Bleach Wiki talk:Policy & Standards Committee

Proposal for procedure to remove members and the captain (me)
We will soon be getting a few new members and so it is about time we start to think about how and under what circumstance people can be kicked out of the committee. That of course includes myself. So here goes,

Removal of seated member
Conditions under which an involuntary (people can always resign) removal would be considered,
 * In-active for six months or more.
 * Repeated abuse of rollback privileges
 * Non-performance/non-communication with the committee - this is different from being in-active. They might still be active in the wiki but if they suddenly stopped talking to the committee and responding to messages or looking after projects to which they are assigned, then its problem
 * Repeated violation of Bleach wiki policies - remember, most people were let into the committee because they didn't have violations to their name

How to remove,
 * The removal request be brought up on the committee page (that's the committee page's discussion section NOT this talk page) by one member and second by another.
 * Depending on the severity of the situation the captain (me) might choose to put the matter straight to the admins for them to vote for revoking roll-back rights and dropping the member from the committee or, if I am unsure I can open up a vote on the matter and provided the majority of the committee members want the person evicted, I will pass it along to the admins with the recommendation that they be dropped.

Removal of the captain
Only thing different here is that the period of in-activity is three months, instead of six. Basically, the captain is suppose to keep the thing running. If the captain is not here... the absence should be more notable then the absence of a seated officer. So. Three months of inactivity and the captain get's dropped down to a seated officer. Three months more of inactivity and the person get's dropped from the committee entirely.

As for how to remove, all members have to agree on the removal of the captain AND, this is very important, agree that the vice-captain should take over as the new captain. If the Vice-captain doesn't want to, then another committee member has to be picked. Then the admins are to be contacted to ask for the removal of the captain and the seating of the new captain. The admins will of course have the final say.

So these are my suggestions. What do you guys think. Tinni  (Talk)  13:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Procedure Discussions

 * I agree with the Seated Officer section completely. I am guessing as Vice-Captain the same rules apply for me as with u, right? Eitherway it doesn't matter to me. There is one thing I think might need be added. If u were to be promoted to a Captain(Sysop). While Bleach Wikia is not looking for any Admins u would be the first they would pick. So a third Section should be added saying:


 * "Another way of removal of the Captain would be thru Promotion. If the Captain is promoted to Adminship, then the Vice-Captain should take-over. If the Vice-Captain is not willing then another member has to be picked."


 * I also think that(I kno I am the Vice-Captain and I would take-over if the situation calls for it)if the Vice is unwilling to become Cap, then the Admins should be the ones to decide(on both the removal, via In-active and promotion). These r just my suggestions Minato  (Talk)  14:11, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add one thing. If the Vice is unwilling to take command, then it should be decided that he be moved to a Seated Position and the Admins should pick two users to replace the Cap and Vice. Minato  (Talk)  14:28, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Good suggestions. There is no hurry in deciding any of this. Well codify the policies in due time. For now, let's just leave these suggestions here for discussion, modification etc. We are in no hurry. Tinni  (Talk)  14:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Everything seems fair enough. From the looks of things, there won't be a new admin any time soon, though a few of them do seem to be currently inactive. Obviously, Tinni would be the next in line for adminship if that time comes, if they have officially adopted the policy of using Committee members as admin candidates. At any rate, I hope that the current projects are completed before then. Mohrpheus 17:34, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about committee members (including myself) leaving the committee by becoming admins, simply because that's a form of voluntary removal. If a member leaves voluntarily, then it is simply a matter of declaring lowest seat vacant and asking for nomination and again putting the nominations up for vote amongst us and the admin and giving the seat to whoever wins the most approval and moving everybody else up one. Same deal if the captain resigns, the vice-captain automatically takes over - 3rd seat becomes new vice-captain, 4th seat becomes new 3rd seat etc, etc and then the lowest seat gets declared vacant. Only time there will be an issue if someone doesn't want to move up. There might be good reasons for this, they don't have the time for the increased responsibility or is happy where they are. If that happens, it is probably best to discuss each individual circumstances amongst ourselves and the admins and act accordingly. Tinni  (Talk)  01:11, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reading over some of this and feel I should clarify on my suggestions, or atleast one part. When I said: "I also think that(I kno I am the Vice-Captain and I would take-over if the situation calls for it)if the Vice is unwilling to become Cap, then the Admins should be the ones to decide(on both the removal, via In-active and promotion)." To be more specific, I only think the Admins should get involved if the Vice is unwilling to accept the promotion and that the Admins should pick two other members from the Committee. One for the Cap and one for the Vice.


