Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

How to proceed

To summarize: Some Wikipedians, perceiving that the Ignore all rules policy is often misunderstood, have written some essays addressing its meaning, and the role that "the rules" play in this project. In the above section, people are reacting to a list of essays addressing that point, and will probably continue to do so. I've posted a notice at the Village pump requesting more reactions from anyone who's interested.

As those reactions accumulate, maybe we should talk about what comes next. Do we want to add some of these essays to the "See also" section? Should we merge some of them into one, and keep the number of links low? Should we edit the actual 12-word policy? How about the tag? Maybe link to an essay from the tag?

I guess we have lots of options. What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the policy text needs at least a bit of a caveat, since otherwise we could have people WP:POINTing and going against consensus (which is bad if they are editors, worse if they are admins with Views) citing WP:IAR and then we have to undo it the normal, rules-following way. It gives me a bad feeling if any admin can say "Fuck Consensus, Fuck Policy, I don't like it; WP:IAR; DELETE" (instead of a XfD maybe) and then the affected non-admin users have to wade through DRV to restore it. CharonX/talk 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And worse, fail to get the proper recourse at DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. DRV's not really at a state right now to be able to win back all (or many) of the misused IAR deletions. Rockstar (T/C) 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Guys, let's not change the IAR debate into a lament on DRV. DRV has its own talk page, which would welcome your evidence of invalid deletions. >Radiant< 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since I am afraid my previous statements may be lost in the history, I'll just reiterate here that:
    • If there's room to actually change the policy text, I'd love to see a caveat phrase or sentence at least.
    • I am okay with the standard policy box, but would also be interested in exploring other policy box texts, as long as the text noted that consensus is involved in the fact of it being part of the body of policies (and guidelines) of Wikipedia.
    • I am good with merging essays, but it was my impression that essays were not always required to be consensus documents and could sometimes indicate varying degrees of dissent and reinterpretation, so strongly recommend working with original authors to make sure no one feels railroaded.
    • Charon's POV seems to be similar to my own. IAR was first used on me by a frustrated admin when I asked for too many rules to justify his (what seemed to me to be) non-consensus behavior/justification/intepretation on DRV. I thought at first it was a joke, then it almost made me leave the 'pedia. Obviously looking at the policy's history, I'm not the first in either score. That the policy is so contentious and can make situations so volatile is pretty clearly to me not its original purpose (or its original phrasing). The current form is too open to misinterpretation, abuse and actions by editors great and small to justify non-consensus actions. That needs fixing. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace. Just a note. >Radiant< 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Radiant, if you're so concerned with misreading criticism as attack (i.e. on my talk page, in DRV), maybe you should consider not being insulting or rude or abrupt when talking with folks like me. I don't find the information you appear to be trying to present in the link you provided to me to WP:POL. More careful linking in the future might make your point clear and also avoid making you look like you feel the user you are correcting is some schoolchild who can be dismissed without effort or attempts at respect. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That remark was about as neutral as you can get, so anything you infer from that exists solely in your mind. If you can't find that wording in that page, I suggest you look again. It's in the paragraph that starts with "An essay is ..." >Radiant< 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the pointer. That wasn't too hard, now was it? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to see a pattern between DRV and IAR here. ;-) --Kim Bruning 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In a way - and it shows how really harmful IAR is as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if IAR's essence is harmful per se, though I think it might be in its current state. I do think, however, that the policy is currently misguided, which leads to such misinterpretations and abuse resulting in the botched DRVs. Rockstar (T/C) 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I consider DRV to be outright negative for wikipedia. You would expect it to be manned by inclusionists, at the least, but that is not the case.
I can imagine why admins have a higher tendency to use IAR there. (note that in theory, a defence of "I was doing IAR" should never need to occur. If people go for the IAR option on a regular basis, you can assume there are issues with your process :-/ ) --Kim Bruning 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Two cautions that probably are worth including somewhere. I think that if people's actions reflected these cautions, most of the flagrant abuses would vanish. As such, it might be worth including them in the policy.

  1. "Other user(s) may revert your action because they don't think it improved the encyclopedia. WP:IAR/this policy can not settle which is correct, only discussion with the other user(s) or wider segments of the community can do that. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle."
  2. "A reference to WP:IAR/this policy is not an complete explanation for an action. A complete action explains both how the action improved the encyclopedia and why it was necessary to ignore the rules in order to improve the encyclopedia."

GRBerry 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be ok to create a further reading link, for people to learn more. BTW, the IAR page is usually a good indicator of the health of wikipedia. Hmmm... you think maybe people are throwing around too many tags? O:-) --Kim Bruning 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly support this kind of caveat. IARing is taking overhand, especially in trivial cases which could and should be handeled the normal way. I have a sentence involving "non-controversial" and "following community consensus" in mind. Several of the IAR applications in the past have been CONTROVERSIAL and AGAINST CONSENSUS, leading to the annoyment of other users and being overturned soon thereafter. In that sense I wonder if there is (or should) be some kind of punishment for blatantly misusing IAR. CharonX/talk 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Below two points to consider. I request that any response is directed at the specific point, rather than my whole note, to keep discussion structured. The points are quite unreleated.

  • Leaving behind all discussion on effectiveness and caveats, the current twelve word policy is awesome. It is the best example of how Wikipedia operates, and why it only works in practice and not in theory (one of the essays above describes this better). As such, it is often cited by media describing Wikipedia (Google it) - and it is quite accurate. It is also a good way for new editors to learn the spirit in which Wikipedia is edited - particularly for the majority of new users, who are not interested in reading thousands of words of policies and guidelines. Adding more 'content' to this page, even the few sentences edit warred over recently, will rapidly decrease the value of ignore all rules in this aspect. Keep it simple.
  • What this page could use in my opinion, is a subtle change. Linking the words "[...], ignore them." to a page titled "Wikipedia:How to ignore all rules" or similar. This does not change the actual text of the policy, but enables the ability elaborate ignore all rules more. On how this can be elaborated best, I agree with what GRBerry wrote above, and perhaps content from some of the more acclaimed essays on the subject could be used.

Summarized, I think elaborating the policy is necessary, but I do not think this policy page is the best place to do it. --User:Krator (t c) 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 :-) --Kim Bruning 00:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Moved to WT:DRV. >Radiant< 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please replace the material that you moved without permission or consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I do think it makes more sense over at the DRV talk page. He was probably ignoring the rules anyway. ;) Rockstar (T/C) 18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think it was equally helpful in both spaces. Maybe restore it here and keep talking about it on DRV too? Talk pages don't need to be properly categorized, on top of which when it's clear that Radiant isn't getting along well with me, it's not a good idea to pour fuel on the fire by unilaterally moving my (and others') words around. This basic lack of respect really puts my teeth on edge and tends to make me less inclined to compromise and find consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously, discussing a project page is done on the talk page of that project page, not with some unrelated policy. The only reason we don't seem to be getting along is because you take things such as this personally (e.g. above), and because you allude to policies that don't exist (e.g. that it requires somebody's permission to move posts to the proper talk page. >Radiant< 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
IAR is very related to DRV at this time, as you know, as others besides me in this dicussion and discussions on WT:DRV have asserted. Policies, guidelines and essays related to civility, consensus and not being a dick all broadly apply to our shared situation in this matter, interpretation which I don't believe for a minute is beyond you. You yourself took it very personally when I publicly stated that I thought you were doing wrong (and still do), so please don't act like I'm the only sensitive one here. You can act like you don't understand if you find that's the best way for you to cope with criticism, but if I see you doing things that I think are wrong, you'll hear about it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Semantic clarification: Wikipedia:Ignore Any Rules?

Is it worthwhile to explore shifting the page to a focus on 'ignore any rule that gets in the way of your improving the encyclopedia'? There's some discussion above that there's a tendency by newbies to misunderstand this page as supporting any action in favor of their POV, and obviously there's wide disagreement on when and how to break the rules from an administrative perspective. I wonder if 'any' vs. 'all' strikes a better balance of respect for process and freedom to act when necessary? -- nae'blis 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One sentence is not good.

It is very unkind of you to maintain only one sentence:

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

I added the second sentence to WP:IAR, quoting from WP:FIVE:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles.

And I added the third sentence to WP:IAR from what I has just experienced in my talk page:

However, never forget Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Accountability when you use this policy.

Regarding Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I think, it is very clear and necessary for any editors to be informed of these three sentences at least, though I don't know why such an unkind one-sentence policy had been maintained. Anyway, I followed WP:IAR, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, meta:Don't be a dick, Wikipedia:Accountability, etc. I don't mind someone's changing my edit, but please explain why, not only Edit summary but here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JungianPPP (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Thank you. -- JungianPPP 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kim Bruning

  • What is the meaning of "rm" in your edit summary?
  • What is the meaning of "cicular" in your edit summary?
  • Why do you persist with such an unkind and unreasonable policy?
  • I just obeyed WP:IAR: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Why can you deny my edit, in other words, WP:IAR?
  • I just obeyed WP:5P, which has supported this policy officially. Why can you deny the sentence of WP:5P which has already gotten Wikipedia:Consensus?

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles.

-- JungianPPP 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC), 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • rm = remove
  • Circular means that one policy refers to the other policy, which refers back to this policy, which refers back to that policy. Linking the five pillars in ignore all rules is circular, because 5 pillars links back to ignore all rules (it's the 5th pillar)
  • I think that covers the reasoning. I don't think reverts are particularly unkind, as long as you politely explain them.
  • That was a good application of Ignore all rules. I obeyed them back. :-)
  • 5 pillars contains ignore all rules, so having ignore all rules backreference the 5 pillars causes an infinite recursion, leading to stack overflow, in silly people like me ;-)
  • You were bold, I reverted, we discussed. Perfect! :-)
  • Consensus is what we are establishing now.
  • I made two edits, rather than reverting. I reasoned out each edit to see where it would go. The net effect is that it has turned into a revert though. Does the above reasoning cover all my edits sufficiently for you, or should we take it step by step?

--Kim Bruning 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I like the fact that you applied the guidelines correctly, that's cool!

Centralized

I've centralized the lone sentence because the page looks lopsided with it over on the left. Picaroon (Talk) 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good edit. +1 --User:Krator (t c) 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have been reverted, without an explanation as to what was wrong with centralizing the text. Picaroon (Talk) 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I provided the straightforward explanation that left-alignment is our standard text layout. —David Levy 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it clearer though? :) Actually, the tags take up more space than the text here. Can we fix that somehow? --Kim Bruning 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

threw the page upside down for a sec

In this revision, I tried all the cruft on a big ugly heap at the bottom for a minute. Meh, the categories actually still take more space than the article text... I'm too lazy to shift those too. :-/ Wow, wikipedia has gotten really fugly :(

We need to figure out ways to tidy the wiki, imho. In the mean time, feel free to revert. --Kim Bruning 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Tony's version. Short and to the point. Picaroon (Talk) 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, now we'll get people saying that it's not policy... :-P <sigh> <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 02:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This might work ;-) Of course, it won't last. It might be interesting to see how quickly the cruft piles up again. --Kim Bruning 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing about the cruft is every last bit can be justified, somehow. The policy tag, the shortcut tag, the principles tag, the spoken tag, all have a reason to be there. I'm not sure if this is good, bad, or just pointless. Picaroon (Talk) 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the wierd thing. Maybe we can pack some of what was in those tags into some smaller, more useful space, somehow? --Kim Bruning 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My ideal form of this page would be blank. There would be nothing in the page except perhaps interwiki tags. I think that would be the most obvious, concise and eloquent expression of the principle. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a form very suited to communicate anything to people who don't immediately "get it". I don't think it's very helpful to strive for as little communication as possible in a policy that has a history of being badly misunderstood. A blank page probably communicates the idea best to those who already understand it, but those aren't the people for whom the page exists. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the spoken version in a hopefully good way: just the small icon. --User:Krator (t c) 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this is definitely becoming an excersize in improving wikipedia ui :-) (now to have a matching skin ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Give it its own stylesheet. :-p --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've got audio and shortcut boxes back, I guess the inevitable cruftification has begun... Unless.... --Kim Bruning 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You believe that tools for aiding people with difficulty reading the page and enabling people to reach the page more easily are "cruftification"? —David Levy 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
They sort of are if they then totally obscure the content of the page? ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (Just imagine trying to read the page using festival, for intance, not that the current UI/style sheet is at all conducive to that in the first place. :-/)
I disagree that these elements obscure the page's main content. —David Levy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Spot the content. This is a big improvement. :-) --Kim Bruning 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was referring to the latter, not the former. —David Levy 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] Hmm, this is still sort of fugly, but it's less massive. ^^;; Maybe we'll eventually revert back to ye olde version, but it's still interesting to play around with layout for a bit :-) --Kim Bruning 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Less massive? You made the page much longer (by placing the audio/shortcut links on separate lines)! —David Levy 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yours made it *wider* ;-)... I prefer long and skinny to fat and wide. O:-) :-P --Kim Bruning 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I wonder if we could compromise on an hourglass? :-P
Neither your personal preference nor mine overrides our basic style conventions. —David Levy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
They suck. Let's Ignore all rules and fix them :-) ... somehow. --Kim Bruning 16:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with restoring the old wording provisionally. I'm sort of partial too it. But I'm concerned about certain people (ahem) going around claiming IAR has been revoked or altered or any such nonsense. The tone of IAR had greatly changed from 2001, but then, this is appropriate: the tone of rules has also greatly changed. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The old wording is downright dangerous (as it can easily be interpreted as advice to ignore the rules whenever you don't feel like following them), and a clear preference for the newer wording has been established on this talk page. —David Levy 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change the wording back. Also discuss with User:Haukurth. --Kim Bruning 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I don't believe you, on either count. But I've got nothing against the new wording either if you or anyone else wants to go back to it.
On the other hand, we could keep the old wording, and revert the policy ticky-box template text to "One of Wikipedia's rules to consider:"... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
(by which, in case it wasn't clear, I mean ALL policy ticky-boxes, i.e {{policy}}) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You think we could get away with modifying the template? O:-) --Kim Bruning 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "get away". Also depends on your definition of "we". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What an interesting moment to request definitions! --Kim Bruning 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to check the archives. The newer wording does a much better job of conveying the message intended by the older wording (don't worry about learning all of the rules before improving the encyclopedia), and it simultaneously discourages blind adherence to the rules when their application doesn't make sense. The older wording, conversely, can be misconstrued as permission to ignore rules simply because one dislikes them. —David Levy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Wikipedia policy

Is it? I feel like this is probably true, but am much too lazy to go through all the necessary archives to find out. -- Visviva 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The oldest version I can find is this. "Ignore all rules" was at the top of the list of "rules to consider" in October 2001. Mike R 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great policy

This is a great rule. I am supposedly blocked from Wikipedia. It was an improper block. It was falsely claimed that I was a sockpuppet of someon who was banned. This rule allows me to create sockpuppets to get around the block, without violating policy. I am here to improve Wikipedia, but sockpuppets is the only way I can do it. I had a dream 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mean your socks won't continue to get blocked. It turns out "am I violating policy?" is the wrong question. The right questions are "am I improving the project?", "am I treating others with the utmost of respect and dignity?", and "is what I'm doing actually working (not getting reverted)?". Unless the answer to all three is yes, then you are doing it wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I have blocked the above user as a Billy Ego sockpuppet. --Coredesat 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people seem to think that generating a lot of conflict and opposition is a sign that they're doing something right, instead of the opposite. It's weird. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but make a sarcastic remark here, but it's true - I have no idea where they came up with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is because some people can't discern conflict from other kinds of social friction (such as due to resistance to change) . --Kim Bruning 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Me again (I had to create this sockpuppet because "I had a dream" just got blocked). Well of course. But they can't find the sockpuppets unless they know where to look. I have about a hundred other sockpuppets that I use that still haven't been found. That's because they're used in articles that they don't know I edit. Also, for the really important stuff, I use proxy IP's for extra security (as a matter of fact, this is a proxy). GTBachhus, please don't be sarcastic with the "generating a lot of conflict" thing. One can't be an active editor who pushes for NPOV and against original research without generating conflict. You're assuming because I cause conflict that I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not. I merely try to ensure NPOV and make sure things are sourced. That generates a lot of animosity from POV pushers. (Ok, go ahead an block this one now). Like I said, this is a great policy. The Cloth 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
More socks? We'll keep an eye out.--Wizardman 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You can block my socks but you can't stop my shoe account from running. --Lankees76 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked again. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked again. Mr.Sockman 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When you get tired of playing cops and robbers, if you ever care to improve Wikipedia rather than to attract controversy and attention, you know how to find me. Right now you're behaving foolishly, or else because you enjoy the attention. Therefore, I'm signing off for now; good day. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sockman, you'd be surprised how easy it is to push for NPOV and against original research without getting blocked, or even attacked. You can do the right thing in ways that are really smooth and effective. Think of aikido, how you don't oppose a force directly, but use the attacker's energy againt itself. It works here, too.

