Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention

So - what's the score then?
As a matter of interest, I was wondering if anybody had found any useful idea in the discussion and was doing anything with it? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like this fell through the cracks and never got formally closed. It might be worth adding an entry to Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, though I'm hazy on whether or not arbcom might need to be involved, given that it's an RFC about arbitration. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was started by an arb, but there was no follow up. I think another RFC was started at the same time.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC).


 * With such a wide range of suggestions and dispersion of feedback, I don't think that anything here could be construed as consensus for a particular action. But somebody should still distill supported items out of this anyway. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the intent was, but I saw this more as a solicitation for ideas to discuss, rather than a place to obtain consensus on specific actions to be taken immediately. It would be nice to know, though, if the initiators of the Requests for Comments discussion are planning to follow up on any of the suggested improvements, so any interested parties can direct their efforts accordingly. isaacl (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)