@InfiniteNexus: In the future, please ping people when you move their words to another page (other than archiving, of course). Yes, a lot of people to ping in this case, but it's still a thoughtful step in wikicommunication. Moving someone's comments to another page has the potential for recontextualizing them in sometimes subtle ways (granted, not a big deal in this case), and the original authors might not be watching the new page by default, missing responses, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary in this case, but I'll keep that in mind. But regarding the original authors might not be watching the new page by default, missing responses, etc., if the original author was watching the old page, they would have noticed the move (and the talk page discussion that led to the move), and if the author was anxious about responding to replies, they would have proactively checked the old page, which has a link to this page. So, not really a big deal in this instance. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus, if you were subscribing to the old section, you were still subscribed to the moved sections. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. Or rather just undo. This is a giant mess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: appears to have started to move things around, then quickly abandoned that project hours ago. Now an unregistered users seems to be adding numbers for some reason... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think his efforts are well-meant, but maybe he should seek some help. Æo (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Between the stop-and-go reorganizing, the apparent socking or canvassing, and the various edits to the intro text attempting to bias it in one direction or another, the RFC is suddenly becoming an unmanageable mess, it seems to me. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites this unregisterd user is me, Steue. I did not log out intentionally, I don't know when and why I logged out.

These numbers are just temporarily for more easy orientation for me.

Can you tell me, how I get an indented line to "not interrupt the automatic counting" like

1. A

B

1. C

Steue (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See Help:List § Common mistakes. (Incidentally, that link was much easier to access and retrieve with a table of contents in the sidebar than with it at the top of the page.) isaacl (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you isaacl now I know how to.

Steue (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Steue's trying to do (and I'm a veteran of the bullshit that was the CRASHlock debates). While I do have to criticise how he went about it, he's clearly trying to make the section easier to interpret, and we should understand that he's going to make mistakes if he's not familiar with wikicode. Assuming others don't do so, I'm likely to rejigger that section to put each argument in the appropriate section later tonight. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: This oldid contains the list as it was before Steue began his reorganisation: I suggest you use it, since Steue messed up the indenting entirely. There are only two new comments in the list thereafter: this and this one.--Æo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've finished the job. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And I've fixed most of the indenting. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to fix some myself when doing the sorting, but I know I probably missed a few. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I have caused you trouble. I only returned to this talk page because I did'nt know what to do with the RfC chunk, which you put in "Comments". I was still working at it and not aware that InfiniteNexus had already done what I had intended. After all, it got done. You really showed me how old and slow I am. I never thought that participating at the wp would cause me to :=(((. Thank you Jéské Couriano for your warm words. Good night. Steue (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the group effort, all. Personally, I think big reorganizations during times of high activity wind up being more hassle than they're worth, and don't think there's much need to separate supports/opposes unless we're looking to do a straight head-count, but I appreciate others find it neater. All's well that ends well. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to beat yourself up, we know you were acting in good faith. It wasn't clear based on your inactivity and the comments above whether you had abandoned the project, so I decided to just go ahead and finish it up for you, especially given that people were already asking questions. In the future, please use your sandbox when conducting major reorganizations or overhauls such as this one, so as to minimize disruption and avoid confusion. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "beginning", until there were about 120 comments to the 2nd question ('oppose' and 'support' all together and all mixed),

• the comments to the 1st question were:
  • sorted by 'oppose' and 'support' and
  • numbered and
• the comments to the 2nd question were just
  • bulleted,
  • not numbered and
  • contributors had put a "Support" or "Oppose" in front of their contributions.

At that point, I had thought, it would be better to have the comments for the 2nd question sorted too by "Support" or "Oppose" and numbered too.

I had started to sort them and someone else finished this sorting.

While I tried to sort these comments, I started to realize that there had discussions been going on inbetween these arguments, and that many of these inbetween-threads contained 'opposes' and 'supports' alternatingly (they still do).

But each new comment, also in the inbetween-threads, at least had a bullet (which now I find very good), but now these don't have bullets anymore.

Fault:
Meanwhile, after I have slept over it, I see that many of these inbetween-threads contain valuable arguments, which now don't appear in the 'support'- and 'oppose'-counts. Only the argument at the start of such an inbetween-thread gets counted.

So, now, I think, these inbetween-threads should be sighted for valuable arguments and the valuable arguments which are found there, should be copied and placed as what I will call "1st level" arguments.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

​Sorry, I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean by inbetween-threads? Could you give an example? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest not shuffling comments around anymore. The discussion is not a vote, so numbered viewpoints aren't necessary. isaacl (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

While consensus is not based on raw votes, they do assist in gauging consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@ InfiniteNexus, I inserted an explanation at the top. --Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the thread. You cannot add new comments to the top of a section like that. And please stop changing other people's indentation, they were correct as is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What I mean by "inbetween discussion threads":

• The contributions no. 1 to 12 to the "2nd question / support" do NOT contain an "inbetween discussion thread",
• contrib no. 13 of them is the first which does.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Those are comments, not !votes. As such, they should not be tallied. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should split this page into multiple sections. Thingofme (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already split into multiple sections, and while I would appreciate this being split off into different pages to make loading faster, it's going to frustrate people who are directed to the RfC only to find that they have to click elsewhere. If this is possible, I think the §Discussion section should be the first to be split off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's simpler if we keep everything on the same page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But maybe the page is too long (already 880kB and maybe longer, and discussions should be focused on another page or this talk page). However, the talk page is only used for off-topic discussions relating to this page. Thingofme (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What if we:

• split the 2nd question off into its own page and
• gave the original page, under the appropriate header, a link like [ To the 2nd question ] ?

After this we could do the same to the "Comments" part.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is ok, or splitting the Question 1, Question 2 and comments into 3 different pages. Thingofme (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with InfiniteNexus that the entire RfC should remain on the same page. Dividing Q1, Q2 and other discussions into three different pages would only complicate things. Æo (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are discussion pages that are 1M bytes+ long so it's ok. Thingofme (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thingofme, well, it takes me ~10 minutes to load the page and then post a comment. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Only two people (out of 484) have said that they are experiencing loading issues. I don't believe this is a major issue. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You can add me to the people who are finding it difficult to navigate such a large page. I feel that some of the discussion subsections would be a better fit for this talk page and help alleviate the size problem. Legoktm (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

We could move all the metadiscussion here (4.2, 4.6, 4.18, 4.21, maybe 4.9)? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps adding some arbitrary/date breaks to the support/oppose/neutral sections would improve navigation? At the very least it would make it easier to jump to !votes made on or around specific dates for replying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to moving some of the discussions here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I would be in favour of moving some of the discussions here so as to shrink the size of the page. Also, I think it would behove to split the "Discussions" section into the subsections "Other proposals" (containing "Bring back the TOC", "Another option for changing the width", et al.), "WMF/Web team/ArbCom (?) responses" (containing "Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF Team", "Jan 23 update from Web team: page tools and more upcoming changes", "Disclosure of email outreach", "Login button now to appear outside of menu for logged-out users"), and move everything else under "General comments" so as to then select what of the latter is so general that it may be moved here. Æo (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I let others decide. Æo (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't "official" proposals, just ideas/complaints being floated around. By the way, if we decide to move any discussions over here, they should ONLY be the ones about the RfC process in general, not the ones about Vector 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the thumb on my scroll bar has gotten so tiny, I agree it's getting absurd. I now fully support moving all of the 29 discussion threads to a subpage (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support spinning out the discussion section and perhaps the 2nd RFC too. At 1.2 MB, this page is quite large. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. If possible, discussions that have been inactive for some time should be moved to the proposed page, like an archive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• If they are moved, I think we should at least keep the sections' titles, with the template {{Moved discussion to}} linking to the same section in the new page.--Æo (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I also propose the following subdivision:

== Discussions ==

=== Other proposals for the skin ===

==== Allowing for IP users to change the skin back if Vector 2022 is kept as the default ====
==== Bring back the TOC ====
==== What changes, if any, need to happen in order to make skin preferences work for anons? ====
==== Another option for changing the width ====
==== Why so complicated? (TOC right) ====
==== Dark mode ====
==== Sticky header in Vector Legacy ====
==== Borders and backgrounds: bring back the distinction between the article's space and the user's space ====

=== Web team/WMF updates ===

==== Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF Team ====
==== Jan 23 update from Web team: page tools and more upcoming changes ====
==== Disclosure of email outreach ====
===== Canvassed vote review =====
==== Persistence for fixed width for all users coming this week ====
==== Login button now to appear outside of menu for logged-out users ====

=== Other discussions ===

==== General comments ====
==== Publicizing this RfC ====
==== Link to the research about limited line width ====
==== Selection bias ====
==== Question for the Web team ====
==== So people may not like it - now what? ====
==== What if any changes did the WMF make in response to the RfC closure conditions? ====
==== The difference between reading an encyclopedia article and reading a book or news article ====
==== Reviews of Vector 2022 ====
==== Strange pattern in recent opposes ====
==== Tools to the right ====
==== Some opposes and supports with same argument ====
==== What can we do if WMF again ignores community opinion and statistics? ====
==== Foreign language Wikipedias ====
==== In general ====
==== Workarounds for circumventing V22 problems for IP-users by further complicating scripts do not solve anything ====
==== Couple more questions (switched back to Timeless) ====

