1 new of 170 responses total.
As I've been one of the most vocal using the word vandal in reference to Valerie, I can say at least that I'm not calling her a vandal for deleting all her own postings. I think it was stupid and petulant behavior, but not vandalism. Deleting everyone else's posts in the baby diary and in jep's items was vandalism. Restoring those posts in those items is not about punishing anyone, it's about repairing the damage that a vandal has done to the system. I just think it's a really, really awfully bad idea for Grex to put up with anyone deleting other people's comments, no matter who they are or how compelling the reason. If we allow it in general, we're setting ourselves up for years of having to make decisions about the validity of other people's reasons for wanting items deleted. If we disallow it in general but allow it in these particular cases, we're saying that valerie and jep are somehow more important and their reasons for censoring people are more important than anyone else's could possibly be. Suppose next year polytarp logs in and says that he is going to be conducting job interviews, and he wants all the items in which he acted like an asshole deleted because he has changed and they could potentially hurt him if a prospective employer got ahold of them. Are we going to have this whole discussion again? Or are we just going to tell him to delete his own posts and go away? Why is polytarp different from valerie and jep? I don't buy the water-under-the-bridge argument. This *isn't* in the past; we have backups which are (presumably; maybe valerie owns a magnet) still intact and so nothing is final. If we do not restore these items from them, we are collectively just as culpable for this censorship as valerie.
You have several choices: