Intro edit
(from my primary user page) For those of you who know me from other online communities, one of the aspects of me you know well is that I am and always will be a process-wonk. I was born to it, bred to it. I eat it and drink it, I breathe it. You know that until I was 30, I was convinced that everyone secretly knew that formalized communication along the lines of Processing, Transactional Analysis and Co-Counselling (along with skills such as assertiveness training, active listening and other such things) was really the Right and True Way of communicating, and that everyone would communicate this way if only I could remind them of how valuable and right it was.
Since then I've improved a lot, and can even pass as a non-lesbian feminist therapist at sporting events, bars and other such venues. (this is a joke, people)
Anyhow, Wikipedia is an interesting place. For the first few weeks I was convinced that it was the Land of Contradiction. It has all these policies and formalized guidelines and procedures that looked wonderful and perfect to me (with a bit of work), but when I started getting my fingers dirty and really started to delve into editing and participating in the process, I found out that most of the people here make a lot of things work by following their own particular version of whatever looks/feels right to them at the time, and if pressed, will generally cite Ignore All Rules.
While I'm still not sure whether I should or even have the energy/wherewithal to try to combat this kind of tendency (which I believe should be protected as a fundamental right/policy, but should be used sparingly, not all the goddamned time) by trying to help shape policy, I do know that when I feel like someone's doing it to my detriment, I should probably keep track of it, so that's what this is about, tracking the weird.
2007 May 11, 2007 edit
Unilateral move of discussion material from WT:IAR to WT:DRV by Radiant edit
2007 April 27 - 2007 May 2 edit
Ignore All Rules edit
Attempted to start conversation about the status and phrasing of IAR. Got essentially nowhere, but the policy box was changed to the standard one that mentions consensus.
2007 April 20 edit
DRV Briefism edit
A Deletion Review for Briefism showed up. I commented, genuinely trying to be helpful. Later on, User:Starblind outright deleted it from DRV, citing trolling. Here's my discussion with him on his user talk page.
Updated: Am told by various that "Briefsism" is a standard troll tactic and so it will generally be treated as one.
Further Update: Discussion with User:Starblind continues.
2007 April 09 edit
Darvon cocktail edit
Starting in Wikiquette, Darvon cocktail appeared to be improperly speedily deleted (this link may break if the alert is archived). Left messages on deleting admin's talk page on behalf of complainant user. Because I couldn't get a response, I filed a Deletion Review (DRV) to try to discover the reason for the deletion, not initially to recover (undelete) the article (initial Deletion Review entry, notice on deleting admin's User_talk). Though it was clear to most discussers that the deletion was against policy (the stated purpose of Deletion Review is to review instances were policy/procedure was not followed), supermajority (called consensus by DRV participants) opinion was that because the article was not a suitable article for original research reasons (which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion without AfD), the deletion should stand. This DRV was closed by User:Xoloz.
On April 15, 2007, User:badlydrawnjeff opened another DRV on same topic because the technical finding of the first DRV was out of order/out of process. This DRV was speedy closed by User:Sam_Blanning. User:badlydrawnjeff reverse closure and User:Sam_Blanning reclosed, apparently without comment.
Interesting follow-on conversation by User:badlydrawnjeff, User:Kim_Bruning and User:SlimVirgin on User_talk:SlimVirgin.
I've since been contacted by various admins via e-mail who've explained that 1) Wikipedia has a special definiton of consensus that includes resorting to supermajority/majority-voting-based decision making (the antithesis of formal consensus) in certain kinds of process and 2) despite Deletion Review's formal description indicating that it is all about deciding whether proper policy/process has been followed in deletions, its secondary, undocumented purpose is to validate whether shoving improperly deleted articles that aren't worth anything anyway (i.e. that violate WP:OR or WP:BIO or other high-profile policies that have the potential to get Wikipedia in hot water with real-world media) back through AfD wouldn't waste a lot of time and "make Wikipedia look bad". I may choose to take that issue on at DRV itself.
Other related discussions were carried out on all users' talk pages, but am unable to muster the will to track them all down at this time.
On April 21, 2007, I went back to Wikiquette and marked the issue resolved with a summary explanation of DRV findings.
On May 2, 2007, I got a Google alert for either an honest reason to have the damned article/information around. Either that or it's a cleverly designed ruse: "ingredients. It's just that I was prescribed darvocet and I'd like to know what NOT to mix it with. I was reading about Darvocet on wikipedia and it ..." No more information available as original was deleted from Yahoo Answers.