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?