User talk:Isabelle Belato

RfC close

Aaaa...

I've been watching this RfC from the beginning. I'm sure you were aware of it as it went on. You probably read some of it, at least, prior to its ending, and you definitely read most/all of it when you closed it. I know this was a hard decision to make, and there was a lot of pressure on you to accurately represent the data (also given the fact that the supporters of the RfC have the loudest and definitely most persistent voices). That being said: I disagree with a lot of the points you made.

1) Personally, I believe that IAR should have been applied to the large influx of new editors, most of whom are readers who wanted to make their voices heard. IPs made accounts in unprecedented amounts to revert this change, and many IPs also pitched in. Accounts such as IWantTheOldInterfaceBack and Redesign is utterly awful showcase this.

This applies to both opposes and supports, so the general canvassing IMO should have been ignored in the close (though the majority of the indirectly canvassed support !votes are unmarked, while the majority of the indirectly canvassed oppose !votes are marked with 'suspected canvassed user' tags. Hmm? What's going on, Mr. Bias?) Again, this is an unprecedented influx. Canvassing was kinda necessary IMO to actually represent people, especially readers, the main userbase. So I personally think that all !votes that weren't simply ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT should have had more sway in the final tallying.

2) The oppose !votes were essentially as awful as the support !votes. ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT ran rampant throughout the whole RfC. A lot of support !votes were simply IDONTLIKEIT. Oppose !votes argued things like 'if we don't change, then we are never going to move forward'. These are both bad arguments.

There were definitely better and worse arguments (personally I think my own argument for Support was pretty good and comprehensive, and Oppose 224 is pretty good, even though it doesn't actually go into depth about what's good and what isn't.) The way you spoke throughout the whole thing, especially the phrase That is not to say that those opposing the rollback presented solely strong arguments, seems to imply that you think the oppose arguments were generally better. I fully disagree with this assessment. In addition, you mainly focused on support arguments and not oppose arguments, which makes it hard to tell which specific oppose arguments were strong.

3) IMO, you misrepresented the WMF bias claims made throughout the discussions. While some participants believe the surveys organized by the WMF were skewed positively toward the new skin—no. This survey was very clearly biased. According to WMF, based on a set of 152 valid responses, 86 responses reported the new experience as easier to [use] or the new and the old experiences as equally easy to use. Of these, 49 respondents reported that they find both skins equally easy to use and 37 respondents reported that they find the new skin easier to use.

Wait a minute.

86 responses reported the new experience as easier to [use] or the new and the old experiences as equally easy to use. (emphasis mine)

Do the math and tell me how this isn't biased. They're misrepresenting the data, whether by accident or intentionally. It's not even about the profanity anymore. Stuff like this and the canvassing email (I can't find a link to it, sorry) piss me off.

4) Issues with the current state of V2022 are most definitely grounds to roll it back now. You said this—At first glance, we have a clear numerical advantage for those supporting the rollback to the old skin, but many of these !votes were based exclusively on specific issues with Vector 2022, such as fixed text width, the large amount of whitespace, and the overuse of icons, as well as some accessibility issues. I don't see any issue with what the !votes were based on. The point of the rollback is not to shut down V2022 forever. It's to shut down V2022, improve it, and reinstate it. If people don't like it, shut it down, give us what we like, and then improve and return to us with the better version.

...more changes are likely to come—WMF hasn't fixed any major complaints (I italicize because fixing isn't a fair characterization since a lot of the issues were opinion based, such as width or TOC), barring the persistent toggle, which was an actual issue that seriously needed to be addressed. The rollback does not care about the future. It only cares about the present. And, currently, there are a lot of things that people take issue with, mainly the width and TOC. So, I really dislike this point you made. It IMO treats the dislike of certain aspects of V2022 as future issues that can be fixed at a later date, which yes, they can, but many would prefer for that to be done in the background (the whole point of rolling back).

