Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Archives
Straw poll 2002 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – August 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 - January 2007

Is this a valid application of IAR?

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria #8 is "talk pages of pages that do not exist". I created Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company with some notes to be useful for anyone who writes the article. Is this a valid way to ignore the CSD? See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28#Talk:Long Island Electric Railway. --NE2 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, but why would you? It takes all of thirty seconds to make a decent stub as a placeholder if nothing else, and then you can note yourself all day on the talk page relatively confident in the fact that you won't get speedied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see how creating a talk page of a non-existent article is "ignoring" the CSD. There's no rule saying that talk pages of non-existent pages must be deleted, simply that if they're to be deleted, an AfD isn't necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28#Talk:Long Island Electric Railway: a similar page was deleted. --NE2 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at the DRV. It seems people are reading "may" and taking that to mean "must". On the other hand, it's quite easy to write a short stub and avoid the whole problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a good point - I could simply say "The New York and Long Island Traction Company was a streetcar company in the U.S. state of New York." Or would that be too little to avoid a speedy? --NE2 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a reference, an external link, a few categories, a stub template, and maybe an infobox (if you can) and I can't imagine anyone trying to speedy it. --Deskana (request backup) 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is invoking lazyness

Recently, User:UtherSRG reverted my edit with the rollback link here and has outright claimed to use WP:IAR as the reason here:

Ah, but WP:IGNORE. I dislike having to manually edit the edit summary when there is a nice simple one-click "revert" capability.

In Stacey's case, she is, IMO, abusing this rule to avoid typing edit summaries by outright being lazy. Improving wikipedia is great and all but it's absolutely clear to me that this user is abusing this rule to avoid having to type edit summaries because of lazyness. A look at her contributions makes it abundantly clear that she doesn't use them and I'm sure she would invoke this for each and every one of them. (I dare not think how many other rules she ignores in suit with her lazyness.)

To make my point succinctly: this rule should not be valid for edit summaries over contended content. Content disputs, by nature, are heated issues and the incivility instilled by "ignoring all rules" shouldn't be tolerated.

More broadly: this rule should not be valid as an excuse for pure lazyness which I think Stacey is clearly

Though I'd sure like to have a perpetual "get out of jail free" card like this in real life! Man, that would make life so much easier. Cburnett 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I am male. Please don't be using female pronouns for me. :) If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I do way too much revert editing to put a manual edit summary in for reverts. The rollback feature performs this nicely for me, and more complete than my manual edits would be. (If you want me to manually enter them, you'll see more comments along the lines of "rvv", "revert", "I disagree", etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your role as an administrator doesn't entitle you to revert other editors' good-faith, non-test edits without explanation (especially via the administrative rollback function, which is not to be used in content disputes).

Your citation of this policy is invalid, unless you can explain how your abuse of the administrative rollback function is necessary for "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." This page isn't called "Ignore all rules whenever you don't feel like following them."

I'm surprised to find myself saying this to someone who's been a Wikipedia sysop for almost three years. —David Levy 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought manual edit summaries for edits that aren't basic vandal-whacking were understood to be mandatory, "per WP:CIVIL", in other words, that it's the polite thing to do. I'd be uncomfortable ignoring that "rule". -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, administrative rollbacks are automatically labeled "minor." As "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute," use of this tool in a dispute obviously is improper. —David Levy 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on using the wrong pronoun. Cburnett 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision - Add the word "objectively"

I'm aware that the community will probably not tolerate a WP:IAR that is more than one sentence long. But we still need to incorporate the idea that this isn't a "subjective valuation" escape clause. As far as I can determine, that's the entire point of several of the present criticisms -- e.g. the people using WP:IAR for laziness/vandalism, or the and the IAR except consensus essay. To this effect, I propose that we insert the word "objectively" into the mix, linked to Wikipedia:Consensus:

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

I think it would make it very difficult to exploit this rule, and would provide the checks of consensus on the quixotic landscape of personal opinion. After all, the claim can no longer be "I thought I was improving Wikipedia" -- it now has to be "I was improving Wikipedia." Thoughts? (I'd imagine there are some postmodernists out there who don't take kindly to the word "objectively," but hopefully they'll see mirth in the fact that the wikilink makes it a consensus reality.)

