User talk:LegionZero

Welcome
Welcome to Bleach Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Bleach new one shot page, and thanks for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? You can find it right here! You can also find a full list of help pages here.


 * Don't know what to do? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and has links to pages to get you started! Also check out THIS BLOG for helpful information to help you understand the wiki and where you can start if you are interested in contributing here.


 * Here are some more pages you might find useful:


 * Policy - follow this to ensure harmony on the wiki
 * Manual of Style - a guide to how articles here are organized and written
 * Spoiler Policy - follow this to not ruin upcoming stories for those yet to read or watch the new chapter or episode


 * Sign your name in discussions by typing ~ , which automatically adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! (This is an automated message generated after your first edit here.) Yyp (talk) 21:42, November 13, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Conduct and Communication
Oh goody, time for threats. If you're so familiar with wiki policy and practice, you'd also know edit warring with mods/admins is heavily frowned upon, if not forbidden - and yet you did it anyway. It's also not very nice to have basically every sentence of your talk page post insulting the wiki and its users for making a presentation choice for the content you're referring to - regardless of validity (which you don't have much of here), no one's gonna want to listen to you if you're dissing them the whole time. And finally, as noted in my edit summary removing your trash-talk from the page, we already made our choice years ago and you don't get to overturn that just because you feel differently about the subject. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll return to quivering in my boots at being called "problematic" by someone who frequents wikis.--Xilinoc (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are excited about the opportunity to leverage your power and position over me? Very telling.


 * I never insulted anyone here, nor did i talk bad about the wiki itself. I criticized ideas/concepts and yes, presentation, which is not against any of the policies here and is within my right to do. I also didnt use any inappropriate language, so I don't see how what i said violated any rules.


 * You, however, overstepped your bounds in deleting the talk post because... well seemingly because you didn't like the criticism and took it as a personal attack. Did I expect to overturn it? Not really, it was a long shot. Did i expect some discussion about it? Yea, thats what the talk page is for.


 * Locking a talk page is a whole other issue, considering anyone else who may have something to discuss can't. While its not against any rule here, its just an overall poor choice for a wiki setting.


 * As for an edit war, it wasnt my intention, I thought my post simply didn't go up because I am on mobile and fandom is really finicky with it. I just thought it didn't post. This issue would have been easily remedied with a warning, as per your wiki policy.


 * As an admin of another wiki, I'm more than aware of how to conduct myself and follow rules. LegionZero (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will take over here with this topic.


 * You are excited about the opportunity to leverage your power and position over me? Very telling.


 * Xilinoc is Sarcastic, much like you were first with your post on his talk page:


 * I'm sorry, I didnt realize it common practice on this wiki to shut down conversation on talk pages and then lock them.


 * See how that works?? You were sarcastic first, made comments about policies here that you really should read. So he was sarcastic back because he generally doesn't like this part and I generally do it but with my timezone, I was trying to sleep. But I am awake now so let's continue the evaluation.


 * Actually, I believe this goes against the policies set forth by this very wiki. As an admin of a wiki myself, and a frequenter of another, I find this troubling and highly problematic, if not outright abusive.


 * Woah there sailor, you are going to throw out words like "abusive" because your edit, that violated our policies, got removed? You didn't cricise "ideas" as you put it, you called Xilinoc abusive. Surely you understand the different between criticism and wild, unfounded accusations??


 * Abuse is repeated, dedicated actions aimed at establishing a false sense of power and superiority over a victim after you have stripped them of their safety and health and well-being. Let's not be over dramatic and use words that victims would find insulting.


 * I never insulted anyone here


 * No you just used the word abusive to describe him for undoing an edit that was incorrect. You worded it in a way to pretend you weren't calling him abusive but his actions abusive but its still what you were implying.


 * I criticized ideas/concepts


 * You did, in the incorrect section. The talk pages of articles are dedicated to the upkeep of those article, not your disagreements with concepts and ideas. They can go in a forum or discussion because they address the whole wiki, not a single article you disagree with. Feel free to open a discussion or forum about it elsewhere. Article Talk pages are for implementing policies already established and how to improve that article effectively.


 * You, however, overstepped your bounds in deleting the talk post because... well seemingly because you didn't like the criticism and took it as a personal attack.


 * As explained, your post violated policies. I mean you have said several times you have read them so I don't know what to tell you if you want to create a Strawman.


 * Did I expect to overturn it? Not really, it was a long shot.


 * Edit Warring, undoing edits and redoing them repeatedly, violates policies here too. It's actually considered one of the more counter productive violation of the rules. If you have an issues with an Admin or Mod, you bring it up to them, you don't decide that you get to override them.


 * Did i expect some discussion about it? Yea, thats what the talk page is for.


 * As said, feel free to open a discussion about ideas and concepts on the discussions or forums. There is literally a section dedicated to improvements you feel the Wiki must make and you can find it here.


 * Locking a talk page is a whole other issue, considering anyone else who may have something to discuss can't. While its not against any rule here, its just an overall poor choice for a wiki setting.


 * He locked the page because you were determined to violate policies on that page. He also explained the reasons in his actions as edit warring which is what you were doing. He could have just given you a warning and make the discipline official but he didn't, he locked the page and explained why. Instead of investigating this explanation further, you decided to come out on the attack instead.


 * As for an edit war, it wasnt my intention, I thought my post simply didn't go up because I am on mobile and fandom is really finicky with it. I just thought it didn't post. This issue would have been easily remedied with a warning, as per your wiki policy.


 * Agreed, I usually go straight for the warnings but Xil was nice and locked the page instead and made it clear why in the lock summary.


 * As an admin of another wiki, I'm more than aware of how to conduct myself and follow rules


 * And yet this all started because you didn't. A warning is official here, Xil was being nice and putting it in the summary. If you want to improve Bleach Wiki, you are more than welcome to do so, like all of us volunteers. I suggest you stop feeling so defensive and throwing around accusations of abusive and such, because something got removed. Xil is a very busy editor, usually with lots of things open on the screen. Had he made no effort to communicate your policy violations, fine, but he did. It might not have been your preferred mode of communication but the log is right there, right after it told you he locked the page, his message is right there.


 * For some reason, that talk page must have slipped through the cracks, the talk header wasn't there so I have added it back in to avoid further confusion over discussions and where they are appropriate and where not. To have a discussion about ideas and concepts on a random technique talk page is not how to do these things. How would someone find that discussion in the future if faced with similar issues in another technique or ability? Discussions for that belong in the forums or discussions. Yes there was a discussion of Kugo on that page but that was abut him and technique and was nearly a decade ago now, but things like this belong in the right page.


 * I think this is all a little more drama than was strictly necessary. I have added the talk header into the relevant page, edited it so that it links to the new improvements section of the new discussions feature. Feel free to open a discussion there, not in the article talk page. As explained, it maintains consistency and allows future users to find those topics in a more clear fashion.


 * We have no issues with disagreementsand crtiques here, we just prefer them to be in the right spot. Personally I disagree with you, which is fine, open a discussion with other editors (note: editors, not readers who don't contribute but want an equal say, another way to maintain consistency) and see if people agree with you.


 * Hope that helps and we can move on.

Look, I don’t know how long you’ve been an admin, but you could learn a thing or two from Sun and Xil. This wiki has been around since December 2007 and Sun, Xil and myself have been around since at least 2008. We’ve seen everything and I mean EVERYTHING. Xil and Sun only want what’s best for the wiki and this fanbase and nothing good ever comes from “Zanpakūto waving contests.” We only do these things to avoid drama that would otherwise take focus away from making the wiki the best it can be. Not to sound too mean or “red pilly,” but I’m gonna be blunt and say don’t be a snowflake. What Xil did was not a personal insult to you and you just need to get a thicker skin. I don’t like to be confrontational but I can’t stand by when you insult our work ethic and accuse my friends of unprofessional behavior when that is simply not the case. I really hope you can see this as a “teachable moment” and use it to become the best admin you can be. 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sunxia: you seem to be conflating my original post with the one on Xil's talk page. The original post on Getsuga Tensho's page and was critical of the practice, but was also my argument for why something should be added on that page, so it was appropriate. I didn't use inappropriate language or insult/attack anyone there. Those are the only reasons that one is allowed to edit or remove posts made by someone else, according to you policies here. If i am wrong, point out to me which statements violate which policies my inital post(the one on Gestuga's page) actually violated. If there isnt one, then i very much consider the actions taken as an abuse of power. mind you, i never accused him of being an abusive person, just that his action in this instance was abusive


 * Xil has also made it very clear that his issue was not with where i said what i said, but what i said. I know this because there was no effort made to redirect me to pthe "correct" place to put my criticism, and because in response to this situation, i was accused of "trash talk" and "insulting" the wiki and/or its members. It also stands in direct opposition of your claims that criticism/critique is not an issue, and only leads me to believe it would have been deleted no matter where I put it.


 * I already explained the misunderstanding that lead to the small edit war, yet you still paint me as intentionally starting one.


 * @Lemurs: You are right, you dont know how long ive been admin. Not that its any of your business, i have been an admin for going on 6 years now, and a wiki editor for going on 9. I'm nowhere near wet behind the ears when it comes to either. I get that these are your friends, but tenure is irrelevent since time spent as an admin doesnt make one's behavior infallible. In fact, just 2 months ago, another admin had to address Xil for poor behavior. I have never seen a situation on a talk page handled so poorly. My complaints have nothing to do with my feelings, it has to do the blatant disregard of policy and procedure, and the use of position to silence criticism because it appearantly hurt his feelings.

LegionZero (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No I cant point out where you impersonated an admin but Im not the one who said it, however it seem to me to be a bit of a joke - you would have to ask him. I have done the whole go between thing when two users are not talking directly to each other before (it was the first proper task I was given when I was made admin here), it is not something I intend to return to needlessly. You are both mature people, I presume, so you can talk it out with each other before playing this tactic of dragging someone else in.

You mentioned before in the sarcasm incident about a round of apologies from both parties and that didnt happen. Maybe you should give some consideration to the message you sent there, maybe if you want that to happen you need to be the bigger person here to get things started and try to smooth things over. Yes you can say X sent this message or that, but that is between the two of you to make a go of it, or not. My patience with this drama is wearing thin. I suspect you and others are at or passed the limits of theirs. Perhaps a break for a day or two might be in order to allow this to cool down? You might also give some consideration to taking the middle ground in the GT question, accepting what is on offer and moving on to something more productive. As I said before both sides have fair points and the common ground is the way forward. You might not like how its presented, but you have effected change on the page.

The edit summary certainly caught my attention and made me go where did that come from at first? But thinking about this whole thing from start to finish, I can kind of see where hes coming from. I am always the last to get riled up by these things so I realise I am not taking it as serisouly as he is (or you are). But I can see there is an issue with how you have been handling this and people naturally enough react to how they are treated, its a two way street. Maybe you should look at from his perspective - you trying to tell people to do things the way you want, only the way you want, saying "no, no moving on" while giving out about how other people behave (hence why I think it was a joke). Maybe then you will understand where this push back against you is coming from. Its a bit rich if Im honest about it. Talk directly to him addressing your own behaviour in this, or drop it. 11:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Admin Policy Violation and Conduct
Look, I may not be an admin and neither am I involved in your disagreement with Xil, but as a Content Moderator I do feel a responsibility towards this wiki and its reputation. And quite frankly, I find it rather immature of you to start bothering and complaining to a Bureaucrat over a minor and dumb disagreement that happened, and was resolved, a week ago. One would think that, as a self-proclaimed "wiki admin of 6 years", you'd get over such things and move on. If you don't want to work here anymore, fine, we can accept that and harbor no ill feelings. But I fail to see the need to proclaim it like it's a big deal. Especially since you haven't really done that much yet.

Besides, Sunxia already made it clear but Xil's comment was not in any way a threat. I'm autistic and even I saw it was supposed to be sarcasm... Timjer (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @timjer: i dont believe there is anything immature about moving up the chain of command about a problem that hasnt been addressed. Especially when I havent been given a fair shake from the start. I could have gone striaght to wiki Management but instead I am trying to get these things solved internally. This matter was never settled either. I was absolutely stonewalled and had grievances with what all transpired. I only waited as long as i did to bring things up higher because of New Year's and the assumption that everyone here had lives and would spend a few days away from the wiki.


 * If you are worried about the reputation of the wiki, it should concern you that a first time editor comes here and is met with immediate shutdown of discussion. You have known Xil for 4ish years at this point, while you and others here understand his sarcasm, as an outsider, it looks like hes on a powertrip, and that is not attractive to anyone else who may be looking at the activity here.


 * I am also not a "self proclaimed" admin. I am an admin. That is an immutable fact and if you are curious where, all you need to do is ask. I bring it up because i want to show that im not talking out my butt when it comes to how admins should approach things and that i myself have an understanding of how to enforce rules and follow policy. I bring up tenure because i was met with the condescending implications that i am inexperienced and need to learn from Xil and Sun. If that is a lesson on how to delete things that have no right being deleted and addressing problems without the full knowledge/context while mischaracterizing people's actions, i am perfectly fine skipping all 3 of those classes. Im not particularly interested in going tit-for-tat with you, as you have already made up your mind that im some kind of whiney brat and that your admins can do no wrong. LegionZero (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never acted like the admins here can do no wrong. Should Xil have used sarcasm in his comment? No, that was indeed a mistake on his part. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't help but feel you're making a mountain out of an anthill. Especially since we already tried to explain it to you. Timjer (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, you never said admins can do no wrong, but you only now acknowledge just one of the many missteps on the part of some of your admins, while before you were quick to downplay my grievences and invalidate the issues by calling them "dumb," "minor," and by calling me "immature". Regardless of how you feel, admins violating policy is not an "anthill." Despite any explanations, your admins were still in the wrong from the start and at multiple points after that and I am not going to just get over it when nothing has been done to rectify the situation or ensure that it won't happen to me or any other user again. But like I said, you have already made up your mind about me and the situation. I'm not responding you anymore because you are clearly not interested in a solution to create a more conducive wiki environment, just getting me to stop calling out your friends. LegionZero (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Legion! Since my comments to Xilinoc about how he handled certain situations have been raised a couple of times by you and since you seem to wish to continue this, I need to chime in here. First I should say that Salubri is inactive and highly unlikely to reply. Now to your complaint.

I dont think sarcasm was a good way to respond to your post or anyone in general (one thing if a discussion progresses in a certain direction, but not at the outset). And while you were certainly critical of the wiki, I dont see it as insulting the wiki or trash talk as it was put. But I think the nature of his response was due to not realising that your second post was a genuine error rather than edit warring and him mistaking your comment about being problematic/abusive as being directed at him personally rather than describing the behaviour (and I can undertand how you would perceive it as such, see below for why I disagree). This is not meant as putting the blame on you, but you could have checked the page's history or Recent Changes before reposting, wouldnt you agree? Its what I do anyway in such cases, except on Discussions which is useless for that sort of thing.

Regarding the talk page post being deleted – I wouldnt have done that myself. I would have left a reply instead, or maybe posted to your talk page as an alternative. But I felt no need to intervene at the time as it was not an abuse of position. Rather he was just enforcing our rule about not reopening discussions that are marked as closed, which is in essence what was happening. That rule is a relic from a time when this wiki was plagued with fantatics (& trolls) who could not accept any decision and it needed to be clamped down on because nobody could move on from the discussions and get things done. Its not really needed anymore hence me never enforcing it. But I can see why he did and I cannot fault him for doing so except to say he could have improved the edit summary. The same could be said about all wiki admins (and other editors) at some point or other, yes?

Faced with the same situation again, Xil may handle it differenly, I dont know. Its all a learning experience, no matter how many years any of us have put in. Clear communication is very important. But sometimes so is the ability to move on and put things behind us to focus on getting things done. I hope you agree. Regards, 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Yyp: I appreciate you weighing in on this, and doing so in a manner that takes a look at the entire situation. I feel you are the only person who has done that.
 * I could have indeed checked History or Recent Changes, however, I didnt violate any policies. There was no reason to believe that my post would be removed in the first place, unless it counts as reopening a discussion, in which case...


 * ...It is incredibly unclear what constitutes "reopening a discussion". Is the subject off limits or is the post that was closed off limits? It seems to be the latter as I see that the topic of Users was raised in 2 seperate posts. I also posted 9 years after the last time the subject was brought up. Times change, people change, admins change, ways of thinking change, and sometimes better arguments are made. I think just the sheer amount of time that has passed is enough to at least lightly revisit the topic. I havent found a rule that says a sopic on a Talk Page is not allowed to be brought up after a substantial amount of time


