Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Archived straw poll

What The...?!

Why does Wikipedia:Use common sense redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos Machina (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor decided to replace that page with a redirect without asking anyone first. I reverted his action. - Chardish (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaos Machina (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules?

The word "all" seems really awkward. I can't conceive of any potential situation where literally ignoring either "all rules" or some particular rules (such as NPA, CIVIL, etc) could ever be useful. How about simply "ignore any rule"? This would additionally place emphasis on encouraging users to ignore as far as possible the fact that there are rules in the first place (which I think is at least part, if not the main aspect, of the initial thought behind this rule), rather than effectively saying "know the rules by heart (because they're so important...), and 'if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it'" (as in, deliberately break it). The current title diverts from the fact that we should have as few and unrestrictive rules as possible. (Also, everyone who is being bold and happens not to break any of our policies and guidelines is not knowingly "following them", but rather ignoring them alright, which is a good thing.) I dorftrottel I talk I 07:47, December 13, 2007

I like the following sentences from the German version of the page:

• Du bist nicht verpflichtet, alle Regeln auswendig zu lernen und genau nach ihnen zu handeln.
  • You are not obliged to memorise all rules and to strictly follow them.

• Die Regeln sollten im Idealfall so beschaffen sein, dass du als konstruktiver Mitarbeiter nicht mit ihnen in Konflikt kommst.
  • The rules should ideally be formulated such that you, as a contructive collaborator, will not come into conflict with them.

• Sei mutig!
  • Be bold!

• Viel Freude, Mut, Gelassenheit und Unterscheidungsvermögen!
  • Have fun, courage, serenity and the ability to discriminate!

Now, I don't propose putting any of this into the English version, but I think it properly illustrates what this policy is about. The one single sentence we have here doesn't do that. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:04, December 13, 2007

I like the current title better. Not sure why, I just do. 1 != 2 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But you agree that e.g. NPA should never be ignored? I dorftrottel I talk I 20:53, December 13, 2007

I agree to no such thing, IAR applies to all rules. 1 != 2 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point isn't really valid, because one could never apply IAR to NPA. It's just not possible -- under no circumstances could a personal attack ever be used to "improve or maintain Wikipedia." Don't forget, "Ignore All Rules" does not mean that anyone can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point: NPA cannot ever be neglected in order to improve WP. So why "ignore all rules"? But I can see where this is headed (once again), so just forget about it, I'm not a threat to the sacred status quo... Everything is perfect already, nothing to see, move along. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:35, December 14, 2007

You can ignore NPA in the following sense: you don't have to read it. Don't think of it as a "rule" that needs following; that's applying the wrong model to the situation. Don't attack other people, not because there's a rule, but because it's not helpful.

In particular, if the wording of the page WP:NPA is such that there appears to be some kind of loophole or technicality in the policy, then such wording should be ignored. We can respect the idea behind the rule (a principle), while ignoring the rule itself (a written document). -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree! The word "all" is awkward. It is rare one has good reasons to ignore "all" rules at one time, although if you do have it you may do it theoretically. However there are people who get used to it and don't want to adapt changes. After all, I hardly see anyone can use this rule in reality to help them to ignore any rule or even a guideline provided that they have good valid reasons to do, especially when you are arguing with an admin (eg soum). I hardly see they honour this right. So it doesn't matter at all.Odd Master (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I would propose "Ignore a rule" or "Ignore the rule" as the title of this page. Odd Master (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose we keep it under the current name. All rules are ignorable, each and every last one of them. The rule is not meant to apply to some rules and not others, but all of them. 1 != 2 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I just wanted to propose once to rename it to "Ignore any rule" or some such, nothing more. But I maintain it's probably impossible to ignore all rules at once. Besides: IAR is the by far most ignored rule of all, even more than NOR and NPOV. I dorftrottel I talk I 19:55, December 14, 2007

