On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 01:34, Erik Moeller wrote:
Cunc-
Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist.
Is there any difference
between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"?
The term "unilaterally" implies that you deliberately ignore previously
expressed dissent with your point of view. You note that many people call
you a "unilateralist".
Actually, there's only a select few who call me a unilateralist.
Apparently you are well aware of the complaints
regarding your behavior. Still I have noticed no change in it. In this
instance you proved Zoe "wrong" not by responding with an argument, but by
simply changing the policy she referred you to. An Orwellian discussion
tactic: "We've always been at war with Eurasia."
By "wrong" you mean "right", right? Too many layers of irony. Though
I'll dispute that what I did makes me a unilateralist, I won't dispute
that it was a the wrong thing to do.
I apologize
for upsetting Erik and Zoe.
Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.
KQ made no indication that he was upset.
I trust that
they recognize that
I desire to work with others toward the common good.
Many of your actions seem to be provocative for no discernable reason.
I try to explain my actions. if you can't discern the reason for them,
feel free to ask. Or, if you prefer, attack them and me; I'll generally
respond with an explanation if someone says that I'm an idiot trying to
destroy Wikipedia. But asking nicely also works. Whatever you prefer; de
gustibus non est disputandum.
It's
essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from
what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added
"without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out
of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was
referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see
where the decision came from.
I agree. The history of the policies is sometimes difficult to trace. It
still surprises me that you would question this particular policy, since
it has been practiced with your knowledge at least since around August
2002, when we switched to Phase III. All deletions are visible in the
deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason,
without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto
use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy
without previous discussion.
Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the
deletion log against the VfD page.
The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was
attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue
of the policy. Sound reasonable?