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)

Isshin Kurosaki
Hopefully I got the right page this time...anyway, I'm here to note that, according to the speculation policy, for "irreconcilable conflicts in opinion between two possible interpretations from an image in the manga...in-universe sections should make general statements that give no preference to the disputed options." For Isshin Kurosaki's "FU Attack" (the one where he flicks his finger, I'm not sure if there's an unofficial name for it around here), there is a Strength vs. Kido debate. Since choosing one of these sides is speculation, according to the policy, it logically follows that the Powers & Abilities section of the Isshin Kurosaki article is speculating, & therefore should be edited to something that categorizes the attack as neither strength nor Kido.Neo Bahamut (talk) 12:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well I am personally not getting into this debate. I make a policy of not getting into arguments where I can't cite references and/or policy to back my position up. In this case, I didn't even stop to think about Isshin's finger flick. So I am staying out of it. But I do encourage other members of the committee to voice their opinions and positions on this issue if they so feel inclined. Tinni  (Talk)  12:41, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ichigo Kurosaki page
Ok the committee needs to pay special attention to Ichigo's page for the next couple of weeks as it is becoming apparent that people are impatient and dont recognize we can't list what we dont fully understand. Just recently i had to revert an edit someone made and no one had undo that basically had Ichigo with a new bankai in addition to the information already there. I mean it literally had all the chapter description and powers under the heading new bankai. I would figure that we have been at this enough not to allow, excuse me for being harsh, amateur and ridiculous edits like these. I think we have done alot to make this site the most informative and innovative sites out of all the wiki's. Last i checked we were third ranked out of all Anime wikis after yu-gi-oh and narutopedia and having seen them its largely do the amount of content they have. The basic concept here until its explained its gonna be hard to correctly state whats going on here, as usual with ichigo's powers. We will give the community the correct information but lets not jump to conclusions with statements like new bankai and be careful with the information put down until ichigo actually explains which is more the likely to do in the next few chapters. Thank you. --Salubri (Talk)  17:03, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
According to God, someone from the committee told him that redirects were not acceptable. I don't know who would spread such nonsense but it stops now. Editors are free to use redirects and have always been free to use redirects. Gin is perfectly acceptable. You don't have to use Gin. Editors have enough to do without being burdened by being forced to use the | thing when there is a perfectly good redirect available. Have I made myself clear? Good! Tinni  (Talk)  04:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Past Nominations
Ok folks, here's the deal, as we currently have seven members and therefore are no longer "capped". The committee was always designed to have a maximum of eight members. Back when we did have eight members, we had a couple of people nominate themselves for the committee. Now that we aren't capped, I am putting their original nomination statement here. As always, use the and  templates and state your reasons clearly. Tinni  (Talk)  04:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to be nominated, especially to edit the Bount's plots. They are too short, and if another person does a bad edit, I will be the one to correct it from the Bount plots. --Morgan silve (talk) 16:02, August 7, 2010 (UTC)Morgan Silve

Morgan Silve is trying very hard to contribute meaningfully to the wiki but he isn't there yet. Most of his edits are still undone by admins and committee members and he still has a lot to learn. Perhaps in the future he would be a worthy candidate for the committee. Tinni  (Talk)  04:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Like Tinni said, Morgan tries very hard but she does not do a good job of it. Most of what she says is hard to read, she does not reference what she writes either. She really only wants to be on the committee because her edits of the bount pages are constantly undone due to a breach of the manual of style. She believes being on the committee will give her some kind of immunity from getting her edits reverted which is not the case. So I have to oppose her.--God (Pray)  04:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new to add. I see Morgan try and try day after day but she never references, her writing is incredibly hard to understand due to her grammar and spelling mistakes, and she seems to have a problem understanding the general policies of the site when editing, so all her edits end up getting undone. -- Lia Schiffer  (Talk)  06:52, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

While she is definitely trying to make the wiki better, I'm still going to have to agree with the others. She continually forgets to add references despite being told many times that she has to add them, and she tends to make many grammar errors as well. Maybe in the future I'll change my vote, but for now until she shows a better understanding of the policies, I'm going to have to say no. TheDevilHand888 (talk) 19:50, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

A little late, but there is little else to add. Morgan clearly has a desire to contribute to the Wiki, but still makes several mistakes, which indicated that she is not very familiar with the manual of style, which is one of the very purposes of the committee. In time she may better herself in these respects, but for the time being, I have to say no. Mohrpheus (talk) 23:06, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I too would like to nominate myself for this Committee. I'm trying to get even more involved with the wiki and help out wherever I can, in the hopes of one day becoming an admin here. I am also familiar with the rollback power, as I have adminship as well as rollback powers on several other wikis. ~ Ten Tailed Fox (My User Page) 04:40, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Again, Ten Tailed Fox is making a sincere effort but his edit history is not extensive enough to warrant and inclusion on the committee. Perhaps in the future he will be a worthy candidate but not right now. Tinni  (Talk)  04:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ten Tailed Fox is promising. He seems to really want to get involved but he is not all that active. Most of his time is spent over on the Fan Fiction wiki. For right now I have to oppose but if he becomes a serious editor around here, I feel he could make a good candidate--God (Pray)  04:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think Ten Tailed Fox could be promising in the future but his edit count is too low and he's very inactive. When he nominated himself he was all over the page, he did a pretty good work in Yumichika's article, and then disappeared. If he became more active and had some more experience on how the wiki works I think he could be a good candidate, but for now, I'll have to Oppose. -- Lia Schiffer  (Talk)  06:52, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ten Tailed Fox would definitely be someone I'd consider for the committee, but like what everyone else has said he is constantly inactive and he needs to have a higher edit count. So until that changes, I'm going to have to oppose. TheDevilHand888 (talk) 19:50, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is little to add. Once Ten Tailed Fox's edit history is more extensive and diverse, he could potentially qualify for a position. For the time being, he should just focus on contributing more. However, he is definitely somebody we should keep an eye on in the future. Mohrpheus (talk) 23:06, September 18, 2010 (UTC)