That's not true at all -- there are some rules that, if ignored, you would be banned. For example, never can any editor violate our NPOV policy. But that's all outlined in the foundation issues. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're putting too much emphasis on the ALL part, and ignoring the "as long as it improves wikipedia" part. If personally attacking someone would improve wikipedia, then yes, do so. This will, however never happen, because wikipedia could not possibly benefit from personal attacks. Therefore no one will ever be justified in not following that rule. Makes sense to me! IDIOTS!! (that's a joke there of couse, please find it funny :))64.230.43.189 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't find it that funny. Now, if you had called someone in particular an idiot, now that would have been funny.  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should WP:IAR be ignored? A proposal for expansion.

It virtually always is. It is improperly understood as an exception to the rules, rather than the basis for the rules. WP:IAR has an inappropriately Anarchist tone and it's generally understood this way, because it's treated as an exception rather than being identified as the underlying principles which make Wikipedia policy hold weight. In this regard, when it is invoked, one is not "ignoring" the rules. One is ignoring a consensus that violates the rules. The blatant contradiction in the language of WP:IAR is demonstrated when one asks a simple question: "Should WP:IAR be ignored?" Generally, it is viewed as something harmful to the community when invoked -- which doesn't make sense, if it's a policy -- and this problem stems from the poor language. After all, it's just a single sentence. There is not a single policy on Wikipedia with such a complete lack of justification and clarity.

As a result, I propose expanding WP:IAR with the following text:

The core principle of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thus, policy and the will of the community holds no inherently greater authority than the will of the individual user. If a policy or guideline is accepted democratically, but violates the core principle of Wikipedia, it should be ignored. The ability to make constructive edits to Wikipedia is a right, not a privilege, but that right comes [with the responsibility to not infringe on the same right by other editors, and thus uphold WP:policy, which includes the duty to oppose policies which hurt Wikipedia.

Zenwhat (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for calling the current understanding and wording of IAR "improper", "inappropriate", etc.? IAR has been around forever; according to the project's founder, it was the first rule. The above seems more like your own personal statement on what you want IAR to mean. I particularly find your linking of WP:NOT#CENSOR as "policy" suspect. You may want to read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means if you're having trouble understanding IAR. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't support this. IAR was made to help people feel less anxious about editing, and to point out there will always be some situations we didn't anticipate, where a legitimate reason can sometimes justify ignoring a rule. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR can be read in several ways and in several different contexts. The trick is that there is (supposed to be) only a small subset of contexts where IAR is not self contradictory, and does not contradict other wikipedia guidance. Odds are good that once you find the interpretation of IAR that is not contradictory, you will know that you finally understand how wikipedia works, to some extent. Conversely, if IAR seems self-contradictory, then perhaps you don't understand the system yet. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Zenwhat) I'd certainly have to agree about the "complete lack of justification and clarity", because you've managed to get it pretty much backwards: we ignore the rules when there is a consensus to do so. The actual mechanism for this is indirect: we only enforce the rules when there is a consensus to do so. At all other times, they truly can be ignored. If there's a clear consensus that a rule isn't right, it either gets rejected or rewritten until it does reflect consensus. And even if a rule is supported in general, if a case crops up where no one feels that enforcing the rule would produce a good result, sure enough, it goes ignored.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be wrong with simply naming it, "The Spirit of the Rules"? And by that, I mean, "A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Not this religious nonsense. I mean, why should the clarification of "What WP:IAR means" be an essay fork, rather than included in the actual article? Can't we please include the information? In the absence of the establishment of strong editors' rights, Wikipedia will continue to be run as an authoritarian, bureaucratic collective and not like a liberal democracy. Zenwhat (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, liberal or otherwise, so that's okay. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When people start edit warring over the wording of IAR or making proposals to make the wording "clearer", I get tempted to replace all the content with random gibberish. Seriously, the wording doesn't matter. It means that you improve the encyclopedia. The rules are there so that people know how to improve, what not to do, and so we can show them to people who do things that aren't improvements. In occasional cases the rules don't apply correctly. IAR is here so that people will actually do the correct thing and improve the encyclopedia and not just blindly enforce the rules or grope around in the dark when there is a lack of a rule. IAR is not a rule that needs to be well explained so it can be correctly applied. If you need to explain how you are invoking IAR and how your action conforms to the policy, you are probably doing it all wrong. Mr.Z-man 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DragonHawk: Wikipedia is not a democracy is used to justify Wikipedia's bureaucratic collectivism. Wikipedia is in practice a chaotic democracy where the majority view is defended with violence, users cannot invoke rights to defend themselves, and in ArbCom decisions, the burden of proof is not assumed to be on the accuser, so they're free to say, "Let's just block them both and call it a day."

