Ignore all rules

I think 'Ignore all rules' is not good. For example: someone creates an article without sources, it will be deleted. Why? (S)he ignored the rule: 'You should at least cite something'. But (s)he just ignored all rules. So we might have to change some rules. Also, ignore 'do not vandalize' is also not good. In fact, I can't think up a rule that won't mess up the wiki when ignored. Wythagoras (talk) 06:48, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

We are humans and formal rules aren't necessary for us. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 07:13, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
The entire text of the rule is:
"If a rule prevents you from maintaining or improving Googology Wiki, ignore it."
In other words, you can ignore all rules only if you intend to improve the wiki. We don't add that last clause because if you don't intend to improve the wiki, why would you be on here at all?
The purpose of IAR is to show that rules are flexible. They have exceptions, and those exceptions are when following the rule makes the wiki worse. Why not just fix the rule, then? It's a waste of time, and a rule might have tons of exceptions not worth covering in a policy page.
IAR does not create a liar's paradox. Googology Wiki's policies don't constitute a formal system of logic, even though our wiki involves a lot of discussion about formal systems :P FB100Ztalkcontribs 09:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current community needs more precise rules. Otherwise, do we have so many examples for which "ignore all rules" rule was helpful? Since the existing other rules are appropriate to keep the wiki sound, we do not need to ignore them except for the "ignore all rules" rule. It just prevents precise arguments on rules, and hence it is better to remove it now. Do anyone have an opposite opnion? If nobody does, then I will delete it.

p-adic 00:53, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

I propose to replace "ignore all rules" to "the rules can be changed if the community needs it" for making it liberal yet formal and non-cotroversial. Triakula (talk) 09:38, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the IAR rule is unnecessary at the current state of this wiki. Actually IAR rule was helpful when the community was not so large, and it was better to avoid making many rules. As the community has grown so large, we have established so many rules based on the agreement with the members. Many rules written here has been respected by many users on this wiki, and this means that the importance of the rules has grown compared to the starting era of this wiki. Actually "improving Googology Wiki" is a subjective criteria. Some people may think that the state of having lots of unsourced numbers on the wiki is "improved" state of Wiki. IAR rule gives excuse for such people. Of course there are some exceptions on the rule, but such exceptions should be at least "agreed on" with users, if not written explicitly in the policy page. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:49, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
One thing I'm going to say is that Wikipedia has an "ignore all rules" policy despite it being the largest wiki on the world. Maybe think about it? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:00, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I found a page where Larry Sanger, who proposed the IAR rule, says:
The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule ... This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc.
The creater of the rule also thinks that the rule was a temporal one. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:05, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
The IAR rule of the wikipedia links to Wikipedia has no firm rules. Maybe we can adapt this page and write "We have no firm rules. Sometimes improving Googology wiki requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.", if we want. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:39, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

I propose to remove this rule or revise this rule in order to avoid the abuse of this rule as an almighty power. We should not use this as a justification of a personal attack based on personal hate, even if the purpose is explained as "in order to make this community better". This time, Cloudy's tone-policing based on the personal hate is a serious issue. So, if we could use this rule for the purpose "in order to make this community better", then we could block Cloudy. (Well, even if we do not apply this rule, Cloudy is worth blocking in my opinion, due to the past incident to abuse the admin right to persist the personal philosophy to ignore copyright.) So, my proposals are the following:

  1. Block Cloudy in order to make this community better following "No firm rules" rule, because Cloudy's abuse of "No firm rules" rule actually made this community worse. Cloudy should be responsible for the inappropriate use of this rule, by being blocked by this rule.
  2. After then, we remove or revise "No firm rules" rule so that it will not be applied in order to waste others' time by tone-policing and harassments due to personal hates. We should use this rule to allow good articles which the policy currently does not allow.

p-adic 02:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

> Cloudy is worth blocking in my opinion, due to the past incident to abuse the admin right to persist the personal philosophy to ignore copyright.

I'm sorry, but at the risk of assuming your opinion, I think this part demonstrates that in the past you have developed a personal grudge against Cloudy176, even since before the recent allegations of Cloudy's personal hatred of you. I present two reasons:
  1. Although the copyright situation was serious, and Cloudy has already been relieved of administration partially because of it. I note was claimed to be a non-punitive act ("releaving is not a punishment, but is just a necessary maintenance"), but the "worth blocking" opinion about the block seems to be in favor of a punishment point of view.
  2. Not only has this situation already been addressed, but the situation happened over a year ago, so this seems to be quite a long-term response to the situation.

(I note that this is no more labelling as the statements of Eryx's personal hatred were, since both of my points have evidence/timestamps listed.)

> Cloudy should be responsible for the inappropriate use of this rule, by being blocked by this rule.

It's just my opinion on the matter, but this part sounds a bit like the "eye for an eye" form of justice. If Cloudy broke some rule and was blocked by that rule only because that was the rule that applied, that would be different. But here IMO, the proposal portrays blocking Cloudy by their "own" rule to be a form of teaching responsibility for Cloudy's actions. C7X (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

> 1

I do not understand why this can be a reasoning. What you said is that Cloudy was not punished, and might be punished. What is wrong? We just relieved Cloudy because of the inappropriateness that time. It does not mean that we cannot punish Cloudy in the future.

> 2

If a user has gotten three warnings in 10 years, then the current policy blocks the user. The term is irrelevant. When we allow a user to be unblocked after a serious violation, we are just expecting him or her to be better. It does not mean that the attitude is allowed. This time, Cloudy showed that Cloudy has not been better. Therefore it is reasonable to give up expecting Cloudy to be better, due to the awfulness of the current incident.

The abuse of "No firm rules" rule should not be allowed. If we allow it, then it is as harmful as the abuse of admin right.

> eyes

At least, we are following rules. It has a benefit that the future users can easily understand how abuse of "No firm rules" rule as an almighty power is dangerous.

p-adic 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Help:Blocking states that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption, not to punish users". Since the possibility of damage or disruption on this case has stopped a year ago, a block shouldn't be issued in this case. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 06:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
So? You should be punished in some way. You do not have to be punished by the blocking. First, you should be responsible. We have explained it so many times, especially when you abused your admin right. Then you caused this incident by ignoring what you have been told. What you chose is the creation of the harmful page without effort to avoid possible problems on bias, labeling, and assuming bad faith. You should not abuse "No firm rules" rule in order to make your desire with high possibility of those problems. We expected that you would be better, and hence you were not blocked.
This time, our expectation turned out to be wrong, and you do not seem to be better. Therefore you should be blocked in order to avoid further damage to this community. If you expressed your appology at least once when we explained your inappropriateness and immediately stop your attitude after that, then you would not have to be blocked. But since you have never done it (even after the copyright incident or the relieving voting), how could we stop you without blocking you? Namely, this is the third time, which you intentionally or unintentionally tried to cause damage this community. You should be more careful before you do whatever you want to do, and be responsible for what you did.
p-adic 06:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision

I think this needs to be revised to help with ambiguity and to accomodate with things not really enforced anymore. Is there a second? If someone does, I'll write a "proposed article" somewhere like google docs and share it here to see if everyone agrees. But I definately think it needs changed. 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 21:17, May 9, 2018 (UTC)

No second from Cloudy? 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 18:57, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
Instead of google docs, I suggest writing your proposal somewhere on this wiki. Somewhere like User:Nnn6nnn/Policy draft or something. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:49, May 11, 2018 (UTC)


Ok. I'll do that! 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 19:23, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia

I think the rule about Wikipedia being a bad source should be removed. Just look here. ubersketch📞 22:10, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

A "source" does not mean a "currently accurate information". It should be more stable and more reproducible. If a referred information is publicly edittable, then it does not ensure that it will display the same information in the future. Then it does not work as a source of an article. If a referred information is not a first source but lacks a link to a first source, then it does not give us a way to access a first source. It is bad for us to judge whether it is correct or not, even if it is eventually accurate.
Therefore publicly edittable information and unsourced information which is not a first source are not accademically regarded as valid sources even if they are currently accurate. Of course, the level of the stability and the reproducibility of sources allowed in this wiki is not so high as academic level, but is not so low that we allow publicly edittable information based on insufficient sources. Since you just referred to the accuracy by saying "just look here", I guess that you just forget these important factors.
p-adic 22:58, April 28, 2019 (UTC)


Updating log on the rules on copyright

(This comment is just for a log.) I updated the site policy on copyright through voting here.

p-adic 05:59, February 17, 2020 (UTC)

@Cloudy176

This policy is based on the discussion by members of this community. Even if you disagree with it, please listen to other members instead of deleting it. Seriously, what are you doing?

p-adic 06:20, February 18, 2020 (UTC)


Personal Websites as Sources

In my opinion, a personal website can be a source of a number only when the website clarifies that the number is created by the author or the creator allows it as a source.

For example, Bowers' website can be the first source of the numbers created by Bowers himself. On the other hand, if it included a description like "Goooogoooool is a well-known number defined as 10000000", then it should not be dealt with as a source of Goooogoooool. Similarly, Denis's website can be the first source of Denis's numbers, and hyp cos's website can be the first source of hyp cos's numbers.

Of course, sufficiently "reliable" websites can be sources. Therefore I should clarify the borderline:

  1. Allam's website was used by himself as a sources of his own numbers and his fake results on known numbers. It can be the first source of his own numbers, but can never be a source of those fake results unless he specify reproducible explanations.
  2. 2000 steps analysis was referred to as an evidence of several fake properties of functions in this community. It deals with unspecified functions and includes many errors. Therefore it can never be a source of results on actual (specified) functions.
  3. This personal website is frequently used as a source of illion numbers. It just states that the website is based on the author's "knowledge", which is obviously unreliable. Since the author is not the creator of them, it should not be a source. For such traditional names of numbers, there is no "first source", but peer-reviewed publishment can be a reliable source. For example, online encyclopedia which is freely editable is not appropriate, because it is not peer-reviewed by definition.
  4. Numberpedia is used as a souce of numbers by Garrett Wilkinson. Since the encyclopedia is not freely editable and is created by the person, it can be the first source. (But there is an issue on the notability. See its talk page.) Also, it includes many known numbers, but it can never be a source of them.

Does anyone have an opinion? If nobody disagrees with me, I will clarify this restriction in the article. Thank you.

p-adic 23:38, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I add the explanation to the policy.
p-adic 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


Proposal to add an explanation on retrieval date

We know that a source can be distinguishable from other sources. For example, if a website is frequently updated and gives different explanations, then the website itself is not a reproducible source at all unless the versions are clearly distinguishable. Therefore we traditionally distinguish such a variable website by adding retrieval date. Since there is a user who cannot understand it and insist not to add the retrieval date because there is no description in the site policy, it is better to add the description in the policy. If nobody disagrees the proposal, I will edit the policy.

p-adic 22:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagrees, I will add the explanation.
p-adic 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Proposal to clarify to forbid unconstructive edits

Users sometimes removement constructible descriptions, mainly because they feel that articles are long. But the length of articles itself should not be a reason of removement, because the attitude completely ignores others' effort to create articles. For example, if there are many common mistakes, we write warnings in the corresponding article for beginners to avoid the same mistakes. However, if a user who already know the common mistake, possibly because there is a description in the article, then he or she might regard the description as a trivial description, and might remove the description.

More awfully, several users sometimes intentionally removes correct and sourced information in order to vandalise the article. For example, they randomly remove both correct information and incorrect information, and bother others to revert the removement of the correct information. Although it is a common sense that it is better not to remove constructible description unless we give a discussion, I propose to add a rule to forbid descriptions in an article unless they are incorrect, they are written by vandalists during their vandalisation, or they are decided to remove by a discussion in the talk page.

If nobody disagrees, I will add this rule.

p-adic 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree if you mean "if they are incorrect", although if an explanation written by a vandal is helpful and constructive I might personally add it back later (although I won't guarantee that I'll check all revisions by the vandal) C7X (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course, we can restore a correct information, even if it is written by a vandalist during vandalism. Maybe "unless" was a bad phrasing. I will be careful in phrasing when I add the rule. Thank you. (Also, thank you for maintaining the main space in an appropriate way, too.)
p-adic 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Now I added details. Could you check the added description? If there are inappropriate description, please correct it. Thank you.
p-adic 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems good C7X (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 23:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


Proposal on Edit War section

In my opinion, the current description of the Edit War section is sufficient. However, there is a user who does not even have a common sense that we should not persist our own preference, and repeats to drastically remove contens by saying something like "The policy does not forbid it!" Therefore I propose to add the following sentence to the section:

If two or more editors have distinct preferences which do not violate any other policy, then we should not persist our own preference. Instead, it is good to have a discussion at the corresponding talk page, before deciding to change the contents in a way following our own preference and ignoring other preferences. Even if your preference is not violating the policy, it does not mean that other preferences automatically violate the policy. Therefore stating something arrogant like "My preference should be respected, as it does not violate the policy" is non-sense.

Please give me opinions. If nobody disagrees, then I will add this description.

p-adic 02:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I wait for other opinions.
p-adic 04:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I propose to add the description that we should not move articles with contributions by other users unless we have discussions at the talk page, as an infamous user repeated the arrogant attitude. I know that it is not usually supposed to be written in the policy, but ther is actually a user who understands nearly nothing about common sense.

p-adic 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I add this to the policy.

p-adic 01:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on the notability in analysis

Although this is not directly related to the policy, I ask here because it seems the most suitable.

I would like to propose to decide what notations can be used in analysis tables in the main space. As I wrote in the talk page of Graham's number, analysis tables in the main space are useful for reader to understand the size, only when the notations used in the analyses are sufficiently famous. However, there are several pages including non-famous notations in analyses. Therefore it is good to decide notable notations in anakyses.

p-adic 23:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For example, if I propose the following notable notions:

  1. Arrow notation
  2. BEAF
  3. Bashicu matrix system
  4. Bird's array notation
  5. Chained arrow notation
  6. Extensible-E System
  7. Scientific notation
  8. Steinhaus-Moser Notation
  9. Strong array notation
  10. Fast-growing hierarchy, Hardy hierarchy, and Slow-growing hierarchy with respect to the following system of fundamental sequences:
    1. The fundamenatal sequences associated to iterated Cantor normal form
    2. The fundamenatal sequences associated to (2-ary, finitary, and transfinitary) Veblen function
    3. The fundamenatal sequences associated to Buchholz's function by Buchholz and Denis
    4. The fundamenatal sequences associated to Extended Buchholz's function

p-adic 00:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I add this to the policy.

p-adic 01:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove links in templates to non-existing pages

I proposed to remove links in templates to non-existing pages here. Since this is related to other articles, I also propose it in this talk page. If nobody disagrees, I will add the guideline to the policy.

p-adic 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I add this to the policy.

p-adic 01:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Proposal to create a guideline page

I think that it is good to create an article explaining a common conventional guideline to reduce repetitive correction. For example, how about clarifying the following information?

  1. When we create an article, the title should be capitalised in a standard way unless there are specific reasons. (For example, the title of the article on Graham's number should not be graham's number, Graham's Number, gRAHAM's nUMBER, GRAHAM'S NUMBER!!!, and so on. On the other hand, if a creator specifies an irregular capitalisation, then we can respect it by clarifying the reason at a section in the article, the summary box, or the talk page.)
  2. When we create an article on a number whose name is abc for instance, we should mention it as "abc" instead of "the abc". Of course, when it appears at the beginning of a sentence, we should capitalise it as "Abc".
  3. When we use mathematical formulae, there are three ways: Using mathjax (\(10^{100}\)), math tag (<math>10^{100}</math>), and sub/sup tags (10<sup>100</sup>). However, math tag is officially obsolete, and hence should not be used.

In addition, it might be better to overlap several important rules in policy, e.g. rules on citation and unconstructive edits.

Please give me opinions.

p-adic 01:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Now I wrote the guideline. Could you check/correct it? If it is confirmed as a valid guideline, then I will write a link to it at the policy. (Since the top page is protected, I appreciate if you write a link to it at the top page, too.)
p-adic 06:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will check it C7X (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

3-out rule

Since there is only one active admin, the current 3-out rule is redundant. I propose to add the clarification that if one is warned three times on distinct violation of the policy by users (who are not necessarily an admin), then an admin will block the user. The reason for this rule is because I am reverting so many vandalisms. Then an admin does not notice the existence of the vandalism, and hence does not warn the user unless I personally spend time to ask an admin to do so. Even in that case, an admin does not necessarily warn the user, and just reports the existence of the request to warn. Seriously, I do not know why we need to simply report the request instead of an actual warning? The delay to deal with vandalists will make users leaving from this community, as old members deeply know. (At least, I do not know why a harassing user who does not care about warnings is currently allowed. Does an admin officially allow harassment?)

Please give me opinions.

p-adic 01:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, although we need to clarify what counts as a "warning" (for example, a vandal once left a fake warning on Cloudy's page about me after I reverted one of their unconstructive edits) C7X (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Right. Admins should check the validity of the warnings, and this is my intention of how we counts sentences as warnings. Since I thought that it is good for admins to use their own reasonable measures, I did not propose a borderline. Should we more explicitly write down? At least, it might be good to clarify how to appropriately report warnings to admins, in order to reduce admins' task to check them.
p-adic 05:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I created a template to warn a user in precise way. Could you check it? I guess that it helps an admin to judge the validity of a warning. Also, I will write here a candidate of the new 3-out rule, before I add it to the main page. I hope that you will check it. Thank you.
p-adic 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, and the template is good C7X (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 01:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a candidate of the new 3-out rule.

Since it is hard for admins to check all vandalisms in this wiki everyday, normal users can help them by sending warnings to other users violating the policy. When you find someone violating the policy, you can warn the user by creating a new section for the warning and write {{warning|<the precise rule in the policy>|<the precise source of the violation of the rule by the user>}} at the user's talk page. The warned user can justify or apologise for the attitude below the warning, but must not remove or edit the warning by himself or herself. In that case, an admin will check the discussion, and clearly comment whether the justification or the apology is acceptable or not. Users can freely give opinions against the decision, and the admin can change the decision through the opinions. If the justification is judged to be acceptable and the user asks the admin to remove the warning, the admin will remove it. If the apology is judged to be acceptable, then the admin will add the status to the format. We regard a warning given in this way referring to a violation which has no accepted justification or apology as a valid warning. If you find a user satisfying either one of the following conditions, please report it to an admin
  1. The user has never been blocked and has been given three or more valid warnings.
  2. The user has ever been blocked, is currently unblocked, and has been given three or more valid warnings since the last blocking of the user.
In that case, the admin will check the correctness of the sources in the format. If the sources of three or more of them actually show distinct violations, then the admin will block the user at least three months for the first time, and at least 99years for the second time.

By the way, I propose to create "Block" section to join "Vandalism" section and "Edit War" section as subsections. Then we can put the 3-out rule at the section.

p-adic 14:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the "no reasonable jutification" part worded correctly? C7X (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, it was wrong. I inserted "referring to a violation". Does it make sense?
p-adic 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. How doe the rule function if the user has already been blocked, the unblocked, then is re-breaking rules? C7X (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Now I added a precise condition applicable to unblocked users. Also, I clarified the infimum of the span of the blocking, as a user who does not listen to warnings should be responsible. Instead, I added a possibility to give a chance of apology. Is it ok? (In my opinion, a vandalist should get responsible rather than blocked. If an admin judged a vandalist to be sufficiently responsible and to be sincerely apologising, then it can be considerable.)
p-adic 01:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. 1 year seems a bit harsh IMO, but if others agree, it can be added to the policy as well C7X (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. If you feel it too long, I propose "three months for the first time and eternal for the second time". Should I change so? Also, I note that admins can block a user even if he or she does not have three valid warnings, and then they can set the blocking span in a reasonable way as they usually did. This new 3-out rule is just an additional way of blocking.
p-adic 06:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure C7X (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. I shortened the span.
p-adic 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I added the rule.

p-adic 03:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose to add a restriction that we should warn a user only once for violations to a single rule given before the first warning related to the rule, in order to believe that the user just did not know the rule.

If nobody disagrees, I will add the descriotion.

p-adic 05:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Separating Notability section

I separated "Notability" section into subsections so that it will be easier to refer to. If it is inappropriate, then revert the separation and explain the reason here.

p-adic 06:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on notability

I propose to replace the section name "Nav boxes" by "Links", and clarify that it is not allowed to put links to non-existing pages even if it is not a template, because the same reasoning works. In addition, we should clarify that redirects and categorification to personal spaces are not allowed, because they are essentially the same as creating articles based only on user blogs. (I note that the rule on categorification already exists, but it is good to recall the rule in new "Links" section.)

If nobody disagrees, I will add the descriptions.

p-adic 22:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I updated.
p-adic 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of the creator

The current rule allows both the first source and a peer-reviewed source. Although a very common number does not have the first source, we can cite an online dictionary as long as it is peer-reviewed. On the other hand, if an article does not include the creator of a number, a reader cannot judge whether it is common one or not. Then it causes a problem when we judge a referenve to a non-peer-reviewed website is valid or not.

  1. If the name is common one, then the reference to a non-peer-reviwed source as a source of the name is not valid.
  2. If the name is uncommon one, then the reference to a non-peer-reviwed source as a source of the name is valid only when it is the first source.

Therefore in order to keep the reliability, clarifying the creator of an uncommon name is automatically necessary. However, since the logic is not clearly written, users might be confused. Therefore I propose to clarify the requirement in the rule.

p-adic 05:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, however there could be some exceptions, for example some of the Bignum Bakeoff entries. How should uncommonly-named numbers without discernible authors be judged (for example, AFAIK ioannis.c's author is known by the name of the program and their email)? C7X (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I see. So how about requiring to clarify the origin of uncommon numbers? If the creator is known, we should clarify the creator. Even if we do not know the creator, we can clarify the origin of the number by writing something like "It was coined as a Bignum Bakeoff entry by an anonymus one".
p-adic 01:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
OK. It would have to be checked that it's the best of our knowledge, otherwise someone could add text to an article "MadeUpNumber is a number defined as (definition) coined by an anonymous person" C7X (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Then how about updating the notability guideline in "Notability" section? I propose to restrict a new number to satisfy one of the following:
  1. It is a common number with a peer-reviewed source.
  2. It is an uncommon number coined by non-anonymous one with the first source.
  3. It is an uncommon number coined by anonymous one with the first source, and has been passed the voting system.
In that case, it is better to create a new section for the voting, because the original rule is included in the section only for a blog post.
p-adic 21:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
OK C7X (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I (or possibly some others) will update the notability guideline.
p-adic 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Done.
p-adic 13:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Citing a long reference

I propose to add the following rule: "When we cite a long reference, e.g. a book with 10 or more pages and a video with 1 or more minutes, then we need to clarify the exact location in the reference where we can find the cited descriotion." Otherwise, a vandalost can refer to a very long irrelevant video as a source of a fake description.

If nobody disagrees, I will add this rule.

p-adic 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I added it because it costs no time.
p-adic 23:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


Announcement from FANDOM

FANDOM announced that FANDOM will update the blocking policy, and told us to check the current local policy so that it will be compatible with the new blocking policy. I think that the current policy is compatible with the new blocking policy, but there are two proposals from FANDOM, which are not included in the current policy:

  1. "Does your wiki not allow curse words? Give your users adequate context to understand the rules." It means that it is good to clarify whether this wiki allows curse words or not. (The current policy forbids harassment, but does not forbid curse words which are not harrassing but are just inappropriate.)
  2. "Do not engage in excessive self-promotion: : The wiki is a collaborative community resource for the topic at hand. It is NOT a free place to advertise your related website, YouTube channel, blog, social media account, etc. Have a question about whether your link would be welcome? Ask an administrator!" It means that we are not allowed by FANDOM to promote our personal works or websites if it is quite off-topic. (The current policy does not forbids blog posts completely unrelated to googology.)

Should we add something? In my opinion, the current policy is already good. But if other members feel that we need to add those descriptions, let us discuss them.

p-adic 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


Proposal on signature

FANDOM requires us to put our signature when we write comments to talk pages in order to clarify who write comments, but several users intentionally ignore the requirement even after other users explained it. How about adding the rule to the policy? (Of course, new users do not know the rule. Therefore we should explain the rule first, when they failed to follow the rule.)

p-adic 04:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there any opinion? Then I will add the rule. Please give me an opinion.

p-adic 03:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If violation of the signature rule will then result in a warning, that seems harsh C7X (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for an opinion. Then how about making a rule that allows to simply revert all unsigned comments and recommend users to do so instead of adding a reply? Since we add signatures for them, they will not change their attitudes to make others spend time.
p-adic 04:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
What are those replies? If you mean "please sign your messages", I will have to think about the necessity of signatures (it could be considered a courtesy, and reverting messages would be interrupting their communication), or maybe it could be a mindset of letting others fix their messages. C7X (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see. Then I do not change the policy. My point was: FANDOM requires us to sign because the talk page does not provide a way to show who wrote each sentence. Therefore if we intentionally omit the signature, then we are essentially requiring other users to check all histories to understand the context, and this attitude prevents us to smoothly argue on important topics. The reason why we currectly do not have such a problem is just because other users are trying to put signatures by the "unsigned" template. But if you feel that we do not need to do so, then it is ok for me any more. I do not want to ask others to do something which is unnecessary.
p-adic 06:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I can try writing JavaScript that requires a signature before saving an edit, but I can't guarantee that it will work without testing C7X (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 05:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on voting for admins

I propose to have a rule to choose or releave admins. The reasons are the following:

  1. We proposed to make ARsygo to become an admin when we have trolls, but Cloudy seems to be too busy to deal with the request. C7X is working so hard for this community, but I hope one or more admins.
  2. I would like to know how many members feel satisfied against inactive admins. Even if the result does not change admins, it is democratic to officially have an opportunity to ask the satisfactory.
  3. In my opinion, it is not good to keep inactive admins, because they do not help us when we have crisis by trolls but sometimes force us to follow by abusing admin right. The biggest incident in my mind is that Cloudy and Username forced us to violate copyright, even after we sincerely voted the inappropriateness.

Please share your opinions. Especially, I want to hear opinions by admins. Thank you.

p-adic 06:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For number 1, I really needed to be an admin, as this wiki lacks multiple active admins. But first, I needed for the other members to share my opinion on becoming an admin. Please note that I am a semi-active user, as I am busy for now, but if I am free, I will edit some of the articles, or maybe, create a blog post, etc.
As for numbers 2 and 3, I don't know what to answer it (yet). Maybe I'll reply once I got the idea.

ARsygo (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinions. I additionally note that even if you are semi-active in your sense, you are perhaps one of the most active users in this wiki. Of course, I emphasise when you are busy, you can do what you want to do instead of managing this wiki. We just appreciate your help when you have time. (And it is important to have an additional admin before trolls become active. It is really late to ask Cloudy to make you an admin after they become active, as we did.)
p-adic 10:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Support. I agree. This is the second reason I am not active in the wiki. Hexirp (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!
p-adic 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> sometimes force us to follow by abusing admin right
I don't think this necessarily follows from inactivity, it's just that in recent events some incidents between the two have happened
About inactive admins, what is the criteria for "inactive"? I could be OK with relieving Nnn6nnn, who hasn't edited since May 2019, however I think the main focus of inactivity should be "they don't have a chance to edit". For example, Username has been keeping up with the community on Discord (this is not forcing others to use discord, but a demonstration that Username has been talking in the community), so I don't think Username counts as inactive (if Username were to be unmodded, it would be for other causes than inactivity). However, if Username left all contact with the googology community for a period of time (I'm not sure how long should count), then Username would be incapable of modding to full abilities due to a lack of knowledge of current events. C7X (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> I don't think this necessarily follows from inactivity,
This is not intended to be a deduction from the inactivity, Maybe I should have written "it is not good to keep the inactive admins" instead of "it is not good to keep inactive admins".
> it's just that in recent events some incidents between the two have happened
Could you tell me who are the two? Maybe Username and I? Or Username and Cloudy?
> About inactive admins, what is the criteria for "inactive"?
I am afraid that you misunderstood the proposal. What I proposed is to have a rule to choose or releave admins, but is not to automatically releave inactive admins with respect to a fixed border of the inactivity. Therefore it is irrelevant where the border line of the inactivity is in our minds. As you state, Username might have done something excellent in discord. Then discord users would simply vote to keep Username being an admin. So your statement has nothing to do with my proposal to have a rule to choose or releave admins.
p-adic 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> Could you tell me who are the two?
I don't remember the meaning of what I wrote, but I think "between the two" meant the total instances of activity on the Extensible Illion System page and copyright violation.
> What I proposed is to have a rule to choose or releave admins
OK. We have had admins be removed in the past (such as PsiCubed although Username says that was by stepping down), however we need the right balance in sensitivity of the rule. For example, an admin shouldn't lose privileges because of an individual copyright violation, although repeatedly ignoring the popular opinion of the wiki could result in this (if you are wondering about Username, they haven't gone nearly far enough for this since it was only restricted to a few users on a talk page, not the will of the entire wiki) C7X (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, I think demoting admins should be an emergency procedure that should be taken if all other options are exhausted (like a presidential impeachment, at least in an American setting for lack of a better example)
> For example, an admin shouldn't lose privileges because of an individual copyright violation, although repeatedly ignoring the popular opinion of the wiki could result in this
I guess that you are confounding the topic again. I am not proposing to make a condition for automatically releaving an admin, I am just proposing to make a rule which allows us to vote for choosing or releaving admins. So if the majority thinks that one violation was so serious that an admin should be releaved, then the voting might indicate the releaving. If the majority thinks that one violation does not effect the past contributions, then the voting might keep the admin. We are not considering how to choose a condition to automatically releave an admin.
> For clarity, I think demoting admins should be an emergency procedure that should be taken if all other options are exhausted (like a presidential impeachment, at least in an American setting for lack of a better example)
Right. Releaving requires FANDOM stuffs to be involved, and hence is not a normal situation. I personally respected past contributions of Username, and hence clarified that I would not like to report his attitude. Therefore I tried to persuade him several times, especially when the copyright incident occurred. But now, Username is not willing to seriously discuss his inappropriate attittudes. He also clarified that he hopes FANDOM stuffs to be involved. Then this is the final situation. Say, emergency in your sense. Anyway, you are believing that Username will not be releaved, aren't you? According to you, Username is working well in discord. Then the voting will perhaps keep Username. Therefore you do not have to care about it at least this time. It is not bad for you to have a democratic rule in this wiki, is it?
p-adic 15:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> I am not proposing to make a condition for automatically releaving an admin
Here I am talking about details of the case-by-case basis. I know that if this rule is passed, there will be no way that an admin is automatically demoted. But the people making the decision will each have their own standards on what counts as demotable behavior, and I want to make sure that this isn't essentially an overthrow of admins for small reasons. This is an example of the "balance in sensitivity".
> Releaving requires FANDOM stuffs to be involved, and hence is not a normal situation.
Username's explanation for this comment is that it was for clarification from FANDOM, not punishing for a violation.
> According to you, Username is working well in discord. Then the voting will perhaps keep Username.
I can't operate based on my own beliefs, and there's no way to tell what will happen before the voting is complete. Instead of the general term "abuse of power", the main point against Username here seems to be based on previous irregularities, like copyright violations as you mentioned ("The biggest incident in my mind is that Cloudy and Username forced us to violate copyright", in this situation ignoring the will of the wiki would be what would be evidence, which happened here). There are a few possibilities for what happens from here in terms of voting:
  1. Username5243 and Cloudy176 are both put on trial, on charges of copyright violation for both and ignoring the wiki
  2. Username5243 alone is put on trial, on charges of copyright violation and ignoring the wiki
  3. Username5243 alone is put on trial, on charges of ignoring the wiki
  4. Another combination
Which of the following is your intention?
Also, another thing, if Username and Cloudy (who make up the majority of admin activity on this wiki) are placed up to voting, I would like to be placed as well, to make sure the wiki only has who is seen to be helpful from a user's perspective. C7X (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> Here I am talking about details of the case-by-case basis
OK. Then what you are talking about is a guideline for users when they participate in viting, right? In that case, it is good to add a description like "The current admin C7X explains that it is not good to releave an admin by a single violation of Terms of Use" in the policy, in order to make it clear that it is not a strict restriction but is a personal opinion by the most reliable user. It is also good to clarify that FANDOM's blocking policy forbids to violate Terms of Use, and the description does not mean that we allow to violate Terms of Use once.
> But the people making the decision will each have their own standards on what counts as demotable behavior, and I want to make sure that this isn't essentially an overthrow of admins for small reasons.
Right, people have own standards. It is quite important. For example, forcing others to keep illegal contents violating copyright and abusing admin right is specially awful. It is not "small" in my opinion. So what we need is to clarify "it is not a good choice to releave an admin by a small reason" or something like that in the policy, but we should not define the borderline of the "smallness", because it depends on users. If we define it in a standard for me or you, then it is just a sort of pushing personal measure.
> Username's explanation for this comment is that it was for clarification from FANDOM, not punishing for a violation.
You and I are not Username. We cannot guess the intention. If Username personally told so in a hiddn place, then I am not interested in it anymore, because it means that he is still ignoring this wiki.
Anyway, it is irrelevant to the fact that it is reasonable to argue on the rule for voting. Even if Username hopes or nor, we need it in my opinion.
> Which of the following is your intention?
My current intention is that I would like to have the rule to vote. After making the rule, I and other users will consider what to do, because it depends on the rule.
> Also, another thing, if Username and Cloudy (who make up the majority of admin activity on this wiki) are placed up to voting, I would like to be placed as well, to make sure the wiki only has who is seen to be helpful from a user's perspective.
Maybe you are starting to discussing on the explicit rule. OK. Let us go ahead. How about considering the following rules?
  1. We can propose to hold voting at most once in a month. (The restriction is given in order to avoid trolls using voting system.) It is decided to hold voting if somebody proposed to do so in the talk page of the policy or the discussion. (It might be better to create a new page for proposing voting.)
  2. When somebody proposed voting under the restriction above, then the voting will be held about one week later. Until the start of the voting, we can add topics to vote: Who to choose to be an admin, and who to releave from an admin.
  3. The voting system is based on the same rule as that for blog post, i.e. "Only non-blocked users that were registered for at least 100 days (10 of them they were active) and 100 edits may vote to avoid abusing the voting system. Voting holds for 10 days."
Then you can propose to ask to vote for you, if you want. (I do not think that it is necessary for you, but if you think that it is important, it is ok. I agree that it is good to ask opinions through voting.) What do you think about it?
p-adic 23:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't originally intend to start discussing the explicit rule, but these restrictions sound OK. For compactness it can be merged with Googology_Wiki:Voting. However, one problem is that if Cloudy is considered inactive, there are no active users who can promote or demote users C7X (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Uh, it is not a problem. We can change admin right by asking FANDOM stuffs to do so, as long as we prove that it is a decision in the community through discussion. I guessed that Username also intended this action. In addition, I am not intending to punish him. Releaving is not a punishment, but is just a necessary maintenance. The reason why I did not do it is because I expected that Username can be matured, even though he was younger than the age which FANDOM accepts when he created the account. But even now, he is trying to kid us, and does not seriously listen to others. That is enough for me. As he likes to make FANDOM stuffs involved, I have no reason to refuse his proposal.
So please do not be afraid of that. I carfully check related rules when I propose something. I always prefer to follow explicit rules, because it is basically the best way to make a society sound and save human right. On the other hand, abusing given right is not acceptabl for me.
p-adic 01:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
> Releaving is not a punishment, but is just a necessary maintenance.
I at first disagreed with this statement (because voting happens directly after an incident, it seems like punishment), but I was wrong from a legal standpoint. C7X (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


I think that I and C7X agreed with the three sentences of the rule for voting. Please share opinions if other users have them. We need additional sentences. For example, I propose the following:

  1. A single user cannot use two or more accounts in a voting. (It is better to add this as a general rule.)
  2. Voting for choosing a new admin: If the number of users agreeing to choose the candidated as a new admin is greater than or equal to the twice of the number of users disagreeing it, then the candidate will be a new admin.
  3. Voting for releaving a new admin: If the number of users agreeing to releave the admin is greater than or equal to the number of users disagreeing it, then the admin will be releaved right after the voting.
  4. If we have users with user right to execute these decisions which will not be expired through the voting, then they will do so within 10 days after the end of the voting. If they refused to do so, then we will report them to FANDOM to releave those users and ask FANDOM to execute these decisions instead.
  5. If we do not have users with user right to execute these decisions which will not be expired through the voting, then we will ask FANDOM to execute these decisions.

What do you all think about them?

p-adic 22:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees with the proposal, then I will add it to the policy.
p-adic 04:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Done.
p-adic 08:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying that dead links cannot be a new valid source

In "Dead link" section, we explained that we are keeping articles based on dead links as long as the source was cited when the link was alive. However, it might be confusing for a new user, as I saw that one created a new article based on a dead link. How about adding a clear deasription that a dead link cannot be a new valid source?

p-adic 07:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Done.
p-adic 08:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


Typo?

In "Voting" section, it is written "Only non-blocked users that were registered for at least 100 days (10 of them they were active) and 100 edits may vote to avoid abusing the voting system. Voting holds for 10 days." But I think that "and 100 edits" lacks a verb.

How about rephrasing the descrition in the following way?

  • Only non-blocked users that were registered for at least 100 days, were active at least 10 days, and have edited at least 100 times may vote to avoid abusing the voting system. Voting holds for 10 days.

Also, I think that the role of the panel looks unclear, because it is not written in the policy but in the link to a discussion. Could someone add sentences to clarify that they give the final decision based on the voting? (It is necessary, because we do not have a strict border for accepting a blog post to be a valid source.)

Thank you.

p-adic 02:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


Also, C7X pointed out here that the policy can be read as if only panel members can vote, although the general rule allow normal users (with the restriction qouted above) to vote. Since this is now the voting period, I request to fix the two issues as soon as possible. Thank you.

p-adic 02:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that for voting to put blog posts on the mainspace, only the four panel members voted. Was I wrong in believing this? If not, I will need to specify that the set of people able to vote for admins is different than the set of people able to vote on blog posts C7X (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Right, the set of users who can vote is not defined as the panel, but is the set of non-blocked users that were registered for at least 100 days, were active at least 10 days, and have edited at least 100 times may vote to avoid abusing the voting system. Voting holds for 10 days. Also, please fix the typo pointed out in the first comment of this "Typo?" section. Thank you.
p-adic 22:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
OK C7X (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 01:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection page request

Can I protect this policy page? It is because it is a high traffic page. ARsygo (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

FANDOM allows to protect policy, but do we need to protect it because of being high traffic? (I am simply not understanding why we need the protection for a high traffic page.)
p-adic 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I think so, to avoid any vandalisms occur, and to understand the users on the policy without being vandalized. It is because, some of the high traffic pages tend to have vandalisms in it. ARsygo (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I see. Generally speaking, FANDOM does not like to keep pages to be constantly protected (cf. the first paragraph of this section in the help page). Several exceptions are site logos, policy, and so on. So, we are allowed to protect policy constantly, but I think that it is good to avoid the constant protection as long as it is unnecessary. If vandals attack it, we can usually revert it. So I think that the current situation without the strict protection is ok until we need a temporary protection when vandals attack. I would like to ask opinions by other users, because I might be wrong.
p-adic 04:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Protecting community policy statements is allowed according to the help page, so it is OK. For updating the policy, we can discuss here and admin can edit following discussion. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 04:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know that it is allowed, as I myself quoted the fact. What I concerned was whether it is actually good to do so or not. The reason why FANDOM does not like protection is because FANDOM wants to make wikis "look" open for everyone. Also, several users recently pointed out that this wiki looks quite closed, i.e. unwelcoming. (I do not know who said so, because I just heard from C7X that someone perhaps in discord claims so.) Although many active users might not mind the protection, I was afraid that it will make this community look more closed. But if you two do not think so, then I feel ok.
I am just personally concerning this topic, because the "closedness" issue was aimed mainly at me. I was writing several warnings on articles to the reader not to believe specific wrong informations in this wiki, but several users in discord seem to blame me not to do so and to make this wiki more "open" for everyone. Since I strongly believ that clarifying warnings are not making this community closed (and keeping wrong explanations is awfully irresponsible), I am not understanding what makes this community "closed" for those hidden complaimers in discord. If protection does not make this community "closed", then I do not mind it.
p-adic 05:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Protecting unnecessary pages may look "closed" community, but protecting policy page is OK. I think discord is more closed than this open community. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
OK.
p-adic 05:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Keeping googol-n-plex numbers

As discussed in Talk:Googolmilliplex, the first source of googol-n-plex series, such as googolduplex, googoltriplex, ..., googolcentiplex, googolmilliplex are ambiguous, as Sbiis Saibian writes

There does seem to be some concensus that a "googolduplex" is probably the best choice. This is the term that Jonathan Bowers, myself, and many others use.
(snip)
Googoltriplex = 10^googolduplex = 10^(10^(10^(10^100)))
Googolquadriplex = 10^googoltriplex = 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^100))))
Googolquinplex = 10^Googolquadriplex = 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^100)))))
(snip)
Once we have established a sequence we can of coarse jump ahead in the sequence. Let's say we want to go up to the 101st member of the googol series. This would be:
googolcentiplex = 10^10^10^10^ ... ... 10^10^10^10^100 where there are 101 "10"s in the power tower
(snip)
How far has the googol series been extended? Well the largest terms I've seen are:
googolmilliplex = plex(googol,1000)
googolmegaplex = plex(googol,10^6)
googolgigaplex = plex(googol,10^9)
googolteraplex = plex(googol,10^12)
googolpetaplex = plex(googol,10^15)

The terms were used in the opening era of googology in the internet and it is not known exactly who coined the number. There are some pages which mention such numbers but these cites are regarded as the second source. The current policy requires notability standard that uncommonly used numbers, e.g. numbers appeared purely in googology, should have the first sources. Therefore they should be deleted in the current policy. However, googol-n-plex numbers are noteworthy enough in googology which should not be deleted in this site, in my opinion.

We might be able to add another policy which permits googol-n-series, but I do not want to do that because I want to keep the policy as simple as possible, so that people can easily understand. Therefore I would rather propose that we apply the policy of "Similar to the fact that wikipedia has no firm rules, we have no firm rules.", and decide that we preserve googol-n-series by the discussion in this talk page. If someone disagrees and insists that googol-n-series should be deleted, we could held voting. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 05:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Although I do not have sufficient knowledge on those numbers to judge the notability, I propose to allow only those five numbers in the googol-n-series (or other exlicitly judged numbers here) this time, because otherwise, vandals can freely create articles on made-up numbers like googolgreatgreatmynumberplex by referring to an unrelaible source stating that the number is in the author's knowledge.
p-adic 06:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to write that googol-n-plex numbers also appears in another page of Saibian's. Currently they are googolduplex, googoltriplex, googolquadriplex, googolquintiplex, googolsextiplex, googolseptiplex, googoloctiplex, googolnoniplex, and googoldeciplex. We can also allow these numbers. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, if nobody else disagrees the choice. (I cannot judge them, as I wrote above, though.)
p-adic 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
OK (I remember also seeing a source for "googolcentiplex", unless I remembered wrong I can look for it) C7X (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I found that it is written in the page where Saibian explains the googol series. I change the citation in the first post of this thread to show googolcentiplex. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blanking user talk page

Is blanking the user's own talk considered a violation of the policy? ARsygo (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a case-by-case issue. If there is essentially no content, then it should be allowed because nothing is harmful. On the other hand, if there is a valid warning template, then it explicitly violates the rule for warning.
p-adic 01:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
So, is it under the vandalism section for blanking pages right? It is because there are some sockpuppets did the same behaviour, blanking pages. ARsygo (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Those specific cases are under Googology Wiki:Policy#How to warn users section, because it says "The warned user can justify or apologise for the attitude below the warning, but must not remove or edit the warning by himself or herself."
p-adic 07:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I suggested that the restriction that the two or three warning template should not be put at once should be revised, because there are obvious rules which we do not have to assume that the warned user does not know, such as the rule for vandalism. Could you revise it? Say, it is good to insert "if the user does not seem to know the rule". Otherwise, we cannot put three warnings when vandals intentionally destroyed three or more pages before a user put a warning. It is reasonable to make users be able to put three warnings for such obvious vandalism including three violations.

p-adic 07:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the past contributions, this user has some multiple sockpuppets, so, can I block the user without warning? ARsygo (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You can block users if you think that it is appropriate. (And also unblock them if you notice that it was inappropriate or discussion suggests the unblocking.) It is because the warning rule does not forbid admins to block users without three warnings. The rule just helps users to report vandals, and notify violating users that they should stop violation. Admins can block vandals in a usual way. (Of course, admins can use the warning template to notify violating users that they should stop violation and inform normal users of what the vandals have done.)
p-adic 10:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@ARsygo
Well, I should clarify a specific sugestion of the revision of the restriction. For example, how about inserting "non-obvious" at the place between "violations to a single" and "rule before", i.e. replacing "violations to a single rule before" by "violations to a single non-obvious rule before"?
p-adic 11:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, just go ahead, to make other users to understand the rules, unless the user is a vandaliser (who vandalises the wiki), or a sockpuppet. ARsygo (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you revise it in that way, because the policy is currently supposed to be untouchable by normal users? (cf. #Protection page request)
p-adic 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, should I protect the policy page to allow only administrators to edit, or autoconfirmed users to edit? ARsygo (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
At least, since nobody is disagreeing with the protection, I think that it should be protected. If you change your mind (e.g. the protection make admins busier, then please add the opinion to the section.)
p-adic 12:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Since the policy has been protected in a mild way, I revised the policy by myself as you agreed. Thank you.
p-adic 14:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

About Cantor's Attic

I noticed an update to Cantor's Attic: it's back online, albeit in new address. The new webpage address is: New page. Can I update it? ARsygo (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is compatible with the original one. (If it is not compatible, we cannot simply replace dead links to the new links.) At least, it is good to inform the new address in the corresponding descriotion in the policy.
p-adic 12:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
ARsygo is already aware of it, but I note here that the original Cantor's Attic is working now. The so called "new page" is not a legitimate one, as it is not described in the original site that it was moved to the new site. The "new" site is just a backup copy of the Cantor's Attic by a random user at a certain time, and if the original site will be dead again it will be a useful backup, and that is all. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove discord

In Googology_Wiki_talk:Discord, it is proposed to delete the article of Discord and also delete the links to discord at the top page, because it appears to be not a good community so that we can recommend. In that case, the description of discord in the policy should be deleted first. I will delete the description of discord in the policy and the links to discord from the top page, if no one disagree within one week. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on instigation

I found that there is no policy for instigation. In order to maintain Gwiki, I think we should set a rule for instigation. The person who purposefully instigate others will get one warning by this rule - if others violate the policy and claim that they are instigated by the person. On the other hand, if instigation is negligence or unintentional, then justification or apology must be done by the person. If justification or apology is admitted by admins through discussion, then the person won't get a warning. If justification or apology is not acceptable, then a warning will be given to the person.

I also think that instigation is so rare that making a rule for instigation makes the policy just complicated. What should we do? Kanrokoti (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning rule

I agree the comment by kyodaisuu 13:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC) here, I also think the warning shouldn't be put on the user's Talk page, that's too aggressive though the warned user can write the justification for it. The talk page will be the face of the users. I think users will lose their motivations if there is a warning on the Talk page.

What we wanted to do by the warning on Talk page should be just to inform it to them. Do you have any ideas?

How about moving all the warning to the special page, for example, "Googology_Wiki:Warning_List" and so on, and giving just one line notification at the tail of the user's talk page with the link?

cf. https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Googology_Wiki:Policy#How_to_warn_users

The warning template is actually useful for notifying when a user creates a page without source etc. The problem now may be that the user cannot delete the warning himself. Actually in my opinion user page and talk page should be under the control of the user, and users can freely remove contents of their user page. They are actually in the revision history and can be verified afterwards. Actually we know that the user acknowledged the warning if the user deletes it. So the current rule that the user cannot remove the warnings should be deleted, and we need some other method, a special page or something, to count the warnings so that we can judge if the user should be blocked by the predetermined policy (but it may increase the complexity of the work of the admin and that would be another problem). In any case, the warning template is not a good way for the accusation of the harrassment. I am not sure about the best way to treat the harrassment and it is another story, I think. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
One line notification (by admin or a reporter?) still may irritate the user. I thought using @ mention in a warning pool page was good, but I realized that we can turn off @ mention notification. If we have forcing notification system, then I think this is the best way to notify violation of the policy. We can use forcing notification system in a warning pool page.
Second thought: How about making hidden user page for warnings? Like... can't we create "User:bruh-bruh/warning"? Kanrokoti (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.