If you find yourself at the center of many storms, then you really are the cause (or one cause), though you surely don't mean to be, and probably think you're doing your best to prevent it. It's nothing against you personally, and you're hardly the first to do it. As a wise man once said though, "if you're sure it's always everyone else, it's a good bet it's probably yourself." -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. The dream is alive 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This existance or inexistance of this policy will change nothing of someone's behaivour should they wish to create sockpuppets. So what if they're justified in their mind because of this? They know full well they're gonna get blocked. I couldn't care less. --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if someone can ignore all rules and sockpuppet all over, we can ignore some rules and block them! ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Boxed in?

[2] Well, at least the boxes are smaller. This looks more similar to the rest of wikipedia again. (OTOH, could we jut change the rest of the wiki to look simpler instead? ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ([3] might still look simpler, but it's hard to tell either way... the rest of the UI totally overwhelms the page ^^;;)

Actually, after looing at it for a minute, this doesn't look bad at all either. Hmmm, now for the rest of the guideline pages. }:-)> --Kim Bruning 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Clear demarcation makes the main content easier to identify and read. In the cited revision, everything blends together. —David Levy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe demarcate the main content in one section, and all the "administrative stuff" (which is -admittedly- also useful), in a separate area? Since we're here anyway, might as well muck around with styles, and then apply anything we learn to the templates themselves? :) --Kim Bruning 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
For the most part, I'm satisfied with the current appearance of the WP:IAR page and our project pages in general. —David Levy 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the orange background from the spoken version, and reintroduced the <sup> tags as I think this is a nice way of presenting the spoken version. I think the current page is good - no, awesome. --User:Krator (t c) 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes and references

Some notes and references don't fit on the other page, at least in its current format, so is there a good way we can deal with notes that are specifically (currently) better suited to the main policy page for IAR? I'd checked the talk page for discussion of this recent distilling of the format down to the smallest possible size (which was why I'd inserted the notes header as a level 4 header and the note itself as a <small> font size), but couldn't find any, so, being bold, I am trying to discuss it. How 'bout it, Krator? I'm okay with moving the contents of the note I inserted somewhere else, but it doesn't seem to fit very well into your suggested page. Got any other ideas? I don't want to lose that history if at all possible. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that what the first phrasing of an IAR-to-be was back in 2001 is irrelevant, and doesn't really fit in with this minimalistic approach people have got going here. – Steel 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. What is the point of this? —David Levy 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree, as should be obvious, so please convince me so that we can build consensus instead of railroading and disenfranchising the dissenter (i.e. me) that would in fact be totally appropriate if Wikipedia were a majority-rule community, but it's actually a consensus-rule community.
If you'd like to review the study of the editing history of IAR that I put together on April 29th, you may find that the phrasing of the original rule existed on this page as late as February/March of 2006. It's hardly archaic and irrelevant. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You've just restated what we already knew (that you think it's relevant). Please explain how the initial phrasing of someone's idea back in 2001 that would later become ignore all rules is relevant. The link you provided shows w.marsh getting rid of part of that phrasing for good reason. Why is it being brought back? The initial phrasing of things rarely has any kind of significance (and this is no exception). – Steel 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, we don't want to actually disenfranchise people either, you know . --Kim Bruning 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? To whom are you replying? —David Levy 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be included in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, as a further explanation of the spirit of the rule. Perhaps in the introduction of the article? While the original wording was ambiguous and could easily be misunderstood, it does explain the spirit of the rule well. Namely, ignoring all rules is for improving Wikipedia. --User:Krator (t c) 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This only works for me if a link always Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means remains in IAR, and only if the quote/reference/insertion stays in that article, two extremely big ifs if the editing history of WP:IAR is anything to go by. I'd rather you didn't make it somebody else's problem (i.e. mine) by taking away the material from this page. Is there a way we can compromise and keep the material around somehow in this page? The minimalist approach hasn't always been the only approach to the form and material of IAR (see the editing history I put together and linked to above for more details), and I'm not sure if I agree it's the best approach. That it's the one that's vaguest and thus easiest to get consensus/buy in is not lost on me, but I don't necessarily agree that at this point in minimalism we're all interpreting the policy in the same way. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a /more detail. This is probably going to go horribly wrong... so I hope someone has their fingers on the delete button ^^;; --Kim Bruning 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I like Kim's bold edit. Now, who wants to make it <small> or make the color near-white? :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just placed a NavFrame on this page, allowing just about everything in there. Things I have not been able to figure out:

  • Text size.
  • Text decoration (bold) of the words "more detail"
  • How to get the hide/show thing on the left, so it reads "Hide more detail" and "Show more detail". (tried with absolute positions, a huge mess)

--User:Krator (t c) 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a little time, so I'll try to figure at least some of it out. CSS is not my strength, but I'm pretty geeky, so I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the effort! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the good news is that we can probably do the first and the second easily, the bad news is that the hide/show thing is done with complicated javascript that's part of the templates related to the standard navboxes, and if my father weren't visiting, I might be in the mind to hack that, but he is, so I'm not. For now, I'd actually recommend converting what we have now to a standard navbox template if it were tolerable for us, or to use the navbox CSS stuff like you're already doing. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
“ I tried {{cquote}}, but it comes out ugly. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC) ”
The worst part about the templates is that for maintenance, apparently, if we avoid using the view/edit/talk links in a navframe/navbox, we get automatically categorized into a maintenance category. So maybe a subst: --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Have implemented, based on subst: and judicious cutting out of nested templates, and mostly just ended up adding some CSS formatting directives in the end. Again, not so sure about messing about with the javascript, but theoretically it may be possible, but we'd probably also have to write custom CSS classes to override the one used for the default navbox, which is not really a task to which I'd personally look forward. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just made some changes, and writing down my reasons here. Comments and suggestions are appreciated.

  • The table now tries to 'simulate' normal text flow as closely as possible. I changed the width back to 100% because of this, and made the margins left and right a negative value. The left border of the table is now the same as the left border of the normal content block. The right border of the table is one pixel shorter than the right border of the content block, using the Firefox MeasureIt extension. I removed the background and borders too, because of this. Text size is normal Wikipedia size now. Basically, the goal was to make the show/hide thing seem like it was actually extending the page, instead as if introducing a totally new element to the page.
  • I am not sure about the table header background. I tried to make it a slightly different colour, to make the reader's eyes wander towards the show/hide link. Is this obvious enough?
  • User:Chrisch put back in the official policy template. While that is not desired for now (at least not until the bureaucrat Mafia and policy cabal comes and revert everything), I noticed that the current page does not look very official. In fact, if I read this without knowing what happened, I would probably revert the changes as vandalism. Perhaps re-introduce the policy table per oldid 131878057? It looked nice in a preview.
  • The actual content of the details table. What should be in there? No need existed for explaining the history of the policy during any discussions above. Perhaps some directions on how to use IAR, akin to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, too?

--User:Krator (t c) 10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC) PS: If you need a hand hacking the NavBox class, MalcolmGin...

This is looking really nice. Kudos to all in finding a way to do justice to the importance and simplicity of this key principle. -- Visviva 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Show/hide box

I still don't see the point of having one. What's wrong with keeping the content in plain view? Also, why was the policy template omitted? — Deckiller 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going for a minimalistic approach which does justice to the spirit of the policy (don't ask me for details, I came in late). So I would say in both cases there is a twofold answer: 1. It's simpler and prettier, 2. It speaks to the elegant simplicity of the policy itself. It is important to keep in mind that this is a very unique kind of policy. -- Visviva 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplicity is good; overcompensation is not. I think everyone is trying a "little" too hard to promote simplicity by breaking the standardization just to make the page stand out. Either way, I don't really care; I just think what's being done here is a bit unprofessional. But oh well. — Deckiller 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We're just mucking around really. The other day the page was so full of cruft you couldn't even find the actual text of the policy back. (People were edit-warring over how to place the text so that you could tell it apart from all the tags ^^;;). I guess now we are over-compensating the other way just a weeee bit ... ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit of plain text saying something like "more info". Non-clickable, no effect. On opening up in edit mode I see a lot of non-functional clutter, which I removed. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The "show" link should be at the far right, under the shortcut box. -- Visviva 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well for whatever reason, it didn't work in Cologneblue skin. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless semantics?

"Note that while ignoring all rules is alright, it is subtly but importantly different from deliberately breaking them.""'

In the one case, you're avoiding bureaucracy, in the other case, you're deliberately harming the community. Why don't you errr [meditate/study] on that further (see previous section) ;-) --Kim Bruning 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still think the two words are interchangable to all intents and purposes as far as IAR goes. You could replace "ignore all rules" with "break all rules" in any comment with a negligible change in meaning. – Steel 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ignore All Rules is our local variant on ye olde KISS principle, with maybe a twist of lemon.
A lot of people are worried that IAR would be seen in an "Oh cool! let's vandalize" kind of way. So I'm trying to figure wording that steers people away from that kind of thinking.
Of course we could always just be straightforward and say something like "if you ignore the rule that says not to vandalize, we'll ignore the the rule that says not to ban" ;-) hmm, that doesn't quite cover admin behavior though...
Awwww, can't we really just drive folks totally insane by telling them to study on this? O:-) --Kim Bruning 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Hey look! It worked for me! :-P ... More seriously though: any other ideas?

More detail

What goes in the "more detail" box?

  • At present the original quote is at issue. Personally I think including the original form does a great deal of service to the community, by reminding of us of a time when Wikipedia was far less inflated with self-importance than it is today. However, in the spirit of minimalism it could certainly be done away with.
  • What else, if anything, should go in the box? A link to one or more of the explanatory pages discussed above would not seem amiss, now that it is hidden from the initial view. Of course we wouldn't really want that to grow into a "See also" section again... -- Visviva 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The self importance bit is rather important. The more people take themselves (too) seriously, the less effective they are at doing any kind of useful work. Modest people are more likely to recognize mistakes when they make them, and correct for them. --Kim Bruning 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Now how does one go about instilling modesty in people?
I'm not sure how the original quote reminds us of anything of the sort, but we can discuss that later. I just wanted to say that I agree with Haukurth's edit here. More detail means "more detail", not "more vague pseudophilosophical ramblings". – Steel 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Meditate 
v.tr.

   1. To reflect on; contemplate.
   2. To plan in the mind; intend: meditated a visit to her daughter.

[Latin meditārī, meditāt-.]

Note that "you must study on this further", or "you must meditate on this further" (depending on translation I think) is a common turn of phrase in The Book of Five Rings, a book on swordfighting written by the hideously practical Miyamoto Musashi. He uses this phrase as a kind of caveat left and right: "there might be more to this than you can just read in a book." (ie. as an excercise to the student: figure out all the permutations ... then ... get the *bleep* out there and practice in real life!).

The thing that frustrated me to bits when reading was the fact that he put that phrase exactly where things started to get interesting, and then he moves on. ARGH!

Ah right well, so at any rate, not so much pseudophilosophical ramblings. More like an obscure quote! :-)

--Kim Bruning 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) There might be more to this post which this wiki's margin is too narrow to contain... (No wait, that's Fermat)

These are not the droids you're looking for. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Who cares, they're droids! Blast 'em! --Kim Bruning 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (Practical, remember?))
Yes Kim, obscure... – Steel 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really curious as to why people seem to be so against including the original intent in the language. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the term has moved on as we've grown as a wiki and a community. I'd suggest that strict constructionism isn't a lot of use on a project like this. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but it's kind of a compromise where some folks would let us simplify the page, as long as we did something about the history of the rule --Kim Bruning 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
To me, the original wording is far more useful than the current wording, which I find to be too broad to be of use, and which I suspect too many of us (i.e. of all the editors/admins on wikipedia) misunderstand to authorize too broad a use/abuse of powers to disrupt other editors based on personal opinion, and encourages individuals to unconstructively go forward with non-consensus-supported actions. The original wording seems to me to be far less susceptible to abuse, which is why I like it to be there, not necessarily as the primary wording or definition, but to keep us anchored and honest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just made some edits restoring old, good, content. I removed the cquote, and restored the reference to the old version instead. --User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

protected

I've protected the page for 5 days, please sort this out on the talk page. Thanks —— Eagle101Need help? 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please unprotect? So far the editing process has for the most part worked without protection. We discuss, make changes, discuss some more. Occasionally someone comes in and reverts to a months-earlier version. I've asked FeloniusMonk to come talk it out with us, which I hope he will do. There has not been any edit warring since last time Felonius stepped in, but I hope he'll actually talk it out with us this time. Thanks --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I would suggest that you guys work on a draft version first, and then move to the page. In any case I'm seeing really recent revert warring, I suggest that you guys chat it out rather then hitting the undo button :). I don't mind unprotecting or any other admin unprotecting as long as there is an agreement that a version will stand without getting reverted. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We cannot make promises for editors who waltz in without discussion at all and revert months back. This is what Felonius did and why I reverted him once and invited him to participate in the discussion. Not only has your protection quelled any momentum we've built towards building consensus, but it's also frozen Felonius' version and undid all the work we'd progressed toward so far. Please consider unprotecting so we can go back to the one we're building now. Please give this your careful consideration. I'm arguing for unprotecting so we can continue the editing work. Please review the rest of the talk page if you have any doubt that the rest of us have been working hard on look and feel, wording and references. If you can think of a way to encourage Felonius to participate, please let me know, and I'll follow it up. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've unprotected, I highly suggest that before you guys continue to revert each other you talk to each other. I can care less which way this goes ;), just please go about this the right way. Contact him on the talk page if need be to get him to talk here on this page, whatever needs done. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look...

We have yet another Arbcom case resulting from admins looking at the rules, deciding what the correct result is, and then ignoring that and doing whatever the hell they feel like doing. Can we at least agree that a policy that causes that is not perfect? -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not "cause" any of that. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. A policy which says "You may ignore all rules if it improves the encyclopedia" certainly is the cause of people ignoring all rules to improve the encyclopedia. The ability to ignore rules is not something which anyone normally expects. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They did follow the rules WP:V and WP:BLP. The first two AfDs even went for the full 5 days. Getting rid of "Ignore all rules" would not solve the problem of conflicting rules or people who have different interpretations of rules. Also, if the problem is that there is an Arbcom case, the same problem, even bigger, would occur without IAR as people would then necessarily have to go through exhaustive wikilawyering, which would lead to the "Arbcom Court of Appeals". —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Except those aren't the rules which I'm talking about. The Arbcom case isn't there because some admins ignored the rules about verifiability and BLP, the Arbcom case is there because some admins ignored the rules about not wheel warring. I'm not advocating getting rid of IAR, because that is definitely not a good idea. As you said, it would be too easy to win an argument by wikilawyering instead of actually having a good point. What I want is to have the policy stop implying that the rules are just something to be thrown out the window whenever they inconvenience you. Because as we're seeing, that does not improve the encyclopedia, unless it's actually worth a long drawn out Arbcom case to have the correct course of action over a single, unimportant, article carried out "RIGHT NOW". -Amarkov moo! 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's called Immediatism. :-) --Kim Bruning 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I totally agree with you, but I am out of steam to argue the point for a while, so please feel free to take up the torch with my thanks. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Go forth and improve upon it

First, just so I can get in on the edit warring to, there's a lot more to the history of IAR than what's there, and what's there is not just history. More info sounds good and vague to me and like it will prevent future edit wars--if only minimally.