-- Drostie 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, IAR is not the same thing as a blank check to do whatever you feel like, and it never has been. It's a simple statement that the improvement of wikipedia takes precidence over the rules. If, however, we add one clause here to deal with consensus, we'll add another clause there to deal with whatever other problem, and then another word here and sentance there, and then the rules will take precidence over IAR. To prevent rulecruft, we need a simple philosophy without an "if this" or "but that" inserted. But as to your concerns about consensus, to invoke IAR you need to make a compelling case anyhow, so it is inherently impossible to validly invoke IAR to override consensus. Thanatosimii 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we should formalize your policy of "to invoke IAR you need to make a compelling case anyhow." The rule doesn't say anything about compelling cases. It doesn't say anything about it being inherently impossible to override consensus. Those are our traditions, perhaps; but they are not part of the extant written policy. Someone is well within the terms of the current IAR policy if they decide to ignore consensus simply to improve Wikipedia -- and they are not required to seek consensus on what constitutes "improvement." -- Drostie 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to stay away from policy creep but this definitely needs to be better explained as my post in the previous section indicates and said by Thanatosimii above. This is not a blank check to do as you please but Stacey, a long standing admin, clearly has interpreted it as such.

If the single sentence must be maintained then may I suggest examples of what does not count?

• IAR is not an excuse to be lazy
• IAR is not an excuse to ignore content dispute procedures
• IAR is not an excuse to be incivil

Any of those fly? Something needs to be added to indicate this is not a blank check policy as it plainly reads. Cburnett 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It plainly reads "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And "improving" is very subjective. Cburnett 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding the word "objectively" does not make it any less subjective. In order for it to actually be objective, you would need to conceive a list of rules about how to "objectively" improve the encyclopedia. Linking to WP:Consensus is equally murky, and "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" must be the basis of any consensus. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goals are pretty clearly stated. If within that context "improving" is subjective, we're using such a postmodern interpretation of language that all communication is pretty much impossible. Thanatosimii 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then I welcome your input on this example. Users like User:Oden and User:Ed g2s remove fair use images pretty much wherever and on sight. That's peachy for things that can be found with free licenses (pictures of living people) but what about non-free things like tv shows. Their claim is that fair use images hurt WP from being free while people like me contend that an image (regardless of legal status) improves an article and a single image per episode can be considered fair use (thus free as in beer & speech). So which is the "real" improvement to WP? All I can say now is that I wish this question were as simply as you flatly state that it should be because MANY hours have been spent (wasted?) on this very issue. Cburnett 05:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right. I've had similar disputes with other people, and they raise the point that all nonfree images hurt wikipedia, and it's a foolish position. However, if they want to make a IAR claim about it, they have to provide an accepted reason why what they do improves the specific articles, and gashing a hole in one won't fly. Wikipedia's goals nowhere indicate that free images must be wiped out like that, therefore wiping them out cannot be justifiable improvement and thus good reason to invoke IAR. Thanatosimii 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How would that be a foolish position? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and the producers of these television shows, and for many other kinds of articles, do wish to have a clean, pretty article on Wikipedia about the show, etc. and in some cases would release these images under free licenses. You may disagree with the position, but calling it "foolish" is itself quite foolish. —Centrx→talk • 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the position which views all unfree images as evil. There are times and places where there will never be a free version of a vital image. But then again, this is neither here nor there... Thanatosimii 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that "improve" isn't as clear as you make it out to be. None of the "anti-fair-use crowd" have invoked IAR — to my knowledge — but both sides heavily debate "improve" in a not-so-direct way. Cburnett 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. Yet, I still believe that those are objectivly incorrect uses of the word "improve," given wikipedia's core principles. However, I can see why many wish to have some sort of conditions on this rule. IAR exists to stress the spirit of wikipedia over the letter of it's rules. Thus, I still think that we shouldn't insert small clauses into the rule itself, but I am not opposed to the notion of an exposition on the spirit of IAR, somthing like,
"IAR exists to deal with cases where following the letter of wikipedia's policies might damage certain articles. It is not an excuse to enforce your own opinions upon disputed content or perform any other acts in bad faith." Somthing like that?
However, I can also see that there are reasons to not have an exposition like that... the more complicated this rule is, the more likely people who prefer the letter to the spirit will take it literally and thus abuse the whole point of this principle. Thanatosimii 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Snipping from your comment and modifying the existing IAR:

