Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement

Phase two live

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire

I have gone ahead and implemented phase two as there did not appear to be any serious objections. I have also taken the liberty of archiving this page in order to provide a clean start for any questions or comments now that the second phase is underway. The first thing I would like to discuss is recruitment of the team that will be needed to evaluate the responses received. How many do we need, do they need to be admins, can they help even if they answered the questions themselves, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to use triumvirate group of admins; it's likely to be a difficult task. We should solicit help at AN now (in advance). Best if closers don't participate in poll. Nobody Ent 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If we get the number of replies I am anticipating three users are probably not going to be enough to get the job done in a reasonable span of time. I was thinking more like 10-12 users. with a larger group users could concentrate on specific elements. For example one subgroup could work on compiling the raw numbers from the ratings section while another reads all the responses to the scenarios and documents commonalities. I think we should keep the requirements for this group loose. This is a very broad issue that effects everyone, as such just about everyone has had occaision to express an opinion at some point. What I am envisioning is not "closers" in the normal sense but a group that will analyze the results and present back to the community a proposal based upon their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given what a zoo this page is becoming it may be wise to have a dedicated subpage for recruiting and coordinating this group. That will also give them a place to work together once the group is coherent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Both idea sounds reasonable. At this point, I'm reminded of the what a wise man taught me long ago: Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Any progress is an improvement on the current state of affairs. Nobody Ent 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "3 admins" should be fine. If they decide it's too much for them, more people can always be recruited later. - jc37 22:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is an issue that can effect everyone, is it wise to limit the evaluation group to just admins? Intothatdarkness 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requests

• Can you explain how this can both live and protected? :S. Where are we meant to comment, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You're supposed to do it in your own userspace. You will need to create your own user subpage for your questionnaire, please use this format: User:Your username/CERFC. Legoktm (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Typos and stuff

There's a sentence in Scenario 3 that needs a capital to commence. It starts with "one such incident". Could a broomer craft a capital, please? --Pete (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks for pointing it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point?

These are pretty leading questions. What do you hope to get out of this? I've having a hard time imagining a solid methodology based on this kind of survey. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit it is not a scientific survey, nor is it intended to be. It is more of an attempt to gauge attitudes throughout the community about civility enforcement and to hopefully find some common thread or threads that will help us to formulate a concrete proposal that has an actual chance of being approved by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In any event, Beeblebrox posted the questions in advance, solicited comments, and adjusted as suggested. The results will suffer the deficiencies of all voluntary response surveys but that's an inherent limitation of the Wikipedia consensus process. No other approaches over the years have led to meaningful consensus on the the issues raised; this may help and certainly can't hurt. Nobody Ent 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that you can't discriminate "non-compliance" due to political opposition from "non-compliance" due to the standard effects of a voluntary survey of a voluntary community the "meaning" is you eisegetically projecting the results into the responses of the people you have selected to respond by asking begging questions. Napoleon III was both more transparent and more democratic than this. There is no possibility of cohering community consensus in this dreck. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have probably been good to moot the questions first, but there you go, what questions would you ask? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a positive project of puritanism, so I don't spend extended periods of time fantasising about gagging other editors and forming questions around that. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As the principal architect of this phase I can only say that your ability to read my supposed intentions is so deeply flawed as to be farcical. Anyone who knows me even a little bit would find it hilarious to see it implied that my motivations were based on a desire for puritanical censorship. Have a look at this if you don't believe me. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, follow your own link. This text is abhorrent regardless of your personal opinions—the intentionality of this text is puritan, your intentions mean nothing when the document at the heart of this process says what it does as it does. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I don't know who has that that project either, but I don't know why you would "gag" someone else from asking questions? (FYI, it is not my questionnaire). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a stream of questions that establish a normative set of conduct, and then provide options within such a normative set of conduct. This isn't a request for comment, this is a choice between losing a hand and losing an eye. Putting forward such a "questionnaire" is clearly push polling the normative basis. This is effectively a set up vote, with both choices representing a decision in favour of an underlying result. It is an insult to the community, a farcical pastiche of consensus forming, and establishes a social norm in favour of puritan discipline. Admitting that "rejection of process" as a write in candidate exists isn't an attempt to gauge and form a consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is sought here is feedback to be used to craft a proposal that will then be presented to the community to either accept or reject. What that proposal will be is entirely dependent on what the responses say. If that proposal is badly out of step with what the community feels about civility they will reject it. results may be so contradictory that it will not even be possible to form such a proposal. Every time I open one of this big RFCs there is somebody who seems to believe I have some sort of mind control ability that will make things go my way. Not only do I not possess such powers but what you think I would do with them if I did is completely wrong. This thing belongs to the community, they will give whatever replies they wish and we will do what we can with what results are generated. It might turn out to have been a huge waste of time but it is not some fiendish plot as you make it out to be. Your objections are so absurd that you will have to excuse me if I fail to reply to them any further than I already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a cad if you believe anyone would countenance this hatchet job as an attempt to form community consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree in all essentials with Fifelfoo's analysis of the questionnaire (though I wouldn't call Beeblebrox a cad, and I don't suspect him of a fiendish plot, either). Question-begging seems to be a term people have trouble with, so I'll give a concrete example: please look at the question titled Outcry:

In the past, when an individual has been blocked from editing due to "violating the civility policy" (incivility), there has, at times, been an outcry from others concerning the block, and sometimes the block has been overturned subsequent to that outcry.

In an effort to reduce incidences of such an outcry ("drama"), should incivility be deprecated as an appropriate reason for blocking an individual? Should admins instead be required to have a more specific reason (such as personal attacks, harassment of another user, etc.), when blocking a user for incivility?

The first paragraph, which sets the scene for the actual question, is heavily weighted towards requiring an answer something like "Ignore the drama! Ignore the outcry from those cursed enablers of incivility!" (I'm exaggerating a little in order to make the point clear.) The text is weighted by its use of the highly negatively loaded terms "outcry" (the term is used four times in a few lines) and "drama", and thereby answers or "begs" itself. I'm not saying people who disagree with referring to criticism of a civility block as "outcry" and "drama" are likely to be hypnotised by the wording into responding "No, civility blocks are fine and much needed". I think it's much more likely that they'll give up on answering such a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question and on the whole idea of the questionnaire. Which will skew the questionnaire results, over and above the usual voluntary response survey problems. Only people who like the way the question is put will want to answer it.

B has replied to criticisms by saying people have misunderstood his intentions, but this isn't about his intentions, which I'm sure were of the purest. It's about how the text actually works; what Fifelfoo calls the intentionality of the text. I mean no disrespect to Beeblebrox' competence either; these things are just very tricky.

@NobodyEnt: You pointed out that "Beeblebrox posted the questions in advance, solicited comments, and adjusted as suggested". I haven't seen that discussion, I'd like to have a look at it. Link, please? Bishonen | talk 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Right here in River City!: [1] or see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement/Archive_1 Nobody Ent 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. In that case I'm sorry I called it a "discussion". :-( B did solicit comments, yeah… was it advertised anywhere? I see that one change made after the (non-)discussion, was that the original version of the question I mentioned, "Outcry", was skewed by the addition of that biased "outcry" and "drama" wording. It was far more acceptable as it was, so I don't understand the reasoning in changing it. But I don't want to keep nagging Beeblebrox about details after the fact here. To summarise: I understand that Beeblebrox put a good deal of work into the questions and got very little help. I've seen from comments above that he realises neither the questionnaire nor the RFC will necessarily lead to anything much. I agree. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Was listed at centralized discussion on Oct 4[[2]]. But, as I'm sure you know, folks around here are generally more interested in things like banning indef'd blocked editors than trying to achieve consensus on how we should treat each other. Nobody Ent 19:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bonapartism

You can frankly go stick this example of moralistic disciplinarily, a city on the hill run by Calvin with torture stakes on display, where the Australian suggested you put the dog up you. I have never been more insulted by a sequence of question begging attempts to inflict puritanism and cause agreement with such a disciplinary system, in my life. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Huh? Perhaps you've used too many analogies or the dinner and wine, I've had was too much, but what do you mean by "question begging," what questions would not be begging in your view? And why would you be insulted? (PS. I think we maybe able to add questions, if you would like.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't follow parts of what you are saying but is clear you are very angry and reacting emotionally to these questions. I'm sorry you are so offended, I think you have grossly misunderstood the intent of this process. Common situations, some based very closely on actual events, are presented and users are asked to say what they think is an appropriate response. You are perfectly free to say "no response is needed" to every single situation if that is what you feel. Indeed I would not be at all surprised if we got quite few replies that did just that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several?" Should we cut off your nose or your ears. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So you could reply "they should not be considered offenses at all and nothing should be done about them" if you like. Or you could keep making specious hyperbolic metaphors here, whichever. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're deploying 30 days of wikipedia's social time to forcing people to swallow six screenfuls of questions such as this. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that this is a Request for Comment, rather than a blatant attempt to indoctrinate. You answer that the opposition isn't included—that you expect whole sale rejections of this process—indicates that you're attempting to seize the centre in a political discourse when actually this RFC embodies an extremist fraction of the community. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

nobody is being forced to do anything here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is simply a 30 day RfC which you're attempting to advertise in central consensus forming arenas whose questions are so despicably phrased that they demand a specific answer from the community; following which, persons will "extrapolate" a consensus from multiple questionnaires that are acting as a vote. And this is being done with the intention of forming a consensus around disciplinary procedure. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"despicably phrased"? Which questions in particular, and why specifically? - jc37 23:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Bishonen's analysis of question begging at 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC), and Kiefer's discussion of push polling. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Since people are often used to questionnaires expecting yes/no answers, perhaps the instructions could make this clearer. Or the individual questions could indicate this possibility. For instance, to "Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several?" could be added: "You do not need to reply 'yes' or 'no'; for instance, you can reply 'They should not be considered offenses at all and nothing should be done about them.' --Boson (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the examples in the questionnaire should include at least one where a familiar offensive metaphor is deliberately couched in a way that does not use taboo words but requires the reader to decode the statement to arrive at an expression that a reasonable person (especially an administrator) might regard as uncivil, e.g "You can shove that suggestion up your arse" is expressed as "You can put that proposal in the bodily orifice specially provided for such suggestions".--Boson (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Context

I don't share Fifelfoo's affinity for flowery language, but I really don't see how these questions will lead to any useful conclusions. This is what I got out of the previous RfC:

• Incivility is hard to define. I think a distinction has to be made there, it doesn't seem to be that we have not yet defined it, as this survey seems to imply, it's that it is inherently undefinable in any concrete terms, judging from the previous RfC comments.
• There was very little support for a specific bright line replacement guideline that was proposed
• More people were leaning toward the position that "civility" should probably be enforced, in some fashion, but there was a significant group that advanced good arguments against enforcement other than ignoring or collapsing it.
• There's no special dispensation for productive or long term editors
• Disagreement, even passionate disagreement, is not incivility
• There's significant concern with "civility" being used as a tool to shut down people with an opposite POV, by civil POV pushers. Common scenario: Editor sees article he thinks is biased. Editor tries to reduce perceived bias. Editor encounters organized opposition. POV pushing opposition realizes that the new guy is hot headed, and bait him civilly until he explodes. Problem solved for the POV pushers.

From that I can only conclude that it's one of those "I know it when I see it" types of thing. So it goes back to context. Which is the very thing this survey lacks, with its hypothetical snippets. Gigs (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I appreciate the large amount of work that must have gone into the questionnaire, but I find it hard to see it working out. Rd232 ^talk 11:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the point of this either. We already know that editors will take offence at some comments but that there's a spectrum of sensitivity rather than a uniform standard. The real knotty issue seems to be enforcement; that some admins are very willing to unblock editors who are sanctioned for this and that this is usually a winning move because of the peculiar definition of wheel-warring. It's this procedural issue that needs resolution. If you'd like a solution, then I suggest a points system like those used for traffic offences. It might be good to get some peer pressure into the system too, as found in the house system. Admins could then have the fun of saying stuff like "10 points from Gryffindor!"... Warden (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda: Not a survey

This survey is so loaded that it reminds me of a focus group. In World War II, Allied propaganda invented focus groups, which were designed to find the right buttons to push to get the desired assent. (Converse, History of Survey Research in the United States)

I suggest reading Groves's Survey Methodology before developing a survey. It discusses the unethical uses of surveys. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

When do we ban the uncivil puritans?

Many times so far in this extended discussion many of those wanting emitters of naughty words lashed, drawn, hanged and quartered have been politely asked very civil questions, such as "How do you define civility?" In general, such polite requests have been completely ignored. In my humble opinion, such behaviour is incredibly uncivil, and disruptive. It's certainly non-productive. What's the punishment for such incivility?

This post is NOT a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I factored some of those things into my survey. From what I've seen, wikipedia does a very poor job of dealing with baiters and passive-aggressive POV pushers. There are other aspects, as well, that are troubling to me. Intothatdarkness 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT

In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, maybe one answer is to allow anyone to fix incivility with an appropriate template. {{Civilityfix}} gives a sense of how this could work (needs work to make it easy to click and see the original text). With all the talk about "what is suitable punishment for incivility" - well one answer is "anyone can rewrite your words to make them civil, whilst trying to express your point"... Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How can we possibly agree on a fix when we cannot agree on what's broken? HiLo48 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we're talking about two very different things:

1. trying to set general standards on what is acceptable
2. in a specific situation, where someone has felt that a specific thing said was uncivil enough to fix (rather than ignore), then as long as this was done in good faith, it should be taken as a reasonable action (even if the fixing unintentionally introduces errors in meaning which themselves need correcting). Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Cannot be achieved. The puritans will not move.

2. ...is incomprehensible. HiLo48 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

General reply from the principal architect of this phase

It's not as if, after putting forward two RFC on pending changes, that I was unaware that unforeseen objections would pop up after this was posted. That would be why I linked the draft questions from this page last week. I'm not going to reply to each and every comment here but I will try to clarify a few important points:

• It is not intended that when this phase is closed some new policy will be implemented based on it. What is intended is that the results will be reviewed by an as-yet-to-be-selected body who will seek to find commonalities in the replies. That group will use those results to attempt to formulate some sort of concrete proposal. That proposal will then be presented to the community. The community can then accept it or reject it.

• This is also not intended to be some comprehensive solution to the problem of uneven enforcement of the civility policy. I'm not so stupid as to think that would be so easy, even with a prolonged and elaborate process like this. When this phase is concluded I anticipate a prolonged break in the action while the results are evaluated. That would be a perfect time for any other ideas anyone may have for seeking consensus on civility related issues to implement them. I did this because nobody had bothered to develop any other processes and this is what I came up with. If you have a better idea, develop it so it can be used. You've got a month to get it ready, should be more than enough time.

• I understand that some users find the questions to be somewhat leading. I don't happen to agree since if you read the introductory sections it is very clear that users should give any reply they wish to any of the open questions. But even if they are leading, so what? If the proposal based on the results we get is no good, the community will reject it. Wikipedia will not be destroyed by this process, I promise. If you feel like a question is leading you to give a specific answer, say so, and give the answer you really feel. That is what is needed if this is to have any chance of doing any good.

• A few commenters here seem to want to have more open discussion of civility. We already had that phase. It helped inform the formulation of the questions somewhat but other than that I don't see any usable result. That is why there was not a formal closing statement. if you wish to discuss civility in a general manner please do so at WT:CIVIL.

• I will have to ask you all to excuse my somewhat gruff tone here but the tirade I was subjected to yesterday took pretty much all the restraint I had on hand to reply to civilly. Ironic, I know. If I had written down what I wanted to say in reply to it I would probably be blocked right now.

• TLDR version: I know it's not perfect. I wasn't trying to make it perfect. It's a start, not a finish and there will be a lot more work to be done if the community is actually serious about wanting to do something about these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the effort. Addressing a problem that has been in the "too hard" basket for too long is worth a wikimedal of some kind. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as these things go, it's a fine survey. I'll try to finish answering it when I have a bit more time. The difficult part is that pretty much every answer is context dependent. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we (is it possible to) make the questionnaire better?

I'm kinda on wikibreak-ish-ness, but still considering how we can improve (really improve) this whole area.

Is it possible to get some non-factional help with wording and arranging the questionnaire? Looking at the ideas of getting some input from (sensible!) psychologist types, people who have worded surveys and questionnaires at a professional level, to overcome any unintended nuances of language, ambiguities, psycho-nudges, etc. etc. I think, if this thing were done really professionally, it might be possible to do something genuinely long-lasting and constructive with it. I don't think, at the minute, that it could do as much as is possible. I also think we're in real danger of getting a very skewed result because of the size and distribution of the sample of responders. Pesky (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We're all Wikipedians here. "professional" is anti-wiki : )

That said, what specific issues do you see? (Specific examples from the questionnaire.) - jc37 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can add to the points above that since phase 1 was a community-based process which involved a community-wide discussion, I cannot see why phase 2, i.e. the construction of the questionnaire itself, is not a community-based effort. Why don't we open a discussion as to what types of questions should be included in the questionnaire and let the community decide which ones to include in the final form of the questionnaire. This way there will be no criticism of the questionnaire itself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What other questions concerning civility would you like to see added? - jc37 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We did that last week, on this very page. The initial RFC was also designed by me, nobody objected to it at the time. don't see how asking users to submit their opinions is somehow anti-consensus. This is what is really wrong with this project. You openly plan something on a talk page, the way it is supposed to be done, and it's only after you go ahead and do it that a bunch of objections surface. Look, I did this to try and help get some clarity on these issues. As I have repeated at least a half dozen times in the last 48 hours, this was never intended to be a be-all-end-all solution to the thorny issue of what to do bout chronic incivility. If anyone has a better idea for a better process feel free to implement during the break in the action that will come after the question phase. Or implement it before that if it you think it is ready before then. This is an enormous issue and it is going to take more than a discussion and a questionairre to make any serious progress, but it seemed to me everyone was complaining about it but nobody was doing anything to try and help. So I did this. If you honestly believe you can get a panel of experts together to do better by all means go for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The page on which you apparently openly planned this stage had become ridiculously cluttered and disjointed, with numerous conversations happening in parallel. Only someone totally obsessed with the topic would have been watching all of them. That means that most interested editors won't have seen your proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, HiLo48, but I disagree. I haven't been following any of this at all. I noticed some note somewhere, found the questions, and decided to help out with some of it. Others could have as well. And Beeblebrox even announced when he was intending to "go live".

It's still early in the process however, so it would not be incredibly difficult to add a question if it's an obvious oversight and could be helpful in better determining consensus. Hence why I asked: "What other questions concerning civility would you like to see added?"

(Another way to put it, I'm asking for your suggested collegiate contribution and not seeming idle complaints.) - jc37 22:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our experiences differ. Neither of us has the right to generalise from our own experiences and claim that everyone is just like us. but the fact that my experience is different from yours kinda proves my point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors have already answered the survey, it would be disruptive to add questions now. Nobody Ent 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree. But if there is some clear oversight, it would be easy enough to add to each survey, and drop a note on each person's talk page, especially as it is still early in the process.

But otherwise, yes, I agree. - jc37 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If the questionnaire is faulty, it would be stupid to continue without fixing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To answer Jc37's question to me just above, I actually didn't have any questions in mind to add. I was just expressing a concern that the questionnaire, at least in my opinion, should have had wider community input than has occurred; if for nothing else than to avoid the criticism. I think that the timeline for phase 2 was perhaps shorter than optimal, if I have to judge from the critical comments. (edit conflict)This is not meant as criticism of Beeblebrox's efforts. He did everything by the book. The only problem is that such a questionnaire, at least imo, should have been advertised on a wider scale so as to invite more editors to comment and proper account should have been taken of the inertia of a large system of editors prior to it being implemented. In other words, there should have been more advertising for phase 2 and more time allotted to allow for a wider response from the community. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a hard thing to call. Interest in phase one was tapering rapidly, based on edits per day, and the issue was topical because of some ArbCom activity. End it too soon, and perhaps you miss input, but wait too long, and interest wanes. Many efforts have been doomed by analysis paralysis. Nobody Ent 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the exact amount of time, but I helped out then was afk for about a week, and it went live after I returned. So even if we say it was 7+ days, is that not enough time to get input on the questions? (I say this noting that I wish I had had more time, as I didn't do much more than barely look over the 2nd (rating) and 3rd (scenarios) sections of the page : ) - jc37 23:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand both Nobody Ent's and Jc37's points and I actually agree that deciding a timeline is a difficult call. I don't dispute that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a few hours "spare" today; I've done my best with the questionnaire. I find it kinda ironic that Malleus was blocked (a long time ago) for referring to a group of editors as "sycophants", but it seems to be quite OK to lump together a group of editors and call them anything along the lines of supporters, friends, buddies, fan-club, enablers ... does anyone else find that ironic? Pesky (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite. But I suppose some shorthand is needed for the "puling masses." Intothatdarkness 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative sentencing?

