User blog comment:Triakula/Proposal of softening citation policy on GWiki/@comment-35470197-20200115122614/@comment-39541634-20200117070916

"But if it is a decision by the majority of the active community members, then I should accept it."

Not if we are serious about turning this wiki into a respectable source of information.

I agree that there are many decisions that can and should be made by the majority. But there must also be some basic immutable guidelines that are the product of common sense.

"Even if we need to create an article for UNOCF..."

I actually think that an article on UNOCF would be a good thing, for the very reasons that you mentioned.

My point is that people who have such gross misconceptions about basic things in googology, should not be involved in the judgement of a new googological work.

(and if the majority don't think UNOCF is well-defined at this point, it doesn't really matter. It was just an example. I'm sure you'll agree with me, P進大好きbot, that basic misconceptions are a problem in this community, even if UNOCF itself is no longer a good example of this)

"If I do nothing inappropriate for the community, then it does not matter. Therefore I can essentially do nothing wrong if I am really interested in obtaining the right."

Not true.

If you're already creating multiple account, there's nothing to stop you from creating a dozen accounts for vandalism/direct trolling and another dozen accounts to break the voting system.

You could also use some of your accounts to do bad things under the radar. You need to do pretty extreme stuff in order to be banned. Usually this isn't a problem, because we can just ignore people who behave like jerks and/or waste our time, but when these accounts are given the right to make wiki policies than we do have a problem.

Please understand that none of what I've said is hypothetical. We do have a person here who does all of these things. He openly admitted that this is what he's going to do, right from the start. And he has been at it for almost two years now.

"If they want to reject appropriate articles on numbers in blog posts, then they can if they honestly work hard for the community."

Two problems:

1. Your criteria have absolutely nothing to do with "honestly working hard for the community".

Quantity is not quality. Raw activity does not equal contribution. We have plenty of editors here who meet all your criteria, and who contributed absolutely nothing useful to our community.

2. If the same person has a dozen accounts, then that's a problem regardless of his contributions.

The person I've been talking about had already created over a thousand (!) sockpuppets which were blocked. That's true dedication. Try to make an educated guess: Given this information, how many sockpuppets of this fellow are probably still roaming free? Are you beginning to see the problem here?

"It means that in order to pollute the main space by hidden fake descriptions, then he or she need to be patient to wait the voting process after obtaining the right by satisfying the four conditions..which themselves requires the patience."

Fake descriptions is not the main concern here. As you said yourself, if an article is factually false, the admins can promptly delete it.

The problem is simply that one person could render the enitre voting system meaningless. A system that I presume you believe to be important, since it is you who suggested it in the first place.

By the way, the guy we are talking about doesn't need to be "patient" because he already has a bunch of eligeble accounts at his disposal.

"The reason why I do not require 'final decision step' is because admins can delete inappropriate articles after voting. Therefore admins in my proposal play a role of 'trusted members' in your proposal."

And how are the admins supposed to decide what's inappropriate?

The admins' job is to delete things that violate the rules. But right now, there are no notability rules for the mainspace at all. I could set up a website that says "32818471 is called Blirx" and then write an article for "Blirx" on the wiki, and none of this would violate any rule.

With your new proposal, of-course, we'll first have to vote whether "Blirx" should appear on the wiki. Fine. But I have 30 sockpuppets who all voted "yes", so the decision has been made.

Or an alternative scenario:

We have the vote for whether "Blirx" should be on the wiki, and 30 clueless kids who are awed by this number being "the best number evarrrrr!!!!1111" vote yes.

Either way, "Blirx" is here to stay.

And at this point, what could the admins do? They have no grounds to delete the page. It doesn't violate any notability rules, because there are no notability rules'''. '''

That last sentence, really, is the crux of the problem.