick for a clear lack of experience. Clerks is an interesting idea, but I think Meta is still too small for that as of now. Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)