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