Mr.Z-man: If users are edit-warring over the lack of clarity surrounding any policy, it should be clarified. If what I said above is false, Mr.Z-man, what in your opinion is the reason WP:IAR exists? You suggested we replace it with random gibberish -- that would be vandalism. Are you a vandal? Your statement "The rules are there so that people know how to improve, what not to do, and so we can show them to people who do things that aren't improvements" is a demonstration of bureaucratic collectivism. To word that same idea into law: "The laws are there so that people know how to function as a successful citizen, what not to do, and so we can show them how to be a productive, successful citizen without harming others." This is exactly how Chinese law itself functions and it's absurd -- demonstratably absurd in their decision to block Wikipedia.

My main point: The wording of a policy determines its meaning, not just the idea behind it. You falsely assume that everybody has the same idea as to what WP:IAR means. Some see it as the "spirit behind the rules," that always applies, others see as a "frequent exception," while a lot of people see it as a "rare" exception. There's probably also a very tiny minority that oppose WP:IAR. With the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, your assumption is clearly not the case and it's not simply because of bad faith. The principles behind WP:IAR are just as common sense as WP:CONSENSUS, yet WP:CONSENSUS has such an abundant degree of clarification. It is also true that if you have to explain how you're interpreting WP:CONSENSUS, you're probably a troll. This is why the proper interpretation should be made explicit through clarification of all policies. Zenwhat (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Caught you, you're cherry-picking. ;-) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy either! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I do agree with Zenwhat's overall point here -- that the meaning of IAR, as presently worded, is unclear, and we have only ourselves to blame for that.--Father Goose (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Blame" implies that something is wrong. I'm not sure it's bad that IAR is unclear to those who don't get it. If someone doesn't understand IAR, it's because they're caught up in thinking that Wikipedia is a rules-game. We can't break them out of that pattern by explaining the rule under which it's made clear that Wikipedia isn't a rules-game. The solution isn't to make more rule-text about it; it's to refuse to make more rule-text and try to shock people into understanding that that's exactly the point. Clarifying IAR too much might undermine it, and make it truly self-contradictory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "more rule-text" and just doing a better job of explaining the rule -- more specifically, the idea behind it. Given that there is quite a bit of agreement about what that idea is among those who "get it", I find it extraordinary how much opposition there has been to trying to explain it better. Sometimes I hear the argument "that's what WIARM is for", but if one agrees with both IAR and WIARM, insisting that the two remain on separate pages is neurotic and irrational.--Father Goose (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"neurotic and irrational" seems a bit strong. I think the reason people want IAR alone, by itself, is that the idea stands by itself to those who get it. Any attempt to clarify it with more words is, it can be argued, missing the point. Perhaps that is more of an editorial subtlety than anything else. And by the the same token, I don't see why you consider linking to WIARM so unacceptable. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I chose strong words. I think we're hiding behind the claim that it is "missing the point" to try to explain it when what we really should say is that we haven't done a good job of explaining it. Even I once claimed something like that, but I was wrong. IAR is not a koan. If we have a rule, especially one as fundamental as IAR, we should try to make its meaning clear. But instead of everyone on this page working together to craft a good explanation of IAR, we've having a months-long fight over whether it's possible (or permissible?) to explain it. Bull. If we agree upon IAR's meaning -- and I think most of us here do -- we can explain it. Why are we warring instead? Yes, our behavior is irrational.--Father Goose (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it a koan, or something more or less akin to that? I think it is. I think that's why people are so insistent in keeping it short, succinct, and somewhat enigmatic. It's good that IAR presents a problem to those who approach Wikipedia as a system of formal rules. Breaking someone out of that mindset can be difficult, and including more explanatory text tends to reinforce the idea that this is yet another rule in the rule-set, just a weird (and possibly technical) one. It isn't that - it's an arrow pointing out of the "technical rules" paradigm. It has to clearly not belong to any ordinary rule-set. It should fail to make sense if approached that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would this be superior to just saying (along with other things), "Wikipedia is not a system of formal rules"? IAR a koan because we've made it a koan, but I don't see why it has to be one. We've gotten used to it being cryptic, and now assume that it can only be expressed in a cryptic way because we've always expressed it in a cryptic way. It's like IAR is the visible part of an iceberg that explains that Wikipedia is not a system of formal rules, but we're insisting that only the tip of the iceberg is the iceberg, and that the iceberg can only be perceived by staring at the tip.

It's remarkable that I haven't seen a lot of disagreement amongst the most active editors on this page about just what IAR means -- I've seen some disagreement about nuances, and a lot of disagreement about how to phrase it, but a lot of unity amongst the warring regulars about what the actual meaning is. If it is true that most of us here understand it in the same way, why can't we explain it to others? If WIARM is that explanation, or a good start anyway, why is it sacrilege to put the explanation on the same page as the rule?

Really, I think we all went nuts at some point here.--Father Goose (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm not sure I see what harm is being done by the current situation. Is it that people are sometimes confused? I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. I don't think WP:WIARM is difficult to find, or that people stay confused for very long. What's the necessity to merge that content to this page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point about the clarity of IAR is not without merit. Some people don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around idea. However, the very simplicity of IAR is also a desired feature; those who can understand it in fullness find it to be supremely useful in its clarity. I don't think we should sacrifice that. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is provided to address this. Perhaps it should be made more prominent on the page. Would people be opposed to moving it up above the "See also" line, in a paragraph after the current, with wording like, "If you are unsure how to interpret the above, see What "Ignore all rules" means."? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, one thing that occurred to me: I disagreed with you above, but after looking at your comments again, I think we're in agreement.

When I said consensus, I meant localized consensus that doesn't represent the global consensus of the community, and is this a temporary phenomenon that will be (hopefully) eliminated. If established global consensus is itself wrong, then that's where it's Jimbo's job to WP:IAR. Any individual can break the rules in that case too, but it probably won't achieve much. Overall, though, yes, you're right that you can't go against established, global consensus and WP:IAR isn't about going against that.

Kim: Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.

Oh, and one more thing to reiterate: One of the main things I'm suggesting is that we just simply move Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means into WP:IAR. I see that somebody added the text, "If this is unclear, see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means" but then, why not just have it be in WP:IAR?

Also, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is self-contradictory. The tag at the top says "This page is not a policy or guideline itself;" but it's in category, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Zenwhat (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line (and, ironically, the spirit of this policy): if you find yourself worrying about Wikipedia's policies (like you are doing), stop and relax. Focus on writing articles, that's why you're here. Policies come, go, and change as the encyclopedia grows. End of story. Also, if you think Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, you're going about Wikipedia wrong. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockstar915 is right. One can approach Wikipedia as a bureaucracy, and one will be led into certain frustrations, for example with IAR, but one needn't approach it that way, and the best practice is not to approach it that way.

I really can't see what harm is being done that makes it imperative that we spell out precisely what IAR means, in clear detail, on this page, with some kind of urgency. What makes it imperative that a page like IAR or WIARM not contradict itself? Why the need for "clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainly"? Wikipedia is working just fine with IAR as it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, in response to your original post, you say: "The blatant contradiction in the language of WP:IAR is demonstrated when one asks a simple question: "Should WP:IAR be ignored?"" I would reply that there is no contradiction, and that of course IAR may be ignored. "Should" is rather prescriptive language.

The policy is only contradictory if you believe that Wikipedia runs on a system of formal rules. It doesn't.

Additionally, "Generally, it is viewed as something harmful to the community when invoked", is an unsupported statement, with which I would take issue. I've seen many more uncontroversial and supported invocations of it than contentious ones. Much more numerous are the instances when we work in its spirit without "invoking" anything. (What have invocations got to do with writing an encyclopedia, anyway?) The uncontroversial applications of IAR don't make waves, so you might not notice them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people do, however, believe Wikipedia works on a set of rules and that's the reason for the clarification. The guaranteed potential of people to misunderstand policy is the reason why every policy besides this one has clarification. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if a lot of people are in error about how Wikipedia works, we should capitulate to that error? A lot of people believe Wikipedia works on a set of rules and that's the reason for IAR. Encouraging that belief is precisely not the point. That's more succinct than I'd managed to put it yet; thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitulation would be for us to all start committing the error ourselves, or change IAR to embody the error (which of course would destroy IAR). Zenwhat is correct in saying that if a lot of people don't understand how IAR works (or what it "means"), we should at least make an attempt to explain it better.

To use myself as an example, it's taken me more than two years of working on Wikipedia to really understand what place the rules have here. That "place" was first established by IAR ("the first rule"), and since that time, most the dynamics that go along with its spirit have been discovered. But, for some reason, we refuse to document those discoveries; we refuse to say, "All right, this was the original idea. The idea hasn't changed, but we've figured out how to explain it better."

IAR is the root principle that governs the purpose and scope of all of Wikipedia's rules. It started out as an incomplete and indirect phrasing of that root principle, and in its current formulation is still quite incomplete and indirect.

If somehow this edit war didn't exist and we wanted to explain from scratch "what the heck the rules are for", then the meaning of IAR, and the role of Wikipedia's rules in general, would be far easier for people to understand.

This situation is really frustrating.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what's wrong with the current situation, or why it's a bad thing that it takes some people a while to understand how Wikipedia runs. We do explain it better, at WP:WIARM, which is (er... was) the only other page linked in the text of this one. What's so bad about taking a couple of years to really understand it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in the wikipedia project namespace is confounded by people who are trying to play wiki-nomic. :-P Starting from scratch and cleaning up the wikipedia guidance outside wikipedia (on wikibooks, for instance) might not be a bad idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose: You say, in part, that "it's taken me more than two years of working on Wikipedia to really understand what place the rules have here ... we refuse to document those discoveries". I'm curious about that one. Do you mean to say you see things not well covered in existing pages like WP:WIARM or WP:SR? If so, what is stopping you from improving those pages? You seem to be in the ideal position to do so. If, on the other hand, your objection is really just to the editorial separation of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, please say so. That point's not without merit, but it really doesn't have anything to do with learning curve. (If people can't find the WIARM link on such a brief page, there's not much we can do to help them.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is structured incorrectly to be able to function in an online environment. Any such structure is doomed to failure. As wikipedia still exists, and has existed for ~7 years, we can infer that wikipedia cannot possibly be a bureaucracy.

Next to that I asked a consultancy firm to do a quick analysis of wikipedia's structure. This was not an as thorough analysis as normal, but they suggested that wikipedia had mostly a "clan structure" (what we jokingly call "cabals" ;-) ). They did discover a small growing percentage of bureaucracy, which they strongly advised against (for reasons I already mentioned). They were somewhat surprised that wikipedia did not have more elements of adhocracy, although this may be due to the small sample size used in that particular analysis.

They did recommend we try to shift the wikipedia structure more towards adhocracy. I suppose IAR does support that somewhat since it helps enforce "low standardization of procedures".

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, it's clarification, not capitulation. People who misunderstand Wikipedia policy are not (paraphrase) "enemies of Wikipedia who should not be appeased." They are good-faith editors who simply don't understand why what their interpretation is wrong. Clarification can help address this.

Kim: Wikipedia is what could be called a "chaotic bureaucracy." This is a statement of fact derived from experience, not a statement of principle or policy. It's a bureaucracy but one from which authority is intended to be derived, not from users' bureaucratic status, but from the merit supporting their actions (hence WP:IAR). For this reason, "laws" are used, but they are not strictly adhered to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, on the other hand, is not a statement of fact, it's a statement of policy and of principle. My point was that, in practice, Wikipedia is seen, treated, and run as a bureaucracy (see WP:Wikilawyering) and this seems to stem from people misunderstanding what WP:IAR means. As an example, in the ArbCom case involving Adam Cuerden [1], I laid out my opinion. In my closing argument (oh know, just used a legal term!), I invoked WP:IAR. Ironically, R. Baley who agreed with me said, "Would have left out 'per IAR' myself, but otherwise endorse."

Now, why should he say that? It seems to be reflective of a common misconception that WP:IAR invokes Anarchy, that it's dangerous to invoke in ArbCom or as a defense of one's actions, so it's rarely used and I'm not aware of any cases where it's been successful (although I'm a n00b, so there are probably several I don't know about). This is substantiated, however, because in Adam's case, it seems appropriate, but out of the dozens of people who defended him, I was the only one to invoke WP:IAR. Everybody else just invoked policy. If one looks over ArbCom decisions and various disputes, it's easy to find evidence that people invoke policy more than ignore all rules. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, what were you paraphrasing, when you said above "enemies of Wikipedia who should not be appeased"? Was it something I said? I ask because I would not so much as imply such a thing, and I hope that you didn't get that idea from anything I said. I really don't think about Wikipedia in terms of "enemies", and honestly have no idea what you mean there. I'm fully in favor of helping people understand this policy - that's why I wrote WP:WIARM. Now... can you explain just what the problem is with having IAR as a one-sentence policy and WIARM as an explanation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeasement, defeatism, etc, are synonyms for capitulation. Hence, your statements about how clarifying WP:IAR would be to "capitulate" reminded me of this guy. If you assume good faith, using a word like that seems inappropriate in a policy discussion. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok... except that I am assuming good faith (it hadn't remotely occurred to me to think otherwise), and I don't think that anybody here is an "enemy" of Wikipedia. I can quite easily "give in" to someone who isn't my "enemy" - even more easily to an idea. That language is not what I was after, so I'm sorry if my word choice gave you the wrong idea. We're all friends here.

If someone mistakenly (in good faith) believes that Wikipedia is a formal rule-based structure, and if we try to turn IAR into something more formal and rule-ish and spelled out in terms of clear DOs and DO NOTs, then we're capitulating, not to a person, but to the idea that we have to be a rules-game. We're better off resisting that idea, and working to help people become more comfortable with a non rules-based system.

By the way, I'd appreciate if you don't compare me to any other mass-murderers, if you can conveniently avoid it. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst

I've come recently to believe that this policy page, and this process page, are examples of Wikipedia at its worst.

The spirit of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and that consensus is the process by

The issue here is that we have come the decision that a policy which is one sentence long is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia which supersedes all other policy. Therefore any edits to the page are considered to be sweeping and significant, regardless of how minor, and are reverted within hours. Only the most unobjectionable edits are allowed to remain - usually ones that don't touch The Sentence at all.

The problem is that we are now in a perpetual bold, revert, discuss cycle here, one that shows no signs of ending because achieving true consensus on a matter so divisive is next to impossible.

The reason for that is that there is a contentious split between people who like the policy as is and people who want to change it. The latter group is being bold and the former group is reverting, and even though there is discussion being had, the only way for consensus to be achieved is for one of the groups to either be converted almost entirely to the other's side of thinking.

The end result is that we have a page that bears the weight of policy, does not hold consensus as it stands, and the current processes for achieving consensus are inadequate to address the disagreements among users.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, but the edit warring and disagreement never stops here. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from making changes that no one supports. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from obsessively reverting changes that don't have consensus - even if no disagreement to the change has been expressed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but there's an unwritten rule that states that the letter of this law is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.

How ironic that we have a policy which tells us that the spirit of a rule supersedes the written letter of the rule, and we argue incessantly over the written letter of the rule.

IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement. The current process we have in place prevents its improvement.

This is Wikipedia at its worst.

- Chardish (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia at its worst is characterized by name-calling, accusations of bad faith, and grudge-based refusal to stay on topic. We're actually behaving pretty well here.

There does appear to be a sort of stale-mate between people who insist that this page is a problem, and those who say that it's just fine. I still really don't see a cogent argument being presented for why the policy is problematic at one sentence long. If IAR upsets you, you may ignore it, and you'll probably be fine. Why is there a need to edit it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this policy's history is Wikipedia at its best. Some people like it short, others think that it should be more comprehensive. Instead of fighting, we created a comprehensive supplement page, thereby appeasing both parties. That's middle ground, that's consensus at work, and that's Wikipedia at its best. I think we're doing pretty well right now. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Experiments in Abolishing all rules (in road traffic)

Interesting results have been booked in traffic safety when all or most traffic rules were abolished in small given areas, see: Shared space --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abolishing all rules would work in Wikipedia if we were also to abolish Wikipedia's hierarchical structures. Something makes me think this theory is partially the reason why you gave up your admin bit, no? IAR works the best when there is no heirarchy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. The traffic analogy for a wiki is apt in many ways. Here, like on the street, what's safe and courteous does not always match what the rules say. Communication and a recognition of the need to share the common resource count for much more than memorizing some list of rules. I remember as a kid, learning to drive, and they tried to teach us rules by rote. Then one day the lightbulb came on: it's very simple. Are you going to drive across someone else's lane? Then you need to yield to them. Friday (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WIARM link

Given the disagreement over how IAR should be worded (concise vs comprehensive), we've got WP:IAR and WP:WIARM as separate pages, sort of a compromise. Since there's still some disagreement, I had semi-suggested moving the WIARM link up above the "See also" link. Some other people were bold and tried it out. That was soon reverted with the comment, "get consensus then change this long standing rule, it is already known these changes are no accepted", but without further comment. So here I will attempt to encourage discussion and consensus.

In this section, please set aside the question of separation of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, which is being discussed in other sections. I ask that people please focus on the specific question of the placement and wording of the link.

I submit for discussion: Moving the WP:WIARM link up above the "See also" line might help archive better harmony between the two "sides" of this issue, and also make it more prominent (and thus easier to find) for newcomers. Concerns? Objections? Alternatives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Until{1==2) is being very nice. As advised on WP:BRD, arguments such as "get consensus first" are specious. Until(1==2) should not try to hide behind words like that.:-/ If you really want to discuss this, discuss on Until(1==2)'s talk page, and ask them for their personal opinion and reasons for that particular revert, as they are certainly personally responsible.. If they really, personally, don't like your edit for some reason, they should say so there, and explain their reasoning. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that summary was a bit curt, but not out-of-line, and asking for more discussion is rarely a bad idea. I did leave a note on their talk page inviting them to join this discussion here. Ultimately, though, a discussion between two editors doesn't really advance consensus much; that needs community involvement. Hence the invitation for comment here.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit comment by Lubaf: "I'll consider anybody but Until (1==2) reverting me as a consensus against this version. Fair enough?", meh no, that would just be a lack of consensus for it. You can always try to convince people or make compromises, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My curtness is based on already talking all this through. It seems that every few weeks the same people come and try the same old thing once again without reaching consensus first knowing full well that the changes are objected too. BRD does not enter into it because once you have already done it many times and been reverted many times it is no longer bold but stubborn. 1 != 2 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually went through the semi-recent history of the page (500 or so), and the archive index, and never actually saw any discussion of this particular issue. Lots and lots of disagreement over the wording of "IAR" itself, and whether or not WIARM should be on the same page with IAR, but not the wording and placement of the link to WIARM. And to be honest, I don't really see how this changes the policy at all -- we're moving and rewording a link that's already there. In the current version, this would actually eliminate "See also", which might actually be an aesthetic improvement (though that's subjective, of course). So do you have any actual objection to moving the WIARM link above the "See also" line? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay link

I see some value in the essay, but Haukurth made a good point about its description being misinterpreted. As removing the offending text rendered it inaccurate, I've removed the link for the time being. I won't edit-war over this (and have no strong feelings as to whether or not it should be included), but I believe that we should discuss this matter and get it sorted out. —David Levy 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted in a recent edit summary, just plonk it on WP:WIARM instead then :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore ALL rules?

I have a bit of a problem with this rule. And the problem is in the 'all'. Yes, most rules here on Wikipedia can be ignored, and should be if that helps building an encyclopedia. But ALL rules? I doubt it. To go from 'easy ignore' to 'never ignore':

• Suppose I want to write a Wikipedia article, but don't know how to bold something. Should I ignore "bold the first occurence of the title"? Yes, definitely ignore!
• Same situation, but the reason I am not bolding is that I think such bolding diminishes the readability of the article. Yes, ignore.
• Same situation, but now I go and de-bold every article I edit, or I even edit articles just to de-bold the title. Not a very good idea.
• When I do so, someone else reverts me and we get into a revert war. Should either of us break 3RR? Very doubtful.
• When I do so, an admin not only reverts me but immediately blocks me without any policy for it. Again, not a good idea.
• When this admin does so, they also ask a CheckUser for my ip address so it can be blocked. The CheckUser publishes a full list of my ip-addresses and when I used them, so they can all be blocked and people can try to find out who I am. Don't even start about this one...

Thus, I would say:

• DO ignore any rule about what an article should look like if they make it harder for you to write or improve an article. If they are really important, hope that someone else will make the improvement that you can't make.
• Do NOT make changes that you would expect to get a consensus against, even if you think they would improve the encyclopedia.
• Do NOT break major procedural rules unless that really is the ONLY way to get Wikipedia out of problems.

- Andre Engels (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, right. WP:WIARM pretty much says this, although it doesn't put a relative scale on things. You could try improving that page. • To be more zen, one of the rules you have to be able to ignore is "Ignore all rules".  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it? Where? Point 1 would indeed cover my first case, but the other 5 I don't see any clear statement being made either way or the other. - Andre Engels (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I was with you up to point number 4. If you think bolding the title is bad, then you might start de-bolding titles. However, as soon as someone reverts you, why would you revert back? Isn't that kind of a dickish way to be? I mean, I don't care whether or not we've got a rule saying "don't behave like a spoiled child," it's still a useless way to behave. If someone reverts you, you talk to that person, not because of a rule, but because you'd rather get something done than screw around. You ignore rules, but don't ignore laws of nature, such as "courtesy matters". Rather than your summary above, I'd say - "do whatever you want, but always be respectful of other people and what they've got to say." Respect covers it all; if you're being respectful, you won't get into a revert war, because it's obviously a silly way to behave. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Far too hypothetical. Any checkuser attempting to justify release of IP data with this rule has clearly lost their minds, and none of them would. --Deskana (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone else has to be able to ignore all rules too. As the saying goes: their freedom to swing their fists ends at the tip of your nose. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)