If you've ever wondered why corporations have authorized and issued shares, there you go. Increasing the authorized share count requires a shareholder vote. Issuing shares under that cap does not. When shareholders increase the number of authorized shares, they are delegating that decision making to the Board.
It wasn't always like this. But as finance sped up, particularly towards the end of the 19th century, a railroad company which had to hold a shareholder vote to raise emergency equity because their free banking deposits in Nevada went bust would find itself systematically outmaneuvered by the ones who had pre-approval to plug the hole. As a result, most corporations now authorize the maximum number of shares reasonably possible, in almost all cases only moderated by some states' franchise taxes varying by number of shares.
Wikipedia of Shareholder's Rights Plan is skimp in details as well.
Everything I hear ostensibly appears to be "That should be illegal, makes zero sense". So with no good information out there, it seems like no one is an expert at this and making up bullshit.
If I issue more stocks for a meme stock at the height of it's popularity it will likely go up in price for reasons completely disconnected from the balance sheets and future revenue.
Conversely, if I recently started the process for bankruptcy and issue more stocks to cover the liabilities on my balance sheet, the stock could very well decrease disproportionately to the number of issued stocks.
Stocks at the end of the day are based on the market's perception of the stock's worth. The market is not a single rational actor, rather numerous small irrational actors and a few very large highly rational actors. Obviously there is a spectrum in between, but the ratio of buyers on a given end of the spectrum will influence the behavior of a stock to either align or diverge from the fundamentals of the company, and not always in the way you would intuitively expect.