Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

• Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.

---

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

• In terms of minor edits, I feel that the primal articulation of the policy reads better after the edit performed by User:Until(1 == 2), removing the word "just" from the final clause. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "just" arrived in this edit, along with a change to the link. I am indifferent to the change in the link. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the word "just." It's more redundant, but it's just a single word and doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence.

OH, BUT WAIT... On the second thought, does the word "just" have established consensus? Is there anything in Wikipedian history or tradition which suggests that word is appropriate? Can anyone give me several empirical examples that people have been confused about IAR, because of the lack of this word? Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat your point perhaps could be better made without sarcasm, I think I missed your point. If I read just the first sentence and assume the other was not meant to be taken literally then I think I understand that you agree "just" should not be there. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes little difference, but reads better without "just".--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Until, see? You can't cite any traditions, any history, or any empirical examples.

I suppose we will have to revert to the consensus version, whatever that is. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Zenwhat, your not making sense? Everyone is agreeing with the change so why would I cite anything? We don't edit policy through tradition history or citation, we do it by consensus. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your ingenuous input would be welcome here, Zenwhat. Nobody has ever suggested that traditions, history, nor empirical examples are required for any edit. People are editing collaboratively; you're welcome to participate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy's re-statement of what IAR means.

Because of ambiguity, I asked Jimmy what IAR means.

He responded [1]:

What it means to me is very deeply tied to WP:BOLD and the nature of good rules making in an open social community. First, we want people to take bold action to improve the encyclopedia no matter what. The encyclopedia is the result of discussion, dialogue, consensus, common sense... and rules can be helpful to that, but rules should never get in the way of that. To me it means that newbies are not required to spend 2 months reading policy documents before they roll up their sleeves and get to work. If they misunderstand something, they can be helped. If they are producing mostly quality work, but which is odd in some way, it can be fixed. And so on. To make this works, rules should be written in such a fashion that anyone can more or less guess what the rules are without having to look them up. (So for example, WP:NPA is pretty transparently obviously a social rule people ought to follow as best they can, and it should not be written in such a way that most people would find it astounding in some fashion.

What do you think? I'd state my own opinion, but I don't want to poison the well.

Also, note: This isn't Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Jimmy isn't always right, but it is a fact that what he says can settle conflicts because of the practical reality that his words tend to carry weight. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<- Re- Jimmy isn't always right, but it is a fact that what he says can settle conflicts because of the practical reality that his words tend to carry weight. Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - Good points here ZW, but I think you have the emphasis wrong. The main input u:Jimbo has comes from experience, and careful thought before speaking. Jimbo's "authority" is significant, but the insight invariably contained in Jimbo's words is more helpful than the "authority quotient", I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo's interpretation and I would say the current version covers the points made by Jimbo very well. The only part the current version does not clearly convey is that one can ignore the fact that they don't even know the rules if that prevents them from helping. I think that can be fixed with a small addition, not several paragraphs. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it covers the points made by Jimbo at all. WP:WIARM covers those points much better. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you perhaps explain which portions are not being covered instead of just saying it does not cover it? _(1 == 2)^Until 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Until(1 == 2), and I'll also note that transforming the page into a lengthy set of paragraphs runs contrary to Jimbo's point that "newbies are not required to spend 2 months reading policy documents before they roll up their sleeves and get to work." As I've been saying for quite some, this would discourage people from reading the page and being bold. —David Levy 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a short and inviting message to the new users is far more likely to encourage them to be bold than several paragraphs that they may not even bother reading because they have 50 other policies to learn as well. This is the only rule one needs to know to start, it should be a simple one. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see that the RfC for this discussion (or village pump, or wherever it was) was an empty invitation. This page obviously has serious ownership issues. I guess you (collectively) are "ignoring" that rule, too. I'm not going to waste any more time with this. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagee, a little, (1==2). One needs to know NO rules to edit, not even IAR. I edited for some time before checking out IAR, with no bad effects. IAR can, and will, change, though not just for the sake of it.

To user:6SJ7, if you are still reading, the "fresh eyes" have been more than helpful, sorry if "we" here have our foibles and favourites, we seem to talk a lot and get not much done, the discussion is still 5% useful, if you disregard 95% of what goes down. (And I think GTB is right, some discussions do have "ripple: effects.) Thanks for your input, please reconsider, but if you have better to do... I repeat, "fresh eyes" at this page are extremely welcomed, by me, and I am sure, other editors. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right Newbyguesses that no rule is needed to work here. IAR is the rule that defends that position though. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that that's one interpretation of the policy that absolutely everybody seems to agree on: that 'Ignore all rules' affirms that it is perfectly all right to contribute to the Wikipedia in good faith, and in ignorance of the rules, regardless of whether or not one violates any rules and doing so. To wit, that ignorance of the law is innocence, and should not be rebuked, chastised, or punished, but rather informed and corrected. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that in the proposed FG/C version, new users need not, if the current version is sufficient, read any further than that; the twelve word version, clearly stated at the top of the document, remains the sole statement of the 'Ignore all rules' policy. The remaining paragraphs are a carefully non-restrictive explication of the policy, useful only if one finds the twelve words a bit cryptic, has difficulty believing that they are meant to be taken seriously, wishes to know somewhat about the history behind them, wonders why they constitute a good policy, and so on... as I submit that most new users do. I do not believe that Mr. Wales' concerns were directed towards such a case; rather, he was concerned that new users not be required to read long policy documents. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then what is wrong with the current situation where there are links to further reading? The curious minded will surely follow it. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had wished to point out that it was a mischaracterization of both Mr. Wales' statement and the FG/C document to suggest that Mr. Wales would, therefore, reject the FG/C document, were we to take the matter to his talk page. If your shift in attention indicates agreement with this, the question of linking versus inclusion is definitely worth addressing in another section.

[still need coffee. urgh.] 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC or mediation?

