In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is: 'will this action or change I'm about to execute be the right thing to do for this project?'

It is not even required to know any of the rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.

It's rather fascinating actually.

If things are judged by their creator you are left with nothing to judge the creator by. If you do it by their work the process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.

If you have a shallow understanding of the project, as Bryan clearly does, then you are incapable of answering that question.

And while you are right in some sense, the rules that have sprung up over the years are information about what the community decided 'right' was at the time.

> rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.

? No, you [a random hn user popping over to try what you suggested] cannot edit those pages, they are meta and semi-protected, last I checked. You, confirmed wikipedian 6510, can, assuming you are fine getting a reverted and a slap on the wrist.

In this case, the only thing noteworthy about this incident [an AfD I assume] is that included a rather entitled bot, rather than the usual entitled person.