Mirko Thiessen wrote
If you reached general agreement about a version then there should be a fast process of barring a new generation of POV pushers from tearing all the success down. It is not reasonable that we should go through the painfully long processes of mediation and arbitration again and again while these new POV pushers have time enough to undo all the progress in an article.
Well, I don't like this. My experience in the mathematics side is that you get actual experts, of whom there are not so many, coming along indeed months after pages are first worked on. And that's what I'd like to see.
Please, can we not reason from the worst-case behaviour of the system? Taking anecdotal evidence as decisive, rather than trying to define the scale of admitted problems, is unworthy of the project. Systems that lock up pages can be useful (PlanetMath for mathematics, for example); but that is not what WP does well.
Charlrs