In all likelihood, this "policy" will be made official very shortly (perhaps even by the end of the day). Because it isn't going to go through the normal channels (i.e. Proposal, discussion, etc.), I feel like I should explain why that is the case. This policy is geared exclusively to the Bureaucratic staff. The general community isn't being given a say because demotions and evaluations aren't their responsibility, nor will they be affected by it, and, as such, have no standing by which to contest it. In fact, even the Sysop staff isn't going to get a real say on this because, while they may be affected by it, they're also the subject of the evaluations and, just like with the general populace, the Sysops are not the ones doing the evaluations nor the demotions. Finally, this policy is simply a statement of a power which has long been held by the Bureaucratic staff regardless of the policy itself. This policy is merely meant to more clearly delineate such evaluations. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:07, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

It never says what happens. All the article says is that you're evaluating them, theres no punishment stated =P The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 05:07, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
I think it makes pretty clear that if we do decide there is a serious problem we demote... Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:18, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
i dont like to beat around the bush hehe The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 05:21, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

To Whom It May Concern

In discussing this policy with a number of Bureaucrats and Sysops, most notably Krowman, one of the things that I have noticed is that the problems people have with this policy tend to be primarily semantic in nature. What I mean is that people dislike the idea that it's an "evaluation" rather than a "discussion," or they feel that the policy comes off as to "Big Brother-ish," or they feel that the wording as is will create divisions amongst the Admins. So, let me start by saying that I honestly did not intend the policy to do any of these things, and, indeed, I struggled for quite a while over the wording doing my best to alleviate such problems. However, I know that that doesn't always work as well as I would like. As a result, I've been doing my best to sound out the whole Administrative team before even considering making this policy official in it's current state. Accordingly, I urge anyone who sees such a problem or would just like to discuss the policy to contact me on MSN or through some other venue. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:08, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

More time

I think this policy needs some more time in draft. Other users may be interested in checking it out and maybe want to discuss it a bit more. From nothing to official in 1 days seems a bit quick for me. gcardinal 23:05, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

I agree with it though whenever it is ready. We kinda need some policy on reviewing admins. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 23:36, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Disscussion Before Evaluation

I feel that at first the disscussion of a sysop should be more generic. Saying things like "I generally like this person and what they do, though they can be promblomatic from time to time." If it comes down to a second evaluation, I think that's when specific instances should be brought up. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 04:06, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

This is one of those "semantic" points I discussed in the "To Whom It May Concern" note. While I use the terms "review" and "evaluation," and, while I also add a couple of notes about "what we look for," discussion might be an accurate term as well depending on the circumstances. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:18, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Review of User:Frvwfr2

Proposing a review of Frv since he doesn't really contribute positively to the wiki and does mostly janitorial work that most people could do. At least needs to be told to stop trying to be a Build Master when he clearly has limitid Knowledge of the game itself. --Frosty 13:10, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Review & Reconfirmation of Current Admins

We need to review the status of many of the admins. Several of the "active" admins are inactive and should either be retired or something similar. Also, I feel that there's a need to re-evaluate and reconfirm the current administrators. Many of them do a wonderful job; however, some are not currently contributing to the wiki in any constructive way.

Inactivity and negatively contributing to the wiki are both against the policy and in my mind these factors should warrant a review of the entire administrative team. However, it seems that our review process can only be done by a bureaucrat, unlike on GuildWiki where a consensus among users warrants starting a new RfA page that reconfirms the admin's position.

I think we need to either add a policy that allows the PvXWiki community to start a review of an admin or something similar that allows the users of PvXWiki to reconfirm our admins. Otherwise our admins have no accountability to the users of the wiki; they only have accountability to the bureaucrats which in turn is not fair to the users of this wiki.

Here is a link to the GuildWiki policy for reconfirmation of current sysops. I think we should have something similar that allows users to judge whether or not we feel our admins are doing their jobs. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:20, 4 February 2009 - )

Which sysops do you feel are being destructive? They could be worth reviewing, but I don't really see lack of contribution or inactivity as valid reasons for reconfirmation. - Miserysig (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I don't think it matters who I feel needs to be reviewed. What matters is that inactivity is against the policy of being an admin as well as not contributing positively. I think most users on wiki would agree with me that it's time for a reconfirmation of all current admins. Some may be reconfirmed, some may not, but the users of wiki have the right to be a part of the process of deciding that. Oh, and btw, I wouldn't have expected any current admins to be behind this idea because it puts your ass on the line and makes you guys responsible for the manner in which you've been contributing. But, I could be wrong. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:34, 4 February 2009 - )
you also have to remember that admins have a RL =). While we try to leave notes on our userpage if we're going to be inactive (or reduced activity) for a given period of time, it might not always be possiable...That point aside, i have no objection to the idea, but then again the main person you have to convince it's worthwhile is Auron, he'd be the main person making any decisions (obviously the rest of the admins would have a say, but ultimately it's Auron's decision). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
And then it all goes to Auron and yea, back to square one. FrostrageFrosty po! 12:39, 4 February 2009 (EST)
What Frosty said is exactly why we need a policy that allows the users of pvx to review the work of an admin w/o the oversight of a bureaucrat. We shouldn't have to beg the "higher ups" in order to review the people who supposedly work for our best interest. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:42, 4 February 2009 - )
By the by, GCardinal is also the wrong person to contact. He is a server side Bcrat, the people you want to get in contact with are Auron and Defiant Elements. - Miserysig (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I copied it on Auron's page and I'll copy it on DE's page too in a sec. And Phen, if some of you guys are too busy to help out the wiki, then retire and let someone else do your job. Otherwise, the wiki will continue to become more and more inactive and die even before GW does. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:45, 4 February 2009 - )
Yeah... but the problem with that is that DE and GCardinal aren't very active on the wiki. You'd be better off emailing them or contacting DE on GWW. Also, I will point out again, retiring an admin doesn't make "more room" for new people to come in, it just takes away people who could potentially fix problems in a time of need. If there is someone you think who is worthy of being an admin, RfA them. There is no limit on the number of admins and "we don't need more admins" is not a valid reason to oppose. Votes using that reason will be ignored as will votes saying "we need more admins" in the opposite case. - Miserysig (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Misery, your "job" as an admin is to help clean up the wiki, help it run smoothly, and make sure the policies are followed. Well, one of the policies is that inactivity as an admin is not to be tolerated. In other words, you have a responsibility to the users of PvX to clean up the inactive admins. BUT, you keep missing the main point that I'm making. Admins need to be held accountable to the people they represent. To me, that means there needs to be a full admin team review AND we need a policy that allows a consensus of users to start one. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:57, 4 February 2009 - )
Oh, and I'm not saying that we need more admins. I'm saying that there needs to be a way that the community can decide when an admin is not doing their job and throw their ass out. Overall, the point is to improve the quality of the wiki through accountability. I want admins to do their jobs well, that's all. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (12:59, 4 February 2009 - )
(EC)Any chance you could drop the accusatory tone? A full administrative review seems to be a bit of a waste of time to me. Being a good sysop will sometimes require making unpopular decisions, that is one reason why bcrat discretion is required at the moment for a review to take place. I find it questionable that no comment was even made when a review of Frv was requested, but I can't think of another case where a review was even called for. One thing you are perhaps forgetting, you don't get to vote on administrators, it's not a election, it's Bcrat discretion again. Even if we had a "reconfirmation", the Bcrats could completely ignore the results. If you want to me to be re-evaluated, request it. I don't fear for my position. If you want any other administrator to be re-evaluated, request it. I can tell you now Auron isn't going to want to review every sysop right now. - Miserysig (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (EST)

