Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TJMSmith

IAR question
Hey, @Paradise Chronicle, I'm wondering if maybe we could discuss your followup to come up with a phrasing that will make it clearer what you're getting at? I don't think it's at all true, for instance, that admins use IAR often without saying so. Is there a specific instance you could refer to? (Hope this doesn't come of like I think I'm the center of the world, but if you're talking about the editing restriction, you can totally feel free to ask specifically about that, although I'm not sure it's something TJSM actually has been following.) —valereee (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, —valereee.I'll come back to that later with a detailed answer. Several of the past discussions on Kurdistan in which you were not involved are sure something to look into.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, and no it is not about your editing restriction at Syrian Kurdistan. That this is still an issue for you, is as to me not fair, you led us very well through the Kurdistan issue and that I think this way, I made clear before. It is also sort of unfair to to just pin the question on Kurdistan. It was an overall question, but sure it came from my experiences at the Kurdistan issue. And actually the answer is logic, of course they will apply WP:IAR if it helps Wikipedia. If they wouldn't do it, it wouldn't be WP:IAR. I'll mark the question as answered. Anyway, consider the question in the light of WP:IAR = If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, PC, there's no objection to the question! Yes, IAR is all about if it's best for the encyclopedia, ignore the rules. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A reply to SMcCandlish
I shouldn't need to respond, but that was a quite laughable read. If you believe WP:NPROF and WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY should not exist - No, I'm happy with all three of them. NPROF requires notability to be substantiated through reliable sources, and ABOUTSELF is where the 'unduly self-serving' portion I mentioned originates from. I'm certain you didn't even bother to look at BLPPRIMARY before posting your sea of bluelinks because... well... it's about how not to use primary sources (you scored an own goal with that one). If you think you can force one of them to invalidate another, you do not understand the policies and guidelines - I can at least sincerely claim to have read them. There's not a contradiction between NPROF, RS, and OR that I could identify. What relevance Wikilawyer and Gaming have, I don't think even you know. I'm guessing that was some pathetic attempt at casting aspersions? Although BF and BrxBrx were incorrect in concluding that I was arguing from GNG, at least they were making a good faith attempt to engage. You are not a good faith actor. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)