Bleach Wiki talk:Administrators

Committee Nominations (Minato88)

 * 1)  Minato88 has put himself up for nomination to the Policy & Standards Committee. What I have found in regard to his qualifications are that he is commonly on the site, he gets along with others, always wiling to help with an issue or debate, he is keen on jumping into doing the projects on the wiki. He is vigilante when it comes to getting rid of speculation and vandalism and tries to adhere to the policies of the wiki. He would be a welcome addition to the committee. Salubri 21:18, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree. Both from looking through his contributions list and from memory, his edits have been very good. One thing that sticks out in my memory is that he re-organized the character pages in accordance with the Layout Guide in the Manual of Style (trivia, quotes & relationship sections had been out of correct order) and has done some episode summaries in the past too. He would be a great member of the committee. --Yyp 23:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Minato88 does make a good effort to conform to wiki policies and works hard to help others and be a benefit to the community. I think it'd be good to have his (her?) eye on the recent anime episode summaries created and I think s/he'd do a good job making new ones. Twocents 04:23, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Minato88 seems pretty much on the level. He follows through on our policies well enough, and has helped with the articles immensely, adding content, references, and rearranging them in the right order. He also talks to other users when he feels they should know a few things they haven't read up on yet. He's got my vote. Arrancar109 05:30, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Images
I've noticed this for quite some time, and I was thinking: how long after someone uploads an image should we give them time to do something with it before deleting it? Or should we just continue to allow every image (barring pornographic ones) to stay on file? Some people upload images for their user pages (I assume) and they never get used, but a lot of recent additions have been poor quality images that have been added to an article (and subsequently removed), but the image file stays on hand. I noticed a while back that some users were reprimanding others for uploading duplicate files, but with how many images we have uploaded (especially ones with non-descriptive names), it's not surprising that similar or identical images get uploaded all the time. I figured it's probably our job to be deleting unused image files, so duplicates aren't constantly being added, and it'd be a good way to demonstrate to users that we won't tolerate poor images being constantly added. (By poor, I mean ones with low image quality, with subtitles, with mouse arrows in them, with black bars that should have been cropped out, etc. as well as ones that violate our rules, such as fan-colored images that are added to articles and the like.)

It's just been something I've been pondering for a while, and I wondered what you guys thought. Twocents 21:15, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

There is a large amount of unused pictures on the site. In the case of poor quality images that are removed from pages but left alone, I think we should list them for deletion when removing them from the pages and if nobody expresses support for them, delete them after a few days. I did add it to the manual of style that pictures should be given names descriptive of their content. Something I was thinking of adding to the user page policy was that users should mark for deletion any picture that they uploaded for their profile if they are no longer using it. Problem is that most of them won't remember to do this (or may never even notice that in the manual). --Yyp 15:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. It'll give people time to find alternate uses for the images - such as if they want to put them on their user page instead - and it'll cut down on unused, poor quality, and/or duplicate images. I think we can add that second part to the User Page Policy, and while we don't have much control over whether users actually remember to do that or not, it may help. Twocents 19:53, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went through all the images uploaded in the month of November. (Well, not all of them. I generally assumed that we were capable of uploading useful images.) It's surprising how many duplicate files, unused images and images with useless file names were uploaded. I deleted all the duplicates (and one in clear violation of our rules) and marked all the unused ones for deletion. We can wait a few days to give people enough time to find a use for them or argue for why they should be kept. I didn't know what to do with the ones with poor file names, but I'm wondering if we should move them to ones that are more descriptive; that way, those that are considering uploading similar images will at least be able to search and see if it already exists. Twocents 03:19, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved a few of the poorly named ones to descriptive names. I didn't touch the ones that were already listed for deletion, as there is little point unless it is decided to keep any of them. --Yyp 14:42, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Added that bit about users marking old profile pictures for deletion to user page policy. --Yyp 18:42, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through October's uploads, so every unused pic back to the 30 September is marked for deletion. If nobody has done anything with them, I'll start deleting them at the end of the month. --Yyp 14:54, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gotten back to the start of August now. I'm not going any further for now (there's a total of 240 files marked for deletion atm). On Monday or Tuesday I'll start to delete those that are still unused. --Yyp 14:24, November 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll make a start on them tomorrow morning. There are now 260 of them. --Yyp 10:28, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Also if the pics are quality you can protect them from being duplicated read the admin section or protection under help i think there is something there on protecting the name of a pic so duplicates arent made. Salubri 23:30, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

How long do we want to give someone to do something with the picture they've uploaded? I've been marking them with the delete tag if they're not used within an hour or two after being uploaded, but I wasn't sure as far as deleting them. Give them like three days or...? Twocents 19:13, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Well that just brings up the issue of timing. Twocents you have it right in my opinion to give them an hour or two otherwise its liable to stay there with no purpose. Id say give it a day and the delete it. On another note the warning policy seems kind of overly friendly. Now i know the general outlook is that we want people to contribute to the wiki. But besides accidents that can happen warning someone up to three times seems kind of ridiculous, seeing why should you have to tell someone there doing the wrong thing that many times. There are policies on the site for a reason, they get a link to it when they first sign on and old users should have been on long enough to know better. We want to be fair but in the real world you dont get to drive through red lights because you werent aware of the rules you still get a ticket. Just something to think about is all im saying. Salubri 19:36, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was thinking the same thing, since if I was going to upload an image, I'd turn around and use it right away. So I figure if someone's not doing that, then they probably have no intention to use it.

