Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It didn't occur to me.

No name change for WP:IAR is likely to occur at this point in time. No change to the 12words is likely to occur at this time. WP:UIAR is the most likely prospect for a change to the page, if FG and Chardish can just hang in, and keep the debate going for Two Years or so. Yes/No --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am working on rewriting the last paragraph of UIAR so that it says enough to be useful without saying anything wrong. I haven't seen anyone challenge what is in the rest of UIAR, which suggests to me that it is pretty on-target. Once I fix that last paragraph (with continuing feedback from others), I'll formally propose putting the full text of the C/FG version on WP:IAR.

With the availability of UIAR, I don't think we'll have to continue perpetuating IAR as an unexplainable rule. The explanation needs a tiny bit more tweaking, then we can proceed.--Father Goose (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So it just occurred to me...

...that this page needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Ignore rules and WP:IR. Written policy simply describes actual practice--nothing more, nothing less. There are three rules that we can never ignore, full stop, in this order: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. WP:IAR as written is factually wrong. Lawrence § t/e 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But its Wikipedia:Ignore all rules..? WP:IR (Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism) needs to be moved to →WP:WPIR (WikiProject). The current WP:IR can be a Disambig for WP:IAR, WP:WPFR and the newly moved WP:WPIR. Make sense?--Hu12 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whichever works, for the redirects. Is there any objection to this? There is simply no valid basis to ever ignore NPOV, V, or BLP that I can imagine. Does anyone have a scenario where you can? Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're to rename the policy, Wikipedia:Ignore the rules sounds better and retains the same meter. Also, WP:ITR is available. —David Levy 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that those rules can be ignored in situations where doing so improves or helps to maintain the Wikipedia. I'm somewhat puzzled by your assertion that "written policy simply describes actual practice" (my emphasis), but if this is the case, we can simply be prepared to ignore those rules in such contingencies, if it becomes necessary, and our written policy will already describe our actual practice. With regards to David's suggestion, I feel that there is a problem in that 'ignore the rules' cannot be easily disambiguated from 'ignore some rules.' Since "ignore all rules" are the first three words of our canonical twelve word policy, to replace them with 'ignore the rules' is a very radical shift in the meaning of that policy. (which rules, one might later ask? The other rules, besides WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP, another might answer.) It worries me a little bit, if the same people who are opposed to the explication of the policy - because, to my understanding of the argument, this might lead to a drift in the meaning - prove to be those who are most comfortable with radically re-writing the policy so that it means something other than what it means now. I imagine that this is a misperception on my part, but it's discomforting. — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I neither support nor oppose a move. I'm merely suggesting an alternative title to Wikipedia:Ignore rules that could be used if such an event occurs. —David Levy 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for the clarification. I had noted the 'if,' but wasn't sure if you meant to encourage the idea. — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I say, keep the "all", and let each editor struggle with wrapping their head around that concept. That's a valuable learning process. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone, especially User:Lawrence (and GTBacchus) of this from Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project.

NOWHERE are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPA and the WP:GFDL, as considered at WP:FIVE described as rules. They are PRINCIPLES.

These Principles cannot be negated, except by ending the project.

ALL RULES may be ignored. The specific "words" which make up WP:V, for instance, may change slightly, and some wording mayin fact be ignored if it leads to trouble. But the PRINCIPLE which is expressed in WP:V may not be ignored.

(Which is not to say that a '"change of name" may not be a good thing., though it has been suggested before, with no success.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's just right, Newbyguesses. Rules, being text documents, may be ignored. All of them. In fact, I'm a little leery of anyone who doesn't ignore WP:CIVIL - if you have to read a policy page here to figure out what it means to be civil, then something's wrong. I can ignore $F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$ - it's only an approximation, and not useful in all circumstances, nor remotely necessary in most circumstances - but I'd better not ignore gravity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please expand here, GTB. I am waiting to hear you say that we cannot, without severe consequence, "ignore" our principles. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, NBG, is this some kind of trap? If I "expand", then you might need to change the settings on the archive bot again, and program it to just wait by this talk page with a baseball bat for me to show my face. ;)

The consequences of ignoring gravity are that I don't try to ski anymore. There are certain relevant and simple facts: This is an encyclopedia (as opposed to a rumour mill or a publisher of original work). Civility opens doors and smooths paths in life (as opposed to dickishness, which earns one enemies and compromises one's effectiveness in a collaborative environment). The Wikimedia Foundation owns the website, and they get to make licensing decisions with material that we submit. Ignoring these facts won't dislocate your shoulder, but you won't edit the wiki for long that way either, and you'll generate a lot of heat of your way down. (You won't get to chat up the ski bunnies at the lodge bar with fictions about your epic wipeout, either)

Yes. I agree that the principles expressed at WP:5P can't really be ignored, if you wish to claim that you're working on the same project as the rest of us. Fidelity to those principles may require that the text of the pages be ignored, at times. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Interesting sidetrack here, I'd recommend a hockey stick (referee might not be watching) rather than a baseball bat (everyone's fallen asleep). How did we wander into supremacy of principles over rules? Who disputed that? To return to the origin of the thread, no, it's ignore - all - rules. Respect the principles, but ignore all rules. It needs to be uncompromising, GTBacchus said it, "let each editor struggle with wrapping their head around that concept. That's a valuable learning process." Everyone has to individually figure out how IAR works within the five pillars. Franamax (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Under what possible scenario can we ignore NPOV to improve the encyclopedia? <boggle> Lawrence § t/e 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the page WP:NPOV says something that isn't consistent with what you know NPOV really means, then you may ignore what the rule says, in favor of what it should say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec with GtBacchus)Yes, spider. My "trap" was set for you, Lawrence Cohen!. Both GTB and myself are saying (I think) that you CAN ignore the specific wording of WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVIL, if the wording is unclear, or has recently been "updated" in a way that is unhelpful. I FULLY AGREE with you, though, that if some editor begins to edit in a way which is contrary to the PRINCIPLE of a Neutral Point Of View, then that editor is likely to be causing the project, and other editors trouble. To restore the Principle of NPOV, editors will probably have to revert, or modify the first editor's work. (Hope I aint putting words in any-one's mouth, and it wasn't a trap, anyway, just groping for enlightenment, thanks.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. You got me, there. Lawrence § t/e 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to state that I'm in broad agreement with Newbyguesses and GTBacchus on this. One can try to wikilawyer WP:NPOV, for instance, to get information they don't like removed from an article (such as valid criticism or controversy). The principles of the rules can be subverted by selective interpretations of the words found on the policy pages. But IAR helps to keep the principles intact by emphasizing that the rules are just words.