In the Real World, there are alternative sentences to fines, imprisonment, exile, etc. alternative sentencing is one system we maybe could look at. Just as a kinda idea, instead of blocking for incivility which isn't gross, how about imposing "Community service" of having to do 100 constructive article edits (typo-fixing, filling-in bare urls, copy-editing, ref-hunting, etc.) before being "allowed" to edit in other areas? That way, although I can well appreciate that it might still annoy the punished, we'd be steering people in the direction of improving the encyclopedia rather than shutting them up altogether. A beneficial side-effect would be that it would give those who do virtually no content-constructive work some education in what it's like dealing with the sludge at the bottom of the pond. Can we consider "alternative sentencing" of some kind, bearing in mind that civility blocks do little, if anything at all, to improve anyone's outlook, temper, or even actions? Pesky (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's survey is this, what's the point, other basic info missing from questionnaire

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire needs to start out by saying who's running the survey, why it's being run, and what'll be done with the results. Neither the WP:CENT notice nor the questionnaire itself make that clear. Remember, since it's being advertised, people who know nothing about the RfC are going to come here - and they're going to want to know why they're coming here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whose survey is this? Well, me and one or two other users wrote it, but it isn't anyone's property, it is the second phase of the RFC that started at the beginning of October. I believe your other questions are all answered on the main RFC page, where the expected timeline of the process is outlined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Right, and someone (probably you?) who knows how that went should put the answers at the top of the questionnaire. Context is important and not everyone's going to look at the main RfC page. Instead, they're going to say "the survey doesn't say what's going on" and leave. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Done, maybe. Nobody Ent 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I do like that. I was thinking that something should go on the actual survey page, but perhaps this will be enough? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I rephrased the beginning of the survey a bit to make the link more explicit. Nobody Ent 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

[removed questionnaire] ... Now, seriously, I haven't read so much bullshit on Wikipedia for months. What proportion of editors do you think will be bothered going through all that crap? If you can't answer that question (or find it annoying), my point is made. You simply will not get a representative sample of responses from this process. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, please don't post the questionnaire on this page. I removed it, but left your comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my aim to post the questionnaire here. I was trying to post the unbelievably complicated paragraph that told people what to do, in order to show how confusing it all was. I was certainly confused. For that I partly apologise, but I don't think I'm all that stupid, so my error proves my point. What remains is now completely out of context, about which I no longer care, but it also proves my point. This process is an unmitigated, far too complex, completely confusing disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. This process is rather similar to past RfCs concerning redesign of the main page.

That said, if you feel the instructions are confusing, how would you suggest they be clarified? - jc37 23:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How's the survey going? How many completed and submitted questionnaires do we have? The process is so complicated, I'll be surprised to see more than a dozen or so. And such a small number would obviously be unrepresentative. Without even knowing the numbers, I'd submit that such a complex process cannot possibly attract a representative sample of contributors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions. There are currently 15 people who are working on or have completed questionnaires. Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is so scattered and unexplained that responses will probably be limited to the handful of already-heavily involved folks. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup - a meaningless self-selected sample, and a complete waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, every Participant on every RFC on Wikipedia is self-selected. This is just an RFC in a different format. Nobody is claiming it is a scientific survey or that it will magically fix the issues it aims to address, it is just another method of gathering opinion. The initial open discussion and this phase are all just parts of a larger process. was hoping someone might come forward with suggestions for other ways we might gather opinions, but I suppose it is always easier to just bitch and moan and proclaim that a process is a waste of time. If you know where we could get the funding to properly develop and deploy a scientific random survey on these issues I for one would be very interested. Until then this is the only thing anyone has bothered to put any effort into so this is what we've got. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

2-3 opening explanatory sentences would have avoided the whole problem and would solve the whole problem. Until then it's mysterious, and "mysterious" inevitably equates to people getting irritated and suspicious. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Its there, I missed it. Lack of a top level heading and shading made me miss it. Will try suggested fix. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like more than 15/16 are in the process of commenting, as noted: here. (You may need to scroll down.) - jc37 02:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

When do we make the decision that there hasn't either been enough or a properly representative sample of responses to make this exercise have any meaning? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification from prospective respondent

Can I please get some clarification on this survey? Are responses either anonymous or private? My reading of the instructions (to the extent I understood them) suggest that people are writing their responses into their own user space. This would be neither anonymous nor private. Conducting a survey in this way appears to require a very high level of Wikimedia skills (probably more than many of us have) and, if it is as public as it seems to me to be, may make people reluctant very unlikely to provide fullsome honest replies. Has any ethics approval process been followed in the design of this survey? Kerry (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry about adding it to the top but when I saw the page and clicked the edit button, it was empty apart from a couple of templates and that's how it looked in Preview too. But then after I saved, all these other comments magically appeared.

Responses are linked to user name, so only anonymous, to the extent one edits pseudonymously. As for creation process, it is basically a list of questions created by one user (with some input by a few others). It was proposed on this page Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

...buried among tens of thousands of other words. This is a well intentioned but ultimately pointless exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that. I think you are confused. It was not proposed on the main RFC page, which did have tens of thousands of words, it was proposed here, on the talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Archive 1. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, if one looks at the archived history, the questionnaire was almost the only thing that was discussed on this Talk page, prior to it "going live." Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not use something like survey monkey then? T?hat would provide anonymity of responses. also I think if WMF intends to conduct research, then an nethics committee to overview proposals would be appropRiate. This issue of Privacy of responses would have npbeen picked up during design. Kerry (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC) sorry for the mess but i am typing blind.

It is not a WMF survey; it is rather a WP:Request for Comment where questions have been posed by any User of the English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, Kerry, it's not really a survey, more a way for people to participate in the discussion, but instead of doing it all on one page, they do so on individual pages. There's no more need for anonymity on these individual pages than there would be if all the discussion were on a single page, e.g. Phase 1 of this RfC or any other discussion page on Wikipedia like this one at Did You Know, this one at the Administrators' Noticeboard, or this one at Articles for Deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Questionnaire Due Date?

Just something I've been wondering: Is their a date by which the questionnaire should be finished and added to the assigned category, so as to evaluate the responses? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This phase was opened on Oct. 28, and is expected to remain open a full 30 days. I should think any submissions coming in during the period after that when results are being reviewed would be considered as well, so there is no rush to complete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I may find myself on a WikiBreak soon due to a mix of real-life factors, so this is good to know. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's going to make compilation more difficult for the volunteers if surveys are arriving due that phase, so I'd advocate having a fixed deadline. Nobody Ent 23:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous

A quick scan of this talk page shows that I'm not the first to observe the loaded questions in this questionnaire. Anyway, whoever comes up with these things needs to read up a few lines about designing such things. Like not making them too long, for starters. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. More than one of us has already pointed out that this is a futile exercise for many reasons. The complexity and length of the process is a critical one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing ever changes

Nothing. - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

formulate a concrete proposal that has an actual chance of being approved by the community
The very concept of formulating a "concrete proposal" based on a "study" that is based on self-selection bias is worrying.
Beeble, I applaud any attempt to gather real information from the universe. But bad studies are worse that useless, they're bad. This one is bad. A more cogent question is whether or not there is a problem that needs solving. I believe the answer is "no". I've certainly never run across a situation where "more rules" was the answer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem that needs solving:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

NE Ent 13:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So about a dozen examples of overzealous blocking, and 50 of under zealous admining. That's for an entire year. I still fail to see a problem. Maybe it's because I'm so frigging old. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"More rules" is not necessarily where this is headed. A refinement or alteration of existing rules may be indicated, or even the removal of civility as a "pillar." All options should be considered open. I grow tired of repeating this, but I would say to those who come here to carp about selection bias or other issues with the methodology: I asked for help before doing this. One user came forward and made alterations. One. If you expect some sort of professionally constructed scientific survey then find us some funding to hire the people who make them or if you are such an expert do it yourself. As I have also previously explained this is not the end-all-be-all discussion on civility. After the question phase is over there will be a lull while it is evaluated. That would be a perfect time for anyone who believes they have a differen/better idea to gauge community consensus on civility enforcement or lack therefor to bring it forward. This is what we've got right now because this is what someone (me) who was interested in the topic designed to try and gather opinions. Of course it is easier to complain than to actually try and help... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Of course it is easier to complain than to actually try and help"
I could irony my pants with that statement.
But to the point... I believe you have missed meat of my concern. Here, let me demonstrate:
"That would be a perfect time for anyone who believes they have a differen/better idea to gauge community consensus on civility enforcement or lack therefor to bring it forward"
Beeblebrox, this statement pre-supposes that there is a problem. You give only two options, there is a problem with enforcement, or not enough enforcement. You fail to ask whether or not there is an enforcement problem in the first place. That is my concern.
And this isn't a problem just with this page, it's inherent in the original discussion. That page opens with the statement "Yet there are constant issues regarding it [civility]".
Long debates followed on how to fix this problem. But I can't find a single post with evidence of its actual existence.
What sort of evidence would convince me? Well this is something a lot of people seem to this is an actual problem. This is presented as a metric, and appears actionable.
Don't worry, I fully comprehend your good intensions, assume nothing but good faith, and I'm totally cognizant of the level of effort you've put into this. But where's the actionable metric?
Simply put, don't fix what ain't broke. Or something about carts and horses. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

anyone who is genuinely unaware of any issues relating to civility enforcement is obviously not well informed on the topic. It's been in front of the Arbitration Committee twice this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, twice. Do you think asking lots of people and potentially changing rules would significantly change this? I certainly don't. And really, do you expect to be taken as an impartial input on this process when you've now called me lazy and ignorant in the last two messages alone? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility could be a lot better. But constructing a ludicrously slanted "survey" will mostly achieve thoroughly discrediting any attempt to fix the problem. I suspect this ridiculous production has actually made things worse - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A minimum of dignity

A small tidbit in the questionnaire caught my attention, under "Enforcement scenarios" –"The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with a minimum of dignity and respect is widely accepted."

I am guessing this is a mistake; it just caught my eye and took me aback for a moment, given the nature of this questionnaire :). dci | TALK 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The general idea does seem to be accepted by most Wikipedians. Where the line is between behavior that is violative of this principle to the point that some sort of sanctioning is in order, or indeed if there even is such a line is where we have a serious problem. Uneven "enforcement" of civility standards has caused much drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that we should probably be trying to treat each other with a maximum of dignity and respect, not a minimum. Leaky Caldron 22:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, it may be ambiguous; but I think you may be interpreting it as "the minimum of dignity", i.e. the least amount possible. In this context, I would understand the wording with "a minimum of dignity" as meaning that there should be a level below which one should not go. I don't think it is feasible to always treat everbody with the maximum possible amount of dignity, but it should be possible to set a lower limit on what is acceptable. --Boson (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Treating people with a "minimum of dignity and respect" is simply what it says - a minimum level. That is not an acceptable aspiration. The sentence by the OP is constructed is an unintentionally but very misleading way. My interpretation (and presumably DCI2026) is not being pedantic, it is being precise in English. I cannot see any value in the use of the word "minimum", "The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with dignity and respect is widely accepted." is fine. Leaky Caldron 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this: "The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with a level of dignity and respect above a certain minimum is widely accepted."

Is there any need to write like that to explain the statement? The current phrasing is clear to me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you cannot define a minimum level of something as abstract as dignity and respect. You either treat people with dignity and respect or you don't. There is no definable minimum. If you think there is, go ahead and define it. It's like trying to define civility. Have you seen some of the debates about that? Oh hang on, that's why we are here! Leaky Caldron 16:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would read the original statement as stating more then an aspirational goal, that the community actively objects to treating others with less dignity and respect then the minimum. To then say that the community expects everyone to be treated with the maximum dignity and respect, and objects to those that fail to, is clearly not accurate, and it is rare for any one on Wikipedia to act with much more then the common level of respect with which you would treat acquaintances in contemporary society, though of course it would be possible to do so. Monty₈₄₅ 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you appear not to understand the meaning of the word minimum. In my English dictionary minimum is described as least possible or smallest possible. Least, smallest, bottom, tiniest and lowest. Quite clearly that is not what is intended. Leaky Caldron 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

To provide an example of the usage, "Most people recognize a minimum level of fuel that they should maintain in their gas tank so that they are not left stranded." Its not saying they should keep as little fuel as possible in it, but that when a certain minimum, or lower boundary, is reached, it is time to take action. Likewise here, a minimum is being used to describe a lower boundry, beyond which corrective action is required. Monty₈₄₅ 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me with irrelevant examples. My concern is the specific suggestion that we should try (attempt) to treat each other with a minimum (lowest amount that is safe) of dignity and respect. It's nonsense. We should try to treat each as with as much dignity as possible at all times (although personally I sometimes find it very difficult, especially when dealing with a lack of understanding on the part of another editor). Leaky Caldron 18:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, but was trying to respond to your dictionary definition. Certainly we should aspire to be as civil as practical, yet the core question of civility enforcement is to what extent should that aspirational goal be translated into an enforceable policy. That is where the minimum language comes in, if there is to be enforceability, we must identify a threshold beyond which enforcement action is called for. Saying anything less then the highest standard of civility can result in enforcement action is a Pandora Box of problems that would be worse then the current civility problems, and isn't going to gain consensus support. And that is what the comment is about, that there is support for at least some vague minimum standard, even if there is a lack of agreement about what that standard is. Monty₈₄₅ 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Introducing the absolute word "minimum" in a subjective situation creates a humorous ambiguity as identified by the OP. You cannot readily place attributes to dignity and respect - that's been tried and has failed. Trying to achieve a minimum is not a useful expression when what is actually intended (I assume) is that a failure to treat each other with any respect and dignity might result in some enforcement action. Why not just say "The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with dignity and respect is widely accepted."?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs)

Concur; use of the word minimum -- with its mathematical implications -- is problematic. NE Ent 12:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the intent, which would be "we should, at the very least, act ..." but I still think the current wording can be easily misconstrued. dci | TALK 23:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For ease of access

This is the current list of responses to the questionnaire. Pesky (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this questionnaire establishes much

One of the key problems with our discussion over civility is that we still have no baseline on what is uncivil, so it is somewhat hard to answer most of these questions. Also, some of the questions seem to ask for quite specific lines in the sand, but over general and broad issues (for example; in "multiple instances" what accounts as an "instance": the comments people can dig up after the face, a time you were taken to AN/I, a sanction??). The failure to define any of the terms makes a lot of the questions merely thought experiments.

Also, I note the whole questionnaire seems to focus on the written word. As I point out in my answers this misses the point. Language that could be viewed as uncivil is uncivil by the intent of the writer. The obvious example of this is the "removal of comments" section; a number of the examples there would be entirely appropriate, in the right context... but if the statement at the top is intended to translate as "imagine these actions are done out of spite" then clearly they are uncivil. Can you see how that makes the context the only pertinent aspect? Written words are not themselves the only act of incivility (e.g. nominating articles for deletion can sometimes be uncivil, with the wrong intent). To this end, the questionnaire seems skewed toward one act which might be uncivil, but fails to ask pertinent questions about that incivility.

Then we get to the examples. For a start I recognise most of those examples, which strikes me as inappropriate. Either cite the case study directly or create examples that will not be biased by peoples previous views (i.e. the cabal effect). The examples themselves don't seem too insightful anyway; whilst we can certainly suggest responses to them it again does not get to the core of the matter.

So in general my issue is that this questionnaire skims around the crux of the civility debate, but ends up not asking a question pertinent to it. By basing the examples of known, and relatively recent, real cases it undermines a lot of the responses. In general "example" questionnaires should be avoided for such a complex question. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

we still have no baseline on what is uncivil Absolutely. See Note on civility, written a year ago. And every general RFC (e.g. Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks and most recently Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement/Phase_one) I'm aware of ends up the same way: We should be respectful to our fellow editors! Yes. What's that mean, really? No one knows!

This is a good faith attempt spearheaded by Beeblebrox to "get out of the rut." Did he solicit input for like a week before running it? Yep. Did he get a lot of feedback? Nope. (Bad timing, there was a lot more interest in "banning" a defacto banned editor and going on about how horrible he is.) It is perfect? Nope. Could it be helpful? Hopefully; maybe not, I don't know. Have a bunch of folks already made a good faith effort to complete the survey? Yes. Would discarding it now be rude to them? Yep. The stated goal of the survey is to try to come up with something for a third, more focused RFC. Will it work? Won't know until we try. NE Ent 11:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate the effort, I really do. But experience demonstrates such things never really end up anywhere (RFA, pending changes etc.). I've been busy the last few weeks so missed this, but would have made the same point had I been around a week or so ago. I think it would be most sensible to thank those who have replied, collate what we have and prepare a more in-depth look at the problem. Perhaps appoint two or three editors to run a more formal-style hearing and prepare a report for the community. A major undertaking, but probably needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As an agenda for the easily offended it ticks all the boxes. As a way of solving "civility" issues, I don't think so. It will give the busybodies so much ammunition. Far better if everybody just wrote or improved articles. J3Mrs (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"experience demonstrates such things never really end up anywhere (RFA, pending changes etc.)" Actually pending changes is going live again in just a few days following a series of "mini RFCs" to fine tune the policy. I don't know why I am drawn to these "too hard to solve" problems but in that case a result was finally achieved. It took years to accomplish, and I expect this will take even longer if it can even be "fixed" at all but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This initiative is "stuck inside the box"

Most nastiness that is covered by wp:civil is usually remedied or sufficiently reduced within days or weeks. Wikipedia is a nasty place because of the wiki-legal really nasty stuff that does NOT get reigned in, i.e. misusing policies , guidelines and wiki-mechanisms to insult, impugn and conduct warfare. Wp:civility does not cover these and THAT is the problem. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Responded

I responded to the questions but don't think you're going to get anything out of this. The questions are vague, responses depend so much on what the actual context is, and some are clearly pointed at the recent arbcom case. Few editors will have the patience to fill it out and your sample will be biased toward people who have strong opinions about civility (and candidates for arb seats!). Better to have had a simpler 5 point scale survey on survey monkey. (Also, as I point out in my responses, do note that countries ending in -stan are predominantly muslim nations. Is that civil, I ask, my tongue firmly in my cheek.) --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've responded. I agree that some of the questions are a bit vague, but this can be sorted out in the replies. For example, when rating examples, my answers would change depending on whether the behavior was on an article talkpage or elsewhere, so I simply placed that in my answer. I'm similarly interested to see how others handle the questions as well, though I pity whoever's going to try do draw it all together and try to judge consensus! --Elonka 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Interesting exercise. Like Elonka, I've emphasised context; with article talk pages being the most sacrosanct and user talk the least - though I'm more tolerant of incivility on user talk than she is. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how prospective arbitrators handle heavily biased questions and information. Risker (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, while you all are minding your manners because your positions requires it, I intend to point out just how ridiculously biased and slanted the questionnaire is. But the last time I did that on a biased survey, they decided I was a troll and ignored me (that silly gender thing). Seriously-- they didn't count me in the tally. But not to worry, Risker-- the bias in the way the thing is framed is evident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Survey is also a classic example of tl;dr. Seriously, I've just plowed through the "executive summary" of the Leveson Report (48 pages) and it was snappy compared to that drivel. We're bound to have people who know how to frame surveys, why don't people ask for advice before circulating such things?--Scott Mac 19:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, for the future ... Mike Christie (talk · contribs). So, on the bias ... where did the meme that "Malleus's friends" come to his defense every time he curses take hold, anyway? How about, people who work very closely with Malleus on top content and don't agree with his cursing but do watch his page and do know that in almost every instance, the blocking or agitating admin was involved, was poking, was taunting, was behaving as bad or worse then Malleus, or failed to address the other party who was poking Malleus. To the point that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. That Malleus became a target because of his block log. Not to excuse Malleus's language when these things happen-- I don't-- but it is not about language, it has always been about a double standard and uneven application of civility for admins and non-admins. And that this "survey" so clearly targets Malleus (without naming him) and misrepresents the issues completely really must stink from Malleus's point of view. It looks like, craft a study to get the result you want so you can use it according to a preset plan. Nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been very amused at all the mind-reading going on regarding my supposed motivations. Every person who has done so has been dead wrong regarding the intent of this admittedly imperfect process. All I want is some guidance from the community so that admins and indeed ArbCom know what the community expects of them. Yes, there is one example scenario that is obviously a reference to "the Malleus conundrum" as I call it. So, users are asked what they think should be done about it. Somehow I got this wacky idea that we asked the community to comment so we would know what to do about difficult to resolve issues. And yes, I did ask for help with this. I didn't get much but most of the original questions were re-written by another user. As the WMF does not involve themselves in such matters I saw little hope of getting the funding to actually have pros develop a more scientific survey so we went with what we had. I've repeated this about a thousand times now but what the hell: The idea is that this be but one portion of a larger effort to find ways to gauge how the community feels about the notion of civility and the enforcement or lack thereof of civility standards. I strongly encourage any and all interested parties to develop more processes with that goal in mind. The results of this survey are intended to be used as a basis for an attempt to come up with some sort of concrete proposal to present back to the community. It may fail to do that, or the proposal may fail to be approved, but I felt it was worth at least trying. I'm sorry so many seem to feel the questions are leading and I assure you this was not intentional. I wish I had the money, the technical know how, and the psychology degree that everyone seems to expect from someone who dares to write up a survey here but I don't. If you do please step forward, we need your help! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So you didn't intend to write leadng questions, oh someone else did, (great excuse) still doesn't say a lot for someone who wants to be on Arbcom though.J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that. I drafted the questions, one other user replied to my request for feedback on them and they re-wrote many of them. Later, after the answers started coming in all these complaints about leading questions surfaced. All I am saying is that there was no intentional leading and where people think I was trying to lead them is probably 180 degrees from where I would have actually tried to lead them if that had been my intent. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well you were obviously so wrapped up in your "wacky idea" that something really important just passed you by. Doesn't auger well does it? 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs)

To add to Beeblebrox's defense, I might add that when I saw the survey, I thought it could use a bit more "should we", among other things, so I went through and edited the first half (the questions part) of the questions page. And never a complaint from beeblebrox, no sense of WP:OWN whatsoever. So I think my comment to all the complainers: where were you when he was developing this? It's not like he didn't let people know on the talk page. I have little doubt that he would have had no issues with you contributing constructively.