This dispute has been going on for a long time now and there's little resolution, with edit warring occurring frequently on the page. Can I suggest an RfC or mediation? Personally I think an RfC would be better so we could get a community wide input - I just don't think it's going to solve itself with endless discussion between the same parties. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's Not Do That Right Now. (tm) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Kim said, with hairs on end, and all manner of internal alarms going off

And why do you say that Kim? This has been going on long enough and the parties only represent a tiny fraction of the community - a wider input is important. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because entangling more people and more points of view into an existing mess makes that mess even bigger. What we actually want to do of course is to slowly and systematically untangle the mess. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been trying to untangle this mess between a very small number of users for months now - let other people help now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, u:RyanPostlethwaite. As a newby, I am quite unfamiliar with the Rfc process. Could you clarify please, are you suggesting a Request for comment on the "content of the policy"? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm suggesting an RfC on the actual wording on the policy. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies would be ideal for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this particular party, but I've been around the general party long enough to know that throwing all the straw-bales everyone's been sitting on into the fire will just get everyone on their feet and shouting. This is one of the fundamental rules, if Kim is saying slow down and think it over, I support that all the way. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If we found that we were able to agree on an elucidating articulation of the whats and whys of the dispute. That might be worth working on. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what mediation would accomplish unless we have a strict and intelligent mediator with sysop privileges who is capable of telling people, "Don't make any edits without discussion," and is willing to suspend people for doing that.

When King Solomon had this same problem, his solution was simple: "Cut the baby in half."

I don't see why we can't do that here also. Let those who want a wishy-washy IAR which says it's about being ignorant have their clarification section, and let people who want to consider it the basis for all Wikipedia, period, and something that can be very passionately invoked have their section. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That was not the actual solution Solomon found. Pragmatically, I think that that would just formally devolve the disagreement to every circumstance in which someone actually cited "WP:IAR," with negative consequences. It would also seem to ignore that WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS are also indispensable to the functioning of the Wikipedia.69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what mediation is about - mediators don't make enforcements or block people. Mediators help channel disputes in the right direction. There's clearly a dispute here that isn't going to be solved via the normal channels, hence why we should move to RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I know that and I know how mediation works. That's why I made my point. Unless we have a mediator who is also a sysop who will simultaneously monitor this page for edit-warring (something that doesn't usually occur), no such mediation is likely going to accomplish anything because the involved parties apparently aren't interested. They have majority rule over this page and they watch it daily over the long-term, so they don't really have to listen to anybody. So, David can just revert over and over, and then come here and say, in so many different words, "I don't like what you're doing. It's not good. What you are doing is bad. It is not appropriate. It is wrong, harmful, and not helpful. It also looks ugly." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the dispute can't be solved by these channels, I am rather apprehensive about what will happen at RFC. RFC tends to polarize people, and makes any situation much, much, much worse.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um.... any situation/many situations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

break

Anon: If you have an account, please log-in. Editors which hide behind IP addresses drive me nuts. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel assured that I'm not hiding behind an IP address. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sixtynine, you have my support. Don't listen to anyone who tells you not to use an IP address as a username. You're logged in, but I hate discrimination against unregistered users. IP addresses write most of our content. Zenwhat, pay more attention. The user is logged in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Zenwhat, i know of no "rule" which would compel a NumberedUser to log in. Do you? And even if you do ,trying to bully someone because "you are nuts" is not acceptable. In fact the Numbered User has contributed productively to this page. I could not with a straight face say the same in relation to your input to date. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

s'okay, will be more fun to argue about policy. I'm not taking any offense. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rule, no. I just said it's annoying. If he doesn't want to be annoying, he should log in.

Not to mention that if he's somebody who has already discussed the issue above, it's misleading. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat is that an accusation? If so do you have any evidence. If not, keep your speculations to your self, your irritability may stir up the same in others, as it has in the past, and we have work to do here. Stay on topic, talk sense, and you might be capable of helping. (Sorry 69+, you do not need defending, which I am not, but I have issues here too). Newbyguesses - Talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't annoy me. I think u:69 has been contributing helpfully here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

☯  Zenwhat, please be assured that I am not hiding behind an IP address. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"IP editors- Are their contributions of value?" who made this ridiculous title? I didn't suggest that anons' additions are of no value. That is an incredibly insulting distortion of what I said.

I said it's annoying when they don't login, if they have accounts. If they don't have an account, I'm fine with it. If they do have an account, it's annoying and (if they've posted above) misleading. That's all.

It's not an accusation because I have no idea whether he actually has an account. I just said -- if he does -- to please login. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoth GTBacchus: "Zenwhat, pay more attention. The user is logged in." How ironic that you didn't pay attention to that comment. —David Levy 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Zenwhat, please pay more attention, get off your hobby-horses. The User is logged in! And, I note that User:Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven did not even deign to answer your repeated foolishness with a reply, or deservedly rebuke you, but I am just too annoyed with you to stay silent here. I want to let you know that the gulf between the best of what you offer, and the worst, is extreme, so clean your ears out, Listen please to others who will then listen to you, I know you have a lot to offer. Peace, --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

return to the topic at hand

I am all for more people, I am sure sanity will return when there are enough minds at work. An RFC would help. _(1 == 2)^Until 06:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that bringing more eyes to the situation is not a bad idea. Poorly crafted RfCs tend to make situations worse - let's have a well-crafted one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses

• This does not change the 12word version of IAR.
• This supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM.
• I am in favour of any worthwhile effort to render the text of WP:IAR less confusing, or more useful.
• I am not in favour of adding to the rules, by implying in any way that an understanding of any rules is necessary to "Ignore all rules".
• DRAFT
• I submit this DRAFT, (for IAR), in consideration of repeated claims that the 12words, on their own , are "too cryptic".

For discussion, if found relevant, Newbyguesses -Talk 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the updated draftNBG at Ignore all rules/Workshop. (Minor edit)- The POL/GUIDE/TEMPLATE has been added at the bottom of the page. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the tweaked proposed version. --Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE See the Section below here at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion

It is not very simple. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As you no doubt noticed, Unity, I seem to have come round to a position which is aligned very closely, i think with u:Chardish's position. Note also, that I have made it clear that this is a "draft", "suggestion" and "provisional" at that. I have not dropped the 12 words form this draft, and if those 12words are all that survive, I will be happy, if that is where consensus gets us to. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support for the whole thing. It looks like what I suggested in my earlier comment. The 12 word version is not enough. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. This puts the rule in context. it preserves the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. The added benifit is that this incorporation of WP:WIARM, as proposed, will potentialy cull future edit-wars due to misinterpretation of the rules true purpose. --Hu12 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the one rule that allows us to continue when the other rules get in our way. I will not support this level of codification on what is supposed to be a concept as simple as improving and maintaining the encyclopedia despite the rules. The whole point of IAR is that we cannot predict in what circumstances the rules will be used in, that is why we have kept it simple. I would says "strong oppose", but that really does not change the value of my point, _(1 == 2)^Until 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Logicaly placing the rule in context would not act to codify the intended concept but give it objective, purposeful meaning when the other rules do get in the way.--Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The context is unknown, as it has not yet come. IAR is supposed to work when a change in context makes the other rules a liability. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. - Chardish (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Thanks for the support so far. Now, I have added the Template/Pol-Guide to the draft, but it occurs to me that {{Wikipedia principles}} would be better. Any suggestions on that, and please continue to comment on this draft, if it might be found suitable. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be added either to the top or bottom, pending consensus.--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The (latest version of the) "DRAFT" is now 'live' at Wikipedia:No firm rules. This does not presage a "name-change" - hopefully, the "DRAFT" will get up and go on the WP:IAR page, or it will not, but then might be linked from there, if that is clear. (The original DRAFT is the definitive version, as it has attracted some support, which will be respected.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