5) You said this—As some participants noted, it's likely that very few of those commenting in this RfC have any experience with UI design—and I find it weak, because people not liking something has nothing to do with their knowledge and/or expertise (imagine if Coke said screw you, you've never made a soft drink, New Coke is fine). I might be characterizing your argument wrong, but this one, I disagree with a lot. Not much to be said here.

All that I've said, when tallied up, and in my humble, clearly and openly biased opinion implies rough consensus for rollback.

This doesn't matter, however. It's done. The RfC has been closed already.

Last thing: One of the most common points raised by those supporting the rollback to Vector 2010 was related to all the problems, bugs, and other issues that showed up when the new skin was deployed. Some of these problems were known since the previous RfC, which happened late last year, with the closing statement making it clear that the deployment of Vector 2022 depended on some of these problems being fixed beforehand. Many participants saw this as a failure by the WMF to follow our procedures. You didn't define whether or not a no consensus outcome implies rollback. I don't actually know if that's in your power as a closer; if it was, it would've been helpful. Does a no consensus outcome invoke status quo ante bellum? Who knows? (Even if it does, WMF can just pull the CONEXEMPT card.)

Wow, I wrote a lot. I'm very sorry for writing something so long and so useless. I just hope that you aren't flooded with unargued claims of bias and the general lack of empathy that the closers of the old RfC had to deal with.

Have a great UTC morning, Cessaune [talk] 06:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for closing!

I'm a bit surprised you disagree with the previous two closers on whether the previous RfC's conditions have now been met. I don't think they have. The whitespace issue is conditional on your other close (and what if conexempt is invoked on that?), I've not seen changes to the language menu, and the last I saw, I'm not sure icons have been replaced enough to be regarded as solved.. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue with challenging RFC closes, especially enormous RFC closes, is that the bar is set at "was it a reasonable interpretation." Before making a challenge or requesting a rethink we should be not be asking, "Do I think this is the best close?" or "Is this the close I would have made?", but "Is it reasonable that a closer came to this conclusion." The act of weighing arguments, tallying weighted !votes, and reading consensus is complicated and there is a wide variation between closers.

In conclusion, the rfc should have been closed as:

(TL;DR) , ya'll need to stop writing so much.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and lest it be lost in my jokery, the close is a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion. Endorsed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cessaune. I did not follow the RfC closely as it developed, but I did read it and saw your extensive participation in it. Thanks for stopping by, and let me answer the points you've raised. During my reading, I did take into account the fact that many IPs and newly registered users participated in the RfC, a point which was also raised multiple times. As you note, some of these users were pro and some against the rollback, and many experienced users noted their simpathy to those readers who felt affected by the change. The problem, as you note, is that most of these votes (either pro or against) could be categorized as "I (don't) like it". On that point, users also argued that a vast majority of readers did not see the need to create an account and/or participate in the RfC, and noted that, usually, there is a silent majority that don't see the need to raise their voices when they agree with the changes.

With regards to the strength of the arguments, maybe we could've made it clear that we saw issues with both sides, but I think it was made clear that there was a lot of weak arguments. While counting how many arguments on each side felt weak would've made some people more content, that is a trap I usually avoid to fall into, as it eventually become a numbers game at WP:AN. Our focus on the weakness of the supporting arguments were simply because they were more numerous, and so more space was needed to go through them.

Speaking of the surveys, those arguments did not appear to be persuasive enough throughout the discussion, with some believing they were a clear sign that the WMF had misrespresented the data, and others seeing it as the WMF doing their due diligency before making such a far-reaching change. On top of that, as many participants pointed, the research papers presented were the few points of reliable data offered among a sea of personal and subjective opinions.

Concerning the fixes and changes, and this correlates to the "what does no consensus mean here" question, we saw them as the WMF complying with the original close. While there are some things that people disliked and won't be changed (such as the floating TOC), the major issues pointed out by users were addressed as the discussion proceeded. Since the WMF was now in accordance to the previous terms for deployment, we concluded that "no consensus" meant sticking to the previous close, which was supportive of the deployment.

I think a "rough consensus to rollback" is also a valid reading of the discussion, but that was not our reading. As I've said in the past, different people will give different weight to different arguments, it's all about satying within what's reasonable and to never supervote. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the outcome, but I agree with your reading of the RfC. It was a tough decision, and you laid out points very clearly. Thank you for this. Have a good UTC ...late(?) afternoon? I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 16:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Cessaune on every point they have raised, and I completely disagree with the closure. Æo (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What specifically about the closure do you disagree with? Cessaune [talk] 17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It is completely dissonant with my view of consensus; in my view, there was clearly a strong consensus (an absolute majority, even considering the canvassing) for a return to V10. Compare the case with that of this (extremely smaller) RfC; I opened and originally closed it myself. The outcome was a majority of !votes opposing the proposal, some of which with reservations. I was reprimanded and my closure was annulled (and I accepted it, howbeit) because, while acknowledging that the outcome was clearly against the proposal, I also gave due weight to the strong and well-thought-out support arguments and to the reservations expressed by some opposers.

Coming to the specific points I disagree with in Isabelle Belato's closure:

• The strongest arguments are those based on our policies and guidelines, while the weakest are those based on subjective opinion, ... many !votes were based on personal opinions about how Vector 2022 was better or worse than Vector 2010. While these are usually considered weaker arguments, they were not entirely discarded but were not given as much weight as other points. > The RfC was about Wikipedia's interface, it was primarily about aesthetics and immediate visual/use impression, and therefore arguments based on personal opinion and taste should have been given the same weight as arguments based on policies.
• Those in favor of maintaining Vector 2022 also commented on the fact that the skin has been active on a number of smaller Wikipedias with varying degrees of acceptance. > This was a rather minor argument, raised by very few users, and in any case there were interventions from the French Wikipedia expressing strong disapproval and reporting that their voices had not been heard.
• As some participants noted, it's likely that very few of those commenting in this RfC have any experience with UI design and, as such, the opinions presented here are only that, opinions. > This argument is very weak. As I have written hereabove, the RfC was primarily about aesthetics and immediate visual/use impression, and opinions should have been weighed based on these parameters too.
• While some participants believe the surveys organized by the WMF were skewed positively toward the new skin (such as by removing answers containing foul language), others saw the surveys as a reason to support the deployment of the skin. ... The only concrete facts we have are the studies presented by some, which, for the most part, agreed with the changes brought by the new Vector. > I agree with Cessaune in their points 3 & 5 on this matter.
• At first glance, we have a clear numerical advantage for those supporting the rollback to the old skin, but many of these !votes were based exclusively on specific issues with Vector 2022, such as fixed text width, the large amount of whitespace, and the overuse of icons, as well as some accessibility issues. Others commented on bugs they encountered while using the skin. > There was a clear absolute majority supporting rollback. Period. Not "at first glance". Why has this majority not been considered as such and has instead been considered a conglomerate of disparate opinions?
• While those in support of rolling back had a numerical majority, their arguments were relatively weak... > I am in total disagreement with this; weak arguments were put forward on both sides.

However, I think that we should move this discussion here. Æo (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Æo. We clearly disagree on several points, specially on how strong or weak some arguments were. I believe my comment above answers most of your complaints, so I won't extend myself too much, but would like to acknowledge that I've read your comment. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so, if you want. I'm fine with the close as is. I think Isabelle did a great job, all things considered, and a no consensus outcome is a fine outcome in my book, though there are a lot of things I disagree with pertaining to said close.

Personally, I think you're giving too much weight to the numerical majority, which is only about 3/5 of all responses. There is no objective answer or deduction that can be reasoned from the RfC; Isabelle might be biased, but you clearly are, given your vote and your heavy participation in the RfC and the subsequent discussions. Same as me.

I would like to see what @Aaron Liu thinks about the close. It would be interesting, seeing the opinion of an oppose vote that was also very active. It could guide us towards the truth, though no such thing exists or can exist, given that everything ultimately comes down to opinion. Cessaune [talk] 21:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am not Aaron Liu, but I've been following the RFC and subsequent discussions since I voted there. (I just don't happen to always make a lot of comments because... "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick").