Secondly, if the whole purpose of this doctrine is to help people improve wikipedia, then how come every once in a while I see an IAR explosion on my watch list and I know that someone's moved a comma and the world has ended. Stop applying IAR here--the formatting of the page isn't going to do squat in the grand scheme of rule breaking and wiki-improving.

However, if you are going to continue diminishing marginial utility cool table btw, then I'd like to see the paradoxal part back on the page. I liked that. Also, ye who is drawn poorly, I'm waiting paitentlyishish. no typo--that means not at all ;) Miss Mondegreen talk  18:44, May 19 2007

Also, what are you people saying? No semantics are meaningless here! Let them mediate upon it and they might join in the fight to make the table prettier seriously though, it looks really nice when it's not opened, but opened up, it looks sorta clumsy--maybe the background the same off-white color? and the table as a whole another line lower on the page? Miss Mondegreen talk  18:47, May 19 2007

  • One place where rules clash is in disambig pages.
    In a long disambig list, often some meanings are very short, and by the letter of the law must be classed as dictdefs and religiously moved to Wiktionary, creating annoying content forking so the reader must look elsewhere for some of the meanings, and he may miss those meanings because he cannot see them where he is.
    Sometimes one of the meanings is easiest expressed as a short text with an external link. If that line is left in the disambig page, that is illegal; if that meaning is pushed out into its own short page, then (a) that is content forking, and (b) the new very short page is liable to be speedy-deleted {{db-empty}}.
    That is why people often put very short meanings and meanings with external links in disambig pages despite the rules. Anthony Appleyard 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For a variety of opinions, see WP:Rfa where every candidate for adminship is usually asked this question DGG 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's stuff like this that IAR is for, but that's where it sticks in my gullet. Good decisions like that can be supported by other stuff, and the really good ones--well no-one notices that you have ignored anything. But this is why I think we should change the page to the haiku. Because people would ignore those rules anyway and focus more on things like ignoring consensus and BIG stuff where they're most generally wrong. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:02, May 22 2007 (UTC)

"Classic" version

I've reverted the page to its classic version, from 2002. This page has survived for seven years with no real substantive changes, and so I see little reason to continue silly bickering over it. We've failed to make any improvements to it, however modest, so why continue to try. Phil Sandifer 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too many words. I've trimmed it down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you respond to a debate about the page's formatting by disregarding all of the above discussion and reverting to the old wording (which has evolved with good reason)? —David Levy 02:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I was ignoring WP:POINT. Phil Sandifer 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask whether you were making a point, but I didn't want to seem rude. —David Levy 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that almost all decisions to edit this page are poor ones. :) Phil Sandifer 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
At this juncture, I can't disagree with that. :) —David Levy 02:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working as hard as I can to keep various admins from protecting the page so we can do actual consensus-building toward a consensus-supported version of the page. Thanks, guys, for ignoring WP:POINT and potentially screwing that up for us. Awesome teamwork. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now re-protected, its going to stay that way till, some agreement can be made on this talk page. I really don't care how it comes out, but please no more revert warring. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'm asking why? What is wrong with this page? Why are we trying to change a page that has remained basically untouched for five years? What pressing need is there? Phil Sandifer 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review the edit summary I provided at the end of April. It disproves your claim that the page has remained basically untouched for five years. Please review the talk page and recent archives for justifications of and discussion of some suggested changes. At this point, though, I'm quit of the discussion, and quit of the page. You've proved your WP:POINT and unfortunately, it was the last straw for me, so please do enjoy yourselves. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
All of which are cosmetic changes at best. There have been no substantive changes to this page in all that time. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In that we substantively disagree. Today's form of the one sentence policy is very different in literal wording from the one that Sanger et al. created in the original Rules to Consider. Also, as I've noted in the summary that you seem to so easily dismiss, the page format has changed radically over the past 6 years, going from large and complicated to small and simple and back again in several large cycles over the entire editing history of the page. If you read my summary and didn't get that out of it, I'm sorry for your reading comprehension, and there's literally nothing I can think of to do to convey that history to you. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The current version is fine. Glad to see everyone has lost interest in the ridiculous formatting and "trimming". — Deckiller 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note I've also blocked User:Dream poster child for revert warring for 24 hours. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the fact that this is a sock puppet used strictly for edit-warring (most likely to circumvent the 3RR), an indefinite block is in order (and a CheckUser request might be a good idea).
Incidentally, thanks for re-protecting. That was one ridiculous situation. —David Levy 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that the edits were, in part, a joke in the same spirit as my WP:POINT violation. In any case, ignoring sock puppet restrictions to edit war IAR seems like the sort of thing we can safely block for 24 hours over. Phil Sandifer 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
FeloniusMonk's edits were not a joke, apparently, if you look at his discussion page where I talked with him about his unilateral editing. If yours were a joke, I'm sorry but I don't find them funny. After I put a lot of work into trying to keep the page unprotected (to preserve the consensus-building momentum I perceived building), you just came in and kicked it all over. Funny, hah hah. Now you fix it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone hasn't guessed by my restoration of the original version as well, I support the original wording of the policy. Any significant changes to a long-standing policy which opens as wide a door to abuse as this one does requires broad community input and consensus. And I have yet to see anything on this talk page that constitutes broad community input or consensus. I will not support any version of the policy that does not contain the long-standing and necessary caveat that the purpose of IAR is not to encourage recklessness or to make every single action justifiable. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To which caveat are you referring? To my knowledge, the long-standing version (and the current version) contains only one actual sentence. -- Visviva 04:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Go through the policy's history, it's pretty clear. "Never tear down a fence until you know why it was raised..." FeloniousMonk 05:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, having sampled several versions from the past year, I'm still at a loss. To what caveat are you referring? -- Visviva 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the policy

Malcolm, the summary of edits to the page over time that you linked to above is interesting, but I feel you may have misunderstood a couple of things.

For starters, did you realise that the "rules to consider" page contained all of the policies back then? Looking at nost:rules to consider, you can see "ignore all rules", "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (what would later become Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), "avoid bias" (aka neutral point of view), "cite your sources", and so on. There's also the genesis of much of the manual of style.

Many of these "rules to consider" have become central policies or guidelines in the present framework. It's significant that "ignore all rules" is the first of these listed. --bainer (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The temptation is strong for me to be hostile about these well-intentioned attempts to educate me, because when the well-intentioned attempt is the umpteenth attempt, and I am expected to be reasonable in my reaction, it makes me a little tetchy.
Because I obviously disagree in my summary and interpretations with you does not mean that I have misunderstood anything, it just means I disagree with you.
Thank you for taking the time to look at the analysis I put together, but honestly there's no reason in the world to educate me in this manner. I am not stupid. I am not naive, and I am not innocent. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that came across as condescending or anything. I think your summary is very good, especially your identification of the reductionist trend, I only disagree with what you seem to suggest about the time that IAR became "policy"; the terminology - and the templates - weren't introduced until later but it was always up there on par with the other major policies. --bainer (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I came to understand that over the past month (May), but I think it's still worth noting that until Jimbo made his famous edit, other editors were warring/discussing over whether they agreed that it really was "policy", or whether it was a guideline or a hoax or a joke or what have you. Folks have had a lot of trouble integrating this one especially into their understanding of the official body of policies and guidelines. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the formatting was silly but....

I'm having a real problem with having an official policy tag on this page.

“ ...is considered a standard that all users should follow. ”


Jimbo said about the original version,

“ I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. ”

and really, it's not just funny--we don't want people to follow this as a rule, rigorously or otherwise.

And, formatting wise, I'm definitely agreeing that it's hard to find the policy for the stuff on the current version.

So, what do people think about this version, which contains all of the same stuff (minus the policy box), but is hidden? Or, not hidden, but still very easy to tell policy from stuff?

Is it possible to edit this page without the use of this policy? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:08, May 20 2007

I rather preferred the customised box, as in this revision for example. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Want to edit war party in my sandbox?

Hmm yeah--I forgot that that used to be in the policy box--I don't think I've seen this page with ordinary policy box except for this revert war--at least not for a long time. How did it get reverted back to and protected at that version?
Of course, the problem with that page is what got people started on this minimalist streak--you really can't see the policy for all of the boxes. You want to try messing with the subpage I set up? It's basically this page but minus the cats, and I substed the spoken box to get rid of that cat too, so feel free to play with it. I have this bad feeling I'm inviting people to continue the party at my house after the cops busted up the current one, but it'll be fun while it lasts, right?
Seriously though--if the need to edit war just overtakes you and you really want to move a comma once more if you'd like to improve this policy and the block is in your way there's a copy at User:Miss Mondegreen/IAR, but it's not a sandbox, so play nicely Miss Mondegreen talk  08:39, May 20 2007
I'm sorry for protecting it to the wrong version, if you guys can come to an agreement on this talk page, I'm more then willing to unprotect. —— Eagle101Need help? 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are expecting something unreasonable. From what I've seen of the project page's history, there are bouts of editing when the page is unprotected. Sometimes the editing is collaborative and sometimes it's hostile, but I've never seen in the history a period of stability that was totally organic and not a product of one of more admins stepping in to calm/halt the constant editing.
As you saw with FeloniusMonk (who only contributed two comments when he deigned to participate in talking at all, and obviously not with an initial intention to compromise about anything), and Phil Stansifer (who sometimes seems willing to compromise/build consensus, but who will apply IAR like a club when he gets tired of it to screw it up for everyone), and others (like me fighting for a consensus that never really solidifies, or does momentarily until someone with a much slower edit cycle who doesn't read the talk page and just goes in like a bull in a china shop to change the policy wording itself), there is no real consensus.
Look at the discussion to see that while many folks seem to read IAR as a self-reinforcing rule that underscores the importance of consensus and community, others still see it as license to do whatever they want, to hell with community and consensus, since they know what's best for everyone.
Look at the discussion histories as well. I doubt you will ever find a place of stability/consensus that wasn't screwed up when a newcomer came in and screwed it up for everyone. This rule/policy/guideline/essay/joke is too contentious for everyone. People read it in a variety of different ways despite certain parties' (Tom Sidaway, Kim Bruning, David Levy etc.) insistence that there is only one true way to interpret it. Sometimes, I think, the frission between what any editor who comes upon this policy wants to express/do on Wikipedia and their worst nightmares (real or imagined) of how people will interpret/misinterpret the rule against them makes them almost spastic in their desire to protect themselves from that possibility, however they decide to express that desire for protection (i.e. BRD, talking, proposing changes, RfCs, etc.).
My advice - Either:
  • protect the page infinitely and make editors/admins fight for the right to edit the page. Enforce consensus-building and cooperation by making X number of editors present any edit/change formally to some review board. I think that's the only way you're going to get real slow-cycle stability in this particular policy and perhaps in any policy. But given how anti-process a lot of admins/editors are, I don't see this really being a good idea.
  • relax about edit protection. Sometimes, yes, the editing gets frenetic and stupid and is rightly characterized as warring, but I've noticed that you also seem to misinterpret simple BRD cycles as edit wars. Anyway, if you refuse to protect IAR at all, you may get quicker cycles with respect to the edit patterns you see here, but I think the idea would still remain stable. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh...I just find it amusing that my edits were the typing point to "back to the old format". And that there is content to argue about on this page at all. As someone who came to see what was going on specifically because someone was filling up my watchlist and it was all of the likely suspects, I came down to mock mainly. And then of course, got involved. As I said before--diminishing marginal utility is fun. But, I do think some of the attraction is in changing something someone did two seconds ago. Notice how there's no warring in the sandbox? Miss Mondegreen talk  18:34, May 20 2007
Blah well in 4 days the protection wears off, you guys can edit it then, at least you all are talking it over. Edit wars like the one yesterday are not productive. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As I keep telling you, I don't think it matters how long you protect the page or not. When the page is unprotected, you get editing, whether you're going to call it a war or not. People will keep editing the page because people keep interpreting it differently. I'm quit of editing for a while, and not really interested in starting or participating in a whole lot more discussion, so you'll see that with me or without me, with various editors here or without them, there will always be editing of the project page. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I should note, however, that I just filed an RfC for this policy, because I figure that while I may be pretty much out of steam, the one thing Wikipedia has for it is an endless supply of other folks who may have more steam than I. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine, I don't have an opinion on that. Again its protected due to people plain old reverting back to various versions that don't have anything alike, and can't be considered collaborative editing. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version

Wow, I'm away for one evening and we have a huge edit war. This is just a note to say that I've never really understood what was wrong with this version. This is a policy page, and doesn't try and overdo the obscure quotes/psuedophilosophical ramblings/meaningless sematics/whatever. I'm all for explaining the spirit of the policy on a separate page or two (ignoring vs breaking the rules, to use Kim's terms), but could we perhaps leave this page alone, since clearly nobody can agree on anything here? – Steel 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above to Eagle. I think that from at least one perspective it'd be funny to see IAR permaprotected (and bureaucracy built around it to protect it) but I think that IAR will effectively be constantly changing, because as I understand it, permaprotecting with additional bureaucracy is totally against normal Wikpedia community ethics. So I think you'll just find occasional edit wars and periods of silence as external use of IAR to justify various actions also recedes. I mostly see IAR edits/edit warring as coinciding with periods of heavy use of IAR to justify unilateral or anti-consensus/anti-policy actions. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prevent BRD cycles, those are probably beneficial (and I don't agree that edit wars only occur when someone does something controversial with IAR). I just think this minimalistic approach hasn't really worked. – Steel 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it had less than 24 hours by my count... Not quite sure what was with the outrage over these small and largely cosmetic (and generally positive) changes. -- Visviva 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the wiki for you. – Steel 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed my first and second comments seem to contradict each other. Whatever, I'm out. Have fun. – Steel 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
While the whole minimalist thing did get to be very pretty once enough hands got in--I never really got the point until we reverted back to this version. Nor only does it have, IMO I very bad policy tag for the page (which should at least be changed to the specific tag for the page), but, people are right, you can't find the policy for the crap about the policy. And while I think the crap is important (my eidts were to put that stuff back), there's no point if you can't find the policy.
  • I personally like this version on my subpage as a comprimise. It still keeps a lot of the minimalism that started this whole editing war/process/wheel, and the policy is definitely front and center, but the only thing that's lost is the policy box. And that information is still there.
  • While I definitely prefer the customized policy box bainer mentioned above to the current one in place--I still think that it poses two problems. One is that it makes it harder to read the policy, and two is that it's harder to see what's in the policy box. People assume they know what policy boxes are, because they're all the same. IAR is not the first policy most new users are linked to--it certainly wasn't the first I found and it wasn't until the third or fourth time I came to the page, when I was looking at the footnotes, that I clicked up to see what they were about. Trying to put everything except the policy into boxes had the unfortunate effect of making it so that you had to actively look for the text on the page, and that stuff in boxes would get less attention paid to it.
  • I think that if there is consensus for using a hidden box, we should still have everything that goes on the page in the hidden box like this version.
I obviously have content driven opinions about any way the page is formatted, but I think that the last two options are the weakest. While they both have supporters and good things about them, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, which for starters isn't a good place to look for consensus. A lot of editors felt that there was enough of something wrong with the old format that they all worked on paring it down in a variety of ways, even if they didn't agree about the ways, they agreed that there was a problem with the old format and that they should look for something else. And yet, once the hidden box was established, multiple editors including myself kept adding information back into the box, saying that the information was important and needed to be included and just because it was hard to read one version didn't mean we should provide nothing to read in the other.
So once the block came down, I tried to create a version where a balance between both sides was struck. And now, I'm trying to get some sort of consensus on something. There are three ways of formatting this page--the old way (with policy boxes etc), the new way (minimalist with content in a hidden box) and some sort of comprimise between the two, which I've tried to fashion at User:Miss Mondegreen/IAR. Which formatting do you prefer? What changes would you make to the formatting of each version (different policy box, how much to include in hidden box, different formatting to comprimisise)? It would be nice if we could get consensus for a general direction, or if not, at least consensus about small edits to the current version. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:57, May 20 2007
I like the version you have there. I think a show/hide box is optimal, but would not consider it worth reverting over. -- Visviva 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I like Miss Mondegreen's version better than the current version as well. I don't know about the larger-than-usual centered text, but I wouldn't revert anything over it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
*swoons* Did three people really just agree on something?!?!?!? Does that count as consensus here? *looks around wildly* Am I being punked? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:31, May 21 2007
I like the first version as well. Obviously I prefer the show/hide box (I created the thing), but the version in your sandbox is a good compromise I can agree with. --User:Krator (t c) 09:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Krator's comments here and like the first version certainly well enough to throw my hat into the consensus ring too. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude, that's 6! If we get anymore consensus I'm going to have to learn how to count higher! I do want to ask you if you'd like to start working on the history of IAR on a subpage. I've seen your work, and maybe you'd want to get a start on pulling the various stuff together? I think it would at least be something that should be linked to from here. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:05, May 21 2007

Suggestion

Formatting is currently messed up for me; the floating box on the right crosses over the line that separates the references section, and the result is rather ugly.

