Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You should see the crap people have tried to pull with IAR. Would I be right in guessing off the tp of my head that the people trying to make "be bold" more timid have previously failed to add subclauses and riders to IAR?
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who understands either of these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing an action, or possibly ever?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think you necessarily are. I've had -plenty- of people cite both BOLD and IAR for breaking the three-revert rule after I blocked them. "But I was improving the article, and not being able to revert the 6 idiots who disagreed with me was preventing me from doing it, so I ignored the rule! I can do that, right?" People need to comprehend "be bold" doesn't mean "put the match to the gunpowder to see what happens", and "ignore the rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you damn well want".
Unfortunately, some people don't get that, so we need to spell it out-"Be bold, but don't be a flaming moron about it" and "Ignore the rules if you need to, but you better have a damn good reason for doing it and be ready to accept the consequences if you screwed up." Bureaucracy we may not be, but we're also not an anarchy, and the rules generally are there for good reason. If you need to break them, you better think carefully about whether the need really is so pressing, and if it really is, how you're going to explain yourself once you do.
People who have that mystical attribute of actually what they're doing will properly implement BOLD and IAR anywhere they go, whether it's written down or not, and will generally do it well. The problem comes when someone without the first clue tries to emulate them (or even when someone smart happens to screw up, it does happen...)