I can understand being a bit generous if it's a new-ish policy or if it's a genuine mistake, but I agree. I think that people are linked to all our policies when they join and older users have been told about the policies through the news and they could find the policies themselves by checking out the redesigned sidebar. I think we should operate on the assumption that they know, or should know, the policies. As in your example, you wouldn't get out of a ticket if you told the cop that you didn't know there was a law against driving through red lights. Twocents 01:34, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to modify the blocking policy, then, to set something up for the second policy violation? Should it say at the top of the page (or wherever) that it's assumed that people are familiar with our policies? Twocents 02:01, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Well something should be said because baseball three strikes your out rule doesn't make sense. We aren't 5 year olds here we all are young adults, adults and we shouldnt have to talk to people like there little kids. Salubri 07:54, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Image Policy
So, after talking with Logeys about the manual of style, he had mentioned offhand that he had gotten in trouble for something similar on the Naruto Wikia. I went to check it out (because I'm nosy) and they spoke to him in late October about the same thing I did. The point of this, though, is that I saw that they have a formalized image policy. I know we have some mentions of how images should be added and uploaded in the manual of style, but it might be nice to have it all in one place, so it's easily locatable for users. Plus, then we could be more clear about how our system of fair use tags are supposed to be used (because I'm sure several users are confused on that, as most don't bother to select a fair use tag). The Naruto Wikia's policy is here. I'm not saying we should copy it, but I think it's something to think about anyway. Twocents 01:32, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. It would allow us to expand on what we have and be much more specific. Set out things like acceptable images, image quality and names, how long a user has to use an image after it is added before it is deleted, updating existing images, and adding licensing info etc. -- Yyp  (Talk)  12:27, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm willing to type something up and I'll present something to you guys about it soonish.

I was wondering, how do you feel about manga scans that include the text on the page? It often seems out of place to me. For example, the cover pages in volumes. Without the rest of the text, most of the dialogue on the cover doesn't make much sense. And I think it looks kind of messy. By text, I mean the actual conversation that's in speech bubbles, not like titles of the chapter (though I also dislike it when a long list of where the scan came from is included, but I know that can't always be erased so easily). I prefer it when people erase the text from the scans, but I wasn't sure if that was a general feeling or a personal preference of mine. Twocents  (Talk)  19:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Moved image policy text to Bleach Wiki:Image Policy. Twocents  (Talk)  03:04, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

It's a little longer than I initially thought it'd be (and wow, do a lot of images currently violate this policy), but I think it covers everything (that I could think of). Thoughts? (And I'll remove it from here once it's made into an official policy page.) Twocents   (Talk)  01:50, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I notice you changed the policy toward gifs which i personally dont agree with and thats not what is stated at all on the manuel of style. While I agree that pics are obviously more in demand regardless of what is felt of the quality of a gif personally the fact is there are alot of techniques be they (kido, shikai, bankai, or what have you that cannot be shown accurately with a simple still shot of a pic). Hence why some are necessary, the way you have it currently worded as if there where no gifs on the site or we dont like them. Id perfer the current policy on that particular issue be reflected as it currently is in the manuel of style if its being referred to in this new policy. Salubri 04:12, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * I modified that part a bit, but it does generally reflect what happens on the site. Gif movies that don't depict something that can be shown in a still are usually replaced because gifs do slow down people's computers, are of lower quality, and because they don't load fully for a lot of people anyway. And if you have a still, you should save it as a .jpg or .png for quality reasons, rather than a .gif. I made it a bit more neutral though; see if that's more in line with what you'd prefer. Twocents   (Talk)  04:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Its better though the argument is circumstantial only large amounts of gifs slow down pages and quality level is in the eye of the beholder, a good majority are fine. Personally if someones computer cant take it, a gif is probably the least of their problems with a computer. But my basic point is that gifs are there for a reason there is no argument that when something involves movement your not gonna get anything from a pic that also is an issue of quality. But in any case the way you have worded it is fine, thanks. Salubri 04:44, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. There's nothing else that I can think of adding to it. I'm happy with that. -- Yyp  (Talk)  10:34, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I know we don't have Arrancar109's input on it, but I've seen just from the recent edits that some users have had problems with images, so I'm going to go ahead and put it up. Twocents  (Talk)  03:04, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I added one additional thing to the policy. I don't imagine anyone would have a problem with it, but thought I'd point it out: I added that any user is welcome to add the templates that mark an image for deletion to get an administrator's attention on it. Twocents  (Talk)  04:00, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems fine. I'll add a notice about it to the community corner and main page news. -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

User Pages
Salubri and I have recently noticed that some users have taken a liking to creating their own Shinigami-esque characters, which we both feel is more suited for the wikis that focus on fanon. However, we generally don't mind it, except in cases where it's clear that they merely come on to the wiki to work on this character. This is particularly apparent for User:Eliskuya2. We've noticed that he tends to make multiple, minor edits to his user page, possibly merely for the sake of increasing his edit count. He makes few edits to actual articles, most of which seem to be modifying quotes for no apparent reason.

