Thread:Belthazar451/@comment-1807002-20160331191141/@comment-4627764-20160401084832

Okay, I believe it's time I gave my thoughts on all this drama.

Belthazar451 wrote: It's true that I'm inclined to side with Bunsen because he's the guy I made an admin, but even if he weren't, from my point of view, he's being perfectly reasonable and you're the one flying off the handle. So it's perfectly reasonable for them to get angry at someone who honestly felt they were being attacked?

If anything, you're flying off the handle, BunsenH was at least trying to remain reasonable, and all you've ever done is insert you're own opinion, trying to justify the less-than-stellar argument by "the guy [you] made an admin" by saying that the new editor is broken (which it is not BTW, if anything the classic editor is broken, the reasons of which are graciously provided here: Link. Besides, the only thing that's wrong with the new editor is the source editor, and yes the way it labels the table editor is weird, but what do you expect? it can't magically pull names from nowhere, and really you can just edit the table directly) and antagonize Hollowness for things that they didn't even do (like "[attempting] to run around behind Bunsen's back", oh please, everyone can see the Message Wall feed, and Hollowness knows this), while only providing a single, vague, and not very practical solution to the problem (BunsenH also tested to see the exact issue, and provided several clear solutions to the problem, even if they were misguided in the way they described them).

I agree that Hollowness should have been much more open to the solutions given by BunsenH, but my god, you have the very same problem, you are acting like Hollowness is entirely unreasonable and that you and BunsenH are the only rational ones. (Which admittedly, Hollowness did the same thing, but with the roles reversed)

Belthazar451 wrote: The title of this very thread can attest to that. What does the title have to do anything with this? Its lack of formality doesn't necessarily indicate anything.

Belthazar451 wrote: The issue here is simple: a minor - and non-vital - aspect of the new infoboxes causes one of the editors to stop working. One editor, one editor that is literally 8 years old, one editor that is so broken, it is banned across several wikis, one editor that the Wikia is seriously considering removing at one point down the line. (Quote from Fishtank: "The Classic editor does a lot of things we'd rather it not do, such as garbling code and leaving puzzle pieces scattered all over the place...the Classic editor is definitely being put out to pasture.")

Belthazar451 wrote: That's a completely objective fact - it's either working or it's not, and in this case it's not. Yes, that is an objective fact. What is also an objective fact is that the classic editor is broken. The problem here, is that whether or not the classic editor is worth all this trouble, is subjective. And what's certainly subjective, is you're opinion that the classic editor is "better".

Belthazar451 wrote: There's no need for community consensus on that point. You haven't even allowed consensus to pass, I haven't seen any form of community poll, or forum thread, or talk page, or anything. I'll recognize that Hollowness seems to consider me and Qwertyxp "consensus" (Which is wrong, I mean we are only two people), but still the entire debate/argument was restricted to our Message Walls (which most people aren't going to frequent). We should have some form of easily accessible method for the wiki community to provide their opinion on this. If the argument in its current form isn't reasonable enough for you, why not "Are you okay with using the source code editor for certain pages?". That would at least present this debate/argument in a form digestible for most users (especially the younger ones).

Belthazar451 wrote: What you're asking the consensus to do is to simply redefine "not working" to be the normal state - and by "consensus" you appear to mean just yourself and the two non-admins who happen to be this month's most frequent editors, but not the umpteen and a half casual editors who breeze through every day. Again, Hollowness was wrong to assume us as "consensus". Again, the "umpteen and a half casual editors" didn't even know about this and should've been given a chance to have an opinion. (I won't even mention how insulting it is that you've trivialized my contributions down to "[one of] the two non-admins who happen to be this month's most frequent editors". I have been on this wiki for five months (with almost 1000 contributions) and I will not be dummied out by your interpretation of someone else's (albeit misguided) opinion.

Belthazar451 wrote: Bunsen proposed a perfectly valid solution (or you can call it a workaround if you like, but it still makes things work again) and was even prepared to implement it himself, until you took umbrage at his daring to touch your perfect templates, and headed off on a crusade. BunsenH made some edits that accidentally deleted some of their templates, which considering the fact that BunsenH got quite angry at points, isn't entirely unreasonable to assume were malicious.

Belthazar451 wrote: At no point was a ban on all templates - or even any templates - anywhere on the table. *ahem*

Belthazar451 wrote: The debate is going round and round because you've resorted to just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "consensus! consensus!" No, the debate was also kept going because you keep pushing your opinion that the classic editor was "better".

Belthazar451 wrote: Kindly tell me at what point I disallowed consensus. If that's even something that can be done. When you didn't even try to provide a method for the community to provide an opinion. A simple poll stating: "Are you okay with using the source code editor for certain pages?" is enough. And yes, you can disallow consensus, certainly the way you didn't bother to allow the majority of editors to comment on this by not bringing this discussion outside of the Message Walls would be doing that.