User blog comment:Triakula/Proposal of softening citation policy on GWiki/@comment-35470197-20200115122614/@comment-35470197-20200117052542

> Do you really want people who think that UNOCF is well-defined to decide which new notations/numbers are worthy?

I do not, as you guess. But if it is a decision by the majority of the active community member, then I should accept it. I know that it is risky for me, but if it actually works, then the situation will better. Also, in the current community, I believe that the majority regards UNOCF as a ill-defined work. Even if we need to create an article for UNOCF, we are not allowed to write fake statements. Then we just write something like "UNCF was historically believed to be a wonderful invention, while it turned out ill-defined". Then I think that it is a good article on googological history, which helps beginners to avoid meaningless study on UNOCF.

> So why ask for trouble?

The four conditions above give a partial solution. Although it does not completely prevent multiple accounts, it reduces the possibility a little. Please imagine that I create multiple accounts in order to obtain the right to participate in voting. (No, I will not do. Of course not.) Then I (under the names of other accounts) need to try so many meaningless edits within a short time span, which tell you who are suspected. If I were a vandalists, then the multiple accounts themselves can be horrible for the community. But if I do something inappropriate (e.g. harrassing or vandalisms), then I will be blocked, and lose the right. 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.

Also, even if voting allows me to submit inappropriate (e.g. illegal or fake) articles, admis can simply delete it. Of course, it is more natural to have admins to reject requirements of the voting if the inappropriateness is obvious before creating it. I note that the voting system will essentially do nothing for vandalists. If they want to pollute the main space, then they just submit articles before challenging voting. If they want to reject appropriate articles on numbers in blog posts, then they can if they honestly work hard for the community. In this case, the situation just become better than the current state.

The existence of voting systems restricts the maximum of the number of new articles. If one ignores the system and directly create an article, then it just tells us that he or she breaks the rule, and the article can be quickly deleted by admins. 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.

> Here is my alternative proposal:

It also sounds good. 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.