We also think he might have a problem with following the rules. As my edits to his user page telling him to not maintain a hitlist inspired the responses of telling me that it was "bull poop," deleting my edits with the edit summary saying (word-for-word), "I dislike you..Twocents..I hope sooner or later they well put you in time out :P" and "*facepalm*" and then he went to Yyp and asked her to make me stop. I've also seen him calling the admins he likes with the honorific "-sama" and I've seen him tell other users to stop something or else he'd make his "best friend" admin block them or whatever. I just get the feeling that he thinks he's above the rules.

While we might be willing to overlook occasional work on a user page that's done in addition to help edits to articles, we think that his attitude, generally poor interactions with and treatment of other users, and his complete focus on editing his user page possibly warrant something being said or done. When I warned him about his violations of policies on his talk page, I linked him to the User Page Policy three times and Yyp linked him to it twice. There's no reason he should be unaware of the policies outlined on that page, which clearly say that editing of a user page should be limited as the focus on this wiki is on the factual information contained in the articles.

It's not fair to the other users (who I've noticed have commented on his excessive editing to his user page) if we disregard the actions of someone who's ignoring one of our policies. The question, then, is what, if anything, should we do? Twocents 06:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what he has on his user page (so long as it's within the rules), and I would be alright with someone making a vast amount of edits to their user page, so long as they also made a fair amount of regular contributions to the main site. But I agree that this guy is making a disproportionate amount of edits to his own page compared to the main site. I have also noticed some poor treatment of others (although not recently - bar the comment to Twocents). imo something should be done, but I'm less certain about what exactly to do. I think he should be encouraged to contribute more regularly to the wiki while asking him to cut down on the editing of his user page. Maybe casually tell him about the bleach fanfic wiki where he can edit it as much as he wants. About his interactions with others, if he treats anyone poorly again in future, he should get a warning for it like anyone else would. --Yyp 15:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Like a cheerful message asking him to redirect editing efforts into the actual articles on the site, directing him to the Manual of Style in case he's unsure on how to properly edit articles, and adding in that there are other wikis that support and encourage fanfiction-esque content, where we don't so much. I could go along with that, depending on what Arrancar109 and Salubri think. And I agree that while his poor interactions with other users have been generally ignored previously, we should be intolerant of rude comments being directed toward others, as we would with anyone else. Twocents 19:57, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I see that he has added the Bleach Fan Fiction Wiki to the "where you can find me at" section of his page this morning. --Yyp 14:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there has been no improvement in this since it was last raised. Only 18 out of his 70 edits in the last month are to the wiki - the rest were on his page and mine & Twocent's pages. I've just gone through the edit history of the guy's user page and there are just shy of 1,000 edits to it, of which less than a dozen are by other people. That's virtually half of his total edits on this wiki. I'm leaving him a message. If he doesn't shape up, I was thinking of locking his user page for a week, and if he doesn't fall in line, then lock it indefinitely until he learns his lesson. -- Yyp  (Talk)  23:05, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Im all for it. Salubri 23:30, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think it sets a bad example when we overlook blatant, continued violations of our policies. Twocents 01:04, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Message delivered - he has removed his "profile" and set up a slimmed down version of it on the Bleach fanfic wiki. -- Yyp  (Talk)  11:35, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Support & Oppose Voting
Hey. I have moved the votes from the vote for Novembers featured article to the archive and have opened the vote for December's feature. Since Salubri added the Support/Oppose system to the voting policy a couple of weeks ago, I have changed the voting method on the three vote pages to reflect that. There has been a request for clarification on whether, under the new system, "1 vote per user" means only 1 vote regardless of whether you vote oppose/support, or are you allowed to cast 1 support vote and 1 oppose vote. --Yyp 15:51, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Actually thats a good question. Due to the change in the system I would say that a user should be allowed to support one and oppose another as thats technically what they are doing regardless though i think it should be highly stressed that when making these votes in general for anything it should be for the quality of the article. Now in the past i have seen people make comments to the effect of saying they just picked whoever cause they think he is awesome and that he's gonna do this or that in a fight, which is baseless and speculative. What happened to this character would be good for article of the month because they're article is well done or I pick whomever because of the large they are currently playing the series or will be playing. Also maybe I pick so and so because they dont get alot of recognition. I oppose this pick because he was recently already picked to be featured article or his article needs work or he is not at the forefront of storyline at this time. Im just saying that should be the policy if your making a comment make it substantial if your voting say you either support or oppose and sign your name, I should be able to click the name and it should take me to the users page. Salubri 20:59, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've clarified the number of votes allowed in the voting policy and on the page of the 3 votes, as well as mentioning it on the respective Talk Pages. --Yyp 23:31, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: When it comes time to count the votes, will we count it by adding all the support and subtracting out all opposing ones and then whatever has the highest count will win? Twocents 04:17, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is what happens when I pop off for a week. I see you already decided that. Sorry. ^_^; I still have a lot of edits and changes to pages to look through. Twocents 04:22, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Having poked around a bit more, should we add to the voting policy what counts as a poor reason for opposing an article, quote or picture? Since people can vote all month long for the latter two, and a talk page can get kind of cluttered, it might be nice to have a central place for people to reference it. Along those same lines, are we going to start deleting votes that support something without good reason? (In particular, I'm thinking of the votes supporting articles that say something like, "Because so-and-so is so cool!" and that's it.) It seems a bit unfair to delete poor votes for opposing something if we also don't enforce our reasons for why people should support the article, picture, or quote. Twocents 04:36, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * About the support votes - I was in the process of removing some of them, then stopped myself as I would have ended up removing nearly all the votes for Yammy & Zaraki! Some of the reasons given are borderline as to whether they're valid reasons or not, while there are others that seem like character bashing, but then stick in an actual valid reason right at the end. So a list of valid reasons for support/oppose should be added to the policy to clarify exactly what is & isn't allowed, to avoid anyone saying we're being unjust/inconsistent in what we allow. These are what I have atm, though I'm sure there are other good reasons, so do add any others in.