Ignore all rules is an overstatement, but it's an enlightening one. It has a certain historical weight to it as well: "Ignore all rules" was the first rule on Wikipedia, and hopefully it will remain the first rule on Wikipedia forever. Without it, we will devolve into an insider's club (those who enforce the rules and those who get kicked out for not obeying them. Sad to say, that scenario is already quite common.)--Father Goose (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Father Goose: ::::--Ignore all rules is an overstatement, but it's an enlightening one.-----

(Whee, I am at an internet cafe - like Formula 1, compared to my "usual" system.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of an overstatement it is, as the real message is: "stop thinking in terms of rules at all". That's hard. It requires paradigm shifts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the name the way it is. Really, I don't care if I get a blue shed, or a red shed, as long as it is a shed. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The name-change suggestion seems to have died in the water, so let's START a NEW SECTION. This section is getting too long, and has served it's purpose.(I like No firm rules as a title, but Ignore all rules has too much going for it.) And, why is no-one commenting in the BIG survey? Is it "futile"? Does no-one understand what to do? Is it wrong? Can no-one be bothered to begin? I am confused (as usual). Answers, if any, in a new section please, or at "The IAR page will look like this in two months", thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong. I don't see any use in having us make proclamations as to what we think the IAR page will look like in two months' time. Even if it were a poll as to what we wanted IAR to look like, better just to leave it open-ended than to pre-formulate our answers. We've all pretty much established our respective positions and apparently feel no need to line up for a head count; the most constructive thing we can do right now is just keep talking with each other and trying to get our views in sync.--Father Goose (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to move the debate forward. You misunderstand the title of the section -- The IAR page will look like SOMETHING in two month's time, whether we debate, chat, or all take a hike and go write articles. Notice, FG, that the original section with all the views about UIAR (original) is now in the archives, so that debate is now gone, with nothing to show for it. Archiver settings? --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no rules we can "never" ignore. There are simply certain rules which it is inconceivable to find an example where you could justifiably do it. Lawrence, your original list wasn't complete: WP:CIVILITY should be a part of that too. But of course even WP:CIVILITY can be ignored too. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good idea to ignore "WP:CIVIL", the page. I'm a little worried about anyone who reads that page. The principle of being civil, I wouldn't recommend ignoring ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another angle

For your consideration:

Before applying any rule on Wikipedia, ask yourself whether following that rule makes sense in that context: will it help the project? If so, then apply the rule. If not, then ignore it, and help the project instead of applying the rule.

I'm not promoting this as anything in particular, but it's a sort of heuristic way of expressing the second popular interpretation of IAR, the first being that you don't have to learn the rules before editing. At least, I think those are the two main interpretations. Anyway, if someone thinks a version of this rule-of-thumb might have a place in one of the essays, cool. Almost every bullet point on WIARM follows naturally from it, I think. (Spirit vs. Letter, No Lawyering, Description vs. Prescription, Mindfulness & Thoughtfulness, etc.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the last part (If not, then ignore it, and help the project instead.) implies that you were never really intending to help the project in the first place. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh... I intended it as, you were intending to follow the rule, but then you realized it wouldn't help. I added four words. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it read the first time, gave me the wrong impression. Must have slipped my mind as to the exact context. No worries. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:IAR header

I've fiddled around with the header a bit, as it was getting rather messy. Maybe we could intergrate the archives into it as well? Oh, and could someone set up the "e" icon? I can't get it to directly edit. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. As non-related advice, you should avoid using <font>. But not a big issue. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

KISS:12 to 2

We can knock out some more words.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

New version:

Improve Wikipedia.

Like its brethren, this rule has some interesting properties. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be helpful. —David Levy 05:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I was suggesting it be used on this page, I would have simply boldly done so. Right now I'm just playing with the wording to see if there are more useful things that can be said. (and not necessarily here.). I'd be glad to hear your constructive input. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, "Improve Wikipedia" is 2 words. I cant think of a comment that is as short as that. How about, interesting? --Newbyguesses - Talk 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What if we were forced to choose, Kim, by some future generation of radical brevitists? What if the rule was only one word? Would you throw your support behind 'Improve', or 'Wikipedia'?

[My apologies to our current 'brevitists', as this is, implictly, an unfair characterization of their position. My remark is intended only for comic effect.]

— 69.49.44.11 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Behind "Improve", of course. If editors end up improving the entire world by curing cancer, ending all war, and eliminating famine, then this would be an unfortunate and unavoidable side-effect, which we would simply have to live with. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You aren't thinking laterally enough. The ideal version of IAR would contain zero words, and cause everyone looking at it to forget every rule they had ever learned.--Father Goose (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar to The Game then, is it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) urk... was someone over-zealous at AFD again?

Perhaps more like this game. The Game is actually at DR right now, and likely to rejoin us soon.--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That change would diminish the intended meaning of the policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<this page intentionally left blank> might have some interesting issues, yes. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody here who is neutral, with a lot of spare time?

In order to:

Consolidate discussion.
Clarify what "past consensus" means.
Work towards a meaningful future consensus.
Establish who is responsible for long-term edit-warring (or if there is any such long-term edit war):

Could anybody here who is a neutral party and with a lot of spare time, create a list of all proposals, arguments for such proposals, and names of those who supported such, from the 16 archived pages of discussion?

Then, if anybody would like to comment on a particular proposal, we focus narrowly within that thread instead of creating more and more threads on the same issues, or even essentially trivial non-issues. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer my words not be summarized. I would say that if you read 3 or 4 sections then you have a pretty good summary of the past year. We are only going in circles here.

I also think it is counterproductive to try to determine consensus based off of archives. Consensus can change. If you want to know consensus, ask a question and get your answers. I fully support the idea of narrowly defined threads with the intent of determining consensus though. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about summarization, though, is that it might help the discussion progress. If we can all agree on a short paragraph that describes what the debate had been about, and what people's positions had been, then we have something constructive that will help frame further discussions. Debate, after all, clarifies thought, and thought can lead to insight, and insight can lead to revelation, and revelation can lead to consensus. BRDTIRC, to coin a string. Would you be willing to summarize your own position, as you see the essential elements to be, yourself?

