Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6

My head might explode...
If you follow this policy, you are ignoring all policies...including this policy itself. (Insert Twilight Zone theme here.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.18.21 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Excellent point, were the "if" absent. NickdelaG


 * But the policy doesn't say you must ignore all rules, just that you can ignore any rule that is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia. Pyrospirit  Flames  Fire 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case i say ignore "This" rule its stupid.1337 H4XZ0R 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...
A good way to figure out what this guideline means is to look at WP:UCS.

Jesin 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Except...
It seems to me the several important exceptions to this ought to be cited. Copyright rules will overturn the action of anyone ignoring them. Revert three times and you may well get blocked for your trouble. -- Yellowdesk 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I put it best in my philosophy statement on User:SchuminWeb right after citing IAR: "But just with everything else on Wikipedia, NPOV and consensus ultimately rule the day." Consensus can help you ignore all rules, and consensus can get you blocked as well.  It's a two-edged sword.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several exceptions to the "no rules" rule. Bots for instance. Someone could say "My bot didn't get approved yet, but as that rule is hindering me from helping wikipedia, I should start using my bot in full anyway." As I understand it, thats a direct violation of a rule that is not meant to be broken, and can get you blocked regardless. Just my thoughts...--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition
I propose to add the following to the article:
 * "The purpose of this policy is not to encourage recklessness, or to make every single action justifiable, but to prevent ineffective practices from overwhelming the encyclopedia. Ignoring all rules is not new to society; in the 1780s, it had come to realization that the Articles of Confederation the Thirteen Colonies had been using is terribly ineffective. Rather than using the existing facilities to improve conditions, they ignored all rules and established the Constitutional Convention to change how the government worked. Had they stuck to using the rules and guidelines of the time, it is likely they would not have gotten anywhere. If it is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, it may be necessary, to circumvent the traditional policies and guidelines."

I'm sorry if it's too US-centric; feel free to expand the passage with other examples. It is just my opinion as a history geek that the Constitutional Convention which established the modern United States government is a great example of IAR. Who objects to me adding this into the article? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Well I added a bit of it its still short but sweet1337 H4XZ0R 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally believe this change is not needed and that it detracts from the essay, since it is short and sweet. In addition, not to be pedantic, but this is an essay not an article. I've seen people get themselves in a twist by not understanding that distinction before. --Deskana (request backup)  03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a place where I can add it? I'm afraid that by limiting the length of this essay to that one sentence, people are not understanding (and maybe blindly objecting to) the existence of this policy to begin with. Also, I call it an article the way a body of text can be called an article. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, didn't want to appear patronising about the article thing, which I think I did. Sorry about that. I'm not quite sure where you could add it to be honest. --Deskana (request backup)  03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Object We've had countless additions to IAR before, they always get removed. They always amount to rules and conditions for IAR, which is ironic. Ultimately, the only limitation on IAR is WP:DICK.--Docg 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this could be considered a limitation to IAR. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "limitation" is the word I'd use. I think it's best described in WP:DICK as a corrollary.  Yeah, if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them, but don't be a dick about it.  That's the bottom line.  You can do just about everything without being a dick about it.  It's a matter of keeping things classy.  Once you start treading into that realm of dick-dom, you look really un-classy, and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

IAR is a badly misunderstood policy. Mostly by newbies, but some people have been here forever still misunderstand it. But if a policy is being widely misunderstood, logically you should add something to clarify it so people don't always have the same incorrect knee jerk reaction to reading the policy. But clarifying it is always resisted tooth and nail... I think that's a bad thing. --W.marsh 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not I'm not endorsing the current proposal, I rather like the one I added a year ago or so, which stuck for a few weeks, but then was removed by someone. It basically said "People actually have to agree you needed to IAR to improve/maintain Wikipedia for your use of this policy to go very far". --W.marsh 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This policy should be removed, because it disrupts Wikipedia
See for example Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt. I will AFD this policy because I think this rule encourages actions that are dispruptive. Andries 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep :) It's one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, I don't think an afd (MFD actually) discussion will get it deleted. Garion96 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Downgrade It should be downgraded to a guideline, or perhaps some kind of "nuclear option" when all else fails. Using IAR as a first resort is unacceptable and should be a blockable offense in my opinion if it was done maliciously. IARing when discussion can occur is what causes problems like the Daniel Brandt deletion. Just Heditor review 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Toning down or downgrading is my second preferred option if MFD/AFD fails. Andries 14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't delete policies, let alone policies handed down by Jimbo. As you've been here a year longer than I have, I'm surprised that you believed otherwise.  —David Levy 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When all else fails? Unacceptable as a first resort?  No.  We aren't supposed to waste time with pointless endeavors purely for the sake of following the rules.  If a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we simply ignore it straight away.  —David Levy 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We've had this debate so many times that it is positively boring. Not happening.--Docg 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc is right about this. This is not going to happen.   Maybe it should be merged with WP:DICK :-) semper fictilis 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or put it on WP:MFD and close the debate per WP:IAR. :) Garion96 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I support that, because the policy is valid until the debate is closed. Andries 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This policy will never go away. With good reason. That doesn't mean everyone who cites it is doing so correctly, and we should still deal with people who disrupt Wikipedia, claiming IAR as justification. There's an RFAr opened on this so it might happen. --W.marsh 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You honestly think that if someone is going to ignore rules like User:Yanksox did, the existance of this page will really make them change their mind. "Oh look, WP:IAR has been deleted, I don't think I'll ignore the rules anymore". That's very naive. The fact is, whether this page exists or not, people will ignore rules to screw the encyclopedia up, and people will ignore rules to benefit the encyclopedia. This page really should stay. Its existance does not change the fact that people will not be allowed to use this page to mess up the encyclopedia. I wouldn't let them. (Please note that I am not commenting on whether what Yanksox did was appropriate or not, I was simply using his case an example)--Deskana (request backup)  16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... this again. Every good system needs some latitude, and yes, it's disruptive, but not as disruptive as it would be if this were not here. Not only will any MFD have not a snowball's chance in hell of suceeding, but even if it did by some miracle happen, Jimbo, who has personally endorsed this, would just recreate it and chew out whoever deleted this. Thanatosimii 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo does whatever he wants anyway, and editors who frequently cite IAR are taking advantage of a policy which should only apply to Jimbo. In every instance I personally have seen this policy used, it has been abused - usually by new or burned-out sysops or over-eager editors to bypass the exercise in frustration that is the dispute resolution process at wikipedia. IAR is inherently incivil and any one who finds themselves citing it on a regular basis is probably lazy and should have their edits closely scrutinized. Even moreso if they are an admin. Jimbo created this policy loophole which is undermining wikipedia, and he should correct it. - WeniWidiWiki 16:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I daresay I've ignored rules before, though I can't think of a specific example. That's the point I think. I don't specifically think "I'm ignoring all rules!", I think "This is a good idea, even if WP:CSD doesn't totally agree". You'll never notice all the good applications of the rule because you agree with them. --Deskana (request backup)  17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But did you immediately cite the unassailable WP:IAR as justification for your actions, rather than specifics of policy? You probably were not even questioned about it, because you were adhering to other policies. I think this is the problem. I've recently been seeing this recurring theme of people appearing on IRC or ANI asking for admin attention and then some unilateral half-cocked action is taken in the name of IAR, when the proper recourse was a cool down block or semi-protection or Gods forbid, dispute resolution. When the admin who evoked IAR is questioned, they get indignant and arrogant. If anything, *all* instances of using IAR should have ANI oversight, because I think the spirit of the policy is to complement the other polices and dispute resolution processes, not override them. - WeniWidiWiki 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. People who correctly apply WP:IAR may cite it occasionally, but they needn't do so in every instance.  What's important is that they know of it and understand it.
 * As Deskana noted above, instead of citing WP:IAR, the individuals who abuse it would simply say, "I feel like it" if the page didn't exist. It is, however, common for people to mistakenly believe that they need to follow every rule to the letter at all times (even when it makes absolutely no sense to do), purely for the sake of following the rules.  That's when this page's existence is essential (and that's when I find myself citing it).
 * Certainly, controversial applications of WP:IAR (which may constitute abuse) should be discussed, but discussing each and every uncontroversial application would defeat the page's purpose.
 * We don't abolish WP:NPOV because some people misinterpret it to mean "include no opinions in articles," and we don't abolish WP:IAR because some people misinterpret it to mean "do whatever you want." The page provides no absolutely protection to individuals who abuse it (by citing it as a license to override policies and guidelines that they dislike), and its removal would change nothing on that front.  —David Levy 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement that abstract abusers of IAR would state "I feel like it" if we didn't have IAR is a straw-man. Such arrogant actions would (hopefully) be considered active indifference to policy, and incivil. My main contention, is that IAR should never be used to circumvent dispute resolution in the long term, and that there should be a lower burden of oversight by the nature of the arbitrarity and vagueness of IAR. Obviously if there is any dispute, one or more parties are going to disagree on the application of IAR when it impacts their position. If this is an IP vandal or in the midst of a protracted edit-war, that's one thing. However, if current policy is so severely lacking that a special incident arises which justifies invoking IAR, at the very least it should be invoked in the edit summary and documented on the talk page or ANI, not hidden away or cited retroactively as blanket justification for bad behaviour by an admin who is too busy or uninterested to follow-through with proper procedure. - WeniWidiWiki 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR applies to instances in which the rules prevent the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia. Citing the policy as a license to do as one pleases is no different than saying "I feel like it," and this is not tolerated by the community.  —David Levy 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree! I just think that the currently worded policy /pillar is so vague that it lends itself to arbitrary citation when better means exist in many instances. Even on this page, admins have stated that it's just easier to invoke IAR rather than engage in discussion or dispute resolution, and I feel this is violating the spirit of IAR. - WeniWidiWiki 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, and such behavior should be addressed. But as I noted, lengthy policies are no less likely to be misconstrued.  —David Levy 20:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * None of this has any bearing on IAR though. Trolls will be trolls. They will do the exact same thing with IAR or without IAR. This policy exists to prevent rulecreep and bearuocracy. It is impossible, outright impossible, to creat a perfect set of rules – law and order rely upon the good character of those who are bound to it. If this policy is removed/edited/ruleified in any way, it will only lead to the exact same problems we already have, except we'll have to fill out paperwork in triplicate to fix them. Thanatosimii 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A question per your comments: do you think that WP:IAR should be invoked by (non-admin) editors? If so, when and how? - WeniWidiWiki 21:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, of course. 2. When?  When the rules prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  How?  By setting aside the rules that prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  —David Levy 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's as ethereal and vague as the policy. Thanks anyway. - WeniWidiWiki 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of this policy is to remain etherial and vague... Thanatosimii 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another proposed revision
I contend that this revision, which adds "and if all else fails" to the classic IAR statement, violates the spirit of IAR by attaching a rule to what I consider to be the "anti-rule". By adding riders to the statement, we're saying "Yes, you can ignore all rules, but you can't do this and you can't do that and you can only do this if you do this first and the moon is in proper alignment with Venus and Aldebaran." In other words, we're loading the policy that cuts through a lot of mumbo-jumbo with mumbo-jumbo of its own.

At least one person has already disagreed with me, as I've been reverted on this once. So before we get into an edit war, I just wanted to get my position out there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's not expand on this, keep it simple and short. There are already riders in the "see also" section which is sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not even roughly accurate. One major part of IAR is that no should be required to read all the rules to even determine if trying all policy avenues have failed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which translates to unilateral actions and laziness in practical application. - WeniWidiWiki 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it translates to people making an encyclopedia. No reasonable person needs to read any rules whatsoever to have an idea of how to help. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "if all else fails" language dramatically alters the policy's intended meaning. WP:IAR is not a last resort.  As noted above, we aren't supposed to waste time with pointless endeavors purely for the sake of following the rules.  If a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we simply ignore it straight away.  —David Levy 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, which translates into unilateral actions and laziness in practical application and encourages a "do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere. - WeniWidiWiki 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it means someone does not have to labor for days in pointless discussions about minute changes to guideline pages when instead they can be improving an article. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, I can understand that, but the current wording is far too strong and encourages abuse. Andries 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my world, where every minute detail has to be discussed and a consensus reached. So should editors just cite IAR whenever this happens because discussion is "pointless"? - WeniWidiWiki 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, if someone has an issue with an edit, they should discuss it with the other editor toward the goal of producing an encyclopedia. WP:IAR does not mean "Wikipedia is an anarchy of assholes". IAR, contains its own, single, general all-purpose rule: encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the theory, I just think that it is so abstract and arbitrary that it actually "prevents editors from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" because it is so open-ended. - WeniWidiWiki 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you got an example of that happening? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not mention names, I'll just state that it is a recurring problem with certain newish admins, and statements on IRC by this person and a few others seem to indicate an intent to short-circuit "pointless" dispute resolution and discussion. I don't think any single editor can be the shining avatar of "What is best for Wikipedia." - WeniWidiWiki 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On that last point, you are correct. Wikipedia is a collaborative team effort.  No one editor is "What is best for Wikipedia".  It's like the recent Man of the Year in Time Magazine.  It's YOU!  Everyone is what's best for Wikipedia, since it's a big team of editors that works together, and makes decisions by a rough consensus.  As for those admins who "indicate an intent to short-circuit 'pointless' dispute resolution and discussion", don't forget that just about anything an admin does can be undone by another.  Therefore, if one steps out of line, another will be there to make things right again.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose anything an admin does could be undone by another admin. But at the same time, don't we know the sort of thing WWW has in mind? Without getting into specifics, is it fair to say the drama really tends to surround certain kinds of admin actions? Is it fair to say undoing an admin action you don't quite agree with is a far more aggressive move than reverting a bold edit you don't quite agree with?


 * Still, I don't think the answer to these cases is restricting the use of IAR. Even if some admins cause some hand-wringing, it hardly brings everything to a halt. Most everyone else carries on just fine. I also think IAR is totally sound for all non-admins as written (yes, laziness and unilateralness and all). That to me is sufficient reason not to mess with it. Maybe it's just that admin actions, and undoing admin actions, need to be less of a Big Deal. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About Jimbo and IAR
The fact that Jimbo endorsed this page as policy in its present form is often taken to mean (as above) that it should remain in this form and there should be no caveats to it.

However, it should be noted that it was also Jimbo who just de-admined someone on the spot following an invocation of IAR.

Make no mistake. There are caveats to this policy. Leaving them unstated is a bad idea IMO. Yes, many people 'get it' without being told explicitly... but there are plenty of times when that isn't the case and we get a big mess as a result.

If you know in advance that a significant number of other users disagree with you about 'what is best for Wikipedia' then invoking 'IAR' to force your opinion without or against consensus is a blatant violation of the 'Etiquette / Consensus / Cooperation' pillar... which is of equal importance to IAR and never invalidated by it. In short, you can use IAR only in so far as doing so doesn't violate the other pillars... IAR can't allow you to include copyright violations in Wikipedia, it can't allow you to use Wikipedia as a blog instead of an encyclopedia, it can't allow you to post personal info about another user or threaten to kill them, and it can't allow you to ignore consensus to get your own way. You can ignore the normal rules and procedures (aka 'policies' and 'guidelines') for how things are done around here, but not what Wikipedia IS and the way users are expected to treat each other and work together. --CBD 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're trying to imply that Yanksox did what he did from misunderstanding IAR, I don't believe that is the case. If you're not trying to imply that, then I apologise, I misunderstood what you wrote. --Deskana (request backup)  13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, WP:IAR does carry a caveat, and it's plainly stated in the policy. It's appropriate to ignore rules when they prevent the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia.  Anyone who believes that including copyright violations in Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a blog instead of an encyclopedia, posting personal information about other users, threatening to kill people, or ignoring consensus to get his/her own way serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia fundamentally misunderstands the project's goals to an extent far greater than can be addressed on the WP:IAR page.  —David Levy 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, I myself have added stuff clearly stating the "unstated" concept of IAR, and been reverted sooner or later. I think people want this policy to be "short and sweet" but it's always annoyed me when important documentation is left out for some kind of wacky philosophical/stylistic reason. But on the other hand, WP:SNOW has plenty of documentation about not using it to justify circumventing discussion to make controversial action, and yet people frequently cite WP:SNOW as justification for just that, sometimes flippantly. I dunno... I think at least a sentence of explanation would help IAR, many people's initial reaction totally misunderstands the policy, and one little sentence could clear a lot of that up. But I suspect some people will perpetually resist the idea. --W.marsh 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that many people's initial reaction would be correct... that this whole place is a little bit different to the red-tape you find elsewhere. That's why it's great as-is, it's empowering. --PopUpPirate 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone reads this page and somehow believes that they can just invoke IAR in the face of opposition and not cause a negative reaction that's likely to undermine whatever they were trying to do... then I'm not sure a sentence or two of caveats would help them. I know nothing about the recent case alluded to above, but should there be an admin who imagines he can use IAR as a blunt object to crowbar whatever he wants into place, then maybe desysoping is just the cluebat that he would need.  Such behavior would a good indication that his dispute resolution skills (and maybe a reality barometer or two) had gone missing. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see someone else has, yet again, noticed that the consensus rule trumps IAR. Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am extremely concerned that people are going to wave this around to get their way. I believe the consensus ammendment needs to be included in this policy for it to be truly taken seriously. &mdash; Deckiller 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing whatsoever about IAR that says there won't be any repercussions from willfully ignoring rules in defiance of consensus. I fail to see why people have such a problem with this rule, which goes to the essence of what wiki editing is. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to depreciate this?
WP:IAR has outlived its usefulness. The issues we've seen with the Brandt deletion, with Brian Peppers, with the Essjay stuff, this is all "valid" IAR stuff, all controversial, and causing major rifts in the community. While Jimbo still appears to approve of it, that really shouldn't matter anymore - this is becoming part of the major problem that Wikipedia is having concerning abusiveness and usefulness. I think it's time to have a serious discussion as to whether this is still a useful policy, or if it's time to move on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I always used to view this rule as friendly advice to newbies to dig right in and get their hands dirty, rather than getting bogged down in the rulebook. As such I think it's fine, though not essential. Some people see the page as some sort of fundamental underlying philosophical wiki principle. I don't agree with that and I don't think it is useful as such. Haukur 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've heard that before, but a) has anyone ever really treated it as such, and b) is that still the case. If a newbie comes along and starts making POV edits or edit warring, they get warned, same as anyone else.  Perhaps blocking admins show some lenience, but it's well within rights to do so, with or without this.  I suppose the greater question is that, in light of recent and long-term happenings, is this providing anything useful other than an excuse to do controversial things? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I treated it as such and if you look at the original talk page I think many people did. Lately I don't see that so much.


 * It's hard to accurately estimate the harm this page does vs. the usefulness it has. My guess is that both are small. You don't actually get to ignore all rules and few people will really think you can, even with this page being "official paradox" or whatever. And even if we didn't have this page people still wouldn't behave like legalistic androids, like some IAR proponents seem to think. Or, rather, those few who do have a bit of an android in them will not be "cured" by reading this page. Haukur 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this goes away, what will people blame whenever something happens that they don't like? Friday (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think of it more as what excuse will people use if they feel they have to act inappropriately, but I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Badlydrawnjeff, look through the discussions on this page. You are hardly the first person to feel this way. The IAR advocates have this page watch-listed and far outnumber those who see the policy as detrimental. If you really want to affect change you might want to leave a note on ANI, CN and perhaps WP:VPP to create a broader base of discussion rather than just having to read the same old tired pro-IAR arguments which any detractor of the policy are immediately met with. - WeniWidiWiki 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one like this page, but the people who invoke it disruptively need to be stopped one way or another. Until it is no longer used as a free pass for disruption and consensus ignorage, these sort of Essjay/Daniel Brandt drama bombs will continue and continue and continue.  And if the current system is kept - using WP:IAR to force your own opinion down everyone's throat and then block or threaten anyone who disagrees with you - then yes, the conflict will be averted, but at the cost of grudges and discouragement of editing left and right.  The page isn't the problem, it's the people who abuse it.  Milto LOL pia 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is of course in the interpretation. Many times when it is invoked controversially is when the person quoting IAR neglects the provision that when invoking IAR it is because a strict interpretation of the rules prevents improvement of the project. Because most of the policies are set up to promote the improvement of the project and are constantly updated, it should be very rare that IAR should ever be invoked. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Malber is exactly right, Jeff. You're mistaken in your belief that the cited examples were "valid" applications of WP:IAR.  Those were instances in which the policy was abused (just as any policy can be abused).  When someone defies consensus or bases a decision upon a rationale that defies the project's fundamental principles, this doesn't serve to improve or maintain Wikipedia.  —David Levy 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone point me to a few valid applications of IAR that they've seen (particularly if they were consensus-backed)? I'd like to see it in practice in less-controversial situations than the recent ones, but can't think of any from my own experience. Trebor 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * True applications of IAR are likely to hard to notice, since everyone will agree with them without a moments thought. I'm sure I've speedied certain stuff that wasn't appropriate for the encyclopedia but didn't fit neatly into CSD. Nobody's ever complained though. That's the point, I think. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's true, and I consider that a very controversial use, given how abused CSD is already. Examples? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deskana is exactly right. Don't look for people jumping up and down shouting "Look at me, I'm ignoring the rules!"  People quietly going about the business of improving the encyclopedia are likely to abide by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the rules whenever they conflict.  People who are using common sense to do the right thing aren't going to get noticed as IAR practitioners.  Friday (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've been one to make this argument without examples, too. Common sense isn't to ignore the rules - that's part of the problem.  Perhaps you have some examples since last time? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's actually better if you don't notice people bending the rules. Friday (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it just means someone got away with it, which is worse. Again, examples? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to try and find examples then you're welcome to look through my deletion log for anything that doesn't mention CSDs. And you're really overreacting. You seem quite frustrated that someone may have ignored rules to better the encyclopedia. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's overreacting, and presumably neither do the numerous other people who have issue with the current policy. Please don't be so dismissive of those who disagree with you.- WeniWidiWiki 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how me thinking that he's overreacting is dismissive. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not overreacting. I'm simply skeptical that such a situation exists - certainly, no one's been able to demonstrate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, speedy deletion is a bad place to look for examples where invoking IAR is a good thing. This is because the CSD criteria are so specific that there should be a very rare, if at all, occurance where someone should be able to speedy delete something citing IAR. The example of ignoring blocking someone in a 3RR is a better example. If someone's invocation of IAR causes a large amount of community strife, it's probably a good indication that it was an improper invocation of IAR, and that the action should have been more carefully considered. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But 3RR doesn't require a block... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that many seem to take it as a reason to do whatever they feel is right. Here is an example of someone doing something which, if it were proposed and then discussed, would be shot down, but citing IAR as a reason for doing it. It's the same with all the recent "crises". People are using IAR as a reason to say "I will do what I think is right, regardless of what other's think". And sometimes it gets support. People seem to agree with stuff which has already been done, far more readily than stuff that is simply proposed (that is to say, had someone proposed the changes to the Brandt article it would have almost certainly been shot down; however, after it was done it received support). What governs Wikipedia: policy, process or consensus? Trebor 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An example
Here's an example for discussion. A new page was created, very stubby, was proposed for AFD, with some support and some opposition. Was greatly expanded, and was also proposed for DYK. There was a clear consensus to keep the page by now. So we speedy closed. We didn't invoke IAR by name, but it's what we did. Discuss? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't have been speedy closed. It certainly didn't reach any speedy keep criteria by your description. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do you think speedy keep came from? It come from people applying common sense rather than rigidly following the letter of the rules.  Friday (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It came from people seeing a need, and creating a set of rules to apply to it. Which was entirely proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not accurate. First, people were speedy closing discussions, despite our not having speedy keep criteria (thus applying IAR).  Then, someone decided to write down what was already commonly being done, and that's an example of descriptive guideline writing.  After they'd been written down for a while, some rule-struck people got the idea that you can't speedy keep except in those narrowly defined cases.  Now, people are asking that any new speedy keep criteria be proposed, like a bill, debated and voted on before being used, which is not how we got the speedy-keep criteria that we have now.  Historically, that is not the model of how we develop guidelines here.  It's a much more organic process than that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which was inappropriate, if that's indeed the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think how Wikipedia works is inappropriate, you have two rights which can help you deal with it. Friday (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I realize that's how you feel, but there's a broad consensus of experienced Wikipedians who are quite comfortable with the model of guideline development that I described above. The position that Wikipedia should turn into a rules-game is a minority view, and while I respect that you've got the best motivations, and that your position is neither inconsistent nor obviously wrong, I think you're tilting at windmills.  I wish you were seeing that the pro-IAR position is also neither inconsistent nor obviously wrong, but is in fact a model for how a system can actually function effectively.  I get the impression you're very closed to the idea that a philosophy different from yours might actually work. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's my position, actually. I am believing that this, as a policy, is detrimental to the project, and Friday's POV on the situation is actively harmfur to the position.  IAR does not allow us to function properly - in fact, in almost every use, it keeps us from functioning at all.  If someone can be bothered to actually demonstrate otherwiise, I'm very open to a separate philosophy.  Seeing as how I'm treated when I point out the flaws, it seems it's not my problem right now, is it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you know that I don't intend to mischaracterize your position; if I state it, I'm stating it as well as I understand it. Perhaps it's a leap to go from wanting to scrap IAR to believing that Wikipedia should be rule-bound.  Is that not a fair inference?  If you don't like IAR, doesn't that mean that you believe rules should be followed, even in situations where one might be inclined to shortcut?
 * I also hope you realize that your statement that IAR, in almost every use "keeps us from functioning at all", is not at all obvious, and that people with valid perspectives might see just the opposite. I think it's fair to say that IAR has produced mixed results, with a lot of variance from case to case.  If I cite an example of IAR being used well, and you just reply that the action was inappropriate, we've just begged the question, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So...a good article with clear consensus in favor of its existence should have been excluded from DYK? Or are you saying that it should have been linked from the main page while still tagged for deletion?  How would either have benefited the project?  —David Levy 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I don't know what the article is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What difference does that make? Assuming that Ben's account is accurate, how would the project have benefited from bureaucratic adherence to the rules?  —David Levy 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ekep attempting to frame it that way, we'll get nowhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're requesting that I not frame hypothetical rules adherence as "bureaucratic," but you refuse to explain how it would have accomplished anything other than harm to the project. Evidently, your stance is that the rules should be blindly followed to the letter (purely for the sake of following them).  Fortunately, we have a policy that states otherwise.  —David Levy 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as I only learned the article today, I'll explain now - first, an article that has poor sourcing was placed on the main page. That's problem number one.  Second, the poorly sourced article was speedy kept - a big problem.  The article is still poorly sourced, and the implication is that we did a good thing by speedy keeping a poorly sourced article because it was going to be on the main page.  That's an improvement?! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, because you happen to disagree with a clear consensus, you believe that honoring it was a bad thing. —David Levy 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I hadn't looked at the AfD page - it wasn't even speedy closed. It ran for more than 5 days.  Now, if it were kept because it was going on the main page, as opposed to being deleted because it wasn't properly sourced (and I'm not making any major judgement on that), that's a non-beneficial problem and should not have occurred. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's yet another example. I'm not crazy about pointing to current situations, since (almost) nobody wants a pointless ruleslawyering fight over nothing. But let's look at history then. The CSD have only recently come to include "groups" with no assertion of significance, in addition to people. However, people were very routinely speedy deleting groups before this time. Example article might be "Timmy and Bobby are the two awesomest kids at Unencyclopedic High School." Crap like this was not speediable under the letter of the rules before the "group" criteria were added, yet it's an obvious candidate for deletion. I remember pointing out that such an article could be split into two articles, one about each awesome kid, and then individually the split articles were speediable under the letter of the rules. However, we don't require admins to jump through such ridiculous hoops in order to go about their business. This example is, to me, a good illustration about why we go by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the rules. We rely on human judgment- the project can't work without it. Friday (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one am not advocating the abrogation of human judgment. However, I think that getting some timely feedback from the mob ANI or someplace is a good safety measure when invoking IAR. Currently there is no oversight, since IAR is usually cited retroactively when someone is questioned about something they did. This gives the appearance of impropriety or unilateral actions on the part of admins attempting to undermine procedure (and sometimes this is actually what is occurring). So concerning your actions, I think that you could have left a note at ANI for feedback prior to acting. If the instance is so clear cut, having more eyes on it will reinforce the correct actions needed to be taken because others will no doubt agree with your actions. It also extinguishes all appearance of impropriety and unilateralism. - WeniWidiWiki 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing IAR means is this: Don't spend hours discussing an obvious decision that can be made in 5 seconds.  The oversight is the same thing we use everywhere: other editors.  Some folks here keep making it sound like calls of "IAR!!" are used as justification for people's actions.  Only a fool would provide such a flimsy justification.    What it means is, when there's disagreement, frame your argument in terms of which course of action is best, not which is the most rigid application of the rules.  Friday (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we rely on human judgment. If Ignore all rules was altered to Rely on human judgment then I think it would be much less problematic. Haukur 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just speculating about history here, but it may be that the "ignore all rules" expression of this concept has stuck around in part because people like the somewhat surprising sound of it. This is not meant to be obvious.  A thorough understanding of IAR is one of those things that separates seasoned editors from newbies.  I thought the language about "deep and subtle meaning" was meant to convey this- if you disagree with IAR, it's because you haven't adequately contemplated its  meaning.  Maybe the essay Interpret all rules is more clearly understandable.  Friday (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't have "deep and subtle" rules. We should have simple, clear and obvious rules. This project is meant to be ultimately accessable to the whole of humanity, including people from other cultures than yours who may, in your opinion, not be able to "adequately contemplate the meaning" of something you find profound and meaningful. Haukur 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But seasoned editors seem (recently) to have used it to mean "do what you want, when you want". If there is a "deep and subtle meaning", then it seems to be being missed by many. The simplicity of this page leaves it very open to misinterpretation. Trebor 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that never should have happened, was clearly abusive, and did not benefit the encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow you. Surely you're not referring to the deletion of articles about groups of awesome kids?  Friday (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the precedents it sets, yes, I am. Deletions don't happen in a bubble, after all, and such abuse has further repurcussions.  The elimination of that article, alone, with nothing else being influenced, may have been a benefit, but it doesn't work that way in practice.  It's why CSD is strict, and expected to be interpreted strictly.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I split the article in two and then deleted those two, this would have been better in your eyes? Friday (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Disruptive, but at least legitimate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Following the rules is disruptive, and not following them is disruptive? Are you saying that using a loophole is disruptive?  Such loopholes only exist when we follow the letter rather than the spirit of the rule. What exactly are you objecting to, the deletion of junk articles?  Friday (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd be gaming the system, it's absolutely disruptive. Such loopholes exist only for disruptive people who feel the rules don't apply to them.  You know exactly what I'm objecting to, and I don't appreciate your implications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways- if we rigidly follow the letter of the rules rather than the spirit, this is what opens the door to all manner of loopholes and ruleslawyering. By saying you're against gaming the system, you're saying we need to interpret rules reasonably according to their spirit, rather than rigidly following the letter of the law.  Friday (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not having it both ways. If you feel the need to game the system to make a situation fit the rules, you're being disruptive.  It'd be like me making a series of edits to a page, and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it no longer meets a threshold for inclusion.  No loopholes, it's simply disruptive.  If you need a charter to break ther rules, you simply shouldn't be in a position to govern when the rules apply.  It's not difficult.  If the spirit doesn't fit the letter, the letter should change or the spirit was incorrect.  Not difficult at all.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...except, of course, for the policy that states otherwise. —David Levy 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is a major problem. Not that I can IAR for verifiability or BLP.  Oh, wait... --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does ignoring WP:A or WP:BLP serve to improve or maintain Wikipedia? —David Levy 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It can, sure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, please cite examples. —David Levy 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is all unattributed material bad? What about negative material about a living person that is a) absolutely true, but b) fails to reach the absurd standard at BLP.  I would never suggest ignoring those two rules, but since people think that IAR is a good thing, how could anyone realistically oppose them? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR isn't about ignoring rules because we personally disagree with them. Deliberately and unilaterally defying the spirit (rather than merely the wording) of a consensus-backed policy doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia.  —David Levy 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet that's all that can be done. That's exactly what occurs with every use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. —David Levy 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you appear to be saying that before groups were added to CSD that articles about totally non-notable groups shouldn't be speedied? That's crazy. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying, and it's not crazy - A7 in particular was very controversial anyway, and to try and extend it without consensus is incredibly wrong-headed and disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand this concerns you, but I personally believe you are overreacting. It appears no matter what I say, you won't be convinced by my arguments, so I intend to stop. But please consider this: Even if you did manage to convince us all that IAR should be deleted, do you think Jimbo would let that happen? Good luck. :-) --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My expectation is that he'd accept the consensus here, if it existed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This can only make sense if you believe the rules are magical- handed down by God, or something. When you realize that the "rules" come about as a description of what people actually do, IAR becomes easier to swallow.  The extension of the CSD to include groups came about because people were already doing it, and it was the right thing to do, and people generally agreed on this.  But here at Wikipedia, the rules aren't magical.  They came from humans, and they have human limitations.  They don't always cover every case.  If you wish to have a religious belief in the rules, this is your choice I suppose, but you should realize that this is a fringe view, not based in rationality, and not based on what's actually best for the project.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like you do with this? I've explained why you're incorrect on this before, and I think I'll stop with you now since you've gone into your condescending tone again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem
For all the problems that people say IAR causes, it fixes more than it causes. If IAR goes away, we are at the mercy of the strict interpretation of the rules. If we have a problem in one situation with a rule, without IAR we will have to make another rule. When that stops working, we have to make yet another rule. Then another. Removing IAR is based upon the incorrect notion that a perfect beaurocracy can be created. It cannot. We must not look to the rules to save us. Rules are not the solution, they are the problem. Second, let us also remember, that IAR is not nor has it ever been interpreted as a blank check to do whatever one pleases without respect for the rest of the community. If someone wishes to invoke IAR, he has to produce a strong, accepted argument as to why the particular rule should not be invoked. The three situations mentioned at the top of this valid invocations of IAR because they did not improve wikipedia and violated other parts of the Five pillars. Thanatosimii 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if any of this is true. Sorry, I'm not seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Think of it as a statement about priorities. It just means that doing what's best for the project is a higher priority than making sure we follow the letter of the law.  Anyone who prioritizes differently will have a hard time here at Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless, of course, the two are the same thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which they usually are, but not always. Think of it as an iceberg. The bit above the water is covered by rules that work well.  The bit under the water isn't, and usually that's not a problem because we don't go there.  But there are bits that at the waterline, and there, on the edges, the rules don't always make sense.  That's when IAR is needed.
 * Over time, the rules grow and mature, and IAR should become less common, but it won't become less necessary. If I was to rewrite IAR from scratch, it would probably look something like this.  "The rules are just common sense and agreed practice expressed in words.  The reasons we write them down are that 1) not everybody always has all the facts necessary to know what's sensible, and, 2) there are multiple ways that some things can be done and we've found that things work better when we all agree to use the same one.  If you never read the rules but always use common sense and courtesy, you will usually find yourself doing what the rules would tell you to do anyway.  However, there are very occasionally situations where the letter of the rules does not apply or should not be applied.  In such cases, act sensibly and consult with others; they're just rules."
 * There will always be cases the rule writers didn't think of, and cases that are so rare that they aren't worth writing down. And every extra rule we add creates opportunities for the rules to contradict each other.  So good rules are good, but they're just rules.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, can I ask for a specific example where using IAR has been used usefully? While many seem to feel it is a useful concept (and, when I first read it, I instinctively felt it was), upon further consideration it hardly ever seems to be used (uncontroversially). Trebor 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not be providing examples to people who don't understand IAR, and I hope nobody else does either. To do so would be a huge time-waster, because it would cause arguments over procedure even if everyone agrees that the right thing was done.  The entire point is that we shouldn't be spending time arguing about the procedure if we think the right thing was done.  I can only suggest that people who don't agree with IAR read the top of the page and think about it for a couple years.  Friday (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? If I don't understand IAR, then providing examples would the best action you could take. Let's be clear: I'm not saying that IAR is necessarily a bad idea, I simply want to see some definite examples where it was used to improve the encyclopaedia. Vague statements that I don't "understand" IAR are not useful. Trebor 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, does it help to think of guidelines as descriptive rather than proscriptive? Once you realize this, you'll see that denying IAR is essentially saying that our procedures and guidelines can no longer evolve according to our need.  CSD come about because people noticed patterns in the types of things that turned out to be uncontroversially deletable-on-sight.  Those deletions that are now specifically allowed were originally "out of process".  The written policy follows practice, not the other way around. Friday (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point, and that's why I'm not going as far as Jeff; I think that IAR still has a purpose. However, when you ignore the rules, it is frequently because you spot a flaw in existing policies and guidelines. If you then update the policies/guidelines, then the next time you won't need to ignore the rules. Are there cases where you want to ignore the rules, yet still see the rules as correct? Trebor 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps once in a while- it's not (IMO) worth trying to make the rules cover every possible situation. Exceptions may occur, and we need editors to use reasonable judgment to know when.  Perhaps this is a religious issue, but IMO Wikipedia isn't meant to have firm rules.  We don't need them. Friday (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I'm afraid I'm going have to ask again for examples. I swear I'm not trying to be difficult - I'd love to see a situation where ignoring the rules didn't warrant trying to change them - I simply haven't seen one. "Reasonable judgement" (much like "common sense") always seems to run into problems when people disagree on what they entail. Trebor 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats. That's easily the most unhelpful comment I have seen.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of when I used IAR successfully. Perhaps a year ago, I discovered that there were a large numbers of cocktails articles, well over 100, which consisted of nothing but a recipe, which violates WP:NOT.  These articles needed to be transwikied to Wikibooks bartending area, and then removed from wikipedia.  However, the transwiki process is long and tedious, and doing 100+ of them by hand would be a horribly long job.  I found that, at this time, there was no one around and active who had a transwiki bot, and requests for assistance found no help, so I decided to do it by hand.  I left out probably half the steps in the Transwiki process, those steps which, after looking into it, I decided were not completely necessary.  End result: Wikibooks bartending guide has the recipes, while Wikipedia no longer does.  None of this has been properly noted in the various transwiki logs, in violation of the transwiki rules. In most cases, people should follow all of the transwiki steps, but due to the way I handled it, I was able to get away with not doing so.  Successful usage of IAR. --Xyzzyplugh 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So what doesn't make this improper and controversial? For one, did they need to be transwikied?  Is this established?  Furthermore, since you didn't bother with the logs, how is anyone to know what you did with them?  Could they have been expanded?  Could they be used here?  Who knows, because you simply decided that it wasn't useful here.  I don't consider that successful at all, I actually find this isntance to be abhorrent.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They were recipes. Recipes do not belong on Wikipedia, per WP:NOT.  Recipes do belong on Wikibooks, in the cookbook or in this case in the Bartending area.  Therefore, transwikiing is appropriate.  I notified the appropriate parties on Wikibooks of what I was doing, so they were aware of what they were receiving.  Could these 100+ articles one day be expanded into full articles?  Perhaps.  They're all still here, as redirects to Cocktail, waiting until the day when someone might be able to write a full article about them.  Without the recipes, the articles would have been entirely empty, so there is nothing controversial about redirecting an empty article to a main article on the same topic.  As to how anyone is to know what I did with them, the same way as anyone is to know what has been done to the hundreds of thousands of other unkeepable articles on Wikipedia which have become redirects.


