G'day Daniel S,
I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is the entire premise.
I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my
horror, it noted:
"The community is interested in process not content".
This is madness. - Randall Brackett
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._
No. Well, yes. But no.
DRV has been legitimately accused of endorsing bad decisions on that grounds that "process was followed". The people arguing that DRV should do such a thing are either:
a) Process wonks, who can therefore be ignored (or, preferably, locked in a padded cell for their own comfort and safety) b) People who have confused Wikipedia with Real Life.
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else, do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*. That's all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the right *process*. Process being followed is a good indication that the AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury nullification and rogue judges...)
We have them on Wikipedia, too. Witness the Jack Thompson OFFICE action and certain admins.