Nothing changes as long discussions continue

In brief

Discussions of note

• RfC on the Article Rescue Squadron and canvassing.
• An RfC on the Arbitration Committee and how to deal with well-behaved sockpuppets.
• RfC on the conflict of interest guideline, as requested by the Arbitration Committee.
• RfC on adding a more prominent link to Special:MyContributions for IP editors
• RfC about allowing watchlisting of user contributions
• Binding community discussion on the Abortion article titles, as requested by the Arbitration Committee.
• RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion.

Discussions covered in the main body of the discussion report are not listed here.

Editor's note: As I've been away most of the week, we will present a different take on the discussion report this edition. Below is an analysis of the dispute resolution and discussion system that we have, looking at the advantages and the disadvantages.

The English Wikipedia is in some ways becoming better at dealing with issues, with the creation of more and more specialized dispute resolution forums and centralized discussion areas. Areas where topics are being discussed include the village pump, centralized discussion, and the community portal; a watchlist notice is also being used to draw editors' notice. Without a doubt, there are plenty of ways to get the attention of editors who may be interested in discussion.

On the other hand, with the proliferation of these specialized forums and areas, it becomes increasingly difficult for editors to find discussions that may be relevant to them, and to ensure their opinion is heard, because of the large number of pages that need to be checked.

It also seems that it's taking longer for disputes to be resolved and discussions to be closed. Perhaps, because of the double-sided process that we have, the discussions drag out because there are so many options to consider.

• A proposal on restricting administrator's powers was started by Malleus Fatuorum on March 10.
• A "problem hotline" was created to iron out any issues with the new MediaWiki software (version 1.19) by BarkingFish on March 1.
• A poll to determine why there is a lack of non-date-specific submissions for "Today's featured article" was started by Raul654.
• A request for comments in the problem area of Indo-Afghani relations is seeking the wider-community to provide their opinions.
• Today's featured article/February 7, 2012 (Cartman gets an anal probe) causes 17,000 words of discussion with no discernible outcome.

← Previous "Discussion report"

Next "Discussion report" →

In this issue

12 March 2012 (all comments)

Interview

Women and Wikipedia

Arbitration analysis

News and notes

In the news

Discussion report

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Education report

Technology report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Would it be possible to tone down those colours a bit? They're pretty jarring at the moment... Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; are the colours any easier on the eye now? Skomorokh 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be monitor- and person-specific, but the green could be darker: the text is pretty hard to read with the bright hue. Tony (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. --Waldir ^talk 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, green needs to be darker. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comments are still being added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 - it's still active and the issues are of interest to the community. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]