--Æo (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It would not be feasible to constantly update the list of new sections. We can just put a {{main}} hatnote under § Discussion (not {{Moved to}}). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought it would be important to keep the sections' titles because they are already linked across various other discussions, both on the RfC's page itself, at the Village pump, on the talk page of Wikipedia:Vector 2022, and etc. And what about the subdivisions? If they are fine I can implement them. Æo (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We can anchor all of the section links that existed prior to the move here. As for the subdivisions, I'm not opposed to them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

By WP:ANCHOR do you mean a bulleted list of links to the subsections of the new discussions' page? If so, I think it is a good idea. Æo (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: We could leave the three level-three subsections (===) and turn all the level-four (and one level-five [==== & =====]) subsections into three bulleted lists of links to the corresponding discussions in the new page. I don't know if the same level-four (and one level-five) sections' titles can be WP:ANCHORed to the level-three titles so that the aforementioned links across Wikipedia are not broken.--Æo (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the {{anchor}} template, which will be placed on the Discussion section heading. That way, if someone follows a link to, say, [[Wikipedia:Requests for comments/Rollback of Vector 2022#Publicizing this RfC]], it will take them to the Discussion section (as opposed to the top of the page) with a hatnote linking to the new subpage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, I have never used the template {{anchor}} (I didn't even know it existed), but yours is a good idea. In any case, under the Discussion title I suggest to leave a bulleted list of links to the discussions in the new page. Æo (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this. I get the sections now, but why are we using {{main}} instead of {{mdt}}? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Æo Aaron Liu (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I don't know. The template {{main}} is used not only for articles but across various technical pages too. If you think that the template {{mdt}} is more appropriate for the discussion section, you can swap them. Æo (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the subdivisions, I am going to implement them. Æo (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Æo (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Split We can split the discussion into a Fram-esque page like Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's deployment of Vector 2022. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  This could work as a redirect, but I think the subpage proposed by InfiniteNexus is better, since the discussions will still be part of the main RfC even if they will be split out, and the RfC itself is the "community response" to the deployment of V22. Æo (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've made the split: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: After a while I suggest to move also Selena Deckelmann's comment to the new discussion subpage. Æo (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Apologies for the long wait, I've been off-wiki since Friday.) Yeah, I'll do so right away. It seems people didn't see the part about adding new comments on the subpage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Deckelmann saw the line advising readers to add their comments in the new page, but, as she stated in her post, she put the latter in the old location so that more readers might see it. Æo (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#‎Vector 2022 third question. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ROLLBACKVECTOR22 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 6 § Wikipedia:ROLLBACKVECTOR22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• To save people a click, this was closed as speedy keep. schetm (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

While it hasn't yet been exactly 30 days (we still have 12 more days to go), this RfC already has nearly double the responses the previous RfC had. I think an expedited (and of course, impartial) close is warranted, the sooner we get through this first step, the better. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think an expedited close would be good: if this closes with support, the skin will have to be rolled back (and probably also for a no-consensus close, given V10 is the status quo ante). For readers, this will be more confusing the longer V22 is online.