Support:
 * Yes: The character has a good quality article;
 * Yes: They are playing a significant role in the series right now;
 * Yes: You think they are more suitable to be featured than the other candidates;
 * No: You just really like the character or think they're awesome or are going to do something special (speculation);

Oppose:
 * Yes: You think the article needs more work before it is ready to be featured;
 * Yes: They have already been featured (or not enough time has elapsed since they were last featured);
 * Yes: You don't think that they have played much of a prominent role in the story;
 * Yes: You think that there is another article that is even more worthy of recognition;
 * No: You hate the character.

I'd also like to hear any thoughts about how the voting is going with the new system. I'm getting annoyed with the poor reasons, but that can be resolved with the list and clamping down. I know there has previously been switching of votes by people to try to stop a character they dislike from winning, but it is becoming far more prominent now. Also, we are likely to see a low total score for the winner, and some characters have minus scores right now. Should we consider saying that the winner must have a minimum of (+) 3 votes to be valid? Or is it fine the way it is? --Yyp 10:28, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

What time do we call a close to this vote at? Midnight according to the timestamps when people vote, or midnight in one of the US timezones? I'm going to leave it open for now, and if it is the former, we can simply discard any votes that are added after midnight on the timestamps. I would go with the wiki's timekeeping system, but I think it should be written into the rules either way, so everybody knows where they stand. --Yyp 00:08, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those additions are fine and it'd clarify what constitutes as a good vote. I thought of something else to add: under the "no" for support voting, voting for one article/quote/picture just because it looks like another one might win and you don't want that other article/quote/picture to win.
 * Plus, with a policy, no one can say that an admin overstepped the bounds. For the featured article, at least, I'm fine with requiring at least +3 total points. The featured picture and quote aren't as voted on yet, it seems, so we might have to wait until that gets more well-known before setting a limit like that. As far as the times, I think it should be the time stamp on their signing of the vote. That way, anyone can look at it and see that it passed the time end closing time.


