Small test-dialog I wrote a few weeks ago about the meaning of "ignore the rules." 
Salviati: In the original version, is used to "deter". Deter is a purpose to withdraw''.'' Then the original wording is understood as ''... if the rules make you give up part of wikipedia, ignores the rules. "
certainly this is not the sense of principle. It would be like telling the spameros for example. "There is a rule spam, but we care more that you participate in wikipedia, therefore ignore it." The principle of ignoring the rule only applies when it comes to''improve''
encyclopedia Sagredo: I understand, the important thing is that people ignore the rules if you do not like, but avoid the rules Encyclopedia impeding better
Simplicio: But perhaps the spamero not think that is improving the encyclopedia to add links to your pages?
Salviati: The spamero not improving the encyclopedia, is seeking personal gain by promoting your site. But this rule is not about a particular case is one of the more general rules of Wikipedia.
Simplicio: Moment ... But then this rule is that anyone can do whatever you want!
Salviati: No, the rules exist for a reason, have been established by users with arguments, and should not be violated if there is no important reason.
Sagredo: I think the point is that Simplicio, anyone can argue with this rule together with the assumption of''good will''that could violate any regulations.
Salviati: Yes, but precisely this is one of the 5 most important rules, one of the pillars, is not to be used lightly. Let me clarify a bit. Suppose a user is fighting a vandal, but it needs to perform an action X to stop it. A regulation prevents the execution of X in the first instance. Then the user to protect the encyclopedia can perform the action and invoke the principle of "Ignore Rule" ...
Simplicio: That what I'm saying, anyone can ignore the rules and justified!
Salviati: ... yes, but the user, when asked, will have to make their arguments. "Ignore the rules" just protects you from punishment''by ignore a process,''when the action itself can be justified.
Sagredo: understand. Not enough to say " ignored the rule that I can ignore the rule " but " ignored the rule, because it happened so and so and so ignored process, ie, later justified his action.
Salviati: course, and remember that there is irreversible.
Simplicio: Hoygan! But you can not change the wording of the policy so that together. Although your arguments are convincing, you need to submit them for approval, do 3 surveys, 2 proposals, 4 votes, and if everything is able to change the wording.
Sagredo: Oh, but ... if a process keeps you from improving the encyclopedia, ignores the way!
