|
> This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings. I don't know that I've directly argued for IAR at ARBCOM, it's been too long ago. But my account hasn't been banned yet (despite all my shenanigans ;-) , which probably goes a long way towards some sort of proof. To be sure, the actual rule is: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. " The first part is REALLY important. It says the mission is more important than the minutiae, not that you have a get out of jail free card for purely random acts. It's a bureaucratic tiebreak basically. Things like "I'm testing a new process" , or "I got local consensus for this" , or "This looks a lot prettier than the original version, right?" ... are all arguments why your improvement or maintenance action may be valid; even if the small-print says otherwise. Even so, beware chesterton's fence. Like with jazz, it's a good idea to get a good grip on the theory before you leap into improvisation. That, and, if you mean well, you're supposed to be able to get away with a lot anyway. Just so long as you listen to people! |