Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 3

Add old version in quotes for historical context?
The current IAR page (26 Jan 06) is well done and helpful, but I would like to see the 'original' one sentence version ("if rules make you...") from 2002 given space on the page also. Maybe put it in a box with the attribution "Wikipedia Ignore All Rules page 2002-2004" since it looks like it was left more or less intact for that period of time. As a long-time user of Wikipedia who has finally gotten up the courage to start helping with content, I value the message of this page. I like the content of the current revision, but I think including the more whimsical tone of the traditional version would provide the best of both worlds.Ben Kidwell 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * there's probably a rule against that. Heck, I don't know. You have a reasonable point. Why not? But this page has been the subject of a plethora of revert wars, so whatever you put on there might set one off once more. Or not. Edit at your own risk. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Just cite it properly with a description and permalink. Deco 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The historical version should be dewikified. Ikkyu2 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

IAR has been destroyed
I can't believe what this has been twisted into -- a brief, direct, and cogent point has been turned into policy babble. instruction creep anyone? It's spreading like a plague. I have half a mind to revert it back 9 months but I believe it's already been tried and reverted by those insistent on watering this down and thus depriving it of any meaning. --Wgfinley 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. —Guanaco 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lasted a while, I just put it back. To those bent on instruction creep did you notice with all of your addendums that you "bury the lead" on this? We're trying to introduce the concept of "ignore all rules" By the time you read through it all it's almost mentioned as an afterthought. Finally, we don't need a whole bunch of instruction creep on what to do if someone invokes IAR, etc, if they "invoke IAR" they obviously don't get it and should go back and study some more. Please, the vast majority of supporters signed on to this when it looked like nothing you want to make it into. This isn't intended to be policy, quit trying to make it one. --Wgfinley 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. A WP:IAR page which has a long elaborate explanation complete with a manual is something of an oxymoron. The historical version is basically fine. There's no reason to make this longer than one short paragraph. Let's keep this page, if none other, simple. - Haukur 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The ignore all rules cycle
As this seems to be a procedure, perhaps we should write it down, including all intermediate points. What lessons can be gleaned from it? Perhaps all articles go through a similar cycle, albeit at a slower rate. Kim Bruning 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this page gets a new (or old) version weekly, I think we should have a museum of IAR pages by now. Have a central page stating "Ignore this page all rules" that links (or difflinks) to all versions. Or whatever. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Current wording is absurd
The current version of WP:IAR reads as follows: "If the rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." Apparently, this was the historical state of the "policy". However, the problem with this version is that it is complete bollocks. If I were to repeatedly "ignore" this rule or this one or this one, I would quickly find myself banned from editing Wikipedia, and rightly so. There are rules - a lot of the debate about IAR is really over whether they should apply to everyone or just to the unwashed masses. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say there aren't any rules, it doesn't say ignore all the rules all the time, it makes reference to there being times to ignore them. Ignore all rules itself is also a rule which itself should be ignored much of the time.  Get it?  --Wgfinley 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaaarrgh! The recursion! The horrible recursion! --Nick Boalch?!? 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules. It's pretty good. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the old version we made better-- it was only a few sentences longer and explained what WP:DICK means in this context. Ashibaka tock 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I changed the wording to "any of the rules" although it it still, of course, called "Ignore all rules"; I think this is pointlessly anarchic. Rules aren't unimportant, but petty adherence to every single one of them can be offputting and place dicks at an advantage over those who may have better intentions but are less legalistic in their ways. I think the current phrasing tries to be too concise and may fail to encapsulate this. ProhibitOnions 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about changing it to "Break any rules"? --Zoz (t) 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

...and possibly paradoxial
 Texasdex put it rather nicely there ;-) Kim Bruning 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...and offensive
No obscenities, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Rules ≠ people
I've added the text "This does not mean you should ignore other people." to the page. This sparked a few more additions which were then reverted to an earlier, simpler version. I agree that the page should be kept short, and I think the revert was generally a good thing. I have, nonetheless, restored my addition, since it's something that has frequently come up during various recent disputes, and apparently does need to be stated explicitly. Feel free to refactor mercilessly, but if you (want to) remove it entirely, please at least try to explain your rationale here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with this addition. Wikipedia is built on consensus, which is formed only through respectful discussion between contributors. Deco 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreement here as well. I could show specific cases (a while back, so unfortunately it would take heinous amounts of digging) where WP:IAR has been invoked to basically say "you have made a clear argument backed by both the facts and by policy but guess what Ignore all rules so ha ha ha ha ha". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the phrase "don't ignore other people" per comments above, this time as the link text for Don't be a dick. Perhaps that might be an acceptable solution? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hmph
I feel the reversion of my edits was somewhat unwarranted. Though I can appreciate the complicatedness creep, I feel this rule would encourage vandals. I know that we know what it means, but some people may see this as "If you don't know the rules, ignore them" and take that to mean "Do whatever the hell you want". I feel clarifying the "Ignore all Rules" point is worth the "risk" of it getting more complicated. Anyone care to dispute me here? Deskana (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Common sense...