There's no benefit to remove sysop status from inactive admins; they have proven to be responsible and helpful to the wiki, inactive or not doesn't change that. However, a problem with removing sysop status from inactive admins is if said admins do come back and sees a vandal which needs immediate attention, then find out he/she cannot ban said vandals. In fact, this whole thing is merely an excuse to start some drama. Our sysops are fine, if we need a review, just contact auron. Either way, we still have to go through a bureaucrat, so just leave the system be.PikaFan19x19px 13:03, 4 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)No, the system is not fine. And I don't want the inactive admins to be retired. R e a d. I want the active admins who are inactive to be placed on the inactive list like they should be. And that's not the main point anyway.
(EC)I'm sorry, Misery. I'm not trying to be accusatory. I just really believe this needs to happen. And I don't care if the bcrats completely ignore the votes. I just think we need some system of review that allows the community to hold our admins accountable, much like GuildWiki has (although, they get to vote on their admins as well). And please stop thinking that I'm gunning for any specific admins, Misery. I'm not. I'm not gunning for you or anyone else. I just think it would improve the quality of the wiki if the users were given the right to evaluate our administrators. I am very surprised to find out that this site is run the way it is, considering that GuildWiki is run in such a different way. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:13, 4 February 2009 - )
(EC) too lazy to change anything, i "replied" after pika.Like Pika said, there's no need to remove inactive sysops or BCrats from their respective user group, the only time that would be necessary is if they're leaving the wiki, or they're going to be gone for a really long period of time, without checking on the wiki occasionally (I believe DE still checks in every so often, even if it's not to contribute). As for the current active admins, that's why this policy exists. If you feel an admin is doing a shit job, bring it up on here first and allow some discussion to be had, if it reaches the point where the community agrees that something needs to be done, Auron can step in, he can talk it over with the admin in question, and decide what to do from there. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 13:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Again, you're missing the main point. I don't care as much about inactive admins as I do accountability. I think the inactive "active" members should be placed on the inactive list, that's all for that. And, Phen, I'm doing exactly what you said the second time except rather than bringing it up for just one admin, I'm suggesting that all the admins should be reviewed. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:16, 4 February 2009 - ) 13:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Would it surprise you also to know that our bcrats can't really change? There is no election process, GCardinal just does it on a whim. I believe Auron and DE are contracted as Bcrats atm. Also, I think you SHOULD be gunning for specific admins, otherwise the whole thing seems pointless. - Miserysig (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (EST)

While we're on the topic, Dont is an awful admin. Carry on. Cute McMonkeyTab 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

So is auron FrostrageFrosty po! 13:21, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)No, I knew that and I'm ok with it. And I don't see a need to gun for a current admin, because apparently it gets no response as Frosty found out earlier on this page. Our system of review is flawed. That's what I'm saying. The users SHOULD have the ability to "elect" our admins as the policy says, but according to you guys we don't even vote for our own admins.....which doesn't even make sense. There needs to be a change. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:22, 4 February 2009 - )
I can't quote GWiki policy, because I don't know it, but it's the same on GWW, the votes are just advisory, at the end sysops being elected is left up to Bcrat discretion. That being said, they hold real elections for Bcrats. - Miserysig (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)I was actually using GWWiki's policy as a reference. I only accidentally said GWiki. According to GWW policy, an RfA page can be created to reconfirm or not reconfirm a sysop if there is a consensus among users. And according to our policy, there can be a full team review....done by a bureaucrat....fuck square one again. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:28, 4 February 2009 - )

izzy is an aweful skill balancer, please hit him with his nerf bat and then find another skill balancerCloseCloseImpactSWImpactPet Whale 13:27, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Backing up through this Tl;Dr, Karate you think that admins should be held accountable to the people they represent? With a population of 95% trolls I hardly call that a fair assessment of the job they are doing.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 13:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)
That's a good point, but there are ways around that. The bcrats aren't going anywhere apparently, so let them have the final say in what happens, but let the community vote at least. But there should be some type of repercussions for admins that aren't doing their jobs and we have should have the right to evaluate whether or not that's true. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:34, 4 February 2009 - )

PvX is an online popularity contest, so until it stops being so, admins should not have to be held accountable to the community.PikaFan19x19px 13:35, 4 February 2009 (EST)

@KJesus:On GWW the outcome of the vote is still decided by Bcrats. Remember, this is not a democracy. - Miserysig (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Are you replying to me :o?PikaFan19x19px 13:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Pika, they represent us. They should be accountable. That's just a fucktarded comment. And read what I said right before you, "so let them [bcrats] ave the final say in what happens". It's not like they wont be allowed to be admins anymore, I'm sure Auron wouldn't let that happen, but they need to be accountable to us. And Mis, it still wouldn't be a democracy. Our votes are at least considered in a democracy. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:40, 4 February 2009 - )
No, but this page is a mess. I'll also point out I find it funny how he seems to be fighting for "a right to choose" which nobody else seems to want, so far at least he is the only person who seems to be in favour of this. - Miserysig (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC ×god knows how many)Ah, I see what your saying now. There's nothing to stop you from editing the list on the PvX:ADMIN page yourself and changing those you feel are inactive, to inactive, there's no need for an evaluation for that part. The list can be edited by anyone, and as long as your right (putting them inactive when they've not been on for say a month would be all right, and if it turns out they are active, the edit can just be reverted =p). As for the review of the whole team...I'd have to point you to what Misery said, I doubt Auron's gonna do a full administrative review without any great need...KJ, what Misery said is partially true...while it's true that a user who gets overwhelming support can be declined (or the other way around), the BCrats will at least look at the reasons put down and see if they hold any merit. As for the reconfirmation process, like they hold on GWW, i'd suggest making a little section under this one with suggestions about changing the policy to reflect a similar process (or even a new policy altogether if you feel it's significantly different). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 13:43, 4 February 2009 (EST)
@KJ Case in point please look at the two newest BM applications. You must be blind if you can't see 3/4 or more of us aren't capable of objectivity. PikaFan19x19px 13:43, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)Mis, I'm just trying to make a point and I think this will improve the wiki, so quit being a dick. And at least on GWW the users get to vote for their bureaucrats [1], [2]. And might I remind you that the only person here agreeing with you who isn't an admin is Pika.....pika for god's sakes. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:46, 4 February 2009 - )
I don't see how weakening the position of admins helps the wiki. If admins have to be concerned that someone will request reconfirmation every time they ban someone, it may stop them from taking necessary actions. I'm not "being a dick" (which breaches NPA btw ;o), this is actually the way I feel about it. Also, I don't actually represent the user base at all, that's not my job. As a final aside, yes GWW has a formal reconfirmation process, I've seen it "used" twice, both times it was ignored and no reconfirmation took place. - Miserysig (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (EST)
So? I daresay I am more objective and my logic is way clearer than your's when it's time to be serious. Kindly refrain from personal attacks while discussing something serious.PikaFan19x19px 13:49, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC ×3)Thanks, Phen. That's a good idea. I'll look at the policy on GWW and put something similar to it. I'm guessing that I should probably just completely ignore that GWW users vote for their bureaucrats, huh? I have my answer, so now I'm done here. Oh, and Mis, I'm sure you'll ignore that NPA because you have ignored many, many like it. Also, I didn't personally attack you. I suggested that you stop a certain type of behavior. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:50, 4 February 2009 - )
If I was going to ban you for it, you'd already be banned tbh. - Miserysig (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Threaten me if you want, but we're done here. Phen is apparently the only person capable of answering the question in an appropriate manner. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (13:55, 4 February 2009 - )
That's not a threat. You seem to discuss things in an odd manner. That's what all that wall of text above you is, discussion. There will be more of it when you make your suggestions. - Miserysig (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Naturally, your idea of "appropriate" is to have things go your way.PikaFan19x19px 14:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC ×ermm no idea)sigh. KJ, i'm glad you thought it's a good idea, and i look forward to seeing what you put together. But we generally don't vote on our BCrats because...well i don't exactly know why >.>;. In any case, there's normally very little need for a BCrat anyway, the only time we actually need a BCrat is when a user needs Promoting/demoting (which doesn't happen too often). Over on GWW, from what i understand, a BCrat is limited to BCrat only "powers", they're only to use their sysop privileges when there's no sysop on to deal with a situation, which is one reason we don't have similar policies to them (we allow BCrats to have sysop privileges and use them at their discretion). Just because we don't have any means for requesting BCratship, doesn't mean you can't =p. There's nothing to stop you talking to auron (or probably GCard in this case...) and saying "user X would probably make a good BCrat because..." (Truthfully with Auron the only active Wiki side BCrat there may be a need for another one). Finally for the little NPAs. i think Misery was poking fun at how strict GWW is, they would consider "stop being a dick" NPA. Generally we like tpo belive our users can handle something like that =p. As for the countless other NPA's you see, if you feel they're really NPA, bring it up on the AN, or an admins talk page ;) (or via e-mail/MSN if you'd prefer to remain discreet). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 14:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)I just want to see the wiki work better and I would like the users to feel that they are actually represented appropriately. Pika, trust me when I say that I did not expect this to go over well. Hell, I thought I'd get banned for just suggesting it. That's how bad I feel this is and also why it is necessary. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:05, 4 February 2009 - )
Thanks, Phen. And about the NPA's I was actually referring to other places where Misery has ignore NPAs, not necessarily on this page. And I don't care if people NPA me, so I don't see any reason to put it on the AN or report it. I'll think about email Auron (although that might be a dead end). I will probably email GCardinal. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:09, 4 February 2009 - )

