Nicholas Knight wrote:
> That is precisely my point. If other people are expected to conform
> to a policy of openness that requires extra work, that policy should
> be set in an open way. This one was not.

Just so people understand what is being discussed, it's these
lines:
:When you list a page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion that you think
:will be listed for the entire 7 days -- i.e., a page that won't be
:deleted immediately -- please place the following notice above the
:page's content:

I don't read that as requiring anything. It's a request, not a
requirement, not an expectation.

It would be wrong of someone to add something like this if they wrote
"When you list a page... you are required to place the following
notice". It would even be wrong to write it in a command form, as in
"When you list a page... -- place the following notice."

But writing on an open, community edited web page, something that says
"please do such-and-such" is not setting policy unilaterally, because
it isn't even setting policy at all.

If you don't like how it is worded -- change it! Work co-operatively
with people to establish best practices all around, including the best
wording of helpful hints of what a page is supposed to be about.

I'm about done with this, because it seems there's not much really
_here_, as far as disputes go. There's no requirement being forced on
anyone, and the current version of the page even goes so far as to
make that 100% clear: "Some Wikipedians object to this rule. As such,
it is considered optional, but someone else may add the notice if you
choose not to."

Is there anything about the current version that's upsetting to you?
Then edit it!

But please (and notice, this is a request, not a command! ;-)) don't
go around saying that someone is unilaterally making policy, or that
Wikipedia policies are set in back rooms, or similar nonsense.

--Jimbo