Perhaps adding an extra link in the "see also" section would fix this. Wikipedia:Snowball clause seems appropriate, as a discussion of a way in which this policy is regularly excercised. JulesH 09:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the first thing will be taken care of in a second (I'm going to ask for an editprotected at least, given that we have four people who agree on something), and as to the later, that's actually one of the first things discussed on the talk page, and it was decided that it was not a good idea to have a link to it on this page. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:14, May 21 2007
Probably however, snowball should have a link on trifecta, which this page links to, or will soon. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:15, May 21 2007

consensus!!

Yeah I know--it scared me too. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that we have a shocking amount of consensus (ok, so it's four people but that's four more than we've had in a while).

The version we agree on is this one, but as it's on my userpage, I removed cats (which involved some substing).

The page we agree on should replace what is currently on the page up until the category listings start, with one exception:

the double substed "listen to this article box", which begins the see also section, should be replaced with {{Spoken Wikipedia|Ignore_all_rules.ogg|2006-05-16}} Miss Mondegreen talk  10:23, May 21 2007

How many editors' opinions would you like in order to feel as if we weren't just some whiny jackasses you could ignore? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about. This page was protected because of a revert war--in order to get us to talk and agree on something.

I'm sorry for protecting it to the wrong version, if you guys can come to an agreement on this talk page, I'm more then willing to unprotect." —— Eagle101Need help? 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should WP:WRONG or the talk page before throwing it in our faces, accusing us of something that's just blatantly untrue. The page protection worked--people actually discussed and agreed on something. If you want larger consensus, say that, though really four is all that's showed up to comment, and you'll notice that even though Eagle101 said that he'd unprotect if we came to an agreement, I just asked for an edit change--not even an unprotect, recognizing that that might be inviting trouble. I'm sorry, but please, provide a legitimate reason for not making this change--don't accuse me, or our paltry consensus the people who bothered to show up of something that just isn't true. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:59, May 21 2007

I still don't agree with having the 2001 quote in there, but I've little motivation to discuss that right now. Just for the record. – Steel 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the very short window of time and small number of editors who have commented, I don't think we can reasonably claim to have consensus here just yet. Anyway, there's no rush; the page was ugly for a long time before now. -- Visviva 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have nowhere called anyone a "whiny jackass that I could ignore" or anything of the sort. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. If you'd read WP:WRONG, you'd find out that if a page is protected over an edit war, requests to have the page protected in the other version are denied, because this is an unproductive approach.. >Radiant< 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, if you read WP:WRONG, you'll find a mocking and humorous essay, where you figure out that requests to have a page changed to one party's version during an edit war are generally denied. However, this isn't a version that this page has ever been edited to. After the page protection I went through and looked at the various versions of the page and the talk page comments and created a page that I thought was somewhere in the middle of the two extreme points of view.
If you are trying to communicate something that's a matter of practice or policy--please, in the future, just say whatever it is that mean. Wiki editors far to often speak through links, which is a bad habit for a number of reasons, and in this case, what you were attempting to communicate was not at all what came across by linking to WP:WRONG. If we had been complaining that the wrong version was protected or exhibiting similar behavior, linking to that and saying the wrong version always is, would have been one thing. Linking to an essay that is mocking and derisive when not trying to communicate something about behavoir is terribly poor communication and likely to have negative consequences. In this case, we've now actually begun to communicate back and forth and you st haven't explained why change can't be made or protection lifted (I have a good assumption at this point, but it's still just that), and what would be required in order for a change to be made. Back and forth should not have been necessary--the reason for the denial of the request and what we needed to accomplish to move things forward should have been presented when you denied the request. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:34, May 21 2007
  • Well, of course I read WP:WRONG, and I find it funny and tongue-in-cheek rather than mocking and derisive. Ymmv, I suppose. I should point out that many of the older policy-related pages on WP are somewhat ironic in tone, including, of course, IAR itself. >Radiant< 11:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ymmv? Miss Mondegreen talk  13:20, May 21 2007
I should say that I've read the essay several times before and found it funny. Especially the part about the rivers. And bigfoot's head, though I actually would like to know more about the shape of bigfoot's head. But, unless someone is seriously having a cow--it's probably not a good idea to link to that as "this is how things work", and then it may just send them into apoplectic fits of cow breeding or birthing, though really, that's the only time it's applicable--to tell them to cool down and to show them that, yes, it happens to everyone.
It just really wasn't fitting here at all, and I had no idea what you meant and I didn't find it funny but insulting. And, even in cases where it is applicable, it's the type of thing to be used carefully. Sometimes syspos really do protect a particular version because they are involved, and sometimes, it's a dreadfully wrong version of the page complete with vandalism and copyvio and needs to be taken care of. In this case, it had the side-effect of prompting a whole other discussion and distracting lots of people, and that alone is a sign that it seriously ruffled feathers.
On a more personal note, it just annoys me in general when people who have been here a very long time go around explaining things as per WP:--- expecting people to read a whole policy or guideline and to know what part in particular they were referring to. Generally, it doesn't even save them time, because very often it takes a reply or two of "what were you referring to exactly?"/"how does that apply here?" before the matter is resolved, if not more.
Radiant--please also recognize that we do see admins abuse their power, and behave with a lack of responsibility, and further, it is harder calling out someone who does hold that power, then it is for someone who holds that power to call out "ordinary wikipedians", as that is in fact, part of an admins job. You came and left a two second comment, which seemed incredibly insulting to us, and we were then supposed to be patient and assume good faith and try to get the comment and the explanation that we should have gotten in the first place. You may have had the responsibility to respond to us, etc, etc, but, really, what would have happened if after you left the comment WP:WRONG and we complained and asked what you meant, you didn't reply? It's not really an incident--had we gone to ANI, we would have gotten smacked on the head for going there for no reason and told to let the protection expire on it's own. Had we gone to another admin, they would not necessarily have wanted to step on your toes, and we could have gotten bopped on the heads again. Obviously, none of this happened and it got sorted rather quickly, but I think that admins, especially people who have been admins for a long time don't realize just how much power comes into play. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:20, May 21 2007


I think you misapprehend the role of power in discussions like this.
Please presuppose the truth that you have the power to remove the protection on the page and to make edits to the page. Also presuppose that we don't. There's a power gradient there.
In most cases, if the person with more power on the power gradient acts civil, polite and supportive, that gradient can be defused and folks on either side of the gradient feel like they're being respected and that the gradient is no great obstacle to overcome. If on the other hand the person with more power on the power gradient acts hostile or often with a sense of humor that is not humble (i.e. how you've lately been acting), then the power gradient becomes the source of derision and divisiveness.
I know you think your powers are no great things, but you act abruptly which can be misinterpreted as hostility, and the humor you display is the kind of catty humor that, as you say, was constantly in older policies that we've inherited from the past (when presumably the Wikipedia community was smaller and more able to integrate everyone into one community that really understood where that kind of humor was coming from and understood that it wasn't meant to be dismissive or rude or unsupportive, just funny). Unfortunately, that kind of humor works less and less the larger and more diverse the community gets.
I strongly believe that you're the one who's eventually going to have to change over this. I may still be here when it happens, or I may be long gone, but eventually you may have it made clear to you that even though you're the same old Radiant!, the larger community of Wikipedia is understanding your ways of humor and socializing less and less.
I hope it's soon, because goddamn are your ways grating on my nerves. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If Radiant makes you nervous and depressed.... – Steel 12:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't, because he's got power to undo everything I do, whereas I can't undo everything he does. I could, I suppose, leave Wikipedia, but that strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Which has always struck me as a good time to call social services. Or, as a bad nursery ryhme, probably French at that. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:20, May 21 2007
  • To quote Spiderman, you misapprehend the role of responsibility in discussions like this. I have the power to block you indefinitely and delete every page you ever contributed to. I have the responsibility to not do that, since you are overall a constructive editor (and please don't read this as a threat, it's entirely not intended as such). I would suggest that you are overreacting, and are seeing hostility where there is none. I would refer you to our earlier conversation, where you said you'd be happy to avoid me whenever possible, and I responded that I do not want such avoision. Remember Voltaire. >Radiant< 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I emphatically do not misapprehend the role of responsibility. As I've told you before that I have had custodial/administrative duties in online communities before. I'm aware of the technical reach of your powers and there is no further need to remind me (note that I am not overreacting). However, what I keep railing against with you is that I cannot figure you out. I cannot figure out why, when I do what I feel, after reviewing related policy and carefully crafting a request or feedback to you, is absolutely spot-on right, supported by what I understand of policy and process, you will sometimes be completely reasonable and at other times act like I was completely and disgustingly, unutterably out of line for even suggesting the possibility of what I request.
  • I still cannot figure your agenda/interpretations/POV out. To me, your reactions to what I do seem random, and this is why I find I cannot ignore you, because I have the impression that your sometimes seemingly unilateral behavior will affect something else I've put a lot of effort and work into, and you will be just as immovable and unresponsive as you are here to any criticism. I have yet to see you respond constructively to any piece of criticism I've given you. In contrast, I have often seen you react to me and others in what I have a hard not characterizing as sheer spite. In such instances, you respond immediately and apparently angrily to someone who has apparently crossed a line with you.
  • The best you have done is fail to respond to me, or quote philosophers. When you become specific in response or action, you invariably seem to me to be acting either out of spite, anger or some very personal and targeted disrespect or disregard for my person, my efforts, my opinions. In short, this is not okay with me. Very much so. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can answer the simple question: my agenda is WP:BURO. I can add that there's two or three people on the Wiki that I've ever been angry with, and you're not one of them (nor even close). I wonder how you can use words like "completely and disgustingly, unutterably out of line" while upholding the claim that you're not overreacting. A brief or curt comment is not an insult or a disrespect. >Radiant< 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not overreacting to your mention of being able to block me and delete all my contributions. I am reacting to my conflicts with you, but the way I describe my perception of your expressions or feelings for me/other editors is based on my perceptions of your behavior, which are related to what you intend only by the fact that I am trying to assume good faith and whatever measures you take to make yourself and your actual intentions understood. So in that reaction, I am expressing that what you are intending to convey is not actually what's actively affecting me on the other end of your words and actions.
I know that as a person with a lot of training in communication, consensus and conflict resolution I tend toward wanting folks I interact with to be more wordy than it is clear you are by nature, and I know that I tend to be sensitive (as in I am aware of and sometimes intentionally respond to) a wider range of meanings than you seem to be prepared to acknowledge or account for in your own communications. This is all fine and to be expected.
I'm further glad that you're not actually angry with me, and that's the first time I've heard it. Consider that in the past few months you have curtly disagreed with me consistently and displayed other actions/reactions that I have been interpreting as indications of further/building anger. Consider that you could have undone that cycle at any time by expressing a bit more of what you were actually thinking/feeling. I strongly recommend that you consider actually displaying that a bit more often, greasing the skids with both me and other editors. A little talking can go a long way, especially in environments like this. Please remember that in text, almost every utterance tends to be shortened more than we intend (and long tracts of explanation also have a tendency to dull the eyes and "ears" here, so it's hard to strike a good balance). I'll remember that you don't mean to come off angry or dismissive when you're simply being curt. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I strongly suggest you avoid using that link in the future. Even if you don't find the essay derisive or in any way disruptive from your own POV, I should hope you have ample evidence that other editors do. Please don't dismiss this feedback just because you and I often disagree. If the essay you're linking to is not making the point you want it to make and instead just pissing off other editors, then you may wish to avoid using it in the future and find some other way to make your point. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to lay off unprotecting for a half day or so. I don't see much urgent need. I will check back in 12 hours or so. The idea of protection is to allow things to cool down, when I did the original unprotect on request, all it did was escalate into an edit war. As such I'd like to wait a bit, and let things cool down. —— Eagle101Need help? 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There's not really urgent need with this page, as hopefully, it's not something that people implement and then argue about what version they implemented--who cares? They were ignoring the rules. I have however come to the conclusion that the problem with this page is that people who are too afraid to, or don't want to or never get a chance to IAR anywhere else do it here. Thanks for the explanation. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:34, May 21 2007
It escalated into an edit war because some editors were having fun with us. If you read the comments that came after yours in the Classic Version subsection of this page, you can see at least one editor saying he'd made a joke edit when you unprotected. The other editor involved in the war was someone who'd thus far not participated in the discussion at all and was clearly not in on the consensus building. Regardless of that context, though, I'm fine with you protecting the page for all eternity - no one seems to be civil around here, pretty much ever. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's far too big. I still think a blank page would be best, and a single very brief sentence a distant second best. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what? I think I agree. A blank page would be excellent. Then we can either all interpret it any way we want, and maybe even just delete it as a hoax or a joke. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Possibly a deleted page would serve just as well. Ignore all rules really doesn't need to be documented. If it were officially abolished, it would still continue to rule the wiki. But on balance I think it's useful to have a page called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules so you can cite it without getting a red-link. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered replacing it with a history page? That is, a page on the history of IAR? That would solve your blue link problem, and let's face it--that really is the only issue that needs to be solved. The content on this page changes regularly, but it has no affect on what people do with IAR--unlike changes on other policy/guideline/important to the wiki pages. In fact essays have more of an effect on actual behavoir than this does. At this point in IAR we're doing three things:
  • formatting
  • flipping between the original wording and the more recent wording
  • playing with stuff about IAR
A history page takes care of all of these problems. The bizarre formatting issues should be way less if this was a normal page. A history page would cover both versions of the wording and how they came about etc. And a history page would cover stuff about IAR--including things Jimbo and Sanger said, various essays, and how it's changed and been interpreted over time. And this way, when we got into edit wars, we'd actually have something to war about. We might have less fun this way, but it sounds like it's worth a try to me. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:33, May 21 2007
The reason I favor a very brief sentence or ideally a blank page is because ignore all rules is one policy that requires thought, and is in fact about the editor thinking about how his actions relate to the project goals. Popping in a history page would superficially be okay, but I think it would be terribly damaging, because it would encourage people to read the history page and then raise all kinds of procedural quibbles that we've seen here. This policy says that such procedural quibbles don't matter. The history of this page doesn't matter. --Tony Sidaway 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But, these procedural quibbles aren't going to go away either. If the history page didn't focus on where everything was, (though I find comments with titles like #threw the page upside down for a sec hysterical), but on the history of the policy and changes made to it, and essays about it and snowball and arbcom decisions etc--that would be different. The history page could also just come outright and say that the IAR policy/guideline/important to wiki page was plauged by the procedural quibbles (the kind that are supposed to be ignored in favor of improving the wiki) and so the page went through hundreds of stylings and other minor changes (like edit wars over synonyms).
This seems to me to be the best idea. I think a blank page is confusing--it's like an in joke. If you know, you know and if you don't, you don't. And wikilinking won't help the confused newbie. I think a one-line page is equally bad. There really is the newbie to think of and one-line pages don't make sense in wikipedia--they don't have any feel of authority. They feel like a brand new article that's about to be speedied, and this one especially might be considered to be a joke. Tags etc are what says "yes, this isn't just a newly created page by a vandal", and tags go further and explain what the page is. It's more and less important, depending on the page, but without any tags or cats or anything, this is one line and that's got to be confusing as hell. Unless you wnt to do one line, with no tags, no nothing and have the "ignore all rules" part of that link to the history of ignore all rules. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:45, May 21 2007
Actually, the only reason you oppose reflecting on its history is that its history is what makes IAR lose the value that you treasure for it. It was never meant to be a club to ignore consensus or disallow for good faith input and additions. That's what it's become, however, and the history of the page takes away from such nonsensical disruption. Lose the history and you lose the context, thus benefiting your ideal - that can't and shouldn't fly. Revisionism must be combatted at every turn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The status quo version of this page actually linked to "Rules To Consider" showing that RULES are no longer what they were initially envisioned to be either... Revisionism all around. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
MM's version is quite good, and has my support as well. A blank page would be second best, but for different reasons than Tony wants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Say, there's an idea, let's blank every page that is in dispute :) >Radiant< 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of M&Ms and colouring outside the lines--will I ever get a reply or did you forget about me again? Want this blanked? Get IAR a lawyer :) Miss Mondegreen talk  13:33, May 21 2007
I didn't forget you, I got distracted by something funny and other issues. Honestly. Beat me over the head, it's the only way I'll stay focused. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what I'm doing now? Miss Mondegreen talk  14:45, May 21 2007

WP:HAIKU has it right

Ignore all the rules
Only if they do not work;
This is very rare.



