Revision as of 22:52, 5 July 2012 edit CMBJ (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers 13,994 edits →Filing RfArb ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:22, 5 July 2012 edit undo CMBJ (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers 13,994 edits m →Filing RfArb Next edit →
Line 363: 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) :I'd actually venture to say that even if they ''do'' accept the case, the community should ''still'' pursue establishing a proper (orderly, open, defined, and limited) peer review platform for contested RFC closures. <span style="background:black;color:white">  '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ\|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]]  </span> 22:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) == Proposal: Survey ==

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions