Bleach Wiki talk:Policy & Standards Committee

Helping the Editors
So I feel like we should do more to help new editors and such. We've seen plenty of people not understand the policy and editors whose edits were not very good. We need a way to help them. The blogs Sun, Xil, and I wrote are very helpful, but they are more on policy than actual application and editing, and people will have to actively search for them now that several weeks have passed and the blogs have been burried down in the activity list. We might need to awaken our inner teacher and personally guide them. What I've noticed on Community Central is that the admins and very experienced editors hold "office hours", where at set times of the day and week, those editors are in chat helping users and teaching them how to edit. I think we should implement our own system, where the admins and committee have times where they're in chat assisting users in editing.

I personally went to an online public school, so personally I can say that online "office hours" would be a great benefit. We just need to find someone who can be on demand.-- 18:21, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I would support doing this. However, the challenge will be to find those who are willing to dedicate the time to do so.---Mr. N (Discuss)   23:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Resignation
It's just as the topic name says, I'm putting forward my resignation. I don't feel as though I deserve the position currently, and the only reason I acquired it was due to God's encouragement. I never really had any aspirations towards becoming a member, and so I'm forfeiting my position. 03:41, June 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you go buddy!! And I knew about that encouragement he was trying to make me encourage you too but I always felt that One Piece was your real home wiki but its been nice having you aboard and hope you are not a stranger!! xo

Keeping the Image Gallery talk, Featured modules, and front page as a whole updated
Okay, since we don't have enough time and guarantee of presence to discuss this in chat, let's put this up here.

We really, really need to:


 * Have committee members and admins voting on the Image gallery talk page. We need more input on changes to profile images.


 * We need to make voting on the Featured Article, Image, and Quote more well-known to the wiki community. We also need to decide what we're going to do with the Featured Image, which has been on hold for at least a month now, and if we're going to keep the Featured stuff at all, since Salubri has stated it takes up a lot of space.


 * We need to decide how we're going to keep the front page updated and maintained. As of late, it's been lagging in certain areas, and we need to keep it up-to-date.

This is everything I can think of at the moment, feel free to add more if you can think of it.--Xilinoc (talk) 01:32, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Featured Quote and Article don't need to take up as much space as it does, the module for the blog posts can be shortened. I am also questioning the need for a Recent Episodes module as the anime has already completed, and therefore can be removed. For Featured stuff, one of the requirements is a monthly mainspace edit count. That wards away potential voters. From what I understand, that was put in place because of a certain ex-committeeman's actions, and he's no longer part of the wiki. Is it safe to remove that particular rule?
 * If you are referring to these rules, they have been in place since long before that certain member even joined the committee. The intent of the rules haven't really shifted since then, but given the low turnout for voting, I suppose changing the policy would not be too harmful. I think that the legitimate reason given clause is enough to maintain some order in the vote. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  10:03, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Actions Regarding Users Who Are Blocked/Left the Wiki
Alright, so there's something troubling me and some other users. This issue is in regards to how we deal with users who are troubling us. The issues are: I will openly admit that I am guilty of what I have just stated. However, I am trying to change and conform to the ideas and improve my character. I strongly urge all those who see this to as well as we will create a more positive environment for which editors can work in.
 * 1) Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law. Many Committee Members and admins on here enforce the policy to the letter, not making any exceptions. What I want is the spirit of the law. Several times we have blocked users without pointing them out in the right direction or helping them, or seeing the context of their actions. Some users are inherently bad or ignore warnings/help, while others are just trying to get assistance. There was one user today who made edits with good intent, but was rebuked. Some committee members have suggested blocking him without warning or actually taking the time to properly guide him (edit summaries should not count, they can't fully explain everything).
 * 2) Users who are already blocked. When users are blocked, the committee and admins get the urge to talk bad about the user behind his back, using terms such as "idiot" or cursing them out. As for users who left the wiki due to bad blood, Glass Heart and Godisme in particular, we do the same, only much much more often and be much more harsh. I don't see any gain in doing this. While it may make us feel good, it closes off any possibility of mending the rift created, it means we're still stuck in the past, and it speaks badly of the wiki to other users by projecting an image of malevolence towards people we don't like, and ruthlessness towards users. It isn't right to kick a user when they're down. The best thing we should do is put the issue to rest, otherwise we will never move on. When I say move on, I'm not saying we should rewelcome them, I'm saying that we have moved passed the trouble and we shouldn't be sticking ourselves back in.

I was hoping somebody else would have replied to this by now before I offered support, but it looks like that isn't the case. I agree with what Kami has said above, the treatment of others users (deserved or otherwise) only serves to create a toxic atmosphere on the wiki, of ill-meant gossip and shallow feuds. Whether the user has been a long-standing member or brand new, I often see them treated in a poor fashion. Following policy is fine, but sometimes you need to treat people well for them to respond in kind. Reacting to an honest mistake with harsh punishment, or dealing with differences in a manner even worse than the original offender just breeds a malevolent community.

