User talk:Isabelle Belato/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Some falafel for you!

Sending you a high protein snack! Figured you could use some energy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Socratic Barnstar
For your eloquent, well-reasoned, and no-doubt incredibly stressful close at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 05:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool art

Cool art on your user page Born25121642 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Born25121642: The artist is very talented. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of your alt account's illustration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm very fond of the golden pirate age (well, the fantastical parts, at least) and its aesthetics. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I'm sure you're about to get a deluge of comments either supporting or arguing against your summary, but I wanted to show appreciation for the time you spent closing the Vector 2022 RfC. At more than 120,000 words it was no small feat. Sam Walton (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I definitely want to thank you for doing the close. Anyone who closes any RfC of any importance that has strong views on either side will get grief from whichever side "loses" - it's a fact of life. For what it's worth, I had Vector 2022 turned off, but I turned it on a few days ago to give it a go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 17 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)

Let's wait until replies are necessary. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
OK Marcelus (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks to you and Ingenuity for your tough closure. I have been following V22 for some time, and I'm glad someone stepped up to make the tough closure. Qwerfjkltalk 21:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess this is my life now. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This too shall pass. Thanks for making a difficult close. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this was going to be ugly regardless of the outcome. Thanks for biting it for us. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Ganesha: you said it. – SJ + 15:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank You

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for letting the name of Bane stay! AsaneBane (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I would topic ban them right now myself, but I'm on my phone and working out all the templates and logs is a pain. If you feel inclined to topic ban, or implement a more severe block, I'd support it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Most of their (limited) contributions seem to be POV pushing of some variety—in addition to their transphobic POV pushing wrt Lia Thomas, they've been tried to shoehorn in original research at Carnivore Diet (see here for a particularly egregious example). Going back further, they've also revert-warred on Pseudoskepticism (without breaking 3RR). From my perspective, a NOTHERE indef seems warranted. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for taking action when I was busy. I've changed their block to indefinite due to their general behaviour on that user's talk page and on Talk:Lia Thomas. I think we've been plenty lenient, considering what they've been posting. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely endorse that indef. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Oh, god, you close Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rollback_of_Vector_2022 under clouds and I really have nothing to say. Anyway, I'm impressed by your bravery, good luck in the future. -Lemonaka‎ 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I do not have any interest in challenging this, since WMF endorsed the change, anyone is unlikely to challenge it. Meh, not about right or wrong, it's just about the method, when WMF decided to use their email for canvassing, they chose the worst method and anyone involved was pushed hard. Anyway, you are really brave enough to deal with this mess. Best wishes. -Lemonaka‎ 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Vector Design Racist

What do you think of the position that the Vector design is racist because it hides the links to pages in other languages? — chbarts (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First of all, this is simply not true. I have no idea where you got this from. As far as I can tell, Vector 22 shows you language links more often, as it gives you a convenient dropdown to change language at the top right corner of the page.
Second of all, Isabelle Belato is not the right person to ask about this. Their closing of this RfC does not, and in fact cannot, reflect their opinions on the skin.
Third, the logical conclusion of "language links harder to find" --> "racist" is a very large exaggeration. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022 Rollback Close Review

There is currently a close review on AN for the close you did on the Vector Rollback RFC. (I know there's a comment noting so above, but I was unsure if that message would get lost in the pages of discussion) Soni (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

AE

Hi, I think I need couple words more to respond in my AE case Marcelus (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: I see you've already replied and are over the limit. Do you need extra words for that response already in place or do you intend to reply further? Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to reply to Cukrakalnis; I think I had some more words before my the most recent reply Marcelus (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC close

Cessaune

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)

Tvx1

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)
On this I agree with Toa Nidhiki05 and Tvx1. It is a decisive absolute majority (slightly exceeding 60%); not an overwhelming majority (70-80%+), but a decisive majority. Æo (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's as decisive as pure numbers show:
  • The core userbase, readers, are much more likely to have not been aware of the RfC. They are also less likely to know what an RfC is, or how to participate corectly.
  • I suspect (this is all my opinion) that given an even sampling of all Wikipedia users, the pure numbers would be in favor of rolling back, but it would be much more even. Something like <55 percent. There was definitely (unintentional) editor bias—how many non-editors are signed up for the feedback request service or frequent RFC/A? Next to none, likely.
  • RfCs generally aren't this big, so let's use a smaller one. An RfC with 20 people that finished 12-8 support-oppose, might either be rough consensus or no consensus. It's within error; I think it could go either way per the closer's opinion and the arguments presented.
Cessaune [talk] 21:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cessaune, I feel like selection bias and negativity bias apply to the RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:43, 19 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)