I don't have an opinion on the second half of the page, the ranking ones (I didn't look them over much, and honestly haven't read them all yet.)

But as for the first half, besides a few that presumably have obvious answers (like the one on context) what's the issue? The idea is to find out what the community agrees with (what the community can come to consensus on). And if the obvious question is obvious, then at worst, we've merely reaffirmed what the community thinks.

So how about some specifics, besides the unhelpful, vague wave of "this is biased" / "these are leading".

This is Wiki after all. So it's not like we can't collaborate and work on some questions for some future phase.

For whatever your opinion about the "perfection" (or lack thereof) of the product, At least beeblebrox stood up and made an effort to try to ask the community on what apparently has been a topic under discussion. Anyone else doing anything besides merely complaining about such things? Yes? Great. RfCs take actual work, and I think beeblebrox should be commended for at least making the effort. - jc37 20:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And you want want to be an Arb too. Wow. If you can't see what's leading that's really worrying, at least the other guty could. J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think so, then take a moment to inform me of some specifics. But more attacks are a waste of bytes. And of course, attacking a questionnaire because you don't like what people are saying is nothing new to straw polling either. (Not that, of course, this is what you are doing...) - jc37 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All I know is what was in my mind. I personally don't see the supposed leading but that is probably because I wrote the questions. If more users had participated in the drafting process it probably could have been avoided. If the results are severely slanted in the direction users were supposedly being led (haven't really gotten a clear idea of where that is, just vague accusations) then we will probably have to disregard the results and try a different approach. Actually, as I have said many times, I am hoping there will be another process regardless as this was never intended to actually "resolve" the issue of civility enforcement. I'm not so crazy/egomaniacal as to believe it one little survey could do that, but it just might be a step on the road to improving the situation. I would honestly like to hear from anyone who feels there were being led to a specific conclusion. If they could identify which questions did that and what conclusion they thought was implied by that question it would be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake virtually all of them. Everybody obviously wants to work with civil editors but there are some who just don't recognise they are the ones who aren't civil. And those asked with a specific editor in mind I found extremely distasteful. J3Mrs (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you can expect me to see your point if you cannot point to at least one specific example and indicate how the phrasing of the question implies a desired reply. I would honestly appreciate anyone bringing forth such an example as this criticism has been repeated several times but as far as I can recall (other than one user who kept accusing me of being various figures from French history and basically screaming their head off at the entire process) nobody has offered any specifics. I tried to make it clear that the door was open to any response whatsoever to any of the scenarios, including ignoring them, but I did also try to make them realistic so that we would hopefully get answers that would apply to real situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the whole tone, the answer to everything is yes, that's bad. I once belonged to a consultation group run by my local council. The group was supplied with questions to answer not unlike yours. The answer was always yes, but the questionaire missed the whole point, it didn't actually get to the heart of the matter. It, rather like this one, was a simple exercise in getting lots of yes answers so the council could merrily say it had consulted and impose its own desired solution which was what nobody wanted. This has all the hallmarks, sorry you don't like it but that's how I see it. You might want to make it realistic but don't you think thinly-veiled questions involving an editor who is easily identified is distasteful? Far too much time is wasted on stuff like this. You would all be better off ignoring the incivility, and writing something useful. I think I've said enough. J3Mrs (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, no specifics, just more vague waving. - jc37 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll jump in here, because someone wandered by my talk page and told me about this. My greatest regret today is that I should have been a sandboxing fungus taxonomy article or an article about quasi-fictional Shakespearean plants, but filled this out instead. My biggest problem is that several of the questions are written in such a way that they seem to have a "right" answer. I don't think that's necessarily the fault of the drafting editors; this is a real, actual science, and it's hard. I suck at it mightily, too. The Outcry question has been targeted upthread a couple times, and it really is pretty awful. There's a good question in there (should we require more specific block rationales), and that's what I answered, ignoring all the parts about "outcry" and scare-quoted "drama". But the wording is just awful, essentially forcing someone who opposes these types of civility blocks into stating that they're in favor of drama. Outside of those questions, we're asked to pass judgment on a bunch of soundbites. It's very hard for that answer to be anything other than "it depends on the context", which was already a question (and a rather silly one, too; has anyone ever supported a mechanistic wordfilter as a solution to civility concerns?). And then there are the scenarios... Do any POV nationalists behave like those scenario 1 guys, ever? Where there's no edit warring, just a bunch of name-calling in Talk? Where are the real questions, like what to do when a civil POV pusher is complaining of ill-treatment at the hands of an editor who maintains NPOV but fails to conceal his disdain for the nationalism? And then what on earth is going on with the background at scenario 3? We aren't told about any other places the expert is contributing (I assume this is meant to be MF with the serial numbers filed off, so we can't propose things that might fly in the "real" Wikipedia, like a topic ban from RFA that would allow the article work to continue), so we have to assume he's had over a dozen contentious arguments over the content of articles on the 18th century coach and carriage industry. That's not suggestive of his civility problems, its suggestive that he's being stalked by people trying (and succeeding) at goading an inappropriate response. Maybe that's what we're supposed to see in the question, but that's not obvious. I think nearly all the questions in this survey have some sort of significant shortcoming. While I don't know that I could have written better, I'm really not sure what the people running this RFC intend to do with this; it will be very difficult to get anything out of these questionnaires, both due to the largely nonquantitative data collected and because of the huge introduced—even if unintentionally so—bias. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of any of the questions, I agree the outcry one could use even more honing. (It and the one with the "example" were the two I was most wondering about concerning the "final" wording.) At the time, I was trying to get it more neutral from its original form which seemed to me to make a statement in the form of a question. As you say, there's a question to be asked there, it's just a matter of trying to ask it. (Oh and I don't see quote usage as "scare quotes", but YMMV : )

How would you have phrased it?

No opinion on the scenarios and such as I didn't look them over at all. (I ran out of time as I was also busy in real life at the time.)- jc37 22:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How would I have phrased it? To be honest, I wouldn't have made this whole thing look even a little like its current form. I don't ... have any experience in writing these sorts of things, although I know people who do, and I have had real-world experience with the data management that comes afterward. I'd have tried to break down the "easy problems" (as distinct from scenarios, which I think are valuable in the Wikipedia context, just not in the form we see here) into core questions, and have editors respond on the SD/D/N/A/SA scale. So, the question that's buried in that Outcry section would be asked directly: Administrators should be expected to provide a more specific rationale (such as WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:TE, etc.) instead of blocking for "civility"? (Strongly disagree / Disagree / Neutral or no opinion / Agree / Strongly agree) I don't know. I still think that has problems, but it's better, and it's easier to analyze after you're done. If the list of questions were long enough, I'd probably also include another question that words that a different way (something about whether civility blocks are okay). Ideally, the answers should more or less line up. If you ask the same question with a positive wording and a negative wording and your totals don't correspond, you know you've got a problem with one (or both) of your questions, and that data is suspect. I still don't know at all how you ask stuff like when it's okay to overturn a block based on ANI furor (although that's not really a civility question). Things like that "Context" question shouldn't have been asked at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To provide a little more concrete example, a better version of this survey might ask a question like "If a comment appearing on an article Talk page would be a violation of civility policy, that same comment would also be a violation of the civility policy if it had appeared in the Wikipedia Talk or User Talk namespaces?". It would then also (but non-adjacently) ask something like "Different talk pages may have different standards of acceptable civility." If we use the normal scoring for these questions (SD = 1, SA = 5), A is the average score for the first question, and B is the average score for the second question, then (A-3) ~= -(B-3), or there's a problem: either the community doesn't have internally consistent opinions, or at least one of those questions conveys a bias that is skewing the results. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The point of "should we"-style questions, is to specifically get answers on what we should do, and how should we do it, and who is responsible for doing it.

Also, the "agree/disagree" can turn into the problem with true/false questions. If even part of the statement is disagreed with, then the whole thing is, and so we lose understanding of the specifics of the problem, and also lose understanding of what the commenter might have agreed with. Open questions would seem to be more useful in our forum.

Especially since the questions will all be read. We're developing consensus, not voting on a measure, or merely creating statistical analysis. WP:NOTAVOTE after all. - jc37 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand how the Wikipedia consensus process works (or, sometimes, doesn't). That I'm suggesting this should have been done in a manner that is easier to quantify or that has a little more statistical rigor shouldn't be ready to imply that I want civility policy held up to a vote. And I think some essay-response prompts are critical for this sort of thing, in part for the reasons you cite. But I think it will be very hard to evaluate consensus on key issues from this. For one, the length and complexity of the survey and the peculiarities of its wording are going to cut steeply into your sample size; I know that no discussion on Wikipedia ever really sees a representational cross-section, but self-selection bias is going to be a really tough problem here (and I'd overlooked this earlier, but the fact that this is coterminous with an arbitration committee election where aspects of the civility policy are the primary campaign plank for several candidates will reinforce that self-selection bias). But for another, I just do not see how anyone can glean insight into what the community would want on some of the narrow topics here, because they're just not directly addressed. Things like "Does it matter who started it?" and "Do the various Talk namespaces have different minimum standards of civility?" are important questions that aren't asked outright, and whose prompts are buried in scenarios with a discernible spin. I'm especially convinced these are concerns because this isn't the third step of this RFC, where community consensus for a proposal is determined; it's the step where proposals that are intended to be viable solutions are developed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The original RFC opened 4 October, obviously related to the ANI Civility Enforcement amendment debacle. By the 12th it was a messy SNANFC (situation normal, no friggin consensus) I proposed clerking, and Beeblebrox suggested instead preparing a survey. He made up and draft and asked for feeback on 15 October. After getting very little feedback or help for 13 days, it went live on October 28th. It was listed as an RFC and on central notices. The survey was announced and planned publicly and feedback requested. Beeblebrox has acted deliberately and publicly, and all this criticism of him and the survey now is really off the mark; accusations of intentional bias are not supported by the historical record. NE Ent 21:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So disagreeing isn't allowed or that's what it's beginning to look like. It might be difficult to understand for those who don't spend most of their time writing, but I only discovered this place because a link was posted on my page. I have tried, somewhat unsuccessfully, to explain why I have a problem with it. What I have written is also in good faith. I can't be expected to know about these hidden corners and I'm certainly not looking for them. And by the way I do not understand NE Ent's second sentence.J3Mrs (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, disagreeing is fine. But stuff like "So you didn't intend to write leading questions, oh someone else did, (great excuse) still doesn't say a lot for someone who wants to be on Arbcom though" isn't just disagreeing, it's an ad hominem attack against a good faith if imperfect effort. Not sure what's unclear about second sentence -- hopefully the link makes the situation at the time visible. Your point about notification of the non policy-wonks is a good one; if the surveys answers converge enought to proceed to the planned phase three we should probably do the watchlist notice thing. NE Ent 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good faith participation doomed by biased origins? Or process salvageable?

I have a question for Sandy and others who seem to feel the questionnaire is a pointed (at best) prelude to war action against certain unnamed-but-widely-targeted editors, or else just plain biased: is it possible to give a reasoned and neutral response to it despite its shortcomings and alleged ulterior motives? I'm not going to respond as Fifelfoo did (fun though that was to read), but could not a reasoned consideration of the arguments editors present in their responses prevail over whatever Puritan mindset may or may not have originated the thing? I tried to give responses that, if adopted, would not cause pain to content creators or be able to interpreted as a mandate for cracking down on "bad behavior." Did I fail? Was I in fact doomed to failure from the very beginning? Or could there be some kind of reasonable solution/discussion here despite the alleged ignoble birth of the questionnaire? It didn't seem to me that the whole enterprise was a bad faith undertaking (and indeed I have to salute the patience of those who crafted it in all its length). But then I don't really know the background, either. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When plenty of users are reading the questions and realising that it is so biased they don't want to associate their names with it, I'd say yes, the people who are most likely to respond are those who already agree with the bias of the survey. However, I've seen editors known for their strong emphasis on civility also walk away from this survey. Personally, I would not respond to such a leading survey at the best of times, and certainly not when it's designed to stay around on this website into eternity, thanks. Risker (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the arguement that I least understand.

Your responses are in no way controlled. You are free to answer any way you wish. and your comments would be assessed with all others. This is not a vote, it's an attempt to determine consensus. So I'm not sure how staying out of a discussion is an effective means of opposing whatever it is that you oppose or disagree with.

I really am getting the idea that some people opposing this are thinking this would be some sort of collated "vote", and not actual assessment of the responses. - jc37 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to make an objective assessment with an arguably biased survey. I probably won't answer it myself, mainly because it is quite long and somewhat redundant, and I'm not sure of the value of my answers when most would be "it depends on $x". I appreciate the desire to try to reduce "civility" to a simple definition, and not saying I could have designed better, but I'm not sure you can break it down this way in a culturally diverse environment. That is likely why I tend to be pretty tolerant, since it is really hard to be fair and strict when it comes to civility here. So much is in the eye of the beholder. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any issue with individuals' CSDing their survey after the results were compiled? NE Ent 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why they couldn't do that at anytime they like as a user request to delete pages in their own space. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You know what would be a good idea would be for a script or bot to inform and thank everyone who participated once the analysis is complete, and to let them know they are free to retain the page or have it deleted at any time. If it causes a backlog I will clear it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A new instruction has just been added to the project page: interested participants may add comments or questions on any of the associated talk pages to suggest possible improvements or seek clarifications if they are uncertain about any included answer. If someone posted to the talk page of my questionnaire, would I still be able to have it deleted after it is studied? Fylbecatulous talk 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Risker:Just for clarity's sake, could you define what bias you think is evident in the survey? I ask because your last remark here seems to imply a different bias than others have accused it of having. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• @Risker: Regarding, "I would not respond . . . not when it's designed to stay around on this website into eternity." Why do you say that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So... participation in the survey constitutes per se acquiescence to / support for the summary institution of draconian civility laws? Those who see an inherent bias/agenda herein hope that by not filling it out, and proclaiming widely their reasons for not doing so, that the legitimacy of the entire affair is undermined in the way of a sketchy political election with miniscule voter participation? In short, there's no hope that a good argument against making the world safe for kindergarteners could possibly prevail against the swarming iron tide of the Knights Who Say Ni[ce]?

I'd hate to think there's no middle ground between This RFC is horrific question begging and displays a Bonapartism which should outrage all decent people. You can stick this RFC up your fucking arseholes, and Writing in all CAPS should just be reverted and the offender flogged. Honestly, there's no possibility of responding in a way that subverts or rejects the alleged hidden agenda and gets your point across about the suitability of trying to enforce a milquetoast social environment and cat-lady fascism across the Wikipedia entire? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, the mind readers out there might feel less confidence in their extrasensory abilities to see hidden subtexts if they read my own replies. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• It has been said to death, but it is like pornography: I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Some of the worse incivility is laden with flowery words, and some of the least incivility may be laden with cursing. Some of it is passive-aggressively drawn out of people. A great example is in one the links you provided Swashbucker, "Such interactions on user talk pages should not be considered an example of incivility unless the party being called an asshole is offended." Well, how are we to objectively know that? Maybe the person being called an asshole isn't really offended, but is just saying they are to be an asshole and get the other person blocked. This rather sums it up well: How civil you are is in the eyes of those receiving your comments, so the same comment may look civil to some and incivil to others. That is impossible to police, except to tolerate anything that isn't universally obvious as incivil. That is more or less what I try to do now, which has some saying I'm too soft on incivility due to their own strict interpretation, while others say I'm spot on. Every time I see the word "civility" at ANI or Arb, I know that the arguing over the definition of civility will cause more incivility than the original event that led to the report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I found it tricky, thought-provoking, and time-consuming to answer to the best of my ability (possibly; best on that day, at least) and avoiding knee-jerk responses. I'm actually quite well-used to things which tend to evoke knee-jerk responses, and can usually steer clear of pitfalls. I'm not suggesting that any pitfalls here are intentional, that's just the way these things go. I must admit I was rather saddened by the apparent harshness and inflexibility of some of the respondents' views, being of the view that in most animals, human or otherwise, draconian measures, harsh measures, overly-punitive measures (excused on the basis of being "educational", but as I see it, only "educational" along the lines of "That'll teach him a lesson!") just don't work very well. It's too much stick and too little understanding patience.. However, it is possible to answer the questions, though the answers aren't necessarily easy to apply to any given situation. The more deeply I thought about various questions, the more I came up with "It all / so much depends on context and all the associated back-stories" as an answer. In almost all cases relating to civility, to get a truly right response would need some really dedicated research into the entire background of something, by which time the immediate incident will almost certainly have blown over. The cases that come before ArbCom generate so much more heated, pained, hurt, hurtful, and inflammatory rhetoric than whatever-it-was that triggered the darned ArbCom referral in the first place. It seems we attempt to pour oil on troubled waters – and then toss a flaming brand onto the oil, which by now has covered a few acres of water surface. Not helpful. Instead of troubled waters we get a widespread floating inferno. I'm not sure if my own responses may be helpful to any others, but I would hope so. Pesky (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The questionnaire may not be perfect, but it's definitely a valid means of gathering opinions. It doesn't mean that the data is going to be binding in any way. If some disagree with it, then they don't have to participate. Judging by the category though, plenty of Wikipedians are participating, and I am very interested in the responses. My main complaint is more a technical one, as it's very difficult to step through and see all responses for a particular question. It would be nice to have this information in a spreadsheet or SurveyMonkey format or something, to make the different responses easier to read. --Elonka 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To those advocating the use of off-wiki sites for questionnaires, I would not have taken the questionnaire had it been off-wiki. In the case of SurveyMonkey, it does not allow me to take surveys because I refuse to let them run scripts in my browser. (I won't allow scripts for an untrusted site, especially for an optional activity like this.) Editing a wiki page is something that any Wikipedia editor can do, without hassle from technical problems on external sites. There are also philosophical issues (e.g. transparency) that deter me (and probably others) from using external sites for Wikipedia activities. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Scenario 6

"Arguments about civility are leading to more and more disruption and the project seems in danger of losing many long time contributors as a result.". Ok, hypothetical. But say it was true. I wonder which group of editors the person who drafted this thinks we would lose -- the censors or the free-speechers? Moriori (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, but why need we split the losses into factionalism? - jc37 02:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm presuming the drafter is referring to people (perhaps relatively new editors) who might be put off by what they perceive as a general climate of negativity, incivility, and indifference around the website. dci | TALK 02:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The drafter specified many long term contributors. Jc37, direct your question to person who did the draft. The inference I take is that there would be a "faction" which would leave (depending on outcome). Without some sort of extrapolation Scenario 6 seems meaningless IMMHO. Moriori (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC).

Oi. I guess I am to used to people knowing that I don't really do "hidden subtext". With me what you see is what you get, but I suppose I can't realistically expect everyone to know that. The question is not meant to imply any more than what it says. DCI has it about right, users sometimes leave because they are put off by the seemingly endless bickering and drama in some areas. The question is more about what you would do if you had the power to write policy all by yourself as you see fit than who would be driven away by such a crisis. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oi yourself. Scenario 6 doesn't specify "seemingly endless bickering and drama in some areas", it specifies "arguments about civility". I didn't question the question, I questioned your preamble and still do. What outcome might cause this, and who might quit? Moriori (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to find this so upsetting. The hypothetical scenario is that arguments about civility have gotten so frequent and so severe that users are simply turning away from the project. No particular faction or group, just users in general. Anyone might quit if the environment here really got that bad, even ArbCom members or Jimbo. It's a deliberately exagerated premise meant to provoke comment on what you would do in the equally unlikely circumstance that WP decided to appoint a temporary dictator to resolve the crisis. Sort of an "If I ruled the world" scenario. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this upsetting? Good grief, you truly surprise me. Moriori (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You seemed pretty worked up about what, to my mind, is a complete non-issue. Perhaps I misunderstood but you were being pretty insistent about identifying what group would be effected by the hypothetical problem presented. Since that is apparently not the case I assume this line of discussion is now concluded. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

timeline/recruitment for next phase

This is about when it was initially planned to close this phase. However there has been a significant spike in replies due to this coming up at the ArbCom election so it may be wise to leave it open a bit longer. The more replies we have the more likely the eventual proposal will be something the community will be able to get behind. Thoughts?

Also, we need to recruit the team that will handle the analysis of the replies and the initial drafting of whatever proposal comes out of those results. I don't think I should be one of those people for two reasons: one is that I don't want this to be about me, it is about our uneven enforcement of civility standards. The other is that I may end up being on the Arbitration Committee. I may not, I really have no idea but at the moment I would not feel comfortable committing to seeing this thing through. So, how do we recruit, how many are needed, etc. And should we open a subpage for coordinating that effort so that it isn't lost in the middle of this page? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Though I haven't been much involved in this til recently, I'd suggest a separate coordinating page and slowly winding this phase down within one or two weeks. Leaving things open should enable wider participation, and should allow people to work out their concerns about the survey, while others who might shy away from this area can have the chance to take it with wider "publicity" from the election. dci | TALK 04:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I suggest we wait until after the election to close. With users voting, there may be an increased interest in these "behind-the-scenes" areas of the encyclopedia, and that's why we're seeing more responses recently. (Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this.) Voting closes in about a week (23:59 UTC on Dec. 10th to be exact), so I say we wait about another 3-7 days after that until setting the analysts in motion. This also buys us time to work out who will analyze the replies and draft a proposal. I for one am unsure of volunteering for this analysis team as I am unsure how much time commitment is required, when the team would need to be available, and if responders will even be allowed to be analysts. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A civil pig is still a...

Speaking only for myself, I think being cool with folks is almost always the way to go, hard as it may be now and then, more so online where there are few cues, as such, other than whatever frail text is to be had (and misread). So, I guess I'm kinda stern about that, civility, but only with myself, with my own edits such as they may be, because I've gotta say, a civil pig is still a fookin' pig. Oh. Wait. Sorry. That was so way unkind to pigs, maybe I can put this another way. My take is, there's no WP:consensus as to "civility" on en.WP and adding more bureaucracy to deal with it ain't gonna fly, won't happen, ever. Civility (or whatever) may be more or less in the mind's eye of the beholder and so forth (back and forth). I'd say, do what you think's best, then otherwise please kindly blow off what others do as to "civility." With or without, editing here in the long haul takes a very thick skin. That's ok. The true worries on this website (or any terciary/secondary source) run far deeper than WP:Civility. Take my word for that, or don't. Either way, after almost nine years of editing here I've found both civility and its lack can be weapons. Both. Can be. Weapons. Ew. So yeah, given I'd rather have it "civil," admin or not, civil or not, there's meaningful worry only when the bounds of something. Else. Has been breached. Thanks for reading (and putting up with) my two pence. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say, but I have to agree with you 100% ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of wisdom there Gwen, I think. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The worst nastiness in Wikipedia is pursued while being "wp:civil" and is in fact conducted via mis-using (rather then violating) the letter of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and mechanisms. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

for example, in the case of Wikilawyering so at least let's agree on that one?--Andromedean (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean. Some of the viciousness it is certainly Wikilawyering. The most common form is false baseless wiki-accusations. Also, due to backfiring of systems that normally work, its also a place where a possee of wiki-saavy people can pretty much do anything to anybody. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the observation that a civil pig is still a pig - that is if you are applying this to human beings. We humans may change and adapt and grow, as I would hope all of us have experienced in our lifetimes. I strongly reject any view that writes off another human as a pig or an arsehole or in any way fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. We cannot see into another's soul with enough clarity to state anything definitively.

On the other hand, we can see behaviour for ourselves. Behaviour changes, sometimes within seconds, depending on who we are interacting with. We don't address our grandmother as we do our drinking buddies. Or we may experience a life-changing insight that informs our subsequent behaviour.

What I am trying to say is that civility and nastiness and "pigness" are all behaviour. Nobody is so far beyond redemption that they are incapable of expressing love. Or hate. Of course we can say mean and nasty things in a polite way. Southern ladies seem to be able to destroy a man with the most charming words. Mark Antony's speech apparently praised the "honourable men" who killed Julius Caesar.

We are going to tie ourselves in nots if we outlaw subtlety. But we can enforce civility, in exactly the same way as we enforce the use of English here. Where incivility is plain, it can be addressed. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't enforce civility. We can't even define it. Between US and UK forms, we have enough trouble even defining English. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We can communicate in English - all of us reading this, whether it be fall or autumn, harbour or harbor - and any rough spots are easily smoothed over with good will. We know within ourselves if we feel insulted or slighted, and we depend on the community to find a way of protecting us, and each other. We cannot throw up our hands and say it is all too hard, or the atmosphere will become ever more toxic and we will push good editors away and retain only those who feel comfortable in a poisonous environment. Together we have created a marvellous resource - I don't believe that fixing the civility problem is beyond our grasp. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What civility problem? HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Gwen, did you discuss civility based on your own experience? I mean, when you said "a civil pig is still a fookin' pig" did you mean the performance of your own three accounts by any chance or you meant the way you blocked others? Thanks. 71.198.213.152 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It's been a long time since I've done a civility block (years). Thanks for bringing that up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is on cent, but still edit=sysop?

If you are advertising this RfC on {{cent}}, shouldn't people actually be able to respond? (I could be a real dick and just post anyway, but this is an RfC on civility, after all, and I wouldn't want to live up to the OMGZ ABUSIVE ADMINS! stereotype.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, silly me, I'm supposed to subst: the page into my user space. It might be useful if someone could put that in a big red box or something so other people won't just skip over the boring lead and get to the questions and then wonder why they can't answer them. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased survey

I've read the survey questions and find them extremely biased, to the point of being unable to complete it in any meaningful fashion. I suspect I am not alone in this view, and hope this will be taken account by those analysing responses. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Even on the unlikely but not philosophically impossible hypothesis that this is not an attempt at railroading, it will be indistinguishable by any objective means from railroading - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I had originally started answering the survey, and then had my page deleted. But I have since reinstated a protest response so that I am not wrongfully considered as being in agreement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this has come up several times. What I find confusing is how asking a user "what do you think we should do in this situation, give any reply you like" is biased in some way. Please, really, say what you feel and be totally honest. That is all that is being looked for here, there is no diabolical plot to force you into whatever position you think is implied by the survey. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate answers to almost all of the questions are "there is insufficient information to make a definitive response", or alternately "it depends on the context". The survey is almost entirely situationally based, it uses biased wording in multiple places, and it is excessively long. It is something made up that illustrates nothing more than that Wikipedians can make up an unscientific survey, and the intended use of the data ("a team of volunteers will review all submissions and attempt to create a concrete proposal for the community to review based on those results") biases the results in favour of the opinions of people who like to take long rambling unscientific surveys. It is not reflective in any way of the community, given that a very sizeable number of community members have posted to this page that they are not participating. Please don't make any proposals to the community based on the information given in response to this questionnaire. Even though WP:NOR is primarily intended to apply to article space, I'm pretty sure it would apply in this situation as well.

There are social scientists clamouring to study Wikipedia and its community; if we're going to do a study of their opinions on certain behaviours, it would be much more worthwhile to have a professional doing this. At least their process will have been reviewed by an independent advisory board in advance, and then their results subject to peer review before publishing. Risker (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly mentioned this should only be one pice of a larger effort. This problem is far too big to be resolved by any one process. People keep telling me what they would have done instead. Good. Do it already. The more the merrier. I don't happen to know any social scientists or have any pull with the Foundation, if you do it would be great if you could use it to do exactly what you have suggested. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a WMF-wide research committee that might be able to put you in touch with those who are interested and skilled in this type of research. Risker (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, while it may be worthwhile trying to figure out what the heck civility means to Wikipedians (I think it is likely a waste of time but what do I know!), the reality is that your survey is not going to do that, not even remotely because the results are going to be biased in one direction. For example, consider the questions in the "Rate examples" section. Your scale varies from "Always acceptable" to "Never acceptable" but do you seriously think that someone is going to answer "Always acceptable" to any of those examples? Your 5-point scale is already a 4-point scale, and that too with a skewed distribution whose mean will lie somewhere around 4. Then there are your scenario questions with open ended responses. How do you propose to code those responses? Clearly, the responses are going to vary from "depends on the context" to strong sanction based responses. Given the wishy-washyness inherent in the "context" responses, you're going to end up with a draconian skew in the coded responses, even assuming that the coders are themselves dispassionate researchers and not editors who don't bring their own biases into the process. That's what everyone means by a biased questionnaire and that's why you should just drop this and, assuming you're passionate about figuring out civility, more on to some other means of doing that. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Telling people what "appropriate answers to questions" are is irrational. Pre-judgeing those responses is also irrational. Also, any User may propose things, on whatever they wish to propose them on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with the existence of the survey, and I don't mind people completing it any more than I mind people completing the latest "are you a good lover?" survey in Cosmopolitan. I just don't think anyone should even pretend that scientifically valid data will be obtained through this means, nor should it be presented in any way that suggests it reflects the community's views on any issue. Risker (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed science for anything, with respect to these questions? As for the "community," that requires individual Users to share their views on things, they can share their views there, just like anywhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to put to fine a point on it Risker, but are you not a member of the committee that punted this issue back to the community to resolve? Well this member of the community decided to try something since no one else seemed to have the nerve to even get the ball rolling. I know you are not exactly a huge fan of some of the rather bold moves I have made to try and address problems that a lot of users think are unsolvable. I get that. I don't expect you to like this. But be fair in your criticisms.

No RFC I have ever seen anywhere on Wikipedia has ever been constructed to scientific standards. As Alanscott, myself, and others before have said, nobody is claiming there is anything remotely scientific about this process. Yet all of the sudden people seem to expect it from this one. I can only guess that the reason for that is the format. The format was based on the very similar process used by an attempt to reform RFA a few years ago. I don't believe they were expected to be scientific in that process either. This is just another way of having a conversation. A way that does not involve the kind o f rambling unhelpful discussions we saw in phase one. Will it have any real impact? I don't know. In fact the idea it is based on failed to have any impact. But if this is even the tiny, incremental beginning of a real attempt to come up with real answers regarding what to do about uneven enforcement of civility standards it will have been worth it. Thank you for the pointer to the research committee, when I have a bit more time I will write something up to present to them. or anybody reading this can get started on it right now. I would be more than happy to have more users involved in the actual operation of what is likely to be a very, very prolonged process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For the future, pls review my suggestions to you before this went live, although those process issues cannot possibly head off objections from others who do not like questions asked about what they do not like questions to be asked about, the process may have been better advanced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly did answer "1" to several of those examples; and to my recollection I didn't rate a single one of them a "5." I don't think the alleged "range" of context-type responses is going to be so broad that the people collating these will necessarily lean toward bullwhipping jaywalkers or caning gum-chewers. On the contrary, I think the fact that so many people have had to find so many ways to say "This doesn't actually apply" or "I don't think we can pre-determine whether x is really uncivil" or "Every single thing depends on context" - will point the survey collators toward the conclusion that all of these questions really do hinge on subjective criteria and we can't conduct preemptive strikes against "incivility." And if I'm wrong about this, then I'm sure the broader community will react strongly against the so-called "solutions" that stem from such egregious pre-determination of results. I guess, just, have a little faith, uh? If and only if the result that "we can't actually legislate these things or predetermine punishments" is taken as a failure of the process (rather than a legitimate result of it), that is the indicator of a biased process/survey/what-have-you. Has there been any indication that the creators of the survey are determined to take a null result as a failure rather than a result? Would they learn from a null result and start asking different questions, or would they say "well these people clearly don't understand the issue, we just have to find new and more coded ways to ask the same damn questions?" ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
— Theodore Roosevelt

NE Ent 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I like that a lot. would also echo what zenshwashbuckler said , I rated numerous entires in the ratings section as 1, always acceptable. I have suspected for some time that those who see an inherent bias in the questions are actually projecting their own biases into the situation and imagining suggestions that were not intended or present at all. All anyone is expected to do is here is say what they think. The fact that over 100 Wikipedians have done so suggests that not everyone feels it is a fatally flawed process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I had to fall squarely into the "it all depends on context" in almost all the situations. Jeeze, IRL, the offensiveness of killing someone depends on context! Premeditated murder, negligence, accident, war, defence of life and limb of self or others ....

