Is any "meta" too much ?
I'm going to say a certain amount of it is necessary for proper moderation of one's own articles . I prefer to be able to be lenient when dealing with possible red book violations .
I don't want moderators coming in at the 1st sign of my disagreement with a commenter . I want to give them the opportunity to clarify their positions before they get deleted . That way I am not being a dictator , just a boundary setter . In my last RBR article I did just that . I quoted a comment and asked for an explanation of how that was related to the topic . They chose to not respond but they were just being obnoxious so it was no surprise . [Ask me for a link if you're interested ]
Moderators , if I quote a comment that should be a sure sign I don't want it deleted . OK ? Is that too much trouble ? If it is then from my POV you are eliminating the middle ground in RBRs . You are forcing them to be dictatorial . I'm sorry if I'm making extra work for you but I'm trying to make your work minimal in amount ... Opinions ?