Since Forum:Adding a new amendment to COD:CONSENSUS went through I've had sort of mixed feelings on it. I absolutely agree that forums shouldn't be closed by people that are clearly biased. However, take this forum for example, and look at what Sam did: Instead of closing the forum, he suedo-closed it. But what I ask is: Would anybody really have cared if Sam had simply closed that forum? Yeah, he proposed the original idea, but there was nearly unanimous support, and the only opposer didn't explain or further argue once pressed by others. In this situation, that forum has been sitting idle for essentially 15 days with no movement, whereas it could have been closed much sooner and had its proposal implemented prior to the release of Ghosts.
The original argument for amending COD:CON was basically because of the likes of this forum. It was to prevent users from closing extremely popular and top-heavy forums when they themselves were biased towards one side. In this respect, the amendment has been successful, though I don't think we've had such a high-tension forum since then.
That said, there are a few inherent problems with the amendment:
- It prevents forums that have a clearly favored argument (I'm talking unanimous or close to it) from being passed, when nobody would have any problem with someone who voted on it doing so
- Forums that have gone dead and lost user interest that would normally be closed due to inactivity sit at the bottom of the WR for weeks at a time with no activity when they could be archived away and reopened/revisited when the community saw fit (this one is especially important since interest in the War Room in general has severely declined over the past year or so--far fewer users contribute regularly)
- There are few forums that include so many users and contain a subject matter that splits users so evenly that the original issue of the amendment is even relevant, which is to say that the majority of the time nobody would have a problem with a closure by someone who voted (this is proven by the countless clean closures that occured before the implementation of the amendment)
Noting these problems I would like to provide 2 possible choices to clean this up:
- Repeal the amendment
- Before you say anything, consider this: In the past, when a hot forum was closed inappropriately, it was immediately re-opened by other administrators because they realized what had happened. Yes, the current amendment prevents this--however, since users recognize the threat immediately when it does happen, there is no reason to continue to disallow voter closure when in the majority of forums there is no such corruption.
- Allow admins that have voted on a proposal to close a forum due to inactivity, or an argument that has a clear winner
- Sort of a comprimise if you gentlemen really don't want to abandon the amendment entirely; this would allow voter closure in extreme cases where no corruption is possible.
I know this isn't the biggest issue ever, but you all know me as a very active War Roomer, and in fact it's my favorite part of editing... I have strongly disliked this amendment from the beginning because of how inefficient it has made the WR overall. I strongly suggest option #1 because it will bring us back up to our previous speed of getting community consensus and getting things passed, instead of getting community consensus and having the forum sit and sit and sit and sit for seven weeks until someone decides to close it.
Thanks for your time. Joe Copp 04:44, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Support — So #1 would allow for forums that are basically favoring one side to be closed by a supporting admin and so-on so forth? I get where this is coming from, and yes, forums have been dead lately. It seems the main issue is just closing them, as a lot of them now do site dormant. So, I guess I could go along with this, as I think users/admins would know when something is basically decided on a forum. P90Deathman05:06, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- #1 is to repeal the amendment entirely and go back to the way it was. #2 is what you said, essentially. Joe Copp 05:18, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Support — Something that is unanimous or extremely close to it should have no problems being closed by someone who participated. A very rigid system like we have now stifles swift and efficient discussions. If a forum is closed in an inappropriate manner, such as clearly in a different way to the consensus in the forum, then it will be challenged as has been done in the past. Any administrator who closes a forum in an inappropriate manner should have their administrator status questioned. That should be enough of a deterrent to prevent biased closure of forums which disagree with the consensus presented and therefore allow a removal of the restrictions put on closing forums at the moment.10:32, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Support — If there is a forum that is one-sided, I see no reason why it couldn't be closed by someone who is on said side. I've always been wondering why it wasn't like this actually, because I did recognize that some of the forums were taking a while to be closed.13:54, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Support — Per Cod4 basically. Just a question, why was this system implemented in the first place?Support — In the case of huge clear consensus it should be allowed for a voter to close the forum. Another issue was Slav's RfA, which had a clear consensus, but we had to wait for Sactage to close the RfA since the other 'crats had all voted towards support. Also there's issues where some forums have so many voters it makes it hard to close them as other admins and 'crats are hard to get hold of 13:58, November 6, 2013 (UTC) 18:13, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I provided two options to this exact effect. Joe Copp 05:35, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
Support — I think that if we can repeal the amendment it will help alot in heated discussions like the examples you pointed out. Neutrality is a good thing, but sometimes when topics as important as that will be very biased. So, if we can do option 2, and prevent biased opinions however have all the admins agree on a certain thing. I think it could work very well.17:10, November 10, 2013 (UTC)