On 9/21/05, Zephram Stark zephramstark@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=2363...) 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=2363...
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