On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just how silly such a view is, it might die out. And the good thing about it is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will continue.
In my limited experience, the response is more likely to be that people stop explaining their votes, or simply dig in their heels and say "I'm entitled to define my own standards" (we even have a page that encourages people to do it).
A large influx of common sense could not hurt, of course. But we really should agree what *is* reasonable and what isn't. Is 1500 edits minimum reasonable? Is 3 months active participation minimum reasonable?
Steve