This page is for discussing the coordination of the RFC only. If you wish to comment on the process please do so at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Any off topic comments or threads may be removed to that page. Thanks.

In addition to this discussion page, the following pages also form a part of the RFC analysis work:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire analysis

I've started this page to give those interested in coordinating this and the next phases of this process a place to do away from all the noise on the main talk page. The timeline has been brought up a few times, I think right after the ArbCom election is over is as good a time as any. It has been running for over a month and there are over 100 replies, so how about one day after the election, which would be 11 December? Also, we need to establish who will be doing the analysis. How many do we need? Does it matter if they replied themselves? Do they need to be admins or can anyone who wants to pitch in help? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add that I think it is very important that I hand the reigns over to the group that volunteers to do this. My intention was always just to get the ball rolling, I don't want this to be "Beeblebrox's civility RFC". I made that mistake with the 2011 pending changes RFC, after a while there were more arguments about me than the actual issue and I had to just walk away and let the whole thing implode. Also, it is possible that by January I will be an arbitrator so I should keep my distance from whatever proposal may come out of this, and I may be too busy to do any good here anyway. If I don't get on I will help out where I can moving forward, but don't think I, or any other single user, should be the "public face" of this process. I would like to offer my sincere thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who volunteers to help move this forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Needless to say, I am interested in assisting you, and this process. I disagree that you should withdraw as the primary for this RFC. I understand that it's hot in the kitchen, and support your withdrawal if it is something you want, for yourself. The filibustering nay-sayers are going to have their say regardless; they already are. And you've done a might fine job with this from what I see, especially considering that you've had as much help as is apparent. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  22:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The filibustering nay-sayers", eh? That seems a bit uncivil. And hardly labels you as an objective, impartial observer. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever said I was impartial, in fact I am rather vocal regarding my preference. That doesn't mean I am incapable of all the things that you are implying I couldn't handle. In fact I handled you, a guy that has been on the receiving end of a lot of this civility discussion. Anyone who want's can look at how I handled your questionable motives when dealing with you, and take it as a very good indication of the position I am partial to. I said I would help, some things I'v already done, should I delete it because I'm not a model speaker?, or should you get a grip on why you are in an wp:rfc/u of your own. Let me share an Irony with you, "big guy", I wouldn't have even known about this questionnaire except that I noticed the rfc on you, popped in to see what was up, and stumbled to where I am standing now. So give yourself a little pat on the back that I'm here, and immediately get over the fact that I'm going to be here. Ans so I have been as stern with you, and as uncivil as I would endorse as reasonable. And pay attention to the "this discussion may get heated" and all the stuff that is being said. Be informed in your comments. Or show me one time I ever said I was impartial. Or why, because I have an opinion, I can't be fair? even though I'm not obligated to be fair either. Only reasonable. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. How sad. Partial AND uncivil (but only to the extent that's completely acceptable by definition because My76Strat says it is). It's obvious why this isn't going anywhere. And I won't bother to try to discuss with you why there is an RFC/U about me, apart from saying that accusations from people pushing opposing political views do not equal guilt. (Well, not in most justice systems.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not because I say so, because it is. If and when my conduct is better blocked, than tolerated, block me, but it would be nice to define the standard, chances are if I am required to be more civil than I am, I will conform. That's what civilized people do, they conform. So conform me! But don't expect the line of conformance to be like one that you would author, because there is a strong consensus emerging that is fed up, with both you and me, so how about we skip some of the BS for our own sanity, or pray for someone to mandate it for us. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  01:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards? Hypocritical too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the love of God, please don't do this here. The whole point of creating this page was to have a quiet place to discuss coordination of the RFC only. If you want to fight or discuss any other topic please do it somewhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay by me. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  02:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT OK by you. If it was, you wouldn't post such critical, negative crap about those who disagree with you. I didn't start this. I responded to YOUR blatant POV on display here, suggesting that it was inappropriate. You insist that it's not. Just grow up! I won't post again in this discussion. My point is made. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are free a moment will you look at the edit request I posted?[1] Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  02:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found this lovely table put together by My76Strat. It gives a summary of each response (number of edits, dates of first and last edits, number of bytes added, etc). I now know that my response is the longest of the lot... My apologies to whoever reads it! And thanks for the table, My76Strat! – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind sentiments. I was going to mention that table in my first response, but it got very long, and didn't make the cut. Then I got side tracked by Hilo, and a little hot about it, I'm getting better, blood pressure is coming down, I feel it. But that's a personal problem, almost off-topic, except that it goes to the core of this discussion, right off the bat. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several responses to the questionnaire that are not in the category. Some might be users who haven't finished their response, while others might have omitted the category by mistake.

• The following users removed the questions to give an unprompted response. They probably removed the category by accident when they removed the questions: Ched (blank page), Djembayz, Tarc.
• The following users answered all questions, so appear to have finished the questionnaire: DGG, Smallbones, Worm That Turned.
• The following users responded to some of the questions. They might return later to finish the questionnaire, or might have no intent to answer the questions they skipped: AGK, Fjozk, Gandydancer, Kilopi, The Anonymouse, Volunteer Marek, Ynhockey.
• The following users have a copy of the questions with no answers. It might be worth checking back to see if they add any answers later: Ever wonder, HiLo48 (NB: created by NE Ent), Ijon, Ever wonder. — PartTimeGnome (00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

  I definitely intend to monitor changes, that is why it included the live link, which would indicate a change right away. Anyone who is willing to help can update it and add consolidation fields into the table as they develop. It's just a basis of something to work with. And definitely can be improved. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these responses are shown on the questionnaire table yet. When going through the responses, we mustn't forget these. It might be worth adding the category to those where answers are present, to avoid missing them later on. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only had the category to base the table, I think any form that's not in the category should add a tag and get in before it closes, or at least make sure that a link gets to the table which I was offering for use, and will be using. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the non-blank responses to the category now. Worm That Turned was already in the category (my mistake), though is absent from the table. I haven't categorised Fjozk, since they have been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks (AN/I thread, block log). – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the responses I categorised (and also Worm That Turned) to the table as well now. I did not count my edits to add the category in the table. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to closing this on 12/11. I'd prefer 12/14; finishing on the Friday after AE, allowing any changes in perspective that post election may warrant; and inviting a last call invitation to enter this phase before it closes. Even an unedited form substitution is enough to give voice. The close itself should be defined; as accepting no more responses into the category; but clearly allowing the page editor access, to clarify their own, at their leisure. What we transcribe from all of this, to a single page, is what will be presented for closure. I have some ideas for a closing quorum, to certify the close, and some logistics on how it could get accomplished, but I'll spare us all any further details, per normal disdain. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Friday works for me. I guess we'll give this till the end of today and if nobody has any objections go with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I have just closed phase two. Now that it is over I am hoping we can manage to calmly discuss how to proceed here. We have over 100 replies to go through. With the questions divided into three sections it seems like three different tasks. The most straight forward one will be the ratings section as it relies on simple numerical replies. With the other two it seems like the reviewers should just start reading them and begin maintaining a list of common themes in the replies, noting how many total users made statements about a the scenarios or the opening questions that share the same characteristics. Of course the more urgent issue is who is going to do any of this work. Perhaps we should find some way to publicly recruit users to review the results? For reference here is everything that was in the category at the moment it was closed:

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've still seen no sensible proposal for dealing with the fact that a number of people (obviously including myself) who were involved in earlier discussions did not participate in the survey. Many gave reasons. There were many reasons. I cannot know them all. Nor can you. Non-participation cannot mean that their opinions now no longer matter. Their opinions MUST still matter. Ignoring them would be completely wrong. That would imply that the process you chose for proceeding was the only possible one, and it was perfect. Obviously that's not true. So, what do you intend to do about the opinions of those you've lost along the way? HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, HiLo48. I have considered the things you rightfully suggest. To a reasonable degree, I have implemented active, and proactive mitigation. What ideas do you have to best handle the circumstances you described? I was planning to post some thoughts, I have about it; soon. I am glad that you are here! --My76Strat (talk)  23:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who opposed the idea of a survey from the start, my immediate gut response was to say "Ignore the results completely." But that would be mean. Being more open about it, I see the survey as perhaps having gained some more opinions on civility, incivility, and its consequences, IN ADDITION to those already presented. Opinions presented in the survey must carry no more weight than those presented before it existed. At least that way it has served a purpose. I see little value in trying to analyse, classify and combine results, unless you also include the thoughts of those who didn't respond. And that's mostly impossible. It's the individual responses that count, and always have, because we don't vote. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am planing to dedicate good portions of my available time to helping this particular phase to its completion. If I am correct, it will take time and effort to achieve the results this phase is looking to provide. There is work to do, but hurry, and deadlines would be crippling stress; for the sake of folly, so I can't deliver on that. I'm the tl;dr guy, who thinks the whole concept of tl;dr is itself uncivil; under the sole sanction of a rebuke of course. But I'll stick around until it's done; and help!