I think the close was fair, and even-handed. A pure numbers (no argument analysis) of 355/226/24 split means either 58.6% or 61.1% of !votes wanted to revoke. I disagree with the multiple claims made that this is an "overwhelming majority", and was personally uncertain which way the RFC would close. 60% "might" be enough to say yes-rollback, but even then I'd say it's contentious. Comparing it to WP:RFA, RFAs in the 65-75% range are not "clear-cut"... And I'm claiming that for site-wide changes, 60% is also within similar "discretionary thresholds" and not a "clear absolute majority". (My personal thresholds for this are roughly 55%-65%, but thankfully I don't have to close site-wide RFCs anytime soon to put it to the test).

As for the actual analysis of their close, I found myself generally agreeing with how User:Isabelle Belato and User:Ingenuity parsed it (Don't forget the 2nd closer folks!). I am not personally inclined to tally each individual vote and see which ones are weaker/stronger based on my read on policy, but I did come to similar conclusions independently. For one, "I like it/I don't like it" should be given lesser weightage but not discarded. For another, I believed WMF was actively working through issues raised by previous RFC and this one, reducing weightage on other !votes. (I personally do not intend to deep dive into exact specifics, so I've not followed exact formatting preferences or phabricator tickets).

All in all, that's a lot of words to say "The close was fair and I understand how they resolved it". I understand if editors are strongly motivated enough to submit a Close Challenge, but frankly... I suspect that was going to happen regardless of where the final outcome was.

Soni (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The close was good enough that at first glance, I didn’t notice any problems save for the weird summary of the survey and the sudden appearance of the That is not to say sentence.

Cessaune's points

1. A lot of opposes were canvassed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion § Disclosure of email outreach. I do not see how anything else here constitutes canvassing, let alone “necessary canvassing”. New accounts and IPs in itself did not constitute canvassing and their valid points seem to be weighed equally.
2. I agree with this point.
3. I also agree. While most surveys were positive and I couldn’t find dirt on them, Isabelle appears to be referring to the A/B test, for which there was a consensus that it was skewed. I don’t see where the others seeing it as the WMF doing their due diligency before making such a far-reaching change are.
4. While I don't think these issues can support a rollback alone, I agree that these are valid points and don't get why they have been presented in a negative light in the close. As I side note, I still don't understand what accessibility issues exist in V22.
5. I kind of agree with this point. Also, for your last thing, I agree with Isabelle that Since the WMF was now in accordance to the previous terms for deployment, we concluded that "no consensus" meant sticking to the previous close, which was supportive of the deployment.

I will respond to Æo later. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The raised accessibility issues were related to things such as the color of visited and unvisited links (which did not have enough contrasts against the background), the difficulty with using icons without a text to describe what they meant and, to some participants, the text width, which made for harder reading on certain screens. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There was also a complaint from a user with some kind of visual oversensitivity about the brightness of the whitespace causing accessibility issues, but hopefully we'll be getting dark mode soon anyway. small jars tc 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you close could not be any farther from the actual consensus. I'm honestly baffled how such a massive majority in favor of a certain action is being ignored again and again. This is the second RFC on this subject where the community's clear preference is completely misrepresented. A WMF member lost their job over this farce and we still keep being subjected to this garbage?!? Your close just demonstrates clear bias in favor of V2022 all throughout. You are not neutral in any way and the statement "While those in support of rolling back had a numerical majority, their arguments were relatively weak..." makes that abundantly clear. Both sides had weak arguments and many opposers kept framing long-time registered users as a nuisance called "editors" who only cared about editing needs, when in reality nearly everyone from that group supporting the rollback actually complained about readability issues.