And it's not the house that Jimbo or Sanger made, it's the house that somebody who could count to 17 made. Clearly infinitely preferable. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:58, May 21 2007

s/rare/common. Our guideline pages seriously suck. Seriously! ;-) --Kim Bruning 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Though soon someone will tell us that the guidelines are perfect and were handed down to Mozes on stone tablets ;-)
I need a translation guide to follow on wiki talk! I could have sworn it was Buddha who spent time in the forests carving some ice chips but what do I know? Miss Mondegreen talk  20:33, May 21 2007 (UTC)

WHOLLY CARP!

Did someone just create new policy that's different from this policy by one line because this was protected? And then rant to no-one on the new policy's talk page as though it were the real IAR talk page? And then list it as an essay for consideration here?

That's it! Delete the policy and remove it from the minds of everyone in existance. You have GOT to be kidding me! Miss Mondegreen talk  20:38, May 21 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, that was fast. Look like the shortcut is also gone. Ironically, the simple and kind version was neither simple nor kind. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:46, May 21 2007 (UTC)

Proposed action plan:

  • Try to establish consensus for the version in Mondegreen's sandbox.
  • Use that version.
  • Run away!!!

--User:Krator (t c) 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a solution

#redirect [[Wikipedia:Follow all rules]]

It explains Ignore all rules in a way that is accessible and amusing. --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Lovely! >Radiant< 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Until a new user tries to fix it. The problem is all of the things that are perfect have a CABAL aspect to them. I suppose it is one way of avoiding paper cuts. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:24, May 21 2007
Too true, Miss Mondegreen. I can imagine a lot of new users getting confused about this redirect. Well Drawn Charlie 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Course, that is one of the things that makes it so tempting isn't it? Miss Mondegreen talk  18:45, May 21 2007
Indeed. The poor, bemused little face of the newbie... Well Drawn Charlie 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd be bemused--they'd be something else entirely. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:14, May 21 2007 (UTC)
So is the well drawn just a dig at those who aren't? Or do you stay inside the lines? Miss Mondegreen talk  20:50, May 21 2007 (UTC)
Well, this wouldn't really work as a solution given the state of the community. But it is a lovely essay. >Radiant< 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Zen of Ignore All Rules

I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but I've created Wikipedia:The Zen of Ignore All Rules, and would like to mention it here. Make of it what you will. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are already a lot of essays about IAR. Perhaps you would consider merging yours with another one? --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What page would you suggest merging it with, then? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the above section "Opinions on essays", there are a lot of essays there which may be suitable for this page to be merged with. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit too metaphysical for Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, and wouldn't fit in with the rest. So, I repeat: What page would you suggest merging it with, then? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The language "for advanced users" is really not good. We don't need yet another thing of contention on the talk page. Also, while this is a good opinion, and something that's been said again and again, this is not easy for the average reader to understand. It doesn't read like an essay--the only way you get away with that tag is that is, in fact, an opinion that is being expressed, and it really shouldn't be under see also--not yet anyway. I'd like to see it expanded, etc, with explanation to back up what you're saying--then I'd see it belonging there. I do understand wanting to phrase something a particular way--I think the IAR haiku is one of the best IAR phrasings I've ever heard, but your page is hard to understand (the haiku is not), and doesn't really provide additional material on IAR (or similar wikithinking/behavoir) the way something in see also is expected to. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:22, May 26 2007 (UTC)

For the record

I'm fine with status quo ante, but so far I think I like this version. "Rules" and "Wikipedia" have Wikipedia-specific meanings, and those can be hyperlinked. The other ten words are plain english. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

erm, they are wikilinked in the version you linked to :? So basically, you like either the full blown version or the uber-minimalist version? That confuses me.
Ok--this is where I think we stand. The following users have expressed support for the version that's currently in my userbox--or at least enough support that they've agreed not to edit in circles on their fine points but to talk in circles here instead:
  • badlydrawnjeff
  • MalcolmGin
  • Krator
  • GTBacchus
  • Visviva
  • Miss Mondegreen


The following users have expressed an opinion that says that they would like a different version:
  • Tony Sidaway:

"It's far too big. I still think a blank page would be best, and a single very brief sentence a distant second best."


The following users have commented on this page during this time but havn't commented about this issue yet
  • JulesH (snowball clause)
  • Kim Bruning
  • Eagle101 (editprotection)
  • Radiant! (editprotection)
  • Charlie MacKenzie
  • JungianPPP (false forked IAR)


Other things that have been discussed:
  • deleting IAR
  • blanking IAR
  • redirecting IAR to Wikipedia:Follow all rules
  • creating a history page and
    • linking to it from IAR
    • redirecting IAR to Wikipedia:History of IAR
    • keeping one sentence versions of the page (not even cats) that links to Wikipedia:History of IAR
  • doing something cool with the IAR haiku
  • the CABAL, Voltaire and Monty PythonCoconuts!
If the bangers count--we have consensus. If not, well, we have nuts either way! Miss Mondegreen talk  00:17, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Not counting the protectors of editing, we have as many people who have said "prefer something else" or who have abstained as who have agreed. And it's the second number that worries me more than the first. Can we just get more comments in general? Miss Mondegreen talk  00:23, May 22 2007 (UTC)
I did file an RfC but no one's coming by! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're not getting input fast enough, maybe you can extend a personal invite to some of the admins over at DRV who you think abuse IAR. Maybe even Guy Chapman, whose name we have taken in vain several times, but who hasn't commented yet. Seems only right after all. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No thank you, but feel free to do so yourself. I'm sort of in minimal mode as I'm dealing with lots of houseguests and an upcoming trip. Afterwards, I should be Okay for such investments of energy and time. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happier with a slower pace, actually. Given what you've just said, I'm not sure why you're not. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I come by it honestly. By that I mean that it runs in the family. Also, as a practicing Taoist, change is good. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
As a stubborn old fool, I remember the good old days of typewriters, rotary phones, and I've forgotten my point. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to chase someone off my lawn. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You damn kids! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see a significant difference between the versions, except if your intent is to remove the "see also" section? If so I'd object to that; while it shouldn't be big, a few links would help explaining things. >Radiant< 07:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't all of the versions have see also sections? One has stuff in a hidden box to make the page minimalistic, but still have the content available. One is the current version of the page. And one is the one on my subpage--which is inbetween. It gets rid of the policy box and restructures a few things to make the policy stand out more (which is one of the arguments for minimalism), but it doesn't have the hidden box. The content is still there, it isn't hidden, it's not doing something bizarre, but the policy is still forward and center and more readable. ya? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:53, May 23 2007 (UTC)
The more severely minimalist versions, prior to the actual edit war, omitted the See Also section entirely. -- Visviva 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ya :) The "I like this one" version at the top of this section lacks links; I thought that was being discussed? Other than that I don't see much of a difference between that and the current version. I have no objection to changing or adding to the wording, by the way. >Radiant< 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Vivisa is right--the longer version of the hidden box was comprimise in itself.
You'll notice that I listed people's opinions, I listed who agreed and disagreed with the mini-consensus. The opinion's you were looking at at the top of this section were by Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri, who disagreed with consensus and was stating which versions he liked.
The earlier discussions on which versions to use are located at #The current version. The page most people seem to agree on at this moment is this version. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:27, May 23 2007 (UTC)
I disagreed with what? Oh, bother. Well, anyway, I've had a go at your version. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, those references really bother me. I don't know why--they're just ugly. And I don't bother to read them this way. Also...can the word paradoxically be added back? I miss the statement of the obvious. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:32, May 24 2007 (UTC)

edited page towards consensus

The edit protection wore off and so I edited the page towards the version that had the most consensus (see #For the record above).

My IAR sandbox is still open, and I think messing there might prevent some edit warring here, so please, let's continue to discuss ideas, changes, and let's try using the sandbox to demonstrate your change and getting consensus first. Just a little less being bold here.

In that vein, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri has done that, and made some changes to the version that does have consensus. I don't so much mind his version--it doesn't have the fugly source links and paradox is in there and the policy is still easily readable.

It didn't have consensus so I didn't put his version here, but I'd certainly be willing to use his version. I'm still not sure if I like the policy box or not, and little things like that but all the things worth really quibbling about are dealt with for me.

Can we get greater consensus? Do the people who agreed to use the first version of my subpage agree to this one or can Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri agree to use the firt version of the subpage? Miss Mondegreen talk  11:10, May 25 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your fine work! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well done (don't let it get to your head now) .. Given lack of objection here, I've been a bit bold with my version. Now I haven't put the ticky box back, but I did unlink "ignore them" (it's english as I said) and change the header text. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not super thrilled, but I guess it works... at any rate, it's an interesting way of bringing the header box "into the conversation." -- Visviva 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You're referring to the current version that has the new policy box? Does this mean you liked my version of my sandbox (the one without the policy box and with the sanger quote and the two column references) better then this version? Miss Mondegreen talk  01:46, May 26 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that (with a show/hide box for the supplementary material) would have been my ideal version. However, the current version is fine by me. -- Visviva 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*nods* Fine by me seems to be a major improvement. Now we can make hundreds of minor changes until someone breaks and the whole thing starts all over again :). You can't think of anyway to work the haiku in to the current page can you? Because that, admittedly, is a serious weakness of mine.
Speaking of the show/hide box, do we have any idea why it wasn't working under certain browsing conditions? It's used in lots of articles and if certain backgrounds etc can't support it, isn't that a much greater issue than we made it out to be? Miss Mondegreen talk  05:36, May 26 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted back to the last stable version. Theres far too much edit warring over something that really should be common sense. Lets adress some issues here people. The version that was the stable one up untill last week, what's everyones issues with it? Seriously, maybe we can address them, or maybe they're just off the deep end, but this is really one of the simplest pages on the whole damn 'pedia. Something is wrong with us if it's causeing this much grief. -Mask? 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didnt like all the hand wringing in the last one, but thats a preference, my only real issue is a lot of weirdly formatted text that was at the top made it hard to read, and didnt seem to adequately convey that this is policy, let alone one of the 5 Pillars. The last version of it almost seemed ashamed of itself. Im fully open to reworking the page, just that reworking it can not sacrifice readability or usability. -Mask? 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this better ? If "ashamed of itself" is what I've acheived, it was not at all what I intended. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That looks ideal. -Mask? 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No mask, it wasn't the stable version up until last week--I have no idea where you got that idea. That particular box hasn't been used for forever, and we've spent the week that this has been blocked discussing the issues with the formatting and content of the page. Granted, consensus is small and not particularly strong, but the whole purpose behind the block was to keep people from reverting to whatever they wanted instead of discussing etc. As soon as the block was over and the page changed to current consensus, look what happened. If you have specific issues with the page, please discuss them. I'm going to try putting up abu's version, which has a policy box but doesn't make Sanger's version a see also and keeps the paradoxically text. It's only slightly different from the version that had the rest of the editor's consensus and I'm fine with those changes, though personally, I'd like the actual text of the original IAR on the page, which is something that may have been important to the other editors. If they say so, they can feel free to revert to the version that we'd agreed on during the block.
  • Please, mention what specific issues you have with the page. What the sticking points are for you, what you want to see there and what you don't. And we'll work. But just because the page is unprotected now doesn't mean that we're ignoring consensus and discussion. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:04, May 25 2007 (UTC)
  • The current version is by far the best I've seen this policy. — Deckiller 01:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • W00t! Consensus charges forward! Can we block the socks running amuck on the page and give my watchlist an IAR break? And all y'all who thinks that the world would be better if we just had a little less whitespace...I've never seen a version of this page that didn't need it. Seriously--the actually policy is a handful of words and the rest of the page is a LOT. Whitespace and other formatting to differentiate is important...not moats worth, just a little, like there is now.
    • I really like this policy box btw. The paradoxically softens this, which I think is necessary, and it gets in the original version and Jimbo's declaration without taking up yards or really ugly references. I also think it well frames IAR in the history of Wikipedia and it's current standpoint. It says, "take it for what it is" without saying that. I would like to link to the haiku somewhere or do something with it though. It's such a lovely haiku. But that's really more of a fancy. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:08, May 26 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not your sandbox

Believe it or not, people do actually work on this page. I'm beginning to believe that the solution is permanent protection and changes can only occur when consensus occurs on the talk page and we request editprotection.

As soon as this page is protected and people have to talk and agree, everyone leaves and gets bored. As soon as they can treat it like their sandbox again, whooppee, everyone's back.

You can't just get annoyed with the current version of the page and decide to throw it out. Or, when you wonder what it would look like blank, decide to try that. WP:IAR is not your sandbox. The reason that there's never any consensus here is that half of the editors here don't treat this like a real page, and the talk page is used for theoretical discussions on the application thereof--no one cares if this is locked, etc over and over and over again, because as soon as it's unlocked, they get their toys back.