  One thing that I feel, is imperative, is to affix a significant relevance on the close you published. I believe that group should have the sole apportion of voice; in terms of !voting! for determining where the consensus goes. Anyone might comment on the talk page, but only this group should edit the parent of that talk page. The result of what we construe; will be the document that goes to a closing quorum for ratification; or otherwise. As I said earlier, I'll hold some of those thoughts for that discussion. If I have time this evening, I'll format a template shell to host the consolidation page. --My76Strat (talk)  23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) How about a page somewhere that groups the answers by question? For example, create a page or section, "Enforcement Scenario #1", and then list all of the answers below it. Then another page or section, "Enforcement Scenario #2", etc. --Elonka 00:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless dissuaded, that is the direction I feel we are going, and the shell I am going to format will follow that model; subject to further modifications, to incorporate the other good ideas that are likely to emerge. We have a very good basis to work with, and reason to believe that we can achieve the goals of this endeavor, IMHO.  --My76Strat (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it would also be useful, and would satisfy much of HiLo's concerns, if at the same time a more thorough analysis was done of phase one. Factors to consider would be number of endorsements for particular position statements, and a somewhat more informal review of common elements across all the various sections of that phase.

  As to how to group the replies to the questionairre, I could see grouping them as Elonka suggests. Then the individual responses could be further divided into subgroups based on the nature of their reply. For example for the scenarios, group all responses that suggest any kind of formal sanction, another for those that advise against sanctions, and a third for those that do not firmly come down as in favor of or opposed to sanctions. Once we have it down that far we could determine if it is desirable to take it a step further and subdivide those groups for each scenario. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your insight. In particular, I think it is necessary that we incorporate flexibility right up front. I have only accomplished a cursory review of a sampling from the responses. That alone convinces me that we will see answers to questions that were not specifically asked. Being flexible will allow us to recognize those responses as well, and as you say: "Once we have it down that far", to incorporate those subdivisions of good counsel, that become apparent.  --My76Strat (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just checking in here. Things kind of flip flopped on me at work and I have been working more or less all day, every day and between that and the holidays I have not had adequate free time to work on this any further. Hoping others can pitch in with at least beginning the collation of the results. May have more time available in a week or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to check in on this and was a little disheartened by the apparent lack of activity. So, if needed, I'd like to volunteer my services towards helping sort out these responses into a final RfC proposal or series of proposals. If my help is desired, I only ask that I be directed to whichever page(s) where the work is being done (if any). I know the number of "15 editors" to do this has been thrown around, but where are these 15? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to understand the survey. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was quite clear that the purpose of this was to gauge each interested user's viewpoints, from which one or more Civility Enforcement policies could be proposed. The only unsure aspect of the survey, in my opinion, is how the many, varied responses would be boiled down to a few proposed policies, so I am willing to help out with this to help solve this problem. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you obviously haven't read or have forgotten my earlier comments here, which is quite understandable given the duration and size of this exercise. I was one of a number of people who looked at the survey, thought WTF?, and gave up, pointing out at the time that the absence of response from me did not mean I was no longer interested in the topic. I pointed out that it would be wrong to believe that only those who completed the survey had opinions, and even worse to act as if that was the case. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer RedSoxFan2434's original comment about the lack of activity, we don't have 15 volunteers yet, so your help is definitely welcome! How many do we have? Well, My76Strat indicated above that they would be interested in assisting, though their user page says they are now "semi-active" and I am unsure if they still participate here. Last week, Beeblebrox said they are lacking in free time, but "may have more time available in a week or two" (i.e. might be back some point in the next week). As for myself, I'm waiting to see how we decide to analyse the questionnaires, and will help out if I can. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, My76Strat asked for their questionnaire response to be deleted, so it's a good bet they no longer want to participate here. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 02:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I've started a new section below regarding non-respondents. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... all work is being done here, then? Only six individual editors have edited this page. It seems that a recruitment process is necessary. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 has twice raised concerns on this page that the opinions of users who did not complete a questionnaire should not be ignored. I think these concerns are a significant factor affecting how we should analyse the results, so deserve further discussion. Should opinions outside of the questionnaire responses be analysed? If so, how? Where should we look for other opinions?

My own view: Many users contributed to phase one of this RFC, but did not complete a questionnaire. There are many reasons why editors might have skipped the questionnaire (e.g. IP address users were unable to create a response page). The reason doesn't really matter, but the views of these people are important and should not be ignored. I think we should group the comments made in phase one by user, then analyse each user's comments as if they had been added to the general "Comments" section at the end of the questionnaire. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think it's a good idea. Since the idea seems to be to create a proposal most likely to have community consensus, the more input we put into it, the more acceptable it should be. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a table listing users who contributed to phase one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table#Phase one contributions. Each username can be clicked to see what that user contributed. I'll go back and add more stats later. By my count, 108 editors took part in phase one, of which 80 did not complete a questionnaire. On the other hand, 75 completed a questionnaire who did not participate in phase one. (I am not counting editors who created the questionnaire page without giving any responses here.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've now officially begun reviewing of Phase One responses (I figured that would be a good place to start, and then we can move on to reviewing Phase Two). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two weeks I expected to be busy at work turned into a month and a half. Good for my wallet, not so great for this thing apparently. I will have a break in a few days and would like to try and use part of that time to finally get going with analyzing this. So,

• Anyone still here? If you are at all interested in helping to look all this over and try to figure out what it means please leave a message or at least a signature below.

• I think the place to start is with the comment ratings section as it used a numerical scale. What we need first is just the numbers, this will hopefully provide us with some clue of the general tone of the responses.

• On that note, a bot or a script may be able to do some of that for us. If anyone knows anything about that I'm sure everyone would appreciate whatever could be done. Some users also left comments in that section so at some point they will need to be read as well.

• At the same time we should figure out how to parse the responses to the open ended questions and enforcement scenarios. My thinking on that is to distill the responses into broad categories, something like this:

• It depends entirely on the context
• Do nothing/no response warranted/ignore it
• keep an eye on it but don't really do anything just yet
• talk to them about it, see if you can open a dialogue
• issue a written warning or template
• report for community discussion
• report to admins for action
• block then discuss
• block
• block and ask for a community or arbcom ban.

I hate your RFC and despise you for ever creating it/you should be blocked for writing this question/Ii wish to compare you to various historical figures in a negative way

• I'm actually hoping even that is too many, but we do have over a hundred pages to look at.

• And that brings us to that part. It would be nice if each form could be read, reread, and read again by someone else to check their results. I don't imagine we are going to have the resources to do that in anything resembling a timely manner. We should find a way to avoid duplicating each others' work. I am thinking a subcategory might be a way to organize that. All pages would be added to Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Unread or something like that. When you are ready to read and evaluate one you remove it from the category and others will know it is being worked on. When it is empty we double check nothing got left behind.

• I feel that we need not even discuss what to do with whatever results we get just yet. We don't know what they will be or if we will be able to do anything with them. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here...

I'm thinking we could pre-read the responses to determine the best categories to use, before we start categorising things. Only once we have agreed a list of categories to use, would we go through assigning responses to categories. The categories could probably be grouped into two super-categories: attempts to define incivility, and responses to incivility.

Various respondents say they support some things while opposing others, so we'd probably have support/oppose or agree/disagree categories for most things. (E.g. support RFC/U, support hatting and oppose blocks could be three categories.) Categorising conditional statements (e.g. support blocking after 3 warnings, oppose blocking without community discussion) might be a bit tricky, though we could have separate categories or sub-categories for conditions that are used in multiple responses.