 * Speaking of, with three featured things, how do we handle this? Who counts the votes, or can any admin do it? How do we want to format the featured quote and featured picture? I kind of think they should go in the skinny, right-hand column since they aren't as large as the featured article and it'd fill out the column a little more. Twocents 02:20, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Ok well my point on this is simple I dont think we should have a vote based on if you like the character or not this is not vote for your favorite character. It's about the article is it a quality article, informative, referenced properly. Not whether you like him/her or not, not how awesome he or she is or how they wont be featured again cause they are gonna die or do to what a user percieves them possibly doing in future storylines. The article quality should be key as well as the significance to the series as a whole. Opposition should only be based on the lack of quality of the article or if you find there to be another article that should be considered because of its quality as well as the the significance to the series as a whole. Also to discourage opposition based on not liking the character, oppose should just signify why your haven't voted for the character in favor of another. Some users have got the point and stated how they oppose a pick because of insignificance in the overall story or lack of quality, this way others can be informed as well to why the article may not be noteworthy and their vote can be an informed one. Also that should cut down on unnecessary math, so all that would have to be worried about it simple addition to what users support the articles as was previously done instead of subtracting from support and oppose and all that. Previously featured articles shouldnt be on the list for 2 months. Characters no longer in the storyline shouldn't be posted up at all. in the event of lack of votes or tie the admin vote. Salubri 00:24, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose doesn't count towards the vote is fine with me. It would put an end to a lot of the stupid reasons and bashing, as well as the blatant attempted manipulation. If we go with that, the # should be removed from in front of the "oppose" template, so that people won't get the wrong idea when they see numbers in front of "oppose". And then would there be any point limiting the number of oppose votes to just 1, since it won't actually count - there might be more than one article/pic/quote with problems that need to be highlighted. So are there any objections to the using the timestamp on their votes and the oppose vote not counting towards the total votes? If not, I'll go ahead and change it in the policy. --Yyp 10:34, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yea thats fine as long as its cleared up. The bashing is getting out of hand as well as the reasons the people place as legitimate it needs to be noted what is considered a legitimate vote. Salubri 23:30, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. We can take the oppose votes into consideration if we should have to break a tie, but it's just ridiculous how people are using the oppose voting now. I think if people start to treat it more legitimately, then we can reevaluate and possibly change it back to counting. Twocents 01:05, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll alter the voting policy accordingly. -- Yyp  (Talk)  11:35, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship
Not sure if you've seen this already, but the Requests for Adminship page has attracted a couple of posts over the past day or so, with Gold3263301 and Nikorayu both making requests. Additionally, Tinni has put a message asking those considering asking for adminship to offer to help the Policy/Standards Cmtte. --Yyp 15:09, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're looking for any more administrators ATM, but Gold3263301 would be considered, since he's been around for some time. As for Nikorayu... he just joined, and he only made 4 edits total. Even if we were looking for more Administrators, I wouldn't consider him at all, since he's new, we don't know much about him, and he has a very small edit history. Arrancar109 21:55, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about Nikorayu. No way we can know if s/he is up to the task. If we're not looking for more admins, then I'll leave Gold3263301 a message about the committee, and see if he is interested (Minato88 has said that he is considering him for it). Also, if we're not looking for more admins, then maybe we should change the bit on that page which says that requests for adminship are open? -- Yyp  (Talk)  22:46, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Your right or at the very least make it know the criteria for adminship is pretty high. Salubri 23:30, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

User:GODKING OF ICE CERBERUS WERE-GARURUMON has asked to become an admin. Twocents  (Talk)  02:33, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked through his edit history, I see a lot of edits that were undone and a lot of reverting of admin edits. And he has a couple of warnings from admin too. But that's quite old at this stage. Focusing on his more recent activity, he hasn't been on regularly since early July (and has made no edits since requesting adminship), though he was on a lot prior to that. I'm a bit put off by his statement about being admin on 25 wikis and he has asked to be made one on 12 more. I could say a lot about this, but I'll limit it to this: if it is true, then can he really provide the commitment that we would expect? I know Twocents is admin on another wiki, but 25 seems excessive, even if they were all really small ones. Should we do as we did with Gold and direct him to the Committee instead? -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines. I know I'm an admin on another wiki, but Kuroshitsuji doesn't currently have an anime going on or other regularly added merchandise (i.e. video games, movies, music) and the manga comes out only once a month. So it's not a huge time commitment for me. However, if he did get accepted at the other 12, I'd have to think that 37 wikis to regularly check in with would be quite demanding, even if all 37 were like the Kuroshitsuji wiki. I know this wiki, alone, needs our attention basically daily, even with four active admins and the committee. I'd be fine with him being asked to go through the committee initiation and apply for the committee, but I'd be hesitant, even if he didn't have the other issues, to say that he should be an admin with all of the other demands he has on his time. Twocents   (Talk)  00:47, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

I already asked this, but only Salubri replied: if we're not looking for new admins, should we change the status on the request page to closed? Or about as Salubri said above, making the criteria higher: what would we do to increase the criteria? Would we consider saying that any potential new admin would be selected from the policy committee? -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if we aren't looking for anymore, maybe it should say closed, and redirect people to consider the committee instead? Or, if we want to keep it open (lest we miss someone who would be a valuable addition), maybe we could add things like: actively taking initiative to improve the wiki (kind of thinking about the junk trivia, junk quotes, etc. movements), actively assist other users with questions (not necessarily on their own talk pages, but even just in forums). And um, I'm out. I think we have pretty high standards as it is. I'm just not sure if people bother to read those standards. Twocents   (Talk)  00:47, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are good suggestions. I couldn't really think of anything to add to the requirements that are there, but those would be worth adding imo. About whether people actually read those requirements or not: I kind of get the same feeling, but even if they don't, it gives us something to point at when explaining to them why we're turning them down. -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (Mohrpheus)
Minato88 has nominated Mohrpheus for a position on the Policy & Standards Committee. While I have an idea of how I will vote, I haven't had a chance to review his contributions yet, so I'll wait until I look them over before voting. --Yyp 21:54, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)  His edits are good quality (and well explained in the edit summaries). Regular enough editor. Has been vigilant against speculation. Very good at spotting and fixing grammar errors. Seems to get along well with others. I think he would make a good member of the committee. --Yyp 00:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree. I've seen that most of his edits are reasonable, and he's been helping on keeping the speculation down. I say we do it. Arrancar109 21:55, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  He's been helpful to us before and he seems to make good edits. I'm okay with him joining that committee. Twocents 04:18, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  I will coincide with you all on this nomination as he does edits of good quality and is regular enough. He is good with speculation and fixing grammar errors. He seems to get along with others so yea I'll back this nomination. Salubri 19:00, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Featured Quote, Picture, Article
I've gone through the featured picture, quote and article, and we need a tiebreaker for the featured picture. Each has +4 votes.

Personally, I think the second oppose vote on the Byakuya bankai picture is invalid, since he states that it's a good picture, but he simply dislikes it because it features Byakuya instead of another character. If we delete that one as being an illegitimate reason for opposing the picture, then that puts that one at +5. Otherwise, I can see arguments for both. The second picture has more people supporting it, but the first picture has fewer people who hate it.

And the winning quote is the Sōsuke Aizen: Gods.

As for the featured article, just looking at the current votes, Kenpachi and Yammy are tied. In my opinion, by our new standards, Yammy has -1 legit votes (On the supporting side, I accept Mohrpheus's, NewFoundGlory's, and Tinni's as being within the rules and on the opposing side, Lia Schiffer's, Shinitenshi's, Ethelion's, and SunXia's as being acceptable.) Kenpachi has +4 legit votes (Supporting: Stark373's, SunXia's, Minato's, Ethelion's, Moe1216's, MidoriPanda's votes. Opposing: Lord Ulquiorra's and NewFoundGlory's votes). So by that, I'd go with the majority and support Kenpachi. (I see what you mean Yyp: the majority of the votes are "rah, I hate/love him!" with a line thrown in making it a legit vote, if they remember to.)

Oh, and I haven;t done anything with the front page yet, since, like I said, I wasn't sure how the whole formatting thing would work. And we need to break the tie on the picture and the article anyway. Twocents 02:42, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I think we can end the votes now. So it appears Kenpachi has won by legitimate vote. So I'll close it at this point and put together his profile. Salubri 03:45, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Do you have any opinion on the featured pic? Twocents 03:56, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with Byakuya & kenpachi vs yammy. Salubri 04:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we leaving the featured pic & quote votes open all month long, yes? I'll move the votes from them to archive etc and get them ready for the new vote. Hopefully this time we'll have more contributions to it. --Yyp 10:19, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Man, just archived the featured article vote and moved all the illegitimate votes to the deleted votes section. That is a lot of junk. I agree with Twocents thoughts on the votes for Yammy & Zaraki, plus a load of the other votes were just as bad. --Yyp 10:59, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cirucci Thunderwitch
Gah, I feel obnoxious with how many posts I've made here today.

Regardless, it was pointed out on the Talk:Cirucci Thunderwitch page that an official decision regarding the spelling of her last name hasn't been reached.

Personally, if the English manga translation and the anime both spell it Sanderwicci then I think that's what we should go with, even if it's not precisely how it sounds when pronounced. I don't think we have any canon source saying it was ever spelled Thunderwitch anyway, and if both the Viz translation and captions on the anime spell it Sanderwicci, then we should spell it the way the majority of the official sources spell it. Twocents 02:50, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did forget to put in my input on this, but this is what I think: since more evidence point to "Sanderwicci" than "Thunderwitch", we should probably go with Cirucci Sanderwicci. Not only is it what the English manga went with, but after going through some of the older eps (in Japanese), it did sound like "Sanderwitch"; I think "Thunderwitch" might have been a mistake on either a subbers or a translator's part (which I can see why, when Cirucci introduces herself by her full name). Also, we should change Nelliel's article to Nelliel Tu Odelschwanck, since it's the only confirmed spelling. Those are my thoughts on both of those. Arrancar109 05:01, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I say go with Sanderwicci. About Nel's last name, I've looked it over and since there is no confirmed romanization other than that dvd (and given what happened with Harribel), I think we should go with it. --Yyp 10:18, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm making a start on this then. --Yyp 18:27, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

