Probably half of the question have some sort of bickering on what's appropriate. There are questions as open ended as "What should I do with my academic career" being up voted, when there's an infinite number of potential answers, and no one can guarantee that the response is going to be helpful. Then there are other similar questions being down voted as too broad.
For example Should I prefer PhD programs with "higher quality" students? Is a shopping question on what phd program to select. +4 up votes.
Right below it https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86669/phd-is-75-done-in-russia-any-options-in-europe-uk-citizen Another shopping question on what phd program to select. -4 down votes.
There are social etiquette questions about how to answer emails that have almost nothing to do with academia being highly prioritized. How to deal with an inappropriate greeting in an email?
And another question about how to respond to emails dealing with research paper submissions being down voted and ignored. What to do when you have not received a response three weeks after submitting minor revisions?
If the purpose is to form a consistently high standard, how are you ensuring that you're meeting that goal? Because that goal appears to be different depending on who's viewing your question.
If the purpose is to exclude rude and offensive behavior and to create a welcoming environment, I don't really see that either. Obvious insults may be quickly deleted but the questions are frequently met with inconsistently enforced rules, dismissive links to solutions that only tangentially answer the questions, or just snark. And a simpler rule set "No cursing, no racism, sexism, etc." could just as easily create that sort of environment.
This question is about as basic meta as it gets. How to check internal measurements of standards. Every serious company has constant checks on their standards. Hospitals aren't willy nilly winging their prescriptions for instance. And everyone is probably willing to admit more precision is better than less, and more solutions are more valuable than few solutions. No one wants enough variability in their anesthesia to kill them. Democracies where voters get to decide value are never perfect. Elevating individuals to judge others always leads to flawed decision making. This is a simple question "How are you measuring whether your judges are doing their job?" or "How are you ensuring that your democracy is meeting the needs of the community?" that every organization has to answer. The most meta of questions to be asked. And from what I've seen I expect it to be down voted.