 * Also I disagree with Tinni's statement above, or a certain part of it. I do not like the idea of an Admin being on the Committee. If one of the Committee was to become an Admin they must first, or right after, resign from the Committee and another user should be chosen to fill that persons role, or we could wait for someone to nominate themselves. Either way. Reason: Having and Admin on the Committee goes against y the Committee was formed, i.e to free up the Admins so they can focus on other things. Having an Admin on the Committee would be like having Ikkaku and Yumichika attend a Captains meeting, its unethical. Minato  (Talk)  00:30, January 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Minato, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I mean, no one can force a person to become an admin. So if one of the members of the committee is offered a role as an admin, it is still their choice as to whether they accept and leave the committee or decline because they don't want the increased responsibility that goes with being an admin. I didn't mean that they can be an admin AND stay on the committee. That's crazy talk! So in essence becoming an admin is same as resigning, where the resignation is automatic upon accepting the adminship. Tinni   (Talk)  01:12, January 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. My bad. Srry bout that. Minato  (Talk)  01:18, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has been sitting here for awhile. I agree, Tinni u agree, and Mohrpheus agrees. I'm sure the others have read it and agree as well. Yyp brought it up on the Admin talkpage and the Admins haven't objected or anything, so I think they trust us and r letting us run our show. I think its time we made it official. So Tinni do u think we should make it its own page or try and fit it in on the Committee page? Minato (Talk)  00:39, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Boxes
Just letting you all know that I have made a set of contribution boxes for each of our projects. Members of the committee, admins and any use who assists with the projects may choose to use the box on their users pages. Just a bit of fun and a extra bit of user page decoration for helping with the projects. Anyway, the boxes are below. The control of the boxes are with individual projects. Tinni  (Talk)  06:41, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Synposis -> plot
It's been decided that in the case of the major character articles the word "synopsis" no longer applies dues to the volume of detail on the page. So the section is to be renamed "plot". So when you find yourself editing a major article, please also take the time to change the section title from synopsis -> plot. Thanks! Tinni  (Talk)  04:33, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (Weedefinition)
User Weedefinition has nominated himself for a spot on the Committee. He has pointed out that he has over 1000 edits, has written or helped write many Anime Summaries, as well as a few Fight summaries. He admits to typos and other errors, but all-in-all seems he just want to be of some help. Supermagnum alerted me to Tinni's msg on my page asking me to vote, so I created this section so the Committee members can vote here on whether or not we think he should pass. To the Committee, plz voice what u think, "Support", "Neutral" or "Oppose".

I have no objections. TomServo101 (Talk)  17:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I can support this, but I am reserving judgment until Tinni votes and I will explain why. I took a quick look at his recent contributions, since I haven't been around much. I have known Weede for quite sometime now. He has been around for awhile and I imagine he is up-to-date with the Policies. He is on frequently, consistently(much more so then myself), and doesn't spend all of his time on the Forums or Blogs.

However, I am aware that he and our Cappy, Tinni has had some disputes over some issues. They do seem to be on better terms now, so if Tinni votes either "Support" or Neutral, I will vote support, but if she "Opposes" this I will also oppose it, mainly because I don't want the Committee to have any problems getting along.

I don't mean to bring up any old issues which should best be forgotten, and if they have been forgotten I apologize. Its just I felt I should say something about it since I do remember it. Minato (Talk)  19:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well personal dislike is not grounds for opposition but even if it was, I wouldn't oppose Weedefinition on those grounds. I am mostly neutral on Weedefinition. I mean, he does contribute a great deal to committee projects but he is applying for membership mostly for the rollback. I am a bit iffy about why he wants rollback given that he does far less vandalism reversal and edit undos then most people. I read his original request for rollback and it seemed to be it was prompted by a spade of vandalisms that were happening at the time. Since then I don't recall seeing a lot of "Undo revision XXXXX by Weedefinition" all that much. My original issues with Weedefinition were his tendency to bring-up discussion topics in the talk pages that were strictly time-wasters, which can be an issue as a member of the committee he would be charged with answering and closing discussions, not something he's all that skilled in. But his solid contribution to committee project does out-weight a lot of these concerns. So really I don't think there is much grounds on which Weedefinition can be opposed. Tinni   (Talk)  03:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Huh. So Weedefinition has nominated himself to be on the committee, hmm? Well, there is no doubt that he (as Minato pointed out) is "on frequently, consistently (much more so then myself), and doesn't spend all of his time on the Forums or Blogs" in addition to seemingly to have knowledge of policies and such. Of course, the contributions must also be considered (which are fairly solid). If his membership request really is simply for having rollback rights, I am neutral on that front. I have not had much interaction with him, aside from one minor "dispute" in regards to my edits on the Tōshirō Hitsugaya vs. Luppi page. But he did give an apology for his comments, saying that he was "more seeking an explanation for them." Honestly, I am sort-of between support & neutral so I will be neutral for now. I do admit that from what I can gather, there is not much for Weedefinition's request to be opposed.- Mr. N 03:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)



While Weedefinition may occasionally cause minor problems on the talk pages, or not really undo much vandalism, I feel that this is far outweighed by the good that has already been mentioned (helping out with committee projects, following the rules, being on frequently, etc.). This is enough reason for me to give a support. TheDevilHand888 05:30, July 3, 2010 (UTC)