So where gonna call the girl sandwich now lol ok. Salubri 18:41, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. And it totally made me giggle. :D Twocents 02:08, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Cirucci is done. I didn't know what to do with the inter-language links, so I've left them as they are. --Yyp 19:02, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to change Nel's name then? I'll make the changes myself, I just want to check before I start on it. -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone started doing it anyway, so I finished it off. All the links should be taken care of, though I'll keep an eye out for any misspelling of it that is not linked (shouldn't be too much). -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (TomServo101)
Just saw that User:TomServo101 has been nominated for the committee by Minato88. -- Yyp  (Talk)  11:35, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Can there be a neutral option? I've gone through his edit history, and he doesn't have a lot of edits that contribute to articles. Those that do seem to be sort of minor. I've noticed that he has some contributions to the anime summary project already, and while that's great, I'm not sure that necessarily means he should be handed rollback rights. Since the beginning of November, he's only made seven edits that I would consider to not be minor. In October, he didn't have any edits to any articles. In September, he had only one edit that was pretty big - writing a summary for an episode. It just seems like if their job is to watch out for vandalism and speculation, assist other users, and make contributions to the Anime Summary Project and/or Manga Summary Project, we might want someone who contributes more to actual articles, rather than making mostly minor edits or discussing on talk pages, forums and blogs (which I do recognize as valid contributes to the community, but I'm not sure that's enough). But if everyone else thinks he'd be great for the fourth seat, then I'm not entirely opposed to it. I'd just feel more comfortable if the fourth seat had a larger number of substantial contributions to actual articles. Twocents 02:08, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards oppose. He has a smaller edit count than the others that have been considered for the committee, and a very large proportion of his edits are on talk pages & forums. As Twocents said, there is nothing wrong with that in general, but as far as the committee is concerned, I don't think he has enough contributions to the articles to be able to judge him properly. He created the Superchunky page and at the start of August, he updated a load of the zanpakuto spirit pages based on ep231, and an episode summary and updates to some existing summaries. From what he has done, he seems to have potential, but I think we need to see more contributions from him before accepting him for the committee. -- Yyp  (Talk)  16:14, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I kind of feel that we're not getting anywhere with the current set of nominations. Given his low edit count should we just ask him to contribute more to the articles (including something substantial) and we'll reconsider him later on? Do some more summaries or update profiles after new chapter/episode comes out or something. Same for the other two. -- Yyp  (Talk)  19:21, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that message going out to all three nominees (with Gold also getting the reminder to remain calm in his interactions with other users). Should we give them a general idea of how many substantial edits they need to have, or should we let them guess and see what they think is substantial? I like the second idea, personally. :D Twocents 19:43, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (Gold3263301)
Minato has nominated User:Gold3263301 for a committee position. -- Yyp  (Talk)  23:03, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral for Gold as well. While he does make mostly minor edits as well, he has done some referencing and is generally more active on the wiki. He's also been pretty good about undoing poor edits already. However, he's also made some poor edits of his own that seemed speculative and that other users had to undo. I also wasn't able to find any recent edits where he wrote a substantial amount, and the ones I found where he wrote at least a sentence occasionally had somewhat awkward wording. Since part of the committee's job is to do the summaries, I'd feel better if we had some sort of sample. I wouldn't want to say yes, and then have it turn out that he's not very good at summarizing, you know? Maybe he could be encouraged to contribute to one of the summary projects and then ask again after having done so? Twocents 02:08, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Very regular contributor, though I don't see many major contributions. Mostly low-level stuff. He does fix poor edits a lot. I'm a bit concerned about a row he got involved in between with Saimaroimaru on Tinni's talk page (28th September). Yyp  (Talk)  16:14, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Reading back over it, I'm not sure we'd want a committee member who goes around and attacks people personally. Even if he only did it that one time, he did pursue it quite a bit and I don't believe Tinni or Saimaroimaru asked him for his opinion on it on the first place. Twocents 20:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if thats a good idea to use that fight as a deciding factor after looking over it myself they are all in the wrong. Despite the fact that at the time nothing happened with either of them and time has passed without another incident its somewhat irrelevant. Tinni wasn't blameless either if you look at the context of what started the argument, we can't chastise one person months later while the other is left to be rewarded, least we forget we all confirmed Tinni. In my opinion we disregard that issue when it comes to candidacy as its in the past before any policies and so forth and everyone involved was wrong. Having said that based on his contributions alone im still neutral on it as well. Salubri 21:03, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I'd remain just neutral if that wasn't there, but the difference between him and Tinni is that Tinni has substantial contributions in a variety of areas over the site and has shown initiative in starting additional projects. If Gold had that sort of contribution history, I'd disregard the incident. But as he has a minor editing history that occasionally includes speculative information being added, no initiative in contributing to, much less starting, projects, and no substantial, multiple-sentence contributions to look at, seeing a poor, insulting interaction with other users leans me more toward oppose than neutral. Since part of the committee's role is to engage in constructive, calm interactions with other users and make substantial contributions to the wiki, seeing that he has not shown an ability to do either consistently bothers me. Twocents 23:43, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, will we tell him that we need to see some more substantial edits than he currently has before we can accept him, so we can get an idea of what he's like? And reconsider him after that. Maybe a reminder that the position requires him to be calm in all debates etc. as well. -- Yyp  (Talk)  19:21, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Rollback (Nwang2011)
Nwang2011 (Mr. N) has requested rollback rights on Bleach Wiki:Requests for Rollback. Twocents 01:38, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, are we giving out roll-back rights to people outside the Policy/Standards committee? Mr. N seems to do mostly spelling/grammar correction edits, and while they are relatively minor, they are well done. He has also done some updating of articles based on new chapters/episodes. I did see that on one article he was adding the "we don't use this template" formatting, but that hasn't happened again since it was pointed out to him. With the exception of August, he seems to be a fairly regular contributor. -- Yyp  (Talk)  16:14, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Anybody have any thoughts on this? Or should we ask him if he is interested in the committee? -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (Animeluvr92)
Animeluvr92 has nominated himself for fifth seat on the committee. Twocents 01:10, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Again, very few edits to base a decision off of. Animeluvr92's edits seem to be mostly minor corrections (which is fine, but not enough by itself). Seems to be on sporadically, some big gaps in between posts. When (s)he has written sentences, they have been mostly trivia of the kind that we no longer allow. And some of them have been undone due to inaccuracies. I can't say yes based on what there is to see right now. I think we should encourage him/her to contribute more to the wiki and ask again later. -- Yyp  (Talk)  10:44, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of my general impression to. I see in his/her nomination, s/he expresses an interest in contributing more, but there's a difference between saying you'll be more active and actually being more active. If s/he does contribute more and we have a better revision history to go off of, then I'd be willing to reconsider his/her nomination. Twocents 18:31, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to give each candidate a project to do, something the requires they work together. So we can see the interaction as well as the skill. Something on both the manga and anime projects that need to be done. Along with a handful or normal edits. Think of it as a initiation of sorts, I would hate to see anyone get discouraged when they want to try and be more productive, even Animeluvr93 who has apparently come out of his shell to try to help. Just a thought. Salubri 20:14, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know we need people to do more reading over already written summaries for both the manga and the anime (but moreso the anime). I had suggested it to Minato previously, but they are understandably quite busy and haven't had time to do any of it. They'd have to work together to allocate the work and such and decide on standards, etc. Just a suggestion. Twocents 20:17, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Minato also suggested to me that perhaps they write five anime summaries each. Twocents 20:33, December 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of asking them to do some summaries (with the character & power sections too). Or do the chapter summaries. Doesn't really matter which. Sounds a good idea. -- Yyp   (Talk)  21:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Templates
We apparently have an issue with some of the templates on the site. Namely the translation template. Now majority of templates besides the ones that have done are generic and linked from the animapedia sight. Now the biggest issue as i said is the translation one which if you click it apparently puts down a translation template that is a numbered list. A format that we do not use on the wiki, i looked at it last night and couldn't decipher truly what was wrong, once more i couldn't go about making a original one just for this sight as i was uncertain how to go about it at the time. Anyhow we all need to be aware of it and find all the ones that come from that sight. Until they can be replaced with something original to the sight they may continue to be a problem. Until the translation template can be fixed, its probably best to just inform those users that use it that its wrong and explain which kind we do use. They shouldn't be held accountable unless they don't listen to the instructions of the right way to do it. On top of that there seems to be a few templates or styles that we use here that may not be listed anywhere and they need to be, unfortunately i can't think of any off the top of my head but i know that we have used them in the past couple of weeks when certain users have done the opposite. So if anyone can recall one, make sure you list it on the manuel of style. Salubri 22:56, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Initiation
As mentioned above, Minato proposed an initiation of sorts for our three committee nominees, Gold3263301, TomServo101 and Animeluvr92. In case anyone missed it, he suggested that they write five anime summaries each so that we could get an idea of what they are like. I think it is a really good idea and would give us a great chance to see what they're like. I kind of want this to be moved along as nothing has happened on it in a while and I'm sure they are wondering what's taking us so long. -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

As stated above im all for the idea. Salubri 18:55, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

I'm also fine with it. I think we're just waiting for Arrancar109's input at this point. Twocents  (Talk)  00:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes with Gold and Tom, but I'm not too sure on Animeluvr. I'll have to look into his/her contribution history. Arrancar109 18:04, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Right then, I've given Minato the go ahead to start the initiation with Gold & Tom, and he has contacted them about it. He'll leave Animeluvr for the moment. -- Yyp  (Talk)  20:11, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

References Removing Glitch
Just bringing this to your attention: twice in the last few days I have encountered a rather strange and quite damaging glitch. This glitch removes everything that is in < > tags, including all references and the small writing underneath the anime-only arc headings in the synopsis. The first time was by Minato, who had no idea what happened, but said that he was editing a page and encountered the edit conflict screen, then clicked back, cut the text he was adding, clicked forward again, added his bit and saved. Whether that had anything to do with what caused it or not I don't know, but those are the circumstances behind it and here is a link to the two instances of it I have encountered: [] and []. The other person did not reply to my question on his page, so I don't know if the circumstances are similar in the two edits. If it had not happened with Minato first, I would have treated it as vandalism. In both cases, no other edit showed up, just the removal of the references etc. I'll go mention it on the wiki central forums. -- Yyp  (Talk)  18:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)