On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)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