Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 14

Is WIARM still supported and still helpful
I believe WIARM has significant support, in part because it aspires to no higher a station than as a supplement to WP:IAR, whatever thispage evolves to. I have tried previously to stimulate robust testing of this proposition. (Read all the archives, anyone?)

01:15, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules‎ (→Established as consensus?)

02:09, 22 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules‎ (Discussion of WP:WIARM, phrase by phrase, if necessary-).

With the best of my efforts, I have been unsuccessfull in flushing out, and thrashing out, relevant objections.

No specific objection to ANY portion of WIARM exists in the archives since then, since (April 2007?) that would seriously challenge the consensus established over thousands of edits. However, consensus can change, or feel free to disagree or expand or whatever.

Invitation for comments and suggestions - there are 2 issues Word for word or comma for comma, if necessary then, in such detail, lets stay focussed on improvements to the page. And get more completed discussions archived sooner, and keep this talkpage at a manageable length. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does WIARM remain viable, as in the current approach?
 * 2) What is the rational way forward for evolving the specific text on thispage (WP:IAR)?

THIS SECTION can be seen as (needlessly?) re-opening the discussion from Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive_13 above, which concluded, (on 29Jan2008) against merging at this time. Well, we gotta move on somehow. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is 70 kilobytes long. Thankyou Miszabot. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

THE CURRENT REVISION OF WIKIPEDIA:IGNORE ALL RULES is (2,521 bytes) Newbyguesses - Talk 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no objection to WIARM as an essay, but I have seen plenty of objection to it being policy. I would say its content drastically varies from what we would like as a policy. IAR in spirit is designed to allow us to ignore a rule when it prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. While WIARM does explore the ramifications of that, it is just an exploration of ramification, and not an extension of the policy itself. As such, I would prefer if the content of WIARM stay as an essay, and that the policy not be expanded to include a set in stone interpretation. (1 == 2)Until  15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy itself is not set in stone. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) the irony does not excape me ;-)


 * Yes, thanks to our current wording of IAR our rules are not set in stone. That is why I don't want a bunch of additions, interpretations, and limitations added to it. Irony is an incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs, I don't see that in this situation. (1 == 2)Until  16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page say 'humorous'?
I thought IAR was one of Wikipedia's founding principles, as seen on the template at the bottom of the page. Who has vandalised the page and removed all the content that used to be on the page, and why has a 'humor' tag been added? When it says It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline - it is wrong, it was and still is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.1.127 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this page isn't considered remotely humourous. Whatever gave you that idea? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is not supposed to be humorous: the tag was vandalism, and was added by this user. David Levy has removed the humor tag. Acalamari 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just somebody doing a drive by change that was not discussed or agreed upon. It is actually very common. (1 == 2)Until  16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Why is What "Ignore all rules" means a seprate article? I mean, this article is only twelve words. 82.148.70.2 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn, no answer. 82.148.70.2 (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the exact question we've been trying to answer for a long time now. And you're exactly right: no answer has been forthcoming.--Father Goose (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the above user asked why the policy exists as a separate page, not why it's so short.
 * And the latter question has been answered many times by many people. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to present evidence of an actual problem.  —David Levy 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's so can you give me a link to a specific discussion? 82.148.70.2 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding what? —David Levy 10:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is, that IAR is an official WP POLICY. It is the only "global" one, and therefore completely independent of all the other policies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused, how does it make it a policy with only twelve words? 82.148.70.2 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why the fact that being so short and being a policy are contradicting or confusing to you. It is like an article of the Constitution or an amendment of the Bill of Rights: Few words can be enough to establish a universal rule, which is totally independent of any others. That's why I think it should not be merged with some other policy. It has nothing to do with the other policies. If this doesn't help, please specify a little more precisely where your confusion comes from. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what the twelve words mean?--Father Goose (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a question to 82.148.70.2 or to me? In any case, good question. On the first look I would say, these 12 words constitute the most powerful policy of WP, since it can in principle be used to violate any other policy. On the second look (if you are interested in a theoretical answer), however, I find that this statement is based on the assumption that IAR has a higher priority than the other policies. But I don't find any evidence for this. I wonder whether the 12 words themselves are this evidence, or if an additional sentence would be required, i.e. "If a policy X is in contradiction with IAR, then policy X does not need to be followed". In any case, let's consider the following 4 possible cases:
 * case 1: policy X allows improving or maintaining WP and you follow it.
 * Both policies X and IAR have been followed. Result: WP has been improved or maintained.
 * case 2: policy X allows improving or maintaining WP and you violate it.
 * You violate policy X. IAR can neither help you nor is it violated itself. Result: policy X does not allow you to harm WP.
 * case 3: policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP and you follow it.
 * policy X is not violated, but IAR is. Therefore you may not do this. Result: IAR does not allow you to harm WP.
 * case 4: policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP and you violate it.
 * policy X is violated, but IAR is followed. Now the priority question plays a role. If IAR has higher priority, then you may do this with the result that IAR enables you to improve or maintain WP. If, however, all policies have the same priority, then you may not do this without violating a policy with the result that policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP, while IAR cannot help you.
 * Concluding from this consideration, I would say: If the question is "What can IAR do when applied strictly?", my answers would be:
 * 1.) IAR prohibits the use of a policy if it would prevent you from improving or maintaining WP.
 * 2.) If IAR had a higher priority than all the other policies, it could be used to violate any other policy for the sake of improving or maintaining WP.
 * To be honest, my own conclusions surprise me. Is there a flaw in my logic? Please check. I am surprised, because the second conclusion would mean, that the obvious purpose of IAR could require an additional priority rule. The first conclusion was not obvious to me. Hm, I wonder what consequences it would have. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the practical answer: I think the practical explicit use of IAR requires that you can show that the violation of a rule in a particular case is necessary for improving and maintaining WP. However, since most important decisions like deletion of articles, or banning of members, are made by admins, it requires you to convince an admin. Whether or not this is possible certainly depends on the case. Whatever happens, I expect that the universal outcome of discussions using IAR is that the admin gets what he/she wants. Your question indicates that you have done some thinking on this yourself. What do you think? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought is that if you attempt to tell people what 'ignore all rules' means, then you're making it into a rule, by restricting what can or can't be ignored. Perhaps it should be thought of as the most direct expression of the fundamental Pascalian  wager of the wikepedia:  the belief that edits will, by dint of human nature, be made in good faith more often than not.   [the alternative being the uselessness of the wikipedia.] 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought is that if you attempt to tell people what 'ignore all rules' means, then you're making it into a rule - good point, but where does it lead to ? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual use of IAR in question
Hello, I made the edit to change the page to this version.

I say, list *ONE* example where WP:IAR has actually been accepted. Truth is most people will reject IAR on all accounts no matter the reason. If examples could be provided of WP:IAR actually having had effect (and not in the form of being countermanded WP:IIAR-style), I would be impressed. Somebody should make a list, in fact. Then we could link that list and see how often someone gets away with using WP:IAR. -The Vandal (192.235.8.2 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Truth is, 192.235.8.2, you sound a lot like someone else around here, and you have that same strange twilight zone sense of humour. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many examples is enough? There's a reason I put decent reasoning (as per WP:WIARM) in many of my edit summaries O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the current criteria for speedy deletion and speedy keeping started out as simple applications of IAR, which were such good ideas they eventually became guidelines. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An example, ok. There once was a bot that was programed to find identical copies of images. To do so it would create a thumbnail of each on a page and then compare them. The problem was that many of the images were fair use and as such it was against the rules to put them on this page.


 * Well after a few admins talked about this we all decided to ignore the rule about posting fair use images in userspace because ignoring the rule allowed us to meet the spirit of the rule which was to control fair use images. The bot continued to run and has been clearing out doubles for some time now. If not for IAR we would have had to prevent the bot from working. (1 == 2)Until  15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, 192.235.8.2 brings forth a very valid and important concern (I hope it's ok that I have changed the headline of this section). I think the question is NOT, how the use of IAR has been explored by admins (or other users) in order to establish more control, delete articles, debunk arguments, and so on. It is rather, if IAR has ever been successfully used by an editor, who has not been entrusted additional power, for example in order to justify the presence of an article about an exceptional topic, which fails to be supported by the existing guidelines? Some guidelines state that they have to be treated with common sense, since the occasional exception may occur. This and IAR suggests, that there might be challenges that fail to be appropriately addressed by strictly following the guidelines, because of their exceptional nature. It is hard to believe that nobody ever encountered such a challenge on WP, and I would indeed be impressed by an example, in which, for example, a basic WP user was able to prevent the deletion of an article with help of IAR. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the things about IAR is that you don't need to mention it by name to practice it. In fact, mentioning that you're practicing it tends to raise opposition, where normally if you're ignoring a rule to do something sensible, nobody gives the "violation" a second thought.


 * There are frequent cases where articles are kept (or deleted) despite what the rules might have to say about it. WP:Notability is ignored routinely, both when articles that are backed up by many sources get deleted (e.g., Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture (see an archived copy if you're curious)), and when articles that are tenuously supported get kept (e.g., Articles for deletion/Kancho).--Father Goose (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can point another instance when the article got deleted inspite of lots of references : Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil.
 * - Tinucherian (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * However, overall, AfD is not a good case study for IAR. Admins have a lot of freedom to close AfDs however they see fit, and they rarely get taken to task for their decisions, even when they're quite questionable.  (That is not to say that AfD closures are usually questionable, but it happens.)  IAR is much more important as regards everyday editing, where actual consensus, not an "executive decision", is the way things are decided.  The bottom line is that if a rule is broken in a way that nobody minds, the rules have been successfully ignored.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, the deliberate use of IAR during the editing process without mentioning it is not really what I had in mind. The "Kancho" example indeed surprises me, but I don't find it as impressive as I hoped, because it is a very harmless case, in which the admin did not really mind as I see it. Additionally, IAR was not explicitely mentioned. If IAR didn't exist, the outcome would have been the same, I think, because it is normal for people to ignore rules until somebody objects. It also would not affect the editing process. You don't need a policy for that. It only makes sense to me to have a written policy like this, if there were cases, in which it is necessary to prove a claim by refering to the policy in its written form. Maybe you could claim that you need IAR, so that users are not banned from WP because they ignored policies during the editing process. Still, an example in which somebody intentionally and openly used IAR and "got away with it" would impress me, other than for deleting articles. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, compare Wikipedia to a government, where laws can be enforced that nobody necessarily likes or agrees with. On Wikipedia, if nobody agrees with a law, it ceases to be a law.  And even if they agree with it in general but not in a specific case, it will not be enforced.  This is true even if someone says that it should be enforced -- if few others agree, it doesn't matter what tablet it was chiseled in.


 * You can claim that's a no-brainer, but if we didn't say it explicitly, people would think that laws were laws: inviolable, even if stupid. On Wikipedia, the laws derive their authority only from your willingness to support them.  By default, you shouldn't even think of them as laws (which is to say rules), just as sensible ideas -- or maybe as senseless ones, in which case you should ignore them.


 * And again, AfD is one of the poorest places to evaluate the true impact of IAR, because the outcome is either that of a vote or admin caprice, and bears no resemblance to the give-and-take of a true consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. It has an effect. BTW, what you say in your last paragraph is exactly why I would be impressed by an AfD/IAR case with the outcome of keeping the article. It does not even need to be IAR - a case in which someone "got away" by quoting the warning of some guideline, that you should use common sense since the occasional "exception" may occur, would impress me just as well. However, if no such examples can be found, that doesn't mean that IAR is useless as you and others pointed out. So it's not a crucial question at all. Thank you for linking WP:ROUGE. Do you know if there is (or has been) a useful discussion, in which the same topic is addressed in a serious way? The described situation (although humorously exaggarated) sounds somehow familiar to me and I would like to know, how cases like this are (or can be) handled in reality. Or is WP just not the right place for dissenting views? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm vaguely aware of some MfDs that were closed via ignoring rules. I'm not sure if IAR was actually invoked; again, it works best if you don't draw attention to the fact that you're ignoring the rules.  Really contentious issues cry out for closure, and sometimes an admin makes a risky and imperfect but still sensible call that puts an issue to rest.  WP:BJAODN, for instance, was deleted via a maelstrom of IARring on both sides.  In the end, it just wasn't important enough to keep fighting over, so the deletion stood.  Has the same thing happened with keep closures?  Not really, because AfD is stacked in favor of deletion.  An article can be nominated and "kept" (whether through rouge action, consensus, or lack of consensus) ten times in a row, but if on the eleventh time the vote comes out as "delete", the deletion is generally permanent, appeals notwithstanding.


 * I don't know of any place where admin misbehavior in general is discussed, but specific admin actions are called into question all the time at WP:AN. Usually they're endorsed, but not always.  On rare occasion, an admin goes over a line nobody can defend, and it generally goes to arbitration.  There is a history of such actions at WP:FORMER.  Other than that, admin oversight is very scant on Wikipedia.  The arbitration committee acts as a firewall, but we don't have much else.--Father Goose (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
This page is 47 kilobytes long. Thankyou miszaBot II. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename Ignore all rules
As per Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop, concerning WP:5, (no comments r'cd yet, it is early days at the arbcom/workshop): Rocksanddirt has come up with a stimulating phrase. I am now proposing here, in fact, that the page WP:Iar be renamed to WIKIPEDIA:NO FIXED RULES.insert Of course newbyg really meant No firm rules from the start, but continued to mis-speak. well (?) inserted Well, this has probably come up before, I guess, but we do know that the word Ignore causes a lot of misconceptions, (see previous terabytes of archived chat).

I guess now i will be shouted down by those who can come up with reasons why "fixed" also lends itself to wiki-lawyering, or more so, but I am willing to make the suggestion in any case. It would be Wikipedia:No fixed rules, if renamed. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've pondered name changes, but nothing I've yet considered really does the trick. If the principle of IAR is, more or less, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", then "no fixed rules" doesn't come anywhere near that idea.--Father Goose (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I do indeed agree that (one of the primary functions) of the WP:Iar projectpage is to absolutely make it plain that
 * -*- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it -*-
 * Also, my personal starting-point, and where I hope we can all be in agreement, a founding principle which is now stated explicitly
 * at What "Ignore all rules" means, -*- You do not need to know the rules before you contribute. -*-
 * Until I came to understand that, i was getting all hung up on researching the Policies, and the changes to Policies and Guidelines, before I dare to make an edit, at times. Now, I am BOLD! some say nbg is still as lame as they come,grr Newbyguesses - Talk 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. The two main "meanings" of IAR, for which there seems to be little dispute, is a) you don't need to know the rules before editing (as you said), but also b) if following the rules doesn't produce a good result, don't follow the rules.
 * "Ignore all rules" captures both meanings tolerably well. It's kind of an overstatement, yet it's a useful one.  We want to assert as aggressively as possible that if the rules get in the way of making a good encyclopedia, toss 'em.  Yes, we meant it.  Yes.  Go ahead.  Encyclopedia right over there.  Rules in the trashbin.  Go to it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, the relavant sentence from WP:5 is

Note it says here firm rules. Of course WP:% never comes under debate, does it? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - woops, –Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here–
 * PS: This page is (12,740 bytes) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 10d) to

--thanks to MiszaBot II.

PPs: see it, so far, at No firm rules, the draft, which is an essay, or NO-TAG. Please update as necessary. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support changing the name of this policy to Ignore all rules. --TS 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate that, -- TS has spoken. :) Newbyguesses - Talk 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) lool, Newbyguesses - Talk 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time

arbitrary break 1 (newby went off-topic)

 * ignore all rules, follow the principles of five pillars, currently we have Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2 discussion resumes

 * Changing the name will accomplish little, and make the policy unfamiliar to those who are familiar with it. I prefer to keep the name how it is. (1 == 2)Until  14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If a change of name does not suit, that's another suggestion considered, fine. Now, maybe, or maybe not stating the obvious, Five pillars applies on every page, because it encompasses the principles which Wikipedia preserve, and on this project page, Ignore all rules, WP:FIVE really dominates the bottom of the page, in the blue template box.
 * So then moving on to one or (two) other matters, there is the IAR /Workshop page, which is exactly as the current version, and then there is the page IAR/Versions page, which I believe gained your endorsement, User 1-2, with others, in a previous Archive. But are either of these sub-pages supported, or worth supporting, now, some week or two weeks later, they are maybe not getting very far. Comments on that then?Newbyguesses - Talk 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the /versions link is a benefit to the policy. It helps people see other's interpretations without claiming any one is the correct interpretation. (1 == 2)Until  05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's... interesting.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me be more specific. Since the versions on that page are almost all variations of the one at WP:IAR, isn't it wrong to position the warred-over version as the "official" one, and the others as "other interpretations"?  And isn't it even stranger to treat the original IAR as well as several other long-term stable IAR phrasings as "other interpretations"?--Father Goose (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, at the moment it says "other versions" not "other interpretations". As I recall, the original suggestion was to alternate the main IAR page with the different versions on a roster, (ie. multi-forking). That idea was abandoned, but the /Version page was kept. Now u:Father Goose, how many versions are you up for contributing, in addition to the couple I put up already (at No firm rules) from your posts to the discussion page? I would like to see more versions go up, though the /Versions page is probably headed to "historical" status. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

 * I'm sill working on a version to end all versions. Uh oh.  As for the blurbs found in /versions, the more that are there, the less useful the page becomes, IMO.  It appears to be acting more like a holding cell for any changes people attempt to make to the policy than an actual useful supplement to it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. Though there is a lot of gold on the page (there are as many valuable ways of expressing IAR as there are users), I suggest Ignore all rules/Versions now might best be de-linked, maybe. It hasn't had much work recently. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose that on the grounds that it exacerbates the problem of people having different opinions of this page rather than rectifying them. I just wish people weren't so afraid to have a policy be more than one sentence. Heaven forbid we actually explain what we mean. - Chardish (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, User:Chardish, then update /Versions as necessary. I think the 3C's version is up there already. There have been few additions recently, and the format is rather boring. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My koan form is already up there. So is my 3C wording, I believe. Why add content to it just to clutter the page? Chardish (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * /Versions is like showing all revisions of an article simultaneously instead of trying to refine all the ideas different people have into a single best version. It's the opposite of good editing.--Father Goose (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- 1) It seems the current consensus is that /Versions is fine as a link. I think it is more "historical", though, than an active page.

2) The Ignore all rules/Workshop page is for, um, workshopping, but it isn't, and doesn't need to be, linked. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reformat?
[subsections by 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC), revert or remove freely if you find them disagreeable]

initial discussion
The simple 12 words, as it doesn't even cover a line, should, in my opinion, be embellished, like below. I believe that it is otherwise insignificant, if it is smaller than the surrounding templates and sections. I also propose that the See Also section is added with further line breaks, to break it away from the actual policy. microchip08 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't work out how to finish the size code. Could someone edit it for me? microchip08 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This makes me think of speaking louder when talking to someone who doesn't speak your language.--Father Goose (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe so. Ich liken est, sehr gut, aber ist alles in ordnung, hier? Newbyguesses - Talk 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this. I made the change here. 

Also (almost forgot to mention), although we shouldn't use HTML tags for large text, according to WP:MOS, the revision looks good on every resolution from 800x600 to 1280x1024, so I think WP:MOS can be ignored. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look good at any resolution (IMHO). This is a policy page, and it's important that it look like one.  The above makes it come across as some sort of joke.  —David Levy 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, people have different tastes. I think it looks fine at average resolution. I don't think it (the large font) makes the page look like a joke, it is just a LARGE FONT!. However, I am not going to edit the projectpage against a pretty obvious consensus, the main reason being that such a format would have the effect of setting these words "in stone", and discourage further attempts to come up with a more expansive wording, for this policy, as many editors would like.
 * On that note, why are no editors working in the IAR/Workshop, or submitting versions to Ignore all rules/Versions, or commenting on Wikipedia talk:No firm rules? See section above, and maybe comment there. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we make the font slightly smaller, then? microchip08 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we retain the standard formatting used for every other policy? —David Levy 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice.  It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat once again: I'm still waiting for someone to cite evidence of a problem. —David Levy 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the evidence. I didn't have a good grasp of the rule for a long, long time.  I think I'm not atypical in that regard.  Its role and application are not obvious from the naked twelve words.  Now that I do understand it, reasonably well, I am desirous of editing the IAR page to share what I understand about the rule with others.  Naturally, it doesn't have to be my understanding, exclusively; it should be a consensus view of IAR.
 * Based on these months of discussion here, I do believe such a consensus view does pretty much exist. It is sad that we are so unable to cobble it together.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I frequently encounter editors who fail to understand all sorts of policies and guidelines (despite clearly having made good-faith attempts to do so). That doesn't mean that the pages in question are at fault; it's indicative of the fact that we're human (and sometimes require some time and/or assistance from other humans).
 * If we were to expand the page in the manner suggested, I suspect that more users would simply not bother to read it (or would be discouraged from following the policy by the fact that they've paradoxically been asked to read and comprehend a lengthy set of rules before ignoring rules) than would be enlightened or empowered by the new text.
 * But of course, we now have WP:WIARM, which provides the desired elaboration without implying that reading it is a prerequisite to ignoring rules. How does that page fail to address your concerns?  —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, I agree with Father Goose that the IAR rule is a bit cryptical. For comparison, when you read the other policies (at least the ones I've read so far), you realize rather quickly why there is such a policy and what it does. So, what about a compromise? We could add a short, crisp explanation on the policy page, and for the long explanation we have WP:WIARM. I'm thinking about a short sentence like: "IAR ensures that you may take any action that serves the purpose of improving or maintaining WP, without caring about any rule, and even if it's against a rule." Is that a generally reasonable approach? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, Newbyguesses, that was quick! I'm happy with it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. WP:WIARM is a compromise.
 * 2. I fail to see how the current wording fails to convey the policy's purpose (to ensure Wikipedia's improvement and maintenance) or how your proposed wording conveys any additional information. —David Levy 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, adding a short explanation doesn't really do much harm other than being redundant information for some people. If it helps others to understand IAR better and quicker or to make IAR's meaning intuitively clear, then I think there is no good reason not do do it. It really depends on whether it is helpful for some people or not. Maybe someone can come up with a wording that serves both purposes better (that is not being redundant and being helpful). In general, I think it's not a mistake to let a rule come together with its explanation, since the purpose of a rule is more important than the wording of a rule. In the current wording, this explanation doesn't seem to be intuitively clear as Father Goose and others have pointed out. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement regarding lightheartedness and caprice
I say we not be afraid to be a little bit lighthearted and capricious. Wikipedia is, by nature, capricious. - Chardish (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been assuming good faith on your part, but it now appears that you're fooling around. Please stop.  —David Levy 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit was unfortunate. Adding an image would have the effect potentially of setting these words "in stone". We dont want that, do we.
 * [clarify- I personally think these 12 words are the best version so far, but am willing to see any reasonable efforts to better them go on the project page, to see how long they can be left up, without causing any of the dreaded "disruptions by editors who invoke IAR".] Newbyguesses - Talk 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the image: I have no objections to someone replacing it with a different image. Regarding the nature of my edits: I see them as being lighthearted, fun, and harmless; a much-needed injection of spontaneity into a page that somehow refuses to ignore the rules, for any reason, ever. Remember: Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. survived an RfD, and the page it links to survived AfD. That's the kind of project this is. We aren't required by law to take ourselves seriously all the time. - Chardish (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed! I heartily concur!  There is no person whom I take less seriously than myself.  However, I must convey my sense that we are rather a bit required by law to take one another seriously, and to offer reassurance, each to each, that we are alike dedicated to the furtherment of this most excellent endeavor.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

dedicated to the furtherment, et cetera

 * By law? Goodness! I would like to reassure each of you, individually, that I am dedicated to the furtherment, etc. Please don't arrest me! Chardish, I would note that you're awfully high up the wall of the Reichstag to be referencing that particular redirect as an example of what kind of scene we should or shouldn't create. Is changing this page into something more whimsical so important to you? Serious question: Why? Are we really at risk of something bad happening if it remains conventional-looking? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding my little hobby-horse sidebar: Exactly sir, with my sympathies, save that it is eternally my initial belief that you would respond in good faith, were I taking myself seriously.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect we understand each other. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the discussion resumes

 * 1. While it was "fun" for you, this edit was not "harmless." It was disruptive.
 * 2. No one is asserting that every page on Wikipedia has to be serious. We have many project pages that are humorous in nature, and that's fine.  But this is a policy page (and a very important one at that).  If you try editing any other policy page in a similar manner, I suspect that you'll consistently find your changes reverted.  If you're under the impression that this particular policy page somehow is less serious than others, you're mistaken.  —David Levy 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to be big, red, flashing, handwritten, embellished, escorted by bodyguards, a poem, or driven home as a point. I think it is just fine as we have had it for over a year. Lets stop change for the sake of change. One of the reasons changes are being rejected is because those suggested do not improve the policy and often reduce its intended scope.


 * There is no magical protection on this article, if the community embraced a change it would happen. It is just that many of the suggestions going back months are contrary to the spirit and goal of the policy, or simple clutter it up with meaningless formatting or personal opinion. (1 == 2)Until  15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference versus Disruption
Meh. You guys are kind of playing the disruption police at this point, where the argument du jour is oh no it's radically different therefore it's disruptive. Lighten up a bit. Maybe if you let one of the more creative versions stand for a while, you'd find that the encyclopedia doesn't magically stop working because the text on IAR is centered in a colored box. - Chardish (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't think I mentioned disruption, I will say that any small action repeated long enough can be disruptive. They key factor is that if something is done over and over and over month after month with no significant indication that it is likely to be effective or welcome then it can be disruptive. It is a bit like holding your finger an inch from someone and saying "I am not touching you", or making the same harmless sound for hours on end. In itself it is not disruptive, but if one keeps doing it long enough it can be. (1 == 2)Until  17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I never claimed that your edits were disruptive because they made the page "radically different" from the status quo. As Until(1 == 2) noted, however, it's disruptive to continually edit a policy page in a manner clearly contrary to consensus (particularly when your motive is to have "fun").
 * Note that I referred to a particular edit as "disruptive" (in response to your claim that your edits were "harmless"). If you honestly don't understand why, I'll gladly explain.  —David Levy 18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems clear, doesn't it? Newbyguesses - Talk 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see several reasons why the image-only version is objectively worse than the normal version. I can see no reasons why the colored, centered, bigger, etc. versions are objectively worse. I'm tired of seeing this page treated like the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant or something.
 * Besides, Wikipedia is a hobby. If I'm not having fun with it, I'll leave, and so should anyone else who doesn't have fun with it.
 * Remember that time when I added a bullet or removed a bullet or something, and it got reverted within hours? And then the person who reverted it gave some rationale about how it was conforming to style or something like that? Yeah, that's the sort of stuff that's not cool with me. WikiLawyering the page that explicitly says that WikiLawyering doesn't work is absurd. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go change the page again. Huzzah. - Chardish (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David Levy position

 * 1. The versions in question are objectively worse because they deviate from our standard formatting (thereby decreasing the likelihood that the policy will be taken seriously) and offer no apparent benefit in return. They also are subjectively worse in the opinion of those of us who regard their appearance as incredibly ugly and/or silly.
 * 2. No one is arguing that the page is off-limits to editing (the straw man argument on which you evidently base this entire campaign). We're saying that your edits make the page worse.  You continually perform edits that others perceive as bad, and then you wait for someone to revert them (at which point you complain about no one allowing any changes to stand).
 * 3. No one wants to spoil your "fun," but Wikipedia's quality comes first. Surely, there must be ways that you can have "fun" editing Wikipedia without being disruptive.
 * 4. It isn't "wikilawyering" to revert a nonstandard formatting change performed without explanation and for no apparent reason. Your admitted attempt to make a point by removing that bullet fell flat, and I'm quite surprised that you don't realize that.  —David Levy 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * SCARE QUOTES - Chardish (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chardish, could you please reply to my above post? I'm interested why it is so important to you that this page be edited in some unconventional manner. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your reply? —David Levy 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish position

 * Sure, I'll bite. You might have noticed that around mid-2007 I was heavily involved in discussions about ways to better format this page, clarify its content, etc. It was stressful as hell and I didn't see anyone on either side of the bridge really budge that much. I realized that one of the problems with Wikipedia is that everyone wants to get their way unless there's clear consensus for the opposition. There's a lot of fear and paranoia surrounding this page - a sort of godlike status where there's this belief that if the page is The wrong version then people won't be able to understand it and they'll misinterpret it and they won't take it seriously and aaaaaaaagh, we can't possibly let this happen because this policy is so important!
 * Kind of ironic that one of the arguments against the image version of the page is that it makes it look like the policy is set in stone. I think when an editor (not just me, by the way) tries to make an attempt to improve this page and it's reverted within hours, that sends a far stronger message that the page is set in stone.
 * So my experiences being tarred and feathered and called disruptive and everything in between at this page have really influenced my wikiphilosophy. I think that too many people shoot first and ask questions later, when the question that really needs to be asked is "is it essential that this edit be reverted?" Raw patent vandalism, yeah, revert away. For all other edits, discuss first and then act because otherwise it's possible for hyperprotective users to not engage in talk page discussion and then just nay-say the edits they don't like. (For the record, David, I don't include you in that category because at least you're kind enough to talk here.) Forcing discussion before a revert makes contentious edits innocent until proven guilty.
 * The other big problem with this page is that it's so damn short. Change a single word and you've changed 8.5% of the page's content. Other policy pages have absolutely no problem with people rephrasing something for clarity, adding an explanation, adding examples, etc. - these are usually discussed if they're controversial and dealt with in a reasonable fashion.
 * Basically what it boils down to is that BRD doesn't work if all B is automatically followed by R. Then it becomes D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, change, and being bold is frankly not allowed.
 * As for your point, GTBacchus, I don't think it's essential to inject humor into everything. It's just a reaction against the trend in project space that has a tendency to inch policies closer towards the direction of WP:ENC and further from the direction of something cool and helpful and informative like WP:BOLD. Hey! Check out that big useless image. Kind of makes the page a bit brighter! : ) - Chardish (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was too long

 * To User:Chardish (and other editors [ec]), fine. This discussion is not finished you say. BUT THIS SECTION IS TOO LONG. Start a NEW SECTION, with a new header, if you think the discussion has reached an interesting point, but is unfinished. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

concise version reverted
Connoisseurs of the history pages will note that I recently edited the statement of the rule for conciseness, to read: "Ignore all rules." This edit was quite graciously reverted by User:Locke_Cole(talk), and no doubt correctly. Although I firmly believe that, as a technical matter, there is absolutely nothing that 'ignore all rules' could mean that is of more limited scope than 'ignore all rules' - and that the earliest editors of Wikipedia were being too clever for their own good when they captioned it thusly - the point of the rule appears to be the attempt to convey to the reader that the 'rules' are mutable and not absolute, and that if they're acting in good faith, they shouldn't need to worry about them.

three versions
There don't seem to be any irreconcilable differences here. Are we sure that a good definition supported by overwhelming consensus has not, in fact, been reached in the past, and that there has merely been a failure to correctly document and preserve the memory of this?

69.49.44.11 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Ah, so that's the name! Well, I don't think under present conditions we can have all three versions on the page together. Now the [original] "nervous and depressed" version is well-loved, but has had it's day, it seems. The version with 12words [currently held] took over, and is still in vogue. 69's version, [the absolute] ie. just "Ignore all rules", just aint gonna cut it. So, QED it is still the twelveword version for now. We already discussed name changes, above, and that didn't fly either. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The rule is not in flux, it has been the same for months now. Undiscussed changes that get reverted are not a sign of "flux", it is just some people lacking support and being stubborn about it. (1 == 2)Until  21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule in flux 2

 *  [ Newbyguesses subsequently commits [ this] edit] 


 * Myself, I'm inclined to think your edit heads in the right direction. Some context and explanation of the rule would clearly be of use, from an encyclopedic perspective.  I presume it reached its current minimal state due to (a)  concerns that the explanations proffered effectively limited the scope of the rule, and (b)  disagreements about what the rule actually meant.  Unfortunately, without context, the rule does start to sound like a bit of a joke (which, to be fair, it was), and no longer conveys a sense of liberation and sanction to good-faith editing.
 * Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that the article might benefit somewhat from a structure such as that proposed in the list that follows this paragraph.  The second is that an actual wikipedia entry on "Ignore All Rules" - about the origin and history of the phrase - might be of great value.  There are, by this time, many secondary sources to cite.


 * The rule. (12 word version seems fine.)
 * The history of the rule
 * The meaning of the rule
 * Strong consensus notions as to what the rule means
 * Strong consensus notions as to what the rule does not mean
 * Notions regarding the rule that are regularly debated
 * Frequent criticisms of the rule (without rebuttal).
 * See also
 * Links to essays about the rule


 * David, is it possible that you are experiencing a bit of editorial fatigue? Myself, I did feel that the language of your revert was rather brisque.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply provided an honest explanation of why I removed the text. —David Levy 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did. I was offering my perspective on how the language in which you did so might be perceived by others.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Any tips on how I should've worded my summary?  —David Levy 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, David L. I am not going to argue now in support of the recent change to the page. After all, you have said to the effect that what was written does not contradict the aims of thispolicypage. But the wording was sloppy, possibly redundant. I wonder, if the change had not been excised by yourself, whether in fact it would have been reverted by someone else, (TS perhaps?) within an hour or so. Hopefully, in the time it stood, the revision did not add any extra "disruptions" by editors who saw the new wording as a liscence to go for broke with IAR as their justification! We move on. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding A Link to a Workshop Page
I believe that we should place a warning that the Ignore all rules page is frequently reverted, and a link to the workshop page, at the beginning of this talk page.

In keeping with the " bold, revert, discuss" model, I have been  bold,  Chardish has  reverted, and it is now time to discuss the notion. I feel that it would help to facilitate the formation of consensus, in an environment where any change is necessarily major. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather foster an environment on this page where changes are not necessarily major. If every change is de facto automatically followed by a revert, then something about the system is broken. I think any sort of an editing system that removes being bold would betray our status as a wiki. - Chardish (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly would, but as a de facto matter, nothing short of a change to the code base could remove 'being bold' from the Wikipedia. My hope was that the warning would advise people as to the situation, and offer them an alternative;  it was certainly not meant to read as a imperative. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chardish, I'm borrowed by your assertion that "every change is de facto automatically followed by a revert". That's not the case with this page. Some changes do not get reverted, but rather stick. The page has been successfully edited, repeatedly. I've made this point before, and I don't believe you've replied to it. An honest examination of the history of WP:IAR does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the page cannot be edited. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate that? Could you find an edit that was made without prior approval that wasn't reverted? - Chardish (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- I could easily provide such examples, Chardish, from before you started editng this page. But perhaps user:GTB will do so, i am busy. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This idea, or similar, was suggested before, by User:Luc something, and failed. We do not like to clutter up the projectpage with notices (warnings) that do not achieve their purpose, and look poorly. Newbyguesses - Talk 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [moved leftwards for clarity: you were addressing me, right? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]


 * If experiment elsewhere, or in the past, has demonstrated that such warnings don't work, then that's that, then. Oh well.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, here is one example. This was the most recent example, I think, but there were others. Newbyguesses - Talk 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, that's the revert of the person that you'd mentioned, earlier. I'd have to see an archive of a talk page where people discussed how their attempt to advertise and advise the use of the workshop page hadn't worked, really, to learn anything.  I'm not asking you to dig that up, I'll take your word for it. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LINKS to the project page
Do we still need two links to the project page ie.

1) Do we still need What "Ignore all rules" means as a link?

2) Do we still need Ignore all rules/Versions as a link?

Discuss, in 20 words or less, (humorous)Newbyguesses - Talk 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"the for's"

 * Sure, here's a 20-word response:
 * 1) I'd like to see it merged into the project page.
 * 2) I'd like to see it merged into the project page.
 * -Chardish (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and yes. Both are vastly more helpful to the new user trying to figure out what this policy means. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a yes, by the way. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

moved up from below, nbg


 * What IAR Means is much more useful than the actual IAR policy page. I typically link WIARM rather than IAR these days. (Typically in edit summaries, with wording like: "documented reasoning for my actions, as per WIARM") .--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Ignored the arbitrary '20 words' limit because it was slightly too short without violating WP:WOTTA. Documented my reasoning here as per WP:WIARM ;-) 

"nah"

 * I would be fine with the removal of either of those links. As for Chardish's suggestion, I am afraid it has been suggested in the past and failed to enjoy any sort of consensus. (1 == 2)Until  00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite what may have happened in the past, what is your thought on it now? - Chardish (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't think it is a good idea, I am unlikely to change my mind about that one. (1 == 2)Until  04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I think he was asking you to differentiate your opinion from the fact of the past consensus. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with user:Until 1, either link is expendable, though neither are necessarily deprecated. Good reply, thirty-four words. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

suggestion 3 and 3a

 * don't delete links : If deleting a link prevents you from learning or remembering what Wikipedia is about, don't delete it.
 * [20 words! 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]
 * [but edited to be concise.69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]

Recent edits
FWIW, I prefer the page as-is (simple text, short and to the point). I really really don't see the need to "improve" something that is functionally perfect. Certainly none of the edits made recently (which were subsequently reverted) were any sort of improvement in my view. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that those edits were not an improvement, frankly I don't think they were meant to be. I am pretty sure those making the changes knew they would be reverted. (1 == 2)Until  04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I ask you, "Can I make this change?" No. So, I ask again, "Can I make this change? No. So, I can ask you again, "Can I make this change?" No. So, I ask, where is the consensus here. If someone hasn't said "No" within the last four seconds, then I can make this change, huzzah! (Just thinking through this, I am on the edge of explaining the User:Chardish version of "consensus", a rare animal indeed.) More to come, if necessary, and the pain-killers keep working. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected Yet Again
Thanks, user:Addhoc, but wasn't the edit war over, respectfully? And we are discussing on the talk-page? But, I agree, it was gruesome there for a bit.

Could all users really, really, assume good faith, and button up their snips at each other, for a bit, please?

Who requested that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules be protected, please, and on what grounds? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I prefer de jure protection to de facto protection. - Chardish (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is your privelege, u:Chardish. I do not. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [re-arranged for clarity:User:Newbyguesses's two comments physically joined. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]


 * Furthermore,, I disagree with your terminology - ie. 1) edit-war, you do not seem to know the meaning of that phrase. 2)consensus - ditto 3) assume good faith - works both ways, did ya know? 4) WP:OWN - you have that down pat! 5) co-operation - well, I am starting to forget how to do that, following your poor example. 6) koan - a koan is not just a fairy story from some dill who knows not the first thing about Buddhism, or the human condition. 7) I could go on, but I would get cranky, and you wouldn't like that. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I am supposed to understand that this is not you being cranky; and that this is not an insult? - Chardish (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [Full text of remark by (1 == 2)Until . 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]:


 * How many damn times is this page going to end up protected due to this nonsense? I am starting to think this is being done on purpose. We all know these changes don't have consensus, we all know when you play silly buggers with the page it gets protected. It is really simple, get agreement here before editing. If you get reverted, don't keep making controversial changes, talk. If people don't accept your changes, LET IT GO. (1 == 2)Until  04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's really no particular harm in the page being protected, actually, unless we were looking to change it. So that's okay, for now.  I think the consensus is pretty much to at least take things a bit slower with the edits;  so far I'm only counting Chardish and Kim Bruning as being strongly enthusiastic about picking up the pace of change.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, we prefer to keep pages unprotected. But we cannot have them flipping back and forth between accepted and unaccepted versions either. (1 == 2)Until  05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By 'we', do you mean yourself and David, or do you mean yourself and me? This is unclear.  I would prefer to keep the pages unprotected too. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, user:69+, I also had some minor changes to make, to the See also section, but that get's put on hold now, because of protection/edit war, i am not sure which, but I am not happy. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy either, but I felt we should try to keep things in perspective. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's fine, number69. FYI, "we" in this context is meant to mean "we, me, you, everyone who edits this page, and all the Wikipedia community". It is an all-inclusive term, and ought not to be abused. Under the circumstances. i believe Until (1 == 2), was speaking of "we" in just that way, and correctly, just as you did with your latest post above here. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there's any need to discuss that, the place is clearly elsewhere. I do not believe that User:Until(1 == 2) wished to be offensive or condescending.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR without protection: no one can make a change that lasts for more than a few hours (tops) without first achieving consensus. WP:IAR with protection: no one can make a change without first achieving consensus. I really don't understand why people are so strongly in favor of users' rights to make changes that immediately get reverted. Leave it protected, I say, until we find a higher ground. - Chardish (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

breaked

 * I agree that it's a bit silly to be angry that someone's prevented changes to a page that one doesn't want to have changed, but that's life. People have different concerns and ways of thinking about things.  The (1) bold (2) revert (3) discuss thing doesn't seem to be working out very well right now, but there's nothing sacred about it.  Could we give (1) discuss (2) cautious (3) hooray a try? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The page can be changed when it is not protected, but only with agreement, this is because policy reflects wide acceptance. The addition of "other versions" was added in just that way. Beyond the protection there is nothing preventing change other than a lack of consensus to do so. Making changes that are obviously not an improvement and then claiming nobody can edit the policy when it gets reverted is a non-sequitur.


 * 69, by "we" I mean the Wikipedia community, you should meet them someday. It is a well established practice that we should avoid page protection when possible. WE don't want it protected. It was not my intention to "offend" by my earlier comments, it was my intention to rebuke poor behavior that led to a core policy not being editable, again.


 * Look at this protection log, that is shameful! And it is the same group of people causing it each time.


 * 69, you seem brand new to Wikipedia and seem to only be involved in this one dispute, so perhaps you would have more perspective if you had more than a single purpose for your account here. (1 == 2)Until  14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unity, if you have cause to suspect that I am a sock puppet created by one of your adversaries to say things which you find disagreeable, then I suggest you involve an administrator, as the person whom you address would doubtlessly be familiar with WP:SPA. If you are merely being uncivil, then I suggest you consider civility.  I do not feel that the page being blocked constitutes a moral outrage.  It is inconvenient.  If the same user, or faction, has been acting in an unsociable way, that is certainly a legitimate grievance.  I do not think that you are addressing it in any helpful way.  From what I have read, telling a newcomer that 'we, the Wikipedia community' disagree with 'his opinion' and suggesting that he is a sock-puppet is clearly depreciated behavior.
 * I am not sure you have reflected upon the Orwellian dimensions of insisting that there be (presumably for appearances) an editable page that, nonetheless, should not be subject to editing. No-one is going to die because the page is locked.  Not even the Wikipedia will be disrupted.
 * I can appreciate that people are out of patience with Chardish. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 69, I am an administrator, and being a single purpose account is not against the rules, nor does it mean you are a sock puppet. No admin action is needed. But it does effect your credibility as we have no history from you to build credibility from. Your words stand on their merit, and they seem to be contrary to the opinions of the community. Specifically that protection is a lesser evil to endure, not a desired state.


 * I have read Orwell and I don't follow your point. When not protected the page can be edited in accordance with the wishes of the community, to say it cannot be is simply a falsehood. People have made edits the reduce the quality of the page and have been reverted, these same people took no effort to determine if that is what the community wanted. Other people have made edits that have been accepted such as the addition of the other versions link, or the removal of the "working with others" wording. An existing discussion happening on this very page may result in another change. That is no sign that a page cannot be edited. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NumberUser:sixtyninefortyninefortyfoureleven, I do enjoy your slightly whimsical tone, and concerted attempts to promote civility. I fear you have misunderstood on occasions, though and lead us up the garden path, not that that is an uncommon occurrence here. Disregarding that you have probably misunderstood Until( 1 == 2 )'s remarks about your account, and the newness of it, your misapprehension concerning the seriousness of PAGE PROTECTION needs addressing. We do regard Page Protection as a serious, and lamentable matter. There are various reasons, which i hope you will look into for yourself, one major one is that, for Protection to occur, then one, at least, Administrator considers that an intractable EDIT WAR is taking place. I'll stop now, and hope you take that in. FWIW, Until 1 has a point, which, if it is refutable, is best done through your actions, not by replying to the argument, which only gets messy. I myself, do not doubt your sincerity, nor that you will prove that trust to be justified by your future conduct, not that I am scrutinizing you particularly, as I feel no need to. I also do not doubt Until 1's concept of the matter is reasonable, just, we do not need to go there. Some time, we will get back to working on improving this page. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also don't doubt 69's sincerity, I just can't take his opinion that the protection is no big deal seriously because I know the community at large feels it is a big deal. I am a bit surprised that a brand new user would find themselves here and pretty much only here, but it is still reasonable to assume good faith, taken with a grain of salt. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Until 1, you may notice that u:Chardish, who ought to know better, is also adamantly in support of protecting the page. You see this in at least two posts, including the one Chardish made at the bottom of this page. That attitude is inexplicable to me, coming from a supposedly experienced editor. I am afraid Chardish lets their ambition to be the one editing the page interfere with any good judgement that user may possess, to all our detriment. That is, when the actions of an editor are consistently disruptive... Newbyguesses - Talk 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The apology of User:69.49.44.11
Towards unity

Unity, it's quite possible that I misunderstood the intent of your citation, and if you had not meant to imply that I was a sock-puppet, I apologize.

About the protection

I should re-state, to make it absolutely clear, that I do not see having a protected page as a desirable, useful, or trivial situation. My preferred outcome would be for User:Chardish to lay off the edits and actively pursue a consensus. Having looked at it, I think that his [ image] is really cool, and deserves an honored place in any index of alternative versions. I also think that it is inappropriate, both as a stylistic variation that lacks any consensus support, and as fostering a mistaken interpretation of what "ignore all rules" means, which is perhaps the subject of some authentic, non-irritating disagreement on his part, even if he has clearly been engaging in some [ combative editing].

I think that there is a problem here with an overlap of a debate about improving the policy page and a debate about setting or changing the policy. Policy pages, being advisory in their nature, are of most use to n00bs such as myself, as experienced Wikipedians are doubtlessly well acquainted with not only their contents, but the nuances of their meaning, and the practical matters of their application and interpretation. The current IAR page is not helpful in this regard. It seems to me that there clearly is strong (or at least dedicated) disagreement about the prospective contents, or it would not be so remarkably terse and muted.

The page has been protected. My belief, in the absence of any elucidation or explanation on his part, is that Addhoc saw that one user was making frequent edits which were being frequently reverted, de facto evidence of an editorial conflict, and chose to put a time-limited lock on the page. Thus, the page is locked to prevent unhelpful editing. The lock is an accurate reflection of the current state of consensus at this time - insofar as it seems to have been voiced - that Chardish should can it with the edits (i.e., cease). Chardish may be making a point by disrupting the Wikipedia, or refusing to accept that there is a consensus that disagrees with his point of view. Or, Chardish may be being oppressed by the horrible ogre* David Levy, who has taken on the responsibility of reverting the majority of his edits ''[", and the attention brought by the protection may lead to his salvation and redemption," or some such, I had meant to add. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]'' It doesn't matter.

*This is, I hope we all understand, meant facetiously.

About Orwell

The situation acquires a strange, Orwellian flavor when the people who do not wish the unhelpful editing to continue are those who are outraged by the protection of the page, and the person who has been editing in an unhelpful manner feels somehow vindicated by it. That was my point about Orwell.

About Credibility and Consensus

Certainly my words stand only on their own merit, as Unity has mentioned, and I hope that they do. Credibility is of great use when one is attempting to sort through masses of information, or judge the merits of a dispute, or make allowances for short tempers. It is not determinant of the truth of a matter: that is, the person with the most credibility is the person who is most likely to be arguing the right, absent knowledge of the argument, not the person who is arguing the right, irrespective of the argument.

Of course Unity, Newbyguesses, Chardish, or even 69.49.44.11 have no reason to see me as being 'credible', whatever that may mean, in any situation where credibility is required. I was not here yesterday, and I may not be here tomorrow. Conversely, precisely because I was not here yesterday, it seems obvious that Unity cannot assume that I will understand his remarks in the context of an established credibility.

Consensus is, I think, something which needs to be maintained, rather than established and codified. There are as many words of dispute as cooperation on this page, and as many references to a 'Consensus' - which do I believe are made in good faith, and I do assume to refer to a real, historical gathering of consensus - as there are attempts to gather that consensus in once more. I feel that the most helpful thing would be if we all spoke in a manner that sought to lessen the disputes and enliven the discussions, regardless of who we are. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the refactoring and subheadering in general, but subheaders breaking up your own post are a bad call. It disrupts the usual page structure wherein subheaders separate threads of a discussion. If you're going to use separate subheaders in one post, you should sign off at the end of each one, to facilitate replies to specific points. Otherwise, use purely textual means of breaking your post into chunks. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right-o. I'm just aware that my words are sometimes dense and thicketed .  Will re-do as text.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I, ah... know the feeling, and continue to experiment with the best way to use talk pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not upset about the page being protected, that had to be done. I am upset at the behavior that led up to it. While the change one is trying to make may be good faith, making such changes when you know they will be reverted is not. Normally not something to be upset about, but this has been happening for literally months on end now, and has led to more incidences of page protection than I can count on one hand. It become near impossible for consensus based change to form when the talk page is being dominated by people insisting on what there is not consensus for, and the page is protected because an edit warrior preferred it that way. At a certain point you just have to say "hey, this is no longer productive, it is just causing disruption".
 * 69, I only mentioned credibility before because you were contradicting one of the basic precepts of Wikipedia, that pages should be open to editing. Your clarification above on your opinion of protection has set me straight. I assure you I will measure your words by their merit.
 * When I quoted WP:SPA I was not calling you a sock puppet, I chose not to call you that. I do find it odd that a brand new account would jump straight into a meta-debate, it is far less common than experienced users creating a new account. But even if you are the same user as another account that is also allowed if the conditions in WP:SOCK are met, so I really have nothing to accuse you of even if I wanted to, which I don't. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * s'okay, I think we're cool on that now. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules
There are almost as many ways to express IAR as there are users. [W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community.  One more to add to /Versions, or /Workshop, Newbyguesses - Talk 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[duplication presumed accidental, re-factored by 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)]


 * Yes, that's well said. If there seems to be a consensus for some presentation of the page involving multiple versions, I have no objection to this being one of them. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "multiple versions" idea was sunk pretty quickly when first proposed, I am surprised by it's apparent ressurrection. It is not ideal, in that a series of dot-points on a page is not neccessarily the best way to present information, however it might well be worth a try if the idea floats this time. Would it suit U:KimB, for instance, and User:Chardish, and David Levy and Until ( 1 == 2 )? Other editors, Father Goose, and any Admins now watching the page, does this idea suit, or have merits and defects to discuss? Both /Versions and /Workshop are trended that way, it seems. Just to be clear, does this idea mean having multiple versions simultaneously on the page, or does it mean having "multiple versions" which come up singly on the page via a roster? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the idea of placing "multiple versions" of the policy on the primary page (whether by cycling through them or by listing them together). The page's purpose is to help the community, not to please a handful of editors by letting each get his/her way.  There is nothing special about this policy that justifies such a setup.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin respect
Look, I would just like to say that I have looked through the process for selecting admins and I respect those people 100%. I seen admins keep their cool in the face of very harsh abuse and I think that people who start edit wars just to spite them are just wrong. Peace to the admins! Skeletor 0 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. I believe nobody on this page has started edit wars just to spite admins.  Or disrespects them in general.  Heck, half slight exaggeration of the people talking here are admins.--Father Goose (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on the discussion page
Alright, I appeal to all respected editors to weigh in and resolve this situation if possible. Comments, and help, please, Newbyguesses - Talk 07:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The project page is protected, due to someone's edit-warring.
 * 2) User:Chardish is refactoring my legitimate comments on the discussion page.
 * 3) User:Chardish is now edit-warring, or something like it, on the discussion page.
 * 4) I think I know what to do, but i would prefer, please, if some sensible comments came, now, from any or all concerned.
 * 5) It's not as if we have anything better to do, since we cant edit the project page, for a while.

user:Chardish steps up
Your comments seemed to be directed at me and me alone and were cavilling at best, insulting at worst. You are welcome to take up personal issues with me on my talk page. I also don't know why you're now trying to craft a section of this page to house your personal problems with me. - Chardish (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

user: Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven weighs in

 * I think that everyone should refresh their memory of Talk page guidelines - Editing comments, No personal attacks - removing text, and Civility - Removing uncivil comments.
 * Chardish, I have to say that under the circumstances, your actions seem a bit reckless and immature. Most people seem to take the deletion of another's words from the talk pages extremely seriously, and your actions do merit discussion. Newbyguesses, would you be willing to summarize what your comment was in a somewhat neutral manner and continue the discussion on his talk page?  I mean, everyone else can discuss Chardish there, too, and it seems to be the appropriate place for the discussion of Chardish. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need of a summary of my two short posts. U:CHARDISH ought to restore them, they were wrongly deleted, and I object to that. Not personal attacks at all, just general information for all at this central discussion page. Fix your own error, Chardish, before someone else does.
 * And, if Chardish wants a full-on discussion of themself on talk:Chardish, I do not. I prefer centralized discussion, though i wait to hear how some other editors wish this to be resolved. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll go read them, then. It will be a moment. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean [ 195501172] and [ 195501857]? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to say that these comments are 'general information for all at this central discussion page'. It is correct to say that they substantially constitute personal attacks.  I believe that whatever meaning within or intention behind them which does not constitute a personal attack has a place on this talk page.  It seems amply clear that the remainder does not.  The  talk page guidelines, always available through a link above your editing box, gives the following as one of the acceptable reasons to edit the comments of another:
 * {|border="1"


 * * Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL before removing anything.
 * * Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL before removing anything.


 * }
 * I again suggest that User:Newbyguesses restore the aforementioned non-attacking content. I feel that we should all assume good faith.  I very strongly recommend that one not persuade User:69.49.44.11 to lose over an hour of sleep on one's behalf without being utterly certain that one is acting in good faith. 69.49.44.11 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 08:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, sixtyninefortyninefortyfoureleven, Chardish, and Father Goose for comments on this matter. Please, do not lose sleep over this. I am considering the best way to accede to this reasonable request, to " restore the aforementioned non-attacking content". Not sure how to erase the rest, though, so I will wait for further input, while taking on board those comments already made, and having a rest/sleep/break, thanks Newbyguesses - Talk 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to User:Chardish, who already reverted this comment off the discussion page once before, that we restore this comment

which was ''Your incessant chat is "disruptive", i think, user:Chardish. If you have nothing useful to say, and you haven't then Please just stop''. Newbyguesses 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That is, I withdraw my frst controversial post, which i replaced with this more considered response to Chardish's provocative revert on the discussion page. Hmmm, that won't erase the rest, though will it? Newbyguesses - Talk 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User Chardish has not replied. Hmmm.
 * Just to be clear, I do not think my initial comment "Stop whining, Chardish" should be construed as a personal attack, I am withdrawing it because the debate has moved on. I was commenting on an editor's present actions, (ie. "whining"), and not on that editor's unchangeable personality. IE, "Chardish, you are a whiner." would be a personal attack, and a very mild one at that.
 * Chardish's edit-warring to remove such innocuous statements is a much clearer violation of civility, which Chardish is relentlessly pursuing, surreptitiously i might add, in that they are never noted in edit-summaries.
 * I count half-a-dozen or more of these sneaky "gaggings"of my right to legitimate comment. Could someone experienced please check the edit history for this discussion page, and verify that Chardish has well exceeded the bounds of decency, civility, and fair dealing in this matter, consistent with Chardish's other transgressions (edit-warring on the project page too). I have protested here, with no reply or acknowledgement from Chardish. This is despicable behaviour at this time, I hope it does not continue. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to keep stuff like this off the talk page
[The third of these posts, insisted on by User:Chardish is irrelevant, it is from my talk-page, is taken out of context, and only escalates the drama. I have pleaded with Chardish to remove it, for fairness, but to no avail.] Newbyguesses - Talk 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Posts like these, made by Newbyguesses, are why I am desirous of keeping complaints about my personal behavior off this talk page: And I don't see how any of this moves us closer to achieving our goals of improving Wikipedia. I could find more, but I'm tired and I want to go to sleep. If Newbyguesses has a problem with me, fine, but I don't see why that has to be a topic of discussion here at all. I am more than willing to do my part to resolve our personal differences, but this just isn't the place for it. This is a place to improve WP:IAR. Can we move on, please? - Chardish (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Please stop whining, Chardish, my ears are beginning to bleed"
 * "your incessant chat is disruptive," "you've had nothing useful to say"
 * "your posts make it hard to see the value of contributing", called my posts "peurile (sic) tricks", called me a dick, called my posts "USELESS" in edit summary
 * long series of complaints, most direct insult: called me "some dill who knows not the first thing about Buddhism, or the human condition"


 * CHardish, you should know better. This comment does not belong on this page, it was made at another venue, in response to you "trolling" me on my own talk page. If any editors are interested in the whole, sordid exchange it is at User talk:Newbyguesses, until I have to archive the page next. Actually, I urge editors not to read there, as it would be escalating the drama, in my opinion, to take it to the various usertalk pages. Keep discussion centralized, and keep to the point. I am now saying that I find Chardish's continued posts, and their import, which is negligible, plus edit-warring on both pages to be, well "disruptive". So that is the issue that i would like addressed, not some bleating because i doubt that u:Chardish has a clue about Buddhism, going on the ego-driven demeanour I have observed over the course of nearly the last year at this page. - Newbyguesses

Chill the f*** out
Newbyguesses, you're stirring up as much s*it as anyone else is right now, starting with this post. I recommend not looking at this page for the next 24+ hours. I recommend the same to anyone else who is in the midst of this fight. Come back to it when you (all of you) aren't grinding your teeth, and apologize if you can recognize where you veered off in a nonproductive direction.

I'm just thankful I didn't open my mouth today, or I'd be in the midst of it with all of you.--Father Goose (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of shit being stirred, but it is not realistic to think that Newbyguesses is stirring up as much as anyone else. Frankly I think those doing the baiting are as responsible as the baited. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, Until (1 == 2), I dont get your point here. In my opinion, those doing the baiting, by making unproductive edits continually and knowingly, apparently in an attempt to "force" page-protection, are 'entirely to blame for the current impasse. Sorry to sound harsh. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Assigning blame = utterly unproductive. Always. Eliminate the concept of "blame" from your world-view, and you'll be a more effective dispute-resolver. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that I singled out Newbyguesses in my comments because he solicited input from other editors, so I addressed my comments to him. I criticized him because right now he is throwing fists here as hard as anyone else -- and because I wanted to, as a friend, jolt him into stopping.


 * I didn't succeed at that. My words were probably too harsh, at a time when the anger was too great for it to do any good.


 * But seriously, chill. Chill, chill, chill.--Father Goose (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, thanks FG, I am confused, as usual. I have taken "hits" against my own person, ie. I have been personally attacked, in that my legitimate concerns, in legitimate posts, have been provocatively CENSORED off this page by user:Chardish, and, apparently because I mis-speak, Not One person has addressed my hurt. Instead, everyone seems to rush to the defence of a, "problematical" user, whose complaints are well-known, as they have FILLED up our archives for ten months or so. I am hurt. I may have mis=spoke. No one cares about my hurt. Hmm? (I will survive, and I wish some fresh eyes would look over this page, that, in my opinion, is the wiki way forward)
 * To GTB. You argue persuasively, and seem to be able to discern a WP ethos, which i would like to adopt. But, then again, just trying to "ban" certain words, such as "blame" because they are unproductive concepts, does not take into account that, in the real world, people always use some words they do not fully understand. Words are slippery, and cannot be corralled into perfection by, even your, best wishes. I will expand on this, when I feel more like philosophizing. For now, I will remark that, the danger in such a "Pollyanna-ish" world-view, is that it can, inadvertantly, come to work as a bulwark of an "unproductive" position, whereby support is given to what amounts to the application of what i will here call "the old double-standard". I still confused, but more repentant, if that is what is required of me, as the "more-sinned-against" party. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: No further action required here, the "dispute" is ended amicably. (Further note FG, your language shocks me, I am deep-down a timid creature, but I appreciate friendship, I do not doubt any of that ;) Glad it's all over, back to work, all is hunky-dory, fingers crossed. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking instead of protection
I have left a note at the top of the page urging admins considering future page protections here to look at the events leading up to the last 6 page protections and consider if blocking will be less harmful to the project. I assume we are all in agreement that it is better that edit warriors be blocked than to protect core policy. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am game for that, in fact I urge Administrators to consider this, unfortunate, course - blocking a user is a drag, but continually disrupting the page is excruciating for all concerned.
 * FWIW, I can, I think, afford to be content with that course, as my involvement in any recent EDIT WAR is surely minimal, I do not fear scrutiny of same. And I dearly desire to keep out of any future edet-wars, touch wood. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree...since it has been demonstrated that edits without consensus are simply removed, I prefer protection. - Chardish (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It has not been demonstrated such, and I'm actually working on a long list of evidence to the contrary, per your request above. Please give me time to get it together before being so confident of what's been "demonstrated". You have demonstrated that arbitrary violations of MoS, and general dis-improvements to the page get reverted quickly. Big surprise. As I look at it more closely, I am becoming more and more convinced that this page's editing pattern is actually healthy, in general. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, GTB, but - if the editing pattern is healthy, how come the page gets protected so often. And, in relation to the current protection, what has gone wrong this time, with the editing pattern on the project page? Newbyguesses - Talk 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have been clearer. I think that the general pattern of this page being evolving very slowly, with most edits being reverted, is healthy. I don't think it's particularly helpful or healthy for one or two people to get a bee in their bonnet that this page absolutely must change in arbitrary ways to satisfy them that it "can be edited". I think that's most of the cause of the current page protection. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GTB, "dis-improvements" is a highly subjective term. I respect your disagreements with many of my edits, but they're all attempts to improve the page (and clearly there are others who agree - some of whom aren't very vocal on this page. Someone on ANI even lauded the creativity of using a photograph as a policy when such is clearly not supported by the rules, but does wind up making the page more clever.) I don't think that this page holds consensus. Look at the straw poll at the top of the page - nearly half of the users disagree with it. I think that shows we have a lot to work towards and outside-the-box thinking should be mandatory at this point. - Chardish (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "dis-improvements" is a highly subjective term. - sounds like wiki-lawyering to me, based on past experience. Chardish, you always have some quibble, and prevent us moving on. Why do you choose to act "disruptively", and why be so stubborn and recalcitrant about it? Newbyguesses - Talk 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chardish, it's not nearly as subjective as it might be, if we didn't have a tool called consensus to help us gauge what an improvement is. I would generally agree that, if you think the page needs to change (I see no need for this, but whatever), then you should try to get it edited. That does not, however, mean "keep making arbitrary edits yourself". That's poor dispute resolution, and just as in any content dispute, there's always a better way than editing the page oneself, repeatedly, against opposition. If you're right - which you are, right? - then it will be clear to others. If the current crowd at this page isn't seeing reason, go get more people. If you can convince other people to make the edits you're interested in seeing, then you'll know that they've been deemed improvements. If you can't get other people to make your edits, then you have to accept that they don't enjoy consensus support. In summary, by all means think outside the box. You're not doing it yet, as long as you do it by personally making superficial or random formatting changes. Think further outside the box. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

meta-discussion of "consensus"

 * Reponse below. - Chardish (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's really not a response. I'm not claiming that the current version reflects consensus; I'm claiming that you're failing to demonstrate that your edits reflect consensus either. I'm saying that a better strategy for you would be to go get reinforcements. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't think my edits reflect consensus, because I haven't tried to establish consensus before making them! I don't see consensus as a prerequisite to making a change. I see BRD as being the best way to implement changes, as long as reversions are used only when necessary (i.e. not every change is automatically followed by a revert.) Consensus can follow. - Chardish (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't see consensus as a prerequisite to making a change; good, neither do I. I never claimed that. I said that seeing your edits reverted, and being unable to convince others to help make them stick, is evidence that they don't have consensus support, it turns out. Making the edit is great, ignoring the community's feedback about it is less great. Regarding reversions, they don't have to be made only when "necessary"; they're made when desirable. In other words, if you see any change made, anywhere on the site, and you think it made the site worse, then go ahead and revert it, and if someone asks why you reverted, explain that you thought the edit made the page worse. Changes aren't automatically followed by reverts; they're followed by reverts after editors consider whether, in their judgment, the change made the page worse. If so, then they revert. There's nothing automatic about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See, I think this is where we veer off in slightly different directions. On a page this small, any edit will be seen by someone as contentious (and reverted) unless it is discussed first. I see a change in editing practice as necessary to prevent that. - Chardish (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's clear that you believe that's what happens, and that you believe that to be a bad thing. I don't necessarily share either of those beliefs. For the former, I'm still working on a list of examples. I'm tempted to put together a sort-of annotated history of the page, highlighting important developments. Personally, I'm coming to the opinion that this page really should be pretty static, as a demonstation that we don't generally edit pages from one controversial version to another, as if simply to demonstrate that we can. Why do edits have to pass as uncontentious here? Why does editing this page have to be easy? Can't we ignore that rule, too, or don't we mean it when we say "all" rules? In this case, I see abstract rules about how fluid policy pages "have to" be as getting in the way of maintaining this page; so let's ignore them. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kind of interesting, then, that our joint desire is to edit IAR in a way that's consistent with IAR, isn't it? : ) - Chardish (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... that's probably a pretty clear demonstration of both of our good faith, so congratulations. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming that it's inappropriate to edit a page without first gauging consensus. The problem is that you continually performed edits that you knew defied consensus and would be reverted.  Then you presented their reversion as evidence of your false claim that any and all undiscussed edits to this policy page are automatically and indiscriminately reverted.  Well, no.  It just so happens that most fail to garner consensus.  Editing the page in a similar manner or a manner too silly to realistically be accepted proves absolutely nothing other than your disrespect.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is clear consensus that the page's current version carries a higher level of acceptance by the community than any other version that has been proposed. —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion of Protection

 * Chardish, from a new user such an idea would be ignorant, from an experienced user it is simply contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Often ones opinion differs from the spirit of Wikipedia, and unless a person can put their opinion aside and respect the Wikipedia's spirit, they tend to eventually leave and Wikipedia stays.
 * Policy reflects wide acceptance so edits that don't enjoy such acceptance should be reverted, but the page needs to be editable for those who actually bother to get consensus before making edits. The fact that you prefer protection is not relevant because Wikipedia's state goal is to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Protection is an unfortunate compromise and if your goal it to make that happen then that is a real problem. If your edits in the future lead to protection, I will be sure to let that admin know that you "prefer" it that way. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically (or not so technically) this page isn't part of the encyclopedia, and the axiom that protection is necessarily a bad thing can be questioned here. I tend to agree that protection is negative, but it is a separate issue for policy pages than it is for articles. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to disagree pretty strongly with the idea that only articles suffer from protection, core policy suffers just as much. Core policy needs to be editable, anyone intentionally trying to create a situation where it needs to be protected is acting in a disruptive fashion. Our rules are supposed to be representative of the community and protection hurts that. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that only articles suffer from protection. I'm simply pointing out that it's not immediately or automatically clear why this policy page suffers from its current protection. I think we should remain open to possible exceptions to ALL rules, including the one that every page here has to be transparently, freely editable. I think we're allowed to question even that idea; indeed, the core spirit of IAR is that ALL rules can be ignored for the sake of the encyclopedia. If that includes our dear "wiki way" in some certain cases, then we should boldly act un-wiki when the situation calls for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of if protection is bad in every case, it is bad in this case. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is that? I don't think I see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because policy is supposed to be created through consensus, and should not need an admin to decide if an edit should be allowed or not as protection makes it. I really should not have to explain that. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you think you "should have to explain" anything. I'm willing to ask difficult questions about this page, because I don't see it as 100% clear that this page must follow the same rules as other pages. As for whether policy is created by consensus, that's partly true. Policy is created by consensus within certain limits, in the sense that consensus can't override WP:ENC or WP:NOT. Insofar as consensus policy writing helps create an encyclopedia, we do it. If there should arise a case where we can better improve the encyclopedia by having one particular page always protected, then we'd better be willing to ignore all rules and do that. Would you disagree? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Protection is bad because it followed an edit war, which was bad. And this type of long-winded back-and-forth discussion is not answering any questions. What do we do, now, not "Lets philosophise", or chin-wag, on and on, avoiding the issue in streams of indented huff and puff. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

a return to met/discussion of consensus

 * Which issue are we avoiding here? I thought I was talking about the contents of this page, and whether or not they need to be freely mutable. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

preference, + location where more discussion can be found
I prefer blocking, the reasoning for which is documented at User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring specifically the section on the Usefulness of repeat protections. Note that recent activity here is mostly inspired by Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing. IAR is identified as a page that is very difficult to edit, and it seems like a good venue to try out solutions. A wider community discussion at the disruptive editing discussion page (or even here) would be welcomed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this page "seems like a good venue to try out solutions". I think this page is a good venue to recognize that we've arrived at a pretty damn good presentation, and there's little point messing with it further. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At least 40% of those polled appear to disagree with wording and/or layout of this page (or wording and layout that is fairly similar). Note that several supporters explicitly mention a version of the page they support (which is not necessarily this version). I am not sure that it is safe to say that this current version has global consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Check out the "supporters" who support a *different* version. One of them is currently chair of the foundation! See also Elian's view that helped form the dewiki community


 * Kim, there's a difference between "a pretty damn good presentation that there's little point messing with further" and "global consensus". I'm not claiming the latter, as I suspect it's unattainable on such a page as this. Enough people will always support scrapping the page entirely and making Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel like the way this page is edited is already reminiscent of a bureaucracy. - Chardish (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I agree that global consensus is unattainable in this case. That's why it seems unlikely that *any* presentation will be acceptable to all. Do you agree with me so far? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Please go on. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, then we're back to where we were many months ago. People were fighting over which version of the page was superior. I proposed we turn the vice into a virtue. By actually allowing the page to change to some other major group's preference on a regular basis, everyone could be kept happy, and no-one need be disenfranchised.


 * You need not agree with that solution, but do you agree that there is a clear logic to it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a kind of clear logic to it, sure. I still think it's a foolish idea. It manifestly doesn't keep everyone happy; it pisses off more people than a more-or-less static 12-word version. We don't need to be so frightfully "meta" about everything. At some point, even that distracts from building the encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- A) I prefer blocking (KimB) - and I agree, at this point if necessary. B) this page "seems like a good venue to try out solutions" - no, I think not. C) Straw poll discussion (At least 40% of those polled appear to -)&mdash;proves nothing, I say. D) the way this page is edited is already reminiscent of a bureaucracy - Chardish&mdash; well, I reckon this point is really, really, rubbish. This misunderstanding of yours, chardish, is incomprehensible, coming from an experienced editor. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

arbbsyy break

 * At Carnegie Mellon University there is a small fence in the center of the university; it fences of nothing. The students there "paint the fence" with whatever message they see fit, and tradition states that no one may change the message on the fence as long as there is someone standing next to it. (As a result, students will keep vigils for days, camping by the fence to preserve the message they painted.) I don't think that's an example of how Wikipedia should work, but I think it's an example of how something that seems to be chaotic can actually be a beloved tradition that speaks of the spirit of those who partake in it. The message on the fence may not "keep everyone happy," but I think it's a better solution than allowing no one to paint the fence unless the whole campus agrees how to paint it. - Chardish (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a cute tradition. There's an important difference here: Ignore all rules is a core policy page helping us build an encyclopedia. It's not a proof of some point about collaborative editing, and it's not a fence with nothing inside, and it's not a test case for each editors personal rules about how a wiki must work. Nevertheless, if you can get a few more people to sign on to the rotating-versions idea, then I'll jump on the bandwagon, too. Generate some support, go to WP:VP/P or wherever, and sell the idea. Just trying the idea probably won't work - it'll be "R"ed - so go ahead and "D" the heck out of it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

new bicycle

 * As in, | Ignore all rules is your new bicycle. That would be fun.  I suspect that too many people would be worried about the erosion of core principles for a consensus, though.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your provisional support. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think you'd end up persuading me that it would be a good idea. But I do agree that it would be fun!  And I do agree that this talk page should be a place where one could discuss ideas about WP:IAR freely, and pursue the formation of such a consensus, free of excessive interpersonal conflict, disparagement, or intimidation. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with GTBacchus that this is a bad idea. The page's purpose is to help the community, not to please a handful of editors by letting each get his/her way some of the time.  There is nothing special about this policy that justifies such a setup.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion of straw poll

 * Well, the (on-going) "straw poll" is inconclusive. Surprize, surprize! Consensus moves on, and is not predicated on some "straw poll", which never had a chance of being decisive, and wasn't meant to be. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Straw polls cannot establish consensus, but they can demonstrate that something does not hold consensus. This is especially true because on a policy page, a higher degree of consensus is required. - Chardish (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

and bicycles, or consensus or something

 * You want to be very careful with that argument, Chardish! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahahahaha, yes. : ) Of course, if we go with the "let IAR be a moderately fluid page" idea, then we can just IAR the part about policy pages requiring more consensus in favor of promoting the wikispirit through this page itself. - Chardish (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll discussion resumes

 * That poll is anything but active, it is full of very old opinions. The very fact that this has been the only version that anyone has supported for more than a week is a pretty strong indication it is the preferred ones. Many changes have been suggested, none of had any level of support coming even close to the consistent version. No other version has been consistently supported by many people for such a long time. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, bicycles

 * I see a different perspective - the fact that many changes have been suggested by many different people suggests that the page is widely perceived as defective. - Chardish (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's widely perceived as suboptimal, but if there's not some solution that will satisfy more people than sitting in a conventionally neutral-looking version that a lot of people are used to, then what business have we changing it? Why must it change? Can't we ignore that rule, too? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how handfuls of alternatives failing in any way indicates a failing of the version the gets reintroduced time and time again. It is not just people defaulting to what it was, they are choosing the version they support. The reason the same version keeps coming back after attempts to change it is because it has greater support than anything that has been suggested.


 * There is no sense in the idea that many failed alternatives indicates a lack of consensus for the current version, in fact it supports the idea it has consensus. And to be frank these changes are not being suggested by many people, it is just the same people suggesting them many times. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember, I originally supported that position too. Now I'm less certain, and I'm worried that the original concepts behind consensus and IAR will fail on the long term, if we're not careful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are challenging the idea of Wikipedia being ran by consensus, then that is something for another talk page, not sure where, probably on meta somewhere. As for the concept behind IAR, I think it has and continues to serve us well, and with a dash of common sense we avoid its negative side effects very well. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm worried about is the situation where people often misunderstand IAR and Consensus, and they make a great big mess of things. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you say more about that? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in a NEW SECTION, please. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop

 * Instead of saying more, why not keep this page limited to talking about what IAR should be. I would say 1 byte in 50 on this page is actually people debating the content of the page. The only ongoing argument is what constitutes consensus, and when edits should be reverted when there is no change on the table that any significant group of people has supported for more than a few days. I ask what are we debating when there is no suggested change that has any significant support? <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

comment on sub-headers, by newbyguesses
In above sections, both sixtyninefortyninefortyfoureleven and myself have *practised* inserting sub-headers, with varying success. GTBacchus has commented favourably on 69's efforts. My own were less successful.

The problem with 69's approach is that the text becomes over-formalised, with dinky little sections. The problem with my approach, is that "arbitrary break", or variants, inserted here and there, just doesnt cut it, when the sections become so convoluted, and late comments are added in.

I, and no doubt 69+, will continue to experiment in this way, as there is a need to be served.

The problem is that long sections of indented text, with later interpolations added out of chronological order, are really boring, and, usually not much of worth is being said.

The most useful solution I can suggest is that users try to think before they add. If a "screenfull" or so of indented text exists, and A) no firm point has been established, or refuted, such that the topic is finalized, and a new topic is to be started then B) that section of text is probably off-topic, or full of baloney (we get lots and lots of that.).

Please, if there is such a screenful of boring, useless waffle, DO NOT ADD to it, but start a new section, and put a header which reflects the point at issue, or is at least catchy.

I repeat, if an indented exchange goes on for about a "screenfull" or more, and no point has been made, nor refuted, and no conclusion is evident, and no new departure is evident, then, in general, that screenfull of text has been a waste of breath, (though there may be one or two gems of a comment buried in the snow-drifts). DO NOT add further words to a long, indented conversation, unless there is a point to be made, somewhere. We do not talk for the sake of it, but to come to agreements, or conclusions, or to set out parameters for a new discussion:to discuss, and finalize a matter.

Long, indented conversations, wherein no conclusions are reached, or matters finalized, are simply a waste of breath. DO NOT add to such. Finalize some matters, and then start a new section, please. Otherwise, this page becomes unreadable, time and again, which is a clear indication that the discussion is, basically, dysfunctional, despite any joy it may be giving to GTB, or to me, or Chardish or David Levy. Start a new section, it is supposed to mean that we have finalized a point! Newbyguesses - Talk 17:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE just when it seemed that (after the sad departure of u:Zenwhat) we could try to get back to sensible focussed discussion here, it has all blown out again. It appears that myself and GTB are the main offenders this time. Though David Levy and Chardish have also conducted their usual back-and-forths, which cover about 3 screenfulls or so (probably more).
 * This page is 215 kilobytes long! And the project page is 12words! And the page is protected!
 * How ridiculous it is, that all this indented chit-chat achieves nothing.
 * Somewhere in this vast storehouse of dead words, there MAY be a little sense spoken.
 * I offer a dollar to anyone who can cobble together one screenfull of useful information from 215Kbytes of this indented blather! Newbyguesses - Talk 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You owe me a dollar. [see 'summarization of "Why?"] -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I freely grant and admit that esteemed NumberedUser:sixtynine-fortynine-fortyfour-eleven has truly and helpfully earned a dollar here, and I will pay up upon demand in person! (Offer now closed, thanks) Newbyguesses - Talk 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

from User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring
User:KimBruning suggested (above) the reading of this essay.

[edit] (2.3) Chronic protection

Premise 3: Chronic protection is more harmful than blocking chronic edit warriors. Don't leave editors who are already unproductive and refusing polite communication and collaboration unblocked, while leaving the articles they have made a mess due to back-and-forth edit wars locked from constructive editing by the community at large.

[and the first sentence of 3 sentences of]

[edit] (2.4) Interpersonal dimension

Premise 4: All conflicts are interpersonal; no variance in point of view is the root cause of interpersonal conflict. If you think that the meeting of unresolvable points of view in an attempt to write a single reference work will inherently lead to conflict, you are cynical in the face of evidence: Wikipedia. This project, while imperfect and unfinished, has been a fabulous success because of the record of successful peaceful, collegial collaboration between ideological opponents. [emphasis added]


 * From the first extract, I read that blocking may be a lesser value option here on this page given that WP:IAR is not an article. To whatever extent.


 * From the second extract, I read that ideological questions, (which adhere in articles) are not of themselves necessarily going to cause inter-personal conflicts, ie. personal attacks. Now, the absence of such RL ideological concerns in WPspace in fact implies that personal attacks are more likely to accompany edit-warring in WPspace, because of the lack of RL pressures, and the "theoretical" nature of our speculations.

Comments? Newbyguesses - Newbyguesses - Talk 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The coloured big text version was rejected
The coloured big text version was rejected by a number of editors as too garish, and unnecessary on a project page. A suggestion was made that continued attempts to introduce changes to the project policy page, having no prospect of acceptance, is somewhat akin to "disruption". That section of discussion is finalized, for now, so I am starting a new section. Please do not continue to re-argue the same points, discussion becomes unwieldy when these sections just go on and on. Let's move on, or say nothing if nothing needs to be said. (This page is 36 kilobytes long.) Newbyguesses - Talk 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusion template added. microchip08 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100% background-color:white" <div style="border-bottom:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#d0e5f5; padding:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0.5em; font-size:110%; font-weight:bold;">
 * style="vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#f1f5fc;" |

Conversation conclusion
After a debate, of during which there was an edit war, it seemed to be consensus to not change the formatting of the WP:IAR page to any of the current suggestions Main arguments:

For Against
 * It is only 12 words, and needs embellishing
 * It seems to work on all resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024
 * Wikipedia is "meant to be fun"
 * It is too large a font
 * It makes it seem like the policy is "set in stone"
 * It makes it look like a joke
 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |
 * } re-added. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Resuming the Discussion
This is a reply to the above section, in consideration of Newbyguesses' request. Chardish, I don't share your perception of editing patterns on this page. You claim that it is uneditable, but I've seen it edited several times in good ways that stuck. The so-called set-in-stone version has been evolving - quite slowly - since it was first written down. In between the steps of its evolution, there is a lot of noise. A lot of people come along and make some edit that doesn't improve the page. Those edits get reverted, sometimes amidst a lot of heat, and a little light for those who are looking. This editing pattern pattern is not pathological; it's normal, and healthy. You seem to be committed to the idea that arbitray edits, such as adding an unconventional formatting or removing a bullet, should stick, as proof that the page isn't set in stone. That's not how it works. Proof that the page isn't set in stone is that edits that improve the page stick. Now, you mention how stressful the discussion was last summer, or whenever. I would contend that discussion over this page is only stressful if you make it so. I've never been stressed out over this page, and there's no reason that anyone needs to be, unless they decide to be. That's why I keep asking, why is it so important to you to make some kind of arbitrary edit to this policy? Is your only objection the perception of immutability? That objection should be obviated by an honest look at the page's history, and the acknowledgment that it can be edited, and has been edited, albeit slowly. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the process of change is overly contentious

 * To User:GTBacchus, some changes last longer than others. Outright vandalism ought to be, and is, reverted immediately. But, I wonder, if some odd -looking change is allowed to stand for a day or so, does that cause problems?
 * To u:David Levy, your thoughts, please, I repeat (from above) I am willing to see any reasonable efforts to better them go on the project page, to see how long they can be left up, without causing any of the dreaded "disruptions by editors who invoke IAR".] I also echoo your call, that examples of a particular version of IAR causing problems are not often supplied. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to good-faith attempts to improve the policy's wording (though I don't regard any recent attempts as successful). —David Levy 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that. My issue is the fact that nothing can remain on the page without being talked to death. It's contrary to our principles for editing articles, and I think we need to eat our own dog food when it comes to policy pages. - Chardish (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that reverting controversial changes and discussing them on the policy's talk page is inconsistent with standard procedure? —David Levy 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that if every change is regarded as controversial, then something is wrong with the application of procedure. One cannot make a change that hasn't cleared discussion first, and I believe you agree with that. I see that as being inconsistent with BRD. - Chardish (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree with that at all. It's perfectly fine to perform good-faith edits to the page without advance discussion.  What isn't perfectly fine is continually making changes that the editor knows to defy consensus.  —David Levy 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's acceptable, but then it immediately gets reverted. Thus it's de facto forbidden to make edits without prior consensus. - Chardish (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. People revert changes with which they disagree.  Then we can discuss them and gauge consensus.  That's how the editing process is supposed to work.  —David Levy 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But on a page this contentious (see above) there's going to be someone who disagrees with any given change. If not, can you find a counterexample, i.e. a change to content that someone made without discussing it first that wasn't reverted? - Chardish (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. Your assertion is that every undiscussed edit is indiscriminately reverted, which is false.  People revert edits with which they disagree.  That this particular policy page has been the subject of a great deal of disagreement is another issue entirely.  —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My assertion is that every undiscussed edit is reverted. The editors that revert are certainly discriminate (and revert in good faith), but that still doesn't change the fact that it's demonstrably impossible to make a lasting change to this page without discussing it first. Chardish (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding an image version
Chardish: I was going reply as well, but GTBacchus covered most of what I was going to write. So I'll just address one remaining point:

"Hey! Check out that big useless image. Kind of makes the page a bit brighter! : )"

It made the page look like a joke, removed links, and reduced the policy's accessibility to people with visual impairments. But hey, what matters is that you have "fun," right? —David Levy 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oy, Dave, those would be the problems that I alluded to earlier when I stated that the image-only version was objectively worse. However, you missed out on "makes the page take longer to load," which regrettably disqualifies you from winning the gold in the Keep Arguing The Point Your Opponent Conceded event. - Chardish (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I don't regard this as a game. I was merely responding to the comment that I quoted (which you wrote after the post to which you've linked above).  Indeed, you referred to the image-only version as "objectively worse," but you've yet to explicitly acknowledge that the edit in question was disruptive (though your agreement with my assertion that it "made the page look like a joke" seems to imply that).  —David Levy 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the comment that I made was that no one treats WP:BOLD as a joke policy because of its image. Was the image I posted the best possible image? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with an image just for the sake of having one? No. - Chardish (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there anything wrong with adding a bad image just for the sake of having one? Yes.  —David Levy 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of curiousity, how long do you plan on continuing to argue that the image I said was bad is a bad image? - Chardish (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm merely replying to what you've written. If it wasn't intended to apply to this situation, I don't know why you posted it.  —David Levy 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not an answer to my question, particularly after I clarified why I made the comment I did. - Chardish (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? That is an answer to your question.  I'm not arguing the point that the image was bad; I'm citing this agreed-upon condition as an applicable distinction.
 * Where/when did you clarify why you made the above comment (at 02:33, 2 March 2008)? —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Appears to be some confusion there. I simply want you to stop using "the image you posted was bad" as a rhetorical device since I already admitted the image was bad. - Chardish (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that isn't what I'm doing. As we're in agreement regarding the image's poor quality, I cited this condition not to assert its existence, but in reply to your statement that there isn't "anything wrong with an image just for the sake of having one."  Here's a timeline consisting of pretend quotations that summarize our relevant comments:

---
 * Me: "The image is bad."
 * You: "I acknowledge that the image is bad."
 * (passage of time, during which other conversation occurs)
 * You: "It's okay to add an image just for the sake of having one."
 * Me: "Yes, but we've agreed that your image is bad, so it wasn't okay to add that one just for the sake of having an image."

---
 * Now do you understand? —David Levy 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. If we're going to have an image on that page, I don't think that should be the one. I thought that was implied but I guess there was just a miscommunication. - Chardish (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The speed at which reverts are made
Replying to Newbyguesses above, you asked, "I wonder, if some odd -looking change is allowed to stand for a day or so, does that cause problems?" I doubt it would cause any problem, no. What's the difference between two hours and two days, after all? That argument cuts every which way, too. If I encounter an odd bit of formatting on any page on Wikipedia, I'm likely to fix it, and I'm not likely to see whether it was introduced within the last 24 hours, and letting it remain if it's so recent. Odd-looking formatting just gets fixed, automatically, and there's no reason to discourage that. It's a good habit. In general, the criterion for making an edit is not "does it fail to cause problems?", but "does it improve the page?" -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, GTB, I am with you there. I am wondering though, regarding a bang!, a minor change, if it is reverted after one hour, has that given time for a reasonable number of page-watchers to at least consider the edit, from a number of angles, rather than rule it out "shoot on sight". However, realistically, if the change (an exclamation point) is sufficiently unorthodox, though minor, it will only take an hour or so before one of the page-watchers is, justifiably, bold. Still, I think i could stand an unorthodox page for a day or so, if it resulted in fresh editors, with fresh ideas, adding to the discussion on this talkpage. (section is getting long.) Newbyguesses - Talk 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see no particular problem if some unconventional but harmless edit sits for a few days on the policy page. Neither can I see any problem if such a change is reverted, either sooner or later. As for the idea that an unorthodox page would result in fresh editors with fresh ideas on this talk page... are you saying the current state of affairs doesn't result in that? Why would letting changes sit be likely to generate more productive talk page discussion than reverting them? What incentive will people have to discuss changes here unless they're reverted, per BRD? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, GTB, we are still on the same page. Many of the editors commenting here have been around for a while, reverting them is problematical, if a better option is available. Reverting fly-in edits should be done politely, (in the edit-summary) - who knows, an entirely new idea might just surface. But, I do agree, I see NO PROBLEMS with editing this page currently. Let's go for the record, longest time between protections! (And shortest talkpage archives?) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh Noooo! 23:43, 2 March 2008 Addhoc (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: Edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC))) . I should have shut up, now we will never make the record. Drats!Newbyguesses - Talk 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go for shortest talk page. I find the discussions here stimulating and illuminating. In a way this is an important nexus of Wikipedia policy, and the discussions on this page make ripples that spread throughout the project. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reverts I see are all justified and could only have been done faster. Policy is meant to reflect wide acceptance, not the whim of an editor. If you edit sticks great, that is acceptance, if it gets reverted try to find consensus on the talk page or give up. Don't complain that the revert was too fast because core policy is not your sandbox. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A) I accept that point, Until 1. It seems that my idea for a three-hour contemplation zone has had no supporters at all. B) I disagree, GTB, much of the "wheat" in these discussions comes drownded in bushels of "chaff". I reckon, if the project page is twelve words, then 12K would be a suitable multiple for the talk page (weekly) archive. I have a v. slow connection, and waiting 4 minutes for a page to load is not my idea of a productive time. However, I accept the inevitable here, I enjoy the discussions, though would dearly love to refactor them down to the meat, which I reckon would be about 5 or 6K per week. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These subheadings
I added these because the last section really was too long, and because I find I have trouble, sometimes, on the talk pages, keeping track of the different places at which arguments (often the same one) are taking place. I've already concluded that, although much softer on the eyes, they're not a very good idea, but rather an open invitation to frequent revert warring on the talk pages. My thoughts on the matter wander well off-topic. Is there a talk page somewhere about talk page conventions? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk page. I'm not sure what you mean about revert warring on talk pages, as altering anyone else's comments is generally a no-no, except for minor formatting fixes, archiving, and removing really nasty personal attacks.--Father Goose (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(insert) To FG, this was part of an edit war, on this discussion page, on 1 March 2008. (Sorry for the edit-war, but i had to.) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well you see, I often have to constrain my own levity, on occasion. So I went back, reviewed the headings, and tried to make sure they were as fair as I could make them.  The process gave me occasion to imagine what it would be like if people started fighting over what a particular thread of discussion should be titled. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I've found Refactoring talk pages, now, so any discussion should be nearby. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From my reading of Refactoring a talk page, it is permissable to insert arbitrary breaks from time to time, for clarity. This still runs the danger of 're-framing" a discussion, if poorly done, though I would generally favour anything which breaks up long sections into more digestible chunks.
 * But, maybe it can be over-done, in which case there might be an objection from another editor. Recent refactoring (minor) on this page seems not to have attracted objection often. IE, User:Until 1 self -reverted once. Father Goose "archived" a section that was in the way. NewbyG, some time ago, commented out a disturbing image. Such generally is accepted, the civility factor on this page is way high!
 * I would suggest inserting headings, and sub-headings sparingly, but start a new section always if appropriate. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrior
There's no way to sugar-coat this, and I do need to ask (sorry). Viewing edit history of the page, does anyone else read it as David Levy conducting a slow, long term edit war? Ever so many edits is a revert by David Levy. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If people would stop editing the page against consensus, there would be no need for reversions. —David Levy 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Believing that an adversary is simply "uncooperative" is never an excuse for an edit war. Edit wars are defined by actions, not motivations. - Chardish (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time."
 * My behavior has been to honor consensus. Yours, conversely, has been to continually defy it (with some edits bordering on outright vandalism), apparently for the sake of making a point and having "fun."  —David Levy 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the vast majority of my edits have been good-faith attempts to improve the page. I can think of perhaps only 2 or 3, ever, that were not. But hey, whatever you can say to make me seem like a bigger dick, right? - Chardish (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In this latest round of edits, I assumed good faith on your part until you performed the edit that you don't want me to mention. Given your previous acknowledgment that you edited the page purely to prove a point, you've made it difficult to separate the good-faith edits (many of which appear to stem from an inexplicable desire to change the page for the sake of change) from the others.  Frankly, most of your edits come across as pointy or spiteful (even assuming that you honestly do seek to improve the page in the process) and obviously (including to you) defy consensus.  —David Levy 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, please remember that there is never, ever, ever, ever any excuse to stop assuming good faith. (Please don't quote WP:AGF at me that you don't have to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary - that's utterly contrary to the point of AGF, which is meaningless except in the presence of evidence to the contrary.) Nobody here is physically capable of acting in anything but perfect faith. If we start questioning each other's motivations, everything goes to hell. You know this. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I honestly don't understand what you mean. You correctly predicted that I would have cited the fact that WP:AGF doesn't prescribe the assumption good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, and I'm at a loss as to why you evidently regard that principle as invalid.  If this were so, we could never block anyone because of vandalism; we'd have no choice but to assume that each and every plainly vandalistic edit was performed in good faith.
 * I'm sorry, but when a user openly acknowledges editing a policy page to make a point and have "fun" at the expense of logic, I won't ignore it. —David Levy 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, that's a serious misunderstanding. I've blocked lots of people, never once dropping my assumption of good faith. (I don't believe that living creatures are physically capable of bad faith.) We don't block people for bad faith; we block them to prevent bad edits. There is nothing we ever do, including community banning, that requires any demonstration of bad faith. It doesn't matter whether the person is replacing articles with pictures of penises because they're acting in bad faith, or whether they're just seriously misguided; either way we have to block them. People's motivations are eternally unknowable to you. AGF is very poorly written at the current time, because it presents the principle in a totally wrongheaded light. It presents it as a "rule", that we're "required" to follow, except in cases that are "exceptions". All of that is bullshit. The true message of AGF is "assume good faith because doing otherwise is blinkered, pointless and unproductive." Anyone can assume good faith when there's no evidence to the contrary - what's impressive is doing it even when there's "evidence" to the contrary. Some people will realize that one man's evidence is something totally different to another man. Finally, and most importantly, no discussion has ever been advanced by someone suggesting that someone else is acting in bad faith. That's always a distracting red-herring. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that we have deep philosophical differences of opinion regarding the state of humanity, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * Do you hold one or more of the opinions that:
 * wikipedia is important?
 * everything must be done with the appropriate gravitas?
 * Wikipedia is not intended to be fun?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * Please elaborate.
 * No.
 * —David Levy 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the question on gravitas, I mean to ask is it your opinion that all wikipedia activity should be done with a "Seriousness in bearing or manner; dignity." wiktionary.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what the word "gravitas" means. What threw me off was the phrase "the appropriate gravitas."  As  the question is worded in your reply, my answer is "no."  There is room for silliness on Wikipedia, but not on policy pages.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I assume your "no" is "no, wikipedia is not intended to be fun"?


 * You assume incorrectly. —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) User:D Levy has executed many edits to the project page.
 * 2) DL is rarely challenged on the p-page, nor on this discussion page.
 * 3) DL it seems, represents close to the majority or consensus view, or else DL would be challenged more often, and successfully.
 * 4) User:Levy contributes frequently to this discussion page, as user:KimB did used to recently.
 * 5) User:DL's input is always aimed at improving the page (that is, when it is not part of some snippy back-and-forth).
 * 6) The same cannot be said for all of user:KiMB's contribs, which KiMB would do well to remember.
 * 7) Despite a tendency to a[n itchy] trigger finger, I support, in the main, the editing of User:David Levy on this page over recent months, even when i have been reverted.
 * 8) User:DL's input is mainly in response to edits, many of which are either ill-considered, or have no chance of achieving consensus.
 * 9) Discussion is welcomed, disruption is not.
 * My current views, and no offence to KB is implied, Newbyguesses - Talk 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Newbyguesses. I sincerely appreciate your kind words.  —David Levy 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any serious problem with any one of David's reverts, but there would also be no serious problem if he were to let other people revert more often, or to let the page float around a little more. No serious negative consequences would arise from skipping a revert on occasion. I can see how David's good-faith editing might lead to the perception that he wishes to control the page. It would actually be quite excellent for each of us to avoid being a primary reverter of others' experiments, simply because the more people carrying out reversions, the clearer the consensus position. I see at least two people here making a similar kind of error: Chardish seems to find it very important that the page change, and be seen as mutable. David seems to find it very important that non-consensus edits not be allowed to stand on this page. Both are placing too much importance on something that's not nearly such a big deal. If this page seems immutable, what harm results? If this page drifts a little, and experiments with formats, what harm results? The answer, in both cases, is none. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this page. If it's not fun, then you're missing the point. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I believed that Chardish's edits were serious attempts to improve the page in a manner consistent with consensus, I would be far less likely to revert them. Instead, these are edits that Chardish knows defy consensus (made to prove a point and/or have "fun," or because of a misguided belief that the community's integrity depends upon the page being changed in some arbitrary fashion, no matter what that is).  —David Levy 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty blatantly clear to me that Chardish is trying to break the page out of what he sees as a damaging ossified state. Whatever he does to try to make that happen, in the sincere belief that the page as-is is hurting the project, cannot be done in bad faith. A misguided belief is not remotely evidence of bad faith; on the contrary, it's a complete exoneration from any such claim. Chardish is acting, in perfect faith, and in the misguided belief that the way he's editing the page will be helpful in some manner. Accusing him of bad faith will only ever serve to waste time, increase ill-will, and distract from the real discussion. This is a not a rule, but a law of nature. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that Chardish is motivated by desires to make a point and to have "fun." I believe this because Chardish has said so.  Does Chardish hope that making said point will help the project?  Quite possibly, but the ends don't justify the means.  Chardish's long-term goal might be honorable, but the short-term goals are not.  —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can sit there and claim that the ends don't justify the means, but a reasonable person may certainly disagree with you. They might even point out that, per this very policy, the ends sometimes do justify the means. If his long-term goals are honorable, and if he thinks he's getting us closer to those goals, then he's acting in good faith; case closed. The much more important point is that accusing him of bad faith doesn't help. It doesn't get us closer to a solution, it doesn't make the discussion go any better, and it does engender resentment and mistrust. So why do it? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Chardish deliberately and continually performed edits that he/she knew defied consensus and would be reverted. Chardish also fully aware that this probably would lead to the page's protection, and he/she has even expressed a preference for this outcome.  Meanwhile, Chardish has falsely claimed that these edits (including some that were patently absurd) were sincere attempts to improve the page.  I'm sorry, but that's bad-faith conduct (even if Chardish honestly believes that making a point could be beneficial).
 * But again, given the fact that you and I don't even agree on whether it's possible for a human being to act in bad faith, we probably are wasting our time by debating this.
 * 2. As I said, I'm merely responding to allegations of misconduct leveled against me. Those of us who believe that it's possible for a person to act in bad faith also believe that this sometimes warrants a different response than would otherwise be appropriate.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. You have not demonstrated evidence of bad faith, because of the simple logical fact that you can't see another person's motives. Chardish might have motives you've never thought of; how do you know he doesn't? If you honestly believe that making a disruptive point could be beneficial, then it's by definition good faith. Are you seeing it? You either think you're making things better, or you think you're making them worse. Why would anyone ever do that latter? 2. As below, what kind of response is appropriate in the face of perceived bad-faith? This point is very important, and it's why this discussion is not a waste of time. Whether or not you agree or disagree with me philosophically, the answer to the practical question of what to do, is that the only practical answer is to pretend to AGF, even if you can't really do it. That's the only effective response; if not, please explain. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

breaky breaky

 * 1a. Please understand that I'm not interested in engaging in a philosophical debate. You and I view humanity in very different lights, and that isn't going to change.
 * 1b. I don't believe that making a disruptive point (on Wikipedia) could be beneficial. It might set in motion a chain of events leading to a positive result, but we still are left with a net loss (because there are non-disruptive paths to the same desirable outcome).
 * 1c. Why would someone seek to make something worse? In this case, spite appears to have played a role.  Chardish is frustrated with the so-called "de facto protection," so he/she decided to have "fun" by messing around with the page until it actually was protected (a state for which he/she has expressed a preference).
 * 2.Again, I'm merely defending my actions (which I believe were appropriate because many of Chardish's actions were undertaken in bad faith). That's all.  —David Levy 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. Neither am I. I'm interested in the practical question of whether or not it is ever helpful (in the sense of bringing about a good result) to accuse another person of bad faith. That's a practical matter, not an abstract one.
 * 1b. Plainly, whether or not you think that being disruptive could be helpful is irrelevant to the question of whether Chardish thinks it could be. I agree with your point, but it's immaterial to the question of Chardish's motives.
 * 1c. I daresay I understand Chardish better than you do, because it's plain to me why he would act as he has, and I'm not seeing spite as a motivator. I see some frustration - desperation even.
 * 2. I don't necessarily object to your actions. I object to the idea that accusing someone else of acting in bad faith is ever a good or productive idea. I would contend, and I'm prepared to prove, that it is always counterproductive, even if you're right. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. Okay. I believe that it can be helpful, and I've explained why.  Feel free to disagree.
 * 1b. I don't care whether Chardish believes that being disruptive is helpful. The disruption is merely one effect of the bad-faith (in my assessment) acts.
 * 1c. I see evidence of spite. Feel free to disagree.
 * 2. You're welcome to present whatever arguments you wish, but it's unlikely that you'll change my mind on this matter. —David Levy 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just 1a - I must have missed that. I haven't seen you make an argument that accusing someone of bad faith leads to a good result. You've said that "this sometimes warrants a different response than would otherwise be appropriate," but not why. How does accusing someone of bad faith lead anywhere good. Show me one instance, ever. What is the good result that the accusation leads to? If it exists, please show it to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, my belief that Chardish was acting in bad faith was a major motivating factor in my response to his/her edits. In the opinion of many (including me), bad-faith edits warrant considerably less tolerance than good-faith edits do.  I've been criticised for not tolerating Chardish's edits, so my belief that Chardish's edits were performed in bad faith is highly relevant in defending my actions.
 * I don't expect you to agree with this logic, but I sincerely hope that you understand it (because I'm not sure that I can elucidate further). —David Levy 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That explanation makes sense. You're correct that I disagree that your conclusion about Chardish's motivations is supported by logic, but we've learned that you believe you can see into his heart, whereas I think you can't. I understand why you felt the need to point out Chardish's bad faith. I consider my question, "to what good result do accusations of bad faith lead," to be unanswered. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Please don't put words in my mouth. I needn't "see into [Chardish's] heart," as I'm fully capable of reading what Chardish has written.
 * 2. The "good result" is that I'm able to provide a rational explanation for my actions.
 * I must say that it's rather frustrating to be accused of failing to answer someone's question simply because my response is incompatible with the asker's philosophical beliefs. —David Levy 05:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be frustrating. I'm simply interested in good dispute resolution, and I don't see accusations of bad faith as being part of that. As for explaining your own actions, I never thought you were really acting wrongly, so I guess the explanation went under my radar. I understand now what you're saying the good result was. I was hoping to find out what sort of dispute-resolution-oriented good could result from an accusation of bad faith, but I don't mind if you choose not to answer that question. Finally, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. You claim that you can discern someone's motivations from their actions. That's all I meant by "see into his heart". I can't do that. I don't believe that you can, either, but I understand that you think you can. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yes, GTB. Now, if some editor is acting in good faith, but their continued edits are very largely unhelpful, verging on "disruptive", then what do we do? (Other than try to remain civil, which is an excellent idea, but sometimes difficult, if a real error needs to be pointed out, and the editor is recalcitrant.) Newbyguesses - Talk 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone acting in good faith is disruptive, and if ordinary discussion doesn't convince them to stop, then we've got a dispute resolution process, none of which depends one bit on anything about bad faith. We can maintain assumption of good faith and civility while filing a content RfC, a user RfC, or while preventatively blocking the user. There's no reason that remaining civil should become difficult, unless it's that we let our emotions get the better of us. In such cases, a small break is a good idea (not one that I always think of when I might). -GTBacchus(talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity requested

 * * I request a sanity check. Can you provide a comprehensive list of diffs of edits to this page that you have had problems with. I always have a WP:WIARM explanation for every edit that I make, and I can and will provide that explanation for each diff you provide. We can then decide if any of those edits were inappropriate.
 * * Just because others support someones edits does not mean they are not an Edit warrior. At the time, people like User:RickK were supported too (and many people still support his actions of the time). But we as a community have moved on, and instituted rules like the 3 revert rule, to curtail that behavior. Edit Warriors are not evil, and were at one point considered to have a useful function.
 * * In the past, my insights were also aligned with David Levy's. I reserve the right to possess progressive insight into a matter, however.
 * That covered: Can you list recent edits by David Levy that have *not* been reverts or essentially reverts?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you list recent edits by me to the policy page that didn't reflect consensus? Are Chardish's continual edits (which deliberately defy consensus) somehow okay because they keep changing?  —David Levy 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Chardish's edits. Reverts of good-faith edits tend to fail to reflect consensus. But that's my interpretation. I've requested a sanity check at AN/I. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, sorry, user:KB, but no, no, and no. I do not wish to slip into long-winded back-and-forths that just rehash past minor edits. Nor am i going to debate at endless length about meta-principles, or damned GNOMIC twaddle, which i wish i had never heard of. Just improve the page, do not debate to have fun, or make a point, or play gNoMiC games, and philosophise at length. (Much as I also, would wish to philosophise, but try not to, on this page). Sorry, no, but thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Bye! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you regard this as a good-faith edit?
 * 2. Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that it's inappropriate to revert consensus-defying edits performed in good faith?  —David Levy 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, of course that's a good faith edit. We have to learn not to even suspect bad faith. It never happens. Chardish has been trying to knock the page out of what he sees as a very bad state of ossification. Trying unconventional ways of expressing what's on the page is a perfectly reasonable strategy, and I appreciate the good work Chardish is doing here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's absurd. When someone replaces a policy's text with a photograph of a sheet of notebook paper containing a hand-written version thereof, I refuse to assume good faith.  For goodness sake, Chardish has acknowledged that it wasn't a serious attempt to improve the page!  —David Levy 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Too bad. I thought it was cool. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, you can refuse to assume good faith, but that doesn't make you right. If you're unable to imagine how such an edit could be carried out in good faith, then your imagination is what has failed. If you're unable to imagine how edits other than serious attempts to improve the page could be carried out in good faith, then again... that doesn't mean you're right. I think Chardish is doing his damndest to articulate and convince others of something that he sincerely believes is for the best of Wikipedia. Are you really able to doubt that? I think he's frustrated, and he's willing to try some unconventional approaches to break, or zen-slap, this page out of the damaging ossification that he believes its stuck in. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Chardish is making a mockery of the policy.
 * Note, however, that I had no intention of doing anything other than reverting the ridiculous edits (and explaining why I'd done so) until my actions were called into question. —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break (more insanity)