As you all know, I'm inactive, for all intents and purposes (though I do log on occasionally to check my watchlist and I can still be readily contacted via email, if necessary), so I probably wouldn't be hugely involved in any reconfirmations if they were to take place. However, Karate brought this thread to my attention, so I'll add my two cents. I have no qualms with a formal, on-wiki reconfirmation process initiated by the users-at-large, so long as the Bureaucrats retain the final say. I realize that there probably aren't very many users left who remember the discussions we had back when PvX was in its infancy regarding RfAs, but this post is a fairly accurate assessment of my feeling on reconfirmations (though it was obviously written with regard to RFAs). Two things I will say, however; first off, I think having reconfirmations for the entire administrative team is a waste time. Unless people have concrete complaints about each and every one of the sysops, when/if reconfirmations become part of policy, the reconfirmations that take place should be targeted. Second off, and I just wanna make this real clear, reconfirmations shouldn't be started for admins on the sole basis of inactivity. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I absolutely agree with you DE and thanks for responding. Below I have suggested a way to do this while still allowing the bureaucrats to have the final say (ignore the first suggestion, look at the second). After being involved in this discussion, I also agree with you that admins should not lose their status solely based on inactivity. Since there is no hard cap on the limit of sysops, there is no reason not to just add inactive admins to the inactive list (hopefully we'll have more active than not). Thank you for addressing this and I would appreciate it if you would look over my last suggestion. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (15:39, 4 February 2009 - )

Suggestion for Reconfirmation policy being added to PvX:Admin


Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop. It can brought about by one of the following conditions:

  • enough user support:
While a user is a sysop, anyone may add their support to the "Request for reconfirmation" section of that sysop's latest successful RFA. Short explanations are encouraged, but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. This generally has no immediate effect and does not trigger the reconfirmation process until there is enough accumulated support for reconfirmation. The level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year. Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies), a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status.
  • the sysop in question voluntarily choosing so
  • community consensus (such as a reconfirmation timeline for grandfathered sysops)
Word for word from GWW. I don't see any reason it should be changed. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:02, 4 February 2009 - )
Ok, how is that different to what we have now? "Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies)". - Miserysig (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Because with this policy we at least have the right to bring it up. Our current policy doesn't allow us to do that. Because of the power void around bcrats here, there is very little else I could expect to get by with. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:10, 4 February 2009 - )
(EC)I think it's different because it actually gives a way for users to easily show their support, for evaluating an admin (where as now we just bring it up on this talk page and very little discussion goes on). I believe what they do on GWW, is they create a new section on the Sysops RfA (called reconfirmation) where any user who wishes to reconfirm a user can sign, and if there's "overwhelming support" then a reconfirmation takes place (another RfA basically). Though personally I see very little difference between point 1 and 3... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 14:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I think the difference between 1 and 3 is to allow sysops who've lost their status as a sysop to re-gain it, but I could be wrong. Also, I think the reconfirmation RfA works just how a new one would. For, against, and neutral. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:15, 4 February 2009 - )
The third point is for existing sysops to decide when one person is sufficient to request a reconfirmation for sysops that existed before the policy existed. An example of a reconfirmation can be found here and here. I'll point you to the fact that no action has been taken and there has been no further discussion. Exactly the same as when it was requested that Frv go through a reconfirmation. What you are asking for is EXACTLY the same as we have now, except it occurs on this talk page or on a bcrat's talk page. - Miserysig (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Then I'll change it up. No reason in adding more policies that we wont follow lol. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (14:23, 4 February 2009 - )

2nd suggestion for Reconfirmation policy

Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his or her role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop.

While a user is a sysop, any PvX user may add a "Request for reconfirmation" section to that sysop's latest successful RfA, which can be found here. Short explanations are encouraged, but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary.

Reconfirmation can brought about by one of the following conditions:

  • PvX user support. Any PvX user may add a reconfirmation section to a current sysop's RfA.
A request for reconfirmation should be similar to a normal RfA with 3 sections: (1) Support, (2) Oppose, and (3) Neutral. Any vote considered to be a personal attack or any vote presented without evidence will be thrown out (deciding which votes will be cast out is left up to the bureaucrats). At any time during the process, the sysop whom is under scrutiny may ask for a vote to be reviewed on the project's discussion page. A bureaucrat must review all votes in question before this process can end.
After a period of two weeks if the sysop has received over a 50% majority of users who have voted against reconfirmation, a review process will begin. This review process will be handled by a council of at least 2 current sysops, 2 current bureaucrats, and 2 voting members (1 who opposed and 1 who confirmed). This council will decide as quickly and fairly as possible what actions should be taken against the sysop and whether or not the user should lose their sysop status.
  • A sysop voluntarily choosing to go through the process.
  • At least 2 of a sysop's peers (other sysops or bureaucrats) suggest that a sysop go through the process.
If a sysop volunteers to go through the review process or it is suggested that a sysop do so by at least 2 of his or her peers, then there is no need for the first stage of voting. Should this occur, a council will be formed of the 2 sysops who suggested the review and 2 bureaucrats to decide what actions should be taken.

Any sysop in question should be actively involved in the process, but should also avoid personal attacks. This process is meant to encourage accountability and improve the quality of the wiki. It is not intended to be aggressive towards the sysop personally.

