[WikiEN-l] Unilateralism

[The Cunctator]

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?