[A BNF grammar for wikipedia debates would be sort of neat, I think. Just an idle thought.] — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to summarize my position on the 27 odd attempted changes that apparently have no pattern. There really has been no consistent suggestion for this page. I guess my position is that since policy is meant to reflect the wide acceptance of the community, edits to policy should as well. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think "summarizing threads" are good, because you can't reply to them, and I doubt we can all agree on what prior debates have been about. Let's just have conversations, not metaconversations.--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Including this one"

Whatever happened to "Including this one"? I say we bring that phrase back. It really adds a lot to the "ignore all rules" principle. szyslak (t) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How could ignoring rules to help you improve or maintain Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? It is a logical contradiction. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this policy doesn't give instructions, it conditions the necessity of other instructions. What's there to ignore? Adding "including this one" does have a nice, whimsical sound to it, which I kind of like, but I'm not sure it really holds any meaning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I should've known this discussion would go in this direction. :) I think the "including this one" passage would drive home the fundamental point of IAR: that improving the encyclopedia is the main concern here. Sometimes the rules get in the way of that goal, and sometimes the rules help. When the rules help, we ignore "this one". szyslak (t) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But following other rules when they help isn't really ignoring this one, at least not in the sense of disobeying it. This rule (or "rule") doesn't say not to follow rules when they're working. It says to apply the other rules mindfully instead of mindlessly, and there's no instance in which that's a bad idea, is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's overly whimsical, in my opinion. The appeal is that it points out the inherent self-referential paradox in ∃x ∈ ¬∀x [someone correct my syntax, please!], which cannot be resolved. I feel that highlighting the paradox, however, detracts from the main intent of the rules. Causal reasoning [at least, when I do it] relies often on association, and minimizes the relevance of confusing information. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of beating my own drum, I felt I should mention that I myself have Ignored All the Rulez for the first time ever. Critique is welcome and appreciated. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

it say that if the rules says you can't improve/maintain wikipedia, ignore itOmgwt..bbq (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no such paradox. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes something like this:

If 'ignore all rules' is a rule, then we should obey it.
The rule tells us to ignore all rules. 'Ignore all rules' is itself a rule. Therefore, we must ignore the rule 'ignore all rules'.
But if we ignore the rule 'ignore all rules', then we obey the rule 'ignore all rules'; thus failing to obey the rule 'ignore all rules'.
Therefore we can neither obey nor disobey the rule 'ignore all rules'.

69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It ceases to be a paradox when expressed more completely as "Ignore all rules [when appropriate]". It's a lot like "be moderate in everything, including moderation."--Father Goose (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec- Father Goose has made a much more sensible take on this, but I will leave my comment in)- Ah, yes. Like many paradoxes, there is a degee of semantic ambiguity involved. If a "rule" is defined as "that which must be obeyed" we get a full-on paradox. But, find another dictionary which defines "rule" as "optimal procedure" and we get to argue it all again. On the face of it, "Ignore all rules" has a strong whiff of paradox about it, to my way of thinking. (Consider the Cretan's paradox. [A person from Crete is said to have made the statement "All Cretans are liars"]. How is that to be parsed, if it is true it is false, and if it is false it is true!

My take, is that the word "liar" used as an absolute, has no meaning. Under a strict interpretation of the word, a person is a liar IFF they have never and will never utter a true statement, which is impossible to prove, especially the future condition. If the statement is rendered less absolute, [Many Cretans often are untruthful], then the paradox is disarmed.) Words,words, words. For instance, have you or I or anyone ever seen an "all"? Define "all"? "All" is an abstraction, an inexactitude masquerading as an exactitude, for how can we define an all without reference to some excluded externality, negating the meaning of "all"?

We cannot ignore 'all' rules, we can only ignore this rule, and this rule, and then this one if necessary, we never reach the point of "all" since new rules can be introduced at any time. There is no such thing as an "all" which a finite human mind can grasp, it is just a word that people use and when we use words we dont understand we get confused. Well, that's my excuse. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be that "ignore all rules" is not a rule. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Sigh,~~ the policy does not say "The rule tells us to ignore all rules. 'Ignore all rules' is itself a rule. Therefore, we must ignore the rule 'ignore all rules'", is says to ignore rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. As I said before. how could ignoring rules to help you improve or maintain Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? It is a logical contradiction. No paradox.

The only way one could see a paradox is if they mistakenly only read the title and not the content of the policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's true. I was just explaining why "Ignore all rules, including this one," was implicitly paradoxical. It's a technical problem with self-referencing negative statements, in general. It doesn't leave the actual 'ignore all rules' rule meaningless or useless at all. I'd just meant to advise that we not give positive attention to it as an attractive feature of the rule. There is, of course, a conflation at work between 'rule', in the pragmatic sense where we are actually trying to improve the wikipedia, and 'proposition within a system of axioms.' 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, I retract my sigh hehe. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the debate between terse and verbose on hold while we wait for another draft by Father Goose? —69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have run out of steam. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be deceived; I'm just taking it a step at a time. I've learned not to try to get things done in a rush on Wikipedia. Haste makes waste, or something like that.--Father Goose (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that you ran out of steam. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell

"Rules aren't set in stone" is kind of a good nutshell. But the IAR policy doesn't need 2 nutshells [1], and If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it is my preferred choice. The other phrase, "Rules aren't set in stone" is featured on a lot of pol/guide pages anyway. --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What I find seriously annoying is that the entire policy is written like a nutshell. However, it is not technically a nutshell, given that it is not enclosed as such. David, our of curiousity, why did you say that it "isn't even an accurate summary"? Teh Rote (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting

Zenwhat, David, what are you doing? Do you want to get the page protected again? Someone win by stopping first, quickly! -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Zenwhat was putting in a change that was refused by consensus not to long ago, and David is reverting the to accepted version. Just like the events leading to the last 6 page protections. It puts those who seek to reflect consensus in the position of reverting, or having the policy no longer reflect wide acceptance. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see events unfold. I disagree with David's strategy of reverting more than once, because such behavior is more likely to lead to protection than the alternative. The alternative is to post on the talk page about the dispute, and then let someone else revert for you. That makes your edit much cleaner, much stickier, and only slightly slower to appear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with GTB's comments about repeated reverts by the same person not being the best way of dealing with unpopular edits. With the number of people who watch this page, someone else will certainly deal with it. And if no one else deals with it, then the edit is likely non-problematic. - Chardish (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am, in fact, trying to be more patient. After Zenwhat reverted for the second time, I did sit out and wait for someone else to revert back. That ended up being PhilKnight. Prior to that, I didn't think much of reverting Zenwhat five days after I'd reverted a different editor. —David Levy 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(just in case anyone was confused, User:PhilKnight was editing as "Addhoc" previously, at the time of the last protection.)--Newbyguesses - Talk 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David, you're right. When I looked at the history and saw your names in alternation like that, I didn't note that your first revert was actually 5 days previous, and of a different user. I guess I'm a little jumpy about edit warring on this page. Zenwhat, what in the zen were you thinking, making the same edit twice? Since when is that productive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a dumb question here. Why do we need a nutshell template anyway? To sum up 12 words? Come on now. This isn't a complex policy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. I also feel that blocking would be a superior alternative to protection. - Chardish (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if we just keep protecting the page instead of blocking then the system becomes very gamable. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the fact that blocking edit-warriors would be necessary, back when Ryan Postletehwaite (spelled incorrectly, whatever) suggested mediation. I agree with you all as well. I will stop reverting if David Levy and others agree to the same, of course.

