On 9/21/05, Zephram Stark <zephramstark(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
.
Now that we have grown to an unwieldy size, it is painfully obvious that we
cannot continue top-down approval of writings.
Yesterday, User:Carbonite
deleted an entire article without reading the definitions involved or
understanding the issues. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonite&oldid=236…)
I feel confident that, if he had time to read the article he was redirecting
toward, he would have realized that the people involved were doing nothing
but trying to slam the U.S. Declaration of Independence via POV
conclusions and original research. Carbonite did not have time to look at
his actions objectively for the same reason that the Soviet Union found its
task unwieldy: top-down micromanagement of large-scale social interactions
takes too long. The only efficient way to keep Wikipedia going at this point
in our growth, is to make it self-manageable. Giving up top-down control
sounds like a risk, but m
any of
the greatest thinkers of history are behind us, and look at the result if
we don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonite&oldid=236…
Zephram, I'm going to ask you one last time to stop trolling. The next
time I will submit an ArbCom case.
Your comments above have zero merit. As I explained at length on my talk
page, the consensus of an AfD was to redirect [[Unalienable rights]] to
[[Inalienable rights]]. No articles were deleted. From this and many other
incidents (especially [[Terrorism]]), it's now clear that you will not
accept consensus if it goes against your way of thinking. This is
unacceptable, as are your personal attacks and disruptive rants against
Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the way Wikipedia works (or the way you
think it works), no one is forcing you to stay.
Carbonite