Your close is nothing but a supervote. If you have even the slightest bit of respect towards this community, you will undo your closure as soon as possible. If not, rest assured that this will be formally challenged and if needed even brought to the attention of the ArbCom. This is unacceptable.Tvx1 19:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1 "A WMF member lost their job over this farce" This is complete conjecture and potentially even a BLP violation. Sam Walton (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I'm glad someone called them out on that, thank you. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't. It's been openly reported on this Wikipedia that a WMF member left because of the V2022 farce and was globally locked from Wikimedia. Also that person does not have a biography on Wikipedia (why should they even???), so WP:BLP has no place here and I would appreciate if you scratch that. Please actually read a policy before posting personal accusations based on it. Tvx1 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves" which does indicate BLP policy includes non-notable people. The conjecture is about why they left. Please scratch that. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP applies to all living and recently dead people on any page on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1 No, it hasn't. A staff member who worked on V22 is no longer working at the WMF, no reason for that has been publicly stated. Globally locking their staff account is standard practice regardless of the reason they departed. Stating that they were fired over the skin is a serious and unfounded accusation. The very first sentence of WP:BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" so please don't lecture me on reading policy. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No not “A staff member who worked on V22”, but the chief designer of the thing. And the policy is called BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS. It obviously refers to subjects of wikipedia articles or mentioned therin or in the talk pages of these or in noticeboard discussions regarding them. Something mentioned about a Wikimedia member that is not related to any BLP in anyway whatsoever is just not what that policy deals with. Tvx1 00:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Three editors above have told you that you are not interpreting the policy correctly, and I'm going to be the fourth. The top of WP:BLP says, This policy applies...to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. That would include discussion about a former WMF staff member in the Wikipedia or user talk space. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This is simply false. Policy is not interpreted by the title of the page alone, but by the content within. And, as stated by the person you replied to, the very first sentence does not in any way specify "living persons" to exclusively mean "subjects of articles." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4DDA:C0B7:A132:1A7A (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You have not addressed how your statement that they were fired due to V22 is purely speculative. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: While I understand you'd be upset at my close, and I expect it to end up at WP:AN eventually, refrain from making the kinds of comment you made regarding the WMF employee. While we know they don't work with the WMF anymore, we don't know why, so avoid speculation. That type of discourse was prevalent enough during the RfC itself, and it doesn't need to continue here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the rest but I’m pretty sure that his leave was not discussed in the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, by "discourse" I didn't mean specifically this, but the general treatment of WMF employees. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the utter incorrectness of your close instead of tangential things. If you knew your close was that controversial, then why did you persist with it. Again, if you have any respect for the community, you’d recant it straight away. Tvx1 00:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The ratio of supports and opposes are about 3 to 2 (which is not and overwhelming majority), so pretty much any close to the main question would be controversial. The neutrality has been discussed above (including the valid point that both sides had weak arguments) and the only readability issue was whitespace, which doesn't outweight all the opposers' reader arguments. Plus, the previous close didn't ignore community input, see User talk:ProcrastinatingReader Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

60-40 is in fact an overwhelming result by any definition. It’s about on par with the 1964 United States presidential election. To go against that requires pretty damn compelling evidence, and this close didn’t even come close to providing that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is only an overwhelming result for something people expect to be constantly 5-4, such as a presidential election. It is not an overwhelming result by almost any other definition. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It was actually 2 to 1 or basically two thirds in favor of rollback. That is the denfinition of an overwhelming majority. And whitspace wasn’t the only readability issue reported. Reduced width of the text or barely TOC’s among others were also reported.Tvx1 22:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

How is 355 to 226 with 24 neutrals 2 to 1? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This is simple math. Disregarding neutrals: 355/(355+226)=.611. Including neutrals as part of both the support and oppose groups: (355+24)/(335+24+226+24)=.622. Both are closer to 3/2 than 2/1. Cessaune [talk] 23:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If you knew your close was that controversial, then why did you persist with it. Sometimes closers have to make tough and controversial calls when assessing the consensus of a discussion and summarising the arguments presented. Any close to this RfC was going to be controversial, regardless of what the consensus outcome was. An experienced closer, like Isabelle and Ingenuity, should not shy away from making tough and controversial calls simply because they are tough and controversial. If we expected otherwise, then no tough or controversial discussions or RfCs would ever be closed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking about their decision to close this, but the controversial close rationale used. They knew it was wrong and still imposed it. Tvx1 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I don't mind that you disagree with the close, or even believe it's completely wrong, but please do not mischaracterize it as me knowingly making a wrong close. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what specifically in Isabelle and Ingenuity's close is completely misrepresented? Also: pertaining to the phrase—If you knew your close was that controversial, then why did you persist with it—that's not how it works. There was always going to be controversy. People were always going to disagree with the close. That's how it's always going to be, in anything sitewide such as this.

I said this above: I just hope that you aren't flooded with unargued claims of bias and the general lack of empathy that the closers of the old RfC had to deal with. Pay special attention to the phrase "unargued claims". Some comments left here have been founded on evidence, reasoning, and, necessarily, opinion (like my comments, AEo's, Aaron Liu's, Femke's and, of course, Isabelle's and Ingenuity's) and some founded on assumptions that treat opinion as if it's fact, while also engaging in OR (like your comments). It's unproductive and slows down progress. In addition, it alienates the closers. You can disagree, but disagree and provide reasoning. Not simply sentences like If you have even the slightest bit of respect towards this community, you will undo your closure as soon as possible, [your] close could not be any farther from the actual consensus, ...[WP:BLP] obviously refers to subjects of wikipedia articles or mentioned therin or in the talk pages of these or in noticeboard discussions regarding them. Cessaune [talk] 03:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Read my first comment. The most compelling unthruths are there. Heck, you even pointed them out in your first post here! Tvx1 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but they were only 5 points, each of them addressing on average about two lines, which does not mean [Isabelle's] close could not be any farther from the actual consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the WMF has openly threatened to ignore the result if it went the wrong way, what evidence is there that they’ll abide by the unlimited width mandate? If they refuse to do so, will you redact your close? Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: I don't see how the WMF not abiding by the close means it should be redacted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So the only actually actionable part of this RFC is keeping the new design, and WMF can straight up ignore the community mandate regarding.

I’m sorry, but that’s a thoroughly ridiculous reading of this RFC. If they don’t comply with their end, there is no remotely defensible reading of your close. Toa Nidhiki05 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, any close to this RfC would be thoroughly ridiculous and indefensible as long as WMF ignores it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's how it works. WMF gets final say. This is how it is, and likely how it's going to be as long as WMF and Wikipedia exist. ...the only actually actionable part of this RFC is nothing. Essentially, enwiki finds an issue or problem with something that enwiki doesn't have the power to change on their own (like rolling back a sitewide change instituted by WMF). Enwiki gathers together, and if enough people agree with the proposal, we then present it to WMF. They get to decide what to do with our proposal, and whether or not to abide by it and give us what we want, or to ignore it. Simple. Cessaune [talk] 18:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If they get the final say, and unlimited width is not default, I don't see any conceivable way you can reach the conclusion Isabelle did. Toa Nidhiki05 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? You haven't addressed any of the points and just repeated yourself. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the unlimited width mandate? Persistent width toggle? Default max width? Just asking for clarification's sake.

Secondly, WMF can do whatever they want per WP:CONEXEMPT. So, redact, like repeal the result? Probably not, per CONEXEMPT, and, even if the closers do, it wouldn't matter.

Also, we can only use WMF processes to define what an overwhelming result actually means. Not a US presidential election, or any election, or any thing else. You can argue that it is, but base it on Wikipedia, Wikimedia and WMF precedent. Cessaune [talk] 15:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"So, redact, like repeal the result?" - Yes. The result is straight-up indefensible if unlimited width is not made default. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabelle’s close says “rough consensus to make unlimited width the default”. There’s no scenario where this doesn’t happen and the close remains defensible. Frankly a closure review is warranted at this point - I had expected Isabelle to at least agree that the WMF is obligated to do this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why there’s no scenario where this doesn’t happen and the close remains defensible? Just wondering. Cessaune [talk] 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The absolute most frequently-stated complaint about this new default is width. The idea that WMF has made enough changes to resolve complaints when the single-most common one hasn't been dealt with (unlimited not being default) is, well, laughable. I'm honestly surprised Isabelle would undermine her own close by admitting one half of it isn't actually binding. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're "surprised Isabelle would undermine [their] own close" by admitting the truth? Would you rather they lied and said everything in it was binding? You keep saying that "WMF is obligated to do this" but no, no they are not. You've been linked to WP:CONEXCEPT a few times — I suggest reading it, because it explicitly states that's not the case. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C18:E59F:1E8E:A64B (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