Frankly, I don't think that a page of this nature works well with the standard BRD cycle and talkpage, because it isn't clarified which side is responsible for the long-term edit war and the talkpage discusses are poorly framed. Some people have done good jobs framing the discussions occasionally, but then other times they distort the discussions to support a particular point-of-view. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"I will stop reverting if David and others agree to the same," is precisely the attitude that causes (IRL) wars to never end. The winner of an edit war (slow, fast, whatever) is the one who stops reverting first. Just follow 0RR, and things go better. What's a second identical edit supposed to do? Maybe standard BRD doesn't work here, but surely BRRRRRR is worse, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would just like to point out that those editors who have reverted obviously feel there are good reasons. No-one has broached Wikipedia:3RR, and it is not obligatory to observe any stricter rule than that, even if it might be less messy if 1RR was in vogue, but maybe not. If there are 10 editors who have edited the page recently, there are six million accounts that have not.--Newbyguesses - Talk 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I may be over-reacting. I think people familiar with this page and its (especially recent) history would err on the side of less reverting. I'll stop nagging now, sorry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"I will stop reverting if David and others agree to the same" means one can make an edit that does not have consensus and it cannot be undone. Lets not demonize reverting, it has just as much potential to be productive as another edit. By the same token a change to the page can be worse than a revert. The action that results in the policy reflecting widespread acceptance is the correct one.

Edit warring is bad, but taking actions likely to require reverting is also bad. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to demonize reverting. I advocate sharing the work more, but as noted above, I jumped the gun in this case, because David and PhilKnight did share the work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intent to apply that comment to you specifically. It has been a common theme here that I wish to rebuke, and this thread seemed on topic. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about war, GTBacchus. However, the equal threat of being blocked for edit-warring would be comparable to Mutual assured destruction, hence the reason I agree that admins should be very liberal about blocking people for edit-warring here. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is entirely possible that the more disruptive parties could find themselves blocked while those who work with consensus do not. It is true that often the blocks go across the board, but sometimes(just sometimes) the admins sees the full context and can make a less sweeping reaction to a problem by removing only the instigator. We will see. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of that three P essay

Have a look at this before reposting to this page. I see no merit for it being included myself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not really directly relevant enough to the policy to include it. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules.

Yes, this includes flaming other people on the internet, as long as both of the people are NOTABLE, and that it is CIVIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.189.232 (talk)

Your sentence does not include enough information to make any sense. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

God damn you're fast. 98.227.189.232 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

?? (Ignore the rule about) flaming other people on the internet, ( or Ignore the rule about) Not flaming other people on the internet, as long as both of the people are NOTABLE, and that it is CIVIL. ?? --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a redirect to ignore all comments. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

I can see only the vaguest of connections from IAR to WP:SNOW, not sure why it would be added to the See Also section. Not doing any harm, I suppose. Comments? --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to add it, because it clarifies an actual application of IAR. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to add it. Its out of place with the rest of the essays in that section. Reviewing it will show that none of those essays even mention SNOW. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs either. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it because this article can be kind of confusing, and people misinterpreting it can be a problem. I thought since it shows an actual example of when you would use IAR, it would be useful (or at the very least relevant).--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have more than one essay linked to it to relieve that very problem. While WP:SNOW is an example of IAR, I still don't think it belongs on this policy page. Such a short page should not be overwhelmed by meta material. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is a miserable page which is probably the most misused page in the entire project space, as (despite its essay status) it is routinely cited in order to hastily silence minority opinions. To link to it here is to insult this page and lend undue legitimacy to that one. - Chardish (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well (in response to Cardish) I don't see how SNOW could be racist, but after going over the other essays it does seem kind of redundant to link it. They pretty much cover everything. I'll leave it down.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By "minority opinions" I meant "opinions held by a minority of people" not "opinions held by minority ethnicities." - Chardish (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OH, okay, sorry dude. My bad. I get what you meant now.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chardish, this is kind of off-topic, but I would nominate WP:AGF as the most misused page in project space. A lot more people know about it, and think it's like a big garden, in which to gather loopholes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe not misused, but most misinterpreted. Unfortunately a lot of people believe "AGF, except when a person is being an obviously disruptive troll/vandal like that person, right there!" - which pretty much negates AGF. In other words, much like WP:SNOW harms WP:IAR, so does WP:SPADE harm WP:AGF. - Chardish (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to be pretty active at SNOW, but it seems quiet lately. Has SNOW abuse been noticeable, recently? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is an essay, and it is in no way a "supplement" to WP:IAR. So, no need to refer to it from this page. (Lots, and lots, of pages get mis-interpreted. Let me count the ways.)--Newbyguesses (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has it that the snowball clause is not an essay, and you even got reverted (twice now :-P ) when you tried to say it was. :-) We're not entirely sure what it *is* (possibly a kitten-eating reptile from venus?), but we cannot deny that it is alive and well, and used on wikipedia every day. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Because a large number of wikipedians do use it, and get consensus support when they do, strictly speaking it is a regular wikipedia policy or guideline (expanding on WP:BOLD and WP:IAR). However, some people have been opposing accurate classification. In short the snowball clause is a textbook case where people have been nomic-ing/politic-ing, in a deliberate attempt to block the process of documenting consensus. (With no comment on whether that is Good or Bad here.)

