| Revision as of 17:38, 11 April 2022 editCyclonebiskit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators61,690 edits →Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2022: one discussion← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:19, 11 April 2022 edit undoLightandDark2000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,349 edits →Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2022: Decline.Next edit → |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
== Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2022 == |
|
== Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2022 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit template-protected|Module:Storm categories/categories|answered=no}} |
|
{{edit template-protected|Module:Storm categories/categories|answered=yes}} |
|
Given the concerns regarding the changed colors and their relation to the ongoing ArbCom case against WPTC regarding stealth canvassing (which the process was heavily tainted by) – brought up ], ] and ] (the last one brought up by me specifically to get more input from members) – I propose that until the ArbCom case is finalized on May 4 (under a month from now) the legacy colors be temporarily restored until a decision on what to do regarding the RfC’s outcomes is made. The reasoning behind this is mostly to fix the discrepancy between the infoboxes/timelines and the track maps themselves, given that the project was in the middle of re-discussing a new scheme after the previous consensus and had not updated the maps. Even now, currently active systems are still using the old color scale for the track maps so I think it is better that at least for the next month we follow that so as to not give confusion to new readers. This is a genuine concern and not a case of ] as I am considering the ramifications the currently convoluted situation has right now on our new readers. ''''']''''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
Given the concerns regarding the changed colors and their relation to the ongoing ArbCom case against WPTC regarding stealth canvassing (which the process was heavily tainted by) – brought up ], ] and ] (the last one brought up by me specifically to get more input from members) – I propose that until the ArbCom case is finalized on May 4 (under a month from now) the legacy colors be temporarily restored until a decision on what to do regarding the RfC’s outcomes is made. The reasoning behind this is mostly to fix the discrepancy between the infoboxes/timelines and the track maps themselves, given that the project was in the middle of re-discussing a new scheme after the previous consensus and had not updated the maps. Even now, currently active systems are still using the old color scale for the track maps so I think it is better that at least for the next month we follow that so as to not give confusion to new readers. This is a genuine concern and not a case of ] as I am considering the ramifications the currently convoluted situation has right now on our new readers. ''''']''''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Please keep this to a single discussion where you ]. ~ ] (]) 17:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Please keep this to a single discussion where you ]. ~ ] (]) 17:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{Not done}}. We are not doing this. The proper process for an RfC is consensus first, then implementation of said consensus. In the meantime, the status quo should be upheld. It is far, far more disruptive to revert back and forth than it is to keep the current changes in place. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 19:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
Given the concerns regarding the changed colors and their relation to the ongoing ArbCom case against WPTC regarding stealth canvassing (which the process was heavily tainted by) – brought up here, here and here (the last one brought up by me specifically to get more input from members) – I propose that until the ArbCom case is finalized on May 4 (under a month from now) the legacy colors be temporarily restored until a decision on what to do regarding the RfC’s outcomes is made. The reasoning behind this is mostly to fix the discrepancy between the infoboxes/timelines and the track maps themselves, given that the project was in the middle of re-discussing a new scheme after the previous consensus and had not updated the maps. Even now, currently active systems are still using the old color scale for the track maps so I think it is better that at least for the next month we follow that so as to not give confusion to new readers. This is a genuine concern and not a case of WP:IDLI as I am considering the ramifications the currently convoluted situation has right now on our new readers. MarioProtIV (/contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done. We are not doing this. The proper process for an RfC is consensus first, then implementation of said consensus. In the meantime, the status quo should be upheld. It is far, far more disruptive to revert back and forth than it is to keep the current changes in place. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)