In the interest of consensus, any of our other policies or just plain trying something new, let's try not to destroy IAR. If you want to make a MAJOR change, try getting consensus. That's what we do when we try and make major changes to policies and guidelines. And, little things like text size, etc, we can quibble over, take straw polls, or try good old fashioned compromising. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:20, May 26 2007 (UTC)

The small icon for listen to is a really bad idea for people who don't load images (the whole website isn't bobby friendly but this is especially so), and this page is for more than us to play around with. People who aren't familiar with the idea of the spoken wikipedia are going to want more information and not know what it's about. You can't have a link and just expect people to know without telling them what's it's for. And especially with downloading files, a lot of times people won't click to find out.
Also, let's not start an edit war by removing references to the sanger version. The way it's done now, it's there, it's subtle and it points out various stuff about IAR that people want (like how on earth you can have a policy about ignoring rules)--the paradoxically thing was Jimbo's initial response to it. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:40, May 26 2007 (UTC)
This is why I think it's better to have a blank page. Nothing to reformat, tweak, add references and essays to, and best of all: nothing to wikilawyer. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
...and nothing of any value.
Are you seriously proposing page-blanking as a solution to content disputes? Would you apply this to every project page? How about the encyclopedia proper? —David Levy 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm not aware of Ignore all rules as a content dispute. The reason I favor a blank page is given above, and it's more about eliminating wikilawyering than dealing with disputes over what the content of the policy is. It's like having a wheatstone bridge--you know you've got the right measure when the needle is on zero. You know Ignore all rules isn't being bent, spindled and mutilated when the content of the page is zero. The policy will still apply and its meaning will be obvious.
What is "boxcruft"? --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A blank page is utterly useless, Tony. The policy's meaning is not obvious to some people, and the page exists for the benefit of precisely these individuals. —David Levy 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it's useless. I think it's more use than a page with contents that are subject to misinterpretation, because it forces the reader to consider the policy for himself, particularly how it might apply to a person like himself, who is intent on improving the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Every policy page is subject to misinterpretation. Should we solve this problem by blanking all of them? —David Levy 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Audacious! I like it! --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That could be the best idea I've heard yet on Wikipedia. I've long held we need to reboot the "community" - perhaps that should be WP:COMMUNITY or some similar WP:CAPITALISEDGIBBERISH - and that would be an excellent way to do it. See straw poll below. - David Gerard 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite how Wikipedia:Consensus works. Some people here haven't quite been following that, though.

While we're at it, can we go back to actually dealing with boxcruft, or is that a lost cause? --Kim Bruning 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like some people are editing the page to improve it, and some people are dumbly applying rules without thinking (thus violating IAR)... I wonder if we could block those? <very innocent look> --Kim Bruning 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? —David Levy 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

, simple really! ;-) --Kim Bruning 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
By golly, I think you've got it. --Kim Bruning 20:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) though I'll be using {{divbox}} in future ;-)


Kim--does that mean you liked this better? Or that with the show/hide box? The new policy box is a compromise between the compromise and people who really wanted a policy box. Btw, everyone who keeps changing the size of the actual policy: the size was made BIG and CENTERED and SPACED so that people could SEE it, because the alternative was SMALL and had no spacing at all. The current version of slightly big, not centered and slightly spaced is a compromise. Don't break it please. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:43, May 26 2007 (UTC)
The show-hide was a compromise I could live with. The version in your userspace still has all the clutter, but at least it's kept below the line. :-/
I don't mind any particular box in particular. It just happens that currently all the boxes and required elements and goodness knows what put together are obscuring the actual text! :-P

--Kim Bruning 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The show-hide box was a no-no. It didn't work with some backgrounds IIRC. Particular particulars? Heh. Yah, I do know what you mean, but getting rid of the stuff is problematic, as the stuff tells a lot about the text. If you don't know anything about IAR, you probably want to know that it's policy, how it came about and a few other things. One sentence really isn't helpful to you at all, just confusing as all get out. Which was one of the reasons for making it larger and centering it and getting rid of the policy box. Everything else could be put on the bottom of the page, so no policy box, easier to read policy, and if it's so small that someone who knows it's there has trouble finding it and reading it...PROBLEM!
Personally, I'm cool with both versions, though with the policy box one, I'd like to see it recentered etc, to make it more readable. I think they present the exact same information (no?) they just do it differently, so it comes down to readability and presenting information fairly (people thought that no policy box somehow said we were ashamed that it was policy). If you look above, you'll notice that there are about a half dozen votes for the no-policy box version, so I think we could easily move to that--it doesn't have a ton of consensus, but it has more than "word!" or blanking the page does. Or, if people respond to my comment below and talk this out, that would work too. I don't hold much hope though. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:11, May 26 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you can't beat 'em ... declare it to be an ancient tradition. ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Word

As amusing as JzG's version is, we all look like idiots. We're NOT the only one's who use this page--wikipedia is for the readers, not the writers. We really need to start applying some rules here, shocking as that may seem. We have procedures for majorly changing policies and guidelines. Propose it on the talk page first, get consensus then make your move. None of youmost of you would never dream of do this to any other policy page. Everyone here has some grand notion on how this should be treated, but all you're really doing is treating the page like a joke and treating wikipedia like a joke.

Now let's try for some consensus. We used Abu's version because it appeared people wanted some box action, but up until that point, the minimalist/box-cruft compromise had had consensus. Instead of continuing to wheel-war endlessly here, let's hear opinions. You don't like one of these versions? Put your own up for opinions. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:54, May 26 2007 (UTC)

The irony of your statement is hopefully not lost on you. ;-) Actually, it might be an interesting idea to start a tradition where anyone can change the format of this page, but not the actual policy text, and can do so every day, or whenever they have the whim. <grin> --Kim Bruning 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with the boxes? Some people may like boxes, but I don't. What are the justifications being made for boxes? What are they for? --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What Kim said. Louder. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I like Kim's idea. It would help dispell the myth that just because this is policy, it can't be touched by ordinary editors. Picaroon (Talk) 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the irony is not lost on me. That's the problem--the irony of the page seems to have overwhelmed the actual page--about five seconds after Sanger said it the first time. And Tony--boxes categorize this, not in wiki categories, though they do, just in general. A statement on a random page of wiki means nothing to an editor without an explanation. Boxes explain and place. This page is in a WP namespace, so it's a page about wikipedia, and so on and so forth. This stuff may clutter and annoy for those of us familiar with all of the stuff, who don't need the stuff to place the one line, who get it--but for a random newbie, this stuff is important. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:14, May 26 2007 (UTC)
That idea would work fine except that we're having content issues first. Why don't we deal with those, and then deal with whether or not the text should blink or have a black background? Because the page is once again locked, and it's once again using the standard policy box while locking, and that's a big content change--in addition to the removal of it's origins as a statement and as a policy, this version of the policy box says something very different--"that it's a standard all users should follow" and you know that's a problem, especially considering that it's generally following this standard that gets the page locked. So can we deal with one thing at a time? Please? And can we stop telling people that this is a standard they should follow? Seriously, this might be the only time that there really is a WRONG VERSION. This version of the page is telling people to go forth and do exactly what got the page locked. Does no one see a problem with that? Also, where's the protected no endorsement tag? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:23, May 26 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

No, really. You've spent all day on this page, some vandalising, some trying to warp its meaning by introducing weasel words, some adding frivolous formatting. The net effect of this effort is null. No more, please. Thank you & happy editing (elsewhere), Миша13 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Heya. There's just lots of people playing with the page at once. Nothing to see here, move along. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And the ultimate goal being ... ? Oh wait, it's "playing" - there is no point. Got it. Миша13 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Aside from my other opinions on IAR, I think it's a bad idea (aka wrong version) to tell people that this is a "standard all users should follow", when it was following that exact standard that got the page locked. Following this standard elsewhere will almost certainly result in warnings and/or blocks, and this page is for the readers and invokers of policy, not just for us to mess around with.

At the very least, this page needs a "protection is not endorsement of current version" tag. Thanks. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:29, May 26 2007 (UTC)

Full reasoning follows. Instead of reverting, I have jsut basically rewritten the page according to the following checklist:

  1. Is it policy? Check. It "always has been" => {{policy}}
  2. What's the shortcut? WP:IAR. Check. => {{shortcut|WP:IAR}}
  3. Finally, what's the actual content? Well, it's always been the KISS "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". Check.

That's it. What else is really worth adding (except for external links)? In this case, protection is an endorsement of the One True Version (TM). And no, it wasn't "following that exact standard that got the page locked". People were playing with this page - that doesn't "improve or maintain" Wikipedia in any way. Миша13 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put a pp-dispute tag on the page, as that's what it is. Small icons are for long term protection only, and that's not what this is. Other than that, saying it will cause people to get blocked because it's tagged as official policy is somewhat naive and wholelly untrue. --Deskana (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Misza: That's not how you make guidelines. :-/ --Kim Bruning 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's adequate in this case. Worst that happens is we wait five days. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Using my words against me eh? ;-)
In this case, I think we're seeing that protection is not productive, though I'm willing to be a bit patient, I guess.
I'd much rather do fast paced BRD and use that to educate people about IAR, and wikipedia guidelines in general. It would be a fun tradition even. We'd need some "keepers of the Ignore" though ;) --Kim Bruning 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) seems like an interesting way to help with acculturation issues
I actually think there's something to the idea. We could probably work something out. But we can take a nap first. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Time for some vitamine Z! :-) --Kim Bruning 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ZZzzz

(edit conflict)

"You've spent all day on this page, some vandalising, some trying to warp its meaning by introducing weasel words, some adding frivolous formatting."

That's quite an accusation. Some of the playing on the page really was stupid, frivolous and had nothing to do with wiki-improvement. And yes, I'm talking about blinking text and black backgrounds. That's wp:point making it I ever saw it. And there's been some sock-puppet action and some people doing stupid things like replacing policy with "word". But the rest of it was to improve the wiki--even if we couldn't agree on how or ignored the rules in order to do so. Weasel words? It sounds to me like you're less than impartial, especially since when protecting to stop an edit war you didn't protect the current version, bur reverted to your preferred version and protected that. Frivolous formattting? Some, I'm sure. However being able to see what's on the page doesn't strike me as frivolous. And that's what a lot of this was about.

Clearly you have your own opinions, strong ones at that about how this page should look. You think that the Sanger version is unecessary, that a link to why we call this policy (i.e. Jimbo said so) is unnecessary, you think formatting the policy so that it's readable is unnecessary. But when you came in and protected, you were supposed to be a neutral party:

"Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Clearly there are no issues of legal impact here. And if you considered this version vandalism the way to handle it was by reverting to the most recent version that wasn't vandalism, not rewriting it to support your version of the page. Temporary page protection due to edit warring is not supposed to be used to endorse any particular version of the page, and admins are most especially not supposed to take advantage of an edit war (and the necessity of page protection) to change the page to a version that they support and then lock it in that way. That you purposefully omitted the {{pp-dispute}} templates and admitted that you were using protection to endorse a particular version of this page...it's a blatant misuse of your powers as an admin--made worse by the fact that you admitted it as though there were no issue with your misusing your powers. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:28, May 26 2007 (UTC)

Content of this page

Text: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Links: rules -> WP:RULES, Wikipedia -> Wikipedia. Eleven of the twelve words are in plain english. I can see the argument for linking "rules". But I think we can dispense with the haikus and other hidden links.

Please? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure we got that covered. Rockstar (T/C) 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal thoughts on why IAR makes sense

IAR doesn't always seem like an intuitive thing to grasp. It smells like anarchy and can look like abuse of power. The point is though, if you ignore rules in the cause of something reasonable, then you've done good. I can't think of an argument I can make that following rules when they lead to a bad result in a particular circumstance is a good idea. On a personal level, the principle makes most sense to me in the way that Zhuangzi's criticism of the rites (identified as Confucian) seems natural. It can also be likened to civil disobedience; this isn't a bad thing, since civil disobedience (certainly Thoreau's conception) is the idea that one should disregard laws that constrain oneself from doing the right thing. IAR makes sense on a philosophical level, and I think it would be good to think about why that is. If you'll bear with me, I'm going to post some quotations below in case anybody wants to think about them. They make the most sense in context, but since the Zhuangzi, Politics, and "Civil Disobedience" are very well known works, you shouldn't have trouble filling in the context yourself, I hope.

What matters in being loyal or just is that you do fulfil the charge, in a wine-feast that you do enjoy, in mourning that you do grieve, in serving parents that you do please them. To the glory of fulfilling the charge you can pick your own route; in serving parents, if you do please them they won't raise difficulties about how you did it; in the wine-feast, if you do enjoy you won't be finicky about the cups; in mourning, if you do grieve no one quibbles about the rite.

The rites are what the custom of the times has established. The genuine is the means by which we draw upon Heaven; it is spontaneous and irreplaceable. Therefore the sage, taking Heaven as his model, values the genuine and is untramelled by custom. The fool does the opposite; incapable of taking Heaven as his model he frets about man, ignorant of how to value the genuine he timidly lets himself be altered by custom, and so is an unsatisfied man. What a pity you were steeped so soon in man's artificialities, and are so late in hearing the greatest Way!

—Zhuangzi, trans. A.C. Graham


Laws must be established, but they must not have authority insofar as they deviate from what is best, though they should certainly have authority everywhere else.

—Aristotle


Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?— in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

—Henry David Thoreau

In my opinion any of these would do as text for the page, the first one especially, but that seems to be a controversial topic at the moment. :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you actually went and made it all well formatted too! Thank you so much Dmcdevit! :-) --Kim Bruning 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it looked like an ugly heap of text before that. It's just stolen from my user page, anyway, where it's been for months. Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
They would do sooo much better on Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Миша13 10:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Current version is OK - let us keep it for a bit

I think the current version is good. What about letting it stay for a while, and avoid protecting the wrong version?

--User:Krator (t c) 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why this page has had about 100 edits in the past couple of days without changing at all? Seriously, can we waste our time on something more worthwhile? Yonatan talk 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting story. You can read some of it above. If you have any questions, please drop me a line!
In brief summary, I'm on my once-in-a-while IAR spring cleaning™*, and incidentally trying to get some folks to actually learn more about ignore all rules and consensus. Each time you do the rounds, it gets harder and harder, due to growth of wikipedia and the inevitable additional friction this causes. Want to help out? --Kim Bruning 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC) *Not nescesarily in spring
Where should I start? :) Yonatan talk 08:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop those people (*cough* terrorists) from trying to remove that crucial whitespace from the project page. Rockstar (T/C) 08:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we are now taking ourselves as seriously as we should be. O:-) --Kim Bruning 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC) well maybe it's gone the other way and we're still not being productive, but people will slowly drift back to boringness again, and somewhere along the gradient we'll surely see some productivity ;-)
Hey folks, I went to the page for the first time in a while, and I have to say that it is looking particularly clean and fresh. I think it's the excellent spacing between everything. --Milton 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The excess whitespace inspires vandals to completely blank the page; per WP:BEANS, we need to eliminate this vandal inspiration. Obviously, if you're in favor of keeping the whitespace, you support vandalism, and are probably a sockpuppet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would tell you that by providing a link to WP:BEANS, you are encouraging people to violate WP:BEANS, in a horrid Catch-22. However, my strings were recently cut, so I can't say that. --Milton 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Better a vandal than a fascist, right? God save the queen... after I take these beans out of my nose. Rockstar (T/C) 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Be a Dick

It should stay. It's possible to follow Wikipedia:IAR and be a dick about it - especially when IAR includes rules of conduct. The link should stay. There are enough people on here who need all the reminders they can get. --Milton 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people need all the help that they can get. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I moved it down to the bottom of the "See Also" list. It should in no way be at the top -- it's more of an afterthought than a fundamental qualifier. Rockstar (T/C) 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Milton 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with it being moved down. Having it at the top sends the wrong message. --MichaelLinnear 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy or not?

Great, now we're having an actual edit war between two nearly identical versions that differ only in the extra "It has [...] follow" part. Am I being paranoid and see a systemic conspiracy to remove that or maybe I'm blind when seeing that the page is a {{policy}} with all implications of that fact? {{helpme}}, please! Миша13 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one reversion is really an edit war (and it's as many reverts as I'll be doing on this matter)... But anyway, the existing version developed dynamically out of the above discussion and previous BRD history over the past several days, and expresses what appears to be a widely-shared feeling that the standard policy template overshadows both the spirit and the letter(s) of this highly unique and critically important policy. Also, I don't really see in what meaningful sense can IAR be "a standard all users should follow"... Anyway, just my 2c; I'm off for now. -- Visviva 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
People were confused by the nonstandard tag here. That was apparently resolved by simply using {{policy}}. Unless people wish to instate some hierarchy where one policy is more policic (?) than other policies, I see no real reason not to. But it's too WP:LAME to argue about, really. >Radiant< 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

see also

These go in a really nice order. Everything important is there--nothing unnecessary is--it starts with common sense, ends with don't be a dick and the whole thing flows nicely. We should keep this order. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:55, May 29 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest adding links to WP:PPP and WP:SNOW, as discussed earlier on this page. >Radiant< 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with the earlier comments that while PPP's comments are great, it's too unrelated. It's an explanatory essay, but not really about IAR. We get further away from IAR in some of the links, but those are essays that are about similar ideas or are taking the idea in a slightly different direction. There are only two really explanatory links and they are both very focused on IAR itself, which I think is as it should. WP:SNOW is now linked to from Trifecta. I agree with badlydrawn that the ArbCom decision alone is a good reason not to link to it. I think your comment earlier was right on the money--it's an action, not an essay and that's the problem. This is a very problematic issue when people act on it and we should sort that out. Also, WP:Snow is oddly unrelated to the other links. The other links are either explanations of IAR or essays that take the idea somewhere further. Snowball is neither. On another note--I know I like adding things to trifecta, but your essay is really prefect for the page. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:08, May 29 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually Jeff cites that arbcom decision out of context. He is to my knowledge the sole person who strongly believes that every single invocation of SNOW and/or IAR is inappropriate. >Radiant< 11:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't suppose you would provide context would you? I vaugely remember but can't find anything now. And no, I don't believe that every invocation is inappropriate, and indeed, it's something Jeff and I have been discussing, but that's irrelevant. Jeff may be a strong opponent of SNOW and IAR but that's that. His opinions should count neither more nor less because of his positions. Because jeff said so is not a good reason for doing something, likewise because jeff said it is not a good reason to ignore what was said. WP:SNOW causes serious problems, and it's the only page here that's an actual action page--which is the cause of the problem. Linking to WP:SNOW promotes it and legitimizes it. That may not be why you want to, but it's a consequence of the link. And so, IMO, WP:SNOW would need much more consensus and legitimacy than it has now. It should earn the legitimacy and consensus that the link implies, and not get through the implied legitimacy. That to me is like tagging ATT as policy in the dark and then going, "suprise"! The link is something I'm personally uncomfortable with on a number of levels and, seperately, I don't think it makes sense with the rest of the page. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:47, May 29 2007 (UTC)
          • I disagree with the notion that linking whatever page from whatever other page "legitimizes" it. Some people believe that having a "WP:" shortcut implies that a page is policy, other people believe that saying "Per <foo>" implies that foo is policy, but all these people are proven wrong by precedent. Likewise. >Radiant< 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I have never known an editor to be too conscientious in following proper policy and procedure. I have, though, known many to bend rules in whatever way they are able. I think a link to WP:SNOW would encourage such a perversion of normal policies, as WP:SNOW can be argued as very objective. As mentioned earlier, some people need all the help they can get. I think handing out WP:SNOW would cause more problems. Most thoughtful editors already know about it - if they commit the time to read all the policies, they're less likely to break them. I think... --Milton 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Really now. I know of several editors that apply rules blindly and resort to arguments-to-process rather than arguments-to-content all too often. For instance, look over the WP:DRV archives for arguments like "yes, this must definitely be deleted, but it shouldn't have been deleted the way it was, so we must undelete it now and invoke the Right Process to delete it the proper way". Or look over WP:RFA; I'd hate to point fingers but at least one candidate is being shot down essentially for being a policy wonk. Or read throughh CAT:REJ for such gems as the User Bill Of Rights, or the Wikiblower Policy, or the polyvalent bureaucratese straw poll.
                • The point is that Wikipedia isn't rule-based by design, and several pages describe that post facto, and that some people think they can change those facts by hiding the pages describing those facts. That is fundamentally ineffective. >Radiant< 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To put it differently - since its first incarnation, the Snowball Clause has been a corollary, subset, or whatever you call it, of "Ignore All Rules". Seems to me that a policy page should list its corollaries. Some people might not like those corollaries, but hiding the link to them is essentially playing ostrich. Whatever you think the problems are, looking the other way won't solve them. >Radiant< 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting 'playing ostrich'. I'm saying, 'hide the matches from the 2-year-old.' --Milton 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're not hiding the matches (that would be the edit button), but the cub scout book about fire building. Besides, in comparing editors to two-year-olds, you are essentially suggesting that Wikipedians are pretty dumb - however, this suggestion is proven wrong by the fact that Wikipedia works quite well. All it takes is a little faith. >Radiant< 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It does work well, but there are still plenty of dumb editors. But honestly, it really doesn't matter what I think, per WP:CONSENSUS. If you want that link in there, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milton Stanley (talk • contribs)
          • There are plenty of dumb editors. But you'd better hope there aren't plenty of dumb admins (who should be the only ones snowing discussions). Rockstar (T/C) 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please pay no attention whatsoever to Wikipedia:Ignore this page. >Radiant< 09:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above comment, and this one too. --Deskana (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Damnit, I lose! -- nae'blis 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
So did I. --Milton 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on essays

This is an idea that might clarify what people think about different approaches to "Ignore all rules" I'm listing all those essays that MalcolmGin collected above (thank you, Malcolm!), and under each one, setting up a section for reactions to that essay. We'll see if we can determine any kind of consensus from what people say, and then maybe we'll be more informed about how this page might be edited.

If anybody would like to add anything to the list, please feel free to do so, and to write it first, if it doesn't exist already. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy

(semi-draft status, but active)

reactions
  • Good This precisely is the interpretation of IAR I've come around to. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • neutral this makes a good point, but goes in one direction too much. Consensus is very important, however I think you all know that I feel very strongly about our core policies. You can have all the consensus you want on an article to say original research is okay in that article, but we all know its not. Consensus can be abused.--Crossmr 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems to be an attempt to rewrite Wikipedia policy to conform to the writer's opinion. --Tony Sidaway 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    You were arguing along the lines of this document on How to Modify policy very recently :-P --Kim Bruning 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Then perhaps I didn't understand this document. --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad- I can think of several situations where policy trumps consensus. WP:OFFICE, for one. Our fair use policy is another, at least for certain pages. Borisblue 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's the exception that proves the rule. (PS. The office OFFICE itself follows consensus, not policy too, wherever possible) --Kim Bruning 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not good. It's oxymoronic since policy is based upon consensus. In following policy (in a thoughtful way rather than a kneejerk one) you by definition follow consensus. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you actually read the article, it says so explicitly that policy is based on consensus. It then goes on to explain that consensus is formed first, and that then policy is modified. --Kim Bruning 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll chime in on a line on my own I guess. This particular document tries to explain how the wikipedia policy creation system actually works. It also explains some concepts about how to deal with Outside Context Problem-like situations. Basically a summary of experience. A provocative title was chosen so people can actually remember things better. The document should be explaining wiki, Product Policy Process, IAR, and how they work together in the field. If you have different experiences in the field, please please please please, please come and help out, before you leave wikipedia one day, and your experience becomes forever lost. --Kim Bruning 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Policy is consensus in most cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    In discussions on your talk page and with MalcolmGin, we found that policy pages lag behind consensus, or sometimes describe it imperfectly (this is inevitable on a wiki, as we all know ;-) ). So you should follow consensus, and not forget to write down what it is (else people will end up totally lost ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's quite a good essay. Certain articles may have special provisions behind them, that most editors agree that it follows policy while newly arrived users disagree. It is best for them to treat their intepreation as the current one, discuss with the current pool of editors to reach a consensus rather than to go your own way with your perception of the policy.--Kylohk 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad, unfortunately. - I realized Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be independent even from Wikipedia:Consensus, because, if not, anyone can't use WP:IAR when it should be used. -- JungianPPP 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad consensus cannot override foundational policies. If Wikipedians one day decide to make Wikipedia with advertising or become an "All Rights Reserved" encyclopedia, we can't follow that consensus. WooyiTalk to me? 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be evil

reactions
  • Weak Bad It's not horrible, but it is too vague and too open ended and doesn't talk about the possible abuses of IAR except in very vague terms. That said, it doesn't, at least, perpetuate what I've come to think of as the short sighted intepretation of IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad I agree it could use extensive addition to really explain what don't be evil means.--Crossmr 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The title is silly enough. Don't ask me to read it. --Tony Sidaway 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad. In terms of clarity, not much better than the WP:IAR page. Also, don't incur the wrath of the Almighty Google by stealing their motto. Borisblue 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This essay seems to assume that problems are caused by people actually trying to be "evil", instead of good. I don't think that's a very helpful hypothesis. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with GTB. – Steel 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely contradictory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Don't be evil itself is Very Good. Great. I think, however, who can know and correctly judge whose behavior is evil or whose edit is not evil? ( Strictly speaking, Nobody knows. Only God knows. ) If all editors obey this essay, it seems to spark more horrible and more meaningless edit-wars here and there. Anyway, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should not be replaced with this essay. -- JungianPPP 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules

reactions
  • Weak Good Not really as thoroughly explicit as Follow Consensus, not Policy, but pretty good. It also does not treat very thoroughly the kinds of excesses admins can potentially get into because it's written to reassure that non-admin editor. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Good Its a bit vague. It might more useful if we covered regularly occurring issues where IAR is applied inappropriately.--Crossmr 06:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A how-to guide on how to ignore all rules? This isn't helpful. Someone who needed to consult such a guide must surely have failed to read Ignore all rules, which is clear enough. --Tony Sidaway 08:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this talk page and its archives contain evidence aplenty that Ignore all rules is not, in fact, "clear enough". This essay has good advice in it, directed to administrators in particular, who are the users in the position to do the most damage by ignoring rules unwisely. I also like how it gives us a glimpse into how descriptive guidelines are grown in the light of our collective experience. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not bad but the next one is better. I'd suggest merging the two. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Should we actively promote how to do something so dumb? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Would you care to explain exactly what's dumb about it? It clearly doesn't seem that way to others, so maybe it's less obvious than you think. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's dumb to be disruptive, so it's equally dome to actively promote disruption. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Come on Jeff, why beg the question? Are you really not interested in ever uncovering the differing assumptions going on here? Please provide evidence that this essay encourages disruption.

    Communication has to involve some effort to get to the bottom of the disagreement, or would you rather go 'round in circles for a few more years? Please Jeff, talk to me in a way that's geared to convince, not simply to oppose. Do you know what I'm talking about here? It's less obvious than you think; in fact, you might be wrong. Argue with that in mind, and you'll certainly get more traction. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Partially Good essay, but, I think it is very obvious that all editors can never be equal, fortunately or unfortunately. Improve it. -- JungianPPP 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) We are fortunately or unfortunately very partial. It can't be helped. Improve it. In addition, I think, many people always want to get what they want. Without WP:IAR, Wikipedia would not be here now. Improve it. -- JungianPPP 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules - a beginners guide

reactions
  • Good I like this one. It's in the spirit of Follow consensus, not policy. Might make a good complement because it's more chatty and less systematic/formal. I'd think the two different approaches might work for different types of readers. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good Out of all of these, I think this one is most likely to help people understand without giving the impression that these are the "official" rules about IAR. Thanatosimii 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this essay. The approach is nicely informal, and it covers a lot of good points. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Effective. But the one a bit down (what IAR means) is still better. I'd suggest merging the three. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Snowball clause

reactions
  • Abstain My feelings about seeing this one abused are in strong conflict with my having a reasonable opinion about it. I think folks who abuse WP:SNOW are just as likely to abuse WP:IAR no matter what the language or the references, and I do note with pleasure that the WP:SNOW article currently does say that WP:SNOW actions that are objected to probably aren't good candidates for WP:SNOW (sort of like the best readings, I think, of CSD A7 wherein folks take the simple assertion of notability as a negation of CSD A7). It's just that I also note that folks who abuse WP:SNOW generally ignore or find rationalizations to ignore the inconvenient fact of someone objecting to its application and ignore the objection too. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tested in the field, invoked on a routine basis for nearly eighteen months now. --Tony Sidaway 08:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    And is always controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Always is quite a strong claim. I suspect you would have trouble justifying that (without using your warped definition of controversial, that is). – Steel 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, excluding the definition "Badlydrawnjeff doesn't like it", controversial applications of this mechanism seem to be quite rare. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Is "abstain" a reaction, when no particular question was being asked? It's hard not to vote, isn't it?

    I think the snowball clause has something to teach us. When used properly, it's a good example of what IAR is all about, and when used improperly, it's an example of just what IAR isn't all about. It gets taken the wrong way, just like this page, so I don't think it's an antidote for people taking this page the wrong way. People who don't "get" Ignore all rules also likely won't "get" the Snowball clause. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    • If you wish to take my comment as a vote, feel free. I think I made my feeling clear in the ensuing commentary, even though I did not wish to register an official summary opinion about the topic/application. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, Malcolm, I wasn't trying to bust your chops. I just was noticing how people like to put a single word in bold at the beginning of a reply in this kind of discussion. It's totally unnecessary to say good or bad or support or abstain, but it's no problem. I don't think your reply has got anything wrong with it; please forgive me if I suggested otherwise.
        • A bit late, this response, but, oddly, I started with the bold summary words because that's a custom I've seen used at DRV, and I find it interesting that you commented on the voting aspect of it, because voting is what it's said is not done at DRV (clearly in contravention of the actual facts at times). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I know the bold summary words are a tradition, but it's a tradition that tends to make discussions look more like votes, by suggesting that the important part is whether it's a "yea" or a "nay", and that the explanation is somehow secondary to that. I've had my opinion discounted in a discussion because I didn't use a bold summary word, and that's just wrong. It's true that DRV (along with AFD and RM) is too much like a vote. I'm not sure how to fix that, but I like to avoid the bold summary words when I can. I really didn't mean any kind of harsh criticism; I hope you didn't take it that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Thank you for taking the time to make your intention clear. I honestly didn't know what to think, which is why my first response was a little short, but thanks again for clarifying. No harm done, and interesting side-dicussion made. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an oft-used instance of this page, so it bears mention. Also, unlike everything else in this list, it's not an essay. It's an action, not a philosophy. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We should probably avoid linking a page that's so controversial, let alone one that ArbCom has considered dangerous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus

reactions
  • Weak Good I think this one works, but it is still a bit open-ended for my personal taste, though it does emphasize the importance of consensus in decision-making as well as as a check against too much practical ignoring. So my reservations are about its open-endedness and therefore the higher probability that someone will misinterpret it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • bad This one doesn't say anything new, and it does say something bad Of course, edit wars are bad, but your edit is an improvement, while the consensus reversion is damage, so all blame for "edit warring" lies with them. we shouldn't try and assign blame in this case. Since consensus is so important, anyone actively trying to apply IAR to shove through what they want is just as much to blame or more so.--Crossmr 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Our "Ignore all rules" policy is clear. This is just confusing. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I believe there are cases where policy trumps consensus. Borisblue 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This one puzzled me for a while.... "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean "ignore consensus", but that doesn't mean "ignore all rules except for the one about consensus". The point isn't to think of consensus as a sacred rule that must be honored; the point is not to worry about what is and isn't a rule, and to respect consensus and work towards it because that's how you get things done, not because it's a rule. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know... maybe this is a good one for some people. Anything that makes people listen to each other better can't be all bad. Just because it's not how I think about Wikipedia, doesn't mean it might not be very useful to someone else. Interesting essay... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in doubt about this one. Consensus is fundamental, but often misconstrued as headcount. This page isn't all that clear. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • More accurate than this, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means

reactions
  • Good Another one I like. Another one that I like because the format/approach is different, but the article talks about specifics in what I think is a very accessible way. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is very, very good. If asked about Ignore all rules, I might refer someone to this essay. --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably the best explanation I've seen. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty good! --Kim Bruning 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concise and to the point. The essay summarizes well all the good ways I see IAR being used in the field. Is there any way of giving this interpretation a semi-official status, or would that be controversial? nadav (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think anything done around this page would be controversial. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Product, process, policy

(only a short section is about IAR directly)

reactions
  • Good article, not right for inclusion here I like what little it has to say about IAR, but it's not enough, and the essay's not primarily about IAR anyway. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like many of Radiant's works, this is inciteful and informative. It should probably be on a recommended reading list for people who want to understand how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I think this bears mention here as one of the fundamentals. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is a great essay. It explains some of the counter-intuitive aspects of the wiki approach, including the important "descriptive not prescriptive" idea. It might belong in the "see also" section of WP:POL rather than here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators

(again, only a short section)

reactions
  • Good article, but not right for inclusion here I like what little this one says about IAR even more than the Product, process, policy article, but it's not as a whole about IAR, so not really suitable for inclusion here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wish more administrators would read this guide, which is pretty good. Perhaps it should also be more widely read by non-administrators. --Tony Sidaway 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Useful but too verbose. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Process is important

reactions
  • Good article but not suitable for inclusion here Another article I like, but it's not about interpretation of IAR except pretty tangentially. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A pretty comprehensive guide on how to misunderstand Wikipedia. If used, it should be attached to huge caveats. --Tony Sidaway 08:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This essay contains a lot of stuff that's true, in a lot of contexts... However, the basic thesis of the page is defiance against the way a wiki is supposed to work. That picture of Hammurabi's code at the top makes the page iconically bad, IMO. It's kind of beautiful, in a way. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally misguided. >Radiant< 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely necessary, should really replace IAR, but the community isn't mature enough for that yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Funny, I would say something like the opposite, that an immature community needs tightly controlled, black-and-white rules, while a more mature community can work with discretion and worry less about the details. It's certainly the case that the most mature artists are those who know how to break the "rules" of their art. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    The need for anarchy is opposite of the idea of maturity. That people need a charter to allow them to do as they please is almost the definition of immaturity. When writing an encyclopedia becomes artistry as opposed to knowledge-gathering, your analogy may be sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    I guess I already knew that you're more of an authority on what makes Wikipedia a mature community than any number of other Wikipedians. I'm not sure if it's because you're so much smarter, or more virtuous, or both, or something else, but I shouldn't have said anything, considering you're just right, and I and others are just wrong.