The spirit of Wikipedia trumps its written rules and if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia then ignore those rules as necessary to maintain its spirit.

Short, concise, and instills the idea that its not a blank check because being incivil, ignoring consensus, etc. goes against the rules and the spirit of wikipedia. Cburnett 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that were accepted, spirit would also have to link to Wikipedia:Five pillars, so that the term spirit of wikipedia is not abused in the same fashion as you fear improve may be abused. Thanatosimii 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Cburnett 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: removal of meta:Don't be a dick

This has been removed three or four times now on the grounds that dick is "profanity" and that using it is, as per the last edit summary, immoral. If this became an edit war, it would most definitly be on the "lamest edit wars ever" page, but there are a few points to make clear.

1) WP:NOT censored. Profanity is to be avoided if unnecesarry, and in this case the impact is quite neccesary to make a point on occasion with thick headed editors.
2) Moreover, if there is an issue with use of that word, take it up with the essay itself and propose a move. If you have a dispute over whether said essay's content is relevant to this page, you have a reason to believe it should be removed. If you don't like the name, get that changed.
3) It is ironic that it is the IAR page itself wherein this dispute is happening. I have always understood that part of IAR meant that if there was dispute over the usefulness/applicability of a rule, you adress it on the talk page, instead of repeatedly citing it in edit summaries. Or perhaps that's just me.

I'm not getting into a revert war, however in my experience said essay has been , when used very sparingly, the only thing capable of making certain editors get the picture that part of IAR means that they aren't allowed to ramrod their own views onto other editors by wikilawyering. Thanatosimii 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii, I'm with you. I think that the "don't be a dick" piece is highly appropriate for the IAR page, since it's one of those things that brings things into perspective again, as perspective so often can get lost on here. If someone can find a more eloquent way to phrase the sentiment, then more power to them. I think that they'll be hard-pressed to find one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A pig, after having been cleansed, returns to its mire. Samuel Erau 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Thanatosimii, 1. It is not necessary, due to reasons that are somewhat explained on the talk page of the linked to article; 2. I have no real problem with there being profanity and even some unnecessary profanity distrubuted throughout Wikipedia, except where it comes to the point where I and other users have to view it in the normal process of examining the rules, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia. Even though it is not clarified elsewhere, there should be a higher standard for those latter types of pages. And I suppose that this discussion might be the first to confront that need.; and 3. That may have been a rule ignorance liberty on my part regarding not resorting to this talk page sooner. I'm sorry if that bothered you. Samuel Erau 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The content of the other page is necesarry for this page, however, regardless of if you think the name is not. Sometimes the only thing that'll make a dense person understand is a good shock, and if you can suggest a better way to completely reorient someone's philosophy on editing to get them to understand that unhelpful behavior is not ok, feel free to object over there, but not here. Thanatosimii 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - there's really no other way around it - well, except for ... uhh ... this page. Using WP:IAR to edit WP:IAR - interesting Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:02, 24 February 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. —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.--Doc^g 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be considered a limitation to IAR. —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 Wikipedia: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 H^{editor 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.--Doc^g 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. —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. — 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. —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. —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)

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 Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was altered to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Interpret all rules is more clearly understandable. Friday (talk) 16:41, 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)

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)

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)

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 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 nor 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 Wikipedia: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). 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)