User blog comment:Triakula/Proposal of softening citation policy on GWiki/@comment-35470197-20200115122614/@comment-35470197-20200117132921

> So far you haven't addressed that specific point at all

In my opinion, it is better to give everyone who is innocent the right. My conditions are just for reducing the possibility of multiple accounts. I am afraid that if we restrict the right in that way, then it violates FANDOM's policy, which requires us to make wikis open for everyone. FANDOM allows the community to set local rules as long as they are compatible with the global rules, but restricting the right in that way looks like the inequivalence of contributors. (FANDOM allows us to make efforts to stop vandalisms, and hence I expect that my conditions do not violate FANDOM's rule.)

> but I don't see any compelling reason to decide - a priori - that "admins" and "panel members" should be the exact same people.

It is just because they are the most unsuspected members for members in this community (including members in the future). If it does not look so reasonable, then maybe I am wrong. Also, I do not think that they are the best candidates. They already have tasks as admins, and hence it is better if there is a peaceful way to choose a panel. For example, it is not so good to choose a panel by voting, because we do not have a panel to give us the final decision for the voting. If admins choose a panel in a neutral point of view, then it might be good.

> So my question is: If we follow the second philosophy, what's the point of a voting system? Why have a screening process at all, if that's our stance?

If the majority votes to reject the number according to some guideline, then it is not appropriate. The "meaningfulness" of a number depends on a googologist even if we share a clear guide line. In my preference, it can be accepted. It does not mean that it must be accepted by the majority of the community. What I expect in this system is to give an opportunity to decide whether a given number fits the guideline or not. In order to follow FANDOM's policy, we need to have a way for everyone who is innocent to be included in this wiki. Of course, having an argument among all is also a solution, as you proposed.

I note that FANDOM requires us not to delete low-quality articles, but to improve them. So if a give topic looks really hard to improve up to the level which guideline expects, then it is reasonable to reject it. For example, if it is obvious that it is impossible for us to improve an article of Blirx following the guideline, then I do not think that it is acceptable. My opinion for the acceptance heavily depends on the guideline. Since we do not have a guideline, I have no reason why to reject it.