After all concerns from concern stage of this discussion has been resolved and taken into account, proposal located in "Proposal" section above has been created and put to voting. To join the voting, you simply use buttons located in "Voting" section of this page and fill the resulting page.
Have a happy voting!
After discussing the issue in regards to the frequency of administrator reviews (now referred to as "Quarterly User Rights Reviews"), the following proposal is presented to revise the provisional bylaws, to only hold the reviews twice per year, on February 10 and August 10.
Article X: Demotions
1. All promoted users may keep their position as long as they want, with the exceptions outlined in this section.
B. Retirement and resignation
1. Any user who wishes to no longer hold a promoted position and thus retires or resigns can demote themselves. They may notify a bureaucrat to have their powers removed as well.
2. If a bureaucrat resigns or retires and fails to remove their powers, FANDOM Staff will be contacted to demote them.
1. A user may be terminated for various reasons, including, but not limited to: inactivity, violating the rules, abuse of rights, and/or disruptive behavior.
2. The process for termination is different depending on the user's position in the wiki.
a. Termination of a rollback must be done so by a majority vote of all administrators.
b. Termination of a chat moderator, discussion moderator, or an assistant must be done so by a majority vote of all bureaucrats. The rest of the administration (sysop only) may overrule the decision by a majority vote.
c. Termination of an administrator or bureaucrat must be done so through the user rights review process.
D. QuarterlyBi-Annual User Rights Reviews
1. Every three (3)six (6) months, all bureaucrats, administrators, assistants, discussion moderators, and chat moderators will be put through a review process so the community can assess their status to ensure the most qualified people remain in their positions.
2. AdministrationThese reviews will occur four timestwice per year, beginning on the following dates: February 10 and, May 10, August 10, and November 10.
3. If a user was promoted within one (1) week prior to the creation of the review, they will be exempt from the review.
4. The community shall vote on whether each promoted user should remain in their position or be demoted.
5. Each review period will last two (2) weeks. After two weeks, those users with a majority of all participants and participating administrators (more than 50%) supporting the removal of their position (excluding neutrals) will be subject to demotion.
6. Bureaucrats will discuss in private to determine the final verdict.
E. Emergency User Rights Review
a. An Emergency User Rights Review may occur between the quarterly user rights reviews if a promoted user is abusing their powers and needs to be demoted.
b. In such a case, a promoted user may be suspended, pending review, in accordance with this section.
i. In the event that a promoted user is not following the rules and/or are abusing their powers, a bureaucrat must inform them of their wrongdoing, in case of any misinterpretations.
ii. If the promoted user does not stand down or admit to wrongdoing and thus the bureaucrat fails to resolve the issue, they may demote the promoted user for a suspension of one (1) week.
iii. After the suspension (clause b, above), the said bureaucrat must then create an Emergency User Rights Review discussion.
iv. Any administrator who is demoted after their adminship is terminated, obtains "former administrator" status.
c. Creating a User Rights Review discussion by any non-administrator to have another user demoted from any position is prohibited and will result in the deletion of that discussion.
a. If a user feels that an administrator should be demoted, they must contact an administrator to make a request.
b. The administrators will discuss whether or not the promoted user in question should have a review discussion to let the community decide if that user should be demoted.
c. A majority of administrators must support a review discussion in order for it to be created in the first place. If it is determined that a majority of administrators do not support such a discussion taking place, the request is dropped.
d. Once a majority of administrators support the creation of a review discussion, they must notify the administrator in question to give them the following choices:
i. Resign from the position. The administrators can then decide if that user should remain as an assistant or not if the user in question chooses to resign.
ii. Write up a paragraph defending their keeping the position so that it can be presented before the demotion discussion begins. Once their defense has been submitted, the review discussion can be started immediately.
iii. If the user does neither of these, the review discussion will be posted three (3) days after the user in question is notified.
e. Once the review discussion is posted, it will be in the following format.
i. The administrators will list all the administrators who supported the creation of the discussion to show validation of the discussion.
ii. Each user will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, summing up on what should be done, whether it is a complete demotion, demotion to another position, suspension, block, and/or combination.
iii. After seven (7) days of discussion, the first stage will close. All listed options will be put up for a vote.
f. In order to terminate or suspend a bureaucrat or administrator, a majority of participating administrators (50% or more) and 70% of all participants must support the termination or suspension in order for it to be valid, not counting neutrals. The discussion must last no less than seven (7) days. The promoted user in question does not have a vote or is counted in the percentage for the decision but may make comments.
g. If the termination is successful, the terminated user cannot be repromoted unless they go through a successful request process.
h. If the termination is unsuccessful, another demotion discussion cannot take place until one (1) month after the close of the preceding demotion discussion.
1. When a promoted user becomes inactive, they shall be warned. If they do not edit within three (3) days after the warning, they will be demoted immediately at the discretion of a bureaucrat, unless otherwise stated.
2. If a promoted user goes on an extended vacation or leave of absence with intentions of returning, they may declare "wikibreak" status. See the article on definitions for wikibreak policies.
This voting stage ends on Friday, January 5, 2018 at 1:03 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 18:02, December 29, 2017 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - While 3 months is a lot more pressure, a lot was covered in our last admin review so I think 3 months is more beneficial. Only if users need the rights should they have them.--Ɔ • W • blɿoWɘʜTxoЯɘƨɘɘʜƆ 22:16, December 29, 2017 (UTC)
Support - Good because not in those pressure months on either hemisphere of the world. Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 00:31, December 30, 2017 (UTC)
Support - The big issue is with it being too frequent we have people resigning and leaving because of the tension associated with this. seems especially true around any major holiday. I think gathering input need only happen twice a year or three times a year because of the holiday seasons (christmas, holloween, new years, etc) Auron⚡ Yeah, that's right baby! Welcome to my locker! ⚡
Oppose - six months is too long, and this isn't as big of a deal as users are making it out to be. it shouldn't be a source of stress if you are doing your job well, in which case the community will vote to keep you. users resigning is not an issue. if you cannot handle the stress of being evaluated, you are likely not fit for the position. ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯04:12, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - 6 months isn't too long. The former method we used worked perfectly and there wasn't any stress or tensions. A lot to people resigned and got demoted from the last admin reviews. So now, the staff here on ESB has decreased quite a bit. So I don't see why 6 months is a problem. Some people are doing their jobs very well yet people vote neutral or remove. We've lost so many people in the last review that I definitely understand how it feels. For an example, on this review, some people voted remove yet Jack only returned from wikibreak. Also, there isn't any need for the reviews to be every 3 months. Literally, one of the reasons on the proposal made to change it was that we had too much staff at the time. Per AMK's concern on that discussion as well. We never had a problem with 6 months so why change it? 3 months is too excessive and unnecessary. Which is why, I think we should change it back to every 6 months so it'll happen twice a year. (Contact • Contrib) 13:43, December 31, 2017 (UTC)