It's one of those circumstances where the policy itself is okay but it's misapplied more often than not. Too often I see deletion discussions "closed per WP:SNOW" within the first couple hours of discussion just because no one has shown up yet who agrees with the nom. I've even seen it happen to RfAs for the same reason. - Chardish (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Everyone misapplies everything. You can WP:IAR and unclose, if you know someone is going to come along. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Ignore all rules)

"If you are in a hole, stop digging."— Anon.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." — Winston Churchill

"You can always count on people to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." — Anon

(Ignore all rules)--Newbyguesses (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, @Chardish) I'd be interested in seeing some examples if you don't mind. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplement? While you can try to invent a new "type" of page and apply that label, it might not stick. WP:SNOW is an essay, it has been since its inception despite being temporarily labeled otherwise. Perhaps consensus will change that some day, but not yet. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(The other essays pretty much cover everything. It does seem kind of redundant to link to WP:SNow.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change

Proposal here. Lara❤Love 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its inclusion on another essay from the see also section is fine I suppose, if it's a constant concern. But this just seems to be spill over from the cabal deletion and has nothing to do with this policy in my opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose limiting ignore all rule's scope in this manner. Of course admins should ignore rules about admin actions if they prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Rules are not set in stone, that goes for rules about admin actions too. Rules are meant to describe, not prescribe our best practices. And the rules cannot foresee all the situations that admins will need to deal with. We need to be creative just like regular users.

If you are bothered by a specific set of actions made by an admin under the pretense of IAR then that is not a problem with the policy but a problem between the admin in question and those who dispute that actions. This all seems to me to be about a single recent incident, and not a systemic problem with admins using IAR. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Workshop page

The "workshop page" in the beige box at the top of this page redirects back to this page. Anyone want to fix that? 71.174.111.205 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It works okay for me.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You just deleted it instead of fixing it. Am I crazy? It works fine, right?--Father Goose (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Father Goose, you just re-added it, unless I am even more confused as usual. Yes, the link now appears to be working fine for me. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did re-add it, since it had been working.--Father Goose (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It redirects to this page. Someone on the talk page asked it the page was being used for anything and if there was any objection to redirecting it. Nobody objected and that person redirected it. I am under the impression that the page was so inactive it was redirected, making the link pretty useless. So I removed it. Father, if you ware going to return the link, then at least have it go somewhere. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the point of confusion. It is only the workshop talk page that redirects, not the workshop page itself. My mistake. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I'm inclined to say that the workshop talk page should be redirected to here, but of course not the workshop page itself. If having the talk page redirected continues to cause confusion, that redirect could always be reverted.

Even if the workshop page is inactive at times, it's a useful page to keep around in general, given how contentious tinkering with the WP:IAR page itself tends to be.--Father Goose (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some recent edits in the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop were for the purposes of comparing UIAR and WIARM Thank you --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How to clear a room

How about a poem for WP:IAR? With apologies to Newyorkbrad, only this following extract from the poem [2] submitted to Wikipedia talk:Pranking can be used here, I think.

There's way too much red tape on wiki

Sometimes that tape is rather sticky

You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,

To say we each should write an article

Instead of having to engage

In drafting one more policy page

Which (we lose sight of this) is very

Clearly something ancillary

Can't we all straddle this wide fence

With just a bit of common sense?

...

--> I seriously think we could use that on the IAR page, it is very informative, though quite light-hearted. I know everyone hates poems, but I don't know why. --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The poem isn't policy-suitable, but I think that it's a fine addition to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR‎. —David Levy 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[3] is fine by me. Perhaps I will add NYBrad's poem (that one stanza of it) to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Versions, Thanks! --NewbyG 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do the freakin' merge already

refer to this edit. of the IAR page: [4] (cur) (last) 21:03, 17 April 2008 Personal use (Talk | contribs) (2,663 bytes) ({mergefrom:What ignore all rules means}) (undo)

It's long overdue and there's no reason not to, other than tradition. It would be like if WP:V had existed for a long period as a one sentence policy: "If something is unverifiable, then it can be removed" and then we had an essay, Wikipedia:What verifiability means. I'm sure there would be some sentiment attached to keeping it short and sweet, but we might as well move everything that's going to be treated as a policy/guideline into the actual page. Personal use (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire content of IAR (which, may I remind you, is only one sentence) is already right there at the top of the fuckin' page. What's the point of merging it?--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is an essay not a policy or guideline - if the information within it is to be included in a policy page it should be ensured that the content reflects the consensus of the community. My gut feeling is that this should be done before any merge discussion - which is really a question of style rather than provenance - takes place. Guest9999 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that "there's no reason not to, other than tradition," I suggest that you read the archives. —David Levy 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It ain't broke. Why try to fix it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a gut feeling. Consensus will have to take place before a merge. And my gut tells me you won't have it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WIARM has been discussed at length and many times on this page (see Archives), and has, in my opinion been proved to have such support that it could easily qualify as a policy or guideline. I am in favour, as it were, of "merging", WIARM onto the IAR page, I think. We dont lose anything (the 12words are still there) and we gain an explanation which people can read or ignore as they wish, but all on one page. Then again, I think WP:UIAR (which also has the 12words) would be an even better proposition to replace the current 12word version at IAR! I think if either of these "moves" were to be done it would be a nett gain to the project. There have been too many calls for amplification of the IAR policy for this to continue to be ignored, if the alternative(s) are viable, which they are. It should be able to do it (merge or move, whatever) as a "cut-and-paste" merge, and afterwards preserve any revision histories and talk-pages.

So: Agree that we don't need a "merge" and 'suggest we consider a merge'.

Either WIARM, or UIAR should go up on the IAR page, is my suggestion. I would try WIARM, (it has been the favorite candidate for this), and then, I think it likely that UIAR would be the one to gain support over WIARM, after, presumably, much discussion. Who is up for it, or am I out on a limb here, without a paddle? --NewbyG (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing that there's a problem that would be solved by merging one of those other pages here. Can it be made clear, just what we're trying to fix? Otherwise I don't see the point in adding more words. There's little excuse for not knowing what IAR means at this point, and the fact that the interpretive text is not on a "policy" page is a great illustration of the fact that we should ignore those stupid tags already. That's the beginning of understanding IAR; why deprive people of that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC). -- Appears in the archives (Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 15#Wikipedia:Understanding IAR). This or a similar request has been echoed by dozens of editors, I do think we can improve the understanding of IAR by moving UIAR to IAR, or by moving WIARM to IAR. Dozens of editors, (check the older archives, please). I am not saying "there is a problem", I am saying "we have an opportunity for improvement". Let's take it. --NewbyG (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Others (myself included) have argued that such a change would not be an improvement (and would actually make the page worse). Specific reasons have been cited, and they're in the archives too. —David Levy 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the archives, also

(ec with David Levy) Yeah, I think I understand that many people have asked for the page to expand, and I think I'm replying that adding words to IAR would not improve its understanding. It's already clear, to those who seek clarity. If someone is thinking "what does this mean?", there's a link right there to "What IAR means," and another to "Understanding IAR". Brilliant.
Some people (oddly enough, many of whom seem to already understand IAR) really want to add explanation to the page - I'll grant you that - but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Would moving more text to the page really make IAR more understood, or would it make it seem more like another rule-set? The whole point is to get people to stop thinking in terms of explicit rule-sets. Wordy policy pages constitute red tape. IAR is supposed to be the anti-red-tape. Let's not red-tape it up.
My very serious question is this: if you want to add words to IAR, why is it important to you to do this? Simply saying that you feel it would improve the page is not a full answer, because it doesn't explain why you choose to focus energy on improving this page, when there are millions of other pages on the wiki. What makes "improving" IAR a priority? What makes it worth arguing for? Is the page actually misunderstood at large, or is it just a case of people who understand it, but fear that others won't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand IAR reasonably well (not a genius, just a thinker). It is not "important" to me to add text to the page. But, that text (WIARM, UIAR) has been looked over by many, who seem to find it useful. And yes, it is because many, many editors have come here to say the page is too cryptic that I think this change could be worth making. (Some, obviously, do not think so.) I think it is "win/win" to add the existing explanation to the page. UIAR does not add rules to IAR, which would be the wrong approach. Any page can be improved, I improve those pages I choose to work on. (I do, actually work in mainspace, you know, lol.) --NewbyG (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I never doubted that you work in mainspace, dude. I'm just saying that several of us have been making a case that more text would make the page worse, not better. Why are we clearly wrong? Why should useful text be moved from where it's already useful (it is, right?), to where some people are arguing that it would be harmful? How is what we've got now not a win/win situation? Is it possible that the claim that this page is "too cryptic" is based on misunderstanding, and that we want people who think it's "too cryptic" to struggle with that, and get to a point where they don't think so? Is it possible that that struggle is precisely the best effect of this page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GTB has said it so well, I can't add anything. Dudes, it's the twelve words, grasp them, grok them. UIAR could probably become a guideline, but really, there is no way to add to the simple imprecation to ignore all rules. The struggle is the message. I'll stop now :) Franamax (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia policy is to educate users about consensus, not make users "struggle" with difficult problems of interpreting vague principles. - Chardish (talk) added 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I'm talking about current consensus. Not ghosts from the past. Opinions, like everything else on wikipedia, are subject to change. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Well said, SynergeticMaggot. Consensus in this thread so far seems pretty clear. BTW, did everyone else hate the bolding in my previous post? Wish I hadn't, sorry. --NewbyG (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus in this thread so far seems pretty clear?" Really? I see a fair amount of disagreement in this thread. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really

I strongly support merging WP:UIAR and weakly to moderately support merging WP:WIARM. - Chardish (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to advertise at WP:VP/P and maybe WP:AN, and try to gauge the level of support for a merge? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been pondering just such a broad-participation discussion for a while. The way I'd choose to phrase it is,

Should Wikipedia:Ignore all rules have explanatory text on the rule page: [5] or on a separate page, linked to as one or more essays: [6]? Bear in mind that the explanatory text can always be edited if it is felt to be wrong.

Please offer your opinion.

How does that sound? We could set up a discussion subpage Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Merge discussion and link to it via VPP, RFC, CENT, AN, etc.--Father Goose (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. Do you want to set it up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've set up a page at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Merge discussion, but I'll give it a day or two to see if anyone thinks I've worded it wrong or whatever before "launching" it.--Father Goose (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a reason to merge these to the policy. The essays serve for the less adept in self explanatory sentences. I've seen possible support for a merge, but nothing close to reasons why it should take place. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what the merge discussion will hopefully establish. I personally think including explanation with the policy is a good idea, because I didn't understand its implications, or how to put it into use, for a long, long, time. That's not because I'm "less adept"; IAR has many deep meanings which are anything but self-evident from the twelve words -- yet they are explainable.

To me, this isn't really a merge discussion, but a "should we try to help users understand IAR as much as possible" discussion. I happen to think that's a no-brainer: yes, of course we should.--Father Goose (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand IAR, then just go read UIAR. You don't need to merge it. It seems like it's just a merge for the sake of conveinience from the arguments I've ~~heard~~ read.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with trying to help users to understand IAR, however you can only ever try to help them, you can't really definitively explain. The problem with merging either of UIAR or WIARM to IAR is that the text of those essays will now gain the status of policy, i.e. it will become citable in disputes and it will become prescriptive rather than descriptive. Is that really the desired outcome? Perhaps the better course would be to propose elevating UIAR to guideline status. Franamax (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be taken up over there first. Merging an essay onto policy will require much more consensus than this has, as I've stated. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

UIAR as a guideline... okay, let's try that.--Father Goose (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what's wrong with leaving it as whatever it is now, and explaining to people that the truth is found in it, whatever its label. That's a good lesson in ignoring labels, which can never be taught by labeling all the good lessons as such. If everyone disagrees, I'll shut up, but seriously... what's the fascination with adding status to the essays that explain that status means nothing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought then. How about no tags, no tags at all in wikipediaspace, from Pillars to Civil to Blocking ? ( A purely philosophical speculation.) --NewbyG (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it, but it won't fly. Not this season, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

a page at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Merge discussion

No idea. I just agreed so this conversation could be moved elsewhere. A merge to here is highly unlikely and anyone interested can go edit over on the essays. SynergeticMaggot 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the label either, but it may have value in demonstrating that the advice in UIAR is well backed by consensus. SynergeticMaggot's motives here, on the other hand, seem entirely cynical and dismissive.

