User blog comment:Triakula/Proposal of softening citation policy on GWiki/@comment-35470197-20200115122614/@comment-39541634-20200118173528

@Ikosarakt

He is using a VPN. Changing his entire IP address would be, at most, as difficult as pushing a button (probably not even that, since many VPNs skips servers automatically).

And if you are refering to the block from January 6, I am refering you to the same block log you've just posted: It is clear that he is still posting (though I now understand why his direct trolling was reduced by so much in the last week).

@P-bot

"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"

I don't see how my proposal is restricting anybody's rights. The wiki will still be open for everyone. Everyone will still be able to edit. And everyone will still be able to vote on making wiki policies (like the one that we are discussing right now).

I don't see how having an expert panel that decides on things like this, would be any different than having admins.

Let me ask you this:

If you didn't think that my proposal violates FANDOM's policy, would you have supported it?

 "It is just because they are the most unsuspected members for members in this community (including members in the future)."

Just because of that?

We have dozens of veteran prolific members who contributed important work to this wiki, and they are just as "unsuspected" as our admins.

Besides, the main reason for my suggestion had nothing to do with anybody being suspected of anything. It has to do with leaving the decision to people who are well-versed in googology.

"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."

I think you're misunderstanding my proposal.

The panel I'm proposing will have no power over such things. It's sole purpose would be to decide whether a new googological work is eligable to be presented on the wiki''. ''It will not be given the authority to do anything else.

Come to think of it, it doesn't even have to be a closed body of people (which the name "panel" implies). Perhaps we can just take your own list of 4 criteria as a starting point, and add some kind of "googology competency" requirement. I'll be okay with that.

And I'm open to suggestions as to what that additional requirement(s) will be.

"What I expect in this system is to give an opportunity to decide whether a given number fits the guideline or not."

I would have no problem with that, if we actually had a very clear set of notability guidelines for what's notable and what's not.

In that case, the guidelines themselves would do the job of my proposed panel. So I'd be fine with that.

The problem is that right now, there are no such guidelines. Nor is there currently any discussion for creating such guidelines.

"I note that FANDOM requires us not to delete low-quality articles, but to improve them."

That FANDOM guideline refers to article whose content is low-quality. This has nothing to do with the question we are discussing here.

It should also be noted that the FANDOM guidelines were written - mostly - for TV and Film wikias, whose universe is finite in scope.

Trying to literally apply the same guidelines to a wikia about numbers, whose scope is inifinite, is not necessarily wise. You simply can't do the "Blirx" trick on (say) the Star Wars wiki. If I create an article about (say) Han Solo's hair, then one of two things could happen:

(1) It will be deleted.

(2) Someone might find something really interesting to say about Han Solo's hair, which will be sufficient grounds to keep the article.

And either options would be okay (unless they have a specific guideline against such articles).

But when it comes to something like Blirx, there are always interesting things you could say about any number. If I owned a wiki and I was forced to keep the Blirx article, I could find tons of things to say about it: Give approximations, write down the last digits... The problem is that we can to this with any number, and there's an infinity of numbers.

Other wikias don't have this problem, which is why you won't find any counter-measures for this in the generic FANDOM policy. If we want to stop our wiki from decending into complete madness, we'll need to create these counter-meausres ourselves.