[WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion and due process

Wed Aug 20 17:14:51 UTC 2003

None of this argument makes any sense to me, because there has been no
policy change, unilateral or otherwise.  I just reviewed the entire
history of the phrase in question, going back to when it was on the
VfD page, and tracking it through every iteration.  I recommend the
same to Nicholas.

Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>And these written policies are apparently developed
>>>in back rooms with no input from the community.
>>>Convenient for you until you realize it goes directly
>>>against your "policy" of forcing openness upon the
>>>unwashed masses.

I wrote:
>> I don't agree with either of these sentences.

Nicholas Knight responded:
> No, I'm sure you don't -- they are not there for anyone to agree
> with, they are there to attempt to make my point.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Perhaps I should be more clear: I don't
agree with either of these sentences, because they are false.  Do
false sentences help to make your point?  Or, if true, can you please
expand or defend them?

> Except mav suddenly seems to think that a unilateral policy change
> without any discussion or even notice is OK. I don't remember that
> little detail being advertised anywhere in the system.

Disregarding for a moment what "Mav suddenly seems to think" (becuase
I think you're misunderstanding him), it's nonetheless not Mav's
unilateral thoughts that determine what policy is, as I'm sure he'll
be the first to agree.

It's misleading to elevate your disagreement with Mav about what
policy should be into a broad and false claim that he's making policy
unilaterally, or that policy is made "in back rooms with no input from
the community".

> > What do you mean by 'forcing openness'? Somehow our openness is
> > *imposed* on the world?

> I'm unsurprised that this confused you, it wasn't the best way to
> put it. But it's being forced upon those that should have had a say
> in the policy and did not.

WHAT is being forced on anyone?  Are we reading the same web pages?
There is absolutely nothing required, not in the current version, and
not in the previous version.  No one has ever been required to post a
notice, and there was nothing in the written policy that ever said
that this was a requirement.  Period.

So acting like you're being forced to do something is silly.  The
passage in question has always said "please", a request, not a
command.  No one has even gotten in trouble for not doing it.

> An admin made a unilateral policy change, and it's being essentially
> ignored or defended by other admins on the grounds that they think
> the policy is a good one.

There has been no policy change at all.  Not unilateral, not by
consensus.  Someone writing "please" on a web page does not establish
policy.  It doesn't even _purport falsely_ to establish policy.

If someone had written, out of the blue: "You are required to post a
notice" -- yeah, that would be wrong.  But writing "Please post a
notice" does not imply policy, and *note well*, you can edit that page
just as well as anyone else.

--Jimbo