Ken Arromdee wrote:
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.