The thing with God happened months ago, and I thought we had resigned ourselves to let it go when I brought it up several weeks ago in chat - that doesn't seem to be the case as he is still being brought up and ragged on, in chat or through private messages, and most recently in Xi's latest absent notice. I understand it was written in anger, but I don't see anybody other than Kami opening caring or trying to discourage these kinds of actions. 17:51, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I've been rather reluctant to comment on this as I have not seen this issue of treatment of past users taking place myself and do not know any details (regarding the users mentioned, I think I remember something like this a considerable time ago however). But I agree with the sentiment here that people should let bygones be bygones and just forget about those that are not here anymore. I question what purpose and value bringing them up again has (beyond the understandable venting of frustration - but a better way of doing so could be sought). Again, I did not see these issues so I don't know what manner they came up in, or how it was handled. It could have been perfectly innocent and unintentional drifting of the conversation to start with for all I know, but I think it is best to let it be. We have better things to do than worry about those that we feel (rightly or wrongly) have wronged us and I have in the past said that we should have a more positive atmosphere here, as a negative one only harms the wiki in terms of putting off potential editors and indeed the non-editors. 21:27, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I...probably do not qualify to be commenting on this matter, despite being a committee member. However, I am glad that Kamikaze839 brought this up. I wish I had brought up this concern earlier...but I did not want to get myself unnecessarily involved in conflicts and feuds, which I would probably be unable to resolve. Like Yyp, I do not think it is necessarily appropriate for me to comment on this matter since I do not have full details on the treatment of past users. Adding to my lack of qualifications is how I have not come into conflict into ANY user during my time on Bleach Wiki so far (and I intend to keep it that way). Even so, I have some gist of the issue. I will say this...the atmosphere for the Bleach Wiki certainly seems to have gone through dramatic changes from when I had first started on Bleach Wiki in 2010. The reactions to “bad” edits and users as well as policy enforcement seem harsher. Not only does it appear that users are more quickly blocked or cited for policy violation without taking the time to constructively help them. It does not help that users (both "official" and "non-official" users) have shown a lack of tact and etiquette during communication. Controlling how users react may not be possible, but everyone most certainly can be more careful in how they respond. I am aware that things among the lines of "Bleach Wiki discourages new users to join in, since it is so strict and they only allow people they like to edit" exist/have existed. Sigh. As Kamikaze839 pointed out, there have been times when users made edits with good intent, but were rebuked. There is also a possibility that the punishment of banning has become misused or overused. New users will not take hold in this community if the more established users do not take the time to properly guide newcomers to match policy standards. Just telling "non-official" users to change is not enough. The "official" and long-standing users also need to be willing to change. ---Mr. N (Discuss)   23:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see this topic generated a lot of discussion from the Committee members central to the issue Kami was referring to... /sarcasm

Really? I appreciate Mr. N and Yyp's contributions, but as they both point out - they aren't personally involved. Instead it's just been ignored by the people who are involved in this kind of behaviour. In silence, they have spoken more words than they may have if they had actually contributed. 11:31, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well I have stayed out of this long enough, but here's my two cents. Although I was very "MILDLY" involved (I got in near the end of it) in some of the incidents listed, I still wasn't aware enough to really hold ill will to any of the users listed and even if I did, I still would not hold ill will because it is not productive for both the site and our own personal feelings. My only concern in all of those cases was to preserve civility and was willing to do whatever it took to keep the peace, and once that was acomplished it became a distant memory. I feel that any reminders from either party negates what was acomplished.-- 15:27, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Romanizations
Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to remove the "sometimes incorrectly romanized as *blank*" spiels from the articles (mostly Arrancar names)? For the most part, they list blatantly incorrect fan romanizations that never had any legitimacy to begin with. There are some exceptions (Grimmjow has references listed for the alternate versions of his name), and Viz names can be included in the translation template the usual way. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  06:53, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, removing dont this should not be a problem they are incorrect thus they have no reason to be on the page regardless if someone at some point someone thought it was correct. we also delete and/or fix this type of info normally any other time.--


 * I agree as well it causes too much confusion when people start "But I thought it was spelled like this and I'v seen it spell like that", serves no purpose!! The redirects from the common typos should be enough!!


 * Agreed, it's always bugged me because it's 1. out of universe and 2. pretty much completely unnecessary.--Xilinoc (talk) 15:03, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree. If I can recall correctly, the romantizations were especially a big problem in 2009-2010, many were cleared up in Masked and some like "Iduru Kira" are debatable, regardless with the exception of Harribel (which is kept as Halibel in Viz for continuity reasons) Viz gets there romantizations and rough translations directly from Shueshia and Kubo himself, and if we have more than two consitant official sources then that is the name we put in that article whether or not we personally agree with it. Therefore, "fan names," especially translations disproven years ago, have no place here and should be removed for consistency. Also, sorry for being so MIA I have been horribly sick the last few days.-- 15:19, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I add my support to this as well. 20:52, July 2, 2013 (UTC)