 * 1. That's REALLY REALLY cool and creative! You would have to have had your coolness-sense surgically removed at birth not to see that!
 * 2. *First* you state that the edits do not have consensus. You then state that you are reverting. Are you making the unstated assumption that the new state of the page then has consensus? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. It's "cool" to make a policy page look like a joke and make it far less assessable accessible (including to people with visual impairments)?
 * 2. I don't understand your question. —David Levy 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Accessible. And that's what the ALT text is for. :-) (also, 2 edits further on, the page is modified further to cover some of those concerns. you could have done so yourself)
 * 2. Assuming someone makes a change. And assuming you revert that change. According to you, would the (then current version of the) page reflect consensus?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. It was an obvious typo, Kim. Shall I go back and point out all of yours?
 * 1b. The image was created as a joke. Chardish has openly acknowledged this.  I refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how I could have improved upon a joke edit instead of reverting it.
 * 2. If I accurately understand the question (which I'm not positive of) you haven't specified enough information for me to provide a "yes" or "no" response. —David Levy 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. I just corrected it to what I thought it was to be sure we were on the same page. I'm trying to communicate in good faith. :-)
 * 1b. That sucks, because that's the core of the matter. If we cannot discuss, we are doomed to fight. I do not wish to fight. Note that as far as I'm concerned the edit is still very cool and creative.
 * 2. That's an interesting reply. What further information do you (believe you) require?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. Okay, but a better way of phrasing that would have been "Accessible? That's what the ALT text is for."
 * 1b. As far as I'm concerned, it's essentially vandalism.
 * 2. Was the page consensus-backed before the reverted edit was made? Did the reverted edit defy consensus?  —David Levy 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1a. Alright, and noted. :-)
 * 1b. Which document(ation) (on- or offwiki) do you use to support that assessment?
 * 2a. Was the page consensus backed? As per the reasoning documented at WP:SILENCE (and assumed at WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS), we establish that the previous content was not consensus-backed, because someone edited the page.
 * 2b Did the reverted edit defy consensus? I am not sure that it is realistically possible for a good faith edit to actually defy consensus. However, it might be possible that the new state of the page *also* does not correctly reflect consensus. (as documented fully on WP:CONSENSUS or in part at WP:BRD)
 * 2(all). can you now answer question 2?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1b. I probably could find a relevant document to quote, but frankly, I don't care to. I don't need to read something to know that replacing a policy's text with a silly image is vandalistic.  It also is quite disruptive and rather disrespectful to the community.
 * 2a. Rubbish. "Consensus" ≠ "unanimity"
 * 2b. It appears that you're drawing a distinction between the actual act of editing a page in good faith and the resultant change to the page's content. I was referring to the latter, which absolutely can defy consensus (not that I agree that all of the edits in question were performed in good faith).
 * 2. No, I cannot answer your question (given the fact that it's based upon assumptions with which I disagree).
 * —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit was not a joke and had a very real purpose. I do believe it made the page worse than the current version (for accessibility reasons), but I think it was a positive step towards getting the page to a better version. I kind of look at it as a form of annealing. - Chardish (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the image was an improvement. &mdash;Ashley Y 23:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How so? —David Levy 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was an improvement because it improved the page. It made it better. &mdash;Ashley Y 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the image was attention-grabbing, perhaps it could be added to the projectpage, but at a lower size, ie Pix20. Suggestion- Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In what respect(s) do you feel that the page was improved? —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [to CHARDISH] You've already acknowledged that the edit made the page look like a joke. You couldn't possibly have failed to realize that ahead of time.  —David Levy 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I never said it was a joke. You said that. - Chardish (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Me: "It made the page look like a joke, removed links, and reduced the policy's accessibility to people with visual impairments." (emphasis added)
 * You: "Oy, Dave, those would be the problems that I alluded to earlier when I stated that the image-only version was objectively worse."
 * —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Missed that one about making the page look like a joke. No, I do not believe that to be so. - Chardish (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine. I do.  —David Levy 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check
Sanity check: Indeed, slow reverts is still a way of gaming the system. Maybe David and others need to consider WP:BRD instead of WP:BRRR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continually devising new ways to edit a page in defiance of consensus (thereby enabling the editor to say, "But you're the one reverting! Each of my edits was different!") is way of gaming the system.  —David Levy 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusing each other of gaming the system is a way of undermining the discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm not accusing Jossi of gaming the system.
 * 2. No offense, but discussion is hampered by efforts to prevent constructive criticism of others' conduct. —David Levy 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What am I trying to prevent? If I make an observation, you can take it or leave it. If you really think that my role on this page is that of a discussion-hamperer, then I thank you for paying so much attention for the last year or so. I do try to facilitate discussion, and to keep it from being derailed by time-wasting accusations of bad faith, which can never be helpful. (I'm willing to prove this point.) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You seek to prevent any and all accusations of bad faith, irrespective of evidence. I realize, however, that you do so in good faith.  :-)  —David Levy 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More than that, I seek to point out that accusations of bad faith are utterly useless, counterproductive, and distracting. I've never seen evidence or even an argument presented to the contrary. The closest would be WP:SPADE which is a blend of nonsense and terrible advice. I feel that the uselessness of accusations of bad faith is clearly demonstrable using simple logic; if I'm wrong, show it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm merely responding to allegations of misconduct leveled against me. Those of us who believe that it's possible for a person to act in bad faith also believe that this sometimes warrants a different response than would otherwise be appropriate.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To what end? If you respond to what you perceive as bad faith by making an accusation of bad faith, where does that lead us? Does the person say, "Oh gee, you're right, I was acting in bad faith. I'll stop."? That never happens. Why? Because believe that they're acting in good faith, except for obvious vandals, but we're not dealing with that here. If Chardish weren't trying to make things somehow better, why would he bother contributing? What kind of response to perceived bad-faith is helpful? Another question - have you ever edited in bad faith? If so, why? If not, what makes you think that other people do it? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.I'm not trying to "lead us" anywhere. Again, I'm merely defending my actions (which I believe were appropriate because many of Chardish's actions were undertaken in bad faith).  That's all.
 * 2. Why, if not to make things better, would Chardish contribute? In this case, spite appears to have played a role.  Chardish is frustrated with the so-called "de facto protection," so he/she decided to have "fun" by messing around with the page until it actually was protected (a state for which he/she has expressed a preference).
 * 3. No, I have never edited in bad faith. I prefer not to answer the last question, as my response could be interpreted as uncivil.  —David Levy 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- GTB, this on-going meta-discussion about "bad faith", (a hobby-horse of yours, apparently) may please you, but it takes up megaBytes of chat and, DO You not think, that you are avoiding the issue, which is a serious one, of Edit-warring, by Chardish, now on BOTH pages? Do not keep philosophising like a wise monk, either address that issue, or, if you feel it should be left to fester/heal, keep the philosophy for a better occasion, please. You are not convincing DL, and I, who agree with you mostly, am losing the thread of the debate - it appears not to make headway. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Avoiding the issue? That is precisely my point. Every time you start talking about someone else's faith, you get off the subject and end up losing the issue. It's distracting, and that why it needs to not be brought up. The question of Chardish's edit-warring is entirely independent of any spurious considerations of his "faith". As for Chardish's edit-warring, that's not happening now on the main page, which is protected, and any edit-warring he's doing on this page is pretty much related to the static between the two of you, because you're both foolishly making personal comment after personal comment. If you want to get anything done, then stop making all personal comments, and stop helping him to edit-war by reverting him. That's the wrong way to handle a dispute, from both of you. Now, if you want to talk about the issue of Chardish's edit-warring the project page, we can talk about that in a very focused manner. Our best way of stopping it is to discuss Chardish's concerns with him, but people here are refusing to do that because you all have so much more fun drawing up lists of shit to accuse him of. Never talk about others' motives, and you'll automagically stay on the subject. The quickest way to get Chardish to stop edit warring is to let him know that his concerns are understood and addressed. All the crap about how he's acting in bad faith acts as a blinder, and prevents you from understanding his concerns. That's my focused answer: communicate better with Chardish. I'm working on it, too; help me. Stop yelling at him, and help me understand him. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not accused Chardish of bad faith, that is a red herring, I am accusing Chardish of "acting disruptively". I would like that issue addressed. How to do that?
 * I have not made personal attacks, (maybe a mild one), I am defending my own personal right to speak, so, I am the object of personal attack by Chardish.
 * I will gladly drop all inter-personals between Chardish and me, I want to forward this page.
 * That requires some form of debate - Whether Chardish has been edit-warring. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Chardish has been edit warring is not a matter of fact we need to establish in order to go forward with this page (although I think it's obvious - and irrelevant - that he has been, as have others). I don't know why you think that's an essential question. I don't believe I specifically said that you had accused Chardish of bad faith, if I did, then I apologize. I was mostly referring to DL's accusations, which have provided a significant distraction from the issue. The best way to address Chardish's acting disruptively is to communicate with him better.  The question we need to address is: what is Chardish's concern with the page, and how can we address it? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GTB. Now, I am a believer in centralized discussion, and any comments about Chardish's actions at this page should be discussed, publicly, at this page. I do not want to be trolled at my talk-page, nor do I believe, if that user will not apply themself to the problem here, that there is any likelihood of them doing so at their talk-page, which I do not, in any case, wish to visit. So, it needs to be discussed here, and I am sorry if you think calling someone on being disruptive is a personal attack, or itself disruptive. Read my words, in that post, there is no personal attack, only an issue that affects this page significantly. I wish someone had blocked Chardish, too. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no I don't think that calling someone on being disruptive is itself disruptive. It might not be the best way forward, or it might be. In this case, I'd say the best way forward is to identify and address Chardish's concerns, not to talk about how disruptive his behavior is or is not. Do you see a way forward that involves our first agreeing that Chardish is disruptive, or just why is that a helpful conclusion to reach, exactly? Where will that lead us? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Where and how do we ask Chardish to express, concisely, all their concerns. I am refraining from further comments towards that user which MAY be interpreted as a "personal attack". Please note, i have offered compromises, and requested consideration for my position; there has been no reply to date. Further action awaits if no compromise is forthcoming, and, come to think of it, I have heard all of Chardish's concerns, over and over in fact. But, what else is there to do? Newbyguesses - Talk 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still working on communicating with him. He's expressed a concern that the IAR page is essentially uneditable, and that that's a bad thing. Part of addressing this concern is proving that the page is not uneditable, which I'm working on by going over the history of the page. The most significant piece of evidence I've found so far is this good edit, which stuck without being reverted. Secondly, I've been working all day to get Chardish to explain just why it is a Bad Thing for this page to be pretty static. I've been developing an argument that the state of this page is somewhat analogous to the British v. American spelling dispute - we know that somebody's going to be unhappy whatever solution we choose, so our conclusion is to refrain from editing a page from one controversial spelling to another in the absence of compelling reason. Similarly, if no single version of IAR will make everyone happy, there's no point editing it from one controversial version to another, absent a compelling reason. Editing simply to show that a page can be edited isn't a compelling reason. This is the kind of argument we need to present to Chardish, and then demand that it be replied to by refusing to get off the subject. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- I am pleased to report that u:Chardish and I have indeed ironed out our petty differences. I never had any differences with you GTB, nor DL, or Father Goose nor KimBruning, nor others. So, we are back on track, sorry for my "rush of blood", no further action required. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great place for a subheader

 * No, i am not back-tracking, but i do offer this advice, David. A) Consider letting some minor edit stand a bit longer (someone else will probably revert it, so...) B) Be careful, as you are, to deflect any undeserved criticism of yourself. C) Be a bit less ready to point out the faults of others. They will come to realize their own errors, eventually. (Though your incisiveness is usually spot-on.) D) Please heed, as i am sure you will, my polite requests for all users not to waste our time with lengthy meta-speculation, and please use NEWSECTION headers, when appropriate. (ie BEFORE sections get to long) Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Newbyguesse. I realize that I can be impatient at times, but I have a very low tolerance threshold for intentionally nonproductive edits.  To me, allowing them to stand seems like mockery of the process through which Wikipedia operates (including the demonstration of similar patience with edits actually intended to improve pages).
 * As you may have noticed (and can see above), I try to confine my criticism of others' conduct to replies to messages in which my conduct is called into question. See, for example, this section's primary header and opening remarks.
 * Lastly, I'll come right out and admit that I'm hopelessly unable to avoid engaging in these lengthy meta-discussions (for better or worse). —David Levy 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On your last point, that is fine, David, you and Chardish and User:KimBruning can meta-discuss till the cows come home, and i will patiently read every word. Just, please, use NEWSECTION head'rs liberally, and grabby headers if possible, reflecting the twists and turns of a debate, with conclusive points, and not just a churn of indented words. (Take this lightly) Newbyguesses - Talk 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try to keep that in mind. Thanks again!  :-)  —David Levy 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, you make a good point, that edits obviously meant to improve the page deserve more respect than obvious vandalism. Some ODD edits, which are rather defective, may fall in a middle ground, and may still yet help to improve the page (in an indirect manner, admittedly) by stimulating new thought from old editors, or new thought and action from new editors. I think this is what user:Chardish has in mind, though it is rather a desperate tactic, which often back-fires. (User:Zenwhat is a "master" of that type of round-the-houses approach!) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting changes that don't reflect consensus is not edit warring, I don't think David is guilty of that. Frankly many of those reverts were baited by edits made with full knowledge they would be reverted. These games are getting tiresome, and they are transparent. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)Until  00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting changes that don't reflect consensus is not edit warring. Yes, it is; if it weren't, consensus would be listed as an exception to 3RR. —Random832 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "My edits have consensus" is no excuse for edit warring. Anyone can claim they have consensus. If you really have consensus, you won't have to be the one to constantly revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, user:Heimstern. Now, if you have been following this discussion page, what would you say if I were to propose the following "rule": No reverts, except for outright vandalism, shall be performed before three hours have elapsed since the ODD edit? Just so that more users can evaluate the position, and perhaps edit, or contribute to fruitful discussion, would be my reason for proposing such. Comments? Newbyguesses - Talk 06:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cutting in here, I'm afraid that I can't support such an idea. Plenty of entirely good-faith edits warrant immediate reversion, and I dislike the idea of replacing human judgement with an arbitrary clock.  —David Levy 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an arbitrary counter instead. It comes down to the same thing, I think. I believe there are some corner cases that aren't covered by that rule, however. This page might be one of them. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule places an arbitrary limit on the reversions performed by a specific editor to a specific page. It never prevents an edit from being reverted (provided that each of the individual editors doing so abides by the rule).  Of course, an edit war in which no one violates the three-revert rule can still lead to page protection, but that's a separate matter.  —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm...I wasn't the only person reverting. —David Levy 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who else was? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These users, (in addition to Chardish and David Levy), not that I want to point fingers, were involved in the edit war -
 * 20:47, 2 March 2008 CapitalQ (Talk | contribs)
 * 20:37, 2 March 2008 Onorem (Talk | contribs)
 * 19:52, 2 March 2008 QuackGuru (Talk | contribs)
 * 09:03, 2 March 2008 Locke Cole (Talk | contribs)
 * 20:51, 29 February 2008 Microchip08 (Talk | contribs)
 * 17:37, 29 February 2008 Bkonrad (Talk | contribs)
 * 19:45, 28 February 2008 Zenwhat (Talk | contribs)
 * They may not all have done reverts, or total reverts. Oh, and i edited during that period, also, not a revert, though. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad, CapitalQ, Locke Cole and Onorem reverted to the same page version that I reverted to. —David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, David has been edit-warring. And a handful of people of a particular point-of-view have been owning this page, restoring it to the current supposed "consensus version," which is apparently set in stone, in all of its holy glory. In a previous discussion that was archived, I pointed out how several users -- David, most of all -- have been making a lot of reverts. And they have been making more reverts than actual talkpage comments. Or, in the reverse, sometimes (some of them) will do both: Responding pedantically to every little comment and demanding a rebuttal for every claim made, while simultaneously reverting every time they disagree and generally being unreasonable.

As you can see, people who are being reasonable here aren't having any actual involvement in the development of the page. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Zenwhat, your previous comments about edit-warring, (in the archives) were refuted. They were unhelpful, they were disruptive, you accused people quite wrongly of being part of a cabal, which was insulting and provacative, and since you have now returned from being blocked, I am hoping that you will contribute more productively this time around. Your bald assertions here though are unsupported, I dont think you know what you are talking about. But I am willing to listen, and so should you, thanks Newbyguesses - Talk 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version is neither fully supported by consensus nor set in stone. It's one of several controversial versions that some people support. It's a particularly short and simple one, and there doesn't seem to be a more popular version. In general, when there's only a choice between different controversial versions of a page, we don't edit it back and forth from one controversial version to another - we leave it alone in one of them. This is how we handled the British/American spelling disputes, this is how we handled BC/BCE date format dispute, and this is how we've been handling this page for some time. If anything comes along that more people support than the current version, then we'll change to it. That hasn't happened in a few months now, which seems to make some people nervous. I'm not sure what we can do about that, but I thought those comments about the page being "set in stone" and "holy glory" needed refuting. That's not a realistic view of the policy - if it is, you'll easily find three other people who see it that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)