On the other hand, the web team is addressing some concerns. I've not seem them address the language issue and the icons issue from the previous close, but the whitespace issue is actively worked on. Giving them more time may allow them to address outstanding issues. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We should ask the web team whether they plan to release significant improvements in the next 12 days. If not, let's close. However, as one of our most popular discussions, it deserves a "last chance to comment" notice of some sort (watchlist?) first. Certes (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I highly doubt the WMF will be able to address the majority of the most pressing concerns raised in this RfC within the next two weeks. Any fixes they roll out would just be band-aids, not a permanent solution. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey everyone, we're currently preparing a longer update with some upcoming changes, questions we might have for the community on the changes we've made, as well as a look into the data that we're getting from the new skin. We hope to publish this either tomorrow or Thursday. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to wait until then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This RFC appears to be wrapping up. This should be closed soon, before this new situation becomes the status quo. Shall we post a closure request to WP:ANRFC? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, we might want to wait until the update mentioned above is published. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If an update is coming on Thursday (9 Feb 2023) then it seems reasonable to give a few days after that for people to add or revise comments. If we're doing that, we may as well wait the full 30 days (18 Feb 2023) which gives them nine days to comment. It is also possible that some people are giving the new skin a thorough trial and have made a note in their diaries to comment just before the close. Certes (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a need to do so, honestly. It is extremely unlikely that anything anyone says in the next week and a half will affect the outcome. Pretty much every possible argument has already been made, and there is no chance of the gap in votes closing enough to matter. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Certes, @InfiniteNexus - just wanted to leave a quick note that we're running a bit late with our announcement and will most likely publish first thing Monday morning (we'll be ready with it today, but our availability to answer questions over the weekend is fairly low). We're planning on publishing a lot of data and details on ongoing work and it's taken a bit longer than expected to validate and double-check everything. It's going to be pretty long message :) We've noticed there's been a lot of questions recently about our data and interpretation so we want to make sure we have links to all the original sources for everything we publish so that folks can dig into the data directly (where our privacy policy allows). OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Given we're nearing the end of the conversation here, it may be good to post today still. People understand you guys don't work weekends. And please try to be succinct :). Femke (alt) (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Monday 13, 16:45 UTC. No word from WMF. May be, Do they want to make their announcement tomorrow, Saint Valentine's Day, to gather some love? (Irony with love.) 37.134.90.176 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! The update has just been posted: Summary of work so far and next steps :) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So, while I appreciate the WMF for continuing to solicit feedback from users, this further illustrates how the rollout was botched and premature. The Web team should have attempted to address the majority of concerns raised by editors in the previous RfC, rather than just one of them. Instead, Vector 2022 launched with serious defects and insufficient communication, and now the WMF is rushing to address the flood of complaints (well, some of them, anyway) — something that should have been done before the launch. Until most everyone's concerns have been fully addressed and the community is satisfied, Vector 2022 is clearly not ready for a wide adoption. Is anybody opposed to a closure request for this RfC now that the WMF has issued their closing statement? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So what happens next? will the WMF actually revert non-logged in users back to V10 upon the closure of this RfC? WikEdits5 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For sure, this RFC will be closed with a fake "consesus to improve V22" or the like. Obviously WMF will not rollback to V2010 in English WP, less they will rollback V22 in the French WP and all the other "Guinea pigs" WPs. Any bet? 37.134.90.176 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This RfC will not be closed by the WMF, it will be closed by an uninvolved volunteer editor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

They are two separate sentences. You may read the first one as "WMF will interpret the closing as...", etc., if you wish, but ultimately alea jacta est. I sincerelly hope to be wrong. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If the closer determines that there is consensus to roll back V22, or that there is no consensus on which skin to use, then yes. If the closer determines that there is consensus to keep using V22, then no. In any case, it will ultimately be up to the WMF to decide whether to respect the community's consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No objection; I think it is time to request closure at WP:RFCL BilledMammal (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In my view, it would be a bad move to close this early. With something as delecate as this, it should be done by the book and to the letter of the law. schetm (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. However because it will reach that point in the next 4/5 days where it can be closed as not-early, putting in a request at CR now would make sense. Whether this is closed by a single editor or a panel, it's going to take probably a couple of days just to read through the discussions much less process it and determine what the consensus is. Sticking in a request now at least allows time to find volunteers for this monster read. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon your logic, I've posted a request at WP:RFCL. schetm (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no required duration for an RFC; An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

With over five hundred !votes, and a clear consensus in favor of restoring Vector2010, I think this condition has been met. Also, it took weeks for the previous RfC to be closed after I posted on RFCL; I doubt this will be any faster. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to say there is a clear consensus for anything. RfCs are not closed based on the numerical distribution of the !votes, consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments as viewed through the lens of policy after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I considered quality of argument when making that statement. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

With respect, because like myself you have contributed to the RfC, I would say that you're almost certainly too involved with the discussion to make any sort of objective statement about there being or not being a clear consensus. There's a reason why we ask uninvolved editors to close discussions, and why requests at CR should be short and neutral, with no opinions from the editor requesting the closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an attempt to close, or a request at CR? BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, I don't want to clog up RFCL with a response to you there, but (A) I can't imagine one single editor would want to take this one on his/her own and (B), there's recent precident that massive discussions on Wikipedia are closed by a panel - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) for a comparitive discussion. Ultimately, the decision will be up to the closer(s). schetm (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's partly to avoid setting that precedent that I made that comment; while large RfC's can be closed by a panel, there isn't a requirement that they must, and I want to avoid creating such a requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I was planning on sitting this "should be closed by a panel" discussion out because as far as such calls go it's more reasonable than most. But I 100% agree with BilledMammal that we need to avoid creating an expectation of this kind. We don't have enough editor hours as is to maintain all our processes and so spending multiple editor's time on something should be done only in exceptional circumstances, not that just because something is long and/or important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If there's such a thing as an exceptional circumstance, it's this. This RFC could effect how everyone in the English speaking world experiences Wikipedia. I personally think that it would be improper for this to be closed by a sole editor. But, to be conciliatory, I've amended my close request to reflect a sole editor doing this. schetm (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that a no consensus would default to a return to V10, and there also appears to be a consensus that the past RfC which first introduced V22 was flawed, but people are saying that there is no clear indication as to what the WMF might do regardless of how this closes. WikEdits5 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, WMF has not said that they will respect the results of this discussion. I am convinced they intend not to, as they did in 2013. Meanwhile, it seems it may not be possible to force the implementation on our end. I am bracing for a storm. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there's roughly a 0% chance they actually honor the results here. Like with VisualEditor, they clearly want this out now, community be damned. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WMF would be wise to respect the autonomy of the wikis and the consensus of the communities. Community relations has been improving lately. Would be disappointing to see a setback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The WMF Chief Product and Technology Officer has responded to the RfC, and they said:

"I worry that RfCs are not an effective way to plan for and execute software development projects, and I would like to create more effective spaces across communities"

So it seems that not only are they not going to rollback V22, they are also questioning the legitimacy of the RfC do deal with this issue. WikEdits5 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The idea that there will be an expedited closure of a discussion that is 7.5 tomats (.75 decatomats) is pretty funny. At an average reading speed of 300WPM this discussion will take over ten hours just to read. Further clarifications and weighing will ramp that up. I think expedited is the wrong word to use here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that term was introduced a week ago, where an immediate request for closure probably would have resulted in the discussion being closed before thirty days ("expedited" in a particular sense of the word, although I agree it may not be the best description). However, the closure request was only just now posted, so obviously, that will not happen. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, an expedited close would have been possible a week ago, but of course that is no longer the case. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We already have the survey subsections named 'Support', 'Oppose', 'Neutral'. So, why are editors adding (in bold) 'Support', 'Oppose', 'Neutral' to their posts. Example - If you've posted in the 'Neutral' subsection? then we already know your stance is neutral. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it could be because they want to make their thoughts clearer, because it's common practice, or because the posts here were not initially split between supports and opposes. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, when I voted the votes were not separated out yet, so it was imperative to indicate whether it was support, oppose, or neutral. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also some people who wish to say it with passion; "Strongest possible support", or "Weak oppose", or my favourite "What makes an editor turn neutral? Lust for barnstars? Advanced privileges? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's good to say so even if it is sorted into subsections. For example, some people are saying "Strong support" or "Weak oppose" and such. Makes sure that it's a spectrum of opinion rather than two polar opposite camps. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty standard for RfCs and others of the sort, like CfDs. Half of the time people's comments aren't sorted and so it becomes a hodgepodge of varied opinions.

Plus it also helps me differentiate at a glance because certain bolded words call certain icons through my custom Javascript (like whenever someone says Oppose). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• In addition to all of the above, it makes it easy to tell at a glance where one person's comment stops and another's begins. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a RfA? It's convention. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk.— Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I know the question can also go the other round in isn't the launch too soon. I doubt the discussion closer will take the votes into account that were made before the adaptions were made for example yesterday. I believe many wcould invest their time better in getting back to editing wikipedia elsewhere. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I expect the closer to take all comments into account, unless they specifically say "roll back because X" where X is a temporary problem which has been fixed. If they're going to discard early !votes, we at least need to be pinged so that we can review our statements and repeat them if still applicable. Certes (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

...and yes, this process is very disruptive. I've done a fraction of the useful editing that I would have done had I not been following the Vector 2022 discussion. However, that problem is caused as much by the hasty release as by the calls to roll back. Certes (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course this goes both ways and the same applies to the foundation. They too would get more things done if we didn't throw a tantrum every single time. No one is having fun here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not surprised by the RfC happening right away, it should've been expected. I am more concerned with the perception (whether true or not), that Vector 2022 was deployed by default before it was fully ready. One of the key lessons learned from the VisualEditor rollout was that it was rushed, and more time "could have prevented a lot of pain and frustration" (source). The fact the the "page tools" change was deployed the week after the default flips just adds to the perception that Vector 2022 isn't ready. Legoktm (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good practice to let discussions run their course. Assuming all rules are followed (civility, on topic, etc.), folks should get their say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Did I miss a memo? Why are so many comments using guillemets? Aka « and » Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It could just be that some French speakers who use French-language keyboard layouts (but contribute to en.wp) aren't bothering to replace their customary guillemets with English-language quote marks the way they would if they were editing an actual article. --Proginoskes (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes this funny is that frWiki was one of the earliest Wikis to deploy V22, without much fanfare. DFlhb (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WMF is now implementing some of the features that editors from early adopter wikis originally asked for. Perhaps people have decided to come here to make themselves heard ;) Daß Wölf 12:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have wound down over the last couple of weeks, and new !votes seem to be trickling in at a fairly steady 2:1 rate and mostly not brigning any new arguments either. How does everybody feel about submitting a WP:CR? Daß Wölf 13:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A closure request was made over two weeks ago. schetm (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for pointing that out. I skimmed the CR page looking for this but somehow managed to miss it, so I assumed it was removed/archived... Daß Wölf 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Soni: The hatting apparently breaks the numerical sequence of !votes. I propose to move the entire commentary to Radlrb's !vote in a subsection of the discussion subpage: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion. @Radlrb: Is it okay for you if we move the discussion there? Æo (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally! Whatever works best and maintains the intended flow, though if we can work out somehow to keep it in the mainspace that would be preferable. Maybe keep a small copy of the vote and commentary would also be appropriate, with a note directing readers to the full discussion. Thank you. Radlrb (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Radlrb:  Done. Of course I have added a direct link to the new location. Now please add a summary of your views about V22 yourself. You can restore part of your original comment, if you wish.--Æo (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Main proposal: (355/226/24)—61.1% support.
Text width: (93/64)—59.24% support. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Where does this rank in terms of RFC sizes in Wikipedia history? schetm (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schetm: The only other page that is explicitly an RFC on WP:300 is Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. Some of the other discussions on WP:300#Miscellaneous are arguably RFCs. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A huge thank you to Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity for closing this RfC, in addition to Ritchie333 for their help.