 * I would like to move on but you are the only admin to acknowledge that my original post wasnt inflammatory and that the handling of this situation was less than ideal, i really dont have the most confidence that I can speak up around here without a similar situation happening again, be it with me or anyone else. I think we can agree that editors should feel comfortable voicing their opinions/concerns. Since my original post didnt violate policies I think that it's fair that it be put back up(pending clarification on "Reopening a Discussion") and the topic actually discussed(i dont really care where at this point) and a round of apologies (myself included). LegionZero (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There was only really one discussion properly about Kugo there. The 1st is about restoring the page which got a bit sidetracked by Salubri. In answer to your question, its supposed to be off limits baring new evidence (rule made in a time the manga was ongoing). There was never a time limit set, meaning it was permanent. However, it was subject to one clause – you can ask the admins to reopen it and if they feel there is merit in doing so, then they can. It shows how long its been since the discussions closed thing was invoked that I actually had to look it up as I had forgotten what rules were around it. Its fallen pretty much completely out of use. The forum that was supposed to be used for that is gone now thank you very much Fandom, and Discussions posts are too easy to overlook even though we still have a dedicated Improvements and Issues board, so I'll just take the liberty of calling this your request and I agree. Im going to put something up myself, feel free to add your points there.


 * Also, please dont take everything Salubri said or did as being the unanimous, unwavering voice of us all. I dont remember this discussion even though I was active at the time, but I dont agree with the outcome of it. Plus you can see by what is said on the talk page and what is actually written on the article that it was updated to include the Zangetsus and Isshin despite what Sal said.


 * It does throw up some other considerations for both this page and how other pages are treated, namely do we have to list the Reigai version of the Shinigami too? Id argue no need to do that, its a given that the reigai can use the same abilities. Off the top of my head I cant think of any other example of other characters using someone else's technique, not even any Quincy using a tech from a stolen Bankai. I stand to be corrected on that though, as I cant rule it out just based on memory. Anyway, contuned on Talk:Getsuga Tenshō. 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: How Many
You called it "near-unanimous agreement", yet by my count (including Sal, who hasn't changed his mind) it's 3-3 for and against adding Ginjo. That's not near-unanimous, that's a dead even split.--Xilinoc (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope, Sun has too (and Sal did as well in the discord when directed to this discussion). You've yet to actually counter my point that Getsuga is a technique derived from a Zanpakutō Spirit, something Ginjo did not have access to when he was mimicking Ichigo's powers, and I have a feeling you just can't, hence why you tried to force the change through. Sorry, can't gaslight me on this - too much experience with that around here.--Xilinoc (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Boy, for someone who's been on this wiki for all of a month you sure are bossy. Once again, you're completely ignoring what I consider the definitive point against this whole Ginjo argument and the fact that, between him telling Getsuga and his """""Bankai""""", Ginjo's powers post-copying were meant to be a clear perversion of Ichigo's powerset, right down to the Hollow influences, such that him yelling Getsuga Tensho and firing a violet beam was him mocking Ichigo more than anything else. If he doesn't have a Zanpakuto Spirit to draw power from to use that technique, he's not actually using the technique any more than Aizen creating an illusion of Ichigo using Getsuga Tensho would be him actually using Getsuga - he's just pretending to. I'm happy to put him in the Trivia section as a halfway point, but this is far beyond the "natural users" thing you keep throwing a fit over.--Xilinoc (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no, not gonna keep this side-dialogue going with you if you're gonna keep insulting my intelligence like this. See you on the talk page (assuming you can be trusted to post responsibly on there).--Xilinoc (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Block
Hi there Legion. I hope you are well.

I am sorry to do this but I cannot keep ignoring your blatant disregard for anything we say. Now this is a very short and temporary block but we asked you not to change that page without agreement from us all and I asked you multiple times to be patient on this matter until we all made a decision. Our articles are not sandboxes, we change them with agreement. We have repeatedly asked you to stop disregarding policies. Usually this carries a block of up to two weeks but I went for a short block of three days in the hopes you will understand that this is not fair for other users to see you repeatedly violate policies and get away with it while they do not. I have kept it short because I know your intentions were good but when I have said that ignoring policies is counter productive, I meant it. There has not been an agreement and when you return, I hope you do not act before there has been an agreement. I understand that sometimes things don't happen as fast as we would like but that isn't an excuse when I have wrote to you multiple times explaining myself. Please take this time to reflect that sometimes, the Wiki is more important than being correct.


 * I'm sorry, I thought the agreement was to create tabs. LegionZero (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * When we narrow it down to one or the other, we generally vote on it. As some people don't make suggestions but would vote either way. Hope this helps for future. I, for example, am someone who can be very indecisive and tend to overthink things so I am sorry for any delay on my front there. But I hope you understand I have to stand by my decision. Some people don't like the tabs and some do, I will open a vote to avoid confusion.


 * It is what it is, I suppose. See you in a few days. LegionZero (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)