Bleach Wiki talk:Policy

Policy Review: Relics & Updates?
Over the past year or so Ive given some thought to the policies here and that we really should streamline them a bit as there were an awful lot due to all the issues we had in the past. 20 or so policy pages at its height, no way anyone reads all of them, better to have smaller number. I've trimmed that number as some no longer reflect current practice or needs here. I've merged the redirect policy into the Manual of Style since the person it was created to counter is long gone and nobody has behaved that way since. I think the spoiler policy was updated too in anticipation of the anime's return.

With some changes in positions and new editors/mods here, a general change in behaviour on the wiki since the bad old days, I think maybe its a good idea to give everyone space to review what we actually need going forward, what works for us and what doesnt, suggest any tweaks to policy etc that could or should be looked at. Or if you want to query why we even have a policy for something. Somethings arent needed anymore or needn't be as harshly treated these days due to less serious and frequent problems being caused now that much of the series is old news rather than updated weekly. Feel free to raise any policy/procedure related issue big or small. I've posted three to get started and I have another on block lengths but I'll hold off on that until next week to let these get a chance plus any other ones people want to post. 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bye-bye Naughty List
Bleach Wiki:Policy Violations should be deleted and never spoken of again. I forgot this thing even existed or I would have done it sooner. Maintaining a list of policy violators is not only impractical, its not needed and doesnt make sense to do it. Warnings on their talk pages are enough. I hate that we ever did this and can no longer fathom why we thought it was a good idea at the time. Better to look forward than backward, but wow, how far we've come since those days. 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) As I said above.  08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Wow, yeah, ew, I never knew about that but that's super not cool. I think I can guess who pushed for it. Begone.--Xilinoc (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't recognise that list so I don't think it was who you think it is but yeah, we have a block log.
 * 4) I didn't know that was a thing... But yeah, it should probably go. Timjer (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A Vote on the Voting Policy
We no longer really need the voting policy, certainly not as a dedicated policy in its own right. It was meant mainly for the Featured Article etc, but they're now randomised since hardly anyone ever voted for them after the end of the anime's original run. Whats still relevant could become a single bullet point under Discussions Policy. 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) As I said above.  08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Never did like this, it really restricted voting toward the end of the manga - I remember feeling lucky to get even 5 people casting votes each month because only a few people met the requirements. This can go too.--Xilinoc (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) - Yeah we don't really vote on featureed stuff any more. IF we ever get into that typ of thign with the new series then we can revisit if there's ever the spam that happened at the time.

I've merged the vote and chat policies into Bleach Wiki:Discussion Policy. I kept in the bit about active users (5 edits in last month), as I didnt want to change it without getting input, but I realise the likes of Lemurs, Schiffy etc would be routinely excluded under this rule. The rule is not so much about encouraging edits as deterring random users who only vote and then disappear never to be seen again. Should it be removed? Alternatively add a bit qualifying that those who have been admin/cmte/long time members are excluded from this requirement or something else? 19:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd be fine with it being removed altogether, yeah. If we want it to be a truly community-based choice, I'd rather not have only the mod and admin team voting on stuff every time, it sends the wrong message.--Xilinoc (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts too. As far as I remember it was specifically for votes on featured articles rather than anything else. Might have had relevance at one point when it was erm (overly-)passionately contested but I dont see any benefit to it today, just drawbacks. Even at the time the bar was set so low it doesnt show any lasting commitment to the wiki, so I dont think it ever really worked, unless we had a problem with people using multiple accounts in votes which I dont remember. If I dont hear any reasons to keep it by then, Ill take it out tomorrow. 19:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge Chat Policy Into Discussions Policy
Chat Policy should be folded in to the Discussions Policy, maybe combined with the “Discussions” Rules section since they kind of overlap. Figure there should still be some rules written down since we have the Discord server. If there is anything that should be added/changed specifically related to how the Discord is being used please post it here too. One thing Ive noticed on Discussions is someone posted links to their own Bleach channel. Should we allow that or limit it to just the wiki's official one? 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the one I was referring to: link 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) In favour of merging them. Will update vote if new rules for Discord suggested.  08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) May as well, at this point. As for the question, I'd say Bleach-centric YouTube channels are fine, but in the Discord itself we don't allow links to other servers with a couple exceptions cleared in advance.--Xilinoc (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes Chat has become redundant. It was never great to begin with.

Block Lengths
A few years back some of the team did up a guide for block lengths and how many official warnings should be issued before blocking etc. This was well done & a good idea to standardise blocks and came at the same time as the warning templates in response I think to some people feeling they were being treated harshly by an admin(s).

It was the right thing to do but I always felt it was too severe in places. With essentially a new team & new situation with activity levels & all material essentially being known already (bar any filler scenes we get with the anime's final run & of course the gender question no doubt to come up again) it feels like a good time for the current team to look over it, give input and essentially to take ownership of/recommit to it it once again.

For some reason it was set up as a seperate page rather than part of the Blocking Policy page. Seems fairly obvious they should be merged. Contradictory guidance needs to be reconciled. I propose that the Policy Violations Guide take precendence in all cases as it is more expansive and more recent, of course with any adjustments the team want to make. Speaking of adjustments, I want to alter a couple of points in the guide.

I think the 6 month ban for “speculation” should be reduced to 1 month in line with most other stuff. Its just over the top for an initial ban to me. Second ban, fine, but not first.

Also, “Spamming” could be split into 2 categories – advertising/bot spam which should be blocked forever without warning, while the occasional usually one off cases of less severe advertising, ie an actual person promoting their anime site or something shouldnt be lumped together with the spam bots, they would get warnings first and I think the 1 week is okay but Id be happy with 1 month block too.

In addition, admins do have to be able to excercise their discretion to suit a situation. You cant account for all posibilities after all, so the ability to be flexable is needed. How do you allow for that while setting block lengths in stone? Not really sure, maybe list them as max lengths? Any thoughts on any of this, big or small? Things missing from the guide that should be there? Etc. Please share 19:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All these changes make sense to me. As for accounting for flexibility, maybe a reasonable minimum and maximum amount of time for each blocking qualifier?--Xilinoc (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also support these changes and no problem having a range either if we have repeat offenders and such.

Okay, I updated the Policy Violations page just to check everyone happy with it before merging so you can see the changes. I also added one at the end on inappropriate usernames etc as it cropped up a couple of times recently but isnt written down anywhere. That is what Ive been doing with it. If anyone thinks it ought to be handled differenly Im open ot suggestions. 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, looks fine to me man, good work.--Xilinoc (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objects, its done and Ive updated the warning templates too. I left the policy violations link as a redirect since its already on a lot of user's talk pages. Better than wasting time going around changing it on them all and pinging them with notifications. 11:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Visibility of Policies
So, there's been new rules or a new process for individual users to appeal to staff about blocks and such. I have no issues with these changes because there are some admins across Wikia who are trigger happy and I am confident we try to go through the spirit of our policies. However, I wonder if the current format is clear enough?? I am not saying I think they definitely aren't just that there should always be room for discussion and evaluating how we are doing. This format at the top for example, is not always clear that there are link around it. Just think, with this change, we can discuss it.


 * Yup, I think its a good move on Fandom's part, albeit something they should have been doing for a long time at this stage. Anyway, only for you posting this and making me properly look at it, I wouldnt have known there is a show/hide section in that header for general rules. I've genuinely never seen it before! I dont know how many people would be like me and just skip over the header to the meat of the page, but I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of people that do read the pages never see that bit. While I like the idea of having some sort of header there, Im not married to it and I think it's a bit on the big side, plus we do have a navbox giving those links at the end of the page. I dont see the need to have them linked at both top and bottom of page. 19:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)