On second thought, I doubt it will be made into a guideline for the very reason that the text that is in it should be on the IAR page instead. UIAR doesn't make sense as a guideline; it simply is IAR, explained plainly.--Father Goose (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)My motives are simple and this serves as an example of such. I'm merely around to help and I lean toward what I perceive as consensus (no matter how I'm perceived in the process). SynergeticMaggot 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what's "cynical and dismissive," Father Goose? Referring to this as a "'should we try to help users understand IAR as much as possible' discussion," which implies that a merger irrefutably would accomplish this and that anyone opposed to a merger seeks to prevent it. —David Levy 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I wrote WP:WIARM, and considering how much energy I put in on this very talk page explaining IAR, I think it would be difficult to claim that I'm against explaining IAR to people clearly. Heck, anyone who edits this talk page at all is clearly in favor of understanding and explanation. Nevertheless, many of us don't support a merger. As for cynical and dismissive, we all go there on occasion, I suspect. It's so difficult to accurately gauge tone in a text-based medium that we might as well assume the best of each other and just try to move forward. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, If you wish to demonstrate that the advice in UIAR is backed by consensus... link to it from this page (already done), cite it in discussion, apply it in context, and explain to people that it makes sense, despite the lack of "official tag", and that the lack of official status is part of the point. That's more work than just hanging a tag on the page, but most worthwhile things are difficult. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

David, please don't construe my opinion about IAR as an attack against those who disagree with my opinion. I do feel that placing explanatory text on the IAR page (as long as it explains things correctly) will help users better understand and make use of IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You treated this opinion as factual (and stated that the discussion concerned whether we "should we try to help users understand IAR as much as possible"). In actuality, this is a "Would a merger help users understand IAR as much as possible?" discussion. —David Levy 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this merge should happen, just like the last 3 times it was suggested and there was not consensus to do it. Taking a core policy and adding that much content is going to need more than a dozen people to form consensus for. I would suggest making a post at the village pump and see if there is wide acceptance of this idea before attempting a merge. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've reverted an inappropriate attempt to merge content onto this page. It appears someone cannot determine consensus. As it stands, there is no consensus for a merge. So lets stop being so jumpy, k? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus the last thread has gotten rather.... long. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dont say inappropriate, say contested or something, please. (lol) inferior, sub-optimal, unfortunate, that'd be fine also -- actually inappropriate is as appropriate as any, I guess, or is it? (Sorry I even spoke.)

[7] 06:45, 20 April 2008 Newbyguesses (Talk | contribs) (6,958 bytes) (Understanding IAR-- IAR can be explained; IAR does not need to be a struggle; the IARpage can be edited; as discussion page indicates, there is impetus toward this approach) --

I thought it was a good edit. WP:CCC. My impression is of support for change as this edit would have been, and a roughly similar support perhaps for no change. Difficult to determine consensus, other than by discussion and editing. --NewbyG (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I say its almost a tie, if not a tie in fact. A handful oppose the merge and I think 2, maybe 3 wish it to occur. Which would mean theres no consensus at all. The split decision would actually indicate a no change, but default. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over the thread I only see two people who actively are suggesting this merge (I say actively because Personal use only opened the thread, and hasn't said a word since). You, NewbyG, and Chardish. And opposing (correct me if I'm wrong :)) the merge, we find KojiDude, David Levy, GTBacchus, Franamax, and of course, myself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, the operative word being, I think, actively. There are sleeping observers, and others ready to edit in case further editing occurs. I made an edit, and so unlikely to edit again, especially since the list of editors in y'r previous post is substantial. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. When the sleepers awake, we can all calmly chat about it again if need be. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is UIAR wrong?

If anyone thinks the explanation of IAR presently located at WP:UIAR is incorrect, I'd like to hear why.--Father Goose (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Who suggested it was incorrect? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As yet, no one. 1==2 made some criticisms of it early on, and some changes were made in response to that, and there was some additional tweaking of its language, but it's been stable for a while. I'm just trying to find out if anybody thinks any part of it is wrong as it currently stands. If it is, we'll need to make further changes.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Like any other essay/article, it will grow over time. If someone disagrees with something in particular, then my guess is they will bring it up over there. I'll take a look at it after I wake up. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection would be that UIAR currently too evenly splits the onus between breaker and enforcer, whereas I lean toward the rule-breaker having more responsibility to prove the case. I think there are serious implications here, one does not wish to confer too much authority upon those who choose to "break the rule" and defend their action with a simple because I can - there should always be the argument of because I had to do it to improve the wiki, i.e. demonstrate the net positive outcome.

Also there is a poem fragment on the page at this moment which I think was a superb response to incidents of a certain day, but has a certain whimsicality not appropriate going forward. This is indeed serious business, not best addressed through rhyme.

More generally, there seems to be a tension here between those who wish to introduce explication to the IAR page, and those who wish to maintain the bald statement of policy, and keep the expansions as subsidiary essays (or guidelines), so as to not dilute the primacy of the simple message. It's probably not difficult to see that I incline toward the latter. Franamax (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: onus between breaker and enforcer: I'll think about that for a bit. I kind of agree with you, although the converse is no less important: we don't wish to confer too much authority on those choosing to enforce a rule either -- especially not on a page dedicated to the concept of "ignoring all rules". I think maybe what we could say about that is that under most circumstances, consensus is likely to favor enforcing a rule -- provided the rule correctly describes a consensus position.--Father Goose (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My general feeling on this is that you should always assume that the rule does in fact describe a consensus position, otherwise you should be easily able to identify the accruing lack of consensus somewhere, on a talk page, on a noticeboard; else you should be able to provide a decent rationale as to why in the case of your particular action, the existing rules were not sufficient and you felt a particular necessity. Certainly there should never be a case where the rule-enforcers can prevail with the just because argument, but consensus can only change slowly, by growing burden of proof that the status-quo is not sufficient. Each individual act of rule-breaking must needs stand on its own merits, only with the accumulation of justified breakages can the rule itself come into reasonable question. Put another way - do whatever you want, but have a really good reason for doing it.

Regarding the more general issue, it's probably on everyones watchlist already, but I find this interesting. Without commenting on the merits of the thread itself, I'm struck by the explicit reference to "a terse version -- in the style of WP:IAR" - so by contemplating expansion of this page, we're possibly tinkering with something that sets an example for ways to think about the wiki itself. Just a late-night thought. Franamax (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say my thinking on that is that instructions should be kept to a minimum but good advice should be offered generously.--Father Goose (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is not "is it right or wrong", it is "does this have wide acceptance to be policy". I would say it does not have such acceptance. Attempts to make the content of that essay a policy or guideline in the past have failed due to the community rejecting the idea, as have previous proposals to merge the items. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, but that's not the question I'm asking here, which is to find out if anyone thinks the explanation given in UIAR is wrong. Franamax gave a nice bit of feedback so far... do you have any thoughts to offer on it? Your earlier criticisms of UIAR were helpful.

