Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Getting started: oops |
|||
Line 360:
{{outdent}} - I have noticed that the people unhappy with this close are the vocal minority strongly against the use of a much more effective BLP protection tool than semi or full protection. Don't be surprised if Arbcom decline this case. [[User:Barts1a|Barts1a]] / [[User_Talk:Barts1a|Talk to me]] / [[User_talk:Barts1a/Yell|Help me improve]] 11:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I find this filing absolutely ridiculous. Yet another editor who believes their views overrule consensus.—[[User:Cyberpower678|<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower]] [[User talk:Cyberpower678|<sup><font color=olive face=arnprior>Chat</sup></font>]]<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><font color=olive face=arnprior>Online</font></sub> 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:It's certainly interesting to know that having contributed two sentences to this RFC inherently qualifies one as a "prominent" and "vocal" commentator. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a [[WP:DRV]]-ish "Consensus Review" process that could be used instead? If not, then we should create one. A process to obtain a "second opinion" would be valuable to the project. I hope that ArbCom doesn't accept this case. If ArbCom accepts this case, then ArbCom would be taking a major step towards becoming GovCom. ArbCom isn't here to decide consensus and make policy. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||