If I had my druthers, I'd simply replace IAR with it. However, I have no interest in starting another edit war. For now, I'll just link to it from IAR, and maybe, just maybe, it can serve as a path toward a more truly consensual version of Ignore all rules.--Father Goose (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss this

Yes, yes, and very yes. This seems heavily influenced by the French version, which I like. I would wholeheartedly support replacing the current IAR page with this. - Chardish (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is as good essay! I suggest that we now need a more structured way to assess the merits of the various suggestions now in play, and any further that may eventuate. Ie, NbgDRAFT, "Understanding IAR", Until(1==2)'s (minimla) suggestion, and QuackGuru's suggestion (ie Sanger's words). Have I missed any? (Understanding IAR, is a good essay, I would link to it, but wonder where consensus will lead us, at this time. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay, I'm sure it has a place as a link in any version of IAR.--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much like the text of IAR to stay the same. It is properly ambiguous, as an Ignore All Rules rule should be. It's clear about the intention that overrides the rules, and we should, in our consideration of what rule-breakers have done and how to respond, always remember this rule, together with WP:AGF. I've seen a lot of mess erupt because this was not done. If someone really doesn't have the welfare of the project in mind, it will come out, but what I've seen, far too often, is that some action that might be difficult to understand as positive is immediately labelled as disruptive, and that causes disruption, as AGF violations almost always are. (More disruptive, often, than the original rule violation.)

However, given that, there is nothing wrong with linking to other guidelines or essays that explore the meaning of IAR, indeed, that's quite useful. How about a page of "Other versions of IAR"?

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned above is that IAR exists in recognition of the fact that reality is complex. No rule can anticipate all the conditions that might arise. Often this is stated as a mention that there are exceptions, without the exceptions being specified. And no list of exceptions can ever be complete. All rules, in fact, are merely guidelines or maps, even ones that seem written in stone ("policies"). Just because a respected guidebook says "Turn left here" doesn't mean that you ignore the sinkhole that just appeared in that road. Indeed, encountering such, you will properly go the wrong way down a one-way street, make a U-turn where prohibited, or violate other "strict" rules. I mention, above, Public policy, which is the western common law principle. In Islamic law it's "Necessity permits what is forbidden." A related principle is Urf. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems pretty good, but what is the substantive difference between WP:Understanding IAR and the already existing WP:What "Ignore all rules" means? I sort of like the bullet-point style of the latter, though it isn't essential. The other slight issue I have is with the part about what an editor should do when he/she disagrees with a rule. Shouldn't we tell users (as we do in the Five Pillars) which many get on their talk page when they join), that there are some rules that your disagreement and discussion are not going to change? In other words, the "foundational" rules such as NPOV, NOR and V. People need to understand that these rules are not going away. And yes, I realize that to some extent this undercuts the idea of Ignore All Rules, but it is also a better reflection of reality. If I were King of the World, Ignore All Rules would have been named something different from the beginning, because it causes too much confusion... but I seem to have misplaced my crown. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have tried out the idea of a name change, but it didn't get much support [see section (way,way) above], and Wikipedia:No firm rules. Your other point, USER:6SJ7, about the primacy of WP:Five pillars can be addressed suitably by the inclusion of the proper *templatebox* at the bottom of the page. I would certainly add *Template:Pol/Guide* or such to "my" suggested (above) NbgDRAFT as a matter of course if it gets past (provisional) draft stage. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I like "no firm rules," but it is a bit of a misnomer. NPOV violations, copyright violations, undermining office actions, undermining arbcom decisions, etc. are totally unacceptable in any circumstance. I think the Understanding IAR policy does a great job of explaining what we really mean by IAR. - Chardish (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I take your point, which I think is easily addressed. We make sure that newUsers, or any users, appreciate the Inviolable "rules" by A) Giving a link to WP:FIVE, hopefully with every welcome message. B) Putting template:Pol/Guide or such at the bottom of WP:IAR (or other name?) prominently. C) Inadvetant violations, or even deliberate ones, are reverted out, and covered by OVERSIGHT and other Admin actions, such as deleting COPYVIOs, without even the newUser being aware, until they need to be aware. E) Which is done by personal contact, usually, on their talk:page, rather than relying on the User stumbling across the pol. themselves. Can I explain this better, or does there still appear a problem? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Understanding IAR looks great. I wouldn't replace WP:IAR with it. I would just add it to WP:IAR as a section "Understanding what IAR means," with the single sentence at the top. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fine as a link. It goes well beyond the rule of IAR and is basically an essay interpreting it. IAR is as simple as it is because we don't know what context it will be used in. It is the safety valve for when other policies get too choked up with rules. If we choke IAR up with set in stone interpretations on what it is and what it is not then we diminish its value along with its scope.

That page describes some of the ways that some people see IAR today. We don't know how we will use IAR in the future, we can't know. That is why it is so wide in its scope. We have one goal here, to make an encyclopedia. All that other stuff does not belong in IAR, it would make a fine essay about IAR though.

By codifying what IAR is and is not, we are destroying its ability to adapt in its current form to changing situations. If we insist upon nailing down exactly what "IAR is" and what "IAR is not" based upon what it has been used for, when we have no idea what it will be used for, then we turn this dynamic animal into a still statue.