Separately, no serious attempt to "promote" or merge UIAR with IAR has been made to date, unless I'm mistaken.--Father Goose (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(WP:WIARM) As I recall, (this could be wrong), there were some discussions of WP:WIARM on this page, often over the last six months at least, but no serious attempt to promote or merge WIARM with IAR (by editing on the project page) had been made to date, either. --NewbyG (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is this: Wikipedia talk:UIAR#Merge. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Merge Y/N Hmm.-per--Newbyguesses - Talk 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya got me. --NewbyG (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:UIAR#Merge was a discussion of whether UIAR and WIARM should be merged, not UIAR and IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars and WP:IAR

I think UIAR incorporate a successful approach A) The nutshell B) The history behind IAR C) Explanation of IAR.

|| Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

If some aspect of UIAR could be tightened up, it would be done by taking an even more careful reading of the no firm rules pillar from Wikipedia:Five pillars, and distilling that text and principle. --NewbyG (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy talk. The pillar is derived from this page. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy, Kim? New editors are encouraged to read Wikipedia:Five pillars as the best summary of Wikipedia's principles. Not IAR, or BRD. That's how new users find out about building this encyclopedia. What's crazy about that? --NewbyG (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's circular, you see. IAR came first, and only then 5P. If you then use 5P to figure out what to write about IAR... oh dear ... :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not circular, because there is new human input. We don't need to follow cause and effect, we can use our discretion and go in any direction consensus takes us. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So you'd just copy pillar 5 here? We could do that... --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what statement you are reading, I certainly never said that. I am pretty sure I said I think we should follow consensus. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are you saying? "follow consensus" is an empty phrase. State your opinion! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) ps, could you please indent properly? Else I have a heck of a time figuring out who you're talking to! ^^;;

Kim, can you think of some way to explicate that "crazy talk" on the IAR page, possibly by rewording the nutshell along the lines of "predates the five pillars"? Franamax (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything the five pillars link to predates them (well, except maybe verifiability and reliable sources... if those are linked at all?). They're a summary, after all. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, pace to any other grizzled veterans here, but perhaps you are uniquely placed to make that clear on these policy pages themselves, in terse form. If newbies are encouraged to review 5P as a first step, surely somewhere they should be informed that 5P is the current summary of an historical evolution, and somewhere could easily learn how IAR is Genesis and 5P is Acts (or alt. biblical ref :). I'll now go over to 5P after I've spoken here, but I would still encourage you to think about the nutshell wording. Franamax (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think UIAR conveys the message of "no firm rules" quite well, though it doesn't use those specific words. But then again, maybe it could convey it even better.--Father Goose (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just putting my 2 cents in; I think UIAR is pretty great. I think it's pretty great that it's where it is, and not here. I think it's an excellent lesson for editors that the best and most useful ideas are often located in essays, on random talk pages, etc. That can help people learn not to lean too much on official policies, but to keep their eyes and ears open, and their judgment actively engaged. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which discussion continues, then

I am confused as to why this conversation is not taking place on WT:UIAR. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion at WT:UIAR ought to be about possible improvements to WP:UIAR. Any discussion about improvements to WP:IAR, such as replacing/ removing the links in the See also, or indeed concerning replacing or changing the text on the project page, in entirely appropriate here at WT:IAR. Any discussion of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or whether we are allowed to update WP:IAR with words currently in use at WP:5 (which has not been advocated) or whether we are tied down by history or precedence and which was written first, by which or ever guru of the internet, all hail, is, in my opinion, misguided, wrongly thought, and off-topic, and therefore of little or no use here. --NewbyG (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For instance- It's circular, you see. IAR came first, and only then 5P. If you then use 5P to figure out what to write about IAR... oh dear ... :-P -- This edit summary? -- Is that the equivalent of saying we can't make use of a text-book written in 2005 to write and think new thoughts about Aristotle? (For those who didn't know, Aristotle has been dead for over two thousand years, sorry to be bringing the bad news.) --NewbyG (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on WT:UIAR. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I thought this was a proposal for a merger or change in state for UIAR, so I asked about it and was told "...that's not the question I'm asking here, which is to find out if anyone thinks the explanation given in UIAR is wrong". If that really is the question at hand then WT:UIAR is the place not here. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular thread is indeed to find out if anyone thinks the explanation given there is wrong. But I ask the question here because I seek to have the explanation placed on WP:IAR itself. If you feel the explanation is wrong in any way, then that is an understandable reason to object to having it put on WP:IAR itself. From your comments earlier, I gather that you believe people will misinterpret or misrepresent parts of the explanation if it is placed on WP:IAR. Are there any specific parts of it that give you pause?

And whether or not the explanation ends up directly in the policy, having an explanation of the policy which describes its meaning and use accurately (as determined by consensus) is, I believe, uncontroversially desirable. So, I'm asking everyone here who has a good grasp on the policy to help make the explanation of it consistent with a consensus view of IAR, by offering feedback or edits.--Father Goose (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... back full circle. If you think there should be an explanation on IAR itself then once again I say the question is not "is it right or wrong", it is "does this have wide acceptance to be policy". Such an explanation in the policy is not uncontroversially desirable. I think the policy is fine as it is keeping itself simple, and leaving interpretation to essays. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We shall be answering that question later. For now, I am asking this question, which of course you are free to decline to answer. As for interpretation, I'd want to leave that to the community, not to "essays", per se, and I'd want us to provide accurate documentation somewhere of just what the community position is. UIAR is an attempt to provide that documentation. Did I get it wrong?--Father Goose (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I will just sit this one out unless it becomes more clear what is being proposed. I say this belongs on WT:UIAR and I am told it relates to an addition to this page, I say that we should be considering it in the light of adding to a policy and I am told it is just about what people think of WP:UIAR. Perhaps things will become more clear in time. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pours tea with a new thread

Let's not get grumpy:), there really is a lot of good discussion here, it seems to go back and forth because it is a crucial underpinning of the project and strongly held views abound.

I think FG brought up the whats-wrong-with-UIAR thread here in relation to the desire in some quarters to improve the content of IAR, so the discussion is relevant as far as improving IAR goes. Specific changes to UIAR should be addressed there.
I'd like personally to see how Kim could suggest changes to better clarify the relation of IAR and 5P, for the benefit especially of newcomers.
Side note, can we slow down the throttle on archiving right now - just in case someone new comes along? (Hello newcomer, run away screaming but if you insist on staying, here is some history to wade through :)

So let's slow down and not get pissed off, it's an important subject worthy of patience. Franamax (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives