[WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

[Erik Moeller]

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 an "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."

> I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe.

Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.

> 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.

> 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.

> Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not
> healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be
> the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect,
> as I think he would agree.

If Jimbo explicitly approves a certain policy, this policy should only be  
changed after a discussion, including his approval for a change. He is the  
"benevolent dictator" of Wikipedia. If we reached decisions by consensus,  
we wouldn't do so.

Regards,

Erik