On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, David Goodman wrote:
I see the arb com ruling as providing incentive
for us to arrive at
some compromise--more precisely, to try to force us to arrive at some
compromise. (the alternative is that it will be decided by who's user
behavior escalates out of control the earlier).
Making thousands of de-facto deletions, though, means it has *already*
escalated out of control.
Indeed. I don't want to have to come to the same "compromise" that
happened with the spoiler warning template. We need some sort of
recognition that the status quot is for those articles to have _not_
been deleted and work from there.