• Pinging @OVasileva (WMF), SGrabarczuk (WMF), MMiller (WMF), AHollender (WMF), and SDeckelmann-WMF: The RfC has been closed. What is the WMF's response, and what does the Web team intend to do?
• Unlimited text width needs to be made default per the RfC close, see the #Ticket needed discussion above.
• Should Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion be hatted and closed as well?

InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

AHollender's account has been globally locked with the summary "no longer work for wmf". Since I think he was the head designer on the Web team, this may delay the team's response. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's right, someone brought this up the other day, but I forgot. Hopefully the rest of the Web team will still be able to compose a response within the next few days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I consider it deplorable that the closers recognized a large influx of new editors, most of whom are readers who wanted to make their voices heard and recognized the point made by experienced editors that this change heavily impacts unregistered users (i.e., primarily, readers), yet nonetheless applied the in-house standard to their detriment: Many of these readers are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy of consensus. The strongest arguments are those based on our policies and guidelines, while the weakest are those based on subjective opinion. As implicitly recognized by the close of the second RfC in favor of unlimited width, those subjective opinions were a refutation of the research the WMF was adducing. The assertion that only those with experience with UI design have opinions worthy of labeling concrete facts is simply not true; the experiences of actual users (readers) are facts, and germane to UI design. Unless the designers are only designing for fellow designers? Not unrelatedly, it's shameful that only after this outcry (I don't believe the percentage ever fell below 60% in favor, despite the high barrier to participation by unregistered users, including finding it in the first place, figuring out the mechanics of editing in a discussion for in many cases the first time, and multiple suggestions that unregistered and new editors—our readers, for whom we write this encyclopedia—should not be allowed to participate or taken seriously when they did; and in the face of a more or less organized effort from friends of the WMF and lovers of the new and shiny, including actual admitted canvassing) did the WMF eventually make the changes required in the previous RfC. Regarding these changes as obviating arguments made on the basis of the non-compliant and buggy software that readers were originally forced to use is torturous logic from where I stand given the rigid weighting of non-insider arguments; the WMF gets to ignore our governance requirements and only after the fact finish work that had already been imposed in its broken form on smaller communities less able or disposed to advocate for themselves and their readers, with no argument penalty for that ignoring, or the arguments that came close to presenting this community's work and the readers existing to support WMF developers with jobs, or the discounting of accessibility issues. But readers' arguments are cast aside on a strict interpretation of weighting arguments grounded in policy more heavily. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I agree with your sentiments, there is no point in continuing to argue. The RfC has been closed, the closers evaluated all arguments and concluded that no consensus was reached, and so now we move on. What we need to do now is compile a list of the most pressing concerns raised in the RfC so the WMF can prioritize its next steps. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Expecting people to accept not just one, but two closures that are, at best, unorthodox and at worst patently against the consensus of editors is asking too much. If that's the response to this ordeal - to tell people to shut up and keep their head down - good luck with that. It's going to take more than a few bug fixes to repair the massive damage and loss of faith the WMF has yet again so graciously gifted the community. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It does raise the question of whether "no consensus" means that we should accept the change as a fait accompli or default to the status quo ante. Certes (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato addressed this in their close—Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands.

'The previous RFC' referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022). Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We should simply not accept this incorrect close at all!! Tvx1 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a very clear consensus, but closers simply mispresented it. Their evaluation is simply incorrect and should not be accepted in any way.Tvx1 07:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There is another discussion on this at the village pump BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And another discussion here. Æo (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Knew this was gonna be the result from the start. This entire discussion was a waste of time because the result was pre-ordained from the start. Hundreds and maybe thousands of community hours wasted in two RfCs where the close clearly went against consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• This was a good, fair, balanced close. Kudos to both Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity for taking this one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • TON: agreed, thanks to both closers. As with other close issues, one could also imagine a balanced close with a different outcome. Nidhiki, we definitely need faster + more efficient ways to identify + resolve design and rollout problems. Any time it gets to the point of a contentious RfC, something has gone seriously wrong. (RFCs don't have to be a waste of energy for changes like this, they can be a sanity check after identifying and addressing all major issues. But in that case the proponent should be ready to close it quickly if the check shows obvious problems remain.) – SJ + 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a surprise people who opposed (like yourself) agree with the close and people like myself (who supported) don’t. The problem comes with how hilariously outnumbered the opposes are. Going against that requires a pretty firm reason and I didn’t see it in either review - to say I’m unimpressed with the closure’s rationale and justification is beyond an understatement.

But as I said, it doesn’t matter because this was never going to be overturned - and in fact, I doubt the WMF will even comply with the unlimited width consensus. So much time unnecessarily wasted. Toa Nidhiki05 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Sj, for recognizing that there was a serious problem with this rollout. It bears repeating that the new skin was imposed without addressing the requirements of the previous RfC, and necessary changes were only slowly made thereafter. The devs deserve no credit whatsoever for not fixing these issues before rollout, or for the tenor of their responses to reports of problems up to and including users being unable to figure out how to log in. Toa Nidhiki05, responding to bad changes to the software we have to use here, and holding the WMF to account, are never wastes of time. Sometimes we succeed, as with Mediaviewer (which gave me instant eyestrain headaches, and is now opt-in on this project), sometimes we don't. But if we don't respond, the WMF will take it as acquiescence to their treating the projects like social media, where our participation is for the benefit of their company and at their pleasure, rather than as collective production of a repository of knowledge.

The two closers undoubtedly felt constrained to close the discussion in accordance with prevailing guidelines, weighting opinions according to their invocation of PAG and employing our idiosyncratic definition of consensus, which does not correspond at all to numerical strength. But there was no need for them to ignore the WMF's having made the change without taking any account of the earlier RfC, tacitly accepting it as good enough that they eventually remedied that. And there was no need for them to dismiss the statements of actual readers that the change degraded their experience of the site, and instead to favor the statements of WMF people and others that readers prefer short lines; this is not article space, where published research trumps all, and people are accessing the site on a wide variety of devices and, I presume, consulting Wikipedia pages for a variety of reading purposes not all of which may have been captured in the research into reading. (To say nothing of the accessibility concerns that the close mentioned, which should weigh heavily.) The close was unnecessarily rude and dismissive. It applied insider standards only, to an issue involving our readers more than our editors, but the closers do not appear to have considered the broader perspective. It was in short myopic as well as insensitive. The WMF habitually forgets our purpose here. I am exceedingly unimpressed when our admins do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, an avid supporter, said 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. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity - I do have to give great kudos for this close. I can imagine it be very difficult to close a discussion where the closer obviously might have an opinion one way or another, especially when the close will one way or another make some parties unhappy with the decision. I have to applaud both of you for taking your best effort for the close. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be applauded in any way. Their close is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the discussion. Tvx1 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is such a petulant response. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Given you were in the minority that opposed rollback, that doesn't surprise me. However, a clear, decisive majority supported rollback, so it's not a surprise a close that tries (and fails) to justify a "no consensus" ruling would get some pushback.

I applaud the closers for putting in effort, but I'm not going to applaud a defective and incorrect close, myself. No need to sugarcoat it, honestly. And if my sneaking suspicions are correct (WMF will never, ever, ever concede on unlimited width), that makes the close even less defensible. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05, as WP:!VOTE clearly says, the strength of the comments, rather than number thereof is what is weighed, so givingclear, decisive majority as a reason is meaningless, especially given negativity bias. You may disagree with the close, and I disagree that unlimited should be made the default, but the closure itself was reasonable and well-thought-out. Please don't insult the closures by calling the closure defective. Finally, how does WMF not conceding on unlimited width make the close less defensible? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what consensus is, thanks. The problem, of course, is that the arguments against were not stronger than those in favor, and on top of that many of the oppose votes were canvassed out-of-site. I don't believe the close was reasonable or well thought-out, and I will continue to call the close defective, because that's what I think it is; if a review discussion does begin at some point (and I suspect it will, once the WMF actually admits their plan in the next week or two), I'd support overturning the close. I'm not obligated to agree with the close, nor to respect it, and I'd suggest you exert energy elsewhere other than criticizing people for not agreeing with clearly controversial close. Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

many of the oppose votes were canvassed out-of-site I wouldn’t call sixteen many out of 226. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest you exert energy elsewhere wise words indeed. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not it was not reasonable, nor well thought-out. It was a biased close that set out to reach a certain pre-desired conclusion right from the start. The support comments were put through a rigorous scrutiny, in order to be able to all but dismiss them, they never even started to subject the oppose comments to. Tvx1 01:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have to agree with your description. I don't think it was written in bad faith, but I had the same impression when I first read the closing note. The direction of the conclusion seemed to be decided from the very first words of the note, and in it the support !votes were analysed and divided into different categories, while the oppose !votes were not. Æo (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the third sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And if my sneaking suspicions are correct

So we're at the conspiracy theory stage of this temper tantrum, then. Got it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Let’s refrain from ad-hominem.