 * But the bigger picture here is that we had an entire category of articles, the Cocktails category, in which at least half the articles were not articles at all and violated Wikipedia policy. The existence of all these recipe articles encouraged the addition of many more recipes, as they led to the assumption that wikipedia is an appropriate place to post recipes.  By moving all these to the appropriate wiki, and out of Wikipedia, I cleaned up the category, leaving it with actual encyclopedia articles.  Those of us who want Wikipedia to be an encylopedia can see the clear value in that.  IAR comes into play because I never would have done this if I had to actually follow all the steps in the transwiki process.  The whole thing would have taken me so long that I simply wouldn't have been willing to do it, and the cleanup wouldn't have happened.  --Xyzzyplugh 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly dont know if they were only recipes, or had merit beyond that, or were valid stubs. No one does now, because you decided doing what you felt was right was the better route than trying to gain consensus or see if anyone can do anything with it.  Perhaps waiting for someone to do it properly would have been the better route, considering the amount of content you decided to remove. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to gain consensus when doing a simple action like turning an empty article, or an article which contains nothing which belongs on wikipedia, into a redirect. As to waiting for someone to do it properly... a proper, full transwiki procedure would have resulted in the articles being removed just the same, the only difference is that there would have been notations in the various transwiki logs.  As someone who has since the above incident ended up becoming the sole caretaker of the wikipedia transwiki log, I can tell you that nobody reads the damn thing, there is zero chance that anyone would look at it and say, "hey, what's this, all these cocktails articles being moved at once, I should look into this".  I could safely post my social security number, address, and credit card numbers into the transwiki log with no fear of identity theft.--Xyzzyplugh 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's not what you did. You instead decided to just transwiki something on your own, perhaps something that shou;dn't have been transwikied to begin with.  We don't know if your scenario would bear out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deciding to transwiki something on one's own is perfectly acceptable and within the rules. There is no need to gain consensus before transwikiing articles.  I think you may not fully understand the transwiki process and system here.  This would not be unusual, 99+% of wikipedia editors, including most admins, know little or nothing about it.  To transwiki basically just means to copy an article from one wiki to another.  It seems that you don't like what I did, since it ended in the removal of wikipedia content, but you're not quite sure why you don't like it.  I could have turned those 100 articles into redirects without copying them over to wikibooks first, and then I would have been entirely within the rules and no invocation of IAR would have been necessary.  It was not the removal of the content from wikipedia that was against the rules at all, it was the way I did the transwikiing.  You're arguing against the wrong part of what I did if you're hoping to debate against IAR here. --Xyzzyplugh 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, so since you decided to do something outside of the normal bounds, there's no wya to check up to see if they were indeed proper, if it was done properly, if the proper licensing attribution (a big deal) is in place, etc etc etc. I understand the process fine, and I understand that the way you avoided it was not a good one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those on the receiving end of the transwiki were notified of what was going on, they could check to see if it was done properly. And yes, I copied the history over to the new article's talk page on wikibooks for each article.  Perhaps you will never accept IAR because you fail to see that "the perfect is the enemy of the good".  Do you prefer that something which needs doing not be done at all, rather than have it done imperfectly? --Xyzzyplugh 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus? You think that we need to demonstrate consensus before turning pages into redirects?  That isn't even in the rules.  —David Levy 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh?! You complained that Xyzzyplugh didn't try to "gain consensus."  At the same time as posting the above reply to me, you complained that Xyzzyplugh "decided to just transwiki something on [his/her] own."  —David Levy 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. What are you missing here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're simultaneously arguing that Xyzzyplugh shouldn't have proceeded without first "gain[ing] consensus" (which is not in the rules) and denying that you're arguing that Xyzzyplugh should have first demonstrated consensus. —David Levy 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may need to re-read, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You: "...[Xyzzyplugh] decided doing what [he/she] felt was right was the better route than trying to gain consensus or see if anyone can do anything with it..." 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Me: "Consensus? You think that we need to demonstrate consensus before turning pages into redirects?" 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You: "I never said that." 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You (simultaneously): "[Xyzzyplugh] instead decided to just transwiki something on [his/her] own, perhaps something that shou;dn't have been transwikied to begin with." 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't see the contradiction? —David Levy 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't one. Where is it for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You complained that Xyzzyplugh proceeded without first gaining consensus. I asked if you believed that demonstrating consensus was a prerequisite.  You claimed that this isn't what you said.  At the same time, you once again complained that Xyzzyplugh proceeded without first gaining consensus.  —David Levy 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you may need to reread what my complaints were about how he did things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you aren't making sense. —David Levy 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I unfortunately don't know how to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop contradicting yourself. —David Levy 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather baffled that we are holding policies and administrative procedures to a more lackadaisical standard than normal edits. When anyone requests a citation or diffs of "ideal" examples of IAR usage there is an almost immediate ad hominem arrogance exhibited on the part of the defenders of IAR. Why is this? If someone doesn't have the stomach or constitution for discussion, maybe it's time to quit editing for awhile. At the very least this is a sign of burnout or cowboyism. IAR does not nullify the other pillars of wikipedia. - WeniWidiWiki 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that opponents of WP:IAR generally reject such examples and insist that the rules should have been followed purely for the sake of following the rules. (See Badlydrawnjeff's response to the example cited by Ben Aveling.)  I have specific instances in mind, but I don't care to initiate a pointless argument with someone who believes that our ability to improve or maintain Wikipedia should be stifled by procedural technicalities.  —David Levy 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't care to initiate a pointless argument with someone who believes that our ability to improve or maintain Wikipedia should be stifled by procedural technicalities" *Sigh*. Case in point. I'm sorry, this is a total cop-out on your part. Don't presume to know my motivations or beliefs. I am not trying to hinder Wikipedia, I'm trying to help resolve very real problems which seem to be dismissed outright by those who use this policy the most. - WeniWidiWiki 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular (though Badlydrawnjeff seems to fit the description). I've discussed these issues in the past, and someone always argues that the rules should have been followed purely for the sake of following them.  Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with this, and I don't wish to draw attention to pages that someone might then seek to edit (thereby harming Wikipedia) because the rules weren't followed to the letter.
 * Again, Ben Aveling already cited a good example above. Why don't you address that?  —David Levy 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a good example because such instances are explicitly already covered under WP:SK. There has to be instances where there are actual diffs involved, otherwise IAR is just another useless policy. We are running into a very basic breakdown in critical thinking and logic if IAR cannot be defined and is only cited retroactively to justify questionable actions. - WeniWidiWiki 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See? You've rejected the example because you believe that following written rules to the letter is more important than improving the encyclopedia.  I rest my case.  —David Levy 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps a basic grasp of logic, discussion and willingness to work within the system should be a prerequisite for admin-ship rather than enabling laziness and incivility with arbitrary and vague policies like IAR? - WeniWidiWiki 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. It's much easier to dismiss people improperly, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is being dismissed. Ben cited an instance in which ignoring the rules worked to Wikipedia's benefit, and your response is "yeah, but you ignored the rules" (scare quotes).  I'm sorry, but it's impossible to satisfy someone who believes that the rules should be followed purely for the sake of following the rules.  —David Levy 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Logic? It's illogical to follow the rules for the sake of following the rules.
 * Discussion? What do you call this?
 * Willingness to work within the system? WP:IAR is policy.
 * Laziness? It's laziness to use "because the rules say so" (scare quotes) as a reason to do something (or not do something) a certain way.
 * Incivility? To what are you referring?  Do you believe that my assessment of your previous reply was inaccurate?  You've cited no reason (other than "because the rules say so") why this application of WP:IAR (which served to improve the encyclopedia) was improper.  —David Levy 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have misunderstood me, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? You haven't explained how that application of WP:IAR was detrimental.  Your sole objection is that the rules (which otherwise would have prevented the improvement of Wikipedia) were ignored (which, of course, is what the policy prescribes).  —David Levy 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the recipes, I certainly have. Your continued misrespresentation of my position is already tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please follow the thread. I'm referring to Ben's example.  You've cited no harm that arose or benefit that would have been gained if the rules had been followed.  Your argument against this application of Ignore all rules is that rules were ignored.  —David Levy 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Following the thread, I didn't see you referring to Ben's example. And no, that's still not my argument - I haven't made one yet because I only recently learned what the article was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See my reply in the pertinent subsection. —David Levy 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral action against concensus, disruption
I added a section to the blocking policy... which seems like a logical extension of the problems I see (related to this). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#New_addition..._unilateral_action_disruption. Please take a look.] - Denny 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoken word version is out of date
The .ogg file is out of date. Specifically, it's from before Jimbo decided what this page should say. - Peregrine Fisher 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Singular, not plural
Yes, I've wound up here like others having followed links from various Wiki problems, but I've long had a thought that I'm curious for intake on:

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

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

The idea is: the plural invites an attitude of mind that may be unhelpful ("I ignore the rules, if I must"), but the singular demands a more specific rationale ("I ignored the rule in X case, for A reason"). It's a subtle difference, but I think important. Marskell 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy has always been called "ignore ALL rules" for a reason. Changing it to "Ignore a rule" doesn't quite carry the same punch.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I was suggesting lessening its punch. Marskell 11:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration committee interpretation of Ignore All Rules

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war

This recent arbitration case clarifies the likely attitude to uses of Ignore all Rules that subsequently end up as part of a dispute that reaches arbitration:


 * Principle: Ignoring all rules


 * 6) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions.  If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.


 * ''Passed 11 to 0 at 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a finding of fact that one administrator who deleted the Daniel Brandt article "did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules." Because of this and other circumstances, he was desysopped by Jimbo Wales and this was confirmed by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. As much as the arbcom has good intentions here, it doesn't do to put "the definitive" interpretation on this rule.  The arbcom, after all, is a part of the rule structure.  Think back to the earliest history of Wikipedia: there was an extreme reluctance to launch any sort of rule set.  This principle is the inheritance of that tradition, a constant warning that we should not become too bureaucratised.  What I'm saying is that while the arbcom is quite legit to use this definition, it can't be compartmentalised to any more abstract a principle than WP:DICK. Slac speak up! 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but time and again various people point out that WP:CONSENSUS is the one rule that really can't be ignored. And now ArbCom has done the same. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lacrimosus/SLAC has it exactly right. Need I remind anyone that there is nothing whatsoever about the rule that guarantees there will not be any consequences for one's actions while ignoring all rules. older ≠ wiser 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's "Ignore all rules, except you might be punished if you do". But that makes no sense as a policy. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to the corollary of this policy. If you're not being a WP:DICK, then your chances of being punished for ignoring rules is nil. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is precicely why we don't need Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. Tack one so much as one clause to IAR, however, and you violate the principle itself. Thanatosimii 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the principle is violated whenever someone tries to invoke IAR to "improve or maintain Wikipedia" while ignoring consensus.


 * The trouble is that many people are emotionally attached to a sort of bracing "spirit of Wikipedia" feeling they get when contemplating the brevity of IAR. But in practice, every single time someone invokes IAR against WP:CONSENSUS, it works out badly. It worked out badly for Yanksox, who might otherwise be able to claim in good faith that he/she was merely attempting to "improve or maintain Wikipedia". &mdash;Ashley Y 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (removing some indent for the sake of readability)


 * The concept of invoking IAR against consensus is paradoxical; circumventing consensus doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But consensus can be wrong. So it is possible to improve Wikipedia against consensus. But one should not. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Circumventing consensus (instead of working to change it) never is beneficial. —David Levy 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An edit that circumvents a consensus that happens to be wrong may improve Wikipedia. It may make the encyclopaedia more informative, or reduce misinformation, or reduce non-notable junk. But it is always a bad idea. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bad idea because it invariably causes harm. Even if the isolated action otherwise would make sense, the change probably won't stick.  Either way, the resultant controversy would far outweigh any potential benefit.  There is no net gain to circumventing consensus, so doing so does not improve or maintain Wikipedia and is not a valid invocation of IAR.  —David Levy 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But it's the resultant controversy, from other editors, that is the problem. They are responsible for damaging Wikipedia with their wrong edits, not the original correct editor. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone does something that he/she knows (or should know) will elicit such a response, he/she is not working to improve or maintain Wikipedia (regardless of his/her ultimate goal). —David Levy 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, our consensus-defying but factually correct editor could argue that Wikipedia is temporarily improved at least for the time the edits stick. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted above, the resultant controversy would more than cancel out any benefit. And of course, all of this assumes that the individual in question actually is right.  —David Levy 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (Removing some indents for the sake of readability)


 * Oh yes, consensus-defying individuals are usually wrong. But consensus is not infallible, merely the best we have. However, as for the resultant controversy, that's less clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first, and a community of editors second. An editor could improve the encyclopaedia, albeit only temporarily, even if it damages the community. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the fact that controversial actions usually are quickly reversed, the controversy itself does not exist in a vacuum. It diverts attention from other endeavors that actually would improve the encyclopedia.
 * So what happens when someone circumvents a bad consensus? Their action is undone, and then a bunch of people spend days addressing the controversy instead of creating/improving articles.  This might even weaken the consensus-defying editor's cause.  (Had this individual argued against the consensus, perhaps he/she might have been able to change it.  Having defied it instead, people are less likely to listen to him/her.)  —David Levy 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think much more effort is involved in reverting a change than in making it. Each edit gets reverted, but at least the article is correct half the time, at least until the editor hits 3RR (and in practice, edit wars are sometimes much slower). Of course the ensuing discussion distracts editors, but actually that's equally likely to happen when the dissenter simply raises the issue and doesn't edit the article. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your second point, you're mistaken. When someone circumvents consensus, the resultant discussion inevitably focuses on him/her to a greater extent than the core issue is addressed.
 * Regarding your first point, I'm actually stunned; you seem to be arguing that a revert war can be beneficial (because it means that "the article is correct half the time"), and I don't even know how to respond to that. —David Levy 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Revert wars always seem bad for the people involved in them, but for the encyclopaedia itself, the only purpose of which is providing information, better an article is sometimes correct than never correct. And bear in mind that an editor may do so to improve Wikipedia in good faith in those cases when it's not obvious that a big distracting edit war is the result of their defying consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I remain taken aback by your belief that revert wars can be good.
 * 2. Yes, it certainly is possible for someone to fail to realize his/her actions' ramifications. That has no bearing on the situation's reality.  —David Levy 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking at this from a "community of editors" perspective, and losing sight of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to inform. Let us say that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the world is flat, while you as a dissenter believe the earth is round, and discussion of the matter proved fruitless. Given Wikipedia's primary purpose as an encyclopaedia, does it not improve Wikipedia to make the edit anyway, so that it's correct at least part of the time? Or is Wikipedia damaged by this overall, due to, what, lack of consistency?


 * It seems to me revert wars are considered bad because they make the page inconsistent, which suggests, embarrassingly, that Wikipedia is unstable. In this particular made-up case at least, I think the inconsistency actually improves Wikipedia over a consistent but inaccurate page. Better to be uncertain than to be certainly wrong. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See this page for some of the reasons why revert wars are bad.
 * When a page is protected to halt an edit war (thereby preventing anyone from editing it), do you not agree that this is harmful? —David Levy 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, revert wars are bad. But an inaccurate page is worse. What's the purpose of this whole Wikipedia thing, after all? &mdash;Ashley Y 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [de-indenting]
 * 1. A stable, accurate page (reached after a brief period of inaccuracy) is vastly preferable to a page that's accurate half of the time but never is stabilized (because people continually revert to their preferred versions instead of working to resolve the conflict).
 * 2. Let's take a step back, shall we? As an example, you invented a hypothetical dispute as to whether the planet Earth is flat or round.  Such an issue is resolved not by determining a direct consensus among Wikipedians, but by citing reliable sources and fairly presenting all significant viewpoints on the subject.  Therefore, a dispute (if one were to arise) probably would stem from accusations of undue weight and the like, not from anything as simple and straightforward as your example.  —David Levy 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * de-indenting: Ha-ha, you lose! Just kidding.
 * 1. Agreed. But a stable, inaccurate page is not. For the reader, that's the worst thing a page can be.
 * 2. Ah, but it is determined by consensus. A consensus may emerge over whether the reliable sources really do say that, and which sources are reliable and so forth. If the reliable sources say the earth is round, but a consensus of editors believes that the reliable sources say the earth is flat, then there is a consensus that the earth is flat. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't want stable, inaccurate pages. Such a situation is avoided via discussion (not by continually reverting back and forth and hoping that more people will see the "right" version).
 * Instead of focusing on hypothetical scenarios, could you cite an actual instance in which something along the lines of the above occurred? —David Levy 08:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An example where there is a consensus on something that is wrong? If I thought I'd found one, you'd be unlikely to believe that it was wrong, since you or any given person would be more likely to share the consensus belief than the minority belief. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You invented a hypothetical scenario in which the consensus was unequivocally wrong. Can you cite an actual instance in which this occurred?  —David Levy 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, I have no real opinion on the Daniel Brandt case, but supposing it was an invasion of his privacy, Wikipedia was improved temporarily if the deletion gave him at least some respite for a short period of time and established that the article was not necessarily permanent -- and this despite the huge ruckus it caused in the community. On the other hand, it might not have been an invasion of his privacy, and we have nothing but consensus to determine which. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The controversy brought Mr. Brandt far more attention than he otherwise would have received. —David Levy 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Moot point, unfortunately. Discussion above shows people would rather be irresponsible than responsible, so this will stay as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a heck of a way to characterize people who disagree with you. —David Levy 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was me holding back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's think, what would Jimbo do? Occasionally, he makes policy decisions against consensus (or without waiting for consensus). Is he wrong to do that? Discuss. Slac speak up! 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is addressed by the consensus rule, the one rule that must never be ignored. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley's consensus-defying-but-correct editor was probably a straw man, but I'm actually going to side with the straw man. It's just that, at some point, this person has to live with the idea that others may have a case, or that the issue at hand is not that urgent or important to Wikipedia, let alone to life. What this point is, well, that will depend on the merits of the case.

If something was really that important, and prevailing opinion was really just plain wrong, then I'd like to think that yes, I would, actually, persist in defiance, and accept the controversy and the consequences. Wouldn't you? Now, let us admit it is rarely important enough to merit anything close to even one revert per day, but this should never lead us to imagine that "we have nothing but consensus to determine which [is correct]", or that, as some others would have it, we must get "consensus" first before doing anything remotely irregular. Far from it.

Rather, it is good judgement that lets you decide where the line is. Patience and a sense of perspective is critical. In my opinion, these sorts of shit-storms are the result of nothing more than a loss of perspective on the part of the participants. I submit that Wikipedia got along just fine during these supposed times of trouble, and that most didn't notice, and of those that noticed, most didn't care. We have an encyclopedia to write.

I also submit that similar shit-storms occur in all sorts of internet-based communities, even those which are not founded on Ignore All Rules. With a healthy sense of perspective, you won't go wrong with IAR. Without it, you will run into all sorts of needless conflict even if we did strike down or dilute IAR. While it may be tempting to give advice in this regard, it is, of course, difficult to properly enjoin patience and perspective, and even more difficult to characterise in general terms where the line is. Any attempt to legislate these things should be done with extreme caution.

Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deep and subtle implications?
Reference.com: implication

How about changing "a deep and subtle meaning" to "deep and subtle implications"? --83.253.36.136 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is that any better? --Deskana (talk)  02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm asking (about an old suggestion(1)). – Perhaps it's a little less "woo-woo" than "deep meaning"? On the other hand, "deep meaning" is kind of funny :-) --83.253.36.136 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Humbly
Recently I have had cause to reflect on this rule. I have been involved in an interesting case the article entitled Miriam Rivera. The way IAR is worded, enforcing it's letter and not it's spirit. seemed to imply that it overrides all other rules if and only if it serves to "Improve" this encyclopedia. I am told that it does not mean that. Well then precisely what does it mean? Tell me if this sounds right. Ignore all rules means: To create new rules and practices on a case by case basis when and as needed, to use discretion. Example legislators make a law for manditory minimum sentencing for certain crimes. However the courts being a separate and equal branch of government decide that in certain cases those rules are in appropiate (like sending a guy to jail for life under a three strikes law for petty theft). In a sense IAR and common sense seem to be here to allow for flexibility. I was so hoping for clarity here. --Hfarmer 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the issue on the page? Mostly what IAR means is that the purpose here is to create an encyclopedia: you do not need to spend time poring over rule minutiae in order to justify an action, and if some "policy" page happens to say something at the moment that is in fact contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, then it is not binding. Nevertheless, the policy pages do generally contain the collective wisdom of other editors gained from experience in various circumstances and if there is a dispute over some issue then it should be reasonably discussed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Per IAR"
I have been most vocal in my defense of this page, however I have one peeve which really needs to be adressed, I think. It seems apparent that there is more than enough consensus that you can't just "Per IAR" somthing as a defense for a change in an edit summary. Should there be some comment somewhere on this page stating that? Thanatosimii 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Per IAR" is really stupid; it is citing a rule about not citing rule minutiae, and does not include any justification for the actual action that is being taken, which is necessary in any circumstance. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, someone should probably do somthing about the fact that IAR was just "Per IAR"ed... Thanatosimii 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger on WP:IGNORE

 * I am the author of the "ignore all rules" rule on Wikipedia. Some months after I humorously proposed that, I rejected it because other people were taking it seriously. The intent behind the rule initially was that people should not worry about getting formatting right and getting every single detail of policy under their belts before they started contributing.


 * It's OK if you don't bold the subject of the article. Someone else will fix it, and you will learn simply by being corrected. That is all I meant by "ignore all rules." I certainly didn't mean that you can behave like a jerk and no one will care.

Source:. 02 Apr 2007 -- Stbalbach 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems we've got his intent covered by linking to "don't be a dick". SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the WP:IAR page actually says that "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". That is not a license to be a jerk, and I do not see how it could be interpreted as such. And improving/maintaining Wikipedia is a good thing. mike4ty4 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's was so funny about this page. People debate it on the talk page as if it's a rule that allows you to do anything, but very rarely have I seen someone actually use it to be a dick or to blatantly break rules. The existance (or lack thereof) of this page will never stop people from being dicks if they really want to be. --Deskana (ya rly)  12:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not, but people do cite it as justifiction for ignoring policy and process when they think it is "for the good of the project" eve when others do not agree. DES (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And near as I can tell, they don't get away with it. That's an inconvenience, the effect of losing this page could be much worse than that. --Kizor 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I'd question how much you're paid attention to thinks like deletion, AfD, DRV, protection, and the like. IAR is absolutely a charter for people to abuse the processes laid out to suit their needs, nothing more and nothing less. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, anyone who regularly reads this page is familiar with your anti-IAR position. By now, you're equally aware of the fact that most of us strongly disagree with you.  Continually citing our disagreement as evidence that "people would rather be irresponsible than responsible" or that we haven't "paid attention" is insulting and unhelpful.  —David Levy 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the shoe fits...if I'm wrong, someone can surely demonstrate otherwise. I've been waiting quite a while, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember someone citing something about CSD as an example and you calling it "disruptive". It was regarding the deletion of groups. We're all well aware of you anti-IAR stance, please don't argue in EVERY single thread on the talk page. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll provide my input where it's useful. That includes pointing out flaws in arguments.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You believe that a rule's existence is reason enough to follow it 100% of the time, and you perceive any instance in which a rule is ignored as inherently bad (purely because a rule is ignored). You ask people to cite examples of situations in which ignoring a rule benefited (and didn't harm) the project, we comply, and then you respond by asserting that the act of ignoring a rule was harmful because a rule was ignored.  —David Levy 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no. But I guess if you keep trotting that falsehood out, it will eventually gain acceptance, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that's exactly what you do Jeff, and you did it in the example about CSD that I mentioned before. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen you do exactly this before as well, Jeff. It may well just be a miscommunication, but in that case you should look for a different way to explain yourself, because you're frequently misunderstood in exactly the same way. Friday (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're both incorrect, then. Please read what I have to say if you need to pass judgement on it.  This is a consistent problem with you, especially, Friday. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, you say you've been waiting and that people have failed to provide a demonstation that IAR is not always used abusively... however, when such demonstrations have been provided, you have refused to accept them, saying that they're invalid for reasons that boil down to bare assertions on your part. You never explained why the way the CSK were evolved was disruptive; you've just asserted that it was. Don't you understand that bare assertions that you already know we disagree with don't constitue a productive argument? You've never provided evidence that there's anything wrong with the way IAR has been used to develop policy; you just keep asserting without evidence that you think it's bad. When are you going to communicate with us, rather than just repeat yourself with nothing backing you up? I can certainly understand David Levy and Deskana's frustration with your broken-record-like opposition. I appreciate that you must find it frustrating, too, but at some point you've either got to provide an argument with actual content, or else drop it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless trying to force policy by consistently making disruptive actions is okay, I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Consensus by brute force may not be consensus at all.  The consistant categorizations of my arguments as "bare," or "based only because the rules aren't followed" are either misunderstood, patently false, or outright designed to discredit me.  I'm rather fed up with the constant mischaracterization of my argument, so perhaps when they come around to actually making an effort to understand, the record can stop playing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're proving our point- you're saying it's disruptive but providing no reasoning as to why that is. --Deskana (ya rly)  16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Your reasoning is circular, Jeff.  You're literally arguing that ignoring rules is disruptive because ignoring rules is disruptive (and claiming that anyone who disagrees hasn't made "an effort to understand").  —David Levy 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When there's an expectation that, for instance, AfDs stay open for five days to allow for arguments, it's disruptive to remove that ability to allow one's voice to be heard. When there's an expectation for CSD to be interpreted strictly, it's disruptive to unilaterally extend it to things that don't fit the policy.  This is the same argument I've been making - it's not "because it's disruptive," it's "disruptive because..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above merely extends the chain of presupposition. Most of the community disagrees with your assertions that an "an expectation for CSD to be interpreted strictly" and an expectation that AfD discussions always "stay open for five days" (no matter what) exist.  Your arguments rely upon presumptions that are not widely held.  You're entitled to your opinions, but it's rather annoying when you claim that anyone who disagrees with you "would rather be irresponsible than responsible," hasn't "paid attention," or refuses to make "an effort to understand."  —David Levy 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't replying to you, so please do not move my comments. The community does not disagree with my assertions, so your entire premise is false.  Again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't change your message's indentation. I merely corrected your error of inserting your follow-up to Deskana's post above mine (posted approximately seven minutes earlier) instead of below it.  I've done so again.
 * 2. It certainly appears as though most of the community disagrees with your assertions. Please cite evidence to the contrary.  —David Levy 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the first, I'm preserving the threading. I request again that you do not move my comment.  As for the second, I suggest reading the talk pages and archives of WP:CSD, and the routine times that improperly closed AfDs are overturned at AfD on process grounds.  It'll take a while, so be patient, there's plenty to read. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the AfDs: You think getting rid of this page will stop something like that happening? --Deskana (ya rly)  17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a step. More importantly, it removes the charter for that disruptive activity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...except, of course, for the fact that WP:IAR doesn't prescribe such closings. —David Levy 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it does. It's the only justification availabie. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Such closings do not improve or maintain Wikipedia.  There is no valid justification, and that's why they're overturned.  —David Levy 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why do you encourage them? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't. —David Levy 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a straw man, because your words seem to imply you support keeping this around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I plainly stated that it "doesn't prescribe such closings." Once again, you're presupposing that this policy causes disruption (and that it's impossible for someone to even believe that it doesn't).  —David Levy 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it does. I know you don't understand this page, which is why I have to keep beating this dead horse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And now you're back to arguing that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand. —David Levy 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. No, you are not "preserving the threading." You're messing it up (by making it appear as though my 16:35 message is a reply to my own 16:11 message).  I responded to Deskana before you did, so my post belongs above yours (not below it).  This represents the chronology, while the indentation represents the threading (with both of our messages on the same level).  The MediaWiki diff makes it appear as though I'm moving your message down, but I'm actually moving mine back to its original position (where it was before you inexplicably decided to move it down by inserting your response above it instead of below it).  Do you see how I added this reply below the pre-existing messages (instead of inserting it directly below the post to which I'm replying)?  That's the correct format.
 * 2. Yes, improper AfD closings are routinely overturned. This means that WP:IAR was not followed.  AfD closings to which WP:IAR was correctly applied are routinely endorsed, and this fact is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote the above.  —David Levy 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, it's a stupid edit war anyway. Meanwhile, there's no such thing as a proper IAR AfD closing, because IAR AfD closings are disruptive for the reasons I noted above.  I again implore you to read. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. You continually moved my message to an incorrect location and falsely claimed that I was doing exactly that to your message (when I was simply moving mine back to its original position).  There was nothing "stupid" about my efforts to restore the proper threading and educate you on the subject.
 * 2. No matter how many times you issue such a proclamation, your personal opinion that following an official policy is "disruptive" doesn't negate the fact that it's an official policy. —David Levy 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the edit war was stupid. You again tried to claim false motives in my moving of my comment back to why I was responding to, which is par for this course.  Meanwhile this official policy encourages disruptiveness, and probably shouldn't be a policy per common sense, but disruptive admins need a charter, so it stays.  Have anything constructive to add, or will you move on, now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. At no point did I claim that your interference with the proper threading was deliberate. I'm certain that it was due to an honest misunderstanding on your part (which is why I posted a lengthy explanation of the correct format).
 * 2. Once again, you're citing your opinion as fact (and as evidence of itself). I (and most users) disagree with your assertion that this policy is disruptive.  —David Levy 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning what? —David Levy 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Expectations
Jeff said above:
 * Unless trying to force policy by consistently making disruptive actions is okay, I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Consensus by brute force may not be consensus at all.  The consistant categorizations of my arguments as "bare," or "based only because the rules aren't followed" are either misunderstood, patently false, or outright designed to discredit me.  I'm rather fed up with the constant mischaracterization of my argument, so perhaps when they come around to actually making an effort to understand, the record can stop playing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm avoiding any threading problems (I hope) by starting a new subheader. Jeff, I'm not trying to discredit you, because I consider you to be an excellent contributor to the Wiki who has consistently and thoughtfully argued for what he believes to be right. I have no desire to discredit you or to misrepresent your arguments. Please consider that the misunderstandings may run in both directions.

On point, I'll say this. You mention "expectations" in the thread above, when saying that early closings are disruptive because there is an expectation that discussions will remain open for a certain time. (At least, I think you said that. If not, please correct me.)

Speaking only for myself, when I first came to Wikipedia, the policy and guideline pages I read, and the behavior I observed, did not lead me to develop that expectation. I thought that the pages in the Wikipedia namespace made it clear that Wikipedia is not a rules-game, and that I should expect to see corners being cut and rules being bent regularly, and that it's ok as long as we're able to talk about our actions and the reasons behind them.

I also developed the expectation that our guidelines were grown organically through a descriptive process, in which people did things that made sense to them, and good practices were eventually written down for the benefit of others. I developed the expectation that our policies and guidelines weren't to be taken as "rules", but more as documents of good ideas that have worked in the past, and which may or may not continue to work.

It seems to me that the expectations you developed about how Wikipedia works are different from what I've just described. Is that fair to say? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit conflicted - yes, and I don't know how you came to this expectation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, thanks for replying. I'm glad there's something we can both agree to, even if it's just that we have different expectations.  I'm not sure where I got the expectations I did; I think it was some combination of reading policy pages and watching people do things.  Probably the same place where you acquired your expectations.  It wouldn't be the first case where two people look at the same thing and see really different things.  You say the zebra is white with black stripes, and I say it's black with white stripes; which of us is right?
 * It strikes me that the question of whether or not most people expect AfDs to run for a full 5 days is an empirical question that we could work towards answering. Otherwise, I predict that this page will continue to go 'round in circles with "this policy is disruptive," "no it's not," "yes it is,"... ad infinitum. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff -- I remember coming across [ this], and thinking it was perfectly fine. I ask, because as I recall you had a problem with this close. Do you, still? Yes, I am aware of the Daniel Brandt ArbCom case. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do still, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) IAR should not be thrown out. It serves a purpose just as Elastic clause serve in U.S. Constitution and notwithstanding clause in Canada constitution. WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Odd that you use one of the most abused clauses in the US Constitution to justify one of the most abused policies on the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you acknowledge that the behavior in question is an abuse of the policy (and not, as previously claimed, an accurate application).  —David Levy 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would abolishing IAR have any impact on common practice?
Suppose IAR were abolished. Would it have any impact on common practice? Itayb 11:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Without IAR I would expect to see an increase in two undesirable things:
 * people insisting on following the letter of law to the detriment of the following of the spirit and
 * people attempting to capture every little exception in rules and guidelines.
 * See some of the above discussions for examples. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So why not, instead of saying "ignore all rules", say "respect all rules", and have a rule stating Wikipedia's mission (Wikipedia's spirit, in your words)? Itayb 11:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One rule of Wikipedia is that you must send me 10 euros. Please respect it. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please point me to the relevant policy page. Itayb 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Send Tony 10 euros (WP:STTE).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so. People would no longer have an excuse when they decide to do something against the community's wishes. It would be a net benefit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, isn't IAR=RTR (Respect the Rules)? After all, IAR is itself a rule, so ignoring it means respecting the rules (minus and minus makes plus, right?). However, talking in double negatives is more confusing than talking straight, so i propose changing this policy's title to "Respect the rules". But, actually, "Respect the rules" is redundant, because rules are meant to be respected, that's why they're called rules. So i revise my suggestion, and suggest that this IAR policy be abolished, because it only serves to confuse editors, in the best case, and in the worst case encourages them to disregard the policies. Itayb 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in practice, no - this has nothing to do with respecting the rules. I agree with the rest, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (re Ben) an additional problem is that it would necessitate novice users to read up on all our policies before contributing. This is an undesirable barrier towards entry.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is really of much practical concern, then this IAR "policy" can be substituted with another: "CNSS" (i.e. Cut Newbies Some Slack). But i also think it very desirable that people have a peek at the policies before they begin editing. This can spare administrators a lot of time cleaning up mess which could have easily been avoided in the first place. Finally, there has been an effort recently to merge various policies and guidelines into a single policy (V+NOR+RS->A). That's the right direction: instead of giving the middle finger to the policies, restructuring and rewording them, so there are only a small handful of them, and that they are easy to understand and follow. My ideal is the Creative Commons licenses: they can be summarized by three or four short phrases, which anyone with some common sense can immediately understand, remember and follow. Itayb 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case please join us at WP:LAP, an effort to simplify policy, but note that there is considerable objection from some people to doing so. At any rate, no, as an essential part of the wiki philosophy people should be able to "jump in" without worries. This is precisely why Wikipedia is so popular.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will point out that V+NOR+RS != A. Rather, V+NOR+RS = V+NOR+RS+A.  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Our rules are legion and take hour upon hour to learn, much less every nook and cranny. The destruction of WP:IAR would be the loss of a fundamental reminder of the spirit of the law: We and the rules are both here to make a good encyclopedia. Wikipedia could gain a bit by reducing the amount of disruptive discussion, but it would lose fivefold or tenfold by empowering those who are ready to belabor every last single detail of the rules to support their position - in other words, it would give more power to those who shout the loudest and the longest, which is a danger in any virtual environment. That's my $0.02. --Kizor 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While IAR is no doubt problematic at times, given this graph, I would argue that we absolutely need IAR. With the number of edits and users increasing daily (and by proxy the number of vandals and vandalism), slow processes need to sometimes be ignored to keep Wikipedia as good as it can be. There is little doubt that vandals work faster than a bureaucracy, so without IAR, eventually the vandals would win. Rock star  ( T/C ) 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this paradoxical policy helps preserve the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's spirit is not that all's fair game. Wikipedia is not an aimless endeavor devoid of goals and principles. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This should be a policy, as in fact it is, and we should all respect all policies, including this one.
 * Newbies are best served by the "Assume good faith" policy, and initiatives such as the adoption project, and the welcoming committee. What they need least is to be told there are no rules, only to find out the hard way that there are in fact rules, which are very important to the community. Particularly confusing is the fact, that this "Ignore All Rules" edict is itself a rule! What are newbies, or indeed any other person of sound mind, to make of this? Mind, this "policy" was meant as a joke, as explicitly admitted by its creator himself.
 * And as for vandals, acts of vandalism go against Wikipedia's policies and if all administrators stick firmly to the policies, they should have no problem dealing with vandlas. But if an administrator misuses his/her privileges, and treats a decent editor as though he/she were a vandal, the policies are there to help vindicate the victim and hold the administrator accountable for his actions in the eyes of the community. Itayb 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point, which was that rules and regulations move slower than vandals. Sometimes you need to ignore the rules to make Wikipedia better. Period. Furthermore, yeah, it was meant as a joke by Sanger, but Sanger's gone and Jimbo made it a policy. Let's not focus on what it was but rather what it is. Rock star  ( T/C ) 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any clearly anti-vandal action taken in good faith, even if it violates policy, is protected by the "Assume Good Faith" policy, and would be clearly recognized as such by the community. Itayb 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I respect all policies. Sometimes I respectfully ignore them...


 * I wonder if we've really thought through what rules we would use to enact and repeal other rules after we got rid of this, and specifically, what rules we would use to repeal this one? Clearly we couldn't make a move which would be immediately invalid under the new, legalistic order of things. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So IAR is meant to provide people who don't care to follow policy, and who are not even acting in good faith, a license to do what they like? Seems to me, those who are really concerned about vandals, and we all are, should be the most outspoken critics of IAR, which could be aptly retitled "The Vandal's Protection Policy". Itayb 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm pretty sure the vandals don't bother reading the rules beforehand. Getting rid of this wouldn't change that! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page does not consist simply of "Ignore all rules", that's just the title of it. Anyone who thinks vandalising is improving the encyclopedia should be blocked for being so stupid anyway. They clearly don't have a clue how to edit appropriately. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, why don't we start by changing this policy's title from "Ignore all rules" to something which describes the intention more aptly. Based on the above comments i'd suggest "Act in good faith", but that's already taken. Itayb 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just use Sanger's intent, since he's the one who created it - "Don't worry about familiarizing yourself with every policy before contributing" - it fixes the biting issue and removes the charter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of this page might stop people who don't understand this policy from whining about it. Friday (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The people who don't understand this policy, from the evidence, tend to be the ones to use it, actually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to bother. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it can be as easily argued that the people who don't understand this policy are the ones who argue against it. Rock star  ( T/C ) 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's really true. It certainly doesn't seem like the intent of this was to run roughshod over community consensus and process, but that's exactly what happens. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The first thing that happens when IAR is invoked is that whoever is around has a quick discussion over whether the benefit of the action taken outweigh the cost.  IAR is about putting the good of the community over a literal blind adherence to the letter of rules which can never cover every situation.  Please provide an example of IAR leading to an outcome that goes against community consensus.  Certainly, not every action taken under IAR meets community consensus, that's OK, those actions get reverted.  What would you propose instead?  "Follow all rules always".  I can't see that working, not least because we never agree on what the rules mean, or even what the rules are.    Regards, Ben Aveling 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the rules are formed and instituted via community consensus, IAR is de facto an outcome that goes against community consensus, and it's not always reverted when people complain. What would I propose instead?  Simply junking this - remove the charter, and if a sitaution really arises where IARing was a good idea, the community would be lenient.  It hasn't happened yet, though, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * badlydrawnjeff, you've used the word "charter" a couple of times before in this argument. I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Could you please explain? Itayb 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * badlydrawnjeff, can I check my understanding here. You've just said that we should get rid of the IAR policy (not rule) but that people should continue to do what IAR says they should do?  That is, follow the rules when they make sense, ignore them in the rare occasion when they don't.  Regards, Ben Aveling 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This policy, or at least its current formulation is confusing. I believe there is no argument about that, since the evidence, manifested in this talk page, is overwhelming. I hope, also, there is a general agreement, that "confusability" is not a desirable attribute in a policy or a system of policies. This problem needs to be addressed. Those who favor the policy, seem to agree, that policies should most of the time be adhered to, and when they are not, it should be under constricted circumstances. Let's try then to capture these circumstances, and replace this policy with a straigt-forward one with a matching title. Here's my suggestion:

The IAR policy is meant to be used only by experienced editors in cases of emergency: If a new user, not well-versed with the policies, invoked the IRA policy, he/she would probably be deemed vandals. And if the matter was not urgent, then it could and should have been discussed on the problematic policy page, attempting to gain support for an amendment.

So why won't we substitute the confusing and danger-prone "Ignore all rules" by an emergency policy to the effect that in cases of emergency, experienced editors are allowed to make judgment calls which go against the policies, if they are acting in good faith to protect Wikipedia's mission, to be a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Their actions may be later challenged, but if the case is in the gray-area, and if they are editors of high standing in the community, then they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Itayb 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Example
Could someone give me some examples of when this would apply? CoolGuy 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every time you make an edit or do anything on Wikipedia without bothering to look it up the Manual of style or the huge corpus of "rules". —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've occasionally deleted stuff technically out of line with deletion policy... but it was just common sense, and nobody's ever raised an issue about it. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Itayb 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21:54, 17 April 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "[[Image:Thnk fr th mmrs alt beg.JPG]]" (image was added into an article saying it was removed because of a potential copyright problem. therefore it is not appropriate for wikipedia)
 * Most people associate IAR with massive rulebreaking and causing trouble, but sometimes it's quiet and uncontroversial. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The example is too out-of-context for me to understand what's going on. Could you please elaborate somewhat and explain the circumstances of the deletion, why you decided deletion was called for, and why you think your action violated policy (and which policy)? Itayb 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image displayed on Thnks fr th Mmrs, saying that it was going to be used as an opening bit for the video to the song, but that it was removed due to fears over copyright. It was tagged as fair use on the image description page. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, i'm not sure i've quite got it. I'll explain what i understand. Please correct me if i'm wrong. At some point of time a user removed a picture from the page Thnks fr th Mmrs citing concerns over copyright infringement. Later another user restored it, claiming the picture was in fact thoroughly kosher. You then deleted the picture from commons, because ... (please complete), and you think by doing so you probably violated the ... (please complete) policy, because ... (please complete). Itayb 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got it a bit confused, sorry if I didn't explain it correctly. These links might help you: I found it like this, and then I removed the image and deleted it. Saying it wasn't used because of a potential copyright problem then asserting that we can use it as fair use on the image page doesn't make sense to me. I deleted it to not only avoid a potential copyright problem, but also to protect intellectual property. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, i think i've got it now: a picture was displayed, which was marked as "fair use" in commons. You suspected it might cause copyright problems because the article quoted someone as saying there are copyright issues with this picture. So you went on to delete the picture from the database altogether. Why do you have recourse to IAR to justify your actions? They seem quite supported by WP:Copyright. More importantly, one doesn't need to get an explicit approval for one's actions from a policy, as long as they are not obviously violating any policy. Even if they are violating policy, it's really no such big a deal if it happens only on occasion: at worst some other editor will slap you on the wrist and ask you to be more careful next time. Itayb 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably should have put it through WP:IFD, but I didn't. And actually, you're citing IAR. You're saying it's alright to ignore policy in certain conditions- that's what IAR is about. (Pedantic notes: The image wasn't on commons, it was on enwiki. Also, the image isn't deleted from the database, it still exists, it is just not visible to anyone who is not an administrator) --Deskana (fry that thing!)  23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then what stopped you from putting it through WP:IFD? My problem with the IAR policy is that it's confusing (evidently) and dangerous. I have no problem with the notion, that sometimes editors may violate the policies for good reason, except that i'd like this to be told straight rather then obliquely as in the IAR policy. I also think that "good reason" should not be a matter of personal taste, but instead, at least remotely, guided by Wikipedia's mission to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and by concensus; if someone acts in a way which is detrimental to this mission and also does not enjoys concensus, this someone should be stood corrected, not be legitimized by the IAR policy. What constitutes "good reason" should be stated in policy (and it probably already is). Itayb 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse "quiet and uncontroversial" with "unnoticed." --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then report me for not following deletion process, and it'll no longer be unnoticed. I won't bear any grudge should you do so. I bet it gets you nowhere. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's tons of examples:  When I delete articles, I justify it in plain English rather than the cryptic and bizarre code system that goes along with the CSDs. There is usually, but not always, a CSD that would "justify" the deletion, but I don't care. Friday (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You really should. One of these days, it's likely to get you in trouble. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? When there's reasonable disagreement, I'm generally happy to send it to AFD instead.  I'm not following the "letter of the law", I'm just being reasonable and cooperative.  Friday (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good you are. I get more concerned when the opportunity arises where you're not willing to reverse yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, if you understand the rule so intimately (as it seems you purport), do you have an example of how it has been used correctly? Rock star  ( T/C ) 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technically speaking, because this somehow has policy support, there's no "incorrect" usage. In terms of an uncontroversial, proper outcome, though, no, I've never found one.  I've asked for them for over a year, though, and no one's delivered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the above example that I just wrote? You're welcome to report it as improper deletion and see what becomes of it. Should you do so and I get moaned about it, then I guess it'd just further re-enforce your case. But I think you realise that won't happen, so you don't want to report it lest you be proved wrong? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, here's an example I've brought up to you before: the speedy keep criteria were developed through a process of lots of people closing AfD's early, because they didn't consider the 5-day process an inviolable "rule". Eventually someone noticed that certain types of AfDs got closed early often enough, and uncontroversially enough, that we might as well write it down, and thus a guideline organically arose.  Sounds like a proper outcome to me, except that it was phrased prescriptively instead of descriptively when they wrote it down.
 * Another example: I delete pages constantly (log) while processing Requested moves. I'm sure lots of them fall under housekeeping, which I think is G6, but I never worry about that sort of thing.  I just worry about completing page moves and history merges correctly and efficiently, which must be what the "rules" tell me to do, but I don't read them.  When it's clearly time for me to delete a page, I delete it.  Is that not an "uncontroversial, proper outcome"? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before on the first one, that doesn't make it uncontroversial or wrong at all, nor am I convinced of the history anyway. As for the second, if it falls under housekeeping, good.  No problem.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the history took place on the same wiki we're on now. Before I start digging though: if you say that's not a proper use of IAR, then I have to ask, what are your criteria for an example of the policy used properly?  If you get to declare examples "improper", then what's your standard, or have you defined it out of existence?
 * By the way, I occasionally speedy-rename a category because I don't feel like dealing with CfD bureaucracy - can I call that "housekeeping", too? ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, is this plain and clear? IAR is (at least) 2 things:1) a statement about priorities- producing a quality encyclopedia is more important than following a set of rules. IAR is also 2) a recognition that no ruleset can ever be perfect-  the written "rules" aren't meant to cover every case."  Friday (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Renaming the policy

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

snowball close.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate whether you agree to rename this policy to better reflect its intention. If so, feel free to suggest an alternative name. Itayb 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename. Even the supporters of this policy agree that the title does not reflect the policy's intention. Possible alternative: "Act in good faith" (to complement "Assume good faith"). If the title is taken earnestly, then, strictly speaking, it's paradoxical, hence meaningless, but practically speaking it may give green light to vandals, power-hungry administrators, and in general anyone who doesn't care to follow the policies and who is not even acting in good faith (because that would be covered by the "Assume good faith" policy). However, if this title is not to be taken in earnest, than it's just plain confusing. Alternative name: "Act in good faith" (to complement: "Assume good faith"). Itayb 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the supporters of this policy agree that the title does not reflect the policy's intention. They do? I don't remember agreeing that. – Steel 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. To my dismay it seems i misunderstood some opinions, and people actually think the title accurately reflects the intention. Itayb 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean, you're not happy with it now, but you're happier with: Act in good faith. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Sorry, I don't get it. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Several reasons. Firstly, Polls are evil, and since the user proposing this is new to Wikipedia, I can only assume s/he is unaware of this. Polls aren't the best way of determining consensus if there's not been much discussion on the matter anyway. Secondly, having only been on Wikipedia for a few months, I'm not sure Itayb really knows whats best for the page, due to inexperience. Thirdly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the name of the page anyway. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Deskana and because the title of the page, as I see it, accurately reflects the content once the content is understood. Rock star  ( T/C ) 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, "Act in Good faith," though true, has little to nothing to do with the point behind IAR. And per all the other objections as well. Thanatosimii 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To be blunt, those who get scared by a policy called "ignore all rules" don't understand that rules are not the core concern of a wiki such as this. And they never have been. Slac speak up! 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Boo. Yah. --Kizor 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being paradoxical is on purpose. Wikipedia processes and procedures are supposed to be thoughtful and not bright-line tests. WAS 4.250 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are, why oppose the name-change, or indeed abolishing the policy altogether? The opposers care about this policy, because they think policies do matter, and they want their actions backed-up by policy. What makes you think that without this "policy" people will not employ good judgment in exercising the other policies, particularly in the face of "Assume good faith"? And how can this policy be of any use anyhow, since whenever it is played, the other party can counter the move using this very policy. This is an invitation to edit war. Itayb 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, IAR isn't a policy, it's a foundational principle, one of wikipedia's 5 pillars. It does not supercede the other pillars, including the code of conduct, which forbids edit warring. Second, it has been long established that you cannot "play" or "Invoke" IAR. IAR isn't a rule, it's the anti-rule, the spirit which drives what rules are for on wikipedia. People, any people at all, who "play" IAR in that manner don't understand the point of the rule, and frankly, are too rule-minded to ever be helpful in understanding how rules should and should not be applied on wikipedia. At least one editor who tried "playing" IAR in that sense was blocked on the spot. Thanatosimii 21:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The crux of the above is accurate, but WP:IAR is an official policy. —David Levy 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't function exactly the same way as most of what is considered "Official Policy. It's closer to Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia than it is to WP:A or somthing like that. Thanatosimii 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "And how can this policy be of any use anyhow, since whenever it is played, the other party can counter the move using this very policy." Huh?  You can't "counter a move" by using WP:IAR.  "Countering a move" is something that a rules lawyer might do, and WP:IAR is meant to *end* rules lawyering by pointing out that the rules don't matter, it's the end result that counts. JulesH 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has certainly proven very successful in achieving this goal, hasn't it? Itayb 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For many, yes it has. There are plenty of Wikipedians who "get" IAR and understand (a) that rules are not the point here, and (b) that rules-lawyering indicates that you're playing entirely the wrong game.  Those who try to lawyer the rules and "win" by "countering moves" demonstrate that they don't understand the nature of rules at Wikipedia.  Someone who thinks IAR is a trump card is precisely the person who shouldn't be using it.  When they try, it generally doesn't work for them, either. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:IAR is part of our culture, and it rightly provides a touchstone for questioning rules that may not be proper. That is, if, in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, you have to continually invoke WP:IAR and ignore some rule, maybe that rule needs to be rethought or revised or changed so that it does not block encyclopedic improvement. Furthermore, WP:IAR reminds us why we are here. We aren't here to follow rules, we aren't here to create a community, we aren't here to argue - we're here to write an encyclopedia, and all else is secondary. FCYTravis 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FCYTravis, please note, saying "We aren't here to follow rules, we aren't here to create a community, we aren't here to argue - we're here to write an encyclopedia, and all else is secondary." is, in fact, a rule, and it would be much better served if it were stated as a policy, and all editors would be expected to respect all policies, including this one, rather than ignoring the policies, including this one. Itayb 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Ignore all rules", phrased exactly like that, has been a wikipedia meta-rule since the first discussions of how wikipedia rules should work were held.  It's almost as close to a core principle as you get.  There is no self-contradiction either.  You are perfectly free to ignore the fact that you may ignore all rules if you wish; follow the rules slavishly if that's what you wish to do, because unless you find yourself unable to improve wikipedia without breaking one (which is pretty unlikely IMO), you will not be breaking this "rule".  Or, looked at another way, "If ignoring all rules prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, don't ignore them."  JulesH 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to polls like this because they serve as mental exercises for all of us to examine our tacit assumptions. No to a name change of WP:IAR because we need to be able to do something when the "rule" is wrong.  At the same time, I will admit that the major use of WP:IAR is by well-intentioned people with strong opinions to "Ignore all reasonable measures of consensus"--as exemplified by the recent huge policy upheaval in gutting Verifiability, ReliableSource, and NoOriginalResearch to get WP:ATT.  However, the fix for that problem is for the Wikipedia community to get better at distinguishing between 1) WP:IAR compared to 2) "Ignore all reasonable measures of consensus."  --Rednblu 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nay Change to neutral. we need IAR to maintain the necessary elasticity of rules on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a system of law, and the rules shouldn't be as rigid and inflexible as laws in real life. Even in real life we have jury nullification to "ignore" a enacted law provision. WooyiTalk, Editor review 01:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for an equivalent of a jury nullification. I'm just in favor of expressing it straight rather than as "ignore all rules". Itayb 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then renaming might be a good idea, maybe we should rename it "Notwithstanding the Rules"? WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ignore all rules is the essence of Wikipedia, and it is aptly named. The only Wikipedians who should be held to the letter of the rules on Wikipedia are those with administrator privileges. // Internet Esquire 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

what policies are and are not
Based on the examples given above i sense there is a common misunderstanding of what policies are. Policies are not intended to dictate every move you make. You don't need to justify all your actions by citing from a policy. Most of the edits and other stuff you can do in Wikipedia are probably not even covered by any existing policy. This doesn't mean you can't do it. On the contrary, if no policy explicitly forbids your actions, they are perfectly acceptable.

On the other hand, you should strive to get acquainted with the policies as time goes by. If you hide behind IAR to avoid having to read, understand and be guided by the policies, you're acting against wide consensus, and this is wrong. That's particularly wrong if you're an administrator.

Normally, you don't need to be bothered with policies until someone else challenges one of your actions, citing from a policy. Such an occasion is an excellent opportunity for you to turn to the relevant section of the relevant policy page and get to grips with it. If you're actions are, in fact, obviously against the policy, ask your challenger for pardon, and make a mental note of this policy point, so you won't make the same mistake twice. If you find the policy is on your side, why that's even better, isn't it?

If you think the policy is wrong, by all means, try to amend it by raising your proposed change in the policy's talk page and trying to gain consensus for it. If you succeed, that's great; but if you don't, it means many people disagree with your proposal, and think the policy is good just as it is, and you should respect it.

Finally, bureaucracy is not evil. It means you're accountable for your actions with respect to the community. "Red tape" is safeguard from editors' acting arbitrarily and without leaving trace for their actions. Red tape makes it harder for bad people to act badly. The problem is that it also makes it harder for good people to act well. If you realize the harm bad people can cause, and the way Red Tape helps to check their bad behavior and to hold them accountable for it, you'll probably look much more fondly on the tape, and like it despite its flaws. Itayb 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there's no reason why someone who wants to contribute to the encyclopedia should be required to read policies. This is an encyclopedia, and all a person needs is a sane, rather common-sense idea of what an encyclopedia is. Policy pages are collective wisdom written down, learned from prior experience. They are not law and someone citing them is not citing a statute or a court case, and someone who reads them is not keeping track of "policy points", they are just keeping track of good ideas—or sometimes ignoring bad ideas. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per bureaucracy, I agree -- bureaucracy is needed for large corporations, government, etc., but not Wikipedia. It's right there, too, on WP:NOT. Wikipedia ain't a bureaucracy. Rock star  ( T/C ) 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) When I hear "policy", I think of NOR, V, NPOV, CIVIL, NOT, um... IAR of course... NPA. A couple more, there must be something about copyright....  Anyway, those aren't things you can ignore for long.  Those are things that define our project here: we're using cooperative, consensus-based editing on a wiki to build a free neutral encyclopedia of verifiable, peviously published facts.  Practically each word in that sentence is a policy, and IAR doesn't mean you can ignore those.  It means you're allowed some newbie slack if you didn't know about NOR for example, but once somebody tells you, you don't get to ignore it anymore.
 * Now, there are a myriad guidelines, conventions, processes, procedures, forms to fill out, requests to file in triplicate, etc. Most of that can be ignored.  That doesn't mean not to do it.  It means that if you don't know it exists, don't worry about it, but if somebody stops you and tells you about it, listen to them, because you're following WP:CIVIL.  If they tell you about a rule, and it makes sense, follow it.  (if it doesn't, ask around)  Then, if you see a situation where you think the rule is actually wrong, do what you think is right instead, and then say aloud that you just ignored a rule, and discuss it, always aiming for consensus.  It's all part of how the wiki works. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It does mean you can ignore the policy pages, the "rules", even all the big name ones. That does not equate to disregarding their principles, but few people need to read whatever WP:CIVIL says to know how to interact with other people. CIVIL is a blatant example, but the other ones are unnecessary too, and most encyclopedia editors do not read any of these and do just fine. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, then why not replace the current text of the policy with what you've said. Verbatim. Wouldn't it be much clearer, particularly to newbies, but also to everyone else? Suppose we called this policy: "Relax" rather than "Ignore all rules". Wouldn't it be more adequate? Itayb 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say no, becuase that does not adequately reflect the content of the page. Rock star  ( T/C ) 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What GTBacchus said is only part of IAR, and some of it is inaccurate. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attempting some kind of definitive formulation. I think Friday summed it up better than I did in the section above.
 * Centrx, you're right that the specific text of the big policies doesn't matter much, but my point was precisely what you said: that you can't disregard the principles behind them. There's a difference between ignoring the policy pages and ignoring the actual policies.  I didn't mean to suggest that anybody needs to read the policies, just that we all have to abide by the principles that the pages aim to reflect. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding that you can make a rule that tells people how to ignore rules.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what stems from a fundamental misunderstanding on whose part? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Itayb's diatribe on what policies are. Sorry if the indent made it seem I was talking about you; that wasn't the intent.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per itself, you are always quite free to ignore IAR and follow all the rules, even unto the valley of death. Basically, IAR ensures our sense of process/morality doesn't get in the way of doing what is right. Moreschi Talk 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record
To everyone who wants to revoke this or turn it into something different, note that this is one of the few policies instated by Jimbo fiat, and as such not really subject to being overturned by the community. Aside from that, it is a fundamental issue that we can't plausibly expect users to read all the rules before doing anything.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimmy wrote: "Please consider this before editing this page." We are doing just that. Jimmy's highly respected opinion is not an infinitely rigorous preservative. As far as i know, all policies are per tradition instated by a Jimbo fiat. It does not and should not prevent them from changing and evolving. Itayb 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That "all policies are per tradition instated by a Jimbo fiat" is a false assumption.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo also wrote of IAR that "The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia." Regards, Ben Aveling 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a decent criticism to be made that he's not involved in the fundamental workings of Wikipedia anymore to make that sort of statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the addition of ja: and de: interwikis, this page remained almost unchanged from when it was created by User:Lee Daniel Crocker in April 2002 (gosh! happy 5th birthday yesterday, WP:IAR) for almost 2½ years, until it was wikified by User:Eequor in August 2004. In the second half of its life, it appears to have been edited around 700 times, with a net result of … a gnat's crotchet more than nothing.

Please, people, go and write the encyclopedia and stop worrying "the rules" being ignored. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And, in fact, IAR predates this page. It must be coming up on 6 years at this point. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple-feature poll
Itayb 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) GTBacchus wrote: "if you see a situation where you think the rule is actually wrong, do what you think is right instead, and then say aloud that you just ignored a rule, and discuss it, always aiming for consensus." Do you agree with this statement? Specifically, do you agree, that when an editor knowingly transgresses a policy, he/she should explicitly and publicly note this transgression?
 * 2) Do you agree that different standards should apply to newbies and to administrators: while newbies should not be expected to be familiar with and to follow the policies, administrators should be expected to be familiar with the policies and to follow them?
 * 3) Do you agree that the current IAR policy is too laconic: it should be either changed, or appended with a guideline explaining its intended interpretation in greater length?


 * 1.agree, 2.agree, 3.agree. Itayb 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with 1 whenver possible since to say otherwise could just be seen as ignorance, agree with 2 for Admins (but only regarding Admin-only features), I'm not sure about 3 (surely it's common sense, and its current brevity is useful). Perhaps making an essay might be useful to explain IAR etiquette to people? -Halo 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid instruction creep; not actionable but we already do; Avoid instruction creep and we already do; Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's often a good thing to do, if the action is likely to be controversial. But that isn't always the case, so I don't agree that it should be added to this page.
 * Yes and no. Mostly the rules are just common sense.  "I didn't know about the rule" isn't much of an excuse, because it usually should be obvious that you just don't.  On the other paw, "I didn't realise there was a reason for that rule" can be acceptable, sometimes important things aren't obvious.  That's why we have rules, but it's also why we have to accept that they will be broken - and it's only something to get upset about if it keeps happening.  Basically, we don't want people following rules because the rules exist, we want them following rules because the rules make sense.
 * I suspect that there are a few more words in it than are strictly necessary, but it's pretty good as is.
 * Regards, Ben Aveling 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with all three --PopUpPirate 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with # 2 only IAR is fine as it is, and it need not be cited or elucidated to make it more effective. In its original formulation, IAR simply encouraged rank and file Wikipedians to ignore rulecruft.  The only people who should be held to a higher standard of care in re the observation and enforcement of Wikipedia's rules are those with administrator privileges who all too often are a de facto law unto themselves. // Internet Esquire 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop this ridiculous attempt to turn discussion Wikipedia policy matters into a series of votes. --Tony Sidaway 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop this uncivil attempt to inhibit rank and file Wikipedians from speaking their minds on Wikipedia policy. Characterizing what is (at worst) a misguided attempt to improve Wikipedia policy as a "ridiculous attempt to turn discussion [of] Wikipedia policy into a series of votes" is counterproductive.  Such an assertion is inscrutable to the unititiated, and leaves them uninformed and bewildered. // Internet Esquire 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion explains it. A poll is not going to produce any results; it does not convince anyone and it constrains ideas into Yay or Nay classifications. Separately, these proposals are long-winded and show little understanding of either this page or how Wikipedia works in general; I would create a short ancillary page explaining the issue, except that probably no one would read it and these naive objections would still come up. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your take on WP:!VOTE is a gross oversimplification of that guideline, which also states (in pertinent part), "polling forms an integral part of Wikipedia in certain areas." Moreover, "[t]he purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise."  In any event, assuming arguendo that this straw poll (which, BTW, I did not initiate) is problematic, it was initiated in good faith and characterizing it as "ridiculous attempt to turn discussion [of] Wikipedia policy into a series of votes" is still a breach of WP:CIVIL. // Internet Esquire 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a statute so I don't know why you are citing it like this. My statements are not "interpretations" of some policy law. It is just a page that has some explanation that would be helpful for the "uninformed and bewildered uninitiated" and the "rank and file", whoever that is supposed to be. Anyway, these vote proposals and long-winded speeches remain unproductive. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is an idiotic waste of time and betrays a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia, which is probably why you can't seem to fathom IAR. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember a guideline or something about acting civilly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with with MalcolmGin -- let's stay civil. Although it appears Centrx ignored that rule ;), though he probably violated one qualifier to IAR, namely Don't be a dick. That said, I personally dislike polls (especially three-pronged polls), and would like for this to end. Let's discuss, not vote, per Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I hereby move to end this poll and continue the discussion, as there will likely be better outcomes. Rock star  ( T/C ) 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I was wrong to put so much emphasis on "always state aloud that you're ignoring a rule". If it's a situation where it would be civil to say so out loud, then... obviously.  If it's a situation where it would be gratuitous to do so, then I think you can guess what to do there as well.  That's my answer to #1.
 * For #2, of course newbies are treated differently from administrators. That's not a rule; it's just life.  Admins are assumed to know a lot more about Wikipedia, just from having dealt with it, and are accordingly assumed to be much better at both following and breaking the so-called "rules".
 * For #3, no. It's not like it isn't explained in excruciating detail on the talk page every few months.  Once you start trying to expand this policy - gah!  That way lies madness.  We're doing fine. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sidaway's corollary
Sidaway's corollary to Ignore all rules


 * If Ignore all rules prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Hope that helps. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Ignore ignore all rules. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This corollary does not address the two problems with this policy:
 * 1. That it's confusing.
 * 2. That it's dangerous in that it grant editors a carte blanche to do whatever they like.
 * The corollary does not resolve the confusion.
 * The problem is not so much that IAR directly debilitates my ability to edit; rather it grants power to other editors, particularly to administrators, to act in a way that prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. So even if i ignore the IAR, others still use it, and by doing so they prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Itayb 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep claiming that the policy encourages users "to do whatever they like"? That isn't what it says.  —David Levy 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask why? Let's explore this a bit. Users have expressed opposition to restrict the ways and circumstances under which they may violate policy. Also, in the last poll i initiated, i requested comment on the proposition that "when an editor knowingly transgresses a policy, he/she should explicitly and publicly note this transgression". Two users expressed disagreement with this proposition. Yet another user had made an assertion before that "I for one, have willfully and knowingly ignored rules without discussion and i've never been censured for it." Most active participant in this discussion refused to change the name of this policy on account that it accurately reflects the intended interpretation. Other editors have given examples of how they knowingly hadn't followed policy, even though there was no compelling reason not to follow policy. Can you begin to see my concern? Itayb 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I can't. The policy already stipulates that it's appropriate for users to ignore rules for the purpose of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia," not to "to do whatever they like."  The fact that people oppose enacting bureaucratic restrictions isn't evidence to the contrary, nor is the fact that people oppose a requirement to shout "hey, everybody, I'm ignoring a rule!" whenever a tiny liberty is taken.
 * Like any policy, WP:IAR certainly is open to abuse. You need to understand that citing the policy as justification to do whatever one pleases is just that — abuse.  If you believe that users have abused the policy, feel free to take it up with them or with the community.  —David Levy 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see a very-real concern in your questions. It might appear that WP:IAR contradicts the usefulness of Wikipedia policy.  But, as I see it, the good pieces of Wikipedia policy are summaries of the cooperative approaches that sometimes have produced consensus among editors, such as on the good Wikipedia pages like gravity and truth.  However, existing Wikipedia policy text is very murky and self-contradictory, so that policy cannot be taken as a "rule."  For example, the "rules" will not develop a consensus on global warming.   That is, WP:IAR suggests that what counts is developing a consensus on the global warming page, and this consensus will not be found in an existing set of "rules."  Consensus will have to develop from a mindset that ignores all "rules" and looks for what actually will bring consensus.  --Rednblu 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how two people can see things so diametrically. The problems with global warming are a direct result of ignoring rules such as consensus and NPOV.  A healthy dose of following the rules would solve the issue, not somehow further ignoring them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but could we talk about it? It seems to me that there is a huge divide over what the standard for inclusion on the global warming page is.  In the following, I am modeling the controversy and not using necessarily the terminology that the combatants use.  The scientists seem to be excluding from the global warming page those ReliableSources that do not themselves use the standard "Verifiability, not truth" in their own work.  The other editors seem to be inserting material that is merely "Attributable, not truth."  Does that make sense?  --Rednblu 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is confusing, you are, of course, free to ignore ignore ignore all rules. Friday (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think that such a corrolary is needed. IAR is a rule, right? So ignoring IAR should be inherent in its own policy. So why qualify IAR with IAR when we don't say "If WP:X (insert rule here) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"? There's no need to make an exception of the exception. Christ, that corrolary could go on forever. "If the corrolary stops you from improving Wikipedia..." My head's going to explode now. Rockstar915 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course this was just a bit of a laugh, but I believe that at one time this policy said something like "...ignore all rules, including this one." This rule isn't intended to conflict with any other rule, or cause anyone any problems.  I think rednblu's summary above is spot on. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I kinda like what you just said. I was, of course, joking in my earlier comment. :) Rock star  ( T/C ) 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Relax: yet another suggestion
How about replacing IAR with the following, whose content was contributed by GTBacchus when trying to explain to me what the IAR was all about:

Relax There are a myriad guidelines, conventions, processes, procedures, forms to fill out, requests to file in triplicate, etc. Most of that can be ignored. That doesn't mean not to do it. It means that if you don't know it exists, don't worry about it, but if somebody stops you and tells you about it, listen to them, because you're following WP:CIVIL. If they tell you about a rule, and it makes sense, follow it. (if it doesn't, ask around) Then, if you see a situation where you think the rule is actually wrong, do what you think is right instead, and then say aloud that you just ignored a rule, and discuss it, always aiming for consensus.

Itayb 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite honestly don't see where this constant "world will explode if we don't delete IAR" mindset is coming from. IAR is perfect as is. Entierly perfect. Perhaps we need a commentary IAR Commentary for those too beaurocratically minded to understand IAR to explain this to those that don't get it, but for the vast majority of us, there's no problem understanding this page. IAR means that the rules are not the final word on any subject and do not apply if they are found to be not useful in certain situations. However, it has to be phrased as simply as possible, because there are those out there that just have to have rules to wikilawyer by which are final and absolute, and this page functions as somthing of a WP:TROUT saying, "We're not giving you firm rules!" Thanatosimii 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If you think IAR needs to be spelled out in any more detail, then you don't understand IAR.  Chew on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Such deliciousness. As if IAr is the only thing that keeps our rules from not being firm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And there lies the entierety of the problem you have in understanding this... IAR = "The Rules are not Firm". Even phrasing it the way you did is incorrect. IAR doesn't prevent rules from getting firm, IAR is the unfirmness of our rules. Thanatosimii 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The fact that consensus can change and that our rules change with discussion is how the rules aren't firm, it has nothing to do with IAR.  We shouldn't keep bastardizing IAR willingly to make it fit what we want it to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide evidence for what you just said? I mean, how do you know that changing through discussion is the only way the rules aren't firm?  How do you know IAR doesn't play a role?  A lot of people seem to think it does - how does one decide that you're right and they're wrong, unless one already agrees with you? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have willfully and knowingly ignored rules without discussion and i've never been censured for it. Slac speak up! 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” -Douglas Adams. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way, we have a "relax" guideline and it's called WP:COOL.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has the IAR policy ever been explicitly invoked?
Has the IAR policy ever been explicitly invoked? Itayb 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only think of one, and that user was severely punished as I recall. This is not a kind of rule that can be "invoked," It's a principle of editing and where your priorities are at. Thanatosimii 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you remember that user's name and the time this incident took place? Itayb 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Occasionally, but doing so is unnecessary and rather meaningless because as always actions need justifications. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) People sometimes explicitly say "IAR" as shorthand for "Yes, I understand that what I've done isn't standard procedure, but it was useful to do it anyway." But, when there's disagreement people are expected to explain why they think a particular course of action is best.  Anyone who instead just says "IAR! IAR!" is being foolishly unhelpful. Friday (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please give a couple of specific examples? Itayb 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My memory tells me I've seen it before, but I don't have diffs, sorry. I wouldn't encourage people to use the term this way anyway.  Better to just state in plain English why you did what you did.  Friday (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK here's another question: Does anyone recall an instance, when the IAR policy was invoked, and such that, when the invoker was challenged to provide a rationale for his/her actions, he/she came up with a persuasive reason, which was contrary to one of the policies? Itayb 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Ignore all rules" is rarely invoked, but it's commonly used by recent changes patrollers in summarily deleting articles that don't strictly fit the criteria for speedy deletion, and sometimes by administrators closing a deletion listing early as a speedy when consensus seems solid. There are many other circumstances, including those applying to ordinary editors.  For instance, it's quite in order for an editor to completely ignore the manual of style in making an edit.  The assumption is that wikignomes who care about that sort of thing will fix the article, and indeed this is what happens. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got an example: the poll above that you created and Radiant! closed was closed per WP:SNOW, which is an interpretation of IAR. Rockstar915 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be valid, although I'm unaware of having started any polls above (rather the reverse!) --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, this whole discussion system needs to be changed so it can be shown who is responding to who. I was actually referring to Itayb in the poll above. :) Rock star  ( T/C ) 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And a poor one at that. WP:SNOW remains controversial, and ArbCom has called it dangerous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? It's still an example of an application of IAR (responding to the question asked), which is more than you've given. Instead of just being negative, why not try to be positive about something, even if you don't like it? It worries me when people joke (like on the WP:SNOW discussion) that we should have a tag. Yeah, it's a joke, but it has some serious truth to it. Let's be positive here. Wikipedia is a community project, not that of one loud editor. Rock star  ( T/C ) 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to be positive about in this wretched excuse for a policy, to be blunt. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff doesn't make Wikipedia policy. Nor for that matter does the arbitration committee, which has correctly declared a certain misuse of the Snowball clause to be harmful.  Correct application of the clause, incidentally, requires not only long experience of correctly applying Ignore all rules successfully, but also brass balls. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of my using WP:SNOW was that Itayb asked for an example. WP:SNOW is a very tangible, easily-understood example. Furthermore, I don't like people being condescending yet adding very little to the discussion. That's all. Rock star  ( T/C ) 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of which are appropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick scan of the deletion logs:

--Interiot 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen "ignore all rules" tossed around on the administrators' noticeboard. Here (search for "ignore all rules" in the text) is a recent example where two admins who seem to "get" IAR use it in conversation, but it's not an "invocation", if that's what we're looking for.
 * Come to think of it, just go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, have it show you a few hundred or thousand pages at a time, and just search for the word "Noticeboard". You'll get a lot of hits on Admins and B'crats noticeboards, to places where IAR came up in conversation.  I just read a few, and they're convincing me that a lot of people here are on the same wavelength about how IAR works.  Maybe we've all just had too much kool-aid, but I think we might actually be onto something. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list of completely stupid deletions. I may have some work to do if I can find the time.  As for the noticeboard link, redirecting was an editorial decision, so no problem.  As for your "whatlinkshwere," I sure hope my linking of it in conversation is not an implication of my approval. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, that's not remotely what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that my examples indicate approval or anything, just that "whatlinkshere" is a good place to look for examples.  I was trying to be helpful, not to advocate for my "side", ok?  I also wasn't asking whether the particular noticeboard link was a problem - nobody ended up ignoring rules there.  I was just showing an example of admins talking about it with apparent understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, is it understanding? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I'm not sure I understand your question. I just mean that, in the history of the noticeboard, there are examples of people talking about IAR, whether or not they "invoke" it, and apparently being on the same wavelength about it.  In other words, nobody freaks out, and rules are either ignored or not, with a mutual understanding of what's going on and how appropriate that is.  Have I answered what you were asking? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think saying they're all "completely stupid" is perhaps jumping to conclusions. It's unfortunate that non-admins can't see the contents of deleted pages, but I wonder whether you'd think differently on at least some of them if the page contents were more visible.  This, for instance, created by User:Kno, was deleted for a reason that later become an official CSD criteria (though U2 didn't exist at that time, so IAR had to be used).  --Interiot 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would have been vandalism or nonsense anyway, not that using the tools to move the bar to eventually change policy is ever good practice. I don't think I'm really jumping to any conclusions here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, will you ever be convinced that IAR is a good policy? Your userpage seems to say no. So what's the point of the argument if arguing with you is and will always be just pissing into the wind? Rock star  ( T/C ) 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can be convinced. I'm sure Ican eventually convince people this is bad policy, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What if some people actually set out to "use the tools to move the bar to eventually change policy", with the idea that that's how they want to run the show? Like, what if doing that was a foundational principle of their project, written into the rules?  Within those rules, they'd be entirely right to do just what you said, right?  Then, wouldn't it actually be good practice? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Those people should be ejected from their positions of power. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't allow that people could set up a project according to any standards other than your own? Weird. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If "setting up a project" means "abusing their positions of power and trust to eventually attempt to get their way," no. It has nothing to do with my standards and everything to do with basic respect and trust. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you're saying that it's impossible to have a project running according to a rule-set that includes IAR, because doing so automatically violates basic respect and trust? I'm just trying to figure out how deeply this disagreement runs.  I'm surprised by the idea that, if people invent a game, and decide to play it a certain way, then you'll just arrive and tell them they're doing it wrong, because you have some a priori idea of what their rules have to be like, to be consistent with respect and trust.  Apparently the idea of people agreeing to IAR, and yet to respect and trust each other, is just impossible? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Keep in mind - the use of IAR does not at all jive with the policy's intent, as we well know.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel pretty good about rephrasing your position to you in a way that you agree is a fair representation. That might be a first, with regard to this issue at least.
 * I'm kind of amazed that you find people who've started a project, and invented a set of rules, and agreed to work by it, and you just join the project and tell them they're doing it wrong, that their rules are wrong, even though they invented it. You just assume it actually runs by some other rules, that you have in mind, and act accordingly.  I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that.
 * As far as the use of IAR "not jiving with the policy's intent", I don't agree that that's something "we well know". My experience tells me the opposite.  How would an outsider, listening to both of us, determine that you're right, and not I? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we look at Sanger's quote above - is the use of IAR today closer to the intent on creating it, or further away. If an outsider somehow thinks it's closer, I really have to question their comprehension ability.  I'm not sure how to address your middle paragraph, because it doesn't seem to be relevant to anyone's discussion here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about responding to that middle paragraph; I was just expressing my surprise aloud. You talk about Sanger's intent, but I would say that Sanger and Wikipedia have drifted away from each other, and IAR has taken on a life of its own.  The intent behind IAR is no longer what Sanger had in mind, but it's rather what we as a community have grown into. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, are you trying to get people to conclude there's just no reasoning with you? Because, you're doing a good job of it.  Friday (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ask me a question worth answering, I'll be glad to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Over a year ago, when there was a lot of argument over controversial Ignore All Rules invocations, I layed out most of my interpretation of IAR in my userspace (User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules). I think the situation which most frequently arises, and where IAR is most appropriate, is when one writes articles. There are a whole load of rules and guidelines telling us about the standards and styles we should follow, and if we read that we would never get around to writing anything. On administerial or similar actions, I don't go as far as Jeff does in saying that it's never appropriate to use IAR, although I think that reasonable objections should not be answered with "read IAR, this was common sense, so shut up."
 * I'll admit that I have ignored the rules sometimes, and so far I haven't heard any complaints. I speedy closed as a redirect Articles for deletion/Colorado state quarter even though I wasn't an admin, with the rationale that everybody, including the nominator agreed, and that it was reasonable to let the readers get to the proper article at once. And for that matter, if anyone disagreed, there is no trouble reverting the redirect and writing a full article instead of the stub that used to be there. Basically, if it will not upset anybody, it is OK, barely, to not be tied up by the rules. It is OK to cross the road outside a pedestrian crossing if there are no cars around who you annoy. It is not quite as OK to do this at peak traffic.
 * I have another scenario which I saw about a year ago, but can't find right now. User:I am so funny writes an article about John the Brilliant Fireman, which turns out to be a completely uncited hoax, and is duly nominated for deletion and deleted unanimously. The next day an article pops up from the same contributor about Fred the Brilliant Policeman, which is identical, word for word, in all respects except that the name and career has been changed to policeman, and the wife's name is "Mindy" instead of "Cindy". Now one could argue that these changes make the article substantially dissimilar from the first one, making G4 inapplicable, but is it reasonable that we need to spend time on yet another AFD debate to get rid of Fred the Brilliant Policeman? Can it be deleted as vandalism even though the rules say that hoaxes are not generally speedy deletable? (Assume here that User:I am so funny will contest any prod, thereby ruling out that option.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This may not be very "explicit", but any time someone does something they consider sensible and justifies their actions in simple terms without quoting verse and chapter of the rules, you could consider this a use of IAR. Another example: I encourage admins to reverse my admin actions if they disagree strongly enough to do so.  The rules suggest that this should not be done without prior consultation, but I think this is the wrong attitude to take and smacks of ownership.  Instead of fighting to change the rules, I just do what I think is best.  Maybe in time, the prevailing attitude about admin reversals will change, maybe it won't.  But I don't have to wait for this- I can just go my own way as long as I'm not being disruptive.  Another example is the "speedy redirect" outcome of an AFD.  If redirection is the obvious answer, why wait?  Time spent at AFD is not time spent improving articles.  The rules don't specifically mention speedy redirect, but you could consider it a speedy keep with a redirect done afterwards, which would be allowed by the rules.  But, we don't make editors jump through silly hoops just to observe the letter of the law, so it's ok to make the AFD close and the redirect in a single edit rather than two as a strict reading of the rules might require.  If you seek to apply the rules very rigidly, you'll find all kinds of silly loopholes like this.  But, because we're more interested in improving the encyclopedia than in playing lawyer, we don't worry about it much.  Friday (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue, again, is whether this activity actually improves the encyclopedia. I'm not at all convinced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's always a relevant question, but it's almost always easier to answer in specific cases rather than in generalities. An obvious and silly example would be an article like "Bill and Bob are the two coolest kids in town."  A strict reading of the rules might consider this an assertion of significance.  A strict reading of the rules might also have disqualified this from speedy deletion because it's about more than one kid.  Until recently, it was only people with no assertion of significance and groups were not explicitly mentioned.  But, there's no credible way I can think of to argue that deletion of this kind of crap doesn't improve the encyclopedia.  If deleting this improves it today, it also improved it in the past before the speedy deletion rules specifically mentioned groups.  IAR is a recognition that the rules don't get updated fast enough to cover everything. Friday (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. IAR is also a realization that you don't have to wait for the rules to catch up with you before acting.  It turns out that, if a group of people agree to take such an attitude towards rules, the system actually still works, unless the observer defines "working" in terms of whether rules are always followed.  If a mutually agreed upon IAR model didn't work, then I guess it would be necessary to be very strict about justifying each act with the right piece of paperwork, but it turns out that you can take the training wheels off, and the bike still works.  In fact, it works better. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which again brings it back full circle - the situations where the rules somehow don't catch up are rare, and probably for good reason. I've argued this example with Friday before, this is doubly abusive - it doesn't improve the encyclopedia due to the pseudo-precedent it sets, and it doesn't improve the encyclopedia because it's an arbitrary attempt at moving the bar by using one's trusted position.  We're way, way beyond the point where ignoring the rules is sensible, and the bike is falling apart. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that the bicycle is falling apart? I'm not going to simply take your word for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. Don't worry about "precedent" then- just worry about doing the right thing in whatever particular case you're looking at right now.  We're not judges, who are paid to interpret the law very exactly.  If you want to view deletion of the article about some cool kids as "in process" rather than "out of process", just call it"uncontroversial housekeeping" which I believe is covered by one of the CSD.  Piece of cake.  Keep in mind that the dangerous precedent you're so worried about is just how things have been working all along.  If you want to redefine the nature of Wikipedia, you're going to need more compelling arguments than "Breaking the rules is bad because breaking the rules is bad."  Friday (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The right thing isn't breaking the rules or abusing one's authority to move the bar. You keep calling it uncontroversial, and that's false - it is controversial.  And if it's been "working all along," there are a shitload of admins who need to tender their resignations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the only controversy is your objection that rules are rules and must be followed, I doubt you'll find many Wikipedians who care, especially when you provide no evidence of concrete harm, other than "rules" that we don't mind breaking being broken. Why don't you tailor your arguments to the people you're talking with, anyway?  Rather than addressing the different assumptions at work, you seem to just speak as if your assumptions are already accepted by one and all.  Do you really think that's a way to be persuasive?  It seems to me like a good way to go 'round in circles.  Do you enjoy this that much? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just defining "controversial" in a way that leaves no room for reasonable discussion. I keep concluding there's some deeper disagreement here that makes useful communication impossible, but I'm unable to put my finger on what it might be. You have this a priori assumption that following the rules as strictly as possible is always what's best, but Wikipedia wasn't built on that assumption. So far it sure looks like common sense and consensus (and a few guiding principles) can work pretty well. If you're trying to explain where you're coming from, I'm not getting it- to me it looks like you're just digging in your heels and repeating the same assertions over and over. Friday (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm defining controversial based on what controversial is. You may have trouble accepting that what you are claiming the right to do is controversial, but that's not my problem.  Whether Wikipedia was built on that assumption or not may not be relevant anymore - the intent of IAR has been bastardized, and more and more people are coming to the conclusion that we need better structure.  I don't think you'll ever "get it," because you're too ingrained in the philosophy and fail to see the harm it's causing - I don't know how else to explain it to you with the evidence right in front of you.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. To put things in practical terms rather than purely theoretical terms, what would you have us do?  All our current rules are intended to be interpreted sensibly rather than blindly adhered to.  If we wanted to change this, we'd have to throw them all out and start over.  It might take years to arrive at the first draft of a "rigid ruleset".  And apparently no editing would be possible during this time because there'd be no rules specifically allowing it.  Oh, and the rules would never "become official" because we don't really have an effective way to make things "official" within the context of the rules. To me it looks like Wikipedia would be impossible with strict rules.  Obviously you don't think this is true, so you must have some plan for transitioning from the loose rules we use now to a set of strict rules.  How do you propose to accomplish this?  Friday (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're intended to be interpreted sensibly, they need to be adhered to. That's simple logic, and to "change" that requires no tossing of the rules out, but rather just using the ones we have and tweaking them as necessary, as we already do.  You're situational example is rather obnoxious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't see the point of attempting to convince you that the policy is correct when you'll never change your mind. And there's no way that you'll change the community's mind, given that IAR is one of WP's five pillars, namely that the rules are not firm. The reason why we have IAR is to stop the people who yell the loudest from shaping policy. Maybe that's why you want it done away with? Rock star  ( T/C ) 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "IAR is one of the five pillars" is one of those great myths that I really wish would go by the wayside. The rules aren't firm because they're malleable - we can change them at the will of the community.  IAR is exactly what you describe - yell loud enough and no one will bother to stop you.  It'd be nice to see that change, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IAR is one of the five pillars. It's not a myth. Just look at the fifth pillar. And no, you're wrong -- IAR is meant for editors who want to make Wikipedia better. Period. Without IAR, it's people like you, who have memorized every single faction and sidenote of every single rule, who will win every discussion just because of their sheer knowledge of WP rules and guidelines. That's not the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to have the best encyclopedia around, even if you don't know every rule. Rules don't make a good encyclopedia -- editors do. Without IAR, it would become the rule fetishists who shout long and hard who will win the arguments, regardless of whether the fundamental principle of Wikipedia -- improving Wikipedia -- is followed. And no one wants that, as it's not what WP is about. If you don't like it, create another web encyclopedia, one with hard and solid rules. But I guarantee you it would never be nearly as good as Wikipedia. Rock star  ( T/C ) 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, look at the fifth pillar. We can't have a good encyclopedia without structure, balance, and consistency, something we sorely lack here.  We're not popular and successful because of IAR, but, lately, in spite of it, and the "inalienable" rules that keep cropping up (WP:V, WP:BLP, etc) seem to belie that fact.  If you're struggling with that, I'm sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, it might be true that IAR prevents us from having structure, balance and consistency, or it might not be true. Got any evidence?  It might be true that our popularity and success are despite IAR, and it might not be true.  Got any evidence? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Jeff, we do have a great encyclopedia and it is because of IAR. And don't be sorry -- I'm sorry if you're having trouble grasping the one of the major fundamental visions and philosophies of Wikipedia. Rock star  ( T/C ) 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The deeper disagreement that you can't put your finger on may have to do with the relative importance of certain incidents. I don't know, because my bias is of course towards your position, so this naturally colours my evaluation, but it seems reasonable. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)