What do you guys think? It might be too much. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (15:04, 4 February 2009 - )
Looks good.The main issue is, We don't really have 2 BCrats >.>;. We have Auron and that's it (Hippo and GCard are server side and shouldn't be contacted over something like this, and DE's fairly inactive, so contacting him solely for this seems...can't think of the word). As such it might be worth saying 3 other Sysops and a(the?) Bcrat. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:20, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I think the idea of just using 1 bcrat gives Auron too much power. Imo, we need to nominate some new bcrats anyway. This would be a good way to kill two birds with 1 stone. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (15:22, 4 February 2009 - )
The parts I disagree with are the council of six and the vote to have a discussion. Bureaucrats should retain the right of promotion/demotion. It's basically their only job. You may think that the whole system makes it "fairer", but truth be told a bcrat could RfA someone demoted by this the next day and just repromote them. The vote seems a little ridiculous. Perhaps a threshold of people who request a confirmation is more appropriate, but this could easily result in "Hey guys, I don't like X, help me force a reconfirmation". I still oppose the idea in general for reasons outlined in the wall of text above. As for new bureaucrats, I honestly cannot think of any active member of this site who would be appropriate. - Miserysig (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Any suggestions on how to improve it then? And I feel that this policy idea does leave bcrats the responsibility to promote/demote admins. If it doesn't do that clearly, it should be written in more clearly. And I don't think anyone could just get a group together to put an admin through this process considering that the admin in question has the right to ask for any vote to be reviewed and each vote has to have evidence or it is disqualified (at the discretion of a bcrat). I honestly don't see how this policy could get a sysop demoted w/o a just cause considering all the fail-safes in it. Oh, and we need to find someone worth being a bcrat. We need more than 1. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (15:51, 4 February 2009 - )
Simpler system (simple is good): Reconfirmation requested, bcrats say yay or nay. Vote begins. Bcrats decide outcome. All we really need to do is add a clear place where reconfirmation can be requested. You don't want a vote starting EVERY time ANYONE requests reconfirmation or every time some new guy comes along and gets banned they will be asking for a reconfirmation and everyone will have to vote within two weeks. - Miserysig (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)Sorry, I don't think I addressed what you were actually saying. A threshold could cause people to just try to get admins thrown out, that's why I thought the 2 week period was a good idea and it has some built in fail-safes to keep people from trying to screw over any sysop. You're right about the fact that a bcrat could just demote a sysop, make a new RfA, and then promote them again. We need to put something in the policy that prevents that from happening. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (16:00, 4 February 2009 - )
You're also right about the fact that every new guy could just start a new reconfirmation page. Maybe we should have a requirement of who can start reconfirmations. Maybe a length of time that they have been a member or something like that. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (16:02, 4 February 2009 - )

(edit conflict) The process as outlined seems needlessly complicated. First off, you outline a rudimentary procedure by which Bureaucrats specifically decide to either retain or cast away each individual vote on the basis of two loosely defined criteria. What that essentially amounts to is what Bureaucrats already do on RfAs without the needless bureaucratic rigmarole. If the Bureaucrats so choose, they can cast away enough votes to create/destroy a majority, so there's no good reason as far as I can tell to "go through the motions," so to speak, rather than saying simply that the request for reconfirmation is handled in the same manner as an RfA. In regard to the "council," my first issue is that you say that it should include two regular editors, one who voted opposed, one who voted support, but you neglect to outline any process by which these two users are actually selected. Frankly, for essentially the same reasons that Misery lists above, I don't know why this "council" exists at all. Demotion/promotion is the specific reason for which Bureaucrats are created, and EVAL already states that they should act on the advice (and consent) of the sysops. By the time you realize that the Bureaucrats can exert de facto control over the council irregardless of any provisions made in the policy short of cutting them out altogether (and the initial vote for the aforementioned reasons)... well... the whole thing becomes a bureaucratic sham even worse than a simple RfA. I think Misery has the right idea; if support (don't bother with neutral or oppose) for an RfR reaches a certain absolute threshold, a second RfA takes place. Simple, clean cut. Sure, you can stack the RfR w/ friends, but you can't stack the RfA, so it's a moot point. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:05, 4 February 2009 (EST)

(EC ×some big number)Truthfully the idea of having the 2 normal users on the council struck me as odd. While i agree with Misery on the point that BCrats get the final say, I obviously think current Sysops should get a chance to talk it through with the deciding Bcrat(s), as it's a decision that will largely affect them (of course normal users are affected as well, but not as much...I wish I was more articulate...It's always difficult putting thoughts into words without it sounding weird...). The thought had crossed my mind that perhaps instead of an "RfA" as reconfirmation, that we just have a list of users signing (with links/reasons) saying they wish this Sysop to be reconfirmed instead. For instance, we could say after the first user propose reconfirmation, there's a set period of time, for users to support it. If a certain number of users support it (again, ideally with links and/or reasoning), then it goes to this council, where a decision is made. But like Misery said, such a system would be open to abuse...(But i guess if at the end of the day it's the BCrats decision anyway, it shouldn't matter too much...). Like i said before we only have 1 Bcrat (wiki side), which would make this system extremely difficult, for the reasons KJ said. If such a system were implemented, i'd want at least 1 more Bcrat (2 more would be better as there'd be a tie breaking vote or something like that...) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:06, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Ok, I get what you guys are saying now, but what are you suggesting should occur instead? An RfR with support only? Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (16:08, 4 February 2009 - )
Followed by a traditional RfA -- assuming you want a more in-depth vote before the decision goes to the Bureaucrats -- yes. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)
^. So some user thinks that a sysop needs to be reconfirmed. He goes and request reconfirmation. It then needs a predetermined amount of users to support it, over a given time period (in your suggestion 2 weeks i believe). If after 2 weeks of the user requesting reconfirmation, there's enough support, then another RfA is created for the sysop, and then the rest continues as a normal RfA (with the exception being if it fails the Sysop loses their privileges, and if it succeeds they keep it). If after the 2 week period there's not enough support, the RfR just dies, and the sysop retains their powers. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

3rd suggestion for Reconfirmation policy

Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his or her role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop.

Reconfirmation can brought about by one of the following conditions:

  • PvX user support. Any PvX user who is currently active and has been a member of PvXWiki for at least 3 months may start a Request for Reconfirmation (RfR). Short explanations are encouraged, but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. .
A request for reconfirmation should be similar to a normal RfA except with only 1 section: Support. Members who support the need for the reconfirmation of the sysop should sign the request. If after 2 weeks of the user requesting reconfirmation there's enough support, then another RfA is created for the sysop. If the RfR does not have adequate support after 2 weeks, the issue is considered over and the sysop keeps their privileges.
The new RfA will function exactly as a normal RfA. If it succeeds, the sysop keeps their privileges. If it fails, the sysop loses their privileges.
Bureaucrats hold the overall say in whether or not a RfR has received enough support to warrant a new RfA and whether or not a sysop should be demoted.
  • A sysop voluntarily choosing to go through the process.
  • At least 2 of a sysop's peers (other sysops or bureaucrats) suggest that a sysop go through the process.
If a sysop volunteers to go through the review process or it is suggested that a sysop do so by at least 2 of his or her peers, then there is no need for the first stage of getting signatures. In this case, a new RfA should be started with the same ramifications as mentioned earlier.

Any sysop in question should be actively involved in the process, but should also avoid personal attacks. This process is meant to encourage accountability and improve the quality of the wiki. It is not intended to be aggressive towards the sysop personally.

Ok, how about that? I think it incorporates all you guys have just said. The only problem I see with it is deciding what limit should be placed on the RfR to qualify a new RfA. We could just leave it to the bcrats to decide. What do you guys think? Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (16:29, 4 February 2009 - )
Just leaving it to the bcrats to decide sounds excellent to me. - Miserysig (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Ok, I'm fine with that. Added it to the policy. Now the problem is that we need more bcrats. I agree with Phen that we need at least 1 more, if not 2. Karate Jesus (Talk | contribs) (16:36, 4 February 2009 - )
That is not a good idea tbh. Name me someone who would be a good bureaucrat out of the current sysop pool. ~~     Frvwfr2   Frv Boston  talk    admin   16:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.