"A man walks onto someone's property, carrying something, and says something. The property owner attacks and kills him. Is this always acceptable, sometimes acceptable ... bla, bla".

Reply: well, was he carrying a six-pack of beer and asking to borrow the hedge trimmer again, or carrying a machete and saying he's going to kill the family? And, it it's the hedge-trimmer scenario, is this the same guy who borrowed the hedge trimmer nine months ago and used it to amputate Uncle Arthur's fingers? And ... used the bottle of Champagne to put Auntie Bessie in hospital for a month? And ZOMG! Is he leering at the baby now?

Phew! No, it's only Daft Cousin Davie off to his fancy-dress party as a pirate ...

Risker's brought up the earlier point about getting some serious professional input, and her suggestions for achieving this are brilliant. Not at this stage, clearly, but as a really well-researched investigation (provided there is a statistically significant sample of respondents) as a follow-up / more depth study, massively worth doing.

I notice that there are so many violations of the actual civility policy which fly under the radar. I'm talking specifically about the part of the policy where it says:

The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon!

1. Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times.

   Be sure to take into account all the relevant history; never make snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation.

2. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action.

   Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do.

   Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, etc.)

3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI orWP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.

... that bit gets violated constantly, and apparently with impunity. Pesky (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we actually have any statistics - even very rough figures - on how many editors ever get sanctioned for incivility?--Boson (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting survey

Thanks for this. I'll be very interested to see the results of any analysis. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing: dates

I can find no information how long the questionnaire is supposed to last. I'd suggest we add a clear date, for example - end of December. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This page has been a bit of a circus at times and coordinating stuff here has been difficult, I have just started a new dedicated page for coordinating this process at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/coordination. Hopefully we will have a firm date in the very near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Who gave up?

Will we conduct a survery on how many people have given up trying to do the survey because it's all too hard?

And then we can decide on the significance of excluding a big part of the potential demographic and leaving the process to those with too much time on their hands. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you have enough time on your hands to come here and complain about it over and over. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! There is a kinda point, though – some people have far more trouble / far less patience with surveys than others do. It would be cool if there was some way of having a click-button which says "I give up! Please take into account what I've said so far, and log the fact that I gave up ..." which would automatically sub-cat those responses into a "Part-completed responses - gave up" category. And ... I wonder if the people who suffer from reduced patience with other editors are the same who tend to suffer from reduced patience with surveys, etc.? Academically interesting, but probably not of much great use here and now. Pesky (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally love doing surveys (thinking that my opinion is important ;-) ), but not this one. And Beeble..., a glance at my posts here over the past month will show you that they took no more than five minutes in total to create. The survey would have taken considerably more. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Beeble, too, can run short on patience, being human like the rest of us! And he's taken quite a lot of battering here (including some digs from me), while actually striving to move something forward. NE Ent's Roosevelt quote is very, very applicable. And it should always be borne in mind that "The man who never made a mistake probably never made anything", and "an apparent failure is no more nor less than an alternative outcome". Whatever the outcome ends up being, this process is helping to cast some light into a very murky and muddy situation. Pesky (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Altlhough there was no multiple choice answer of I give up, but use what I did complete, there is a comment section at the very end which invites any other remarks. I used it to say essentially that I wasn't going to answer the scenarios (because that part I did find daunting) but to take all else I answered as valid and I left a closing suggestion there as well. I believe (as I recall without looking back) that another respondent flagged the very top of the questionnaire to direct attention to the same comment area because that was all the only area they were going to fill in. Fylbecatulous talk 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't normally try to count the views of people who don't bother responding to an RFC. Why should that be different just because the RFC is in a different format? (I think the term "questionnaire" has created false expectations for some people.) Speaking for myself, I only responded because of the new format, and would not have bothered for a regular RFC. It was partly curiosity about the new format that prompted me to try it, but I also felt the questionnaire format allowed me to express my views better than the standard RFC structure. (I did not allow the questions to constrain me, but instead used them as reminders of things to discuss.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in saying the equivalent of "We've always done it that way" in discussion about changing policy on how we do things? HiLo48 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A fair point. It would be interesting to see some statistics on participation in questionnaire-style RFCs vs regular RFCs. Since this is only the second (?) RFC to use a questionnaire format, I don't think there's enough data yet to come to a conclusion on which format gets better participation, though. Information on why people chose not to participate is useful; the comments on this talk page give partial insight into that (questionnaire too long, etc). I'm not sure a survey on non-participation would be useful, since the target users would probably not participate... – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by definition it's certainly difficult to gain feedback from those who aren't participating, but we must recognise that many are in that category, and never claim that those still involved in this extremely drawn out and agonising process are truly representative of those who care. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave up. I'd of liked to edit the page directly but once realising that is not intended gave up. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make the following edits to improve categorization of this page.

1. Move the categorization tag from the top of the page to its standard placement at the bottom.
2. Wrap that tag so it is only included on the target page <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions|{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
3. Add a wrapped tag to categorize this page only. <noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions|*]]</noinclude>

Thank you. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  20:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify it is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions that I request to be edited. Its talk page redirects here. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Added requested page parameter to avoid confusion. ⁓ Hello71 15:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined.

First, unlike article space, categories are not necessarily "placed at the bottom" by default (often, the reverse is true).

And second, the questions page will be subst'd (not transcluded), so the tags won't work the way they would if this was merely a transcluded template. - jc37 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Though this isn't an article, I cannot think of a good reason to not follow the categories-at-bottom convention. At its current location, the category is at risk of accidental removal – some editors remove the introductory text after substing the page (often along with the questions so they can give a free-form response), inadvertently removing the category as well. If the category were at its expected position (at the end after a blank line), editors would be less likely to accidentally remove it.

As for your second point, this use of <noinclude> and <includeonly> works just as well with subst: as it does without. I tested this by substing User:PartTimeGnome/sandbox into User:PartTimeGnome/sandbox2. The results are as intended – the sort key is * for the former page, and {{BASEPAGENAME}} for the latter. I think My76Strat's intention here is to properly sort the 'Questions' page under "*" rather than its current position under "R", a change I support. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the category at risk of accidental removal, it appears to have happened on a majority of responses where the respondent did choose to remove the questions, preferring an unprompted, free form response. The html tags that designate inclusion most definitely do work for substitutions, indeed that is their purpose. PartTimeGnome is correct that my intention to categorize this page better was spawned at seeing the project page intermixed with respondents in the section labeled "R", when it would properly be listed with the other associated project pages in the "*" section. Refer to the category for a better representation of this fact: Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions Thank you. --My76Strat (talk)  03:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just tested it myself. News to me, as I have seen a LOT of subst'd userboxes where this absolutely did NOT work this way. I wonder if this is a new fix.

Anyway, if it works, I'm not opposed to it. As for where to put them on the page, I'm not strongly opposed to bottom, but, on discussion pages this is usually not a good idea, and so I'm thinking that would apply here as well. - jc37 04:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this is a freebee, since aspects have been alluded to. IMO, any page primarily intended to serve as a template for substitution ought to be formatted for "safe substitution", with all related pages consolidated under a {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#switch:{{{1}}}. Of course we all know what opinions are compared to; I'll be first to admit mine stinks at times.

Addendum: I noticed the edit conflict and wanted to add that UBX templates are the primary culprit in substitution templates that are not "safe", therefor failing during recursive substitutions. I have experienced these failures many times as well. As far as placement, it wouldn't be a redundant waste to include the code at the top and bottom of the page. It would only increase the likelihood of its remaining categorized. --My76Strat (talk)  05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A further tidbit that is helpful, and a very good special page to be aware of is this special page for evaluating a templates performance I find it very helpful for testing templates and locating parameters that fail to parse. It is worth stressing the importance of the page cache when using this special page. It is imperative that you either re-enter the special page for a fresh test, or clear the page cache for a subsequent test, or the results will be skewed by the cache and the effect of a change unapparent. Cheers. --My76Strat (talk)  06:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I've also added an html comment asking people not to remove the category. If you want me to remove it or to change the wording, I won't object. (Also, Jc37, as far as I know this is the way noinclude and includeonly have always worked. I imagine what you experienced with substituted userboxes had something to do with the subtemplates not being substituted. If you want to work out what's going on, point me to an example and I'll have a go at explaining.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one example I fixed earlier this year. The template was this version of the Signator userbox. I tried substituting it myself and couldn't get that to happen. I put it down to copy-and-pasting the template code rather than substituting it. I've since put documentation on the template to explain how to use it, and people seem to have stopped making this mistake with this template. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stradivarius for accomplishing this edit request. PartTimeGnome, you have shown a good example of a template that is working off a transcluded sub-template that should have been substituted instead. {{Signator Userbox}} attempts to substitute the internal transclusion of {{userbox}}, causing {{!}} to substitute raw pipes during a recursive step, and subsequently failing. The template documentation for {{userbox}} should be more clear than it is IMO. I found some syntax in the main {{userbox}} template that I disagree with, but that's another debate. For this example, I worked up a demonstration in my sandbox. Cheers. --My76Strat (talk)  13:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow what you're saying, but thanks for looking into it. The template works whether it is transcluded or substituted (with the latter resulting in the underlying {{userbox}} code being saved), so I don't think any changes are necessary. When I try substituting it myself it does not expose the <noinclude>d categories, anyway. (Userboxes are not normally substituted anyway.) Anyway, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of {{Signator Userbox}}; further discussion should probably be at Wikipedia talk:Service awards (I am watching that page). – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course. Anyway, thanks for supporting this edit request. I look forward to working with you again. Thanks for the interest you've taken in improving that table too. You've done some good stuff there. Cheers. --My76Strat (talk)  07:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, my experience with userboxes not subst'ing in this way predates template:userbox being used as a standard sub template. Sometime if we each have some spare time I can show you some examples and see what you think. (Though it's easy enough to find them by looking at userpages categorised in the subcats of Category:Wikipedians.) - jc37 07:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please fix typo

{{edit protected}} In the Scenario 2 section in the sentence...

"Several of the blocked users friends comment on what a dumb block it is, how the blocking admin is a disgrace, that they should be desysopped, and sp on."

...the part that says "and sp on" should be "and so on". The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it's for the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions page (since I realized that this talk page is a redirect). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done [3]   An optimist on the run! 08:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you Jc37 for the fix and Optimist on the run for letting me know. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

More typos

The ==Collegiality== sections says:

Example: if a person is having a casual conversation with friends over a table covered with beer glasses and one of them wishes to contest a point another has made they might prefect their remarks

That should be preface, meaning state in advance, not prefect, meaning an official. Also, there are three clauses there, so it's missing two commas: please add them between "beer glasses <comma> and one" and between "has made <comma> they might". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: I quite agree with the fix as described above - unfortunately, this is the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement which has neither a Collegiality section nor a sentence resembling that quoted above. I assume that the text occurs on a different page - which one? The first positional parameter of {{edit protected}} is available to specify that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)