 * generates non-words like "aircrafts" and "costed."
 * determines correct grammar by whether it "sounds right."
 * varies among user backgrounds and education levels, and changes as users do.
 * opposes the nature of a reference work, by substituting logical rules and facts with whatever personal bullshit a user believes at the time. --Xmnemonic

Fortunately, we have other users who will help us recover from the occasional bit of misapplied common sense. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this? Care to explain? Deskana (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if we have a few users who think that, for eg, "what the Aircraft's costed" 'sounds right', it won't do any lasting damage, because the majority have more sense and can gently correct. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the non-words are formed by the misapplication of general rules to inappropriate cases, a classic example of a failure to ignore all rules in favor of common sense. And correct grammar by tradition has always been a mixture of logical rules and sounding correct to most educated users; even the strictest authorities caution against allowing a too-strict adherence to the rules of grammar to lead one to create monstrosities. Demi T/C 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A good point. I'm begining to think that Ignore all rules made a heck of lot of sense when there were very few rules and many situation that hadn't been thought of, when the letter and the spirit of the rules often clashed.  But we've been going for a while now.  The rules have evolved and matured a lot.  Most of the rules that needed to be written have been.  Any really common situation has been encountered heaps of times, so that it's only in unusual situations that the rules clash with common sense.
 * Most of the time the rules are pretty much what you would think they should be. So even if you don't realise that a rule exists, and you simply do what's sensible, the odds are pretty good that you'll have done exactly what the rules say you should have done.  And if you get it wrong in good faith, the odds are that it won't matter much.  The outcome will be close enough to right, and/or someone else will come along and correct it.
 * We can't get rid of this page entirely. There are, and always will be edge cases where the rules just don't fit.  But that's now the exception, rather than the, er, rule.
 * Maybe it's time to consider moving Ignore all rules to Rules have limits?
 * Regards, Ben Aveling 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of ignore all rules and use common sense is that erm, actually precicely what you said. If you just use common sense, 9 times out of 10 you'll do the Right Thing anyhow, or should do. But the rules have matured? 640K must be enough for everyone! ;-) Kim Bruning 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we really have 640K of rules? Gosh.  Maybe we need to Delete some rules?  ;-)  Ben Aveling 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we're at 640KiB yet, but it's a famous quote by Bill Gates anno ~1980. Seeing that we currently install and use more like 640MiB of RAM on newer machines (3 orders of magnitude more), it follows that perhaps Mr. Gates miscalculated a bit. It's foolish to assume that everything is perfect and cannot be improved. :-) (see also:Bill Gates.) --Kim Bruning 14:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From Ben Aveling: We can't get rid of this page entirely. Well, as I've always said, "ignore all rules" just is, it follows directly from the fact that our policies and procedures are not intended to be legal codes. That fact means that IAR exists and is binding, whether or not it's described as a policy, a guideline, a rule, an essay or whether the page in fact exists at all. Demi T/C 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur entirely with this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. IAR is a sort of metarule that describes the extent to which our rules are considered binding and immutable and the manner in which they are enforced. It's more descriptive than prescriptive. Deco 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins unblocking themselves
I weighed up whether this edit was a WP:POINT violation in light of recent events, but came to the conclusion that it wasn't. I think this exception to IAR must be explicitly stated if it is true, because it will help admins who find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance to realise that, and not end up in a whole load more trouble possibly unnecessarily.

Of course, it may be untrue: in other words, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable for admins to unblock themselves. I guess if the edit is removed, then this is a community statement that IAR can be used to justify admins unblocking themselves. David | Talk 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's any need for an explicit exception. There are reasonable cases in which an admin can unblock themselves, like if another admin's account is compromised and they start blocking everybody. Each violation of a rule needs to be judged by reasonable people involved in that specific circumstance. Deco 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, there is an absolute need for an explicit exception, even if it is limited. The problem is implicit in your statement that there are other "reasonable cases": what is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another, and so just leaving it at saying "admins shouldn't normally unblock themselves, but can do so if it is reasonable" is a recipe for conflict and actually adding to disruption, as I have recently found out the hard way. David | Talk 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see IAR serves more as a reminder for Wikipedia and its editors not to get entangled in beaurcracy, rather than be given the license to "shoot first ask later". Too much of such is going on. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the point - it's not necessarily the case that unblocking yourself is "shooting first". I unblocked myself, made constructive edits, didn't disrupt, nobody noticed until someone complained about a related block - and yet still consensus said I should be blocked to show that it shouldn't have happened. Without false modesty, if ever there was a case where IAR applied to admins unblocking themselves, this was it, and yet it didn't apply. Needs to be stated openly. David | Talk 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!
Did I miss where this page ceased to be a member of Category:Wikipedia official policy? Was this discussed and consented to? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually more like there was no such thing as "official policy" when this page was written, so it never got marked as such. Kim Bruning 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KISS
The beauty of IAR is to keep it simple, people keep trying to complicate it and turn it into policy, it s not. We don't need reference to not ignoring people because it doesn't imply that you should. Further, WP:DICK is about a lot more than just that so taking the wording of WP:DICK out doesn't follow either.

The rest I don't have issues with but it muddles the message and encourages others to keep adding on to this. Keep it short and keep it simple, that's what IAR has always been. --Wgfinley 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to note total agreement with this. The simpler the IAR page is, the better. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we put Orwell's famous statement on ignoring rules on the page? ProhibitOnions 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's the quote I'm thinking of it was in reference to "serious sport" and not rules really, I wouldn't think it relevant. --Wgfinley 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I meant the last one from Politics and the English Language . He lists six rules:


 * Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
 * Never us a long word where a short one will do.
 * If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
 * Never use the passive where you can use the active.
 * Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
 * Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.


 * The last one wouldn't be a bad motto for this page. ProhibitOnions 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Explaining IAR
I was talking with Amgine, trying to explain our most important rule, and he went like "Oh no! Wikilawyering some more"... I looked, it said "if any of the rules make you depressed " instead of just "if the rules make you depressed."

That was kind of interesting, to get a wikiexpert from outside to comment like that. :-) I guess it shows how much the rules-lawyers have taken over here that we forget that we're writing an encyclopedia. (He was commenting on that )

Kim Bruning 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Depressed and frightened
Those words kinda bother me. Don't they seem to be the kind of emotions that inspire the very worst episodes of WikiDrama and otherwise disruptive behavior? Being scared that you're being "wikistalked", for example, is not a good reason to ignore WP:NPA and launch a severe attack against someone, and yet this page would seem to encourage one in that state to "go on! ignore all rules! yay!". While I think there are some reasons to ignore rules, I find it troubling that depression and fear should be the only reasons given! --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm not too keen on it either, it sounds like the introductory sentence in one of those Scientology brochures. If you're depressed and frightened by Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be taking part in it. ProhibitOnions 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Limits on IAR
I feel IAR is being abused and needs some limits. I have tried adding language to this effect but find myself quickly reverted. Here is what I tried to add: IAR is not and excuse for being disruptive and/or inflammatory. Please discuss.--God of War 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I made an argument in an arbitration committee workshop on this. All action is by nature disruptive and/or inflammatory. Given that sufficient people are involved, there will always be someone who will be somewhat harmed by your actions, and who will take exception to what you're doing. Ignore all rules neither helps nor hurts with this. Kim Bruning 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused by this article
Ignore all rules? I've never heard that before in my time on Wikipedia. The article's two sentences long. How am I supposed to know the implications of such a radical-sounding policy? I cannot see how this policy fits with other Wikipedia rules. (Ie, This is a request to CLARIFY this strange policy).
 * It's a fundamental implication of the wiki technology we are using, and therefore one of the oldest wikipedia rules. Much else is rulecruft, this isn't. Ponder the consequences of this rule for yourself and how it fits with what you know. But basically for now just this: We're writing an encyclopedia, so if you want to add something to an article, go right ahead, we'll sort out the details later. :-) Kim Bruning 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer your last sentence (and Orwell's, above) to the rule as it currently stands. ProhibitOnions 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the request for clarification. As a new user, this seems extremely bizarre to me. --Hyphen5 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People create rules, because they think "they know best". This rules counterbalances it, for the sake of the greater good.  Kinda. --PopUpPirate 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's technically impossible, impractical, and impracticable to make strict rules on a public wiki like this. Only guidelines. This particular guideline makes that explicit.


 * Once you grasp this, you are well on your way to understanding wikis :-) If you're having trouble, try edit on a smaller wiki, or try editing on smaller articles. It's easier to see how wikis work then, without a lot of the rulecruft stacked on top. Kim Bruning 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This really isn't a normal wiki - it basically is literally an encyclopedia - the wiki just a means to that end (this place isn't even close to a normal wiki culture, but that doesn't mean it is bad, either). Also, as we have seen with Jimbo, "strict rules" are fairly enforcable. I think in its earlier incarnations it was somewhat closer to a normal wiki, but for what are probably various reasons it is its own ballgame, in which you need to apply WP:IAR carefully (for example, using it to justify a 3RR isn't going to help your case usually). Just another star in the night T 08:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * *Snicker* In fact you can, though it helps to gather consensus beforehand. If you do, you can think of doing things like soft-protect a page along a very narrow set of parameters. (One such application is even written into the rule itself: reversion of vandalism is explicitly permitted.)


 * Try stick to just writing an encyclopedia in the main namespace, and wikipedia works just fine as a wiki. :-) (Though to be honest, there's roughly eight hundred out of over one million pages where ignore all rules might fail)


 * Many of the other namespaces have become very crufty, though attempts to delete them have been strongly resisted, so far. Perhaps we should move them to a different wiki1. That would help a lot.Kim Bruning 19:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1 This is the default reccomended action for things that don't really belong on wikipedia ;-P

Yo. Really, really, really easy explaination of Ignore all rules: You, as an editor is supposed to be a rational being and take responsibility for all your actions. in a society/system where everybody is rational, you do not need rules to govern peoples behaviour, because people govern themselves. A=A, you insensitive liberal clod!

See Objectivism, Anarchy (Does wikipedia come with a political agenta and a school of philosophy? yes, it does) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΊΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΉ, Ι-5 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

An idea whose time has passed
I wish this page could be deleted. An admin has just invoked it to justify violating page protection. It's kind of tiresome having people refer to IAR when what they mean is they do whatever they want. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I doubt there'd be any agreement to do so. Next time someone abuses WP:IAR, respond with WP:DIAR. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I believe this rule could use more clarification. I think all reasonable editors understand it's importance to the wiki-ecosystem; however, we have also seen less experienced (and sometimes very experienced) editors invoke it for obviously ridiculous reasons. I like the addition of don't ignore other people, but a few things follow from that for me, that may not follow for other editors simply from linking to "don't be a dick". First, I think if one editor references policy in a talk page discussion, especially with a compelling argument for why the policy is in fact well thought out and should apply to this situation, "WP:IAR" should not be considered an appropriate rebuttal. You should have to justify a compelling reason to ignore the rule in the specific instance (see: Talk: Facebook). Second, in many cases, it may require ammending the offending rule (through talk page consensus, of course) if there is actually some important exception to it. In that case, the only benefit I see to IAR is immediatism, which is almost always a recipe for disaster. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the following text to be in page, to clarify: "Just remember, saying you want to "ignore all rules" will not convince anyone that you're right, so if someone gets upset you will need to persuade them that your actions improved the encyclopedia." But other people kepe taking it out. Ashibaka tock 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * People abuse the Ignore All Rules rule just like people abuse things like the right to free speech or the right to a fair trial, or the freedom of information act or etc. All such abuses are annoying to any system of governance or organisation, but we still need rules like this to protect and help people who are actually making themselves useful.


 * I recently was told that the law of the sea also has a rule a bit like Ignore all rules, to do with that anything done in the spirit of good seamanship is ok. I'm going to have to look that up!


 * Maybe we could extend the rule here with just one caveat, just the one mind you! We could say You are free to do as you will, provided you are acting in the spirit of good wikipedianship.


 * Kim Bruning 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ps:randomly: Note that law at sea seems to differentiate between open ocean and coastal waters. Rules for coastal waters are rather more complex than those for open ocean. Something similar might be useful on wikipedia, where there appear to be two sets of social dynamics, depending on the busyness of a page.Kim Bruning

"If the rules discourage you from participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." If that's not an invitation to troll, spam and vandalise I don't know what is. I think it should say something along the lines of "ignoring rules is fine if you genuinely believe you are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia". That's the only context in which I ever quote this guideline. --kingboyk 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Spot on Kingboy-o.... It's a catchy meme but I see it causing a lot of trouble when misapplied. I favour keeping it, though, strangely enough. + +Lar: t/c 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Errr, the thing is that a lot of people are intimidated by the rules and don't participate (one learns this whilst reading OTRS ^^;;) . Many good willed people are put off by our rules, while trolls typically use the rules to their advantage. (the latter is learned by being an admin for a year). Kim Bruning 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy is original research!!! OMG, WTF!?!?!oneoneeleven
All wikipedia policy and guidelines are original research. D'oh. We made them up.

As for reference for the removed section, see
 * Image:Articles_distinct.png
 * Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png

Hmm, reviewing the data, I'll postulate that between 80-90% is more likely. I'll fix my numbers. :-)

Kim Bruning 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG! Original Research? O RLY? YA RLY. R U SHUR? YA, RLY. NA. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * my reasoning was not entirely serious :) but why bother to postulate when you could just say "most edits" ? SECProto 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (digs in dictionary), Oh, one meaning is "assumed without proof". Ah... right, ok, I'll just *state* it then, as we can be pretty sure it's 80-90%. We just measured it, after all. :-P Kim Bruning 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * *scratching head*, yeah hmm. "Most" of the time is a tad weaselly. That could be 51% or better or somesuch. In fact it turns out that it's fairly unlikely that you're ever going to get in trouble with being bold and ignoring all rules. Granted, that's only if you act like a good wikipedian.
 * The problem then becomes: define "good wikipedian". Hmmm *scratches head some more*. Kim Bruning 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's gotten shorter! :-)
Amazing! More people should do that. Kim Bruning 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or delete it entirely, because it needs so many caveats as to eliminate the point. In particular, WP:IAR must not be invoked to overrule the foundation principles like WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and as is currently happening in the Jarndyceian shitfight over The Game (game), WP:V or WP:RS. Kinitawowi 10:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or make it simple - you can ignore all rules until someone requests you apply them. That way we don't tie up admins (for example) with useless red tape in performing actions which have overwhelming community support, but at the same time preventing IAR from being used as a +1 Golden Shield of Righteousness to avoid complying with policy. Cynical 10:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, most policy is mostly not useful most of the time. (see above :-) ), so make that a +2 shield, and specifically for that purpose. Of course if you also go against common sense, and don't actually help make an encyclopedia... that's a different matter. (That and you're supposed to tread carefully as an admin anyway, but you already knew that, right?) Kim Bruning 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ever shrinking size
This page is referred to all over the project, yet we keep removing content from it. How can this be useful for people not familiar with the history of IAR? (And don't say go to the history, I'm speaking of this from a BITE perspective.) — xaosflux  Talk  12:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think no history is necessary, and would pollute what should be the shortest size - it is meant to be simple to understand. What is there to not get about "if the rules get you down, forget em and just improve the encyclopedia" ? It is basically a "common sense" clause to this whole place. SECProto 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"doesn't have consensus approval"
(from an edit comment)

Next to the comment being a pleonasm at best, erm, well, Ignore All Rules is a key component to the formation of consensus on a wiki. If you want to get consensus on it, you'd get into an endless recursion. If you meant it doesn't have majority approval, erm, see above for approval rating over several years. :-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortest ever Wikipedia page?
I've summarized the article from 14 to 13 words. Is this the shortest wikipedia page ever, not counting templates? Borisblue 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the sandbox is smaller: its just a comment and a template. --  127 . * . * . 1  02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is positively bloated compared with Keep policies short. Pcb21 Pete 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it strange that the 'summary' of IAR on Simplified Ruleset is twice as long as the page itself? :D It was like this before I changed it.


 * Just how many simplified rulesets are there? That one, five pillars, trifecta,.... ! Pcb21 Pete 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's three; simplified is sort of the base project, trifecta is a summary of that summary, and 5 pillars is the middle road. They're each useful:
 * Simplified ruleset was originally intended to get you to admin
 * trifecta can be followed as an admin
 * five pillars is also useful for very new users


 * so folks have kept all three. Take your pick :-) Kim Bruning 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured essay tag
What is the problem with this tag? WP:IAR fits the criterion for being a featured essay as described in the tempplate (it is used widely in discussions and enjoys widespread support), so I do not see the ground for removing it. Please do not remove it again without providing your resons here. Loom91 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it fits the criterion. Even if it were to fit the critereon, adding this particular lovely stamp (I'm sure) is superfluous. Kim Bruning 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point out exactly which criterion it doesn't fit. Also please point out how it is superfluous to the article. Are the same words said somewhere else perhaps? Loom91 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a big discussion on whether this page was policy, guideline, or essay, and people basically agreed to disagree. The box you see at the top of the page is the final compromise people agreed on. Kim Bruning 13:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from the issues with this page specifically: when did we get a "featured essay" concept? The "featured" tag is usually reserved for things useful to our readers, if I recall correctly; hence the resistance to having "featured templates" and "featured policies" and whatnot.  This seems like a rather unnecessary new level of bureacratic fetishism. Kirill Lokshin 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't use featured for things useful to editors rather than readers. And is there a disagreement over whether it's correct to call this page an essay? It certainly is not policy or guideline but is sometimes used as something analogous, that's the point FE tries to get across. Loom91 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is certainly not what? Errr, okay .... Kim Bruning 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC) perhaps a different word might be more helpful, or some such, is there a discussion on this matter someplace we can look?
 * "Idea"? "Principle"?  "Dogma"?  "Commandment"? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my objections are threefold:
 * IAR isn't 'too informal to be a policy or guideline' as the featured essay template says, it is something that defies categorisation as a policy or guideline;
 * IAR isn't an essay either;
 * Having both the featured essay template and our existing consensus introduction is odd, because their advice on editing gives entirely mixed messages: one says 'feel free to update this page as needed' while the other encourages people to 'think hard about the reasons this page exists before editing it'. While this advice isn't totally contradictory, the effect of combining the two is needlessly confusing.
 * Basically I agree with Kim that the tag is superflous to what we already had. --Nick Boalch 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't fit the criteria. It does not have widespread support. (See the "opponents" section of this talk page. About 1/3 of votes cast were "oppose".) I support it, but it doesn't fit that tag. (actually, I only supported it when it had the "remember, don't be a dick" clause tagged on the end.) SECProto 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications and corollaries.
I'm proposing these as suggestions to be discussed:

1) Before ignoring all rules, make sure you know what rules apply and what their purpose is.

2) When ignoring a rule, own up to it: State the fact of your choice to ignore in the appropriate public place, specifying the applicable rules and your reasoning. This will help people notice that a rule has a consistent blind spot, which may suggest that the rule needs modification.

3) When ignoring, always lean in the direction of leniency. For example, ignoring 3RR when by not blocking someone for mistakenly making a fourth revert is better than ignoring so as to block someone for a second revert. Al 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like these put on this page, but I think a page such as Corollaries of Ignore All Rules should be created for them. I agree totally with what was said. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be much more helpful to have the corrolaries here to define the responsibilities of using this. Otherwise they may be missed. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Would this page link to the new one? Al 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like that on this page or any other. The ignore all rules is not a policy, it is a thought that some people agree with that says "if you dont understand red tape crap, go with your common sense". SECProto 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be a shame if an admin ever used this policy in its current form as a reference for their actions. They should know better. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd start by saying that the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus:
 * Wikipedia's rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, and are all about building a great encyclopaedia. If the rules prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.  Remember, though, that the neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable.
 * Ignoring rules is fine when it'#s unequivocally for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the interpretation I take. All rules are a means to an end, so when a rule intended to help Wikipedia only serves to harm it and its contributors, there has to be room for judgement.


 * Consider the case of a 3RR violation by a complete and total newbie. Sure, the rules allow any admin to block this person, but that's more likely to bite the newbie into giving up than to convince them that reverts should be limited.  It makes more sense, instead, to explain the rule and its purpose, then warn them that further violations will be punished.  This fulfills the goals of the rule without the collateral damage. Al 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, so what's the consensus on this idea? Al 01:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the points above as they encourage openess of the decision making process. Every admin should expect to get their decisions challenged - it goes with the territory. Every admin should also be secure enough that they can explain their reasons and accept if others do not agree. That is not the same as always going with the flow. If you have well thought out and logically consistent reasons for why you acted as you did the "injured party" will just have to agree to disagree - especially if uninvolved editors concur with your reasoning. The rules are there to help and support this process but as wikipedia is constantly evolving the rules will always be playing "catch up". If they get in the way of article integrity then they should be ignored but as Al says above - you should know what the rule is, what it's trying to achieve, and be able to clearly explain why you felt ignoring it was necessary. In most projects there is a "review" stage where feedback on the process is given so as to improve future working practices - Al's suggestions should aid this process on wikipedia. Sophia  09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus is, this is not a rule and never will be. It is a suggestion which may help you improve the wiki without needing to know all the rules. SECProto 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely correct. See the poll at the top of the talk page, for instance. Kim Bruning 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean? SECProto 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Al has good insights. :-) Kim Bruning 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that there is some ambiguity about the actual statis of IAR in the first place. It would be paradoxical to call it a rule, yet it's also not accurate to say that it's merely some essay for us to think about.  As best I understand it, it is a meta-rule: a rule about all other rules except itself. Then again, I could be mistaken.
 * Given all this, perhaps the numbered items above could be added as suggestions for interpretting IAR.
 * In other words, I'm more interested in seeing whether there is a consensus to add them to the article on an advisory basis than in making these something we can enforce. Do you think a straw poll would help sniff out whether there's a consensus to do this? Al 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * a straw poll on Ignore all rules ;-) That'd be the day. Tell you what. How about making a new essay page, as suggested above. Go on, BE BOLD!. :-) Kim Bruning 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to be bold here, I'd just change this article. I don't think a new page would be noticed sufficiently to make a difference. Al 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did it. I boldly inserted a slightly copy-edited version of the above three suggestions in the article.  I ask that editors avoid reverting until they've first discussed the issue. Al 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. There's been a srong consensus about keeping this page as simple as coherently possible. We've noted in the past that additions tend to snowball as people add more and more corrollaries and qualifications until the page becomes a monstrosity. --Nick Boalch \ talk 08:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you got it almost right, at least. I give it an 8 out of 10. We need a 10 out of 10 to actually get somewhere, of course :)  It's quite alright to put the corrolaries on  a separate page, since we'll be quoting them anyway. They'll get around! (Also, see what gems you can find from this talk pages' archives :-) ) Kim Bruning 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this needs to be bolded. Or linked at all for that matter... -Dan 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's not linked, then there's little hope of anyone finding it and reading it. I understand about the bolding though... I don't think it's necessary. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then 10 psychic points to me for unbolding but not unlinking. But like was said, the author(s) will quote them. If people like them, they will get around. I wouldn't mind tossing the entire See Also section, except maybe to refer back to Rules, Five Pillars, Trifecta... -Dan 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Albatross
I was just wondering what the picture of this bird had to do with the policy essay page. I understand it was on a similar page for a foreign language, but does that mean it belongs here? Timrem 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I felt the exact same. It is clutter. If there is a decent reason, someone can add it back again. *removes* SECProto 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What this is
Above, this page is considered a policy guideline  essay thing. How about calling it a concept? IMO, that is better than just calling it a thing. Timrem 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the hat note of IAR, thinking about replacing one of the two "page" by "concept", and then decided that this isn't my bold day. --&#160;Omniplex 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it, and I felt bold enough to do it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The revert warrior's mantra
Traditional version: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."

Current version: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them."

I think the current version is not good. The old one was light-hearted and friendly while the new one could be the mantra of any POV-pushing revert-warrior. "Go ahead", this seems to say, "revert for that fourth time. It's necessary to maintain Wikipedia's quality. Who cares about some silly rule?"

I suggest something like this: "If the rules make you nervous and depressed and not desirous of improving Wikipedia, then ignore them as you contribute to the encyclopedia." Haukur 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. Your wording states that it's okay for users to ignore the rules simply because they're inconvenient (id est, because they don't feel like following the rules).  I'm baffled as to how you believe that this is less likely to be exploited by revert warriors.  ("Go ahead", this seems to say.  "Revert for that fourth time.  It's necessary to keep you from becoming nervous and depressed, and to maintain your desire to participate in the wiki.  Who cares about some silly rule?")
 * It's only reasonable to ignore a rule when the situation dictates (because it doesn't make sense to apply the rule), not when someone's mood dictates. &mdash;David Levy 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the "nervous and depressed" wording is obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek but the version you reverted back to sounds dead-serious. "The rules are preventing me from improving Wikipedia", is exactly the mindset of problem users. As this page stands it's offering just plain bad advice. Haukur 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think insecurity and depression are good reasons to be telling people to ignore rules... whenever someone uses those kinds of emotions as reasons they're doing something, that's what seems like "exactly the mindset of problem users". --W.marsh 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should we be encouraging the idea that "the rules" are typically something that stands betwen you and improving the encyclopedia? This just makes no sense to me. I always saw this page as a sort of tongue-in-cheek reminder to people not to take things too seriously - and advice for newbies that they shouldn't be overly concerned about getting the nitty-gritty of our style guidelines down right the first time. Now it seems to be extolling some sort of weird anti-social philosophy. Haukur 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that myself and others really object to the idea that ignoring all rules should be based on insecurity and depression... that it's okay to ignore tules to make oneself feel better. That's a horrible thing to tell people, even if you think you're being tongue in cheek. Rules should be ignored when doing so improves the project, and that's it. I'm sorry if that's not fun to put it that way... but whatever. --W.marsh 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your perception of this page does not match that of the community. It's not a joke, it's not advice for newbies to not worry about learning the rules, and it's not a claim that the rules "are typically something that stands between you and improving the encyclopedia."  It's a serious reminder that while the rules are important, they shouldn't be followed purely for the sake of following them.  &mdash;David Levy 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rules should be followed because they are what enables thousands of people to work productively together on a very large project. They should not be ignored whenever you feel they get in your way, which is exactly what this page is advocating with no disclaimers about community consensus, rules being important or anything else. Haukur 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your wording advises users to ignore the rules whenever they get in the way of their contentment! &mdash;David Levy 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Supporters section above you'll see that a lot of the supporters are either supporting only the original version, supporting this as a tongue-in-cheek page or taking this as advice to newbies not to worry. Haukur 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That also applies to the "Opponents" section. Irrespective of what was true three years ago, this page has come become known as a commonsense, anti-bureaucracy advisory.  That's the one and only context in which I've seen it cited (many, many times) since joining Wikipedia in February of last year.  &mdash;David Levy 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't so much mind anti-bureaucratic but I do mind anti-social and that's how the page reads to me now. And that bothers me because I used to think this page was kind of cute. As for when it's cited - the last time I saw it cited was here and I wasn't very happy about it. Haukur 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't perceive the "nervous and depressed" wording as facetious. Your preferred wording literally advises users to ignore the rules when their moods dictate (when they don't feel like following them).  How is this less likely to be exploited by problem users?
 * I also disagree with your interpretation of the current wording (with or without Hongkyongnae's addition). In the event of a content dispute, what constitutes "improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality" can be determined via consensus.  This wording makes no reference to overriding consensus.  &mdash;David Levy 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that rules should usually not be ignored, even when doing so improves the encyclopedia. You should not make that fourth revert, even if you are 100% correct. You should work within the rules to get the page corrected; like discussing the matter and involving other people. Now we have a page sounding dead-serious encouraging people to break the rules just as long as they think it improves the encyclopedia. Haukur 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's always been self-evident that ignoring all rules only works if consensus is that you actually did improve the project by ignoring the rules. If you make 4 reverts, saying that you were improving the article probably won't help much if no one agrees that you were actually making an improvement, but then again, saying it was okay to make 4 reverts because you were having a mood swing will just get your block extended even longer (if it's me enforcing the 3RR at least). --W.marsh 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that making four reverts can get you blocked even when people generally agree with your edit. And your preferred wording makes absolutely no reference to consensus being important. As far as this page can tell consensus is just one of those silly Wikipedia rules to ignore whenever it gets in the way of you doing what you think is best. Haukur 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedians would agree that revert-warring does not benefit the encyclopedia, so your example doesn't apply.
 * IAR is about not getting bogged down in needless bureaucracy. We can discuss rewording it to eliminate whatever ambiguity may exist, but your version completely alters the meaning in a very harmful manner.  (Again, I ask you to explain how advising users to ignore the rules when it benefits the encyclopedia is worse than advising them to ignore the rules whenever they feel like it.)  &mdash;David Levy 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because you're basically a sensible person you read some sensible meaning into the text. But it actually has absolutely no provision that "most Wikipedians" have to agree with what you're doing. The version I suggested was based on the traditional version which was here for years - but I'm not wedded to it. I'd prefer no page at all to the current version. Haukur 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not based strictly upon the majority/plurality opinion, so what "most Wikipedians" want is not a valid criterion. I understand your concern (and I don't object to the addition of a link to Consensus), but I still don't understand how your preferred wording (which grants permission to ignore the rules without even the assertion that it benefits the project, simply because one doesn't feel like following them) addresses this issue.  &mdash;David Levy 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is only better in that I don't think anyone can take it seriously. The phrase "most Wikipedians" was from you. But let's try some caveats then. Haukur 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I see no reason why that version would be taken less seriously than the current version.
 * 2. I used the phrase "most Wikipedians" in a different context. I wasn't implying that consensus is derived from majority/plurality voting.
 * 3. Feel free to propose some revisions. &mdash;David Levy 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. *shrug* Your mileage may vary. To me it's more obviously silly.
 * 2. Neither did I.
 * 3. Done. Haukur 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Okay.
 * 2. Okay.
 * 3. I meant that you should propose the revised text here (and wait for feedback) instead of adding it directly to the project page. (You certainly may take the latter course, but you're likely to be reverted.)  &mdash;David Levy 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't notice, I was reverted by PopUpPirate with an anti-vandalism tool and no explanation. He ignored all rules there, you're not supposed to revert in this way. Haukur 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's very annoying, and it's becoming increasingly common. I've seen numerous sysops do it via the administrative rollback function, and that's even worse.  &mdash;David Levy 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we at least stick to the wiki-principle on this page? Ignore any darn arbitrary rules people have made up, be bold, and edit the page! If it sucks, we'll revert you and whack you over the head with a whiffle bat until someone becomes enlightened. Kim Bruning 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that spirit, can we get rid of the following warning? "It has a long tradition, so please think hard about the reasons this page exists before editing it." I think this is a strange place for a Be Timid! poster :) and in practice this page gets edited quite a lot. Haukur 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, just because you can ignore all rules doesn't mean you can turn off your brain. Quite the opposite in fact. If you're going to ignore all rules, you had better keep your eyes and ears open and your brain working overtime. No need to have people be lazy! (So imho, it's not saying 'be lazy timid' ;-) ) Kim Bruning 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Basic wiki guideline
Ignore all rules is one of the key guidelines in the trifecta, and also in the 5 pillars. It explains a basic inherent aspect of a wiki, and it's very hard to deny. Razors are sharp, things fall when you drop them, and people tend to ignore all rules on wikis, unless they're somehow enforced by software. (see also: Poka-yoke for how this can be done non-disruptively)

