Phenaxkian (talk | contribs) m (→Active Nominations: -1) |
Phenaxkian (talk | contribs) m (→Current Meta Caretakers: +1) |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==Current Meta Caretakers== |
==Current Meta Caretakers== |
||
+ | *[[User:Aonsephonie]] |
||
*[[User:Crow]] |
*[[User:Crow]] |
||
*[[User:Frosty]] |
*[[User:Frosty]] |
Revision as of 13:55, 28 May 2011
This page is an official policy on PvXwiki. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. |
This policy outlines the role and responsibilities of the Meta Caretakers.
MCs are users who have an understanding of the high-end PvP (GvG and HA) metagame that qualifies them to make calls on whether a given GvG/HA build is Meta, fringe, or non-viable in the current metagame.
PvE and low-end PvP MCs are not being appointed, as the metagames of these areas do not change frequently enough to need a special position to maintain the meta sections. Community consensus will be relied upon for recognizing the PvE and low-end PvP metas.
Responsibilities
- MCs can post HA/GvG builds straight into the Meta category.
- MCs have the final say on whether a build is in the GvG or HA metagame.
- If the metagame changes such that a build is no longer viable, they should archive the build as per PvX:VETTING.
Conduct
- MCs are still expected to adhere to all other PvXwiki policies.
- If a user and MC get into a conflict over the Meta status of a build, the MC's decision will be enforced by the Administrators.
Requests for Meta Caretaker
The RfMC process follows the same procedure as an RfA. The difference is simply in the role, and that no new user group will be created for Meta Caretakers, as they have no special editing rights that would require it. As with the RfA process, bureaucrats will be responsible for promotion/failing of RfMCs.
A category containing links to all resolved RfMCs may be found here.
Active Nominations
nominations go here
Instructions
This simple three-step plan was adopted from GuildWiki in order to facilitate nominations.
-
Insert the following text in the active nominations section above, underneath any existing entries:
{{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username}}
-
Proceed to click on the red link created by the 1st template, and insert:
{{subst:rfmc1|Username|Rationale for nomination. ~~~~}}
-
Finally, insert the following templates at the top of the nominee's talk page:
{{subst:rfmc2|Username}}
Note: The nomination itself counts as a "support" vote. The nominator does not vote on the RfMC.