They aren't in terms of policy, but they are obliged in accordance with their intended function as maintainers of the infrastructure of a community-driven project. It's important that the change in width isn't just aesthetic; it determines (along with the removal of the ToC) whether or not hundreds of hours of work fixing layout problems will be needed, that only members of that community will probaly know how to perform. small jars tc 01:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point here is that unlimited width isn’t the only thing the foundation can deny, therefore Tia’s argument doesn’t make sense. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Factual misunderstandings in close

My apologies for adding to the extensive discussion here, but I don't believe this close was correct.

The clearest issue is that the close you and Ingenuity made was based on a misunderstanding; you said While some participants believe the surveys organized by the WMF were skewed positively toward the new skin (such as by removing answers containing foul language), others saw the surveys as a reason to support the deployment of the skin.

The survey you are referring to in this statement is this one, and while the WMF presented the results as being in favor of the change (The majority of respondents reported that the new experience is easier to use or that the new and old experience are equally easy to use) this was misleading and the actual results tell the opposite story; 60 respondents found Vector 2010 easier to use, 49 found both skins equally easy to use, and 37 found Vector 2022 easier to use - the requests for the WMF to provide the raw figures were an attempt to determine whether they cherry-picked the data in addition to presenting the results in a misleading light.

Given that this evidence seems to have played a prominent role in your assessment of consensus I believe the fact that it supports the opposite argument from the argument you believed it to support is sufficient to result in the result being adjusted to "consensus to revert".

I also see other issues with the close, but as I believe this issue is sufficient to warrant overturning the result I won't go into them yet and will only do so if necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi BilledMammal. I understand where you are coming from, but that one survey did not play a very strong part in our reasoning for the "no consensus". I believe the point we made in the close, related to this survey in particular, was that some believed it was misleading while others believed it was WMF doing the research necessary for a big change. What played a somewhat bigger part was the set of presented researches and papers, which many users found compelling. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

G5 issue

Hi. Would you mind checking out Prettyboy D-O, Kida Kudz, and Beau Young Prince? They are also created by Wikispendo (a sock of Buysomebananas), but the G5 tags keep getting removed by another editor. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a more experienced administrator would like to weigh-in here, but, if we were to follow the spirit of WP:PROXYING, Why? I Ask is in the right here, as they are taking responsibility for those articles. We usually delete articles created by socks per WP:DENY, but if a user in good standing believes those articles follow all our policies and guidelines and should not be deleted, then I don't see why we should delete them. I could be wrong, of course, but maybe that's something worth making clearer in the WP:PROXYING and WP:G5 pages. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Isabelle! Why? I Ask (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally mind if somebody picked one article that they felt strongly about saving and working on but Why? I Ask seems to be on a crusade against G5 in general and removal of tags en masse could be construed as tendentious editing. Especially as WIA has failed to establish a consensus to alter the wording of G5 (in multiple venues). Editors have been sanctioned for similar conduct in the past. But ultimately just because something is eligible for speedy deletion doesn't mean it must be deleted, so the discretion ultimately rests with the reviewing admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mass remove every G5 tag, obviously. Just ones that I think have merit and that I am willing to work on. I have edited every single one that I have de-tagged. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional reply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, while I understand the concept of PROXY, I feel that socks should NEVER be encouraged. They, along with UPE editors, are the bane of the project. But thank you for your detailed explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

AE

Hi, if I am not wrong you are an admin, right? Can you give me some additional words so I can answer some future questions (although I'm not planning to say much more), but most importantly I want to clarify the source thing Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)