IAR is a small tool that can be used in many circumstances, like a hammer, and this suggestion would turn it into a specialized tool only usable in the specific environment it was written in, like a 3/4 inch reverse threaded nut. We don't need a specialized tool, we need a generalized tool. We can and have formed other policies to deal with any disruption people may choose perform, we don't need to cram it all into this policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I still have not been given an example of where anyone has successfully gamed the current version of IAR. I have seen people try, but it never works. The only times I have seen people use IAR successfully is when the person has a valid point in the eyes of the community, otherwise people IAR right back and with a greater understanding of the project goals and support of the community. I just don't see the abuse people are worried about and I have been around for years(the same years that the current or very similar version of IAR has been here). _(1 == 2)^Until 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the essay as retaining the generalized nature of IAR. While you're correct that it's nearly impossible to game IAR successfully, I think it's demonstrable that there are numerous occurrences of someone attempting to "invoke IAR" in order to implement something that's clearly unpopular. I think that the role of policies should be educating users about best practices, and this page doesn't really educate. It's like a calculus professor saying "If you want to find the antiderivative of a function, integrate it" and then walking out the door without explaining what that is or how to do it. - Chardish (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more like he says "integrate it", and then provides two links to pages explaining how to integrate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of IAR is to have something when "best practices" fail, if IAR becomes a set of best practices then it will no longer serve that intended purpose. People will invoke IAR even if it is changed to this essay, but in both circumstances it will be ineffective. The policy needs to retain the wideness of its scope so that it can be used correctly in unforeseen situations where best practices fail us. It is powerful when used right, and impotent when used wrong, that is perfect.

This page does educate, but not about a best practice. It educates on how to react when best practices fail us. What is in the essay is good info, but it may not reflect how IAR is used in a year from now and the current text will. I suggest it stays as an essay and is updated as our use of IAR evolves organically. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the current version of IAR is, or should be, set in stone. Am I reading your words correctly? - Chardish (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish you are not reading my words if that is what you get. I have said time and time again the very opposite of that. What I said above is that the current version is of wide enough scope to perform the intended purpose of IAR for a good long time. How you read that I think it should be set in stone is beyond me. If an improvement comes along I will support it, but all I have seen are a bunch of rules tacked onto "Ignore all rules" turning it into "ignore some rules under these circumstance only". _(1 == 2)^Until 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, relax. Since you said that the use of IAR evolves organically, my assumption was that you meant that IAR itself should not. - Chardish (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the first time my position has been mis-characterized as objecting to any change. IAR can change of course, but it needs to fit its intended purpose, and I have yet to see a change that accomplishes that. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I quite like this idea, from the section Ignoring all rules above,

[W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. [2]

I think it refutes (to some degree) both points made here - (1==2), there does need to be a connect from IAR to present policies (and best practices) even if they will change in future; Chardish - It is possible to move on, no-one (well no-one commenting here) is saying they prefer the policy, any policy, to be "set in stone". Read the standard disclaimer at the top of many Pol/pages. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't see the connection between the quoted text and my point. What type of connect from IAR to present polices were you suggesting? We already have the policy and guideline template at the bottom of the page. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am fine with that. The best point you make, which I have echoed, is that People keep claiming that interpretation of IAR has led to trouble, without providing very many examples at all, Yes?

However, I have also echoed this plea, as well, and other editors did, way,way above here, I think. --- Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes? Fg, is this what your Wikipedia:Understanding IAR is about? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have an explanation of what IAR is about it is linked at the bottom, people can't miss it, we have two or three of them. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If Father Goose is in agreement, consensus is developing for this version which adresses those concerns (and has the link to the essay).--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think it might be a bit early to say that DRAFTNbg has developed a consensus, that's a bit pre-emptive. I would be pleased though, if Father Goose was in agreement with the updated DRAFT, which links to Understanding IAR, if it doesn't veer to much from FG's expectations.

Also, Chardish, you wanted WP:WIARM on the IAR page at one point, but you now prefer this WP:Understanding IAR, as a link, or as the IAR page?

And Zenwhat supports this (Understanding IAR) as well. Father Goose, do you see it as a link or let's see if it gains more support, as there are other users I am sure watching, and waiting to weigh in. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Never to early IMHO, heres why. this proposed version contains every thing already agreed on through previous consensus, except that is on the same page (2/3^rds the way to a resolution). Changing the 12 words will most certainly not happen, This proposal does not change the 12word version of IAR. This proposal supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM. It addresses all the concerns, withought the uncertainty of "new" content or the drama over variation in the "12 words". 2/3^rds the way to a resolution--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Hu12 I see 2 people supporting it and one opposing it, I fail to see how one can tell if consensus is developing or not at this point. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no one agreeing on any thing else on this page (except the removal of "just"), I'd say that makes This proposal a great start.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer Understanding IAR over WP:WIARM. I feel like it discusses the philosophy behind IAR better, rather than merely listing what it does and doesn't mean. I still think that WP:WIARM is a good page and I would prefer it over the twelve-word version. - Chardish (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see some agreement that it should be short and simple, not much, but other than the existing version there is not much support for anything. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite by Chardish/Father Goose

This edit here. Basically incorporates Understanding IAR into the policy. Perhaps some stylistic changes are in order. - Chardish (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this

After two looks, I am gonna say just, I Like It. The structure makes sense, and all the words are sane. Now, this one, with a See also section link to WP:WIARM would do it for me. Um, if others prefer the other way with the WIARM text up and this as a link, fine, I think. For now, i am going with this suggested Chardish/Father Goose draft. Why not, it's pretty good? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with draft version. Explains the policy without adding or taking anything away. Also could use the link to previous versions in See also. Franamax (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I slightly altered so that the bolded bit reads "thoughtfully ignore it"; I thought that might be helpful to point out that ignoring the rules shouldn't be due to carelessness (kind of the opposite of the word "just" that was removed earlier). Is that useful? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that what you altered is not the C/FG draft that is being discussed in this section.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. :-) I guess if anyone thinks that was a fantastic edit of mine they will put it again themselves anyway. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to keep the C/FG version "live" on the /Workshop page so that people can edit or view it easily. I believe it's our best candidate for a replacement version at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Looks good to me, it gives a neat and reasonable overview. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have the text of WP:WIARM in the rule, with a link to the "understanding" essay. The WIARM text seems more simple and straightforward, and does not go beyond the subject of IAR itself, while the "understanding" essay goes beyond IAR to give some of the context about rules on Wikipedia. That is fine, but not as part of the text of IAR. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with this version. I've scanned it a bit - need to go out and feed the chicken in a moment - but I think the parties who were concerned about rule creep (Until(1 == 2)?) should go through it line by line, because it looks pretty clean to me, and then see how it sits in their stomachs. It looks like it's been carefully vetted for anything in the explanatory text that people might start referring to as part of 'Ignore all rules' (that they don't already, at least).

"If a silly quote appended to a remark offends thee, thoughtfully apply the strikeout markup to it (<s>...</s>)." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now there appears to be virtually no one opposed to this. Where do we go from here? I think a claim of consensus is a bit premature, buy maybe another couple days of silence will help. - Chardish (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Chardish, and Father Goose, I am coming around to the idea that WP:WIARM in it's present state is the best contender to go up as policy, with a link to WP:UIAR as it's supplement. WIARM has been around so long, and been examined in depth on this-page. I still like UIAR, but am more comfortable with WIARM, the dot-points work for me. That's what I'm thinking now. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the biggest reason why we've failed all these months to replace the 12-word version. We have no unity whatsoever, whereas those who want it to remain unchanged have exactly one version they revert to time and time again.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion, I'd only use one "argh" in my edit summaries. What do you consider indicates failure? Lack of consensus to make a change is not necessarily a failing, it can equally be defined as success. I'm on record supporting the subject of this particular "discussion" and I'm not all that stressed about the current version either (see below, and amazingly enough, my edit to Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR has lived for three hours). Lets grind that Newby guy down until he gives some ground :) I don't think we're all that far away. Franamax (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the months I've been active on this page, I've accumulated a few dozen arghs. Based on what I've seen, and looking through the edit history, I estimate there have been dozens of people who have made edits to the page to provide an expanded explanation of the policy, and perhaps about a dozen who seem to revert to the "12 word" version on any regular basis (not counting vandalism or poorly-thought-out changes). I think there's a clear consensus for change, but since there's a million directions for change but only one direction for staying in place, staying in place has won out. Editors like 6SJ7 give up quickly in the face of such frustration, and only masochists like myself stick around and keep trying to find and foster alternatives.

I may be overselling UIAR, but I believe it's the most solid explanation of IAR this page has ever seen. If the dozens of us who would like a less cryptic page want to actually get that page, we'll have to agree on a single direction. So when I see Newbyguesses (who is a personal friend, and one of the aforementioned dozens) decide to separate from the handful of us who are workshopping UIAR, I have to 'argh' a few dozen times.--Father Goose (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, that the wording of the policy has remained stable for quite some time, though the number of editors in total would be well over two dozen. But what of those Wikipedians who read this policy, but do not edit it? What are their numbers, and what are their views?

I suspect there are many more than 2 dozen adherents for the original "nervous and depressed" wording, and many more than 2 dozen who favour the 12words, but do not feel the need to edit or comment currently. There are over 6 million registered accounts.

Sorry, FG, if I seem to back-track, I am not (see my suggestion(s) in a section above). I see no prospect for any formulation of WP:IAR at this time which does not prominently feature the 12words

If WP:UIAR gets a few paras. sorted, I could well favour that then. We have a debate, I am not the only one changing their mind, or their position, and I only wish we get the BEST version up, with the BEST possible debate.

I predict, though, 2 months, and the 12words will still be on the IARpage. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

break - user:Until(1==2 )suggested an edit

I still prefer the current wording, some of the issues with the workshop version are:

• Where it says "The two most important implications of Ignore all rules are", it would be less opinionated to say "Two important implications of Ignore all rules are".
• The section labeled "Why have any rules, then?" seems a bit off topic, and would better be suited as an essay.
• The section labeled "Successfully ignoring rules" delves heavily into opinion based interpretation of the rule. The part about there needing to be a consensus for ignoring a rule is plain false, that has never been a requirement.
• This proposed change does not seem to address the concerns about the current version. It does not explain that IAR does not provide protection from the consequences of your actions, nor does it take any other measure to prevent the often mentioned but never demonstrated abuse of the rule.

If we must change it why not keep it simple like:

• If a rule, or lack of knowledge of the rules, prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia then ignore it. Please don't ignore other people. You are still responsible for your actions.

That addresses all the concerns and keeps it simple, and unrestricted. Unless someone objects, I will boldly introduce that version and see if it is accepted. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Amalgamation of current proposals

Just to set out the current proposals clearly, I hope.

A ===' Suggested rewrite by Until(1 == 2)

Essentially, PolPage stays the same or, incorporates small changes, as in User:(1==2)'s slight amendments.

B === suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses

One with some support.

C === Understanding IAR

One with much support.

TO COMPARE suggestion B with suggestion C

• DIFF-comparison of the two long versions at this date.

Arriving at "consensus".

• Consensus-wranglers and other aficiondo's of Voting paradox, note Condorcet's jury theorem a theorem about the relative probability of a given group of individuals arriving at a correct decision, and Arrow's impossibility theorem - no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of reasonable criteria with three or more discrete options to choose from. In general it is very difficult to reconcile individual decisions between three or more outcomes.

Also from Arrow's theorem, positive association of social and individual values or monotonicity: if any individual modifies his or her preference order by promoting a certain option, then the societal preference order should respond only by promoting that same option or not changing, never by placing it lower than before. An individual should not be able to hurt an option by ranking it higher.

• Continue to comment in appropriate sections, probably NOT this one. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiver settings

Due to the insane size of this page I have switched the settings on the archiver bot to archive sections more than 3 days old. This should dramatically shorten the page; I think we should leave it like this until discussion dies down. - Chardish (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. If someone feels a section that has been lost track of still needs discussion, my personal preference would be if they introduced a digest of the salient content in a new section, rather than bumping it. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "dramatic". It went from 343K to 255K, which remains insane. Миша13 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Misza13, I agee the page still too long by about 210K, does anyone have a more direct solution for now, like an emergency archive of more of this? Just a suggestion, GTB, (1==2), good/bad idea? Or we just let it go for now? OK with me either way. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the long talk page a bad thing because it loads slowly for people with slow connections, or is there something else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nbg has a slow connection, that's great, it reminds us how the ROW experiences the Internet. I'm a little over one year separate from that, I was on dialup - less than one hour's drive from Toronto, Canada too! The length of the page was daunting in and of itself, it's very hard for someone to find the current discussions and find a way to opine. We need to all be aware of the benefits of brevity, they are multiple. I put some backlinks in the forward-summaries to compensate for the archiving - can't I have a pat on the back? :) Franamax (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm on dialup too. But the biggest problem with the size of the page is that with so much discussion going on in so many threads simultaneously, it's hard to keep track of stuff. Getting rid of inactive threads quickly under these circumstances gives one fewer threads to scan (and a shorter page makes it easier to scroll back through several diffs).--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Long pages make for fractured discussion as well as long loading times. The first problem would be helped if users started new sections where appropriate, and concluded discussion points before introducing asides and new topics. For now, I am glad that at 06:49, 10 March 2008 MiszaBot II (Talk | contribs) m (91,740 bytes) IS (Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 3d) to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 15.) (undo) --Newbyguesses - Talk 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some talk pages are just that active. Why worry about it? -- Ned Scott 07:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page just went from (246,938 bytes) to (128,009 bytes) when MiszaBot II ArchivED 10 thread(s) so, Thankyou miszabot II. --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that adding notes about MiszaBot's activities just adds clutter to the page...--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I do agree, but then, on the other hand... --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

" ..ignore it."

I don't know if this was lost intentionally. To me it feels like the bolding detracts slightly from the sentence, as a rule; it comes across more as emphatic advice. So personally, I'd revert it to plain, but I have no clue how anyone else feels.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is to be ignored." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like the bolding, but I don't feel remotely strongly about it. I don't care what color the bikeshed is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For myself, there is no particular hue or colour which is essentially preferred vis-a-vis with and in consideration of when the Bicycle-Stables situation stabalizes at, locally, nor, possibly, globally, at this point in time. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But whatever color bicycle am I to purchase?!?

"If a rule prevents you from marking articles for deletion in the Wikipedia, it is to be marked for deletion." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Red, of course! What a silly question. ;-o --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the bolding. To be honest, I don't really know how to justify it other than to say, "I don't think IAR is emphasized enough on Wikipedia." That's just a personal opinion, though, not an argument. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need bold, italics or ALL CAPS, or anything to make these simple words more than what they are. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's arguing that the bolding is a "need"; more of a preference, it seems. I like the way it looks. I like the way it emphasizes "ignore it", as if to say, "no, really. Ignore it. No joke." -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I don't think its appearance needs that, beyond need I don't think it will benefit from it. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On editing IAR

This activity is truly unproductive. The end result has no use. No necessary task has been accomplished. Time has been expended, nothing more. —Миша13 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Bonus points for the first one to name the exact reference.

False. Several of us have learned valuable lessons here, clarified our positions regarding the role of policy at Wikipedia, and material for potentially useful essays has been generated. This talk page is a productive place, and if you're not getting anything out of the discussion, that doesn't mean that nobody is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven of Nine from Star Trek: Voyager. Google ftw. [3]

Also, it's from a scene in which Janeway is teaching Seven of Nine how to sculpt clay. It's true that Wikipedia is more like an art (i.e. The Art of War) than a science, but it shouldn't be. I would, however, consider it roughly comparable to a pile of mud. And despite your sarcasm (assuming it's sarcastic), I agree that nothing has been achieved here, really. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Misza13, user:Zenwhat has been most clever here, do they get the bonus points ?. ZW, I disagree though particularly about the art of war. Please, dont think in terms of "fighting" think - CO-OPERATE. Peace --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat gets 2 bonus points for correctly naming a scene from the teaser of The Raven. He may use them up for reverting the page to his preferred version. Миша13 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let everyone who has achieved nothing agree that nothing has been achieved. Those who've been paying attention, learning, and achieving things, keep up the good work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Misza13 was being mostly tongue-in-cheek with (his/her) comment here.--Father Goose (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just referring to the fact that despite the last zillion edits, the only semi-permanent change seemed to be the loss of bolding on "ignore it". Миша13 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and that a few people have learned some things. I consider that semi-pemanent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of a section way above here

Permalink here

Viewing edit history of the page, does anyone else read it as David Levy conducting a slow, long term edit war? Ever so many edits is a revert by David Levy. --User:Kim Bruning 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't see any serious problem with any one of David's reverts, but there would also be no serious problem if he were to let other people revert more often, or to let the page float around a little more. User:GTBacchus 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTB. Now, if some editor is acting in good faith, but their continued edits are very largely unhelpful, verging on "disruptive", then what do we do? User:Newbyguesses 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone acting in good faith is disruptive, and if ordinary discussion doesn't convince them to stop, then we've got a dispute resolution process, -User:GTBacchus 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check: Indeed, slow reverts is still a way of gaming the system. User:Jossi 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused Chardish of bad faith, that is a red herring, I am accusing Chardish of "acting disruptively". - User:Newbyguesses 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[T]he best way forward is to identify and address Chardish's concerns -User:GTBacchus 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely responding to allegations of misconduct leveled against me'. —User:David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes that don't reflect consensus is not edit warring, I don't think David is guilty of that. User:Until(1 == 2) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These users, (in addition to Chardish and David Levy), not that I want to point fingers, were involved in the edit war -

20:47, 2 March 2008 CapitalQ (Talk | contribs)

20:37, 2 March 2008 Onorem (Talk | contribs)

19:52, 2 March 2008 QuackGuru (Talk | contribs)

09:03, 2 March 2008 Locke Cole (Talk | contribs)

20:51, 29 February 2008 Microchip08 (Talk | contribs)

17:37, 29 February 2008 Bkonrad (Talk | contribs)

19:45, 28 February 2008 Zenwhat (Talk | contribs)

They may not all have done reverts, or total reverts. Oh, (and i edited during that period, also) User:Newbyguesses 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, David has been edit-warring. And a handful of people of a particular point-of-view have been owning this page - User:Zenwhat 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is neither fully supported by consensus nor set in stone. It's one of several controversial versions that some people support. It's a particularly short and simple one, and there doesn't seem to be a more popular version. - -User:GTBacchus 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--

The section Edit Warrior way above here, will shortly be archived, which I am glad of.

(NOTE - This summary is approx 5% of the original section.)

However, if further action is required on that matter, I have summarized some salient points. Should there be, in fact No Further Action required, then this section (Summary) can itself be archived. Sorry for any inconvenience, --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no specific action is required based on that section. I'm not even sure what that would look like. Nice summary, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of - Blocking instead of protection

Permalink here

== Summary of - Blocking instead of protection section way, way, above

I have left a note at the top of the page - User:Until(1 == 2) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...a drag, but continually disrupting the page is excruciating for all concerned. - User:Newbyguesses 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection is bad because it followed an edit war, which was bad. - User:Newbyguesses 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer blocking, the reasoning for which is documented at User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring. Note Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus. --User:Kim Bruning 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

=== please stop - (User:Newbyguesses)

Instead of saying more, why not keep this page limited to talking about what IAR should be. - User:Until(1 == 2) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

--

(a lot has been ommitted ,here, hmm. - user:Newbyguesses summarized this, rather ruthlessly.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of - Let's cobble together consensus view of IAR!

== Summary of - Let's cobble together consensus view of IAR! (section some distance above this one)

Permalink here

Let me cite Father Goose: "Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would". --FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are almost as many ways to express IAR as there are users.

[W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. [4]

One more to add to /Versions, or /Workshop. (See also section Ignoring all rules, above.) - User:Newbyguesses 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been working on this problem quite actively, by working on my own "dream version" of what I would like on the IAR page... It is a top-to-bottom explanation of IAR. Not twelve overworked words.--User:Father Goose 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ADD-(see Wikipedia:Understanding IAR)

--

Summary of - Confirming existing consensus

== Confirming existing consensus (the next section, after a lot of resolved discussion.)

Snapshot here

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

• "For the record I Support the current version, it expresses what we want to get across while maintaining the simplicity of the philosophy..." _(1 == 2)^Until 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I oppose the current version due to its terseness and apparent self-contradiction: it gives people a powerful tool with no explanation on how to use it responsibly." Chardish (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "So far, I have reservations about the current version. I do not support any speedy or radical changes in the policy..." 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I do not support either the current version or the proposed rewrite below. I think they are both far too prone to misinterpretation... I think the essay should become the policy, and go on from there." 6SJ7 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "...I have reservations for the same reasons above [except that I believe the rewrite is an improvement. (interpreted by 69.49.44.11 (talk):please confirm.)]" Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "It's actually stated very compactly and quite correctly... most people will actually understand it, intuitively." Abd (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• "[I] Support the current version... [i]nterpretation comes down to experience and common sense. I don't see any particular way to add either rules or clarity to the rule to ignore all rules." Franamax (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

--

AND now we get back to business, with some "fresh eyes" over-looking the discussion, from the RFc (content) and the post to Village Pump. Please, all be welcome, and contribute constructively. --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be an adequate summary of the discussion. I saw some support, some opposition, and a great many who had reservations about the current version. - Chardish (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my summary was a bit "rough and readY". The section is still on the page. Please "capture" for us any views expressed by users that need highlighting, if that is best. Sorry again, I do hope I got most of this summarizing (4 sections) right. I saw a need, but definitely do not wish to mislead. I have been ruthless, otherwise there is no point in summarizing. BTW, Chardish, are't thou still happy with the "Archiving settings"? Keep at 3d for a bit longer? Cheers, --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some more viewpoints. I think that's everybody from that section. Apologies if I shortened them up too much, feel free to touch up your own, or add a statement I missed, everyone. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

--

Hmm my initial summary of this section did not "capture" the flavour of the debate. Just let me point out that, following input from "the usual suspects" ( Newbyguesses, Until(1==2), Chardish, Kim Bruning, and 69.49.44.11) comma the running was then taken up most amply by esteemed "over-lookers" Franamax, Hu12, Abd and 6SJ7. I must point out that the contributions by the latter Users has aided immensely in helping to "frame" the rather complex situation of merge debate(s) and other matters which are now under continuing fruitful discussion. "Fresh eyes", thanks for your help to date, and may there be more help, much more, to come. --

[NOTE] It is not the case that Aleister Crowley contributed in person to this debate, and certainly did not presume the "casting-vote" 5-4, rather it is the case that User:Abd was using a humorous trope at one point. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relatively trivial note

I'm for separating the See Also section into a main and "closely related items" section (since inclusion of WP:BOLD in the see also section can easily lead us on the road to disorganization and that way lies madness), but apparently meta:Don't be a dick isn't a good second item. Anybody have any suggestions? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Well, I will add this one *Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, how is that, though it is currently linked from WIARM--) (top) How is that then, you like, user:Lubaf ? --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that WP:BOLD is more related to IAR than the other current links. I agree with the separation. I do think we only need one essay explaining what IAR is about, not 3 but in time. While Don't be a dick is on topic I think it is not needed once WP:POINT is linked. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "in time" (soon-ish) I hope we decide to have only ONE explanatory "Page" linked, and 2 probably as Related Pages. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Essay links

There seems to be a disagreement about whether to label the linked essays as essays. There is support from me, Hu12 and perhaps David Levy to have the labeled as essays. There seems to be an objection from Father Goose to the essay label, or to labels in general.

I think they should be labeled essays because that is what they are and if not labeled then the policy tag at the top might misinform people about that status of the links. The presence of other links that are guidelines further compounds the confusion requiring clarification even more. Please discuss. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I too have a general dislike of all labels, and try to avoid labelling whenever possible. No, I am not a "troll"! I support FG's edit, I think it is clearer that way. And the word "essay" is to be avoided like the plague! Yes, I understand that they are essays, whattha, I read'm and consider what's said. General discussion point? Dont label, if at all possible, and say "page", or "thingo" or "bit of advice' ANYTHING but upset (certain) people by using the E-word, (though there is nothing wrong with essays, or the concept of essays (woops), I think. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add, I don't think, other than agreement with Newbyguesses. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its about those who are reading these pages, a description can only help. It's not like the page is to large, and we need to trim it..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the edit summary.--Newbyguesses - Talk 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well unless there is more support for the term "essay", then I guess it is out(even though that is the most accurate term). Thanks for the response. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have just made a change that tries to compromise almost all of the issues being discussed here. It avoids the issue of labeling the essays, by not labeling them at all. It also bridges the gap between those of us who would like to incorporate the text of WIARM or "Understanding" into this page, and those who don't, by eliminating the "See also" section heading. One might say that in effect, this makes the two essays part of the policy without saying so. Pretty clever, huh? Everybody's going to be happy with this and just leave it alone, right?

"Well, I see my compromise lasted less than a minute, with the reverter's edit summary saying no compromise is necessary! All you guys are comedians in real life, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Until 1==2, you say the term "essay" is not needed, my change did not use the term "essay", and you reverted me anyway! Why? 6SJ7 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My change didn't have consensus, no need to compromise. I also thought the compromise made it deviate from the manual of style in a not attractive way. It removed the separation between the policy and the links to further information which is not policy. I assure you the reason I make any edit is to improve the quality of the page, also I introduced a new version and did not revert to an old one. I felt it a productive edit. Don't feel bad, I got reverted too. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this edit reasonable[5]. Though I would prefer if the page made it more clear what is policy, guidelines, or essay. While you might not "like" labels, it is the community that decided to apply these labels to these pages and new users may find them useful. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If we must have 'descriptions' here, and it is a good idea, I think, then...--Newbyguesses - Talk 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion though, how about Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, another page which expands on this policy becomes Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, which expands on this policy? All this is moot, really, when the *merge* debate(s) get sorted, isn't it. We only want ONE *supplemental essay* at that time, do we not? --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, I bow out of this mess, probably for real this time. I have enough chaos in my life, and obviously the views of "outsiders" are not invited. I tried to finesse the issues, and it didn't even last 60 seconds. I don't see how the reverter even had time to read what I did before pushing the button. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again, User:6SJ7, how can we convince you that your input is most welcome? Please, stay and join the fun, we are all sure to lay-back on the edits momentarily, I think. You may not realize how HELPFUL some "fresh eyes" have been, esp, including yours. Fast or slow, please stay and help more, if you wish. Best of luck with all your projects!

[NOTE to Admins, there is *NOT* an edit war taking place, this is constructive, fast editing, and we are discussing on the talk page, as you can see].--Newbyguesses - Talk 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that 6SJ7. You can't take reverts so personally, especially when dealing with policy. I assure you I read it. We all have been reverted here at one point or another, that is natural and healthy on a page that must describe wide acceptance. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A grab-bag of comments

I generally like the current look of the policy page right now. Reading it downwards:

• Lose the reference to Jimbo in the green-check-box. Maybe dump the "first rule to consider" part too. Just keep it simple.
• Don't bluelink Wikipedia in the statement itself. No-one's got here and still needs a link to Wikipedia. Or rule for that matter.
• I don't like the wording after either of the two essay links, one supplements, one expands? How about "an explanatory essay" for both?
• With ref to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR:
  • Probably better as a link than incorporated into the policy page.
  • I really like the wording at the C/FG version, specifically I think the wording of the "Successfully ignoring rules" section is much better as it addresses the issue of needing consensus to ignore a rule. I think this is what Hu12 was worried about, oh, seven megabytes or so above.
  • If Understanding... had that change, I'd suggest giving it primacy, i.e. comes before WIARM.
  • And if it had that change, I'd be for giving it guideline status. Everything about the text in the C/FG version is guideline-worthy.
• I'm liking the two "Closely related guidelines", they are the most directly relevant and show the two sides of the coin.
• I'm even more liking seeing "Be bold" mentioned here. Loving it. From my own personal standpoint, I can't tell you how much of a revelation it was for me to find those two fundamental rules, IAR and BOLD, when I first started exploring the insides of WP. That was when I realized - I can be part of this, I just have to start, I can learn as I go. And like the rest of you, well, here I am :) Franamax (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree with User:Franamax here that,

WIARM ought to have been a guideline long ago.

UIAR makes a great supplemental essay, or guideline maybe, or the IAR page.

WP:BOLD and WP:POINT seem like a good pair of "pages" to me.

OK, however, (terminology) we don't "give" a page guideline status, that is for some sort of debate or other. For the rest of your present comments, I would say these points were "up for grabs". Oh, and how about

NO explanatory wording for the supplemental essays, its not needed.

Overlinking is generally encouraged, I think, in this short policy document, we will link rule and Wikipedia, that's not over-linking. --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WIARM becoming a guideline is not my suggestion. I can wrap around UIAR or C/FG much more easily than the WIARM essay. I do think it has value as an essay.

I'm still partial to using the C/FG workshop version of IAR for the IAR policy page. I also have no problem with linking it from the current very terse version of IAR. I'm going to go over there right after clicking Save here and post in my happy paragraph from C/FG. No chance of an edit war there, I'm quite used to being reverted. :)

Yes of course, guideline status is not "given" it is consensus-itized. I like what UIAR says (at least what it will say ten minutes from now) and I propose it as a guideline. There's always the option of invoking WP:IAR and just making it a guideline and watching what happens. Probly not appropriate here, n'est pas? ;)

I take your point about overlinking the basic policy statement, I could posit a messy explanation about the importance of not applying any rules to the statement about ignoring rules, alternatively, I would suggest that the policy should be stated in as stark and unadorned fashion as possible: the more plain and simple it is, the more effective. Nothing to click on here, just the totem, ignore all rules. Everything else is derived as a secondary consequence. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey (another one)

At the risk of spawning another thread, what are the yes/no opinions here:

• The WP:IAR rule itself should be the canonical twelve words.
• The WP:IAR policy page should be minimalist (similar to the current version).
• If the page itself is minimal, should some other page(s) exist as a guideline?

As I've said above, I don't think the resolution is all that far away. Franamax (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(replaces policy page with the sound of one hand clapping) c'mon, there are infinite subtleties but can't you guys muster a three-word sequence comprising yes and no? Which of these are questions-unaskable? Do you think I'm leading into some obscure sequence where you'll be trapped by your answer? I'm trying to contribute, can you enlighten me? Franamax (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer them, but not as yes/nos. In fact, I started in on a fairly complex answer, but I'm too tired to finish it tonight, so I'll see you tomorrow.--Father Goose (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the morning!! Hooray! wake-up-wake-up-wake-up-wake-up! 69.49.44.11 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(Tis still deep in the night for me, though.) I suggest NOT a straw poll.

A) Retain the 12words, yes or no, then

B) If NO, then WIARM or UIAR are the best options. --Newbyguesses - Talk 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time.

The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time.

Make your comments in the appropriate sections below.

Since we do NOTVOTE, there is no need to add Support to your comment. There is no need to add "Oppose".

The 12 words

The twelve words are -- -- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Broadly in support of the 12words plus WP:WIARM with a link to WP:UIAR.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words plus WIARM with a link to UIAR.

Broadly in support of the 12words plus WP:UIAR with a link to WIARM.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words plus UIAR with a link to WIARM.

Broadly in support of the 12words alone with some other combination of links.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words alone with some other combination of links.

Broadly in support of WP:UIAR (with/without) a link to WP:WIARM.

Comments -Broadly in support of WP:UIAR with/without the 12words, with/without a link to WP:WIARM.

Broadly in support of the 3 C's version from 2007.

The thrust of the 3 C's version was to emphasise being nice to people. A link to WP:CONSENSUS was/was not added to the policy statement, or in the See also section.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 3 C's version from 2007.

Some of the above.

Comments -Some of the above.

None of the above.

Comments -None of the above

Comments off the wall

Um?

Procedural matters.

Procedural matters.

Summary, later.

Summary, later. (I am betting on the 12words, for the next two months at least.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

futile

The Past year diff shows little change to the page with exception to the messagebox, cats, Sound file and ignore them to ignore it. I see this being the same case in future years. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)