    Seriously though, are you able to provide any evidence for your claim, that maturity in a community is really as you describe it, or is it a faith-based claim, or what? How do you know what makes a wiki more of less mature? If you have a definition of immaturity that I don't, could you direct me to a source where I can learn more? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    By the way - I'm not talking about a "need for anarchy". I would appreciate if you check whether you actually understand me before replying to something I didn't say, nor would have said. Thanks for your consideration.

    If you can't distinguish the attitude towards rules that we're describing from "anarchy", then I hardly know what to tell you. They're different. Maybe you'll ask how, or maybe you'll figure you just know what I mean, and that I'm wrong. You seem comfortable enough doing that, over and over again, without providing a shred of evidence. Will this time be different? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Probably not. When I do provide evidence, it's soundly ignored, so why concern myself with it anymore? People will stoop to any level to defend the need to do as they wish, so why cooperate with them when they've consistently shown no urge to do the same. I guess when you have Jimbo sweep in and make a declarative statement on the matter, you don't need that, do you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Have I ignored evidence you've provided? Please tell me where, so I can apologize and remedy that situation. I'm extremely interested in productive dialogue, but it seems that you're putting up walls, and that makes me sad. Even in the above reply, you're exhibiting the same not-trying-to-get-anywhere type of rhetoric.

    Is your goal to be productive, or simply to have been the one making noise? You know that we've presented detailed explanations that we're not talking about "the need to do as [we] wish", yet you continue to present that unhelpful characterization of those who disagree with you. Why shouldn't I be insulted by your refusal to speak any kind of common language? Do you really not care about winning, just about fighting? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know if you have personally, you've been kinder to me than some people regarding this, but it is exhausting to be questioned the same thing repeatedly at this point. I don't think there's anywhere we can go at this point - people insist they need this policy with absolutely zero evidence, they ignore the fact (yes, fact, deal) that it's disruptive and divisive, and when one trows their hands up, it's being unhelpful and simply noisy. What else should I expect at this stage, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, there it is. You say that this policy is disruptive and divisive, necessarily and without doubt. That's a point on which reasonable people apparently disagree, so can we try to see why people might think one way or the other? Simply saying "yes it is", "no it isn't", back and forth isn't working, so let's try to get under and behind those assertions, and see why people say it isn't necessarily disruptive. Is that such a bad idea? Is it worse than the broken record we're currently stuck on? I'm trying to move this debate forward, and I won't be happy with more repetition. I'm trying my damndest to bring forth new arguments, and move this bitch. Let's talk with an aim to resolution, not just prolonged disagreement. Yes, it's difficult, and yes, it's entirely worth it.
    Now, you claim that there's no evidence that this policy is needed or good. Are you willing to listen with an open mind to evidence that it is good? I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of such evidence, and I'd love to talk with you about it, but only if it's going to be a real conversation, with listening on both sides. Can we do that, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don'tt hink there's a reasonable disagreement here - the reasonable people who claim as such actually usually aren't ignoring anything, and many of the people who are the most staunch defenders are also the most problematic users. I havw given copious amounts of evidence, and no one has shown me how it isn't disruptive, and no one cares to. When they try and I show them how it is, I get hounded and abused. Fuck that noise. I have listened, and the proponents cannot demonstrate it - that's a simple fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    When you say "no one has shown me how it isn't disruptive, and no one cares to," that's simply incorrect. I've offered you evidence, and you're rejected it, unfairly I think. Have you given my arguments a fair listen? I'd say no. "No one cares to" is especially incorrect. I don't appreciate being told what I don't care about. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I do believe I've given you a fair listen, because you deserve one, but I do disagree completely with your beliefs on the matter. I don't think the evidence supports your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, ok. You don't think the evidence supports my position, and I don't think it supports yours. I guess my thoughts are that the argument is more along the lines of "is the zebra black with white stripes or white with black stripes," but that's something we can at least talk about concretely. Which evidence does or doesn't support what, exactly? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    The evidence does not show that IAR isn't disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think we're agreed that misunderstandings of IAR are disruptive. The separate, and largely unaddressed issue, is whether IAR can be understood in a way that it not only isn't disruptive, but is tremendously beneficial, and central to the workings of Wikipedia. If that's the case, then we have a pretty good reason to try and correct the misunderstandings that are out there. Have you addressed this posibility? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've tried very hard to, yes. I don't see it, though - especially at our rate of growth and popularity, combined with the way it's been used in the past. As I've stated, if IAR is handled the way Sanger intended, my problems are minimal, but we know it's not working that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree it's not working as Sanger intended. I'd say Sanger doesn't understand Wikipedia. He may have initially written down IAR, but it's taken on a life of its own. We also agree that it's been used abusively in the past. That's why I'm working to change the way it's perceived, so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You might say there is no baby, but that's something we can talk about. That conversation hasn't really happened yet, at least not that I've seen. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think Wikipedia is working "as Larry Sanger intended." That's why Larry started Citizendium and -- in Larry's absence -- Wikipedia has become such an enormous success, due (in no small part) to the application of IAR. An argument can be made that IAR is an attractive nuisance for clueless idiots and power-mad admins, one with which I respectfully disagree. To wit, if IAR could somehow be removed from the Wikiality timeline, clueless idiots and power-mad admins would find some other slender reed to rationalize their misguided actions. That's just what they do. Meanwhile, perhaps Badlydrawnjeff could recaptiulate and summarize his previous inculcations in opposition to IAR into an essay entitled Wikipedia:Why Ignore all rules is evil. // Internet Esquire 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    That would be "IAR considered harmful", you insensitive clod! --Kim Bruning 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) O:-)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0)

diminishing marginal utility is fun!

Wow editing this page is fun! It's like editing my user page, only it looks more important and isn't nearly as stressful.

What do you think of this?

I read the talk page before I hacked away people, and I looked at the edits that have been going on, and I think it achieves what everyone wants.

The page is streamlined, and everything on the page the can be seen when the box is closed lines up together. The only exception is IAR itself (which, obviously should be an exception), but centering it and making it slightly bigger means that it isn't drowned by everything on the page, and that the cats can come back (and those really should be there). Everything else is under more detail, so the stuff isn't lost, and even when the box is opened, because of the centering and larger text, the policy is still really prominent.

Also, I made the background colour of the box bluer--it blended better with the background I'm using, which is the default background, and the off white was making me depressed and nervous. It is also too similar to other colours (like the cat box and the background of the page, and it didn't look right. I think this colour works open and closed on the default skin, let me know about the others. *starts counting the seconds until someone reverts* Miss Mondegreen talk  00:52, May 20 2007

a few edits later I removed the little link to the spoken work version at the top, and added the box in the more info section. I think both halves look better independently, I think the page looks better as a whole, and it also provides more info and choices for the reader. Opinions? Miss Mondegreen talk  01:16, May 20 2007


Revision of wording

None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines can account for every possible scenario. In order to improve or maintain Wikipedia, there are times when it may be necessary to ignore a rule and use your best judgment. Feel free to do so, but be prepared to explain why.

What this says about the rules

  • Rules derive their power to compel from historical consensus. They are not set in stone, but are rather a reflection of the shared opinion of a great many editors.
  • Rules are sometimes poor attempts to put complex thoughts into words. The wording of a rule is never important; rather, the spirit of a rule is what counts.
  • Rules are never final, as they are derived from consensus, and consensus can change.
  • Rules tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. Follow consensus, not policy.
  • Rules should be subject to constant scrutiny. When consulting the rules, consider not only what the rule says, but whether it is a valid rule to begin with.
  • Rules cannot be lawyered with. There are no "loopholes" or "technicalities", as the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.
  • Rules should be followed most of the time in most situations. There are exceptions, though they are not common.

What this means for editors

  • Over time, familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them. Read the talk pages about the rules: they often shed light on ideas in the rules that are contentious.
  • Feel free to break the rules if you need to.
  • Anytime you break the rules, explain to your fellow editors why doing so improves the encyclopedia.
  • At the same time, listen to your fellow editors: if many people disagree with your actions, consider reverting them.
  • You are still responsible for reasonably forseeable effects of your actions.
  • Consider all issues on a case-by-case-basis.

Special notes

  • No one is permitted to break rules governing behavior towards fellow editors, such as being civil, assuming good faith, and refraining from personal attacks. Violations of those philosophies are rarely defensible, let alone acceptable.
  • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is not a rule, but a definition. There are almost no reasons to break or contradict it.
  • Participation in Wikipedia is not contingent upon knowledge of any rules. If a new user breaks a rule, politely point her to the appropriate rule pages, but still consider the possibility that she may be correct.
  • Administrators do not have any special ability to interpret the rules, or license to abuse administrative features.


Discussion of the above

So, Rockstar and I agreed in a previous discussion that the koan-like wording of IAR makes a sound philosophy needlessly difficult to understand. I drafted a short "explanatory version" of IAR that tries to keep the verbiage to a minimum. It is heavily based on GTBacchus's excellent essay. Comments are welcome. - Chardish 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a very nice interpretation, but I don't think it belongs here. -- Visviva 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate? - Chardish 04:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, because IAR does apply to all rules, yes, even the ones we like and that "should never be broken." Because the significance of IAR, in my opinion, is that the interests of the project always come first. Because even the "good" policies like good faith and civility vary widely in interpretation and are frequently used as clubs to stall important processes and "win" arguments. Because one of the most important roles of this rule is to ensure that Nomic can never be played successfully on Wikipedia. Because the overall good of the project, as perceived by individual contributors acting in good faith, must always come before each and every rule. Because, although I believe you have the best of motives, I also believe the idiot proofing of Wikipedia has gone far enough much too far already. And most importantly, because having rules which tell us how and when to ignore the rules would effectively render the page meaningless. Sorry if that sounds like a rant. Well, I guess it was a rant. Whoooo! Good to get that off my chest. ;-) -- Visviva 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You make a number of good points. Regarding WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - these are rules about how you treat other people, and treating other people with rancor and suspicion can never help the project in the long run. Can you point to an example of when such behavior has helped the project? Also, I agree that there's a limit to the idiot-proofing that should go on, but the current wording of IAR is the reverse approach: where you have to consider the rule for a very long time and read wildly varying interpretations of what the rule means, it's a good indication that the rule wasn't clear to begin with. And, ironically, IAR is a rule: I don't see how keeping it as one sentence helps anyone understand it. The rest of your concerns I feel are addressed in the draft itself. - Chardish 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's brilliant. Great work. Let's hope this at least gets a discussion started, as many (including me) have discussed changing the policy but have never come up with a working version. Rockstar (T/C) 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I like. So, the current form becomes "this policy in a nutshell" and the section above becomes the main body of the policy? - KingRaptor 05:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to make this rule more complicated as it is, all that stuff can go in an essay about the rule, as it really is interpretation and opinion about the rule. Already this update brings in exceptions that simply are not there. (H) 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You say that as if the rule itself, in its current wording, is immutable. Since the current version clearly does not enjoy consensus, finding an alternative version that enjoys consensus is important. While that may mean losing the zen-like, single-sentence wording, so be it. - Chardish 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What you are proposing is something so different you might as well put it under a new name. IAR is about permission to ignore rules when they prevent you from helping Wikipedia. It is that simple. This seems like policy creep which is exactly what IAR is supposed to avoid. (H) 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is it spelled out in IAR that it's supposed to avoid policy creep? The problem with rules (and IAR is a rule) being one sentence long is that it is absolutely impossible to determine the spirit behind the rule, which gives us all wildly varying interpretations about the role and purpose of the rule. - Chardish 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Comments by User:H on specific parts of the draft)

  • (referring to the section about "being civil, assuming good faith, and refraining from personal attacks")IAR applies to all rules. While I cannot see a reason why following these rules would prevent me from improving Wikipedia, I am not about the throw out the possibility. (H) 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyone who feels they have strong need to be a dick is going to do so, whether or not this wording of the policy is in place. I wanted to make it clear that IAR does not give anyone license to be a dick. - Chardish 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not say people are not responsible for their actions. It is covered. If people act like a dick they will get what is coming, we don't need to spell it out. (H) 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
But what is the benefit of not spelling it out? - Chardish 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay... first, it is spelled out in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Secondly IAR was invented because rules, no matter how well spelled out, do not apply to all situations and get in the way. If we "spell out" a bunch of rules in IAR, then when they do not apply to all situations we are back to square one. Adding restrictions to IAR defeats the purpose of IAR. IAR basically allows users to use their own judgment when the rules are in the way. To add rules on how and when this can happen is contrary to the spirit of the rule. (H) 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
IAR is a rule. Never forget that. - Chardish 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And if ignoring a rule to improve Wikipedia prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then you can ignore IAR. (H) 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT is a rule, and the same applies as above.
  • I see WP:NOT's special status as deriving from the fact that it does not govern people's actions (as rules do), but rather defines what Wikipedia is not. As the definition is purely subtractive, I don't see room for people to play Nomic with that one. - Chardish 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a rule, and it has lots of little tiny provisions in it. One of these little tiny provision may prevent us from improving Wikipedia, thus they may need to be ignored. This is the danger of introducing "exceptions" to IAR. (H) 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
H is correct. I see lots of room for people to play Nomic with WP:NOT as well. Whatever it may be in theory, in practice it is often invoked to (try to) govern other people's actions. And really, sentences like "WP:NOT is not a rule but a definition" already look like Nomic and quack like Nomic, don't they? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. That's why generally arbitrary classifications or subdivisions of "the rules" are a bad idea. >Radiant< 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins are chosen for their ability to interpret rules and take action, and while this does not override consensus, admins can take action without checking consensus if they believe it is correct. Saying they cannot abuse their buttons seems kind of obvious and is stated in other policy. (H) 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems like a valid point (although I don't believe admins should do anything potentially contentious without checking consensus.) Perhaps we should remove it from a future draft. - Chardish 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)