Elen, thank you for proving my point.  Meant seriously in saying so.  And no, I am not finished.

1, if Wikipedia is not a publisher of THE TRUTH (TM), it cannot then call itself an encyclopedia (Pillar #1).  It can, at best, and using your own definition here, Elen, be a publicly-accepted repository of publicly-accepted "facts" accepted by the public.  I said that three times to make a point.  The repository is only made by publicly-accepted parties, the facts are also only those the collective shall accept, and the amount of verification is similar.

I point to the Wrestlemania XXVIII dispute.  This user has decided to use wikia-level "evidence", but, since the public has accepted his stand, I am not allowed to challenge it.  And he's lying on top of it!  And if that, and other places I've attempted to edit, are any indication, this kind of conduct probably goes on all over the site!

The problem with the "sports organization" (the BCS case) is that if that organization has removed the valid sanction of an event, then it creates an inconsistency between verifiability and damnatio memoriae.  If Wikipedia fancies itself an encyclopedia, then, it grants a sanction which no longer exists  in fact, it basically grants a status of "fact" to something now ruled complete fiction due to the misconduct of one of the teams involved!  (And solely because the public accepts it.)  The problem comes in that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia (and I will call this site on that again and again), grants a statement of "fact" on something which is now fiction, because the public has decided that the event, since it physically took place, cannot be reversed, even if all evidence points to the fact that it should've been.

(And, yes, I will find the same farcical situation in many sports articles.)

And if I must find a "published fact" for something, then personal knowledge becomes irrelevant to the process.  (The Final Fantasy case.)  If we are not going to trust the general public to do research (WP:OR), how do we trust the general public not to manipulate the "published facts" (which see Mania XXVIII)?  Personally, speaking generally, I don't trust most members of the public (far beyond Wikipedia) to spell "CAT" if they are spotted the "C" and the "A".  How am I going to trust them with a public repository of the "facts" when they get to determine what is "fact" and who gets to post it?  (Throwing out Pillar #2)

Ah, needs to be something the lawyer has signed.  I assert that hasn't happened in Cena-Rock, myself.  (One of my (ignored) claims was that the level of "promo" of that match is the same as the level of promo in the Daniel Bryan intended-cash-in!)

And in stating "These are some of our rules", you openly abdicate Pillar #5 by your own statement.  The choice is yours, not mine, because the public apparently gets to determine everything in Wikipedia as I said above.  How can I carry on an intelligent and informed conversation with someone like ChristianandJericho, who basically does not know proper English and chooses to type like a 12 year-old girl into a cellphone?  He probably doesn't even understand what I'm saying to him, frankly!  And how can I come to a consensus with a group of people like-minded to that?

At minimum, it's going to take a TBAN on pro wrestling and at least two IBANs on the two other users, for starters.  I can probably come up with at least a PBAN on a celebrity for a prosecuted 1998 criminal threat on top of it without even taking initial action on the page!