It's really disappointing that you were not wanting to show any willingness whatsoever to review you close. A formal challenge it is then.Tvx1 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05

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)
If that part of the RfC is non-binding, Isabelle shouldn't have included it. They have now made it abundantly clear that they think this RfC is no consensus even if the largest community point of anger isn't addressed. Her close should be challenged and ultimately reversed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You're not understanding. Read WP:CONEXCEPT. Cessaune [talk] 00:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cessaune: I think Toa is referring to the closure, not to the WMF's decision which will come after it. Æo (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Stricken my possibly senseless comment; it is very late, I am tired, and my brain is not working well.--Æo (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05 Every part of this RfC is non-binding. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: If it was closed as "consensus to rollback" and they didn't rollback, would that mean the close was invalid and should be ultimately reversed? Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No, because them ignoring a consensus to rollback wouldn't help them. Here, ignoring the consensus for unlimited width hurts them. Your argument here doesn't really make sense I don't think? Toa Nidhiki05 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "non-binding close" then. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 03:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Them ignoring a consensus to make unlimited width the default also wouldn't help them. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It absolutely would because they don’t want to do it. Isabelle found “consensus” to keep the skin and to add unlimited width as default, but the two aren’t linked - even if the WMF refuses, they still claim “no consensus” on removing it. I’m frankly astonished that Isbabelle could read the same RFC I did and have that as the takeaway. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your argument doesn’t make sense to me. Why should a close with consensus for rollback be kept if ignored but a close with consensus for unlimited width be redacted if ignored?Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you haven't got it by now, I doubt further explaining is going to help. Toa Nidhiki05 13:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thonking.gif Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, no one understands the point you're trying to make. WMF can do whatever they want, and the close has nothing to do with that. Cessaune [talk] 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to watch the WMF ignore the part of the RFC they don’t like, while the closer and a fairly small minority of participants claim this is what the community wanted the whole time. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: The final decision is in the hands of the WMF, whatever the closing consensus is. The only thing we can do now is to formally WP:CLOSECHALLENGE Isabelle Belato's closure. Æo (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05, WMF can ignore the part of the RFC they don’t like. They have final say, no exceptions. Secondly, neither of the closers believe that the community wants one thing or the other—according to them, there was no consensus.
Pertaining to this phrase—...while the closer and a fairly small minority of participants claim this is what the community wanted the whole time—can you verify this statement with direct quotes from either of the closers? Cessaune [talk] 23:37, 20 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)
Hi Isabelle, thank you for the reply. First, apologies if you understand this, but your response doesn't make it clear that you do; the survey did not support the change. The WMF presented it in such a way to suggest that it did, but a review of the provided underlying data shows that this presentation was misleading.
This also leads to another point; I believe you placed undue emphasis on the WMF's evidence for two reasons:
  1. You say that many users found [the presented evidence] compelling; I believe you are mistaken with this statement. My review of the oppose !votes suggests less than 5% were based, in whole or part, on the presented evidence; I don't believe this can be called "many users". In addition, some of those !votes cited the evidence incorrectly, such as by saying that the surveys found that users preferred the Vector 2022.
  2. You don't properly consider the editors who don't find the presented evidence compelling; there were a number of reasons for this, but I believe the most common is that users considered the WMF an unreliable or non-neutral source on this question. This was supported by evidence, by demonstrating that the WMF had mislead the community about the results of the survey, as well as by showing that they had omitted or failed to find evidence that contracted their preferred position.

    This position, which by my count was held by more editors than the opposite position, is a policy-based argument and so I don't see a justification to dismiss it.

Considering this, can you clarify why you gave so much weight to the !voters who relied to the WMF's evidence, and so little to the editors who rejected the WMF's evidence?
I also have a question about the impact of the approximately 30 canvassed oppose !voters as I don't see any mention of them in the close summary; how did you consider their !votes when determining consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
There appears to be some misunderstanding, as you are repeating here the same argument that was raised during the RfC with regards to the WMF survey. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems there is. To help clear it up, can you say whether in your close you considered the WMF survey to support the change, oppose the change, or to be disputed?
While you are replying to that, I would also appreciate a reply on the canvassed voter question. BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Disputed. I was neutral on the canvassed editors, as much of those !votes felt into the category of WP:ILIKEIT. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you; can you explain how you came to the conclusion that it was disputed? If it would help I can present my own assessment of the discussion on it, but I believe it would be more beneficial if I just allowed you to explain your close.
By "neutral", does that mean you included or excluded them when determining consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
In response to your comment below to Æo; I understand that you don't intend to overturn the close, which is why I am not presenting arguments for why I believe you close was in error. Instead, I am trying to understand why you made the close you did, and would appreciate answers to my questions. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Apparently, Isabelle Belato is not going to answer to your questions. At this point it would be better to proceed with the closure review, otherwise too much time would pass. Æo (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Give Isabelle time. They're still an admin. Isabelle can't respond to everything. In addition, Isabelle hasn't responded to anything on this page since before you asked the question the second time. Cessaune [talk] 19:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, they have all the time. I would like to underline that I am not among those who question the good faith of the closers. In my opinion the RfC was closed in good faith, but the endnote was not perfect and probably skewed by a certain point of view. Æo (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe they will; this is an WP:ADMINACCT matter, after all, but even absent that I haven't seen any indication that they aren't willing to engage with those who are skeptical over the close. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I must apologise to Isabelle Belato if my statement above seemed to imply that they are not answering questions. Reading again the thread I notice that it hasn't even been too long since the question was posted. Æo (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
By "neutral" it means that they were weak enough that I included them in the same bin as all the other WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Concerning the survey, we wrote a paragraph about that in the close, and I wrote another one about that here in my talk page already, it's on my first post up top.Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, although I don't believe it answers my question. The first was whether you excluded or included them when determining consensus; whether you gave them any weight - I also note that while most appear to fall into the WP:ILIKEIT bin, not all of them do. For this question, could you please just answer "Yes, they were included" or "No, they were excluded"?
For the second, I've read both of those paragraphs, but they don't explain how you came to the conclusion that whether the survey supported or opposed deployment was disputed. I am hoping you are able to explain how you came to that conclusion; in particular, what arguments where made that convinced you that this was in dispute, rather than that it opposed deployment. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I made myself clear in that I read the arguments provided and considered them on their strengths and weaknesses. I never said the survey itself was disputed, but there was dispute among participants on whether it was actually valid or not, with different people raising different points to defend or attack it. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, did you factor in the fact that the survey itself was biased (whether knowingly or not) when you claimed it was disputed? Also, I don't ever remember anyone disputing the biased nature of the survey when being presented with the obvious evidence. Cessaune [talk] 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I realize I am repeating myself, but you are not answering the question. When determining consensus, did you include the !votes of canvassed editors; yes or no? If the answer is yes, I understand that you will have read the arguments provided and considered them on their strengths and weaknesses.
For the survey, you said that it was disputed above, but thank you for clarifying what you meant. However, what I am asking is for you to clarify how you came to the conclusion that the survey could be used as a reason to support the deployment of the skin; which arguments convinced you that this was a valid position and caused you to not interpret it as evidence against the deployment of the skin? BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Isabelle's response pertaining to the survey doesn't seem to be saying that. It sounds pretty neutral (maybe a tiny bit skewed towards opposing the rollback). They did not, however, explicitly factor in the clear numerical bias in the survey. Cessaune [talk] 02:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The section I quoted is directly from the close - effectively, what I am asking is what arguments convinced Isabelle Belato that the survey wasn't evidence against deploying the skin, and that those citing it in favor of deployment weren't doing so in error, despite the numerical preference in the survey for Vector2010. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself, BilledMammal, something I'm loath to do. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 03:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you've fully answered BilledMammal's question.
What specific arguments that stated that the survey was a reason to support the deployment of the skin were actually valid after considering the bias of the survey?
a) If the arguments were still considered valid, where did the seeming neutrality of tone in your close about the survey come from? Did you consider the amount of votes for V2022 to not be enough to show consensus, or was it some other reason?
b) If the arguments were considered invalid, how did you come to this seeming no consensus viewpoint on the survey and surrounding statements? Cessaune [talk] 03:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
To add to what Cessaune says about the questions regarding the survey (what arguments convinced you that the survey wasn't evidence against deploying the skin, and that those citing it in favor of deployment weren't doing so in error - even just linking a subset of the ones you found convincing would be sufficient, if you don't feel like taking the time to explain why you found them convincing), you also haven't answered the yes/no question on the canvassed editors; I would appreciate an answer to that question. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Since I see you have been active a few times since this comment without response, I would like to restate one question that I feel is both appropriate and trivial for you to answer:
Did you include or exclude the !votes of canvassed editors?
A simple "I included them" or "I excluded them" is all I am asking for. If you included them, I understand that you will have read the arguments provided and considered them on their strengths and weaknesses. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so intent on rehearing an answer that's already been given. They have already clearly stated "they were weak enough that I included them in the same bin as all the other WP:ILIKEIT arguments" and "I think I made myself clear in that I read the arguments provided and considered them on their strengths and weaknesses."
If you're fixated on whether or not the votes of canvassed editors were factored into a final vote count, remember that 1) a final vote count was not given in the close; 2) if canvassed editors were counted, removing them would not significantly change the vote ratio, nor change the fact that the vote count is not remotely "overwhelming" as some here are insisting it is; and 3) consensus decisions like this are not made purely on the basis of a raw vote count. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F106:5B2F:9D72:B3A5 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish

I was hoping there would be another huge amount of text about this. We're only up to 2.5 decitomats, lets step up the pace! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We should keep all the discussions on a single page. This discussion should be moved at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022, in my opinion. Æo (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that, at some point, people will release I'm not undoing the close and will open a thread at AN, at which point the discussion's size should grow significantly. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel sorry for you. Somehow when I closed the original RFC with PR, we slipped under the radar and didn't have to deal with any of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure some people are planning on hearing the WMF’s response before action; at least, that’s the gist I’m getting from the other discussion areas. I suspect that if they don’t go with unlimited width as default, a closure review or another RFC will be incoming. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
We can’t set unlimited width without WMF or a volunteer coder who’s willing to figure it out Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Snowmanonahoe

The close has been formally challenged. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly closed it as premature and generally problematic though in good faith. While my current belief is that a review will be required, that review isn't the one that is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with BilledMammal's procedural close. The request for review opened by Tvx1 was hasty and not well-thought-out. Æo (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The ride that never ends. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as an unjustifiable close. Closes are difficult, and numbers are not nearly as relevant as arguments; these closers focussed, as they should, on the arguments they found most compelling. Assume good faith that these closers assessed the arguments to the best of their ability. And please do not accuse them of intentional wrongdoing without extremely strong evidence. (For the record, I didn't !vote and don't have a strong opinion on the issue; I've tried the new skin and it was fine except that a script I use frequently doesn't work yet in it, so for the time being I've gone back.) Valereee (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle

You did fine. Some prominent issues have been addressed during the discussion. Many oppose votes that were against were likely undue at the time of the closure. And a fact is that one can take most of the newspapers or books, the width is still smaller than the one on wikipedia and this since centuries. I believe also wikipedia (which has the aim of becoming the encyclopedia for all) will adapt to that width with time as well (of course only optionally). Just a little support from someone who has seen the ongoing oppose votes.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: With the only difference that Wikipedia is neither a book nor a newspaper. Æo (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
You are correct, but also on online newspapers the width is smaller as on wikipedia. Some oppose just for the heck of it and also after they were provided with facts and solutions. I noticed it during the RfC and apparently it is still like this. You did fine, Isabel Belato.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle, @Æo, please don't restart this discussion; it has been discussed ad nauseam. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
They started, I am innocent and was mainly answering and defending Isabel Belato on their talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Aasim

You did amazing. I had a feeling this would close as "no consensus" or "consensus to disapprove". This was a tough debate to assess. A lot of the objections appear to be about numbers, but votes are not assessed by numbers but by merit.

I think this issue can be revisited after a few months to a year; there is always this expectation of some bugs. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also valid concern over how the close message scrutinizes the support !votes a lot more. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The close was perfectly sound. Many of the people commenting here, especially holders of advanced permissions, should shut up. Cheers, SN54129 15:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    I would not describe it as perfect but I do think the outcome was valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    It was even remotely sound. It was tainted by biased excessive scrutiny of the support comments and lack thereof regarding the oppose comments.Tvx1 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Your constant comments on the close and related matters have been slowly but surely leaning into personal attacks. Please calm down. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don’t think my comment included anything personal. I just pointed out the inherent flaws in the close reasoning. Tvx1 17:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Whether there are flaws is a matter of opinion. You're entitled to your opinion but you've already had several people tell you that your persistent commenting is going beyond what can be considered respectful behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe, but this is definitely bludgeoning. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that this is bludgeoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Tvx1: I know that you may be frustrated with the close, but there is a very specific procedure for evaluating consensus at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Namely WP:DISCARD. A close review will only address whether all the proper procedures for the close were followed, which an earlier discussion which was WP:SNOW'd. A close review does not address whether you disagree with the discussion outcome, although it usually gets started because some people do not agree with the outcome. Your recent comments are starting to get into WP:TE and WP:CANTHEARYOU. Take the feedback of Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, it will give a better chance of the close being modified. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    The earlier one wasn’t SNOW’d, it was closed as horribly written. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Isn't that what SNOW is? The issue presented in that form on the ANB was closed because it was proposed in a manner that it was unlikely to succeed. Now it is being workshopped as a draft CRV. I wonder though if the review will have any significant impact on the decision. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Hmm, yeah I guess it was SNOW'd as horribly written. I don't think it will have any impact on the draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Appeal posted

See here. BilledMammal (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isabelle_Belato/Archive_9&oldid=1147601414"