That being said, I still don’t see how WMF not respecting a consensus to rollback is different from not respecting a consensus to unlimited the width, and Toa has declined to clarify further. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't think the WMF is going to "get back to you all next week with more details and a proposal for concrete next steps, as well as a general update on ongoing work", HandThatFeeds? Because that's what they've said they'll do. All my sneaking suspicion is, is that when they do announce this, they won't agree to unlimited width as default; that's hardly a conspiracy theory, given how core this design philosophy seems to be to them. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they listened to the community on this, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 19:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I already unwatched this page, please don't ping me back to it. I don't care, waste all your time trying to fight this change if you want. It just strikes me as childish. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want people to ping you, or respond to you, don't respond, and don't accuse them of conspiracy theories. Even a child can understand that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to continue participating in something, just don't respond, no need for such petulant responses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Once again, thank you all so much for your participation in this conversation, and specifically to the closers @Isabelle Belato, @Ingenuity, for taking the time to read over and analyze the entire discussion - it was an exceptionally long conversation. We wanted to confirm we're aware of the closure and let you know we have begun to discuss and evaluate different options for the width of the page and other next steps. Our plan is to get back to you all next week with more details and a proposal for concrete next steps, as well as a general update on ongoing work. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by “evaluate different options”? There is only one option; unlimited width as default. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Several questions:

1. Who is leading this project now given the recent staff turnover?
2. How will this impact the implementation of unlimited width as the default?

A timeline for compliance - or more specifically, whether the WMF plans to comply with the result of this RfC - would not only be welcome, but should be expected, and I would argue this is integral to whatever acceptance this RfC close will see. Toa Nidhiki05 00:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Toa Nidhiki05. I'll only explain the simplest part. The project lead is Olga, the Product Manager of the team. There's been no change about that since the project kickoff. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 see #Ticket_needed above, don't think anyone has actually filed these feature requests yet, feel free to for tracking and accountability purposes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The long-standing practice on English Wikipedia is that, in the absence of consensus, the status quo ante prevails, even if this involves reverting a bold change. Do you intend to follow this convention by restoring Vector 2010 as the default skin and, if not, why not? Certes (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: The closers of the RFC have decided that no consensus means the previous RfC stands, which was supportive of the close: Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous RFC’s close was incorrect too. Tvx1 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No it wasn't, the changes that the closers specified had to made weren't made and WMF changed it. However when closing this RfC these changes have been made so that stands. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It was. The closers falsely claimed there was clear consensus in support of deploying V2022, when in reality the exact opposite is true. Tvx1 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Even if we're just based on numbers it's 154-165-9 which is 47.0% to 50.3%, so the exact opposite definitely isn't true.

2. Overall, there is a positive reception to the changes. Supporters were enthusiastic in their appreciation of the UX improvements, and most editors currently opposed expressed specific and narrowly-scoped concerns, rather than wholesale objections to Vector 2022. which is true when reading the opposes Aaron Liu (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"To discuss and evaluate different options for the width of the page and other next steps" can't mean anything but to discuss whether or not to ignore the consensus established in this RFC. Such a discussion cannot be taking place in good faith, as this would be nowhere near a justifiable application of WP:CONEXEMPT. The evaluation has already been done here, in great detail. The WMFs job should just be to facilitate the implementation of its conclusions. small jars tc 12:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If the WMF doesn't implement this change I believe we can with Javascript, although as the best solution that I have currently identified is to interpret "limited-width-toggle-off" as meaning "limited-width-toggle-on" and vice versa it would be better for the WMF to do it, as it would be cleaner and more intuitive. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Inverting a toggle's function should be manageable. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Does interpret "limited-width-toggle-off" as meaning "limited-width-toggle-on" refer to class names? I'm guessing that would mean it could be done with common.css alone. small jars tc 18:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes but just changing the class type doesn't do anything except change its appearance by 0.241516926. We have to change the functionality, and they meant to somehow reverse the functionality. Also, we'd have to do this in MediaWiki:Vector-2022.js/.css , not common. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn’t jump the gun like that. This closure is very controversial and anything but definite. It’s a gross misrepresentation of the RFC. It will be most likely challenged.Tvx1 07:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)