While I don't support the idea of only having Lindens close issues, I think that the system either has to have consent for closure generated by a notification and a toggle (with a time-out of 30 days) or possible if an issue is closed and then opened and closed in a tug of war again, it should trigger Linden review. Its votes should not become frozen.

See WEB-382.

I don't have a problem with independent peer review of JIRA information, and believe that most people behave responsibly and politely when linking or resolving issues. Other people seem to believe most people will go on a JIRA edit / resolve / close spree's purely for the fun of it and ruin perfectly good entries.

Since these are fairly basic personal perspectives on life and one's peers, there's little anyone can do to convince someone from the happy crowd (me), that this is a problem, and little that I can do for the unhappy crowd to convince them that people are usually a lot nicer than that.

However, wiki's have become a huge success because largely (with some notable exceptions), people contribute positively to an editable information system. The solution to wiki and JIRA "griefers" is to ban them and roll back any edits or changes they may have made.

In the JIRA this is particularly easy since you can watch your own issue and be notified immediately when a change occurs. If it is an un-justified "resolved" or "closed" change, it's very very easy to edit your issue, re-open it and post a comment explaining why you feel the issue needs to remain open.

And since the Linden voice has said "If there's specific users who are particularly being problematic, let Rob and Torley Linden know, please." then you have a route to take should you feel a particular user is griefing the JIRA.