Rather than having an Unread category, I would prefer to have a Read category instead, as a sub-category of the existing category. As each response is categorised, we would move it from the main category into Read. This approach would avoid having to go through and add all the responses to an Unread category as a first step. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A spreadsheet would be nice, to see each question, and then the variety of responses to that question. Even if not a spreadsheet, just having it in list format would be helpful. --Elonka 16:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am here as well, Beeblebrox, but I have been very busy with various projects on-wiki and off-wiki as well, causing a recent lack of my activity here. I have reviewed some of the phase one responses, which PartTimeGnome wonderfully organized (along with the questionnaires) here (Elonka, you may find something like what you are looking for there). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take all of the credit for that... My76Strat started the table of questionnaires. I added and updated a few things in that table, and created the second table for phase one contributions. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Is anyone left here? I've been away for awhile because of a series of incidents, culminating in a power outage from the Blizzard of 2013. But now I'm back (for now at least), and I'd like to see this get back off the ground. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. We seem to be having trouble establishing how to proceed. Why don't we just back up and start with what should be the easiest part: the ratings section. All we need is a list of how many users rated each comment at each level from 1-5. I suggest a dedicated subpage where we work the list in alphabetical order until we have all the numbers. Then we'll have the first piece of the results, maybe that will help motivate us to press on. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the questionnaires, this could be a good start. I can go ahead and create Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire analysis. We can use that page for analyzing responses by question, starting easy with the ratings section. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to write a script to gather the ratings data onto a single page, but now its my turn for hectic times at work, so I've not had much of a chance. I'd advise against waiting for me – you might get the job done faster manually than the time you'd spend waiting... (RedSoxFan2434, thanks for creating the framework page for us to gather/analyse the responses, BTW.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That script would be fantastic, as gathering this data by hand is rather difficult work. However, I will press on, as my personal schedule and computer battery charge allow! However, it is clear that when we are evaluating most other questions, we will need more volunteers. The three of us (plus maybe My76Strat, HiLo48, and Elonka?) will not be enough, especially with the busy schedules we all apparently have. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed this a few minutes ago and it already seems that two phases are finished. I am sure such a topic would generate interest among even more editors in the community, if they only knew this RFC exists. I'd venture a guess that most who would potentially be interested in contributing have no idea this discussion is even going on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion isn't really ongoing, we were 'supposed' to be in a "quiet phase" where the replies were analyzed and commonalities in them identified, but we never even agreed on how to do that so it never happened. Really, anyone could just start doing it and if another user preferred a different method, they could do theirs as well. Actually that would probably give us better results, but any way it is done is going to be fairly time-consuming, and personally I don't have that kind of time at the moment. Maybe next month. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so manually tallying ratings from the questionnaires to the questionnaire analysis page is too tiresome, so I've created a Google Doc to tally ratings by user or by question, which can then be inserted into the analysis page, which is organized only by question for ease later and ease of viewing. IMPORTANT NOTE: At this time, anyone with that link can edit the Doc (so that all my collaborators here can do so), so do not be sending this link around. I also reserve the power to shut off the ability of others to edit it if vandalism occurs. However, the presence of a vandal on this page would be utterly shocking, and would also be good evidence in a Good hand/bad hand sockpuppet investigation. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Not all participating users are listed in that spreadsheet; only those who rated one or more hypothetical comments are included in the spreadsheet. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like work like this taking place off-wiki. Your comments about vandals are rather WP:BEANSy, but taking it off-wiki loses the anti-vandalism tools available on Wikipedia (vandalism patrollers, blocks, edit filters, etc).

Furthermore, I can't edit the page you linked to; I get some nonsense about "unsupported browser". Google Docs probably works well in school and office environments where everyone uses the same OS and browser, but it isn't suitable for cross-Internet collaboration, since not everyone meets Google's requirements.

I can at least read the top left corner of it, but Google seem to think I don't need scrollbars, so I can't see the rest. I eventually got the data by ripping it from the HTML source. In any case, I've now added this to a regular wikitable on the questionnaire analysis page, so anyone can read or edit it now. The table extends somewhat excessively both horizontally and vertically, but this was the case with the original spreadsheet too.

I can understand you wanting to avoid wiki markup for this – it is a bit of a pain to create large or complicated tables using wiki markup (the VisualEditor will eventually resolve this, but it's not there yet). There is nothing wrong with using another program to create all or part of a table, then convert to a wiki table for putting on the wiki. There are many tools for converting from other formats to MediaWiki markup. (Or for a simple approach, saving as CSV then using a text editor to replace the commas with " || " would give you something wiki-like; it shouldn't be too much work to then add the other markup.)

(Personally, I tend to roll my own scripts to generate large tables as I need them. In this case, I used a series of sed commands followed by a bit of manual tweaking to convert the HTML to wikicode. Google's HTML is scarily inefficient – I reduced 400KB of Google HTML into just 15K of wikicode.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, that's clearly a better idea. I know Beeblebrox had desired a spreadsheet, and I had decided that I agreed, so I boldly went ahead with it. I'm sorry if Google Drive doesn't work for you, I get the same "bad browser" nonsense yet it still works fine for me. Meanwhile, I've deleted the link since the Google stuff clearly won't work for everyone. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is pretty well stalled out. As I have just been elected to serve on arbcom for the next year I am pretty much walking away from this, it is one of over 1,500 pages IO have just removed from my watchlist. It probably wouldn't be appropriate for an active arb to be running something like this, and I won't have the time anyway. I still think WP could benefit from continuing this discussion and coming up with some sort of results from the previous phases, but somebody else is going to have to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My end comment from my own questionnaire, over a year ago now, seems a pertinent enough epitaph for this RfC: "Unfortunately, I've seen these mass RfCs before, and recall vividly the one regarding the RfA process. Nothing came of it then, and I don't anticipate anything coming of this now." Ravenswing 13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]