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with you?

Well, many times when you're involved in something tricky, you're going to have to improvise anyway. It's a bit too late to practice when you're already in an emergency though ;-P.

That's why it's a good idea to practice using the trifecta in normal day-to-day editing. Can you manage to justify anything and everything you do using only the trifecta and logic?

It's an interesting challenge. I've been practicing on this for maybe half-a-year to a year now. I wonder if/how-often people have noticed?

-- Kim Bruning 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) °


 * Trifecta, eh? Sounds like instruction-creep to me. That 'IAR' part seems pretty redundant - I'm going to one-up this and suggest a "policy duo": 1. Improve the encyclopedia. 2. Be nice. Haukur 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you need to be mean to be able to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes you need to let the encyclopedia wait so as to be nice (and it'll catch up in future anyway :-) ). Finally, there's a lot of wisdom-challenged people who wish to ban 1 and 2. Hence the need for IAR to deal with each of those contingencies.
 * KISS, cut things down to the bare minimum, but no less! :-) Kim Bruning 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When you give people two rules/guidelines to go by they'll figure out that they need to balance them against each other even without you giving them a pseudo-mystical third rule to that effect. And, besides, that's not what the IAR text says at all. If it said: "On Wikipedia you need to apply your own judgment and balance the rules and guidelines against each other as well as listening to other people" then I would be all for it. It sounds like you fear Wikipedia would be taken over by robots if the IAR page didn't exist :-) Haukur 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct. WP:IAR is a corollary of WP:BOT.  Kim Bruning 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"important to Wikipedia"
I have removed this in line with similar removals from Process is Important and Snowball clause. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. Process is Important and Snowball clause are essays, whereas IAR is one of our oldest and most fundamental concepts. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 08:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The current incarnation of this page is not very old and there is a lot of difference between different versions of it. Haukur 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'current incarnation' of this page matches quite closely the original wording before people decided it would be a good idea to bury the essential message of IAR under piles of analogies, corollaries and instruction creep. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, why does it matter? IAR is still hugely significant to Wikipedia culture, whatever the precise wording of it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See above where I argue for restoring the original wording and two fans of the current version tell me that the traditional version is crazy and that it means something completely different from the current one. Haukur 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we do seem to have changed the tone. I guess after going through all the qualifications and caveats people were just happy to be back again. Funny how that works. 192.75.48.150 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)