Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 10

Compromise wording

What about this:

The rules are important, but don't obsess over them. After all, sometimes they are wrong. If they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them and use your best judgment.

That wording:

• contains an exhortation against wikilawyering, which Jimbo stresses
• retains the "prevent you from improving the encyclopeida" wording which many people seem to be fond of
• explains that the rules are not infallible, which Jimbo stresses and pretty much everyone agrees is the case
• is still very short
• explains itself, which the current policy doesn't do (and virtually every other policy on Wikipedia does)
• doesn't require an entire extra page to explain (though I think it still benefits from WP:WIARM as further supplementary material)

I think it's a pretty good compromise wording that seems to reflect common ideas. - Chardish 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yecch, yecch, yecch. I don't like the policy saying that the rules are wrong. I do like the "use your best judgment" part, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says that the rules are sometimes wrong. Jimbo agrees. (See the bottom of the third paragraph there. - Chardish 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the rules are right or wrong is subjective and not always applicable. They can be ignored regardless, and there is no need to add the right/wrong argument. --PopUpPirate 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Does it strike anyone else as ironic to start a page called "ignore all rules" with the phrase "the rules are important"? >Radiant< 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Ignoring the rules is often more important than following them" --PopUpPirate 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that is true. Chances are (even if you're ignoring them), if you're improving Wikipedia you're probably following the rules anyway. Ignoring the rules is different from not following them. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see where Pirate is going, but the version is a bit awkward, yes. I've tried this for another kick at the can. After all, in the bit just Chardish quoted, Jimbo also says that "being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite a neat version at present. I'd like "Ignore the rules if you like. It is a wiki, after all." --PopUpPirate 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That still loses the focus, though I have to admit I like the idea of having no text on the project page. ;) Speaking of which, I'm waiting for the hour when Tony comes and "trims the fat." Heh. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of grammar?

Is it for or of? Are you considerate for something? I think you're considerate of something, but I want to double-check before making a change. God, and I majored in English in college, too. Maybe I should go back to school. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "of" would be correct, but I just tweaked the wording (hopefully in a satisfactory manner). —David Levy 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. I tweaked it a tiny bit more. I like! Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And it has the nice "c" alliteration ring to it, too! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I just mentioned that in my edit summary before reading the above comment.  :) —David Levy 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I love it! I also just added a link to WP:SENSE in the common sense part. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try.

I prefer the single-sentence version, but it was nice to work toward what seemed like a reasonable compromise. But I guess that this wasn't to be just yet. Drat. —David Levy 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That version was the consensus version. There needs to be consensus to revert it back to the old version, I would think. In the end, I don't care which version we use, as I would say I've got a pretty good grasp of the policy. I just don't like blind reverts. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It really bugged me that PopUpPirate did that without even leaving a note on the talk page (a drive-by reversion, so to speak). The edit also shouldn't have been labeled "minor." —David Levy 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I reverted him. If he wants to make a point, he's welcome to make it here, but blind reverting using "consensus" as an excuse doesn't cut it with me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't get too het up. My preference is for the long-standing version, so I boldly reverted, and got reverted back, so now we're discussing. --PopUpPirate 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor understood that the current consensus is for the (12 word long) version preferred by User:PopopPirate, among others, and would like that version restored presently. The version inspired by fr:wiki was good though. (Good sense, initiative, and consideration for others are more important than rules...)

The version which introduced "rules are secondary" was useful, it got me thinking. I added "Assuming and exhibiting good faith..."; reasoning being, that when one finds oneself ready to "Ignore all rules", it is best to examine carefully one's motivations. That is, I would ignore all rules, only after thinking, deeply, and considering, twice or more, "In good faith, is the change I am considering for the purpose of improving or maintaining WP?" A genuine attempt to improve WP, which exhibits good faith, is the spirit which should accompany any occasion of "ignoring the rules". So, I think AGF is relevant, if it conveys the sense of personal integrity being involved. The alliteration in "secondary to common sense, consensus..." is interesting, but just a little "clunky", nicht war? It was nice working toward a compromise, but at this time I prefer the single sentence version, and so do others.Newbyguesses - Talk 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I, but an acceptable compromise seems like a good idea.

The concept of assuming and exhibiting good faith has only peripheral relevance to this policy (because it applies to all edits), and users certainly aren't required to engage in the thought process that you've described before ignoring a rule.

I like the alliteration. —David Levy 01:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like David's version and I'll probably support just about any version which prominently features the word consensus. Haukur 01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the current version (the one about the rules being secondary to content, consensus, and common sense.) I don't know who came up with it, but I'd like to think it kind of belongs to all of us. Well done : ) - Chardish 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion / redundancy

The so-called "consensus" version misses the spirit of the policy and confuses first-time readers - it suggests that if the rules would prevent one from *using common sense or building consensus*, then they should be ignored. Well, not quite. Use of IAR is more often than not against *some* consensus (because it's best used for radical solutions) and nothing prevents one from using common sense at any time. The point is to ignore rules when the prevent one from *improving or maintaining Wikipedia*. The bits about common sense and consensus are already covered by other guidelines - including them here causes to miss the point, so I had to trim down the irrelevant parts. Миша13 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the version you list is confusing. I thought the consensus version was If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. which is to the point. --PopUpPirate 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So ignoring rules and ignoring consensus is fine when you feel your "radical solutions" are best? Glad to have this view out in the open. Haukur 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm as stunned as you are. It's weird that I'm arguing against someone who reverted to my preferred wording, but this rationale is unacceptable. —David Levy 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that it isn't okay to ignore a rule when following it would defy common sense? Are you suggesting that the situation never arises? Of course nothing prevents us from using common sense at any time. That's what the policy indicated.

I, like Haukurth, am troubled by your assertion that WP:IAR is something to invoke for the purpose of imposing "radical solutions" by defying consensus. On the contrary, most applications (not invocations) of the policy should go largely unnoticed. When noticed, a proper application should be uncontroversial. (Otherwise, it probably wasn't a good idea.) —David Levy 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the times when an application will even be controversial, but anything else would have probably been even more controversial (which is typical in certain kinds of emergency or less bad but still no-one-ever-thought-about-that-but-we-need-a-solution-yesterday kind of situation) --Kim Bruning 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if the situation itself is controversial, that's unavoidable (even when working within the rules). But the correct course of action usually should be relatively uncontroversial (or at least no more controversial than the alternative). If an edit defies consensus, it probably isn't a good idea. If the consensus is wrong, it probably still isn't a good idea to defy it (because edit-warring doesn't help the project). Working toward a new consensus is far more productive. —David Levy 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of opposition to IAR is when someone does something stupid, and tries to laugh it off as IAR... and does so towards newbies who hadn't heard of IAR before and don't know better. It's that kind of combination that gives wikipedia a bad name. Can't we think up some extra-special punishment for people who do that? On the other hand, then there'd be a bunch of bureaucrators who'd try to apply that rule to us normal wikipedians as well. Hmph. I guess we'll have to stick to just explaining properly to people every time things go south. :-/ --Kim Bruning 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Recent Pages patrol, New Pages patrol, and now, IAR patrol! I'm telling you, we should have an IAR noticeboard. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-revised wording

None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines can ever account for all possibilities. If a scenario occurs where the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is acceptable to ignore them and use your best judgment.

What this says about the rules

• Rules derive their power to compel from historical consensus. They are not set in stone, but are rather a reflection of the shared opinion of a great many editors.
• Rules are sometimes poor attempts to put complex thoughts into words. The wording of a rule is never important; rather, the spirit of a rule is what counts.
• Rules are never final, as they are derived from consensus, and consensus can change.
• Rules tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. Follow consensus, not policy.
• Rules should be subject to constant scrutiny. When consulting the rules, consider not only what the rule says, but whether it is a valid rule to begin with.
• Rules cannot be lawyered with. There are no "loopholes" or "technicalities", as the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.
• Rules should still be followed most of the time in most situations.

What this means for editors

• Over time, familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them. Read the talk pages about the rules: they often shed light on ideas in the rules that are contentious.
• Feel free to break the rules if you need to.
• Anytime you break the rules, explain to your fellow editors why doing so improves the encyclopedia.
• At the same time, listen to your fellow editors: if many people disagree with your actions, consider reverting them.
• You are still responsible for reasonably forseeable effects of your actions.
• Consider all issues on a case-by-case-basis.
• Participation in Wikipedia is not contingent upon knowledge of any rules. If someone unknowingly breaks a rule, politely point her to the appropriate rule pages, but still consider that her judgment may be correct.

---

Discussion of the above

The improved & most recent version of this, "Extended version", is at: old revision of page. —WikiLen 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno who wrote all that above, and not meaning to sound disrespectful, but I got bored by line two and expect most other editors would, too. All I need to know is that if I want to or need to, I can ignore all the rules if I like. Any other gubbins in there is of no consequence to me or many others. --PopUpPirate 11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More changes

I have three problems with Centrx's version:
1. It implies that using common sense, following consensus, and focusing on encyclopedic content are things to think about only when ignoring the rules. It's better to refer to ignoring the rules as something to do when the rules interfere with these things.
2. Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy (not a guideline) pertaining to a concept that often is misunderstood, so it makes sense to link the word "consensus" to it. Otherwise, users who read WP:IAR will be more likely to misunderstand what's expected of them. (For example, it's common for people to mistakenly believe that "consensus" means "unanimity," and we certainly don't want people to think that they should seek unanimous agreement before editing a page.)
3. The policy applies to the entire site, not merely to the encyclopedia proper.
It's with the above in mind that I switched to the new version. Opinions? (There seemed to be support for the previous wording, so I wouldn't mind reverting to that or something close to it.) —David Levy 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The new version has its priorities incorrect regardless. It implies that you should ignore the rules only in those special cases when you have determined the rules to conflict with common sense, consensus, and encyclopedic content. Instead, the editor should simply use common sense, consensus, and encyclopedic content in the first place, without reference to the rules at all.

2. It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia:Consensus is labelled, whether it is labelled correctly or whether it is help understanding at all. Putting a reference to it here in the content of the policy subsumes IAR under a rule. It adds rules to IAR. Under that wording, someone is supposed to look to the rule page that they are supposed to ignore to decide whether they should ignore the rules.

3. The purpose of the site is the encyclopedia, and all maintenance and improvement is ultimately to that end. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Your version (and the longstanding version) advised readers to ignore the rules when they prevented users from "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." My version retains that sentiment while adding the "common sense" and "consensus" references to the pertinent statement (and stressing that they always are important). As I said, your version cited these only in the context of what to do when ignoring rules.

2. Ummmm...no. Linking to Wikipedia:Consensus merely helps people to understand the concept of consensus (just as linking to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines provides context without subsuming WP:IAR under that rule). I agree that the tag doesn't really matter (aside from the fact that it isn't some random essay), but you referred to it as a "guideline."

3. Yes, but referencing the encyclopedia in particular invites wikilawyering. ("This isn't an article, so you aren't allowed to ignore any rules on this page!") —David Levy 04:16/04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Centrx is quite right here. They should not have to read WP:CON. And I mean, honestly. We're concerned about Wikilawyering over "focus on the encyclopedia", but not over "consensus"? We're really shooting ourselves in the foot, given that the justification for clarifying IAR in the first place is supposed to be that it is misunderstood, misapplied, and abused. But we all know very well that good examples of misundertanding, misapplication, or outright rhetorical abuse of consensus are in even greater supply. We don't have to go much further than this talk page.

Let's make this page standalone and rely on plain english, like is done on the 12-word .... "consensus version". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. So...including the link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines means that people are required to read that page before ignoring rules?

2. Yes, the concept of consensus is often misunderstood, misapplied and abused. That's why linking to the policy that explains it is helpful.

3. Do you agree that consensus is highly relevant to WP:IAR? If so, would you object to including the word (plain English) without linking it to the policy page? If so, why? If not, how is it preferable to reference the concept without directing readers to the page that explains it? —David Levy 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The link to the "rules" is a reference to what is supposed to be ignored, and clarifies that all so-called "rules" can be ignored, but take it out if you want.

2. If someone wants to know about Wikipedia:Consensus, put it in the See also section.

3. Consensus is no more relevant to IAR than other policies, or Wikipedia:Five pillars. Consensus is dependent upon and does not exist without the basic principles of an encyclopedia, and if there should be a link to some basic page that qualifies IAR, it would be more properly to Wikipedia:Five pillars, but the whole point is that linking to rules that constrict IAR is a contradiction. Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Use common sense are all just as relevant, but we should not link to them as though IAR depended on them. —Centrx→talk • 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I don't want to take it out.

2. Sure, let's put the link in the "see also" section instead. That's fine.

3. As I've said, I prefer the twelve-word version. But if we're going to reference "consensus" (and it would be very nice to reach an acceptable compromise), it's important that readers be directed to the page on which the concept is explained. Otherwise, this addition might do more harm than good. —David Levy 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that bantering about what the wording implies is less important than choosing a wording that correctly identifies the spirit behind the rules. When someone says "The wording implies X," what is more accurately the case is "someone could read into this that it means X." I don't think it's productive to worry about people who misinterpret well-expressed policy. - Chardish 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there may in fact be two consensi concerning this page. One is for those editors who would actually rather not be editing such pol/pages, and rather not be spending hours reading comments about other comments about the commentary on policy. And there is another consensus, apparently, for those editors who seem ready to edit everything in sight, the more the merrier, and talk themselves into believing that "they who post oftenest win".

If that comment seems a little unkind, please bear in mind that"humour" is not banned from WP, and irony is allowed a person. So, this editor will continue to watch this page, but really, would rather be editing in mainspace, and not be re-re-reading proposals about proposals etc. that, in the main, simply sprout words that just echo, and echo, repeat, ditto. Which of these consensuses is secondary, who knows, and if there is a secondary, which then is primary?

That having been said, the current version looks reasonable enough, I wont quote it, as its likely to be changed by the time I finish typing this post. And User:Centrx has a good point; IAR is ignore rules, so "more rules" being added to the page is a non sequeter.Newbyguesses - Talk 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chardish' "Triple c" rewording

Nice. I like it. --User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's easy for new editors to understand. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We lost "maintain" again.  :( —David Levy 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it in. I wonder if this version will stick... —David Levy 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops; my mistake. I knew it felt like I was forgetting something. Anyway, I'm glad you all like it! - Chardish 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 said that the current version deviates from what the policy means; I disagree - after all, Jimbo says it's designed to prevent wikilawyering, and you can't prevent wikilawyering unless you say that common sense and consensus can trump the rules. - Chardish 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Version storage created

Seems there are 3 or 4 competing versions for this policy. I am new to this discussion and I am having trouble figuring out what is going on. I have created an Info box above the archive box with links to archived copies of the various versions that seem to have gotten some traction. My main intent is to help newcomers to this discussion. However, the talk pages on these archived copies could also be used for fleshing out a particular version. —WikiLen 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fork the policy into "competing versions" in the article namespace. There are far too many variants to list, and all of them already are stored in the revision history (so feel free to link to your favorites). —David Levy 18:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on suggesting forking of talk. All I really want is a way for newcomers to easily see what is at issue. For example, what is the 12-word-version? The "Chardish' 'Triple c' version" was not obvious either and it was a while before I discovered the "expanded version." For newcomers: (WikiLen)

• 12 word version

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

• Chardish' "Triple c" version

When you edit Wikipedia:

* Follow consensus.

* Improve and maintain content.

* Use common sense.

If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them.

• Centrx's version

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Use common sense, follow consensus, and focus on encyclopedic content.

• Expanded version

Too long to post here — see this old revision of the page.

I believe I have the most recent edition of all of these, as of this date. —WikiLen 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good grief

There is no reason to over-specify or over-explain IAR. We already have a page for that. The 12 word version is best. We are explaining to death something that does not need explaining. [1]

• Common sense is common sense. There is no common sense. The 12 word version is common sense!
• "Content" is an ambiguous and vacant term. There is a lot more to Wikipedia than "content".
• Consensus, while of the utmost importance, must occasionally be challenged. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that groupthink and "wiki-panics" never occur, and no groups here, even small ones, ever make collective errors. In any case, IAR is one of the five pillars, and all of this other stuff is elucidated quite well on that page, which gives the proper context of IAR. No need to be redundant here. heqs ·:. 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at other policies on Wikipedia. Note how they all explain themselves quite well, even though the policy itself could be summed up in a paragraph. This aids understanding for new editors. Anyway, let's look at your points: 1) There is "common sense", despite what that essay you linked to says. If an particular course of action has more than a niche opposition, it's common sense. I don't think there should be some metric for determining how large of a consensus constitutes "common sense," because I think it's common sense what common sense is. Furthermore, the twelve-word version is not common sense - a large number of editors have expressed that it is unnecessarily arcane. (Never mind the fact that your two arguments there contradict each other.) 2) Content is hardly an ambiguous term - talk pages and process pages are not content; everything else is. 3) There are some circumstances where consensus should be ignored, yes, but that's why ArbCom exists. 4) This page should give the proper context of IAR; editors shouldn't have to do research to locate it. If there is fault of redundancy, it is in the other pages that talk about IAR. - Chardish 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I disagree. Common sense is far too subjective, as explained in that essay.
2. Does IAR never apply to process and talk? Ignore all rules means ignore all rules. Not some of them, in some places, some of the time, but whenever "they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia."
3. That seems rather legalistic and arcane. Plenty of anti-consensus actions and issues resolve themselves well before arbitration.
4. IAR is a foil. I wouldn't characterize the 12 word version as arcane so much as unique. If there is one policy that should not have to explain itself, this is it. Apply IAR to IAR. Let's not neuter it by wrapping it policy-speak. heqs ·:. 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How has the longstanding wording of this policy failed us in the past? Sancho 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Through hundreds, if not thousands of editors failing to understand what IAR means. - Chardish 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, what were some specific results? Were the problems resolved without rewording of this policy? I don't have the most experience, so I'm a little ignorant in this area, but I haven't seen an inappropriate application of IAR that wasn't quickly corrected by consensus. Sancho 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually true. IAR is commonly used as a way for experienced editors to win arguments against newer editors. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. From time to time, I check the "What links here" tab and correct some seriously egregious misapplications of IAR. The new wording stops that from happening. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may add to what Rockstar said: Confusion caused by a policy is itself a problem, even if there is no lasting damage in the article space. This confusion requires editors to spend their time explaining policy, tradition, and process, and reverting erroneous judgments, rather than focusing on building the encyclopedia. For that reason, confusing policy should be clarified whenever possible. - Chardish 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules ...

From Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Perhaps the wording of this policy should refer to the five general principles? Sancho 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're ignoring them and following the spirit of IAR, who cares if they're firm? ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess no-one :-). It just seems that ignore all rules really means ignore all rules, but not these five principles... that's what I was trying to say. But yeah, the spirit of the rule would have us still follow the five principles anyway. Sancho 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules doesn't necessarily mean they we can ignore all rules, but rather that we can ignore them if they're preventive us from improving Wikipedia. That said, the rules are necessary to keeping some sort of stability to the project. Because of this, then, the rules, by nature, cannot be firm as they are evolving with the project. The Five Pillars are reaffirming a section of IAR, not the concept as a whole. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page randomization

I have a feeling a lot of you won't take this suggestion seriously, but I think it would be an interesting choice. What we do is, we put all of these different versions of IAR on subpages, and then we make IAR randomized to display one of these links (the effect would be this, though each page would be transcluded). We also put a link to edit that version on it, and each version can grow semi-independently and either coalesce into a unified idea of what IAR is or become contradictory. The only real difference is that instead of changing the page every day (with a lot of petty arguing), its changes every pageload (with less petty arguing, hopefully). So everyone wins. Or everyone loses. At least this perpetual bicker machine is put to a rest. Atropos 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What I love about this suggestion is that there's no practical difference between your proposal and how the page is now. Every time I check it on my watchlist I'm greeted by a totally different version. I so happen to have a particular version which I favour over all the others... but would prefer a stable version I'm not totally fond of, rather than it changing all the time. --Deskana (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It's not as if the fate of the wiki depends on this page being kept in the most finely tuned form possible, and it's not as if we're converging to that goal, anyway. All of these versions have their points; let's just stop arguing over what color the bike shed should be, already. The instability is worse than any version on the table. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. POV-forking is not the answer (and certainly would lead to a great deal of confusion).

What frustrates me the most is that some of us from both the "let's leave it at twelve words" camp and the "let's make it long" camp are willing to settle on a compromise version, but even that isn't working out. It's somewhat surreal to experience disappointment when I see that someone has reverted to the version that I prefer. —David Levy 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can agree to a ceasefire without having the page protected? I guess random people will still come along and add stuff. We can't prevent the page from being edited, so how can we get it to be reasonably stable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonably stable at the moment. Though I think it's very, very sad that 48 hours without a complete rewrite or a reversion makes me feel like it's "reasonably stable." - Chardish 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the issue of whether or not to include a link to Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm concerned that its absence will lead to problems when people misinterpret the term's meaning upon reading it in the policy proper. —David Levy 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I say just drop the bloody word. And for the record, the 48 hours is impressive, but it also happens to cover a weekend... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dummy edits?

Why are you guys having a conversation in edit summaries of dummy edits? Why not use the talk page? Is it just impossible to look at the page without hitting "edit"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am using the talk page. Dummy edits are useful to convey information to people who saw earlier edit summaries but might not see the talk page. —David Levy 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true; you are. I'm sorry to imply that you aren't. It's still frustrating to see conversations going on in the edit summary at the precise same time that we're lamenting the page's instability on the talk page. Anybody with the page on their watchlist also has the talk page on their watchlist, unless there's some way to separate them that I don't know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to view only pages from specific namespaces on one's watchlist, but that isn't my primary concern. My primary concern is that people will read a particular summary in the project page's revision history and not read the corresponding talk page comments (possibly leading them to edit the project page in a manner that they otherwise wouldn't). —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dummy edits also make the page history less useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They can provide context that otherwise would be buried in talk page archives. Such context often is provided via the summaries that accompany reversions, and this is an alternative that accomplishes the same task without fueling edit wars. —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but don't we regularly discourage it in article editing? I hadn't thought of using them purely to place information in the history. Interesting... Off topic, too, I suppose... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, talk pages suck. If the article history had a facility for leaving longer comments, I'd use that entirely and never use the talk page. But that's a whole other rant. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I find them pretty useful, as long as people know to use them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what this page needed, another viewpoint

See #Version storage created, above, for the versions referenced here.

For what little it's worth, I favor the "Triple C" version, or something similar to it. I also like the 12-word version but agree that it fails to emphasize civility (or at least community).

The "long version" is wrong because IAR can never be truly conveyed by adding extra words. IAR embodies a sophisticated contradiction which becomes less clear the more you try to explain it. A link to "What IAR means" is fine for those who want some pointers on how to interpret it, but there's no way we can fully enumerate IAR, and trying to do so just gives the wrong impression that it is a rule of finite scope. In fact, it is the only rule on Wikipedia of infinite scope -- it transcends all the others.

If nothing else, the long version is basically a duplication of "What IAR means", but less well-written.--Father Goose 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If twenty or more words are used on the IAR page, then they can easily serve as plain text, with no unnecessary italics, bolding, or dot points. This was contributed four or five edits ago, and makes the most of such an approach.

<

Show consideration for others, use common sense, and focus on improving and maintaining content. If the 'rules' prevent any of this, ignore them.

>

It is concise, comes to a point, and captures the spirit of the perennial twelve worded IAR statement. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullet points aid in clarity of reading. The above version features a borderline run-on sentence. Nowhere is it written that IAR must fit on one line of text. - Chardish 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What borderline sentence, and which rule 'rules' it out?! Its straight-forward English. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence, which contains 3 independent clauses, is almost a run-on sentence. Nothing rules out having a concise wording, but the current (3-bullet wording) is plenty concise and does not come at the expense of readability. My final comment was intended to mean that it is not necessary that IAR fit on one line of text, not that such a treatment would be forbidden. - Chardish 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it works nicely with bullets or without. It is the words in these versions that I embrace.--Father Goose 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Established as consensus?

Consensus so far is limited to

• This policy is meant to apply in situations where rules are wrong. "where rules are simply wrong". —quoting Jimbo (WikiLen) //quote fragment taken out of context, see below heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• This policy is not meant as a means for overriding consensus. (WikiLen) //Will have to move it to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules except consensus then heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Current policy does not do enough to encourage civility. (WikiLen) //Please be more specific heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know... is it correct that there is a consensus that the 12 word version no longer meets the needs of the community and the need it does not meet involves civility? —WikiLen 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus version, as attested by numerous users in recent posts, is If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. One sentence, twelve words. The version on the page at the time of this post is a compromise version, since some editor(s) keep adding something on to IAR, talk, wait a little, then add it back again and again till it stays. The particular version, with consensus, and their opinions, and other paraphenalia of no particular import, is an inferior version, many would agree, but in the interests of stability, it stays, as long as there are no more spurious additions, particularly to the 'See Also's. Posted by/at Newbyguesses - Talk 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In contention

• Utmost brevity is essential for this policy.
• Utmost clarity is essential for this policy - it should explain itself.

As I understand it: (WikiLen 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

For those new, consensus holds also, since at least this diff, 11 June 2007, for the See also item: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, (which expands on, "What 'Ignore all rules' means"). — Newbyguesses - Talk 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged your words a little bit. I think that brevity is a good thing, but brevity should not come at the expense of requiring other pages to explain the policy. - Chardish 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not hold on this version. You have quoted Jimbo out of context and completely mis-framed the debate.

In terms of IAR, it is policy because it has always been policy, not just because of me saying so. It was one of our first rules, and I consider it foundational. We have a huge huge problem with people who do not get that rules-lawyering is bad, that basically being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia. So I think this policy is important and furthermore than it causes no problems... certainly it preserves a healthy space for bold action in cases where pretty much anyone can see what the right thing to do is, policy or no policy.

I would support a rewrite and rewording of sorts, so long as it doesn't attempt to change policy but rather attempts to be more explanatory. For example, I liked the old old version which said that if rules make you nervous and depressed, ignore them. Versions which suggest that the meaning is simply that the rules don't cover every possible situation don't seem to me to go far enough, since we also want to cover the situation where the rules are simply wrong.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What we have now is a version that does just that. It contradicts the very title and spirit of the policy. It is no longer "ignore all rules", it is "ignore some rules". Instead of standing on its own as one of the five pillars, it is essentially neutered. IAR is a foil against all rules in those situations when they may be broken/wrong. We are going around in circles here. It's time to restore the 12 words of wisdom. heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

frm-Wikipedia:Five pillars < Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Find consensus; avoid edit wars >

frm- Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset < When in doubt, take it to the talk page >

frm- Wikipedia:List of policies <Most editing decisions are made by a continually evolving rough consensus among editors >

This covers it; it is unproductive to add rules to IAR. Read WIARM instead.

No consensus existed currently on this talkpage to add extra rules to the page, in particular, no case has been mounted nor prevails to add the unnecessary extra reference to "Consensus" in the See Also. (And it has been removed by a user.) Read any part of the talkpage one cares to, assertions to the contrary in edit summaries to the contrary do not withstand scrutiny — Newbyguesses - Talk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And just now removed by this user:Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

...as I was typing my reply here. The link's presence merely reflects the current version of the policy proper. I personally prefer the twelve-word version, but if we're going to reference "consensus," it's important that we link to the page on which the concept is explained. Otherwise, people will impose all sorts of incorrect interpretations. I don't understand why you've left the rewrite intact while removing the supplemental link intended to mitigate its potential harm. —David Levy 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a big deal? I mean, if somebody clicks through to the explanation page, "consensus" is linked there. It's not as if the consensus page is a secret, and anybody reading this page isn't far from that one. It's not as if people aren't more than happy to provide a link to those who don't find it on their own. The page is fine, with or without the consensus link. We've reached a point where stability is more important than the differences we're still debating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please please please please PLEASE add your comments as separate items, instead of editing what someone else wrote. Not only does it make it seem like you're editing their words, but it makes it difficult to determine who wrote what. I don't even know who to direct this to, since it seems like more than one person has done it in this section alone. - Chardish 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus (2)

This should probably not be referenced, for the reasons given in the "more changes" section above. Including a link to WP:CON does not mitigate the problem much. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to me that the folks above said that a link to WP:CONSENSUS ought to be in the "See Also" section... maybe we should add it there? Adding a link brings up an interesting question, though. The rules are technically consensus-driven (like every other page in Wikipedia), so ignoring them would technically be going against consensus. Because IAR, then, is granting the ability to act against consensus in certain occasions, consensus can obviously be wrong at times and I can easily see the argument as to why WP:CONSENSUS ought not be linked on the IAR page. All that said, it worries me to not include a link to WP:CONSENSUS, simply due to the amount of times I've seen IAR used in an anti-consensus, unilateral action. Maybe we should link to WP:CCC? Interesting problem, though. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We can find examples of "consensus" being misused as well. And on this talk page at that. So if abuse is our justification for changing IAR, then we've just undermined it. We could link to WP:CON to explain what we really mean. But if people don't read it and they're in the same situation as if we didn't link it. If they do read it, then we've made them feel compelled them to read this long document before contributing.

And let's be honest, it's not exactly easy reading. Right now, the nutshell occurs after three paragraphs. It reads "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Consensus in Wikipedia discussion always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice." I'm sorry, I hate required reading lists to begin with. How do you think I feel about a required reading list with THIS on it?

Finally, WP:CON is already policy, and the abuses of the word "consensus" occur anyway, so what exactly do we think we will accomplish? If what we're trying to say is that "being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia" as Jimbo called it, then let's say something to that effect. Such a statement would have to be in english and stand on its own. That sort of thing will probably as clear and correct as we're going to get. The best we can hope for with something about building or following consensus is something unclear, and at worst something which is wrong. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You do have a good point, and I think it's very troubling that "consensus" is used (or abused) for POV pushing. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be strong support for the "bulleted list" version, so I reverted to that, but I replaced the one about consensus with Abu-Fool's "be considerate" wording in order to address these concerns. - Chardish 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the present wording [2], or some near variation of it. I removed the bolding; the policy trifecta is useful, but "ignore all rules" is still the point that should be emphasized.--Father Goose 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Switched to italics. The "three C's" are at the heart of this policy, and they should stand out in some fashion. - Chardish 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The italics are okay. But saying that the "three Cs" are the heart of this policy is... odd.--Father Goose 23:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the fact that you can ignore the rules should be the heart of the policy, not the "disclaimers" --PopUpPirate 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The current wording seems to have a lot of extraneous stuff added. This is the problem with trying to explain the policy: it loses balance when you shovel in your own ideas about how Wikipedia works. The earlier brief formulations were much better. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to an earlier formulation. In my opinion the earlier version has the signal advantage that, unlike this recent proposal, it clearly counsels that we ignore rules that get in the way of improving Wikipedia. The recent proposal is really just an exercise in imposing meta-rules in disguise: in particular the meta-rule that one should be "considerate" of other editors. While this is important, it dilutes the message that the quality of Wikipedia is of paramount importance. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your revert. Consideration to others is a key principle here. I'll support any version where that principle is prominent. I'm not particular about the common sense part. Haukur 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important principle on Wikipedia. However when introduced into this policy it amounts to instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say I'm an editor who's here to improve Wikipedia by inserting my views. I'm not aware that I'm biased, and all these other people keep quoting rules which are just getting in the way of my improving Wikipedia, so I ignore them. But I've been offered bad advice.

"Improve the content" is the core goal, and it should be kept that simple. But we must also mention the core mechanism: collaborate. The "common sense" line is probably superfluous.--Father Goose 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but it is a fact of life that if you ignore the rules there will be editors who falsely believe that the rules must be put first (see Process is important for instance). If you ignore a rule, in the eyes of at least some of these people you will have failed to respect their views, by acting on a vision of Wikipedia (which is supposed to be embodied by this policy) that differs from their conception.

It is for this reason that this statement of Wikipedia's most important policy must be kept as simple and as hard to misinterpret as possible.

Now I'll address your point. Yes, following ignore all rules does not guarantee that you'll obtain consensus that your edits are in fact improvements. This is not a problem with Ignore all rules any more than it is a problem with the Three Revert Rule that sometimes people observing that latter rule are still blocked because of their disruptive editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about simplicity and avoiding misinterpretation. That's one of the reasons why I'm an advocate for mentioning "other editors" in some form -- with as few words as possible. It shouldn't say anything improperly specific, but "ignore all rules" should never open the door to "ignore others".

I hope the alternative I put forward: "If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve and maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." is still satisfactory to you. I changed "the rules" to "any rule" to avoid a potential ambiguity at the end of the sentence -- "ignore them [other editors]".--Father Goose 20:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it can be read as deprecating bold edits--which more than anything else embody the spirit of this policy. The right combination of simplicity and clarity really is hard to find, and I suggest that my last edit (restoring one of the two classical formulations) was about as close as we could get in this lifetime.

Making a single bold edit is not incompatible with collaboration. It's a bit of a shame that somehow we've lost sight of the fact that the engine of our collaborative editing system is thousands of individual editors, each acting alone and without reference to the rules and without bothering to ask permission for each and every edit he makes. All edits are reversible so ignore all rules works. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the wording in question interferes with Wikipedia:Be bold. As you said, "making a single bold edit is not incompatible with collaboration." So where is the conflict? —David Levy 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in the use of the phrase "working with others" before the clause "to improve and maintain Wikipedia". Be bold encourages and emphasizes solo experimentation, while the sole effect of this addition is to provide scope for wikilawyering about whether a bold editor is in practice "working with others" (I'd say he obviously isn't, he's quite correctly sticking his neck out to see what happens). No, if we remove the term "working with others" we have something close to the classic formulation:

If any rule prevents you from improving and maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

And with the added advantage of resistance to wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this wording, though I prefer the "a" version to the "any" version. It just seems to flow better and comes across as more natural (IMHO). —David Levy 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Working with others" doesn't discourage boldness in the least. If it were linked to WP:CONSENSUS, then it would, and I would revert the addition of such a link. "Working with others to improve..." conveys "this is our common project", not "don't do anything alone".

I prefer 'any' to 'a'; I think it better reflects "ignore all rules". However, both are fine.--Father Goose 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with "working with others" on the grounds that we can easily kick holes in the arguments of anybody who tries to wikilawyer about this policy. But it's best not to give the wikilawyers any quarter. That's what this policy is all about: keeping the wikilawyers at bay. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I actually agree with that: keep the wikilawyers at bay. Without at least a little mention of collaboration, it's possible to wikilawyer it as "I'm improving Wikipedia and that gives me free license." From individual rules, yes. From the community as a whole, no. The rules are ultimately less important than the community, which is one of the reasons IAR exists.--Father Goose 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it cuts both ways. It's only because the "Process is important" people tend to be more bureaucratic and entrenched (I can honestly imagine some people seriously asking if someone consulted with others before performing a bold edit under ignore all rules!) that I favored removal of that clause, and if it makes some people happy to have a mention of collaboration it's not so bad in your formulation. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying "use common sense" is stupid.

Common sense is far too easy to invoke. Even more than the old wording, telling people to use common sense makes this a license for saying "I'm gonna do whatever I damn well want and you can't do anything about it." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it more or less equivalent to saying "use your head" or "be thoughtful". Normally this goes without saying, but in this context, I think it says, "If, in using your head, you find a rule to be wrong, ignore it." This is important because Wikipedia functions on the strength of our heads, not on the strength of its rules.--Father Goose 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If an idea is reasonably contestable, it's not supported by common sense. - Chardish 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a problem here. It is perfectly possible for a person who makes a bold, commonsense edit to be overruled by later reasoning. This policy has never said "if someone ignores the rules, you mustn't ever revert his edits." It just says "if you think the rules are getting in the way, ignore them." What comes afterwards is exactly the same as if an editor made an edit believing it to be within every rule we've got. No edit on Wikipedia is final and impossible to challenge.

One way of restating this policy is thus:

Just because one person's notion of commonsense may differ from another person's, doesn't mean that we must forbid editors to use commonsense. If you think you can improve Wikipedia but the rules seem to be against it, don't let the rules get in the way.

--Tony Sidaway 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We ignore the rules

Tony's new version is: "We ignore the rules if they prevent us from working together to improve and maintain Wikipedia." I actually think that's a pretty good way to put it. For one thing the language has a vigorous feel to it, unlike some of the more stilted constructions we've had. I don't see any ambiguities or grammatical fine points to straighten out. For another thing I've said I'll support any version which gives prominence to the idea that working with other people is what this is all about. This one does that quite well. I still think "improve and maintain" is unnecessarily legalistic and that "improve" would be quite sufficient on its own but I know some people feel the "and maintain" part is important so I won't complain. Haukur 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not especially attached to "and maintain" either but if people like it that's okay. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now we're really getting somewhere. "And maintain" is optional in my eyes as well, but I'm happy with anything in this territory. What the heck -- since this is a bold day, I'll remove it, but I won't complain if it comes back.--Father Goose 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw, nuts, yours got reverted, and I don't want to do another revert today. I support it over mine, though, especially without the "and maintain". But all of these versions from today are pretty good.--Father Goose 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The "maintain" part is very important; it's common for people to believe that it's necessary to perform an edit purely for the sake of complying with the letter (rather than the spirit) of a rule, even when this reduces Wikipedia's quality. In such cases, the correct application of IAR doesn't improve Wikipedia, but it enables us to maintain the superior status quo.

Before "maintain" was added, I actually encountered the argument that IAR only applied to improvement (and not maintenance). The policy is supposed to prevent wikilawyering, not encourage it. —David Levy 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. No single individual can possibly hope to improve and maintain Wikipedia all on their own; collaboration is implicit in this wiki, but bold editors are encouraged. (Improvements still have to meet consensus, or survive criticism.) The plural "rules" is better here, because rules can conflict, causing an IAR situation. Putting singular "ignore a rule" could imply that ignoring one particular rule could then become habitual, rather than being a particular solution in a particular situation. The classic formulation says all that needs to be said, and says it so well. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my preferred wording as well, but I'm willing to compromise. —David Levy 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seemed like most people liked the "3 C's" version before Tony reverted to the old version again. Rather than revive the months-long debate about the best way to phrase it as a single sentence, I restored the 3 C's version. We were doing so well here, people. - Chardish 07:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. We've been doing well in the past couple of days when we've collaborated to improve the wording. Adding "working with others," for example, tightened and improved the wording, and was done in the IAR spirit. Ergo, there is no apparent need or call to revert back to the different, obviously currently non-consensus version. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the people who supported the 3Cs, but mostly because it was reasonably short, and it included the critical mention of the need to cooperate. Following Tony's revert I reexamined it and decided that the same could be accomplished with far fewer words.

I agree with Newbyguesses that "the rules" is better than "a rule", which is why I finally settled upon this wording. I like Tony's change to it as well.--Father Goose 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, that wording seems to say, "if you encounter a problem with the rules, ignore all of them (en masse) from that point on." —David Levy 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Three alternatives, then:

Ignore rules if they prevent you from working with others to improve and maintain Wikipedia.

Ignore any rule that prevents you from working with others to improve and maintain Wikipedia.

Rule bad! Friend good!

I'm partial to the second one.--Father Goose 08:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording ("If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it.").

The problem with the above [serious] suggestions is that they appear to imply that some of the rules are bad and should be ignored permanently. The current wording, conversely, advises users to ignore a rule if and when it prevents them from working with others to improve and maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy box

Can we please remove the text in the policy box about how the wording is subject to significant disagreements? Welcome to Wikipedia -- policy pages have edit wars, and IAR is no different -- just look at BLP, WP:V, etc. Just because someone disagrees with wording does not mean that we need to make a note saying "people disagree with the wording." Wikis are organic, disagreements happen, and adding that kind wording just makes us all sound stupid and like we don't understand the meaning of a Wiki. Let's think about this -- hundreds of thousands of Wiki pages are subject to disagreement. There is no need to single out IAR. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the text in question. It's impossible to please everyone with a policy's exact wording, so it always can be assumed that some degree of disagreement exists. In fact, the policy's current wording isn't my first choice, but compromise is part of building a wiki. —David Levy 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks, David -- I appreciate it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Unignorable Rule

If someone adds a reasoanble explanation to this page, revert it. >Radiant< 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to bold "revert it." ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert this page, over and over again, until it matches the exact wording you prefer. Nitpick obsessively over things like plural nouns and whether or not we should wiki-link the words. If consensus seems to be against you, wait a week before reverting, hoping that no one notices. - Chardish 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're thinking of How to edit an article.--Father Goose 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you say that when it's not been reverted for well over 48 hours... --Deskana (banana) 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the events of the past two months, I'd say that's hardly an accomplishment. I personally liked the "3 c's" bulleted list, which stayed for a few weeks, until Tony Sidaway decided to revert it to his favorite version, and then the revert/edit/nitpick war started all over again. I would support a reversion to the 3 c's version, because the current process seems to involve various people obsessively removing parts of the policy they don't like until we arrive at the same "12 word version" (or something stylistically equivalent), which is close to worthless. - Chardish 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, screw it. I'm reverting. No sense bickering over a short form when the bulleted list explains everything as clearly and non-controversially as possible. - Chardish 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chardish, do you honestly believe that your unilateral reversions to your favorite version are more defensible than Tony's? —David Levy 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we were all happy with the "working with others" version... what happened to that? Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Chardish 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the one who says it, but that monosyllabic response won't win you many supporters. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really just don't feel like getting back into this. I feel like I've invested a ton of myself already into trying to come up with better versions and compromises, and they eventually just wind up getting swept away or reverted by people who stalk the page even more than I do. At this point I would be happy with Jimbo coming in and declaring how this page should be worded, then permanently protecting it. Process has utterly failed us. - Chardish 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with putting in a lot of work only to have it not gain favor, but I would still like to praise you for helping to get the highly-important mention of community in the policy (hopefully it will remain there). The exact wording doesn't matter, just as long as the message is good.--Father Goose 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Because people disagree that your preferred version is "better"? Has it occurred to you that this might be a reasonable difference of opinion (and not a systemic failure or injustice)? —David Levy 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Or simply the way a Wiki works? It is by nature a collaborative process, so there's no need to get upset or feel like you're the only one carrying the burden. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for last night's revert; I was angry at the failure of process that I see happening. What it feels like the "process" now involves is one person's unilateral reversion, then a long series of nitpicky edits, and then a semi-stable version that sticks around for a while, then repeat. The issue that I see with this is that this page is not something that should be mutable once there's a consensus on what the policy represents. What's going on now is an endless, incessant debate over wording, which will likely end in whittling the policy down to a koan again. David Levy, I feel like your comment was in good faith but please do not use scare quotes in future discussion. : ) - Chardish 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard those as scare quotes. I wasn't being sarcastic, and you certainly seemed to be declaring that your preferred version is "better" (your word) and that our failure to embrace it means that "process has utterly failed us." —David Levy 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully speaking, you are missing the point. Process fails us when debate over a single sentence lasts for months, with no end in sight. - Chardish 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but didn't your unilateral reversions fuel the very debate that you deride? As far as I can tell, the only distinction is that your version is "better." —David Levy 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in continuing to criticize me for an action I apologized for. - Chardish 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention. I was addressing your criticism of me by explaining the reasoning behind my previous (pre-apology) comments. —David Levy 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No one should notice

Rockstar, I don't really take issue with the reversion, but I wonder what you mean about the edit comment that 'no one should notice' is someone ignores a rule....um....I'm not quite sure how this is logically possible. If you know the rules, you're going to know if someone is ignoring one, no? CaveatLector^Talk 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rockstar was referring to this suggested line: "tell your fellow editors why you believe the rule should not apply in this case". That turns "ignore all rules" into "only break rules when you provide an explanation first", which is no good. One must be free to break a rule that is simply wrong for the given situation, without having to apologize for it. It also wrecks an important secondary meaning of IAR: "You don't have to know what the rules are at all, just edit in good faith." (Mind you, that secondary meaning should not be thought of as the entire meaning.)--Father Goose 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologizing is not the same thing as explaining. If your action was not wrong, you don't need to apologize for it, of course. But if it's disputed, you do need to justify it, and common courtesy would be to justify it beforehand if you know someone will dispute it. If your best argument for ignoring a rule is WP:IAR, then you are applying it incorrectly. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That line still requires one to explain rule ignorations (uh?) that aren't likely to be disputed. In either case, it goes against BRD. Act first, explain later.--Father Goose 05:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... If something is a rule, those who created the rule are almost certain to dispute ignoring it. BRD is not binding, so we need not tailor policy to make it work. And it doesn't actually say "act first, explain later"; an initial explanation is required. It's discussion that can take place later. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Those who create a rule are not going to see most instances of it being ignored. Those who do notice might or might not agree with the rule, or the choice to ignore it. BRD does say act first, explain later: #1 - make the change... #3 - explain and discuss. BRD is not 'binding', as you say, but what it expresses is pretty fundamental to editing Wikipedia.--Father Goose 06:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One generally uses an edit summary, which contains some explanation of what's going on. If someone happens to notice and point out that a rule was broken, further discussion goes on, as Father Goose describes, referring to BRD. I don't think most people who "create rules" (I might dispute that description of the activity) worry much about policing and enforcing them, because ideally, they don't think of them according to that kind of paradigm at all. The more descriptively the "rules" are written, the clearer this is.

I'm a bit suspicious of the classification of pages as "binding" or not... that implies a whole structure that doesn't really exist. One doesn't ask whether the wind and rain is "binding", but one gets canyons eventually; Wikipedia should be a natural process. It's just people writing an encyclopedia, not some kind of formal system.

One could understand "Ignore all rules" as "there are no rules, just a lot of people working. Work with them and you'll be fine." -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Amend all rules"

Ignore all rules was relevant 2 years back when rules were not stable, contradicting and not structured. Now all rules are in order and we can drop this policy, which says to ignore itself.

But wikipedia is unique system where anybody can amend any rules. So move this policy to "Amend all rules" with content like as mentioned below. Wikipedia is keeps changing with time, so even rules will change, including this rule. Lara_bran 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

---

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

While changing take care to see that rules don't contradict themselves.

---

I see no valid reason to replace a fundamental policy with one that means something entirely different.

We needn't waste our time jumping through hoops to codify changes to rules that usually work; in the minority of situations in which they don't make sense, we simply ignore them and concentrate on improving and maintaining Wikipedia.

We also don't require new editors to learn all of the rules (let alone amend them) before editing.

The principle behind IAR always will be crucial to the wiki's continued operation. —David Levy 11:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew "We also don't require new editors to learn all of the rules (let alone amend them) before editing." would be defenders excuse(dont take this harsh). Nobody needs to go through entire rules to abide by them, no rule in real world states that. Absence of WP:IAR DOES NOT imply(in noway) quoted sentence, which i had seen in essay "what ignore all rule means". Quoted sentence can be added in set of rules, dont put forward this as excuse. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making excuses. I was attempting to respectfully address your proposal instead of rudely telling you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Evidently, I was wasting my time. —David Levy 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them amend them. You know, I can think of at least one editor who tried doing this in order to justify a spate of edits he'd made. He ended up being blocked. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

let me explain logically

You are citizen of USA, you dont know all the rules of nation. But you will live your lifetime happily. It applies not just to you, no one knows "every" law. But law clearly states "ignorance of law is not an excuse."
Now, you enter an army's prohibited area unknowingly and you may be shot dead on sight. Law states that "you may be shot on sight". If gunman there feels you are completely harmless(you are naked with no weapons, you cant hide weapon inside clothes) he may not shoot you. If he shoots or not, in both cases law is not violated nor ignored.
But if you jump a red signal(and you are caught) "you will be fined $10", no excuse.

You enter army prohibited area You make repeated disruption/harm	You may be shot dead you may be banned for 1 year.
You jump a red signal You violate WP:3RR and continue edits	You will be fined $10 You will be blocked.

This will or may depends on both violation and implications. But having WP:IAR makes everything a may. And thus WP:IAR does not imply that your newcomers quote which is mentioned in essay, it is hardly related to that. On top of that this rules suggests to ignore not just unknowing law, also to very well known laws. Also depending on situations, many will think something as right in the reflex to situation. This is just pointing towards anarchy. Lara_bran 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been in operation for some years now. And yet, WP:IAR has not led to anarchy. The system works; there's no need to address a weakness which demonstrably doesn't exist, especially not when it leads to losing the advantages afforded by this fundamental policy. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agre with Mark; I would also add a comment or two. "On top of that this rules suggests to ignore not just unknowing law, also to very well known laws." Wikipedia hasn't got "laws". It's very misleading to think of our policies and guidelines that way. It's not that we've got a formal rule system that's undermined by IAR; the point of IAR is that we don't have a formal rule system to undermine.

In response to "having IAR makes everything a may," to the extent that's true, it's also perfectly ok. Of course everything is a may. Nothing's certain but death and taxes. Just like with red lights (where officers always have the discretion not to write you a ticket), we don't have to "enforce" 3RR everytime somebody makes four reverts in a day. In fact, our blocks are explicitly preventative rather than punitive, so if it's clear that somebody has stopped edit warring, there's no need to block them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any exceptional situations that may arise can be addressed in individual rules, we need not have wholesale crippling of rules. Thanks. Lara_bran 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, Wikipedia has been working fairly well for a few years now, without having firm rules. Suggestions that we need firm rules will probably be met with questions of "What problem are you trying to solve?" IAR means that improving the encyclopedia is more important than following a set of rules. This works well. IAR also means that we recognize that our rule set is not perfect and will probably never cover all conceivable situations. This also works well. In my experience, folks who insist on rigidly following rules frequently tend to be disruptive and/or difficult to work with, and we certainly don't want to encourage this.

Comparisons to real-world legal systems are tricky at best, as we're making an encyclopedia, not a system of law, but even in real life, there's some room in the rules for human judgment. In real-world law enforcement, everyone from the cop on the street, to the district attorneys, to judges, and even executives all have opportunities to use their discretion in enforcing the rules. This is useful because even with the best-written law in the world, there is no substitute for a human using reasonable judgment in interpreting and enforcing it. Friday (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so. What IAR expresses is "there are more important things than the rules". The change Lara bran is proposing changes that to "do everything through the rules". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Nor is it a battleground, which is what we're busy battling over at this time. Heheheh.--Father Goose 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most things are important than rules, rules do only maintenance of law and order. Also rules by themselves need to be in order, which is fundamental thing regards to rules, this problem im trying to solve. But nobody raised why move why not stop and create new.

Why move

WP:IAR encourages to be bold and assumes a lot of good faith in everyone, we should understand the spirit behind supporters of this rule. When we say goodbye to something we should not let the spirit go. Wikipedia:Amend all rules will carry forward same spirit, as this will assume same things. Lara_bran 06:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, "amend all rules" means something entirely different. It suggests that following the rules is necessary to improve Wikipedia, and it isn't. - Chardish 13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

People can edit the "rules" pages as they see fit. Nothing prevents this. When an exception to a given rule becomes sufficiently common, and explanation of the exceptions oftens ends up being noted in the page that describes the rule. Still don't see a problem being solved here. Friday (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your (Lara's) comments make it clear that you don't understand the spirit of Ignore all rules in the same way that most others contributing here do. Re-read What ignore all rules means, and consider how your proposed change would eliminate at least half of what it says. In particular:

• "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing." Your proposal does not embody this.
• "WikiLawyering doesn't work." Your proposal seems to broaden this into "WikiLegislate to get anything done."
• "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both." This is the crux of IAR, and the antithesis of "Amend all rules".
• "Following the rules is less important than using good judgement and being thoughtful and considerate." Your proposal makes the rules of greater importance than good judgement.

One of the things you seem to misunderstand is that IAR is not a mechanism for wholesale crippling of rules. It's a mechanism for keeping rules from crippling what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated. That is IAR. Nothing else is.--Father Goose 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Goose, can we just take that last post of yours, as-is, and make it the text of the policy? :D - Chardish 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I copyedited it and added it as a "summary" of IAR to WP:WIARM, which was probably needed anyway. Let's see how that's taken.--Father Goose 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly said that this point

• "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing." Your proposal does not embody this.

is nothing but a first "excuse", not a valid reason for WP:IAR. Rules will be such that they wont interfere contribution of new users. Do you know all rules of USA? But rules hardly interfere to live your life. Tell me, in absence of WP:IAR, what rule prevents a new user from contributing? Lara_bran 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to what harm you see being caused by "Ignore all rules" in its current formulation. To say that people are making "excuses" for IAR implies that there is something negative to excuse; is that the case? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant that there is not much substantial things that support existence of WP:IAR, so they put forward this as excuse. Lara_bran 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're saying is wrong. Is there some harm being done by IAR that your suggestion seeks to remedy? I'm not aware that Wikipedia is hurting in any way due to this page, so I'm not clear what concrete problem you're trying to fix. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "substantial things" that support IAR in its current spirit and (for the most part) wording is very broad and long-standing support for it in its current meaning. This isn't a question of "excuses", it's a question of valuing what it represents exactly as it is (regardless of nuances in its wording). Hold to your view as you like but understand that it is not shared by anybody else responding here. IAR means that writing this encyclopedia is the only thing of importance, and we maintain that we do need a rule that says exactly this. This has been explained, but apparently not heard.--Father Goose 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading name?

You know, "Ignore all rules" might be badly named (I'm not going to suggest renaming it - its name is perfect), but I'm thinking in a different sense than Lara Bran is suggesting. Calling the page "ignore all rules" reinforces the idea that "rules" are in effect here. In a way, they are, but it's really better to think of most of the "rules" here as something else entirely: habits, customs, good ideas, recipes and formulas that have been found to (often) work, suggestions, etc. Even the three revert "rule" is better thought of as a failsafe sort of pressure valve, to prevent editors from continuing along unproductive paths (edit wars).

As soon as you say "rule", people get the idea of a formal structure that has to be comprehensive and consistent, because we all have experiences with legal systems, board games, mathematics, grammar, etc. Not all human activities are like that; Wikipedia isn't like that. It's more like nature.

A bird building a nest isn't following rules in the same sense that we do when we play chess or something. It might be the case that if it builds its nest wrong, then it fails to raise baby birds that year, but that's not like a person getting a ticket for jaywalking. Similarly, if you edit without taking certain realities into consideration, then your edits may not stick. Don't think of rules, just think of getting the 'pedia written, and realize that will involve working cooperatively with others.

Perhaps a good way to address misunderstandings of "ignore all rules" is to de-emphasize the "rulishness" of our policies and guidelines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose anything specific?--Father Goose 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, the most concrete way I can think to de-emphasize "rulishness" is to make sure that our rules are truly written descriptively and not prescriptively wherever possible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply to GTBacchus)Let me again explain from real life.

• Rules in this world are made for better life, and life is not for sake of rules. So they keep changing rules with time under this philosophy. It is understood that we are here very primarily to improve encyclopedia not that we are here primarily to abide by rules. It is "obvious"(if it is not obvious, i will explain further) that rules are made for better life/encyclopedia/target.
• There is difference between liberal rules and anarchical/inconsistent rules. We liberalize rules, add exceptions, but we keep the rules in order, and that is how rules are supposed to be.

Lara_bran 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lara, I understand and agree that rules are made for better life, but I don't think it's obvious (or correct) that a complete and consistent ruleset is necessary in order to make things better. Codifying everything in the rules is one approach, but your claim, "that is how rules are supposed to be," is ultimately a faith statement. It's not necessary to think of them as "rules" at all, and if you get away from the formal system thinking, you'll be closer to the spirit of the project.

IAR is not about anarchical or inconsistent rules; it's about freeing ourselves from the idea that we need clear rules to keep ourselves in line. We (humans) are actually quite good at getting by without them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(I used law and rules in same sense) Rules are made from common sense. This is to avoid using of common sense every time, which is to reduce headache. When implication of rules are of higher level then formal method of common sense is used, namely logic(see also reasoning). We make some rules to some happenings and forget, which is serious reduction in headache. Nothing like rules are formal etc., they exist for our own convenience. In real life there is "fear" about court of law. This reply has been my sincere effort to get rid of rulophobia. Lara_bran 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't fear them because I'm permitted to ignore them. Usually I don't ignore them, since most of them are reasonable, and help me improve Wikipedia. But have you ever considered that Wikipedia would work less smoothly if we weren't allowed to ignore rules when they interfered with the work at hand? You see how much trouble you're having trying to change this one rule right now? Imagine how little work you could get done if you had to get everyone to agree to a rule change before you could improve Wikipedia in some way not accommodated by the existing rules. The rules should be made to reflect the work (if the rule is needed at all) and the work should be done first.--Father Goose 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dint you see so many revisions of IAR in last week(see history). Had i moved this IAR 2 months earlier, all people who edited in last week could certainly need not have "wasted"(per Father Goose, but i dont think that as waste) their time. If you invest 10 min on rule that results in 10 hours increase of main space of work, believe me. Lara_bran 04:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore... amending all the rules is simply not allowed. WP:BURO. "Avoid instruction creep." We are not all administrative personalities. If I see a rule that hurts wikipedia if enforced, I ignore it. I could take the next month to petition to rewrite those rules and get eaten alive by the trolls who have never written one real article in their life and who get their kicks from trying to wikilegistlate and wikilawyer good faith editors into an early grave... or I could ignore it and write another article. Thanatosimii 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BURO asks to avoid, but does not prohibits. "Show me an article you did" seems certainly not like a "contribution", rather a "forced contribution", which can no longer be called a "contribution". I dont understand your disdain for trolls(for using words like grave), they are just one more like you and me. Lara_bran 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we're using different meanings of troll. I don't mean the gnomes who do helful things, I mean these. Trolls are the scourge of the earth and the bane of all men. What I mean to say is this. Due to several bad experiences, I will never touch the official rules with a fourty foot pole. I will write articles, in line with Wikipedia's goals and good writing practices. If a rule plain-as-day cripples an article and we can all see it, I and my fellow editors are likely to just dispense with it. It is nothing but a distraction to ask that we amend it first. Thanatosimii 05:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Nope, we should take on trolling, but not trolls. We should try to convert "bad" people into "good", and should not tag them as trolls and ban. Lara_bran 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That much I agree with wholeheartedly; amen. Labelling people as "bad" and "trolls" is one of the worst things that goes on here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is quite simply a waste of our time and impossible to boot. Trolls are inherently unconvertable. It is a bad faith effort to do somthing that hinders wikipedia. They do not want to be converted, and they will not be. Thanatosimii 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a faith statement about people that I can't accept. Every human on Earth is pursuing the Good; there are only disagreements as to what that is. What you call a waste of time, I call the only good use of our time on Earth. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinks they're pursuing the good. If there are disagreements on what that is, everyone can't be seeking it, though might think they are. And even then, if a person comes on and, knowing they can't just vandelize and keep and chaos they want to inflict like normal vandals, pulls every string and misuses ever rule in the book, that's a bad faith kind of editing, which I've run across regularly, which I can't say qualifies as even thinking they'ree seeking good. But this is another argument entierly... Thanatosimii 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of semantics. If somebody thinks they're seeking something, then they're seeking it. They may be on the wrong track, but they're seeking. Whatever somebody does must be consistent with something that they consider to be good. If an editor is convinced that they're simply right about something, and not convinced that cooperation is the way to go, then they may very well conclude that abusive editing is the best way to produce the result they want, which is editing the content in whatever way. Whatever you're trying to achieve, you see as the good.

Yes, this is rather off-topic... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We can keep our approach to convert, even if we may not succeed always. This can be done in two ways, main one being making them realize that they cant spoil/harm the whole system. I think this way is more efficient way than preaching/scolding/spitting on them. But we went out of discussion, i donno how it is related to topic, i have put horizontal breaks.. Lara_bran 09:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just saying that the rule formulating pages are populated by trolls who don't know how to write an encyclopedia but somehow thing they're qualified to legislate one. Perhaps stronger stomachs than mine can create sense there, but I must stronly oppose any change in policy from "if it's in the way, ignore it," to "if it's in the way, fight for five months with trolls to amend it." I cannot and will not do it. If you wish to amend it, do it, but by changing this policy to amend all rules, you would be requiring most all of us to get embroiled in horrid fights. Let encyclopedia writers write encyclopedias. I didn't sign up to write a law code. This change would make every wikipedian a lawyer. Thanatosimii 10:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with part of the substance of that comment, but I suspect it could be articulated more effectively without calling anybody a "troll". Also, "by changing this policy to amend all rules, you would be requiring most all of us to get embroiled in horrid fights"... I agree in spirit with this point, but to be fair, changing the text of IAR wouldn't require anybody to do anything they weren't already doing. It's just a page; it's not word-magic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not slinging it at anyone in particular, however it is a well established fact that hard working editors on wikipedia frequently resign for the sole reason that they are being treated like crap by bad faith editors and no one actually does anything about it. I spent the last four months away from wikipedia because the dispute resolution process wanted to "talk" with the abusive party, all the while he keeps abusing without restraint. Wikipedia has malevolent users; usually we disengage, but we can't do that if we're expected to visit policy talk pages. Thanatosimii 08:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Can ignoring these ever be justified?

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is free content
• Wikipedia has a code of conduct:

Can any of these statements ever be ignored? Is it ever appropriate to write non-encyclopedic content? Or POV pushing pages? or publish copyrighted text? Or break the code of conduct? I would argue: "no, never."

The five pillars of wikipedia state those four things and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." That rule links to this page. Now, unless someone can really argue that any of those four principles is ignorable, why not just change the rule to: Wikipedia is based on five core principles. Besides these principles, if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it."

First, this gets rid of that awkward "working with others" way of referring to consensus. Consensus is covered in the code of conduct. Second, I would argue that free text and encyclopedic content are no less important than the code of conduct. They cannot be ignored, period – to do so would be to undermine what wikipedia is. However, we don't want clause upon clause upon clause added to this rule, hence the typical minimalist view that would prefer nothing more than "if a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it."

We need to consider which core principles are ignorable, and which are non-negotiable. I believe those four are the four core principles that really there is no excuse under heaven for ignoring- they're not even really rules; they are, if you'll forgive the waxing poetic, the very soul of wikipedia. Why not both protect them all, which is really what all the people who want to change the rule are after, and at the same time protect the simple phrasing, which is what all the people who want it to not change are after.

Thoughts? Thanatosimii 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An anecdote, maybe? I recently came across an editor who considered challenging anything that he did in an article, or pointing out incivility, POV-ness, or discussion of said incivility on his talk page as incivility itself. In this kind of, ignoring WP:CIVIL (in his eyes) by reporting him and using the reasoning at WP:SPADE (which is an IAR application to CIVIL itself) 'ignoring' CIVIL or WP:NPA would be crucial to the encyclopedia. (btw, I'm editing anon to avoid being harassed by this editor, though if people end up insisting on it, i'll identify myself). 68.32.142.51 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

These are good points from User:Thanatosimii; the main one can be summed up as Wikipedia has five core principles. Five Pillars is a statement of Wikipedia's core principles. Five Pillars is not, technically, a rule, and cannot be ignored. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikpedia, ignore them should not be interpreted to mean ignore Wikipedi'a core principles, which it does not say. The core principles are above rules, or beyond being stated as rules. Ignoring rules does not outflank or outrank Wikipedia's core principles. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is free content" not only can be ignored, it regularly is. Not only are there the clearly common sense exceptions such as fair use snippets of copyrighted text, there are the non-free images that we must use to fulfil "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" well. The position that we should use only free content does exist, but I think that's only reasonable were we in the world Foundation people sporadically say will eventually exist, where most stuff is free content. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really... It's a slightly different situation here. "Free content" as far as that page goes refers to the fact that our articles themselves are licensed under a free liscence. Images and quotations for fair use aren't so much ignoring those principles, according to well defined rules. Changing IAR to say "don't ignore these" wouldn't invalidate those rules. Thanatosimii 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a bad idea in principle (pun intended), but WP:5P links to about 30 specific rules, which potentially suggests you can ignore all rules other than the ones mentioned on WP:5P.--Father Goose 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Those aren't really "rules" in a strict sense; they are in a general way the principles that form the essence of "Wikipedia", and so are necessary to "improve or maintain Wikipedia". —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of the point. As I've been trying to point out off and on for a few months here, whenever people object to "if the rules prevent you from improving wikipedia, ignore them," whenever anyone wants to add even one more word to prevent this principle from being abused, invariably these new clauses and conditions are part of the 5 pillars. I'm not comfortable with the way the code of conduct is being singled out like it were somthing special, superior to the other core principles. Thanatosimii 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's even better! Dont add anything to WP:IAR that is already covered in WP:FIVE. Two reasons for this - IAR is not about making extra rules; also, FIVE is not about rules per se but rather about five fundamental principles, of which IAR represents one. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to regret suggesting this.

When the rules get in the way of improving and maintaining Wikipedia, we ignore them.

--Father Goose 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "get in the way of" as an improvement (especially for non-native English readers), and I don't care for the "we ignore them" wording or the return to "the rules." —David Levy 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Get in the way seemed suitable at the time; the rules (plural) is better; we ignore them is, um, forceful. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No end in sight?

I've tried. I really have. I want very much to settle on a reasonable compromise (and I find myself arguing in favor of changes that move the policy away from my preferred wording), but someone always comes along and reverts.

I'll address the edit summary by Newbyguesses:

working with others (over time) is *implied* in the phrase "improving or maintaining wikipedia"; numerous users (a majority i would think) have objected to this unnecessary addition - see talkpage

1. I agree that that "working with others" is implied in the phrase "improving or maintaining wikipedia"; I've argued this on numerous occasions. But some editors don't agree, and I'm willing to make a minor concession in the interest of compromise. Is that really so unreasonable?
2. Again, the "over time" part is a straw man argument introduced to the discussion by Centrx. Someone improving or maintaining Wikipedia is working with others right now.
3. Please don't allow this to break down into a "majority" vote. —David Levy 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, User:David Levy for your considered rejoinder; now, as i understand it, (i am relying on recollections of previous recent posts) we have both restored the 12word version before, it is your prefererence (and mine). We both have restored other versions, in the interest of consensus. We both understand that consensus can change. We both now are happy with the version you just put up. And its not a vote. We both are happy to give consideration to contributions to the page made by whichever editors, and many have done so. Now did i miss anything, i am sure there is something else we both find agreeable - Five Pillars. posted Newbyguesses - Talk 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally satisfied with the current version, but I'm mindful of the fact that some editors feel strongly about the inclusion of wording advising against defying consensus to impose one's personal idea of "improving" Wikipedia. Given the fact that lengthy explanations have been proposed and implemented/removed, the addition of a few extra words seems like an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like 'other people' back one way or another... Haukur 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Working with others"

In my opinion, "Working with others" is too important a qualifier to leave out as "implied". If it's not in there, somebody can, by a literal reading of IAR, assume that he can ignore WP:OWN or other behavioral guidelines because he's "improving the encyclopedia", regardless of the fact that he's actually destroying it. "Working with others" is not a direct consequence of "improving or maintaining the encyclopedia", so, since it is at the core of many of our behavior guidelines and policies, we need to leave it in. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All of what wikipedia's core principles should be mentioned, or nothing. Thanatosimii 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why mentioning "others" is important is because what power "the rules" have derive from them. Rules, you can ignore, but you are still accountable to the community as a whole. That's why many of us feel some mention of the community is vital in IAR. "Working with others" may not be the absolute best way to say it, but it's the most-accepted way of saying it so far.

Maybe adding the sentence "You are still accountable to the community as a whole." is a viable alternative.--Father Goose 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh, no, I just tried it, and it was terribly ugly. But... maybe something close to it.--Father Goose 02:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding an additional sentence (such as the one above) makes the policy appear wishy-washy. It just doesn't seem right to follow such a grand and simple statement with something tantamount to "Oh, but on the other hand...". —David Levy 02:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to make a special issue of "consensus", which is adequately covered in WP:FIVE, outside of the section pertinent to IAR. And all of Wikipedia's core principles are applicable, in toto. Introducing the phrase "working with others" onto the WP:IAR page opens up a can of worms - Work, as both noun and verb, takes a whole page (three full columns) to explain in a short dictionary, and the explanations (what does work, or working, or working together etc. mean) on this page so far have failed to convince a number of users that such an inclusion is helpful. It is all adequately expressed in the phrase "improving Wikipedia". Newbyguesses - Talk 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to add another link to the page: Wikipedia:What "work" means. ;-) --Father Goose 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, "Working with others" means variations on just one thing: cooperation ^{(coöperation if you're from the New Yorker)} in building something. Full stop. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

/* "Working with others" */ Be considerate of others, rather than *working with others*? How about this. User:Newbyguesses - Talk 07:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am coming more to agree with things posted recently by User:Thanatosimii, (as I understand such), that IAR is a content policy/guideline, not a conduct officialpolicy/guideline. IAR is about adding to the encyclopedia, helpfully, whether you know the rules or not. You can edit this page. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, IAR doesn't really say what it's about. I view it as a meta consideration, rather then an actual behavioral or content policy/guideline; it's about how we want to avoid being rulebound. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to change it

I've been wondering lately if we could drop the current phrasing in favor of two or three sentences that state the principle of IAR instead of when to apply it. In its current form IAR has become something of a "litmus test" for whether a person understands how Wikipedia functions; this test is a common question on WP:RFAs. A rule as important as IAR should not act as a shibboleth to separate those who "get it" from those who don't.

I understand the dangers of overexplaining it, but it's really much more of a principle than a rule, and we're phrasing it as an imperative, not as an explanation. The continuous warring over it strongly suggests that it doesn't say what it needs to say.

I've seen the actual principle explained several times briefly and effectively; Lubaf's "it's about how we want to avoid being rulebound" is as good as any of them. The longer explanation I added to WIARM also works: "Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."

Can we work on trying to explain that principle concisely, and with maximum clarity, instead of being wedded to this severely-lacking minimalist approach?--Father Goose 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I view the current version (with the link to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means) as an ideal setup. —David Levy 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that most users at best only understand limited aspects of it, and I'm coming to believe that the limited way in which it is expressed is at least partly to blame. IAR is a principle (one of the five pillars) more than a rule. Why don't we express it as a principle instead of as a cryptic command? It's too much like a koan. I still want to keep it very very short, but I think the "commandment" approach has gotten entrenched in everyone's minds, to the detriment of the wiki. We must stop presenting IAR like a rule: it's something far deeper.--Father Goose 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of entirely new wording, but I've yet to see such a proposal that I liked. —David Levy 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of making it less of a cryptic commandment; like David, I don't think I've seen quite what that would look like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest reversions

If we're always going to revert back to the original version, why not just permanently protect the page? Obviously this policy is set in stone. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is perfectly acceptable for an individual to edit without finding someone to collaborate with; IAR does not mean 'Go find people to work with before improving or maintaining Wikipedia'" —edit summary by Centrx 06:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that. But every application of IAR should contribute to our shared goal of constructing an encyclopedia. That means "working with others," regardless of whether anyone else is even aware of a particular edit. I personally believe that this is implied in "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" (because it's impossible to improve or maintain Wikipedia by ignoring a rule for the purpose of deliberately defying community consensus), but others believe that it's important to explain that other people's opinions matter (and that IAR doesn't encourage one to act on the believe that "everyone else is wrong, so I won't allow consensus to prevent me from doing what I believe improves Wikipedia"). —David Levy 07:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"who, if anybody, you work with is not relevant to the result" —edit summary by Freakofnurture 07:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are doing a good job of demonstrating that belief by nonchalantly throwing out all of our collaborative compromise without bothering to participate in or even acknowledge the talk page discussions. —David Levy 07:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I finally came up with one that still says "the rules" instead of "a rule" and mentions collaboration without requiring it: "If the rules prevent you from working alongside others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore them."

Response?

"no need"

I think with a little more work I can get the responses down to a single syllable.--Father Goose 08:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the change from "the rules" to "a rule" is necessitated by the inclusion of the word "others." (Otherwise, "ignore them" could be interpreted as "ignore others.") [I just noticed that you noted this ambiguity in an edit summary.] I do, however, believe that this is an improvement in and of itself.

I, like you, am taken aback by these drive-by reversions. —David Levy 08:33/08:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor is perfectly free to, and should, make edits to the encyclopedia without looking up the rules beforehand and without needing to go find someone to ask about them. There should be no requirement that someone needs to actively "work with others" to edit Wikipedia, and making changes to articles does not require it at all. In many cases, an article someone is editing may not have been constructively edited by anyone else for months. If it is important to explain that IAR is not a license to disregard other people who are at odds with you when editing, then say that explicitly rather than implying it in a misleading fashion. IAR, or at least the prime sentence of IAR, is directed at the rules, not the others and their friends and how they work together in peace and joy. In addition, there is nothing about IAR that should require that only individual discrete rules can be ignored. Multiple rules, or all rules together, may be ignored. —Centrx→talk • 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone edits Wikipedia in a constructive fashion, he/she is working with others. He/she needn't consult anyone or rely on someone else's involvement in a particular change. If his/her edits are consistent with the project's goals, he/she is working with others.

I don't understand your second point at all, as nothing about the current wording remotely suggests that it doesn't apply to as many rules as necessary. I've come to realize that the previous wording, however, could be mistaken as advice to either follow all of the rules or ignore them en masse (with no intermediate options). —David Levy 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing nothing whatsoever "with others" is not working "with others". Nothing whatsoever is not equivalent to working. A naive person editing Wikipedia does not even need to consciously realize that there are other people editing the article. A person creating an article does not need to have even an indirect interaction with anyone else. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if someone with no interaction with other users is the only person to ever edit a particular article, he/she is working with others to build an encyclopedia. It's only when someone edits in a manner inconsistent with the project's goals that he/she is failing to work with others. —David Levy 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Perfectly put.--Father Goose 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the word with means. Even less is that what working with means. That's like saying the Wright Brothers were "working with others" to put a man in space. Even if they had been working with others to build an aeroplane, which as I recall they were not, they were not "working with" the rocket scientists 40 years later who used a derivative of technology later used in aeroplanes. —Centrx→talk • 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A sentence like "the Wright Brothers worked with others to bring human society into the 20th century" is not likely to be misunderstood, and I think "working with others to improve Wikipedia" is also not problematic.--Father Goose 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty vapid sentence; the only concrete part of it is "Wright Brothers", the rest is just undefined platitudes. It also makes unwarranted assumptions about their motivations and would be factually incorrect as to how they worked. The same principle by which you can construct that sentence could be used to construct one for an inventor who hated human society and wanted to send it back to the stone ages; e.g. someone who invented nuclear weapons to destroy the world, but failed with the technology being used for nuclear power. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You introduced the flimsy Wright Brothers analogy, Centrx. Father Goose merely adjusted it to match the policy as well as could be expected.

No, the Wright Brothers weren't working to put a man in space. We, conversely, are working to build an encyclopedia. Anyone properly applying IAR is working to build an encyclopedia. This isn't an unknown, indirect result that might arise decades in the future. It's what's happening right now. All of us are collaborating in this endeavor (id est working together).

I don't even know what you're getting at with your "nuclear" analogy. —David Levy 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is fine; it was introduced to demonstrate how tenuous your definition of "working with others" is. He made a sentence from it as an example of something that would not be misunderstood, but that sentence, while perhaps not being misunderstood by most people, is nevertheless vapid such that there is no good reason to include such a thing.

Whether Wikipedia editors are working to build an encyclopedia is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they are all working with others in all situations to build an encyclopedia. They are only doing so in the loose sense under which someone's article is revamped 5 years later without the original author ever knowing or "collaborating" at all. Likewise, later scientists revamp the work of earlier scientists, even if the earlier scientist were a misanthrope who invented for the wonder of it or to learn the universe. The Wright brothers knew that they were working on invention, or physics, or aerospace, just as (most) Wikipedia editors know that they are working on an encyclopedia. They did not necessarily know that it would result in space flight, just as I do not necessarily know today that part of my article on hydrogen will ultimately be part of an article on a future article on faster-than-light travel. —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the analogy isn't fine. No one is arguing that improving an article should be regarded as "working with others" because it might lead to an unforeseen improvement years later. We're saying that someone who edits in a manner consistent with the project's goals is working with others (everyone acting in kind) to improve Wikipedia right now. "Working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia" simply means "working with others on Wikipedia," not "working with others on a particular article." —David Levy 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the word "with" means, and the unforeseen improvement done years later is done by someone "acting in kind". —Centrx→talk • 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. We're using exactly the same definition of the word "with"! Your argument is based upon the belief that the policy describes a particular article (rather than the project as a whole). This is not supported by the wording (which only mentions the latter).

2. My point is not that unforeseen improvements made years later aren’t beneficial. It's that the policy's wording doesn't rely upon their existence. This is an incorrect premise that you introduced to the discussion and attempted to refute. —David Levy 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. No, one does not have to "work with others" on the whole encyclopedia either. One does not have to work with anyone at all; one can work at the same time as others or on the same site as others but that does not equivalent to working with others.

2. The man is not made of straw, but is intended to be an identical copy of the original man. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, "Working with others to improve..." conveys "this is our common project", not "don't do anything alone". "Work with others...", an imperative, is different, but that is not the wording we advocate. I'm not going for any lovey-dovey stuff -- it's just that when you ignore all rules, which is justifiable, you can't ignore all editors, because you'll get shitcanned.

I partly know what you (Centrx) mean about "the rules" vs. "a rule" -- but as a practical matter, the phrasing "a rule" doesn't compromise the meaning of IAR at all.--Father Goose 08:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are perfectly free to ignore all editors prior to editing. You are confusing the two parts of Ignore all rules, one of which is the ignoring of rules--that is not needing to read up and be fully versed on rules in order to do the simple and obvious thing of editing an encyclopedia--and the other is the disregarding of particular rules that are ill-conceived or contradictory. A person who is ignoring the rules can be in perfect accord with the rules--e.g. intelligent people know that an encyclopedia should be verifiable and neutral--and need not brush up against any other editor. A person editing the encyclopedia can ignore the rules, ignore other editors, and do quite fine; and they do not need to actively "work with others" prior to ignoring the rules. IAR exists prior to the rules. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't share your concern that "working with others" is a mandate to "work with others".--Father Goose 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mandate to work with others general, but it is a mandate that "You can only ignore the rules when you are working with others" or "You can only ignore rules that prevent you from working with others." —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do consider that to be a pretty narrow and unlikely interpretation.--Father Goose 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's what it says. It is a simple deconstruction of the sentence. When can you "ignore it"? When a rule "prevents you from working with others" to do something. The intended meaning can either be included in a separate sentence, or better, in the explanatory paged linked from here, that contains a number of other things that could be included in the pithy sentence, but aren't because they confuse the matter. —Centrx→talk • 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:WIARM. It is currently described as an essay, and it's wording is starting to get confusing. To some extent, the current version of WP:IAR is subject to just those mis-interprepations described by User:Centrx, but this is only minor if WP:WIARM has a suitable, punchy lead-in, picking up any slack. But if WP:WIARM drifts off-topic, then the current consensus, here on talk:IAR, has a problem. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's described as {{poldetail}} again. Strange and unexplained edit by Radiant. Sure didn't simplify anything. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They are mis-interpretations of IAR, but they are correct interpretations of the sentence, which means the sentence does not describe IAR and thus ought to be changed. —Centrx→talk • 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Centrx here. IAR made more sense without the "with others" part. Garion96 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All of you: Let's be more constructive. Would the lot of you go down the page to WT:IAR#The New Yankee IAR Wording Workshop and be productive, or will you just continue to argue over the words "with others" without end or point? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The old version was fine. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIARM explains thispage

With WP:FIVE considered as covering content, and conduct, then I am hoping that these phrases, among others, from WP:WIARM, which explains thispage (WP:IAR) enjoy the support of widespread consensus. (Any comments for Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means)

What "Ignore all rules" means — The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both.

What "Ignore all rules" does not mean — "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a trump card. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.

Any comments — Newbyguesses - Talk 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the two above statements, but what is your aim here?--Father Goose 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for asking, though I am surprised. Have you not been following the template tag going on with WP:WIARM?

I was under the impression that consensus exists on thispage for including WP:WIARM as (the) See-Also. But some users deprecate WP:WIARM. Thus, the best and worst of WP:WIARM should come up for discussion, to see if there really are problems with the current set-up.

So, I think this matter needs clarification, and one way to do that would be to get some views aired on the talkpage, but I could be wrong. — Newbyguesses - Talk 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think a better place to discuss WIARM would be on its talk page.--Father Goose 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not a problem, then. The general consensus on this talkpage seems to continue to favour *What "Ignore all rules" means* as (the) inclusion to SeeAlso on the projectpage for WP:IAR. (WP:WIARM also includes -

What "Ignore all rules" means — Following the rules is less important than using good judgement and being thoughtful and considerate. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)

What "Ignore all rules" does not mean — "Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct. (See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

Suggestion — how about some wording similar to the above phrases going on this projectpage (WP:IAR) - after they have been discussed here — Newbyguesses - Talk 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you, but it has pretty much been established that any improvements to this page will be reverted at sight. >Radiant< 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'd mention that that's the reason I created workshop above; in order to allow people to make suggestions without instantly being reverted. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about these from WP:WIARM —

What "Ignore all rules" means — You are not required to learn the rules before contributing.

What "Ignore all rules" does not mean — "Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.

Would these sentences stand up, on this projectpage? Newbyguesses - Talk 12:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is a bit premature, but in order for any changes not to be immediately reverted, we should probably add a {{proposed}} or similar template to the top of the project page when adding the new wording. Thoughts? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah; just put 'em up on the above "New IAR Workshop" section. Then, when they've been discussed, you can use 'em, and possibly avoid being reverted to death. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that every time there has been discussion on this talk page and new wording has gained consensus and been added the the project page, it has been reverted. I was just trying to avoid that. The point of adding {{proposed}} would be to stop people from immediately reverting and instead join the conversation here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, IAR is definitely not "proposed". The wording is still subject to flux, as is the wording of all of Wikipedia's policies, but it's been harder to change the wording of this one because there are too few of them to make incremental changes.--Father Goose 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe I wasn't making myself clear. I think we should have some kind of template that says something along the lines of "This new wording is proposed. Please discuss changes on the talk page before making them." That way we weed out the inevitable hordes of editors who immediately revert without discussion whenever a change is made to the project page. I've been through three or four changes to the project page now, and guess what? Each time a change occurs, a bunch of uninvolved editors just blindly revert without discussion. Those reverts somehow turns into "consensus" and nothing gets accomplished in the end. Adding a template to the page with the new wording would curb those blind reverts. That's all. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to do this?

Before we go all out on changing the wording, we really should ask ourselves if it's worth it. Is the current wording broken? If it is, does WIARM help fix it? What I'm seeing above is a bunch of new phrasings that are really no different from the current wording. Instead of being nitpicky about the policy, we should be asking ourselves how much changing it would improve Wikipedia. Does it really matter that much that? I'm staying neutral right now, and just thought I should propose the question before the project page turns into the inevitable edit war again. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it has been fought over is because it's cryptic. A cryptic rule is not desirable -- so yes, I think it needs to be changed.--Father Goose 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but remember that consensus says that people do like this rule and do find it desirable. In order to make a significant change to the policy, there needs to be a solid reason for change. This reason must be solid enough that long-time supporters will say "You're right!" If you want to change the policy's wording, you're fighting a hugely uphill battle, and there needs to be a better justification for change than "I don't like it." And don't take these comments the wrong way; I'm just trying to prepare for what will come. Was that cryptic enough for you? ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it that what people are trying to do here is to find the best (or least worse) way to phrase the policy, rather than change the policy itself? I reckon most people here have a grasp of what the thrust of IAR is, and have no interest in changing that; the disagreement is over how it's actually written down. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so. There is quite broad agreement here about what the policy is meant to say, but a lot less agreement over how to make its meaning more readily grasped than it currently is.--Father Goose 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:WIARM helped clear that confusion. At least that was the compromise made a few months back: those who loved IAR as it was were able to keep the wording mostly unchanged while those who wished for a clearer, less cryptic page had their wishes fulfilled in the supplementary page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That is my impression also. Some of the most cogent phrases from WP:WIARM have been reproduced just recently on thistalkpage, with no user offering any criticisms of them. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WIARM proposal

I'm really on a new section rampage. If we really are going to treat WP:WIARM as a consensus-approved explanation/supplement to IAR, why don't we move it to a subpage of IAR? For example, WP:IAR/Explanation. That eliminates the need for a tag, reduces confusion about the purpose and acceptance of that page, and simply makes official what is currently unwritten. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That could work, User:Rockstar. However, I am unfamiliar with any cases of such usage of subpages that might already occur with POLpages. I wonder, though -- the present situation seems reasonably satisfactory to me, despite the wishes of some to continually rewrite the WP:IAR page, it is currently reflecting a consensus view, conveying policy properly, and with a wording which some users regard as a little inferior, but this is being discussed here on thetalkpage. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Yankee IAR Wording Workshop

Here's an idea: We write out proposals for a new wording here, and then discuss them beneath. I'll start us out. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."

The current (as of 20 August 2007) version. I like this version, but that's not important.^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Second favorite. Working with others (aka the spirit of a Wiki) is essential. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my second favorite as well, and it seems like a good compromise. —David Levy 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Best. "Working with others" implicitly points out the importance of WP:CONSENSUS. —Ashley Y 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."

The original version. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By far my favorite. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By far, my least favorite. This wording was intended to advise users to not worry about learning every rule before editing, but it's easily misconstrued as advice to ignore rules whenever you don't feel like following them. ("If I don't add my own biased commentary to this article and revert all attempts to remove it, I'll feel nervous and depressed."). It also completely omits the very important anti-bureaucratic connotation that subsequently evolved. —David Levy 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I love it. Pure poetry. This summed up for me the entire spirit of the community surrounding the encyclopedia when I first joined. All the rest of the ideas have too much baggage attached -- they've been word-analyzed almost to the point of sounding like they've been written by a team of lawyers.  :) kmccoy (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What words don't you like in the others? pbthtttthtpt.--Father Goose 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"When you edit Wikipedia:
*Improve and maintain content.
*Be considerate of others.
*Use common sense.
If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them."

A version that was hashed over in July. I liked it, but it wasn't gnomic enough for some people. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with this one. I like what it says, but the "c" alliteration gets childish after about 5 minutes. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you do to remedy the alliteration situation, then? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the current wording. Working with others is by far the most important aspect of the "c" alliteration. The first "c" is covered by the current wording and the third "c" is implied in working with others. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all the rules
Only if they do not work;
This is very rare."

From WP:HAIKU. I'd change the "only" to "but only", and drop the haiku aspect, but this one is worth mentioning, IMHO. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Same as above. Cute but not appropriate. It also misses the point of IAR. You don't need to know the rules to edit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. It was worth mentioning. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Simple & to the point. Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a bad idea, especially when there are heated debates/discussions with certain policies. For example, in the case of BLP, this could cause unilateral decisions and wheel warring (as evidenced in the BDJ arb case). That is not a good thing. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That would not be improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and people are going to do "bad things" regardless of what IAR says. What IAR says is what ought to be, and fiddling with the wording to handle extreme situations does not accomplish that. —Centrx→talk • 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal favorite, but I'm more than happy with the "working with others" version as a reasonable compromise. —David Levy 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, IMO, the riskiest, in that it appears, on a literal reading, to allow the reader to ignore such policies and guidelines as WP:OWN, WP:HARASS, and WP:3RR. Thus, my strong dislike of this version. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, on a literal reading, dominating articles, harassing others, and edit warring are not improving or maintaining Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if everyone else is just screwing up an article that you managed to get perfect...--Father Goose 03:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the text of IAR is not going to prevent that. People are able to do almost whatever they want on a wiki, and the only reason Wikipedia succeeds is that the people who spend time on Wikipedia mostly want to improve and maintain Wikipedia. The current IAR alteration is supposed to handle uncooperative people, but you are able and ought to be able to improve an article while working against a multitude cooperating to subvert it. There is no way to prevent this except by making Wikipedia be not a wiki, and in the ideal realm, if I am in fact improving or maintaining Wikipedia I ought to be free to do so.

The current wording of IAR can be just as wrongly interpreted to mean that you are the individual obstinately refusing to work with the "everyone else" supposedly screwing up the article. They will tell you to cooperate with them, and in order to work with others you must abide by the group's decision, whatever it may be. —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I intend to propose a "principle, not rule"-type wording to add here when I manage to come up with one, and when my attention is not divided in a million different directions.--Father Goose 19:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Put it here when you actually write it. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There continue to be comments which find the addition of the phrase "working with others" to be unnecessary, and confusing. Improve Wikipedia already contains that thought (working, on an encyclopedia, with others). Our aim here is not become immortalised by adding some slick sentence just made up to a policy page, though discussing such phrases can be helpful. If the page isnt broke, dont fix it.

I propose the following wording to replace the current version, which is satisfactory, but inferior, and has some support, but not the support which these words have -

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

posted — Newbyguesses - Talk 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me which has more support. Both versions have their proponents. But there's probably something better than either of them lurking out there.--Father Goose 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, here we go:

The rules sometimes help us work together to build Wikipedia. If the rules don't help, ignore them.

• Variation 2:

Our rules help us work together to build Wikipedia. If the rules don't help, ignore them.

--Father Goose 06:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good apart from the "sometimes" bit. I'd hate to think of WP:NOR as occasionally useful in recognising suitable content. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although that criticism can be leveled at every version of IAR I've ever seen. Not even NPOV and "free content" have ever been exempted from ignorance. Still, I'll try a variation.--Father Goose 15:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

14:26, 24 August 2007 Newbyguesses (Talk | contribs) (2,108 bytes) (;Ignore all indents-) (undo) UNDO Sorry, was just about to do as self-reveert!! 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Our rules are designed to help us work together to build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help in doing that, ignore them."

A reworked version of Father Goose's suggestion above, with a dash of WP:ENC added in. Any objections to this one? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A little too wordy. How about:

What's wrong with being wordy, as long as it doesn't inhibit clarity? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it slightly awkward and can be made less so, that is preferable: "help with that" is smoother than "help in doing that", etc. As long as the meaning doesn't change, shorter tends to be clearer.--Father Goose 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm about to propose a longer one. I guess my argument is against awkwardness, not length per se.--Father Goose 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Our rules help us work together to build an encyclopedia. If they don't help with that, we ignore them.

--Father Goose 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with another one, my favorite so far:

• The purpose of the rules is to help us work together to build Wikipedia. If the rules interfere with that, ignore them.

--Father Goose 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep, as they say in another place. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing objectionable here. I wouldn't revert from it. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want input from other users, why do you immediately revert their entries on the projectpage, instead of considering them properly, and adding to them. Most of the reverting is being done by two user's in support of an inferior version. But let other users have a say, here on the talk-page, or if they make good edits to the projectpage - leave them stand. (Not a Yankee) Newbyguesses - Talk 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't need to consider your suggestion, quite frankly. It did not contain any nods to collaboration, so I reverted it. I've learned a lesson here, though, and now the project page contains a commented warning that "fixing" the wording without suggesting the new version on the talk page and getting reaction first is not a good idea. If somebody wants to make suggestions, please, make them here. If somebody wants to edit war, well, we have several different kinds of names for that kind of person, some more polite than others. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

U:Lubaf, —Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. —Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Read it, then you may understand that accusing the kettle of being black is a weak argument when you are the most avid reverter of good-faith edits to thispage, and rude about it. Among other minor faults, I think your rudeness is the least becoming of them. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

posted Newbyguesses - Talk 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Has a tinge of libertarianism about it. Where's the communal/collaborative aspect to working on Wikipedia? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Has the problems I've mentioned on numerous other suggestions that leave out the collaborative aspect. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a good one [3] -- (is there some rule by the way that says it has to get posted here, in the Kiddies Playground? ).

If the rules prevent you from contributing to the improvement and maintainence of Wikipedia, ignore them.

Newbyguesses - Talk 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just about had it.

It isn't often that I reach three page reversions in a 24-hour period. If this nonsense continues, I might just have to take a vacation from the page (something that I've never done before).* I just can't handle the aggravation of dealing with a seemingly never-ending dispute. No matter how hard users with conflicting viewpoints try to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, no matter how much progress we appear to make, no matter how long a particular version remains, someone always wanders in and reverts (sometimes purely to make a point). When arguing against my preferred wording (in favor of a compromise that seemed to gain general approval) isn't good enough, I honestly don't know what else to do.
*I say that now, but I'm not sure that I'll follow through. —David Levy 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All rules are equal, but some rules are more equal than others.--Father Goose 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you are stressed, u:David Levy, but your reverting and edit-comments were uncalled for, so get down off the high horse. That user had every right to put up a version with an honourable history, discussed previously on this page. (Didn't U:Jimbo express a preference for the nervous and depressed wording?) That is not my preferred version, but has more adherents than any of the "things made up in school" that some users are coming up with in the Kindergarden-Sandbox, or New York Yankees whatever. The regular contributors do not own thispage, and ought not to make such insulting or condescending remarks to good-faith editors, while going overboard on reverting any edit that isnt playing this little game the regulars seem to enjoy. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're defending a reversion performed purely to make light of our serious efforts and to prove that your previous edit summary was incorrect (which it was, of course). This was the same editor who previously reverted to that non-consensus-backed version "in blatant disregard of others' opinions," so please don't lecture me about him making a good-faith attempt to improve the page. Clearly, this is nothing but a joke to Kevin (who advised me to "lighten up"). —David Levy 05:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense, DL, I would not make light of serious efforts, but those in the kiddies-playground (Yankee workshop) are dismal, and deservedly going nowhere. The editor you chastised editted in good-faith on this occasion, and was condescended to by the regulars on thispage, and reverted without thought, which is not good enough. I get stressed about that. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this wasn't a good-faith edit on Kevin's part. It was the same reversion that he previously acknowledged was performed "in blatant disregard of others' opinions," and I did not undo it "without thought."

And then, apparently on principle, you reverted to wording that includes no advice about avoiding bureaucracy and instructs users to ignore the rules whenever they feel like it. Technically, it granted permission for me to violate the three-revert rule by reverting again, but I wasn't interested in making a point (or in getting blocked, as I rightfully would have been). —David Levy 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right there DL. As I understand it, no-one is in danger of breaching 3RR at this time, and I believe all recent edits have been made in good faith. I affirm that I have definitely not made any edits to prove any points, and I am sure I will not be accused of such a thing, if a proper study of the edit-history is made. Let's let some other users have a go for a while at advancing the issue, then, shall we? Newbyguesses - Talk 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that all of your edits have been made in good faith. —David Levy 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're so quick to link to policies without seeming to understand them. kmccoy (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. If I sought to own the policy, I'd revert to my preferred version.

2. If you believe that WP:AGF requires us to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, you don't understand it. —David Levy 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than seeking to understand why I made the edit, you simply began insulting me and my intentions. kmccoy (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You explictly acknowledged that you performed this reversion "in blatant disregard of others' opinions." Then you performed it again with an edit summary that sarcastically addressed the previous editor's summary by making light of the misstatement contained therein.

As I've noted on your talk page, I'm not accusing you of setting out to insult anyone, but your refusal to take this matter seriously (in spite of numerous editors' efforts) is insulting nonetheless. —David Levy 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that re-hashing this will acheive much, why keep on with it. I am not buying in, but I will say to DL that I think his efforts in restoring time after time to the "working with others" version are misguided. There is no more consensus support for freezing the page with that wording than there is for the "12 word" version, or for some others that users have the right to have considered, not just reverted every time. (Not that DL does all the reverting, other users are indeed more hot to do much of that. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm merely responding to others.

2. the "12-word" version is my preferred wording, but I disagree that it carries the same level of approval enjoyed by the "working with others" version. The latter is a compromise that has satisfied editors with very different ideas of what the page should look like.

3. I'm not attempting to "freeze" the page with any wording. The context in which I performed the reversions is as follows:

#1: PopUpPirate pluralized the wording, apparently without realizing the well-discussed need to switch to singular wording.

#2: You inexplicably claimed that a version that you created today was "the perennial version." I reverted not to my preferred wording, but to the compromise wording that has generated more agreement on this talk page than we've seen in a long time.

#3: As a joke that made fun of your previous edit summary, Kmccoy once again reverted to an old, non-consensus-backed version "in blatant disregard of others' opinions." —David Levy 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks, DL, I can clear up a couple of misunderstandings there. Yes, PopupP's edit introduced the plural. My next edit, which followed, corrected the grammar so that the change to plural was made completely unambiguous, which has been the basis of your objection. Did you not consider that, before you reverted? And, I have to point out that you mis-read my edit summary, the one you found objectionable. I said (read it) that we should revert to the *perennial version* - not that I had done so.

I reverted to a version which you had seemingly ruled out without due consideration. I then restored the perennial version with a later edit, which should have made this clear to you without the necessity to chastise me, in error, and to find amusement in a straightforward edit-summary, which was not made as a joke, but my edits, it seems, are treated as a joke, as well as those of other users here, and there have been quite a number of them, whose edits have been treated as a joke. Newbyguesses - Talk 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You briefly introduced a version that restored the plural wording while eliminating the ambiguity in question. (Did you consider my unrelated argument in favor of singular wording before you did that?) Had it remained, I wouldn't have reverted. For some reason, however, you immediately switched to another version that removed the mention of collaboration (thereby resulting in a sixteen-word version that said exactly the same thing as the twelve-word version). Lubaf (not I) reverted, and you then reverted back with an edit summary that I evidently misunderstood (and I apologize for that). But again, this was a version that lacked the mention of collaboration and conveyed in sixteen words what can be more elegantly conveyed in twelve. I reverted from this completely undiscussed version to the one that recently has garnered the most support on this talk page (including from editors with dramatically different ideas of what the page should look like). I didn't "rule out" your version (and I wouldn't have reverted if not for the aforementioned misunderstanding), but I do believe that you should have proposed it here instead of removing a version backed by so much discussion.

2. When did I "chastise" you? On the contrary, I plainly noted my certainty that you've been acting in good faith. I've merely been trying to explain to you that you've been defending an edit performed purely to have fun at your expense. I assure you that this did not amuse me. The edit summary that you deemed "condescending" was written in defense of you, me, and everyone else who's participated in good-faith attempts to improve the policy (and whose efforts Kevin trivialized). I never even implied that any of your edits were jokes.

3. I respectfully request that you practice what you preach; given your complaints about people not taking others' suggestions seriously, your references to the workshop as "the Kindergarden-Sandbox" and "the kiddies playground" are rather disconcerting. I write this with no offense intended. —David Levy 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that I don't even have to respond for you to continue to assume bad faith and mudsling. kmccoy (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. "Assume bad faith"?! You explicitly acknowledged that you edited "in blatant disregard of others' opinions"! Those are your exact words.

2. As on your talk page, you've accused me of mudslinging instead of explaining how I'm wrong. —David Levy 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, DL, I hope we can always work out any such misunderstandings through co-operating in this way if necessary. I assure you that I was blissfully unaware of any jokes being made at my expense, until you alerted me to that. Not a problem. Yes, unfortunately i am dismissive of the efforts being expended in the "test-kitchen', no discussion is taking place, and no improvement to the IARpage is likely from such unfocussed efforts. I would not call such a section a work-shop, but a playground, while editors who wish to consider serious but minor changes to the actual page, are treated with disdain, and that's not good enough, IMO. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To stay constructive, can we figure a way to avoid needing to have just one wording? (see also below, I guess) --Kim Bruning 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you proposing? A policy-fork free-for-all? —David Levy 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. More about letting people look at the history and letting them distill their own opinion on what the exact consensus is. Sort of like applying NPOV to the project namespace. I've done it on a separate subpage though. People can work on trying to improve the actual wording here, while interested readers can peruse the subpage to get a deeper understanding. Probably better than trying to force the One True View on everyone, or weirder yet, having words over it :-) --Kim Bruning 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a minor point, Newbyguesses complains above about "no discussion is taking place"; I note that he hasn't commented on any of the proposals, merely made his own. Please, if you're annoyed at the slow process above, realize it is so slow due to lack of participation; commenting on existing proposals is a good way to speed things up, since it gives a sense of what's good and bad in the existing proposals. Give a sense of what you like, and what you don't, and why, so that we can actually build consensus rather than argue. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou u:Lubaf. A number of useful minor wording changes have been made recently to the IARpage, but they have been reverted so quickly that no consensus is able to be formed. Suggested improvements made by Users to the projectpage should be given time to be sighted by editors, and result in discussion ensuing. Major changes to the page should be discussed first, preferably, but minor edits are best made, left to stand, and evaluated, not reverted immediately and unilaterally, unless the policy would be disastrously subverted thereby - and most recent additions to the page have not contradicted policy in any way, yet they were still reverted. That is not the right way to go about "working with others" IMO. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hidden messages on the IAR page

Why has graffiti been added to the IAR page, in the form of a repeated, and repeated message in commented-out code? This is unnecessary and ought to be removed. Is this a joke by User:Lubaf? It clutters up the page to no purpose, since all editors are allowed to edit the page without first obtaining the permission of any particular self-appointed owner, or gaurdian of the page. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kim Bruning 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So I created a subpage on IAR history, basically. I might think it's purdy, but that's possibly because I invented it. :-P Try it on for size and see if you can improve the notice and/or page! --Kim Bruning 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This page has been edit warred over endlessly. Any attempt to "fix" it is likely
to be viewed as trolling, with good reason. So, please, don't "fix" it. If you 
want to change it, go to the talk page and talk about it first. As of Aug 30, 
2007, the current thread on this subject is "The New Yankee IAR Wording 
Workshop".

This is the hidden text I removed, since it contradicts WP:CONSENSUS (ie, you should be able to edit a page upfront and not immediately get into trouble with others). I've tried one alternate way to proceed, which hopefully gives folks some air and allows them to compromise more easily. If there are other ideas on how to achieve that goal inside of standard wiki-practice, I'd love to hear them! :-) --Kim Bruning 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the page has been the center of so much argument, I'm afraid some kind of warning is needed, in order to prevent further lame edit warring. I note that the "I'll edit and be damned" camp seems to have been pretty consistently reverted back to the "magic twelve words", and that it seems that, historically, people wandering in and making changes to IAR generate more heat than light. We need some kind of warning that just editing IAR is probably going to be reverted to the "magic words". I'll admit my phrasing was poor, but there needs to be some kind of warning for people who just wander in, and think "I'll fix it back to what it was six months ago". (I suspect this page is not subject to WP:CON, due to it being such an important page, and one that is subject to so much lame edit warring.) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to grant that you do have some good points there. Perhaps a nicer wording to the tune of "be careful" somehow? (so as not to invite WP:BITE through the other way?) <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept and support any wording that gets the relevant point across. Maybe change "trolling" to "(possibly unintentional) trolling"? I don't know of any good synonyms for "trolling" besides "flamebait" (inappropriate here) that allow for unintentional violators. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ball back in my court eh? <chuckle> , hmph. Well, we could try the humor path...

• Many people have gone before you in attempting to edit Ignore All Rules, few have lived to tell the tale. Before editing this page, please ensure tat you have a signed and dated a liability waiver, and that your will is in order..

Hmph, no.

• Many people have gone before you in attempting to edit Ignore All Rules. Few have succeeded. Before you edit, make sure you have something like 3 months of experience and practice, or they're gonna eat you alive man!

slightly better, but perhaps elitist somehow.

• Ah, another victim, willing to edit Ignore All Rules. Beware! This page tends to be very controversial and you are likely to be reverted faster than you can say supercalafragalisticexpialadocious. If you have the hide of a rhinoceros, the patience of an oak, the strength of a bear, and the gentleness of a freshly picked blossom, proceed oh adventurer. In all other cases, prepare to be creamed!.

Meh, maybe shorter.

• Ignore All Rules is one of those places on wikipedia that is remeniscent of ye olde usenet flamewars. Beware of what will happen to you if you hit the save button. if you are timid of heart, best hit cancel now.

Closer... closer. Any further ideas on how to put things nicely (but still leave the final choice in the hands of the editor?) --Kim Bruning 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC) And he makes a graceful Lob!

<-- No, seriously, read the warning above. Ignore All Rules is one of those places on Wikipedia that is reminiscent of ye olde Usenet flame wars. Beware of what will happen to your edit if you hit the save button. -->

This seems quite *lame* to me. Who knows. Maybe I will get to like it? Newbyguesses - Talk 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that these "don't be bold" warnings are not appropriate. I'd rather see edit-warring over the page than the relinquishment of a basic wiki right. WP:BRD doesn't work well if you put the D first. But WP:POINTy edits are discouraged regardless.--Father Goose 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No words, nothing to argue about

Firstly I removed the box saying that the wording of this policy had been argued about. This is true of almost all of our policies, and we have a page history so that people can look at the past wording of pages and a talk page so that people can look at discussion on how a page has developed--no need to add redundant versions.

Then I removed the most controversial part of the page--the wording. I do commend this to the community. Where there are no words to the policy, there is nothing to argue about. The key to this policy is that one should not be afraid to make changes that, once made, all will agree are necessary, and the reason we argue about it is that we can't really express that idea flexibly enough in any human language.

So it's best to leave the policy wordless. The name, "Ignore all rules", is sufficient to give the new editor a clue, and no amount of carefully crafted wording will benefit even an experienced editor who doesn't get the basic idea. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "ignore all rules" alone tells readers practically nothing, and your theory that removing the wording will leave nothing to argue about could be applied to Wikipedia itself. Shall we permanently blank every page to eliminate the possibility of content disputes? —David Levy 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This smacks of a WP:POINT violation. Policies have to have words; removing them is disruptive. There is no gain from this version. Thanatosimii 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is rapidly becoming the Hitler of Wikipedia. kmccoy (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is directly criticising someone's actions analogous to comparing them with historical atrocities? —David Levy 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because as the length of a discussion on Wikipedia grows, the probability of someone accusing someone else of violating WP:POINT approaches one. kmccoy (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So does the probability of someone violating WP:POINT. The same is not true of the probability of someone committing an act tantamount to those of the Nazis. —David Levy 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

... you boggle my mind, David. Go read Godwin's Law. kmccoy (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been on Usenet for years, and I'm quite familiar with Godwin's Law. I'm saying that your comparison is invalid because unlike comparing someone with Nazis, claiming that someone violated WP:POINT often is reasonable. —David Levy 05:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's never reasonable. kmccoy (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's never reasonable to claim that someone violated a guideline? —David Levy 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not reasonable, if all that is achieved is "nya, nya, told ya so". If someone violates a guideline, fixit, then discuss. We dont impose fines for breaking rules, and we dont punish. We move on, and work on building our agreements, not re-hashing prior disagreements. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All of that goes without saying. —David Levy 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou DL, you know that I value your contributions, and I hope I have not accidentally seemed to imply here any criticism in any way of yourself, or any user. Yes, I do state the obvious, often, in discussions, if it seems best, and may lead to agreement being reached - sometimes this works, sometimes not. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no attempt to disrupt Wikipedia here. We obviously all agree to ignore all rules, the policy is practically a truism on any well run wiki. What we don't agree to is a form of words. Removing them is a rational, although unorthodox, solution.

I don't agree that "Ignore all rules" tells the reader "practically nothing". In fact it tells him all he needs to know: ignore all rules. All the rest is rules-lawyering. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" is not all that readers need to know about the policy. There are specific situations in which ignoring rules is appropriate (and others in which it isn't). There's nothing rational about a blank policy. —David Levy 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no advantage to having a blank page for a policy page. Not even this one. Those who want to Wiki-lawyer could find a way to argue over the contents of an empty paper bag. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh, Tony! Can't live with you, can't live without you! :-/ --Kim Bruning 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See? Round the loop we go again. :-P I guess there's now several versions I could forward-vert or re-vert to ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

Who dislikes this suggested wording, and why?

• The purpose of the rules is to help us work together to build Wikipedia. If the rules interfere with that, ignore them.

--Father Goose 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of "the rules" is to help build Wikipedia. Most of them are not related to "working together". —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no benefit to this wording. —David Levy 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with this text. It conveys policy correctly. To improve and maintain Wikipedia is our aim, when acting together, or when acting alone .Newbyguesses - Talk 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit o' explanation of the above wording, as I interpret it: if we were all truly working alone, we wouldn't need a single rule. The rules just lay out common standards so as to better keep our efforts in sync. I'll reword it so all of that is completely explicit.--Father Goose 07:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards that help to unify us in our quest to build an encyclopedia. If the rules interfere with that, ignore them.

• It is quite helpful to have a guide when you are doing something. I might be authoring a book all alone, but still use a dictionary. The policies and guidelines are generally best practice, regardless of whether they "keep our efforts in sync", and do note that the benefit of a wiki, and IAR, is that people can simply edit, without needing to keep in sync with anyone. —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about just:

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules interfere with that, ignore them.

then?--Father Goose 05:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good. Use quotation marks when referring to "rules", though, as they are not rules in the ordinary sense. The reason for continuing to use the term "rules" at all is that it is more simple and direct than saying "policies and guidelines". Also, the word "guidelines" fits better than "standards"; and though the "policies" might not ordinary fall under the term "guidelines", in the context of IAR it is the best word. Also, repeating "rules" in both sentences isn't good. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had quotes around "the rules" in any version to date (it's not Ignore all "rules"), so I don't see why we should start. I'm not sure what you're saying about "standards", "guidelines", etc. I don't think having "Wikipedia's rules" and "the rules" in two sentences is glaringly redundant, and it helps to keep both sentences short and clear.--Father Goose 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well there should be quotes around it; the linking served as a kind of quotation anyway. Replace "standards" with "guidelines for the reasons above. And once the redundancy of repeating "the rules" and the extra "we use to help us" are omitted, and it is converted into one straightforward sentence, we have the same IAR we had before: If the rules interfere with building an encyclopedia, ignore them. —Centrx→talk • 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issues

As the *text* currently on the page is SHORT, I think it looks better, style-wise, if it is indented, like a paragraph is in a book.

Not to start a LONG discussion, but are there any objections to some simple SPACING? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reverted your spacing, I'll say that the reason I did so was it caused my eyes to burn. I mentioned <center> for a good reason; it's much less hideous to look upon, and doesn't cause a viewer to want to remove his eyeballs with a sharpened chopstick. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We even edit-war over the spacing. This page truely is wikipedia in a bottle ;-) --Kim Bruning 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia in a nutshell, you coelacanth!--Father Goose 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm a living fossil, you trilobite! ;-) --Kim Bruning 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives, you'll find that the idea of indenting/centering the key text was attempted, discussed and rejected. It contradicts our style conventions and actually makes the sentence stand out less (because Wikipedia readers expect such text to be left-aligned and only incidental text to be indented/centered). —David Levy 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -I disagree on that DL. What screen resolution do you view? To U:Lubaf, (see above, the work-shop) A Haiku without seventeen syllables is not a Haiku? —Newbyguesses - Talk 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My screen resolution is 1400x1050.

Whether the change in question makes the sentence stand out more or less is a matter of opinion, but it's factual that this contradicts our style conventions (and that indented/centered text appearing at the top of a page usually is incidental). —David Levy 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when it's left-indented it's less overshadowed by the large template above it.--Father Goose 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my perception. —David Levy 03:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

vice to virtue

Can we just make a virtue out of a vice? I'll retry my "let's make it a tradition to change WP:IAR at least once a day" proposal.

Or is everyone too dug in about their commas and dots-on-the i? :-)

--Kim Bruning 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think other policies get changed even more often... but you can't help but notice the changes to this one.--Father Goose 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And then there's the fact that IAR, by its very nature, is a magnet for rules lawyers. And we all know what kind of people rules lawyers are, don't we? That's right! The type of people who engage in rules lawyering! ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just that each time IAR is changed, it become a little bit more of a rule. It seems fine in its current version. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Would it kill anyone to fully protect IAR until some form of consensus is reached on the talk page? This senseless wording change -> revert cycle is stopping us from actually building and improving Wikipedia, and such a cycle is exactly what this policy is trying to prevent. Maybe the IAR wording should be "If you spend more time worrying about IAR than you do building an encyclopedia, you're missing the point of this project." Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection perhaps, or we could avoid that by blocking people who repeatedly make the same change without consensus. Whichever works best for the encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people that have strong opinions on IAR's structure are administrators, making it a moot point.
That said, I like your suggestion. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly we can count on at least most of the admins not to edit war on a page protected due to edit warring. The others can be dealt with on a case by case basis. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's important to point out that the current "consensus wording" was arrived at without trying to achieve a consensus first. Boldness is a key ingredient in building a consensus -- though of course not dickishness. Considering just about all the versions that are warred between stay quite close to the original spirit of IAR, just what is it that needs protecting? Ultimately, the only way to truly assess consensus is to see what version is reverted to the most often, and the fact that there are two primary camps that remain unreconciled at this time is a very strong indication to me that we should continue to hunt for a variation that meets with approval from both of those camps.

Incidentally, do the 3-4 edits/day (3 month average) that IAR receives really stop us from "building Wikipedia"? Worrying less about IAR is excellent advice.--Father Goose 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"what version is reverted to the most often"? We don't count reverts to decide who wins here. The winner of the most reverts contest is more likely to get blocked. The way we truly assess consensus here is by discussion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be an interesting way to settle disputes. Can I revert a few times to the version without the horrible "working with others" part. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by that is the version that is reverted to by the greatest number of editors -- by implication, the one with the most approval.

If you want to truly assess consensus here, then, ahem, join the discussion of the version you reverted. Right up there. If you want discussion instead of reversion, discuss.--Father Goose 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it is a discussion, it is far from a consensus to change a long standing policy. Every time somebody changes IAR it is made into a little bit more of a "rule", with more restrictions and caveats. The whole point of the IAR principal is that these types of specific rulings can be ignored. So to put them right into IAR is an oxymoron. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't explained what you dislike about the suggested change, and only seem to be opposing change in general. The proposed version doesn't include any kind of new rule; it just adds some explanation of the principle behind IAR. Hopefully this makes it less enigmatic (a big fault of the current version) and it retains the "working with others" concept without expressing it as part of the rule itself, which is the source of much opposition to the "current consensus version".

If you don't personally dislike the proposed version, and you're just reverting it on a procedural basis, that's just mindless. Wikipedia does not need to be locked down against good faith edits.--Father Goose 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But I have made it clear why I object. The essay WP:CREEP comes to mind. I suggest you make an essay about IAR, as many have in the past. The essence of IAR is simplicity and piling on details only contradicts the philosophy that a list of details is not enough and we have to be willing to go beyond the rules if it helps us make an encyclopedia. I disagree with the idea that the current version in incomplete in some way. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear until now that you meant your general objection to apply to the proposed version, because what you're protesting against doesn't exist in the proposal. "Piling on details"? You must be looking at a different version.

The current version is wrong in ways that quite a few editors have pointed out. As long as you continue to ignore them, their grievance will go unanswered. Consider for a second that there might be a version out there that would be more broadly accepted than the current one. That's what we should be shooting for -- not just our current favorites.--Father Goose 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of the poor word "point", especially in edit summaries.

I'm not sure how I'm disrupting Wikipedia, but please, David Levy, if you're going to accuse me of violating policies or guidelines, then give me a warning on my talk page or mention on this talk page. Otherwise, if you don't like my edit, then just revert it back to your favorite version. I find it abusive and disrespectful to be accused of things in a public way like that without you even mentioning it in a way to which I may respond. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this message belongs on David's talk page, not here. Just sayin'... Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why reverting your edit while mentioning and linking to the violated guideline without contacting you personally is something that should upset you, but whatever; as Rockstar said, your comment, which was addressed to David, belongs on his talk page. The "nervous and depressed" wording hasn't been in place since February 2006; changing back to it just to experiment and prove a point is obviously deserving of a revert, per the aforementioned guideline. -CapitalQ 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the edit summary in question was on this talk page's main page, and, as evidenced by CapitalQ's misuse just above, the problem isn't unique to David Levy, but seems to be especially widespread here. An edit with which you disagree does not always violate WP:POINT. In fact, it doesn't even usually violate it. I am editing to make a point, just like all of you are making edits to the article to make your various points about how this page should be worded. The key is that none of us are disrupting Wikipedia. So, please, I urge all of you kind folks, stop throwing around links to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think my edit isn't the right one, then revert. But the constant drone of finding new and oh-so-clever ways to link to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point just really pushing the debate in the direction of being an ad hominem. And that's to say nothing about the violation of other policies, like assuming good faith. I've done nothing to deserve these semi-personal attacks and I would like all the parties on this page to concentrate on the content of the edits by other parties. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the above reference to "CapitalQ's misuse" reflects Kmccoy's belief that "it's never reasonable" to claim that someone violated WP:POINT.

I have not argued that an edit with which I disagree always violates WP:POINT (an obvious absurdity). I'm saying that your edits do. You know darn well that they aren't productive, but you evidently enjoy mocking our efforts to reach a solution. You previously acknowledged that you were editing "in blatent [sic] disregard of others' opinions," and we aren't required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. —David Levy 02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly how you're disrupting Wikipedia. We discussed it on your talk page when you did the same thing last month. This time, I simply reverted the edit and included an explanatory link in the edit summary. Clearly, I'm not preventing you from responding, but I hope that you don't expect me to waste my time repeating myself whenever you decide to make this point. I have better things to do. Don't you? —David Levy 02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I really don't know how I'm disrupting Wikipedia. Nor am I mocking "your" efforts to reach a solution. I'm simply contributing my own efforts to those efforts from which you seek to exclude me. But I see that your auto-linker has attacked again. You may want to get that checked, if you can find the time. I love your continued borderline ad hominem arguments, accusing me of mocking these righteous efforts, pointing out my misspellings, implying that I'm such a loser that I've got nothing better to do with my time, calling my ideas absurd, etc. Please, feel free not to waste your time making this discussion a more hostile one. kmccoy (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to stop misconstruing my remarks.

I didn't refer to our efforts as "righteous," nor have I attempted to exclude you from them. I just want you to stop editing "in blatent [sic] disregard of others' opinions" (your words, not mine) by reverting to an old version of the page that clearly doesn't reflect the will of the community (as opposed to the other versions, for which the disputes merely pertain to the specific wording).

I'm not making fun of your misspelling. I commit typos too. I'm simply noting the fact that I'm quoting you accurately. (In previous instances, I accidentally corrected the word's spelling.)

I'm wasn't implying that you're a "loser" with nothing better to do with your time. On the contrary, I was implying that you do have better things to do with your time. Can you please explain why you wanted me to post exactly the same comments to your talk page that I posted last month (and why you neglected to mention this)?

Lastly, I didn't refer to your idea as "absurd." I said that it would be absurd for me to believe that an edit with which I disagree always violates WP:POINT. —David Levy 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)