Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 11

First Rule to Consider, but different interpretation today

If the claim is made that: "Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider" shouldn't it also be mentioned that the given interpretation "If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." differs significantly from the original interpretation "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." [1] supported by: Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, WojPob, Jimbo Wales, AyeSpy, OprgaG, Invictus, and Koyaanis Qatsi, Pinkunicorn, sjc, mike dill, Taw, GWO ?

1. If the rule has changed shouldn't that be noted?
2. If the rule hasn't changed, why is the text describing the rule being changed?

Uncle uncle uncle 05:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy's scope has only been expanded. The principle on which it originally was based—that users unfamiliar with the rules shouldn't allow this to intimidate them and prevent them from editing—remains. The wording, however, has been greatly improved (to avoid implying that people should ignore rules that they understand purely because they feel like it) and an additional anti-bureaucratic meaning has been incorporated. —David Levy 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is not an improvement. As one editor stated in an edit summary "this is not a job and you are not my co-worker". Garion96 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wiki and Wikis require, by nature, collaboration. The "working with others" wording just reinforces a foundational principle that is not negotiable. If you don't like collaboration, find another project. There's no other way around it. This isn't anyone's job, but in a way, we are all co-workers. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, it however has nothing to do with ignore all rules. If I speedy delete something per IAR (all hypothetical, it hasn't happened yet). The rules are not preventing me to work with others. The rules prevent me to delete some crappy stuff which technically is not a speedy. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! The "working with others" wording is there to convey the fact that "ignoring the rules" doesn't mean "ignoring fellow editors." —David Levy 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to be a linguistic expert to read THAT from the rule.

"If any rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This does not mean "automatically ignoring fellow editors"".

Still seems pointless (IMO) but much clearer. Garion96 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That wording seems clumsy to me. The current wording is far more straightforward. If a rule prevents us from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, we should ignore it.

Is your objection is that we aren't always "working with others"? Whenever someone performs an action that benefits Wikipedia (such as the hypothetical speedy deletion), he/she is contributing to our shared goal of building an encyclopedia (id est working with others). —David Levy 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One of my objections is that we are making a simple statement into something more complex. The collaborative goal of Wikipedia is a given. I think if we make it more complicated there is the potential to create more difficult situations. I also think it is not a clear sentence for non-native English speakers. How about "If a rule prevents you or other editors from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My preferred wording is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that collaboration is implied (or should be, at least) by "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." Others disagree, and the current wording seems like a reasonable compromise between my preference and theirs (a longer explanation). The wording that you suggest above doesn't convey the information in question. —David Levy 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mine too, maybe we should start another revert war. :) Any way of improving the "with others" part to avoid people misreading it? I know I still do...sort of. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome better wording that conveys the same information. I just haven't seen it yet.  :-) —David Levy 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on why the one suggested above and/or below is no good.--Father Goose 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on the wording suggested above (if you're referring to Garion96's). Regarding your suggested wording, I agree with Rockstar915; it uses more words to say less. It also seems a bit too informal to me. —David Levy 04:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, yes, I meant mine, not Garion96's. What "less" do you think it says? Is the "collaboration" element too far diluted?--Father Goose 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally believe that it should be necessary to reference collaboration, but yes, I'm not picking that up from your wording. I agree with Rockstar915 that it conveys essentially the same information conveyed by the pre-"working with others" version (which I believe did so more elegantly). —David Levy 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do in fact ignore all rules, and purely because I feel like it. Apparently there's more to it though, because (ever since 2001) I've never actually been RFC-ed or RFAr-ed or anything like that (knock on wood). <scratches head>. So the interpretation in practice doesn't seem to have changed at all. What gives? --Kim Bruning 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But do you actually ignore the rules? Maybe new editors do simply due to ignorance, but I'm sure by now (after years of being involved) you know all of the rules at least nominally (not to mention you're active in many policy discussions), so there's got to be some subconscious acknowledgment of them going on when you edit. Plus, whenever you're ignoring the rules, you're probably still abiding by them anyway (obviously, since you've never been RFC-ed or RFAR-ed), and I'm sure you know (again, at least subconsciously) that you're abiding by them as you edit. So it begs the question: can we ever fully ignore the rules? ;-) Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone said something like "if you have to cite IAR, you are doing it wrong", which I sort of agree with. However, since we have quite a lot of policy wonks out there, I am not so sure anymore. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to an instance in which someone is familiar with a rule, understands it, realizes that there is no consensus to set it aside in a particular instance, and violates it purely because he/she wants to do something a certain way and doesn't care what others think. Citing this policy as justification for that is entirely inappropriate, and this is what the wording in question is supposed to discourage. —David Levy 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this work?

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

--Father Goose 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this wording better? How does it convey the spirit of IAR more than the current wording? How is it different than the old version (despite the fact that it has more words)? Consensus has stated time and time again that a) less is more when it comes to this policy and b) the wording should not change unless there is a very convincing reason to do so. I personally think that IAR should convey three things: 1) We are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia. 2) Content is more important than policy. 3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that requires consensus to be sought. The current wording covers all of these points in very few words. Your version says nothing about collaboration and is wordy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It still says "we are here to build an encyclopedia" (possibly in a better way than the awkward "improve or maintain" language). It still conveys that content is more important than policy, and now includes a small explanation of why we have policy at all -- which gives a better baseline for why and when we ignore it. And it now mentions collaboration twice: "common standards" and "we use". It does not, however, state things in a way that might be read as "consensus must be sought at all times". Now, I think that such a literal reading of "working with others" is overblown, but others here do not, and I would like to work with those others to come up with a wording that satisfies them and me. This is preferable to yet more edit-warring and page protection.

The version I propose is also not wordy. It's slightly longer than the current one, but it also says more. The current one is so terse it doesn't do a good job of explaining the underlying principle. Why are we so insistent on preserving IAR as an enigma? The ideas behind it can be better explained, with not that many additional words.

As yet, I haven't seen any arguments as to why the proposed wording is wrong -- all I am seeing is hostility towards change, even when it is carefully and judiciously applied.--Father Goose 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your last point: we don't need to prove that your wording is wrong. You need to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that your wording is better. The hostility towards change in this policy occurs simply because being nitpicky about IAR's wording borders way too close on Wikilawyering.

See, the whole concept behind IAR is that the specific wording doesn't matter -- the spirit of Wikipedia is what matters the most. Because of this, if you want to change the policy, it's you who needs to prove why your wording is better. You should expect hostility because the spirit of this policy says "You don't need to change the wording. Just understand the policy and you'll be fine."

And so, in the end, the ball is in your court, not ours. And all I can see above in terms of reasons for change is "I don't like the idea of working with others" and "I don't like the wording." Ergo, it's no surprise to me that your proposal hasn't gained wild support. I personally don't see the need for change. Why? Because IAR is so much bigger and more important than getting into a scuffle about the wording. In fact, having nitpicky disputes about the wording is exactly what this policy is trying to prescribe against. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different: I think the word you are looking for is 'proscribe' --69.124.51.62 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Understand the policy" -- that's exactly what I'm trying to address here. As I've said before, a common question on RfAs relates to whether the candidate understands IAR. IAR is enigmatic, but there's really no reason why it has to be enigmatic. I can understand wanting to avoid changing it to a wording that is wrong, but not to a wording that makes the policy more readily understood.

Three times you say the specific wording of IAR doesn't matter -- in defense of retaining the current wording. Yet you claim those who are willing to rethink it are the nitpickers. I put to you that the best wording is one that avoids warring and confusion. The current wording is not the best wording in that regard -- far from it. There is a heavy shadow of doubt over the current wording, but rather than take this expression of doubt into consideration, you call for page protection. The more sacrosanct any specific wording becomes, the worse off we are. I am not advocating change for the sake of change, but for the sake of clarity and consensus.

We who are trying to improve the presentation and explanation of IAR are trying to convince you -- as an individual -- of our goal. We do not yet see anything other than opposition to change, in the abstract, in what you have been saying here. I call upon you to review the principles embodied by IAR, and ponder how we might convey them more clearly. One thing is for certain: IAR is not sixteen words carved in stone.--Father Goose 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Except you're the only one advocating the new word change. The words are entirely yours, so again, the burden does not fall on me; it's on you. That said, continuing to insert your interpretation of IAR into the project page is probably the worst thing you can do and will end up not in a wording change but rather in you getting blocked. Trust me, I would know -- it got me blocked a few months ago. That was before I began to understand IAR and understand that trying to change the wording is pointless and a waste of time. You're not the first to fruitlessly propose a new change, and you won't be the last. I'm sorry but it's true. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Goose stop it, simply being determined is not enough to change things. Stubborn editing will more likely lead to you being blocked than getting your way. You have been changing this policy without consensus for days. Get consensus first, you can tell when you have consensus when people stop arguing with you and reverting you. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this edit Current revision (21:26, 14 September 2007) (edit) (undo), which Undid a good-faith edit within two minutes. The wording which was not allowed to stand was in no way defective in conveying the perennial policy implications of IAR. The wording which replaces it is not crucially superior, and rather than instant reverts, allowing reasonable attempts to go past the current version should be considered as a proposition. For instance, when the age-old "nervous and depressed" wording went up, it got reverted, just to return to this version. That too, was a too-quick revert.Newbyguesses - Talk 02:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the version of 21:26, 14 September 2007 has been the primary version for over a year and the recent changes are not in any way based on a consensus. The "nervous and depressed" version has not enjoyed consensus for a very long time. Now, if you want to change policy, propose a change and get consensus for it. If you propose a change and do not get consensus for it then there is no justification for such a change. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is a subtle but substantial variation on the year-old version, and the variation was introduced only six weeks ago, without prior discussion to become, in effect, the newest consensus version.

I believe the consensus that has formed around it can be broadened to encompass an even larger number of editors who have engaged in the discussion of IAR. I think we are all here with the common goal of preserving the ideas behind IAR -- not simply the words.

I am not motivated by stubbornness. I am not trying to make a point. I do not feel my efforts are fruitless. I simply think there are still useful changes we could make the the wording of IAR. And I know that reverts are no substitute for thoughtfulness and discussion.--Father Goose 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When discussion leads to the conclusion and consensus that your changes should be made, that is what we shall do. Until then, please argue your point on this talk page, and not on the actual policy page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not one year-old, it is six weeks old, and has only a weak consensus. A change to the wording of one sentence does NOT constitute a change to policy, it is just another way to express the same policy. Mindless reverts, without consideration for the good faith of editors, or any understanding of the issues, do not help to improve Wikipedia.Newbyguesses - Talk 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

5 November 2006, it goes hack farther than that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to the "working with others" phrase, which has been flavour of the month. And I have no problem with that wording from Nov2006, twelve words only, that's fine.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I personally could take or leave that part. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people dislike that part quite a bit; others feel it, or something like it, is needed to convey the fact that collaboration is more primal than rules (and ignoring rules). What I've been doing lately is trying to find a wording that both camps can accept. I haven't yet seen evidence that either of those camps is opposed to the wording I've been proposing. Until I understand what's wrong with the wording (aside from oh my god, you changed it), I'll continue pressing for someone to explain why it's wrong.--Father Goose 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that your wording is "wrong," but I've explained why I feel that it isn't as good as the current wording or the previous long-standing version. —David Levy 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Press, but press on the talk page, not the policy page. I firmly believe you should have every right to propose and campaign for change, but you need to do so through discussion, not repeatedly making the same or similar edits. The last week of the policy's history looks like a slow motion battle, yet it should not be changed at all till there is a clear consensus here on the talk page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made two edits in the past week. (Oh, wait, I made four; two reverts, anyhow.) I guess you're expecting me to make a dozen more. I feel those two edits were not out of place. People stay silent when they're not confronted with the possibility of change. I got you talking; I need to get others talking as well, even if the answer is ultimately "no, that's no good". If that is the answer, I accept it. However, I will wait upon that answer, not "Argh, don't change it!"--Father Goose 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions should be excluded from this rule

Admins are like hosts of wikipedia, who are supposed to treat guests with dues. If an admin just edits(without using admin powers) he may ignore rules, but while taking admin actions, he should not ignore rules. Admin actions should be excluded from WP:IAR. Vither mupe 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Admins have already gone through a procedure to ensure they are trusted by the community. There are many situations in which admins are required to rely on their own common sense or where there are conflicting interpretations of the rules. Arguably, WP:IAR should apply more to admins than to users who have not been endorsed by the community in a procedure like RFA. Waggers 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR used to apply double for admins, but they did need to be a lot more careful when applying it. These days, admins are somewhat rare, but at the same time they're hardly really needed anymore either, since the software now catches most of the issues that used to require a cool head and some level of technical and community understanding. Perhaps we can get rid of admins entirely. That would be nice, since then more smart people could get away with applying IAR (and BE BOLD) more regularly, with less accusations of "Evil admin unilateralism". --Kim Bruning 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC) What, me? Preposterous, I'd never do something like that.... would I?

If admins cannot ignore rules, we are doomed to a bureaucratic failure. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

An exemption from this rule for admins would be bad. But if you're having to ignore a rule regarding admin conduct, since such rules are usually pretty well thought out, you had better have a very good reason. Regular editing can get away with some degree of "well, I just felt that this was right so I did it regardless of what the rules say". But for admin actions, you should have a specific reason why the rule should not apply in the case of what you did. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if anyone is to ignore a rule the had best have a good reason. I don't think non-admin users should ignore rules because they feel like it, they should do so only if the rule prevents them from helping the encyclopedia, and they need to be able to explain how. This is really not an area where a distinction between admin and non-admin is needed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that non-admins should have a good explanation for why the rule should be broken as well. It's just more important with admin actions. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, and apparently we do too sometimes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!!one!!!1 —Миша13 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions can not be easily reverted, unlike normal editing. Blocking/protecting or even editing of protected pages take its own time to get reverted, even an action made out of error. Vither mupe 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions can be easily reverted, just like normal editing. There are over 1000 people who can do it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You happen to be one of those 1000. I don't know if you'd characterze admin actions as "easy to revert" if you weren't one. Separately, admins are less free to revert each other than regular users, by the terms of WP:WHEEL.--Father Goose 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New version about "working with others"

Why does the new version of IAR require that a person consult the rules unless they are actively working with others, that they cannot simply edit the encyclopedia? This new version was never actually resolved before beyond statements that working without recognition of there even being any others as equivalent to "working with others", that an individual person building a model airplane must be "working with others" because he bought the raw materials at a hardware store. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitimate flaw in the wording; but the version sans "working with others" has the worse problem that it seems to allow you to ignore such rules as WP:OWN, WP:3RR ("My version is an improvement, so I can revert all I want"), WP:AGF, WP:HARASS ("He's a disruptive troll! I'll follow him around to warn others about his disruptive trolling! (Please ignore the fact that I have no proof of him being a disruptive troll.)"), and other behavioral guidelines. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the current wording, so that both flaws are remedied? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR has never promised exemption from reaction. If someone misuses it then then they will experience the consequences. I do not believe that "working with others" is a necessary prerequisite of ignoring the rules to improve the encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:3RR, and the others you listed do not have any special precedence over any other rule. Being an asshat is not "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", just like a POV essay is not "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Neither are specified in IAR, but that does not mean that they are thereby allowed and everything that "Wikipedia" means does not need to be mentioned here. You could replace "working with others" with "civilly", which would be better but would still be elevating the concept of civility above other "rules". We could have an IAR that said "If the rules prevent you from civilly improving or maintaining a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia", but that makes IAR be an anti-rule that nevertheless references specific rules. The point here is to be as general as possible, as an open-wiki encyclopedia is intrinsically equivalent to IAR; people are going to be asshats regardless of whether it is forbidden here. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do! I do! (Or at least, I'm hard at work on it.)

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

Is the above wording felt to be wrong by either those who support the "working with others" version or those who oppose it? True, it's not so terse that you could split atoms with it... but does it bridge the divide?--Father Goose 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "model airplane" analogy is silly, Centrx. No one ever said anything of the sort. As has repeatedly been noted, making a constructive contribution to the encyclopedia's creation is working with others. Whether anyone else is editing that particular page doesn't matter, as all of us [should] share the common goal of improving and maintaining Wikipedia. A valid analogy is that a person constructing a chimney (while different people lay shingles on the roof and paint the walls) is working with others to build a house. —David Levy 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike a chimney, an encyclopedia article can stand on its own, and if a lone passer-by wishes to start the construction of a house all by himself, for his own amusement or for the love of architecture, and then leaves never to return, he is not suddenly "working with others" when someone else comes by and adds to it. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Our articles don't merely stand on their own. They collectively make up Wikipedia. Whenever someone improves or maintains one, he/she is working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, any good encyclopedia article can stand on its own; editing one article does not obligate someone to beef up the network of surrounding articles or interact with anyone. "Working with others" is not equivalent to "working without others". —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I said that our articles don't merely stand on their own. Each is a part of Wikipedia. So if someone constructively edits one, he/she is working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia.

I wrote nothing about "beef[ing] up the network of surrounding articles." —David Levy 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemme try too! :-)

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. If your situation doesn't happen to fit, feel free to ignore them.

Hmm, that has several problems, though it does explicitly mention what the project namespace actually documents. --Kim Bruning 03:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A long version always has risks...

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, it'll work out just fine.

Does cover most of the "if wikipedia makes you nervous and depressed" even. And since Mediawiki is pretty tough by now, this is actually more true now than it was a couple of years ago. --Kim Bruning 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm still scratching my head about adding cooperation with others. <scratches head> how to add a reference to consensus in there too... I already have too many words again. :-/ --Kim Bruning 04:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this just makes it longer, and might be too informal for some:

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, as long as you just keep talking with everyone, and keep listening carefully, it'll work out just fine.

<scratches head> But how to boil it down? --Kim Bruning 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're curious, I think that for many people, a wiki is still an amazing new experience they've never dealt with before. So I'm looking at a page from an old old booklet that deals with a similar situation: BBC Welcome guide, page 5, "if you've never used a computer before". The key sentence is where they say that there is very little you can do that will damage the machine, so you should not be afraid to experiment. --Kim Bruning 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is actually a fairly good version. IAR doesn't have to be less than twenty words, or gnomic, IMO; as long as it touches on the major points mentioned by Rockstar915 above (1) We are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia. 2) Content is more important than policy. 3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that requires consensus to be sought.), and is easily understood, there's no need to apply a rotary screw compressor to get the exact wording down to as close to zero size as is possible. Being wordy is okay, as long as it doesn't descend into loquaciousness. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a rule about "working with others" assume the rules can meet every possibility involving working with others. The whole point of IAR is that the rules cannot meet every possibility, so introducing this qualification on ignoring rules is contrary to the spirit of the rule itself. There are times when consensus should be ignored, for example if the consensus was to violate Florida law, Wikipedia would be compelled to ignore that consensus due to its servers being in Florida. It does not take much "what if" role-playing to realize that "ignore all rules" is designed to bypass all the little things that the rules did not intend for, and that includes "working with others". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Centrx's somewhat legit flaw above (what if you're working alone?), this isn't a flaw, because you're misreading the sentence of IAR as it is: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."; in other words, "working with others" narrows the scope of when (rather than what) rules can be ignored. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it is written, the sentence only applies to rules that prevent working with others. If the purpose of adding "working with others" is to prevent misinterpretations or rules-lawyering, misinterpreters and rules-lawyers will similarly constrain IAR by a literal reading of the sentence. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy contains no mention of working with others to perform a particular edit or to edit a particular page. It only refers to "working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia." Again, any constructive edit is a means of working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written before, it was not even necessary for someone to have any intention of even improving Wikipedia, they need only have incidentally done so. If I write a great article because I want to write a great article, I am not obligated to do so with the specific purpose even of improving Wikipedia, let alone working with others to do so. Again, a constructive edit can be made without any interaction with others, or even knowledge of the existence of others working. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. To which previous version of the policy are you referring?

2. Again, someone who writes a great article without anyone's assistance is still working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lubaf, I don't think we should narrow the scope of "when", I think the scope should intentionally be kept wide. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree; the scope should be narrow; IAR is for when 1.) You legitimately don't know the rules (the intent of the "rules to consider" version), or 2.) As a relief valve for when the rules aren't working, or don't cover the situation at hand. That's it. Those are broad situations, yes, but they're also subject to very straightforward tests, and thus, easily judged after the fact. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's no good reason to have the "working with others" words in there. Yes, collaboration is part of editing, I doubt anyone is disputing this. But it's not particularly relevant to ignoring the rules. It may be worthwhile having a bit in there that states clearly that ignoring the rules does not mean ignoring other editors, but I think that's already covered in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Friday (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the idea proposed here doesn't have either wording. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Kim Bruning's suggested wordings

I have a few problems with these. First, we need to address policies as well as guidelines (so going back to "rules" might be best). Second, the rules aren't just "best practices". The guidelines usually are, but the policies sometimes spell out principles or legal necessities. For that reason, I prefer "common standards", which in my mind is a superset of "best practices". Third, I don't feel your suggestion does enough to underscore "we are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia." If you "come up with a guideline that applies", but following it would be bad for the encyclopedia, you should ignore it.--Father Goose 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Only foundation statements spell out legal necessities. All binding concepts are written in PHP, not English. All else is guidelines as per the (closest) dictionary definition. Though perhaps an even better wording would be "best practices": "Processes and activities that have been shown in practice to be the most effective.". Hmm, maybe I'll start using that.

I think the word "rule" is a misnomer when it comes to things that are in the project namespace. Ignore all rules is a great guideline best practice, because it explicitly de-fangs the concept of rules.

Check your favorite dictionary and see if you can agree! :-)

--Kim Bruning 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP have legal underpinnings. If we had the legal wherewithal to ignore them, we could make a better encyclopedia. But if we do ignore them, we'll get shut down by a US court of law.

Separately, "best practice" is bizspeak. Your "even better wording" solves that problem, although "processes and activities" doesn't map onto "policies and guidelines". IAR is not likely to be renamed, so I don't see a problem with continuing to use the short, readily understood word "rule" and have it be a stand-in for WP:POL.--Father Goose 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue we have with this is that everyone thinks the article they are working on and interested in, or the point of view they want to apply to article etc is the "special circumstance" in which this should be applied, and recently the only times I've seen it used are as an attempt at at trump card in a discussion in which policy clearly disagrees with someone. We're here to build an encyclopedia, but without standards we're no better than a free webhost. Everyone thinks what they are doing is the "best" for the encyclopedia (outside of vandals) so really exactly what does this do and what's its purpose?--Crossmr 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't want the rules to ever become dogma. We're not here to follow a bunch of rules, we're here to build an encyclopedia. It's easy to swat aside a single editor who has an axe to grind -- who would say "fuck the rules" anyway -- but we really screw ourselves when we treat authority as more important than common sense.--Father Goose 08:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So then why have the other rules? just for fun? I think if history (mankinds and even wikipedias) has taught us, the larger the group of people you have together, the more important rules become. Setting standards are requiring individuals follow them is the only way to ensure that the encyclopedia gets built (and wikipedia is just not used to keep someone's family tree). Everyone has their own definition of common sense and what is good. You claim we're not here to follow a bunch of rules, but if I went around engaging in edit wars, I'd be banned. Why? Maybe I feel the edit I'm pushing is best for the encyclopedia, who are you to tell me, what I'm thinking? We have a rule against that? So what, we're ignoring them all when they get in the way, right? Oh, but consensus and 3rr are rules that really shouldn't and can't be ignored right? You can't make a blanket statement like that and doing so gives this "policy" false power. The only people who intentionally invoke it seem to do so to try and win a debate. So really this policy does nothing but create an additional talking point in most disputes that has to be quashed before things can move forward.--Crossmr 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There should really be an FAQ, I've repeated this many times.

• While you can ignore all rules, you cannot ignore consensus
• The wiki, partially by accident, partially by design , segments the community. Therefore at any location, only a small subset of the community is communicating. This is the ideal circumstance for consensus. Having more rules than people or lines of text is contra-productive.
• Early on, some people designed systems that subvert the wiki by forcing people together and adding extra rules. These systems worked early on, due to small numbers of people. Almost all of these systems are now either broken, or have evolved to split people out again. (eg each individual wp:rfa and wp:afd discussion is now held on a separate page).
• All "rules" must be descriptive, not prescriptive. This is a (meta)rule. Attempts to create prescriptive rules fail. Descriptive rules work differently from prescriptive rules. (If you want to change a descriptive rule, the first step is to break it).
• Consensus trumps any "rule" you might perceive to exist. Hence what is explicitly stated here. In fact you can be banned for turning the letter or the rules against themselves and you can be laughed at for trying to just quote them verbatim. You need to be able to defend each action without reference to the project namespace if need be. Linking to the project namespace is merely a convenient shorthand.
• What most people learn in school is pretty much bs, this is equally true for civics and rules. It is often said that "wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory". Take the time to learn how the system works, worry about the why later. If we went by people's theory, wikipedia would be totally impossible in the first place, after all.

--Kim Bruning 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've argued the same and that was kind of my point here. There really are "rules" that this does not apply to, but its used in those situations. For example when I point out to someone that the self-published source they want to use in article space doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:V (e.g. its just some random blog) and I ask them to demonstrate otherwise before doing so, what I'm often met with is a response of IAR when they can find no way to use the source with the existing policies and guidelines. This is 99% of the usage I see of IAR. Someone wants to do something (usually to push pov or to establish notability of a fringe subject) and when they can't the fall back is IAR. Someone mentioned in a previous discussion we were having here that some of the other language wikis (french I think was one) included these caveats on the IAR page stating, you can't use this to trump, NPA, NOR, V, etc. --Crossmr 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't win a debate merely by invoking IAR. IAR gives you license to say "this rule is harmful and should not be followed", but you still have to convince others that it is in fact harmful. So again, good sense is a higher authority than "rules" -- and when the rules do codify good sense, there's no need to trump them. If one person doesn't like a rule but everyone else does, they're going against everyone else's good sense. But one should never ever assume that a rule is good sense, or even compulsory, just because it's a rule: without probing the purpose of the rule, and saying, yes, I agree with that, rules just become a game of Simon Says.

Separately, there are times when a rule is "good sense" in general but bad sense when applied to a specific situation. When a rule is wrong, it isn't always so wrong that we need to change it -- we just have to have the good sense to ignore it when it would produce the wrong result. It's like having a safety valve on a pressure cooker: it doesn't make the cooker "not work", but if the cooker malfunctions, the valve lets the cooker break gracefully, instead of causing harm.--Father Goose 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you can't win a debate by invoking IAR and you know it, but the people I encounter on article talk pages don't, until they've tried it and I explain to them that it doesn't work that way. The fact that that has to have been done multiple times by me (and I'm sure plenty of others) is an indication that there is a problem with the way this is being interpreted.

Separately, there are times when a rule is "good sense" in general but bad sense when applied to a specific situation. This is where we run in to most of the problems. It often involves articles about subjects which are on the internet and people think their cause is that "specific situation". The fringe internet topic they want to include has no conventional sources so they think that's license to run rampant with random blog citation and want to hang their hat on IAR to back that up. While we understand that that is not how this works, we need to spell it out once on the policy page so that we don't have to spell it out over and over on article talk pages.--Crossmr 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly an advocate of making IAR less of a koan, although I expect editors like the ones you describe would act as they do even if they didn't think (or claim) IAR backed them up. All the same, it's my feeling this version would work better against that situation.--Father Goose 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, before reading your response, I revisited the history, and somehow I missed that version. (There's a lot of history, ok?) Anyway, thanks for pointing it out. I really like that version. I was thinking you meant something else (below). My new proposal is reverting back to this version minus the "See also" section. Rocket000 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's very useful to link to something like WIARM, although maybe it could be repurposed as a list of examples of how to effectively use IAR. If we can offer supplementary guidance that is understandable and correct, it's a benefit. But as a title, "What IAR means" might be too strong, suggesting it's a complete explanation.--Father Goose 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This came from another essay

The following came out from an essay Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and was based there on some English case law on planning guidance. It seemed it was a sensible way of rationalising IAR which is rather bare and perhaps is assumed to permit more than it does. In summary it is saying, you are free to ignore all rules, but only with reasoned justification.

The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. The policies and guidelines are there to explain the principles and provide guidance, not to exactly define the principle nor to constrain the principle in exacting language. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion.

The rules are guidance on those principles, helping to elaborate them in a concrete fashion for editors. We should neither fetter our discretion, nor disregard policies and guidelines. Finding an appropriate balance is not always an easy task, and should be done in the context of the principles supporting them and the greater good of the encyclopedia.

Thoughts? Spenny 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the best Wikipedia essay I've ever had the pleasure of reading. It's getting at the philosophy behind this rule (as well as all of Wikipedia itself). We should make it a policy, even though it "always has been". Thank you very much for sharing. Rocket000 06:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"working with others"

I don't know how this crept in, but it is not a requirement for ignoring the rules. I see no point in adding qualifications to an idea that is designed to get around the inability of rules to work in every situation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It "crept in" in a very simple fashion. It was added while those who don't care a lot about rules (and prefer to improve Wikipedia instead) were not looking. Some folks tried to oppose but were soon enough reverted by tons of hawks watching the page (this "working with others" bit gives a false sense of security against zomgadminabuse). And only because they were in apparent majority (what could freakofnurture, myself and few others do?) they invoked WP:CCC and called this "concensus", regardless of people who disagree with that version. Миша13 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the language in question be omitted, but I don't believe that the above is a fair account. There was a great deal of discussion (and argumentation) about this, and such a compromise was the closest thing to consensus that emerged. —David Levy 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd care to read the talk page (and its archives), you'd understand "how this crept in." For the record, I agree that this addition is unnecessary, but I feel that it's an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(Copy and pasting from above) The problem is that the version sans "working with others" seems to allow you to ignore such rules as WP:OWN, WP:3RR ("My version is an improvement, so I can revert all I want"), WP:AGF, WP:HARASS ("He's a disruptive troll! I'll follow him around to warn others about his disruptive trolling! (Please ignore the fact that I have no proof of him being a disruptive troll.)"), and other behavioral guidelines. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is called ignore all rules. If you have a list of rules it does not apply to then you don't get it. IAR also does not promise you won't get blocked if you act like a fool, so no such permission is being given. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to this exact comment. Referencing "working with others" will not cause people to stop being asshats. The behaviors you mention do not constitute "improving" Wikipedia. It is antithetical to IAR to reference rules in IAR, however obliquely. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The behaviors I mention do constitute "improving" Wikipedia, in the eyes of the people using them. And, while "working with others" won't stop people from being stupid, it prevents a particularly annoying and major vein of stupidity ("If I can ignore all the rules, I can also ignore the ones about consensus"). ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if they truly believe it is improving the encyclopedia, then they should be able to break the rules. But, as I said, no part of this policy protects you from being blocked or reverted if people don't like what you do. The fact is that in some cases consensus does need to be ignored, like when consensus thinks it is a good idea to keep copyrighted content or a BLP violation. IAR applies to all rules, not just some. If you like you can propose an "Ignore these rules but not others" policy, but that would be a different animal than "Ignore all rules". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I personally support some mention of "others", though not necessarily the one being fought over, is that the rules (at best) express our collective will as to a) what form the encyclopedia should have, and b) how we should build it. You can't create, enforce, or interpret a rule against the community's sensibilities. (Foundation issues trump the community and IAR, but in theory the Board is accountable to the community through voting, which means the community could exercise power over Foundation issues as well.)

It's my feeling people would understand IAR better (and fight over it less) if it explained this more plainly. The bulleted example below demonstrates how this could be done with a minimum of words. It could probably be tweaked further, but it gives us an avenue toward resolving the current fight (and improving IAR in other ways). Indefinite protection of The One True Version can't be relied upon, and isn't a resolution.--Father Goose 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

is worth considering to clear up the fight over the "working with others"/"not working with others" versions.--Father Goose 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the addition helps anything. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is more palatable to those who oppose the "working with others" version, still palatable to those who support the "working with others version", and helps to make it clearer "what [IAR] really is meant to mean", as Spenny urged below. Maintaining IAR in a crytpic and semantically problematic state helps nothing.--Father Goose 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Palatable? Well the current version is the most palatable to me. As for being cryptic, the addition does not help unless you don't know what a "rule" is. What is more, it links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and IAR applies to all rules. It mentions "common standards", when in fact IAR applies to all rules, even uncommon and non-standard ones. This only serves to confuse a really, really, simple thing. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version is far from universally embraced, however, so I doubt it will be protected indefinitely. The "working with others" version is also contended, so I don't expect it to remain either. I think we can get past this fight by really trying to understand and express why we have IAR. To do so most effectively, we first have to express why we have rules at all.

It is clear that a large number of editors do not understand what "the rules" on Wikipedia are: not commandments but reflections of the commmunity's will. If editors really did understand that, we wouldn't need IAR itself. So to make it clearer why (and when) we ignore rules, we should start by explaining why we have the rules in the first place. What we're doing now is fighting over two different inadequate explanations of IAR, and it's getting us nowhere.

Step out of the box. Re-think your way through IAR "the principle", not IAR "the words" and tell us what you discover. Getting stuck on a particular wording is detrimental. Ponder the idea of IAR here. Ignore the words.

Incidentally -- non-standard rules? We have such things?--Father Goose 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of a change to IAR

1. Some person makes a change to the policy.
2. People revert on the grounds that IAR is perfect the way it is.
3. Edits are traded until the page is protected.
4. People discuss on the talk page, using variants of either "YOU WANT POINTLESS BUREAUCRACY" or "YOU SUPPORT DISRUPTION".
5. Whoever yells the loudest makes the opponents give up.
6. Every 2 months or so, someone reverts back to the "original" version (which is actually now not the original) on the grounds that IAR is perfect the way it was.
7. See 1.

-Amarkov moo! 05:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that about sums it up, especially with regard to 5. And yes, current and the original version differ slightly - anyone bold enough for one more edit? (Since it's protected in that "wrong version" anyway...) Миша13 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the difference seems merely semantic, and carries the same meaning, I don't think it matters. Singular, plural, neither implies a limitation to only one rule, so no big deal for me. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugly '."'

Could some administrator please amend the '... "always has been."' to '... "always has been".'? From my memory of the Manual of Style, this is the accepted usage on Wikipedia. Cheers. — Thomas H. Larsen 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Ignore All Rules over egging the pudding?

...because it is not what we really mean. We do not mean "ignore" we mean, look at the rules, and if you really think you have to break them to do the right thing, set them aside. We never mean that you may blunder about doing what you think is best.

People seem to have an affection for the terse statement, but the title really does let them get the wrong mindset. I think the main description really should set the record straight: catchy title, but not really what it says on the tin. Spenny 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore could mean failure to notice but it can also mean refusal to acknowledge. This is the right mindset, if a rule gets in your way of doing good work here, you refuse to acknowledge it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In another words, there is the ambiguity. My point is that it is unwise to have so blatant an invitation to set aside all rules knowing that it can be deliberately or maliciously or even innocently misinterpreted. Clearly, the context is don't worry about the rules, and the "do the right thing" bit is lost in the title. The main page should therefore have a very clear explanation that IAR is a last resort (albeit in the context that knowledge of the rules is not an initial requirement). Spenny 07:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the purposes of IAR is to allow for new users who do not know the rule. So it applies to people who know the rules and decide to act against them in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and it allows for people who do not know the rules to start editing i the best interests of the encyclopedia. Not ambiguous, both meanings are equally valid. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A question

How is IAR compatible with the statement at the top of WP:NPOV that "According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." ? -- ChrisO 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:5P. IAR applies to all rules except the rules described in the other four pillars, of which one is NPOV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what IAR says. I'll put it another way: if NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, why do we have a policy that says it isn't? -- ChrisO 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research are principles — they are not rules. Five principles make up Wikipedia:Five Pillars. A rule is not the same as a principle — a rule is the particular form of words which is currently used to express particular aspects of the principles, and no particular set of words will be perfectly capable of covering every possible contingency. That is why the "rules" can sometimes be ignored. —Newbyguesses - Talk 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that argument does not wash, as we find that one of the five pillars is IAR itself, which brings us back in a big round circle. I'd also have to say that, while I don't disagree at all with your intent, what you say is not backed up by the way five pillars or the policy pages a written. Hence my comment above. People are so wedded to the phrase "Ignore All Rules" that they don't want to address what it really is meant to mean. Spenny 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Writing in a biased manner never improves or maintains the encyclopedia, only damages its reputation and quality. (In my humble opinion.) — Thomas H. Larsen 06:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is part one of the m:Foundation issues, and you are right that we are not allowed to ignore it. Not because its a "pillar", but because the 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity that pays for our servers mandates it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these are the only rules we truly have to follow: m:Foundation issues. If we ignore these rules, the wiki gets shut down by the foundation. It would be in our best interest to block anyone who ignored those rules. Other than that it is up to us. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that there aren't any situations where we should not have NPOV. Mr.Z-man 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm following this rule by breaking it

I was going to make a change to this page (not to the policy itself), then I figured I should follow its advice by breaking it...

Here's my proposal: Remove the "See also" part.

Here's why: Four reasons.

1. "Ignore all rules" is best policy we have. It's also the only one that has stayed as simple and straightforward as it was intended. By adding anything after it we're saying there's a catch. That there's more to it. But, the very nature of the rule says that itself. So the first reason is anything more is redundant.
2. When someone comes here for the first time, they won't fully understand it at first because of the obvious paradoxical nature. So they'll look for something to have it make sense. They see the "See also" and follow the link(s) and have someone explain it to them. This is not what we want. It's better for them to be confused for a little bit and actually think about it. When they start to understand it by themselves, it will have a far more rich and deeper meaning. (Which in turn leads them to following and citing it for the right reasons.)
3. It just adds clutter to the page. It takes away from the simplicity of the rule. Seeing the rule by itself adds to the complex and subtle meaning. {After they contemplated the rule, they might want to read more so they see the more reserved navigation box "Wikipedia's principles" and have at it. This serves the same purpose as "See also" but in a much better way.}
4. It encourages people to add more links. More things which goes against my other three points. The only link that's currently listed is just an essay. By linking to it, it implies some sort of "official" status or a even just a consensus.

I guess for right now my proposal is to remove one link and a "See also" header, but it is also a proposal to keep this page as it is without anything more added.

I really don't mind being proved wrong, so don't hold anything back if you disagree. Thank you. Rocket000 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I agree. Simple, clear, effective. The additions that have creeped in only detract from the point being made. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Better still would be to make IAR more readily understood. While it does embody a contradiction, the biggest reason why it's not readily understood (IMO) is because we don't do a good job of explaining why we have this rule. WP:WIARM does that job reasonably well. And I would venture to say that the what WIARM says does have consensus.

If IAR contained a better explanation of the rationale behind it -- not necessarily a wordy one either -- we'd have less need for WIARM.--Father Goose 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it can be explained without being verbose, but that's the beauty of it - it doesn't need to be. Rocket000 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also propose using this version to help explain why we have this rule, without undermining the intent or being wordy. Rocket000 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... so is this ok with everyone? The last proposal's optional. Rocket000 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."? I like that version a lot. I think the versions that say more go off topic and do not really explain the policy any better. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. What about removing the "See also" section? Is it {{editprotect}} time? Rocket000 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has spoken that the See Also section be included in the policy page. WIARM is not an essay, but rather a supplement to the policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I still think that we need to have a link to WP:DICK in there, because that's another "anti-policy", so to speak, and a great corollary to IAR. I mean, after all, if no one behaves like a dick, we wouldn't need a lot of rules in the first place, right? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that. Entirely sensible and polite people can still be in total disagreement about various things. And it's good to have our working methods spelled out even when we're all of the same mind.--Father Goose 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There was already a consensus for this? I didn't even know there was a past discussion. If there was, I'm sorry for wasting your time. Please provide a link to this. Rocket000 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all over the archives (starting probably in March or April of this year). Instead of my pointing out a direct link to the discussion, it might help to just go back and read the recent archives (or skim them, whichever), as they will provide a good idea of what has already been discussed and what consensus has already been achieved. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page indefinitely

There is no reason to edit this policy page, ever. Fuck sysop protection, there needs to be a level up from that. Burntsauce 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that crossed my mind on at least several occasions. Go bug the devs about it. Миша13 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

{{dev-protect2}} Burntsauce 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the point of Wikipedia is that its content is fluid, organic, and can be edited at any time by anyone. All this not to mention that what you're suggesting to do here was already proposed a while back (mind you it was meant for articles, not policies), and was rejected as it should have been. Wikipedia is a Wiki, not a paper encyclopedia. Things change in time on Wikipedia, and this policy changes as well -- just look at its history. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What if a consensus is formed to change the wording? This would be very un-wikilike. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Polices are Non-existing in Reality

Yes it is placed as the first and the most important rule in the Wikipedia page. But it is unrealistic and even the admin doesn't care to respect this right. In fact admin doesn't honor many major rules and it is one of them.

I realise I shouldn't take the rule literally. As far as I know, it is more of a spirit which tells us that no rule should be treated absolutely. If you are in good faith and think the rule is bad or wrong and ignoring it will benefit the Wikipedia, you should act on it. I hope I get it right.

However the reality tells you a completely different thing. You are not allowed to ignore any rule (and I haven't ignored any major rule as a matter of fact). Doing so will result in a ban. How can i execute the right even if we have good grounds when an admin will threaten you with a ban. The person who did this is called soum.

I was editing Windows Vista & Criticism of Windows Vista. Some changes were made.

1. Remove the bloated quoting style, that is:

“ (Place your statement here) ”

2. The article is hardly organized and structured. This kind of quoting breaks the flow of the article, making it clearly distinct from the paragraph (doesn't make sense). Also the unnecessary sticking out of some statements over others may give readers a wrong impression that the statement being quoted is more trustworthy or authoritative. I removed that part, and integrated the statement into the whole paragraph.

3. Add some more contents, covering some claims from BadVista.org (and some arguments about the claims of BadVista.org later)

4. Windows Vista is no longer a beta software, so I removed the tag "Category: Beta Software".

5. Some minor editions and corrections: Fixed/Altered descriptions and links.

At the same time, Soumyasch was reverting every change I made. I didn't notice that he reverted it shortly after I made changes. He didn't discuss nor told me why he reverted all changes I made. At 08:59, 14 October 2007, I found out some changes I made was not included (perhaps it was a bug?!), so I put all the changes together and saved it.

He then complained to me on the talk page. He told me to restrain from editing pages or he would be forced to ban me. Also he told me not to say anything about BadVista links or criticisms because most claims there are exaggerated and are not substantiated beyond a point.

But he shouldn't revert all of the changes. That's weird. I dropped the controversial part "Badvista" and re-made some other changes. Then he locked up the whole page so I couldn't edit it anymore.

When viewing the edit history, he left two comments. "Protected Criticism of Windows Vista: Its a vandalism and pov-pushing magnet" "Changed protection level for "Criticism of Windows Vista": To discourage unilateral editing and encourage discussion"

He told me I had to discuss before making any page on the page. Anyway the main point is not whether my edit is right or his revert is correct (I could be wrong since I don't know much about the background of this article and disucssion behind), but rather he, as an admin, is following the major policies set in Wikipedia, or whether he is abusing his rights. I found out many of his behaviours and claims are against the policies of Wikipeida.

Referring to five pillars of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article"

-- He reverted all changes I made. Why did he want to revert all even if I made mistakes of them as he claimed? I got no clue. Later on he locked up the articles immediately after a disagreement on my edits on his watched articles. I don't think page lock-up should be taken so lightly.

"Wikipedia works by building consensus. Also note that Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, and as such, Consensus can change"

-- but he told me that "BadVista is not considered a source reliable enough to be quoted in the article" Also he said "Please respect policy, otherwise, I am sorry to say this, it will lead you to being blocked from editing here." Apparently his wording doesn't allow any room to discuss. It appars nothing can be changed once it is decided.

"Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others."

-- Give a warning that he could ban me from editing. Leave remarks like "Its a vandalism and pov-pushing magnet". It makes me hard to believe he honors it and assume me editing on good faith. He has already treated me as a vandal.

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules"

-- If it were true, I shouldn't receive warning simply because he claimed I edited wrong. Also he won't used that tone of this statement "Please follow this rule and that rule", "Please respect the policy or you will be banned"

"Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required."

-- In reality, it was not. I need to make sure my edits is correct before going live. Also I need to get approval from the admin. He told me that:

"Engage in discussion first, before making unilateral changes to the article".
"Discuss any such changes before making it live".

"And do not worry about messing up."

-- As the matter of fact, the admin locked up the page because he thought I messed it up. Soumyasch said otherwise: "Hang around here for sometime and understand the current status before digging into controversial articles." also a warning to restrain me from further editing.

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

-- Definitely he is not honouring our rights to do, even if we have good grounds or acting on good faith. he use warning to restrain us from ignoring any rule. We must listen to him or he would ban me. There is no room for argument. Essentially Soumyasch treated me like an idiot. It made me very angry as I am trying to help without rewards. How rude Soumyasch is, and how special he is to welcome new contributors in such a way.

Conclusion from this experience:

Wikipedia:Five_pillars are all lies. They are non-existing in real cases if the admin chose to not follow it. Seriously Soumyasch doesn't honour any of them. He will revert *all* your changes if he think you made *one* mistake only in your edits. It is a real case of how an admin respects your contributions.

Bye bye Wikipedia! No more serious contributions in future.

Best regards,
OM
14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere in ignore all rules that others will respect your ignorance of the rules. Have you tried discussing things with this user that reverted you? 1 != 2 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He has. I've checked the Windows Vista article only (I'm getting old, busy, and slow ^^;). In this case Soum rolled back good faith edits, so I reverted that action. I also replied to Soum on User_talk:Odd_Master --Kim Bruning 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have exactly the same problems with BillBC, another admin of wikipedia.en. He roll-backed many stuff i wrote about B-50, CF-104 and now Aeritalia G.91. Right or wrong he could been to do so, i was also treaten with blocks (and in some occasions i was actually blocked) if i dared to protest with this actions. Even more insulting, he usually even not bothered to talk me and explain why and what he done. I am not english-native speaker and i do not pretend to be one. Still, i show willingness to contribute to wikipedia.en, but with this specific admin i have this kindly handling. If critics are not 'so welcome' sometimes, deleting 10-15 kb of contr. is literally amusing. I mean, when your fingers suffers to digit for three or four hours to write some stuff, you can sleep happy to have done something useful: next day you find the stuff removed without any explaination apart a general 'poorly written'. It's perhaps like to lost a limb or whatever (i do prefer lost edit,however).

Not only this, when i engage discussions with him usually becomes mr. John and talks to me rougly you are attacking Bill, so if you do not end these actions i will *forced* to block you. You are now aware. And so i am forced to retreat or die.

In Wiki.it there are even worse manners, as usually one user provocked me with (usually silly) critics, then another 'casually' pass in the talk and find me that answer to him with 'unlovely' words and block me. Finally, another one throw me while being blocked without defence in problematic users and then, the wolfpack arrives and set up a ban, or more recently (why to discuss?) simply a block.

I was finally blocked ad infinitum with this sistem, just because i called one of my historical oppositors as ignorant after he filled with POV tags my edits. Then an admin passed and blocked me for a month, another admin sent me to problematics and there some others were ready to request a much higher block. The day after it was arrived to 1 year. As i spoke to defend myself, another one approfied to this (block evasion..) to declare me blocked for infinite. Who opposed was not heard at all. What glorious day for wiki. 1700 articles and 6600 edits. Wow. I'll never forgive them to have handled me so badly.

Well, gents, this is the *reality* of wiki. Admins can block you, traten you and call you idiot and troll without having even a critic from someone else. They are actually untouchables, while we masses of wiki.slaves are just practice targets. I am just wonder that IAR is not 'theorically' abolished. In fact, this rule is followed just by admins, not surely by normal contrs. That's is. --Stefanomencarelli 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is always ArbCom if an admin has acted out of line. The abuse has to be clear-cut, though. Mediation can be useful in resolving disputes of a less drastic nature.--Father Goose 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done it: [[2]]. After that this night i have soustained another rollback in EH101 page, go figure: even at night if i make something ONE MINUT lather i am rollbacked. White House has less perfect sourvelliance systems, and OBL is less researeched than me...--Stefanomencarelli 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"They are actually untouchables, while we masses of wiki.slaves are just practice targets." - I'd have an easier time believing this if I hadn't seen so many admins de-sysoped for reckless or abusive use of the tools. If you know how to work the wiki, there are no untouchables. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have to know how to "work the wiki" to deal with people, they are to some degree untouchables. -Amarkov moo! 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because those skills are simply ordinary communication and diplomacy skills, applied to this context. Needing communication skills to deal with others effectively is simply a fact of life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggested addition.

Please, keep in mind that Consensus can override this, and Foundation issues always overrides this.

Anybody care to comment? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point regarding the m:Foundation issues. These ideas are not really optional, at least according to hallowed belief. Not sure if it needs mentioning or not.

Regarding that bit about consensus, it is not so true. Ignore all rules does indeed apply to ignoring consensus. There could be a consensus to use a copyrighted work illegally, or a consensus to keep libelous material in an article, and we should ignore that consensus. 1 != 2 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording could use some work, I'll admit. Consensus seems to be the "other" exception to IAR, and, while lesser, still important. How's this? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Consensus overrides this, and Foundation issues always override both consensus and this.

But consensus is not an exception to ignore all rules, as I explained in my earlier comment. 1 != 2 06:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say consensus is the very mechanism by which IAR works; if people agree that a rule is inapplicable or outright wrong, nobody enforces it.--Father Goose 04:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As regards the foundation issues, I'd like to keep IAR implicitly "above" them as well, even if it's not entirely true. You can edit Wikipedia without knowing what the foundation issues are, so that aspect of IAR remains in force, and the general power that IAR grants to contest any rule should be invoked when somebody is trying to Wikilawyer the foundation rules, or even just enforce them in a well-meaning but overzealous way.--Father Goose 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose makes a very valid point regarding the foundation issues. Part of the use of IAR is that people who do not know the rules can still participate without becoming "criminals" of sorts. The foundation does not find the project at fault if a new or even established user ignores a foundation issue, and no part of IAR says the community has to support you. So by this reasoning I don't think the part about the foundation issues should be added.

Another purpose of IAR is to allow for the correct thing to be done even when standard practice as defined by "the rules" is not suited for it. With that in mind is would indeed by appropriate for an administrator to ignore consensus to keep a copyright infringement, a violation of someone's privacy, or libel a living person. This admin would be using IAR very well by deleting such material even if consensus disagreed.

It is "ignore all rules", once you start trying to turn it into "ignore some rules, but not these" you defeat the purpose of the policy. 1 != 2 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I think the protection of this page is in conflict with the spirit of this policy. -- Cat ^chi? 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are issues that currently need to be worked through - that's why the page is locked. You're more than welcome to join in to help resolve it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If a clear consensus forms to make a change to the page I will unprotect it myself. But until then I will leave it for someone less involved than myself to do. Frankly I think it is needed until a consensus to change it has formed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think people should be able to show enough self-restraint with or without page protection. I am curious what the dispute is about. -- Cat ^chi? 07:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On some level, it's about whether anyone should be allowed to edit WP:IAR.--Father Goose 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All official policy should have consensus gained before a change is made. 1 != 2 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any changes made to policy should reflect consensus, as the policy itself must reflect consensus, but that is a very different thing from claiming "policies cannot be edited without discussion first". WP:BOLD applies even to policies. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.--Father Goose 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with only allowing changes that have consensus, of course. But I disagree with the protection. With all the people watching this page, reverting is not an issue. Rocket000 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose is spot on. The idea of protecting policy pages and demanding that "consensus" be reached before making any change is ridiculous and goes totally against the idea of a Wiki. If we're going to suggest doing that, we might as well change the name of this project to Bureaupedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is always WP:RFPP. 1 != 2 00:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good talk. Is this the way in which you plan on "gaining consensus" before making a change to the page? If so, we might as well fully protect this talk page as well. It appears to be "my way or the highway" for you -- does that match up with the spirit of Wikipedia? Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental silliness of this rule is embedded in its very definition, as I'm sure will be amply demonstrated on this very topic.

Y.H.Crana 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert history

I have used a tool I made to gather a report on many of the reverts made over the last 199 revisions of WP:IAR. It is for the most part accurate, but may contain errors and certainly contain omisions. I hope this will help give some perspective on the long term dispute here. It can be found here 1 != 2 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn I've reverted more than that! ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It only detects reverts to previously existing revisions. I am sure you have reverted more than that too. 1 != 2 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, my two most recent reverts showed on the report because I was reverting to a previously established version, but Lubaf's most recent two reverts did not show up because they were bold and new. It is incomplete in this manner. 1 != 2 06:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess it's only for the last 199 revisions anyway (I've been less active recently as I have some real life to catch up on ;)). That said, what's the point of doing this anyway? Itching to indef protect the project page? Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I hope I never have to protect this page. I am hoping to avoid repeating history too many times. 1 != 2 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... it's too bad your tool can't parse which version the user was reverting to... that might be useful as well! Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But it does, that is the number at the beginning, and the diff it links to shows the content of that revision. Notice how often revision (148845098) shows up? 1 != 2 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah HA! Good point, cap'n. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Bold Revert Discuss you say?

rv, please get consensus before changing policy...

Well, if you're doing Bold Revert Discuss, you do the be bold thing first, not get consensus first (in fact, you only need to get a partial compromise even then). See the flowchart.

Also, when reverted, it's ok to shortcircuit and propose different wording right off the bat. (actually, that's a course not mentioned on the BRD page yet... hmmm). So Lubaf was doing pretty much ok. Note that his second edit was not a revert, it was different wording.

Could 1==2 please explain why they are reverting, themselves?

--Kim Bruning 03:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the flowchart being followed, an editor was bold, and I reverted and invited discussion. I don't think the change was an improvement, and I have voiced my concerns in the ensuing discussion. I agree it is fine to try a second bold departure from what is establish if the first one fails, but a second reverting is just as appropriate by the same token. Beyond that discussion should really fall to the talk page, lest one hold the discussion in their edit summaries. My statement was not an admonishment, but simply a challenge to the ideas presented. I hope I have answered you question. 1 != 2 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "please get consensus before changing policy", while the point of Lubafs editing is precisely to find where that consensus lies. That's actually the best way to proceed, given that this is a wiki. You said "better doesn't enter into it" whilst reverting, which should really earn you a 10 minute block for IARvio, IMHO. ;-) --Kim Bruning 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Please don't keep introducing this change until you gain a consensus for it. There is a discussion above about it, please feel free to join in. 1 != 2 04:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph, maybe you're doing the right thing but wording it wrongly. You're not supposed to first find consensus and then make a change, you are supposed to first be bold, and then find consensus (one way or another). In future when reverting, how about saying something like "Heya! I'm reverting this for now, as per BRD, please come discuss with me on the talk page!", which is fair enough I suppose. Better would be not to revert, but instead to just edit to improve the text.

What I don't want happening is where people kill tempo of editing, just for the sake of following a procedure. In that case, IAR or WP:POINT apply, imho ;-) (it'd be fairly bad if people actually use BRD to kill tempo in editing. If you can simply improve on an edit, please just change it, don't revert it!) --Kim Bruning 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BRD is an alternative to finding consensus first, not the only way, and it should be used with care. I think it was clear that I disagreed with the change, or I would not be reverting. In this case "improving the text" and "reverting" were the same thing. I assure you I never do anything strictly on procedural grounds. That being said I do think that major changes to core policy should be ran past the community before being made, not on procedural grounds, but for the more practical reason that an informed decision is less likely to result in back and forth editing. The discussion above outlines my concerns regarding the addition. 1 != 2 04:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kim here. Saying "please don't keep introducing this change until you gain a consensus for it" is pretty much saying "don't gain a consensus for this change".

If you want to contest other people's changes, and revert them, by all means do. But if the only rationale you're providing is "no consensus for this change", then you're saying "nobody may act without prior approval", which runs completely counter to Wikipedia's most basic principles and is a doubly-bizarre stance to take on, of all places, WP:IAR. Maybe you don't mean to be making objections on purely procedural grounds, but that's exactly what you're doing.

If you don't like an edit someone makes for your own reasons, say what they are. If you don't like people making any edits, that's ownership. Maybe you're not doing the latter, but... it sure looks like it, with the boilerplate rationale you keep giving.--Father Goose 04:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to own anything, I am trying to have policy reflect consensus. This is a talk page, and it is used to determine the content of the policy page. Policy is set by consensus, the current version has enjoyed consensus for a long time. What I oppose is not change, but unilateral change through weeks of stubborn edits, with practically no discussion, and no consensus for change whatsoever. You are welcome to be bold, but when that boldness gets reverted it is time to talk. When edits are made in spite of protest, and in lack of consensus they cease to be bold and simply become stubborn. There is a discussion above on the topic of this addition, where I have been very clear about my objections and have not boilerplated anything, feel free to participate. 1 != 2 04:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I request: make your reverts, but do so without invoking "no consensus" in your edit summaries (or talk postings). This may seem like a procedural objection on my part, but it's the difference between saying "no crossing the street" and "don't cross the street, it's dangerous". The first is a prohibition; the second is an opinion -- maybe even a correct one -- but one that can be discussed, and agreed or disagreed with.

One ultimately has to retain the power to edit a page spontaneously, and in any way one sees fit, in order to accomplish anything on Wikipedia. Discussion without that underlying power is talking into the wind.--Father Goose 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It is a valid reason for objection, I really do try to avoid having discussions in the edit summary. The proper place is on the talk page. I don't think I should be going into great detail on my objection to a claim in an edit summary. What is more, if this was an isolated incident I might be inclined for it to occur to me that "spontaneity" had something to do with it, but the fact is that the user I was reverting knew very well that the edit did not have consensus, and was challenged. There is a history of the very same person making the same edits[3][4][5], and being reverted. Several editors had already, in their edit summaries, explained objections and encourage him to discuss and reach consensus first. I saw no point in repeating myself and simply challenged it. 1 != 2 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is this thread seriously a discussion about whether or not people should be discussing? Mr.Z-man 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I though we had all agreed to base things on consensus... apparently asking for consensus before a major change to policy is wrong somehow. 1 != 2 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Until(1==2): I think you misunderstand. It is a fact that you can reach consensus by editing the wiki alone. In fact, many wikis have no talk pages at all. One of the main reasons wikipedia does have talk pages is to hide some of the messy background stuff from normal encyclopedia readers.

Now Talk pages are very handy, and discussion is a good thing. But try to avoid using Talk as a crutch. Try to edit the wiki first, and only rely on the extra tools when that fails.

And especially: Don't try to force people away from using the wiki as an actual wiki!  :-)

--Kim Bruning 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of this is the present "consensus version" of IAR (not perfect but it has broader conensus than other versions). It was created without any prior discussion -- edits were made directly, some disputation and discussion of it followed, and ultimately it was adopted. On less contentious policy pages, sensible changes can often be made with no discussion or dispute at all.

Insisting that changes to this page should be discussed first is not only anathema to IAR, it qualifies as WP:NOBOOK.--Father Goose 22:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are talking about works fine, but not when the situation is controversial. Editing a page to move forward or to test consensus is fine, but editing a page when you know there is objection to it is not bold, it is edit warring. You act as is my whole philosophy is based on how I acted in this one circumstance, but it is not. In this case the user has been reverted numerous times for the same type of change. This is not testing the waters, or seeking a consensus, this is being stubborn.

If a change is disputed it is completely appropriate to insist that discussion and consensus precede it. 1 != 2 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, previously you reverted some of my edits meant to test consensus with the same "get a consensus first" rationale: [6]. It took a lot of discussion with you to tease out even a little information as to why you personally opposed the change.

Seriously, you would do much better to not repeat the words "no consensus" in your edit summaries and discussions of specific reverts. If you oppose a change, oppose it and say why. You'll accomplish far more if you're willing to spell out your reasoning for preferring the version you revert to. If you don't explain your thinking, and give people a chance to contest it -- or possibly agree with it -- then it just looks like you have your fingers in your ears, repeating "no consensus, no consensus", and you will end up increasing the amount of edit warring that goes on here, not reducing it.--Father Goose 03:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Making bold edits is not edit warring. It is the reverting of those edits which is edit warring, as you are no doubt well aware (and you were at 3 reverts in 24 hours - hence I took things to talk, before you accidentally did a 4th.). --Kim Bruning 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we just disagree. 1 != 2 03:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More than disagree, I almost had you blocked as it stands, you know. I did stop and talk with you instead, which counts for something, I suppose.

Alright, so since I'm here listening anyway:-) ... can you show me where Lubaf did similar things before? And isn't Lubaf a long-time wikipedian in good standing? Are you sure that referring to consensus and the foundation issues could be meant to be disruptive, under any circumstances? --Kim Bruning 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Any such block would be quickly reversed as foolish. I already provided diffs for Lubaf's similar edits above. If you really think there is a behavioral problem here the this is not the page to be discussing it. I will not continue this matter at this location as it is off topic. 1 != 2 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules on editwarring and the three revert rule are what they are. You do make a point about Lubaf making similar changes each time though. So why didn't you say so in your edit summaries? Try to say something to get people to see your side already! :-) --Kim Bruning 20:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained here all I can, I am incapable of time travel so I cannot change my edit summaries. 1 != 2 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Too true :-( --Kim Bruning 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You could just take this as advice going forward. It's what I'd do. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have listened to and considered your advice, I will not take it as I think it is reasonable to expect consensus to form for a policy change that is objected to. I also think it is better to talk on the talk page instead of in edit summaries, simply inviting someone to the talk page in the summary is enough. I think that boldness in the editing of policy(or any page) should stop when there is objection and it should be discussed. This is really how things tend to work here. 1 != 2 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All I personally ask is that you state your reason for disliking a change when you revert it, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If the only reason you offer is "no consensus", you leave no room for discussion of your objection, and you have no chance of convincing others that your views are correct. At that rate, you might as well just leave the edit summary blank.--Father Goose 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also observe that the "no consensus" cry becomes one of those phrases that gets the hackles rising when used on its own without qualification, because it is seen as a straight blocking tactic out of the book of how to own articles in Wikipedia. That is not to say that it isn't used correctly or in good faith, (and I've seen you around long enough to know that you are a reasonable person and acting in good faith here - as we all are!) but it is a good way of raising the temperature unnecessarily if not used carefully...

Much as we say look to the content not the editor, we need to say look to the content, not the process. If you cannot comment on the issue raised by the edit in some specific way, then you need to question why you are reverting: people will question the reversion. Spenny 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Show that it's protected, at least

{{editprotected|Put a lock icon or a protection message on this page.}} - Chardish 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock added per request. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

I think this page is in a desperate need of a nut shell template thing. If consensus is gained here, I am going to add it. Opinions/thoughts? xihix(talk) 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This was already tried before. IAR is only one sentence. It is its own nutshell; there is nothing to make a nutshell out of. Some explanations of what it means are linked in the only link in the 'See also' section. —Centrx→talk • 05:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It is its own nutshell.--Father Goose 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is to short to need a nutshell. 1 != 2 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it does need a nutshell, it is just that it is missing what it is nutshelling. The separation off of the underlying thinking onto another page is nice and clever, but it means all the caveats that bother people, the interpretation beyond the over-simplistic title, gets lost and the wording of our trite little policy phrase becomes highly contentious. Take the heat out of the nutshell, by bringing the wider explanation onto this page. Spenny 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock this, please

In the name of the Wikipedia community's culture, I request that this page be unprotected. Locking edits to this page is counter to the spirit of the policy. — Thomas H. Larsen —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can try WP:RFPP, but I think unprotecting now would invite edit warring. 1 != 2 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"working with others" poll

Since not a lot of headway is being made here:

include "working with others"

1. —Ashley Y 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

remove "working with others"

Ignore All Polls

1. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

doesn't care, so long as IAR isn't worded in a way that can be readily abused

1. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Needs to be sorted somehow. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. So sharp it'll cut itself. Spenny 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

close this useless poll now

1. Миша13 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. ^Law/_Disorder 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. David Levy 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
4. If you did not reach consensus through discussion, a poll will not help. This poll is less helpful than discussion as this debate is not about merely two states. For the record I object to the wording "working with others", but I have already made that known in the discussions above. 1 != 2 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
5. This poll goes against the spirit of the policy. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FNORD

1. Iamunknown 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AGF Spenny —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, why have you asked me to assume good faith? Unless I am oblivious, "fnord" is not an assumption of bad faith. --Iamunknown 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1) fnord (think about it)

2) WP:CIVIL which seems to be sadly lacking here at the moment. IAR only applies with justification and I do not see it here, it is not big and it is not clever, children. Spenny 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating that an argument is "irrelevant information intending to misdirect" is not a breach of civility. It is a comment about the content of the argument. 1 != 2 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

..intending to misdirect hardly is about content, it is about motive. That makes it personal in my book. Still, moving on, it does not seem to have been an intended slight. Spenny 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* whatever. I don't feel like discussing this here, as it would be even more off-topic than my original post and is a personal rather than a community thing, but if you would like to hear my side of the story as opposed to citing acronyms and the like, come to my talk page → Iamunknown 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Turnip

1. --Doc^g 19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Headway

Might I suggest that no headway is being made because the opinion of t'committee is that every attempt to make this rule longer succeeds only in making it less clear. It is the most succinct of all our policies, and needs no changes. We should not be afraid to admire its perfection and leave it untouched. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping for headway in getting to the point where we could unlock the page. And for that matter, it was the opinion of t'committee awhile ago that we should include "working with others". At the moment there does not seem to be consensus either way. —Ashley Y 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A "committee" would imply a cohesive group; what we have here is a large box of cats.--Father Goose 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's easier to herd cats than Wikipedia editors. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Readily abused

What counts as "readily abused"? —Ashley Y 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor that does something contentious, subjective, or totally against consensus, and then uses this policy as an excuse. Most of the time it is "invoking IAR" to win a debate. Now, 90% of the time, these editors get whacked with a trout, but that still leaves an unacceptable 10%. Hence the desire for change. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The most often abused feature on Wikipedia is probably the "edit this page" button. You can't blame the tool for people misusing it- that way lies absurdity. Every tool can be abused, yet we still find them useful in the balance. Friday (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Every tool can be abused. That said, if a tool can be dangerous and we have the ability to disarm it to the point that those who would abuse it can no longer do so, we should. Anything less would be irresponsible. We prevent people from abusing the "edit" button by blocking or banning them if they cause too much disruption or damage. We should prevent people from abusing this policy by rewording it so that it can no longer be abused. It's just that simple. Why sell ourselves short? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(As a side note, the obvious answer to "Why sell ourselves short?" is twofold: "it's always been done that way" (dumb), and "the proposed version is not terse enough" (really dumb).) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that "it's always been done that way" does nothing but embarrass the person who said it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Especially as "it's always been done that way" isn't even true. —Ashley Y 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is difference between "abusable" and "inviting abuse"; the current wording veers towards the latter. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It works fine. Qualifying it invites more wikilayers to abuse it further.--Doc^g 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The current qualification is incorrect, and readily abused.--Father Goose 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim Bruning's wordings

Since I'm still willing to try anything to get a comprimise, can anybody give an objection to using one of the following, besides "It's not terse enough"?

1. Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. If your situation doesn't happen to fit, feel free to ignore them.
2. Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, it'll work out just fine.
3. Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, as long as you just keep talking with everyone, and keep listening carefully, it'll work out just fine.

(If necessary, feel free to change "Wikipedia guidelines" to "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines") ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording (with or without the "working with others" addition). —David Levy 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, why do you prefer it? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The versions proposed above use more words to convey less relevant information. —David Levy 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is an accurate summary of the above comment "It's not terse enough", David? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, hence the part about "convey[ing] less relevant information." —David Levy 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't like what's on the policy page, these are rather clunky, though the first is the best of them. Spenny 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They're clunky, yes, but they're an infinite improvement on all current contenders. And clunkiness can be fixed. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Working with others"

I still regard this new phrase as a newcomer, almost an interloper in the context of the wider policy. I have reverted an edit putting it into this policy, wrongly implying that it's all been discussed and is accepted. Far from it. The alternative wording, without the new phrase, is still quite adequate, and in my opinion stands less chance of being wikilawyered. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't just throw out the magical term "wikilawyering" and expect that everyone will comply. The phrase states that you must work with others in order to improve the encyclopedia; this is not only necessary to say (it removes unilateral actions not supported by consensus), but is also the foundation of the project. So two questions for you: A) How does the phrase "working with others" bring upon Wikilawyering," and B) How does having fewer words stop Wikilawyering? It seems to me that fewer words would compound misunderstanding, leading to more Wikilawyering. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This policy isn't necessarily about "working with others." It also covers an editor noticing a random error in an article and just jumping in and correcting it, or someone noticing that the name of an article is wrong and moving it to the correct name. It covers blanking and redirecting a content fork to the original. It doesn't cover only those actions, but here I'm giving examples of actions that don't involve "working with others". In other words, this policy is in some ways an abstraction of Be bold.

Moreover removing "unilateral actions unsupported by consensus" is not always desirable. Some actions, such as removal of copyright infringements and blatant defamation, must often take place so swiftly that consensus cannot be determined. See Florence Devouard's recent statements on this matter.

Finally, it's ridiculous to claim that the term "wikilawyering" is being whipped out without warning. Read the archives of this discussion page. This policy is very much about removing red tape and wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you should read the archives of this discussion page. Why? Because I've been involved with the discussions to add the phrase, whereas you have not. Consensus has supported the addition, and you can't just go along and perform blind reverts. How about, instead of just reverting text that you don't like, try engaging in conversation for once and try to avoid saying things like "I don't like it" or "It encourages Wikilawyering" without qualifying statements. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty boy. Read the archives and stop making false claims. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've participated in the discussions in the archives. How about you substantiate your claims about Wikilawyering for once instead of dodging them? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been over this ground before, many many times. The basic reason I believe in the "working with others" language is that it prevents wikilawyering, or at least, acts as a prophylactic against same; if you're on your own against others, then it probably wasn't a valid use of IAR; learn, and move on. I don't care what language forms this concept of "IAR is less important than consensus and Foundation Issues", so long as it exists in the literal wording of IAR. It's just that I can't seem to find any that others don't seem to shout down as being not trite enough. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep it simple. The policy is meant to cover rules that stop you from improving Wikipedia by yourself as well as from doing so with others. Its scope is clearly beyond collaborative work. One of the points of the policy is its brevity... WjBscribe 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Keep it simple -- remove ALL text from the project page. If this policy is so transparent and obvious, why have any text at all? In fact, if I remember correctly, Tony supports that idea. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of all that is good, people. Stop saying that being trite is the same as being well written. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to box this policy in with conditions are perennial, and always doomed to failure. Since, they are the type of thing the policy itself is there to protect us against. Sure, we should work with others, as a rule. That's a good rule of thumb, and will normal allow you to improve the encyclopedia in the best way. But that rule is perfectly stated in many places elsewhere. But if the rule, in some circumstance we can't foresee in a hypothetical advance, does actually prevent you improving wikipedia... then....--Doc^g 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple equation: if you can improve Wikipedia, do so. No need to ask for permission. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not called "ignore some rules", it is called "Ignore all rules". It is contrary to the spirit of the rules to place the restriction that you need to be working with others to ignore a rule. It is just not so. If the community wanted to use unreferenced BLP violations or keep a copyright infringement I should ignore all rules without the community and remove it anyways. Working with others is not a plot point in this policy. It just does not fit in with what the rule is supposed to mean. 1 != 2 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the opposite true? What if you believe putting something that others believe is a copyright infringement helps the reader understand something? I see lots of users edit-war and engage in hostility because they want to 'teach a lesson' to newbies and thereby make Wikipedia better in the long run... they might think they are ignoring all rules in favor of the encyclopedia, but I don't see many people rush to their defense. It sort of worries me if an instance Ignore all Rules can run contrary to consensus and win.Epthorn (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to urge everyone here to consider wholly new wordings instead of warring back and forth between the work with others/not versions. I've pitched this one a few times:

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

and have yet to hear any rationale as to why we shouldn't use it. What, if anything, is wrong this alternative?--Father Goose 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally find it not quite strong enough on the idea that disruptive behavior isn't covered by IAR. That said, I'm okay with this one. Anybody have any particular objections to it? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose's suggested alternative wording is fine with me, too. --Tony Sidaway 08:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the wording is that it is trite to say ignore the rules, it is not quite what we really mean. We mean having considered the rules and find that they cause a particular difficulty in a particular case, then we may set aside the particular detail of the rules that gives us a specific problem. I think that we should look to having this page qualify what "ignore" really means. Rather than coming up with clever one sentence snappy but misleading wording, I think a second sentence would be useful, along the lines of you are not bound by the rules but you cannot ignore them either, only set them aside with reasoned justification. Spenny 09:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's correct that "ignoring them" is exactly what you should do, in the two most important cases of IAR: when following a rule would produce a detrimental result for the encyclopedia, and when you're not sure what rules apply to the edits you're doing -- go ahead, edit anyway.--Father Goose 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference: your phrasing is "Do not be concerned that rules exist", my suggestion is that rules exist, if you've found this rule, then you must be aware that there are other rules. My version is "Do not set them aside lightly, but do so with confidence if you believe it is right to do so." your version reads as "F*** the rules, do what you want, let others pick up the mess." That is Be Bold, that is simply acknowledging there is a stage where people don't know what they are doing, not IAR. Spenny 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it my version only? As far as I know, all versions of IAR to date have advised users to "ignore the rules" when they get in the way of building the encyclopedia. Most of them, as worded, have also given the latitude to ignore the rules both out of ignorance and on purpose (to improve the encyclopedia).

As a fairly experienced editor, I still make things up as I go along. I do things according to what makes sense to me -- for instance, I renamed an article to 2007 WGA strike recently, and another user pointed out that acronyms in titles are generally discouraged, and renamed it to 2007 Writers Guild of America strike. Being Bold is more important than learning and/or knowing the rules. Yes, there may be some overlap between IAR and BB, but that may just mean that on some level BB is a logical extension of IAR itself.

Here's a great example of IAR being applied at this very moment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations. Most of the participants there so far are ignoring WP:NOT#DIR, because it's of no benefit to the encyclopedia, or at least it isn't in this case. Building a good encyclopedia trumps what some person wrote on some policy page somewhere at some point.--Father Goose 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't really meaning to characterise it as your version, fair point. The subtlety is in the qualification - is it Ignore All Rules or is it Ignore the Rules if they get in the way? It appears to be the latter. You cannot judge the latter unless you are aware of the rules which means you are not ignoring them. My point is we are saying that, yes, be bold and get on with things, but in the longer term we expect you to come on board and not set aside the rules except where there is a good case. In writing that, I think I have hit on a phrase I would prefer:

Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If a rule doesn't help with that, set it aside.

Do you see the difference in tone that I think is quite important? We should not be encouraging ignorance of the rules, but we should be encouraging thoughtful application and policy should set appropriate expectations of participants. Spenny 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not too bad. Personally, I'd go with "disregard it" instead of "set it aside", but at that point we're almost back to "ignore it". Still, I don't mind switching "the rules" to "a rule" -- I feel both convey essentially the same message.

Although "ignore all rules" overstates the case, on some level I think it's a healthy overstatement: one should feel comfortable to be entirely ignorant of Wikipedia's rules at all times and to think, "What's good for the encyclopedia?" without the slightest regard toward any of the rules. If the answer to "what's good?" contradicts the rules, then the rules are wrong. Ding, ignore them.--Father Goose 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with FG's suggestion. Will ^(talk) 10:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this wording. It makes far too sense, and doesn't present enough ways for editors to disagree with it. We need something more contentious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

break

I have reverted this. The point of IAR is to be able to set round a particular rule that isn't helping in a particular circumstance. It is not to "ignore them" all, or put aside common principles. IAR is good - anarchy ain't.--Doc^g 11:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doc's point here. I think that this version best describes the intended meaning:

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

This version has my support. It is concise, and it does not attempt to introduce irrelevant information. After all, IAR can be used to ignore a rule that is not a "common principal" such as a rule that was created by a small group of editors stubbornly reverting a policy page. Not all rules are part of a "set of common standards", some are imposed by office, some are imposed through stubborn editing, some by simple mistakes. Rules exist for a variety of reasons and we can ignore all of them to help us build an encyclopedia. 1 != 2 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Giving editors a very concise overview of what the rules are and what they are for helps make the role of IAR clearer, and is entirely relevant. This overview doesn't tie our hands the way you seem to claim it does: if a group is pushing a policy change that doesn't have consensus, then it is not a common standard, it does not help us, and it should be ignored. The foundation issues are of two varieties: legal compliance and a few very fundamental rules which lay out Wikipedia's mission (to build a free encyclopedia). Although those rules don't come directly from the community, I venture to say that "keep out out of legal trouble" and "material should be verifiable and netural" certainly enjoy status as common standards.

Mistakes are also not excluded by the new version. If a rule lays out a position that we didn't intend, it is, again, not a common standard, and we should ignore it since it's not helping us build an encyclopedia. While workshopping earlier versions, I considered phrasing like "Wikipedia's rules are meant to be...", but ultimately I found the extra words to be unnecessary -- a bit like saying "a car is a device for driving around (unless it happens to be broken)". We can indeed still ignore all rules, but hopefully with the new version it will be a bit clearer why (and also when) we can ignore them.--Father Goose 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The "a rule" (vs. "the rules") phrasing is only a few months old, and each variety has its advocates. Historically, it's been "the rules" (and even "all rules", given the title of the page). I personally am agnostic about "a" vs. "the" -- I think both versions convey essentially the same message. I would have no objection to changing the new/proposed version to "If a rule doesn't help with that, we ignore it", or something like that.--Father Goose 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But by defining what rules are in such a specific way and then saying you can ignore the rules gives the impression that the rules as you just defined them can be ignored. But rules go beyond that one definition and they can be ignored too. It confounds the idea trying to be conveyed. 1 != 2 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Half of IAR is about it not being necessary to bother with the rules at all to accomplish the generally obvious task of writing a good encyclopedia article, not about disregarding specific rules. It is perfectly acceptable that an intelligent editor need not read or follow any of "the rules", altogether, and IAR specifically does include the principles of the "Wikipedia" that is "improved" or "maintained". —Centrx→talk • 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We hashed this out awhile ago and settled on "working with others". I'm not seeing a consensus here to remove it. —Ashley Y 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There never was a consensus for this change. You can ignore rules without working with others. If the community wants a BLP violation or a copyright infringement or to out personal information about a member, I will ignore all rules against the community and remove it. It is ignore all rules, not ignore some rules and not others. 1 != 2 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was consensus for this change, and it's mostly been the page for over a month. You've reverted to it yourself. The examples you give are not "ignoring all rules": they're following specific rules. The rules laid out in WP:CONSENSUS, including the "Exceptions" section, should never be ignored. —Ashley Y 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly been on the page for over a month because people haven't persisted in edit wars over it, not because of agreement. The discussion in question never actually reached a conclusion; or if it did reach a conclusion it reached a conclusion in favor of the status quo ante of not having "working with others", as that was never justified beyond it being a weak half stop-gap. —Centrx→talk • 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IAR is an original foundation policy. It reflects what we do, and have always done. Jimbo Wales has described it as not negotiable. Now, sure, overtime it can be tweeked an amended, but two or three people talking here on a talk page is not a consensus of a community of thousands. Every so often, someone tries to change this, it always fails. Now, if you really think a change here is good, you need to go drum up a serious debate somewhere. Try centralised discussions or an RfC. --Doc^g 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not an accurate representation of how this change came about. To quote David Levy (who was against the change), "There was a great deal of discussion (and argumentation) about this, and such a compromise was the closest thing to consensus that emerged." Now a few editors, without gaining new consensus, are trying to remove it. Please stop. —Ashley Y 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to try WP:CENT or an RfC to overcome the consensus that has been established for the language you seek to revert.--Father Goose

Nope, not how it works. If there's no consensus for you change, we go back to the last stable version. Its been this way for a long time.--Doc^g 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Lame Edit War Participant. You do realize that the current ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.") wording literally invites itself to be abused, don't you? I suppose not. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh?--Doc^g 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowing any "rules" to be ignored would "invite itself to be abused"; and "working with others" invites itself to be abused by requiring the exact opposite of what a wiki and IAR is for. —Centrx→talk • 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The last stable version was "working with others", so that's the one we should go back to. Separately, at the top of this thread, you expressed what appears to be opposition to "ignore the rules" as opposed to "a rule". "Ignore the rules" was in place for a very long time, so it could be argued that that is the stable version.

Let's take this opportunity to break out of the "is too, is not" cycle. What exactly are you for and against here?--Father Goose 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Never going two weeks without being reverted is not very stable. It is more stable than some brand-new change that might now be introduced, but it is much less stable than the wording of the prior 18 months, and the prior 5 years that contained nothing requiring "working with others". —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite.--Doc^g 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was sufficiently stable that a new consensus should have been obtained before removing "working with others". Of course, this hasn't stopped the occasional dissenting editor trying to remove it anyway. Go look in the archives if you want to see the extensive discussion and careful compromise that was worked out. —Ashley Y 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A series of edit wars paused by periods of no edit warring while people object to the change does not constitute "stability". The dissenters are not occasional; the dissenters are many, only the edit warring which would seem to be your measure of instability is occasional. There is no compromise in the archives, let alone a careful one. The justification for this change is one part misunderstanding of the English language, one part misunderstanding of Wikipedia generally, and one part misunderstanding of IAR specifically. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow, in the course of this thread we've been discussing changes completely different from the actual revert you performed, so your position is unclear to me. May I ask you to clarify what you're for and against here?--Father Goose 06:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What I have been observing here over the last several weeks is an attempt to make a change that consensus does not support simply through determination and stubbornness. Well that is not consensus. No amount of claiming it is consensus will make it so. If there was a consensus for the change there would not be so much objection. 1 != 2 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because what I have been observing here over the last several months are many discussions supporting the inclusion of the "working with others" phrase, hence the consensus we keep talking about. Now, this consensus was reverted by a few individuals who have not been actively participating in said discussions, and then have the audacity to claim that "no consensus has formed because I wasn't here to form it." I wonder which is more legitimate... egregious violations of WP:OWN and a "my way or the highway" mentality or actual consensus? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. —Ashley Y 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look through the discussion pages since August, from Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 10#"Working with others" unto now, I count 11 people who wanted IAR not to include "working with others" and 6 people who wanted IAR to include "working with others". If you look at the number of people editing for each version, they are about even. —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply do not see this consensus, perhaps you could provide some links? 1 != 2 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

People have been pointing out links in the discussion archives for a while now. I think Lubaf and Father Goose had links, but I can't remember. I don't have time to sift through the archives right now, but I would suggest giving them a read for reference and hopefully some elucidation. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the archives, I did not find any such consensus. 1 != 2 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see many links. The only link in the past month is to someone saying that this compromise, while not the best, is the closest thing to consensus that has emerged, yet the prior consensus that stood for 18 months and in another form also without "working with others" has stood as solid consensus for years. In any event, if the reason for including this verbiage is so obvious, then you should be able to state it in a sentence or a paragraph here. Specifically:

• Why must IAR no longer allow a person to do the easily understandable task of improving an encyclopedia article without requiring that he either read the rules or specially involve others whom he might not even be aware of?
• Why must a person who disregards a bad or inapplicable rule be required to specially ask for the involvement of others beforehand?
• Why must the page about ignoring rules impose additional rules beyond improving and maintaining Wikipedia?

—Centrx→talk • 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, I could respond to your points in a sentence, and I will when I summarize this little exploration. That said, significant detail is required so that you can see my points and my reasons don’t look unfounded. See, something you said above worried me slightly, which got me thinking about the history and natural progression of this policy.

You stated that the current version has enjoyed consensus for 18 months and in another form without "working with others" for years. I'll chock that up to a misunderstanding simply because it is not true. This policy originated in the form "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." This version was totally different from the current wording. Now this rule was, of course, our first rule to consider, meaning that in terms of importance, before all else came the content of the encyclopedia. Rules were totally secondary (if not tertiary); all that was needed to ignore the rules was simply worrying too much about them and move about your business.

Mind you, this was before many of the rules were formed, and those that were forming were nebulous and not fully developed; most policies (consensus, civility, edit warring, sock puppetry) emerged months -- if not years -- later. Now, over time, the rules we know now as powerful, important, and necessary to the well-being of Wikipedia began to take form and become stronger and more solid. This progress was due simply to the exponential influx of new users, articles, and community; some control was needed in order to maintain and normalize encyclopedic content to retain quality. In this process, Ignore All Rules shifted as well: as the rules became more important to the stability of the encyclopedia, simply ignoring them because they made you nervous, depressed and not desirous of participating in the Wiki was no long appropriate, as it would obviously lead to behavioral and content problems, thereby damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia.

And thus, the new version was born: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Yes, the rules were still secondary to content, but the new version acknowledged the growth of the influence of the rules. No longer could an editor ignore a rule for personal reasons; now, actions avoiding or sidestepping policies must have an excuse, and in this case such an excuse arrived through the improvement of the project.

With the new wording came less anarchy and subjectivity, but the wording was still ambiguous enough to allow editors the ability to occasionally unilaterally, and often erroneously, decide what they believed was improving the encyclopedia. All this occurred, as you pointed out, 18 months ago. Now, 18 months later, newer policies have been enacted and older policies have grown in importance and clarity. This is what occurs in the natural evolution of an organic project such as a Wiki -- policies, direction, content guidelines all change. Ignore All Rules is not immune to such changes, as detailed above, and thus there is no reason to act conservatively to change.

In terms of the proposed addition, the phrase "working with others" both reinforces the fundamental philosophy behind Wikipedia (collaboration) and removes at least more of the subjective content and disputes that will arise with this policy's current wording. I will admit that your questions above have brought up some good points regarding the fact that the wording could theoretically cause minor confusion. And so to answer your questions: "working with others" was not meant to require excess discussion or debate before making an action. It was meant to say that editors' actions ought to be uncontroversial and reflect consensus when applying this policy, while reminding editors that Wikipedia is a Wiki and that collaboration is necessary. If editors do not with to participate in the Wiki process and have no desire to work with others, they can find another project. It’s as simple as that. In this way, "working with others" does not impose additional rules to the policy; it simply requires editors not to forget the purpose of this project and to think twice before working around or ignoring the rules. This policy is not a carte blanche for irresponsibility.

Maybe "working with others" is not the right word choice. I don’t know what is. But the purpose of Wikipedia is to be organic and change constantly. The project has changed since 2001. The project has changed since the current wording came into play. This policy must reflect the change in the project; anything less would be doing the community and readers a disservice.

You were right in a sense, by the way, in saying that both versions existed with the enjoyment of consensus and without the phrase "working with others." But then again, 19 months ago, the policy enjoyed consensus without the focus of working to improve and maintain the encyclopedia. Again, as stated above, times change. In fact, they change quickly when dealing with a project such as Wikipedia.

And so to summarize: the change to the policy is recommended simply because it reinforces the purpose of this project and removes unnecessary subjectivity (and thereby reduces the number of disputes that seem to follow this policy), all while not adding excess rules or instruction creep.

That's my take on this. I’m eager to hear your response. Rockstar (^T/_C) 09:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no reference to working with others or anything like working with others in either the "improving" version or the "nervous" version. The "going about your [own] business" is almost the opposite. The rules that make one nervous and depressed are the social construct that came out of others working together.
• Among calm, reasonable people, "the rules" are simply not needed as "rules" at all. The principle of a good encyclopedia is simple; and most encyclopedia editors do not pay any special attention to "the rules". I see no reason to think that the wording of IAR was weakened to accommodate changes in Wikipedia. "Improving or maintaining" broadens the circumstances under which someone should ignore rules, and the multiplication of rules would make a strong IAR more important.
• The fundamental philosophy behind Wikipedia is making an encyclopedia. Collaboration serves that purpose, but is not necessary to it, and many if not most edits are made without collaboration. If an editor wants to write encyclopedia articles without collaborating with others, he can and will; there is, practically, nothing you can do to stop a person from improving Wikipedia.
• The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "change constantly". The ease of change facilitates Wikipedia's actual purpose, as an encyclopedia, but if a good article is changed for the worse, the change was not good and the article ought to be and will be changed back.
• So, the change to the policy does not reinforce the purpose of the project, and it contradicts the purpose of IAR by adding a rule to the page against rules.

—Centrx→talk • 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will make my response as short as yours is long: It is meant to be as subjective as it is. 1 != 2 17:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is not subjective. In fact, a proper application of IAR is one such that it causes zero controversy (objective), not one that could cause a disagreement between editors (subjective). We're working together towards one common goal -- what exactly is subjective about that? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is the only purpose of Wikipedia. Working together as a community is something we do to reach that goal, when it works. Improving and maintaining the encyclopedia are the only things that are supposed to be non-subjective in this policy. Every other policy is to help us do those two things. Working with others is a means to an end, not a primary goal of the project. 1 != 2 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not "working with others", and not fighting with others either

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, we ignore them.

How did we get back into the "working with others" fight when an alternative is on the table?--Father Goose 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before when you suggested this last time, this is limiting the rules than can be ignored to a certain category. This is contrary to ignoring all rules. The wording you suggests starts by defining what "rules" mean, then say you can ignore them. What if a rule is not the result of common standards? What if it got there by a group edit warring till they got their way? What if it was imposed by office or law? You are narrowing the definition of rules and that defeats the purpose because your definition cannot anticipate all eventualities. 1 != 2 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That statement is untrue - "common standards" =! rules. Wikipedia has a set of non-negotiable standards (the 5 pillars) - these may never be ignored. The processes and procedures that we adopt are designed to help as achieve those standards and may be ignored if they cease, in some instance to be counterproductive. Rules may be ignored, but our 'common standards' may NOT. --Doc^g 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clever, but the distinction you make between "rules" and "standards" is your own. —Ashley Y 01:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And the equation you make between them is also your own. Actually, we always recognised that there are non-negotiable things (whatever you want to call them) that you may not ignore - and negotiable things which are normally to be followed, and "as a rule" binding - butwhich brook exceptions and can be ignored where they don't serve the greater purpose. That's not my distinction.--Doc^g 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's fine, then. "Working with others" is a standard, rather than a rule, by your definitions. —Ashley Y 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you speak of? The claim you make here does not seem to be borne out by the original phrasing of IAR, or its name itself, or the fact that "a rule" (vs. "the rules") is a wording that was only introduced a few months ago (at the same time as "working with others") and has as much (or as little) consensus as "working with others" does. Three parentheticals in one sentence, la-di-da me.

That said, I do agree that IAR isn't, and shouldn't be, an invitation to chaos, which is just the reason why we've been trying to make it clearer as to when it should and shouldn't be invoked. We'll keep trying. Would you care to offer some alternatives of your own? I'd really like to move past this "with others" logjam.--Father Goose 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. I see no need for change - and I see no acceptable wording for change being proposed.--Doc^g 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, it isn't fine. For example, it does not elude to your proposition that there are rules (that can be ignored) and there are pillars (which are a different sort of rules that cannot). How does the innocent newbie divine this? There is so much subtlety that this policy statement simply does not stand by itself, yet the ownership on this page delights in maintaining obscurity over enlightenment. Spenny 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, it is fine. There are lots of detailed policy pages for people who like that stuff. There's plenty for the newbie to read. The purpose of this policy is simply to remind us that we are here to build and maintain an encyclopedia, all else is secondary. The point of it is to communicate an ethos, that rules are not straitjackets - and not impediments to common sense. It isn't supposed to have qualifications or detailed instructions about when to use it - that's exactly what it serves to counterbalance. Its principled vagueness is its strength. You don't see the irony of placing qualifications on a policy meant to relativise all qualifications?--Doc^g 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is: do you not see the irony of having obscurity in pages designed to explain policy? There is lots wrong with this because fundamentally "Ignore All Rules" isn't really the policy, it is something else. Therefore this needs to be explained. It's principled vagueness is its weakness. There are better ways of putting it: "Rules cannot simply be ignored, but you are not bound by them either." for example. Spenny 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Remind me again, what's obscure about this? It seems to me to be admirably clear. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, WP:WIARM would not exist. You personally know what IAR means by dint of experience; if you were a new editor, you would be stupid to try to invoke it, or afraid to. IAR in its current form is incorrect, as there are times when you shouldn't invoke it "to improve Wikipedia" (such as using non-free media inappropriately) and times when you should invoke it that have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia (such as rules that govern behavior). We should strive to explain -- briefly -- why we have IAR, so as to make its purpose clearer. Right now it's not admirably clear -- in fact, it's quite enigmatic.--Father Goose 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But "Ignore all rules" is the policy, as it is worded it says you may ignore rules if they prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia. It is policy and it always has been. "Rules cannot simply be ignored, but you are not bound by them either." is simply an incorrect interpretation to IAR. I see no irony in its present wording, it simply makes it clear that other policies can be ignored if it is needed to do so to meet our primary goal, to improve and maintain an encyclopedia. I find it very contrary to tack on qualification to this, such an act would bely the purpose of this policy altogether.

Frankly I don't see these masses misinterpreting this rule. It seems to be working fine as it is. It is not obscure, it is concise. It is not contrary, it is a counterbalance. The qualifications you seek are already included in other policy, and if not they can be. 1 != 2 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Still, if policy was to deal with reasonable people then we wouldn't need policy would we? I guess really, I don't like the page short cut which is misleading and therefore think the caveats needs to be stronger, hence the comment in the section below - essentially the what it means should be merged with this page - no more policy, just more accessible and obvious. Spenny 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave this policy the way it is

... unless anyone is willing to ask Jimbo Wales to change it. This is a core, fundamental policy, and it has a deeper meaning than many people give it credit for. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Jimbo, I think it should stay the same because it has served Wikipedia well in its current spirit for a very long time. 1 != 2 01:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're curious, Jimbo actually weighed in on changing the policy a few months ago. He said he would support a change, but who's counting?

Re: Until (1 == 2), IAR in its current form has "served Wikipedia well" for 18 months. It's actually kind of sad, if you think about it, that it hasn't changed for 18 months. We are a Wiki, after all. What are we trying to be? A paper encyclopedia? Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the success of this version is sad at all. 1 != 2 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you call this policy a success? It's been edit-warred more often than any other policy (besides maybe BLP). If anything, that's a sign that there is a significant problem with its wording. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy is a success because it works. —David Levy 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It works because the spirit behind it works, and that only applies to the handful of editors who understand its purpose. It doesn't mean it isn't flagrantly abused in its current wording. You can change the wording to lessen abuse while still maintaining the spirit behind it. It's not rocket science. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Every policy is abused, and nothing is going to stop people from abusing this one. I am, however, open to improving the wording, but I've yet to see a suggestion that I believe accomplishes this.

For users who don't understand the policy's purpose, we have Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. —David Levy 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work very well. —Ashley Y 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And you cite one user's easily correctable misunderstanding (from before Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means was created) as evidence of this? —David Levy 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That rather proves my point, doesn't it? WP:IAR on its own isn't very useful: one needs something like WP:WIARM to actually spell out what the policy is. Otherwise someone has to go and correct the "misunderstandings" that inevitably arise. —Ashley Y 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, every policy is abused. Making this one as detailed as the others wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely leave more room to wikilawyer (in precisely the manner that this policy is supposed to prevent).

Fortunately, we do have Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (linked directly from the policy's page), so your notation of what we'd need to do if it didn't exist is irrelevant.

But again, I agree that the addition of "working with others" is a reasonable compromise. —David Levy 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So apparently we have an official policy that's really just a nutshell, with a link to the real policy on another page. On the one hand, people should take WP:WIARM seriously so as to prevent the kinds of misunderstandings that I linked to. On the other hand, people should not take WP:WIARM seriously, because that level of detail might encourage "wikilawyering".

Isn't this a bit ridiculous? What if people get it the wrong way around? The newbies might argue that WIARM isn't policy, while the wikilawyers might use WIARM to justify some arcane point. —Ashley Y 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen so many hypotheticals and so few actual examples of this policy causing problems. —David Levy 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? WP:IAR, or WP:WIARM, which seems to have quasi-policy status? —Ashley Y 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the policy proper, but my point was that I haven't seen any evidence that the current setup is faulty. —David Levy 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't think the current setup is a bit ridiculous, though? IAR has a semi-official interpretation, WIARM, without which misunderstandings might happen (such as the example I gave). But apparently we can't actually include any of that in the policy itself. —Ashley Y 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, every policy is subject to misunderstanding/misapplication. In that respect, that we have an explanatory page to supplement this one puts it ahead of most.

The policy's simplicity facilitates its use, so yes, it's important that we not weigh it down with lengthy text. For users who want/need a detailed explanation, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is available.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe that this setup is ridiculous at all, and I await evidence of its failure. —David Levy 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reason the other policies do not by and large have explanatory pages is not due to some oversight. In other policies, helpful explanation is merged into the page, where it ought to be. This is not to say that paragraphs of WIARM should be merged in, only that the apparent necessity of a supplementary page suggests that a little more is necessary to actually have a meaningful policy.

Do you have any evidence that its simplicity facilitates its use? I provided at least one example of where it actually caused problems. —Ashley Y 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Working with others" is not a helpful explanation; it is a terse qualification that is no less cryptic than the rest of it, and that is no less vulnerable to abuse. Enlarging IAR is a separate issue. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but it you don't believe that the policy's simplicity facilitates its use, you don't understand the policy. The idea behind it is that users aren't required to read long pages of text and find passages that justify their actions. Merging Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means into the actual policy page would be self-defeating.

That the policy's brevity is beneficial is the established by the lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. (One example from January—or even several similar examples—won't cut it.) —David Levy 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should not merge in paragraphs of WIARM. I guess I meant the extreme simplicity of a single sentence, packed full of meaning only knowable to people who already have experience of Wikipedia. In particular, what actually counts as "improving or maintaining" is not at all obvious. One might think one is improving or maintaining Wikipedia, only to discover that IAR doesn't justify the edit because one didn't pay attention to consensus...

You are apparently not so bothered by abuses justified by IAR such as the example I gave. I agree that WIARM has helped here, on the other hand I'm seeing no evidence that it's at all helpful to keep IAR as terse and gnomic as it is. What horrible things have happened when consensus is at least referred to in the policy? —Ashley Y 04:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that the policy needs to remain this short. I simply haven't seen any alternatives that I regard as improvements. But I'm more than willing to include the "working with others" addition (which I regard as a reasonable compromise).

It isn't that I'm "not so bothered by abuses." It's that I've seen no evidence that this policy generates more abuse than is to be expected of policies in general, let alone that this can be rectified via rewording. —David Levy 04:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the current version plus "working with others" is the best wording I've seen, so we may not be so far apart. I haven't liked the radically different wordings either. It seems logical to me, though there's no way of finding evidence for it, that "working with others" or something that refers to consensus in some way is likely to help prevent abuse. The point of course is not that one must obtain consensus before editing, but that one should not make an edit if consensus is against you. And indeed there are other things (spelled out in WP:CONSENSUS) such as office actions that must never be ignored. —Ashley Y 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's a license to edit-war, as people justify their edits as "improving Wikipedia" (since an encyclopedia page that's right half the time is better than one that's always wrong). Of course you and I happen to know that edit wars are detrimental to the project, but that's not implied in the text. —Ashley Y 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are these people using IAR as a license to edit war? Are they not being handled properly by the community? 1 != 2 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)`

As I said above, the answer is they are sort of being handled -- 90% of them, at least. There are, however, 10% who use IAR inappropriately to win arguments and edit war against consensus. While the number is small, it is nevertheless inappropriate, and is also where the desire to change the policy originated. Why else do you think we would want to change it? For giggles? It's not like wanting to change policy and discussing endlessly is fun. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, where? Where are these 10%, where did you get that number of 10%? 1 != 2 02:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just click on the "What links here" button and just click on a few links to see a fraction of the abuses of IAR. Most of those have gone unnoticed or uncorrected, and it's not like we can have an IAR Patrol. Why not fix something that is broken? Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I ask for examples and am told to find them myself. I have yet to see one example of where this wording would have made an IAR abuser change his ways. 1 != 2 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, every policy is abused. Can you cite instances in which users successfully abused this policy in spite of direct opposition? —David Levy 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they mostly get "handled properly by the community" after the fact. But their edits at the time are justified by the literal text. Of course, due to long experience with Wikipedia you might argue that by "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" is generally understood all sorts of behaviour constraints such as civility, respecting consensus and so on. But that's not implied in the plain meaning of the text to newcomer eyes. —Ashley Y 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that (and prefer the current wording), but I agree that the addition of "working with others" is an acceptable compromise. Unfortunately, some users insist that "working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia" means "working with others to edit a specific page, and not ignoring any rules without first consulting them and receiving their approval." —David Levy 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look back in the archives of this Talk page, you will see that the lack of at least some reference to consensus has been a frequent and long-standing complaint about the text, from many different editors. It really ought to be fixed. —Ashley Y 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When there is a consensus that it is broken, it can be fixed. But the fact is that the community has not demonstrated that belief. A small group of people have been very vocal about it, but that is just a small group of people being very vocal. There has been plenty of critical response to the proposed wordings. When there is a wording that I think improves the policy I will support it, and I hope the community will too. But this has not happened yet. 1 != 2 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's been a small group of people who've been very vocal about resisting almost all change to the text, but that is just a small group of people being very vocal. There was consensus around a compromise of "working with others", but the small group reverted it and now it's locked.

To be honest I think "claim of a silent majority" arguments are pretty silly either way. —Ashley Y 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, the number of people in these talk pages who opposed adding "working with others" was double the number who wanted the change. The vocal minority is the group that wants "working with others", and the majority against it was not silent. —Centrx→talk • 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One way to discern majority or minority was the poll initiated above, although a large number of people, including those who are opposed to any changes, insisted on mocking the poll, which strikes me as pretty childish.--Father Goose 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by polling or majority; I am merely responding to the statements about majority versus stubborn vocal minority. Not only are those statements irrelevant to what ought to be done with this page, because even super-majority does not rule, but they are internally erroneous such that, if their principle of majority versus obstinate minority were valid, that principle would actually contradict their intent. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What consensus??? Where? You keep mentioning it but when I ask for links you just point me to the same archives that were there last week. I don't see this consensus, show it to me. 1 != 2 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to remind everyone here to remain civil, regardless of disagreements. — Thomas H. Larsen 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not trying to change it, by any means; we're just hoping to make that deeper meaning more readily apparent to anyone who comes across the page. IAR derives its power from the idea behind it, but that idea is largely unexplained on the current page.--Father Goose 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But if we add a bunch of text, the policy will become yet another long page that people have to read before they can edit (which directly contradicts the policy's spirit). Those that wish to better understand the policy's background can easily click over to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, but reading it should not be a prerequisite to ignoring rules. —David Levy 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not want a bunch of text. Even two sentences or so would work. I suggested two such sentences above, and it got a favorable response -- then Doc glasgow reverted it and we slipped back into the "working with others" fight as though that's going to accomplish anything.

Mania.--Father Goose 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted in the past, I'm entirely open to the idea of improving the policy's wording. Of the substantially different versions that have been proposed, however, I've yet to see one that I regard as an improvement. Others have responded similarly. —David Levy 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, David, you're one of the sane, logical, and reasonable people here. What I don't see is people who have responded similarly to you. It seems like a never-ending cycle on this talk page: a handful of editors have solid, constructive discussion about changing the wording, and we form a consensus. Then, when we finally decide to change the wording on the page, some "respected" editor swoops in, reverts the change, gives some ridiculous reason for doing so ("I don't like it," "There is no need for wikilawyering," "It's always been this way"), and then totally ignores attempts to further discussion. We're forming a toxic environment. We should be proud. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's an accurate summary. It's reached the point at which I'm reluctant to even bother posting here (which is why I've ignored a number of threads). It feels like a waste of time. —David Levy 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I can't tell you the number of times I've nearly quit Wikipedia simply because of the conduct I've seen on this talk page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a while ago but I seem to remember you (David) considered this version not an improvement but not necessarily wrong either. That version, or something like it, might open the door toward ending the "working with others" war, since I've seen both pro-"others" and anti-"others" voice support for it. I will say this much: neither the currently-protected version nor the "working with others" version enjoys enough consensus to be worth defending. Both are wrong. Anybody who insists on reverting to either is fighting over carrion. Abandon them both; ponder IAR anew and rewrite from scratch.--Father Goose 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While not "wrong," I believe that your proposed version is inferior to the current wording (with or without the addition of "working with others"). I await the presentation of evidence demonstrating the alleged problems with said wording. —David Levy 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Which is the "said wording", and whom are you calling upon to demonstrate problems with it?--Father Goose 08:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the current wording, and I'm calling upon the users claiming that such problems exist. —David Levy 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the current version and the "with others" versions are both demonstrably non-consensual. As such, neither can claim to have "wide acceptance among editors", and thus cannot claim to be policy at all. We have to keep seeking an alternative wording that is supported by consensus. Ponder IAR anew and rewrite from scratch. I'm not kidding.--Father Goose 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Having "wide acceptance among editors" is not the only way that something can become policy. IAR is policy because Jimbo made it policy. (This is not to say that we're locked into any particular wording.)

2. I dispute your assertion that the policy (in its current form) lacks consensus. While a few users (us included) bicker about the details on this page, countless editors successfully utilize IAR to improve and maintain Wikipedia every day.

3. I still await the presentation of evidence of the policy (in its current form)'s alleged harm and ineffectiveness. You seek to fix something that appears to work very well, and simply claiming that it's broken is insufficient.

4. Nonetheless, I reiterate that I'm entirely open to the idea of improving the wording. Thus far, however, no one has proposed wording that I regard as an improvement. —David Levy 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it has been the stable version for over a year. It gets changed sometimes, but since the change has not yet reflected consensus it keeps getting changed back. It is the version that there when I joined about 18 months ago, and it has been that version every time I have checked. The history shows it is the most stable version in over a year. However what is most important is that there has not been a greater consensus to have it any other way. 1 != 2 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuses of the policy, etc.

I do not think that any policy should be changed simply because it is abused. An edit war never improves Wikipedia, and the end can never justify the means. In other words, anyone who edit wars against a fellow editor is actually in violation of this policy. — Thomas H. Larsen 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're hoping to explain it better, not change it. In its current form, it fails to explain why we have such a rule, which makes it harder understand what its purpose is, and thus when it should be used. I personally am not as concerned about the rule being abused; in fact, I think it's not invoked often enough, at the right times. The current wording is off the mark and doesn't embody the spirit well.--Father Goose 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"An edit war never improves Wikipedia" - that depends on your interpretation of "improve". Someone might quite reasonably determine that an encyclopedia that is right half the time is better than one that is always wrong. Of course, you and I know that edit-warring is unhelpful, but this rule doesn't necessarily imply that on its face. —Ashley Y 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the edit war is likely to end in the person being blocked, the page protected, and/or no one taking the edit warrior's arguments seriously, edit warring would result in the article being always wrong, when instead by judicious editing and/or discussion the article could be made right. That does not mean that every action requires "working with others", and this page does not need to delineate every possible implication of IAR, not least because IAR applies to everything on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why I no longer support the "working with others" version. We need that judicious editing and discussion here, but instead we're in the middle of a slap-fest. We won't get anywhere until it's over.--Father Goose 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If a sink is broken, you can fix it -- add a new nozzle, replace a bolt, tighten a screw. When you're done, guess what: it's still a sink. End of story. We're not proposing to change this policy into something totally different. We're proposing to fix it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The sink is not broken, and instead of fixing it you made the water squirt everywhere. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Feh. Given the way these talks have progressed, methinks the water was squirting everywhere because the sink was broken in the first place. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Water squirt everywhere"? Was there an invasion of wikilawyering that I missed? —Ashley Y 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the various proposed wordings have not gained consensus. These strange metaphors are not going to change that, polls will not change that, 57 posts here per hour will not change that. 1 != 2 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that this policy is totally set in stone, never to be changed again. Am I reading this correctly? Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "these revisions are bad" is not equivalent to "all possible revisions are bad". —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen. Requests for full protection, statements like "we should not be afraid to admire its perfection and leave it untouched" and "I have removed additional text because it was too fat" seem to say the exact opposite. There is no legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't change the text; in fact, no one has offered one. So no, in this case, "these revisions are bad" is equivalent to "all possible revisions are bad." Saying the opposite just to make yourself feel better doesn't make it true. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, if I was saying that I would have used words that meant that. So you are not reading it correctly. There just needs to be a consensus first. These particular ideas are not likely to get consensus, perhaps someone will come up with a wording that the community embraces over the current version, but this has not happened yet. 1 != 2 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy isn't necessarily set in stone, but before any possibility of consensus to change it, someone is going to have to demonstrate that there is a significant problem with people ignoring rules badly, and that changing the policy would solve the problems. Not necessarily supporting this, just telling you what would need to happen. -Amarkov moo! 07:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were to reword it, it would be 'Ignore all rules, but don't be a frigging idiot about it' HalfShadow 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So, have a "see also" WP:DICK. I quote "Don't be a dick. If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies about behavior. This is a corollary of ignore all rules, and most other rules are special cases of this one."--Doc^g 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's actually a good wording. Needs some polish, but that's easily done. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording suggestion

How about "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them, if doing so does not cause damage or disruption."? — Thomas H. Larsen 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a tautology. If doing something damages wikipedia then it can't be maintaining or improving it. If what you are trying to say is "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them, if doing so is not going to be unpopular, then I disagree.--Doc^g 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with a redundancy? I like this one. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 08:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is an improvement. Sometimes doing the right thing for Wikipedia is disruptive, so I don't think this is a good restriction on ignoring all rules. 1 != 2 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions suggestion

The wording is working great the way it is, and it is disruptive of people to keep suggesting other options without providing a motivation. The burden of evidence clearly should lie on the suggestor. Can we agree that from now on every new suggestion needs to cite at least three instances of cases that undoubtedly would have been better off with the proposed wording? — Sebastian 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I accept the claims made by you that the current version is working great, and that the suggested changes have not explained properly why it would be an improvement, I cannot except such a proposed amendment needs to meet specific criteria. To define the requirement to be 3(three) instances be demonstrate that the new version improves over the existing version seems counter to the philosophy of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY which I believe has the wide acceptance from the community.

Current suggested rewordings do not have consensus, I think we can agree on that. But I do not think that future wordings need to do anything other than gain consensus. Dispite what has been suggested by others, I do not thing this policy is harder to change than any other. You just need a superior version(as consensus sees it). While this has not happened yet, I strongly believe a better version of this policy will appear one day.

I do however strongly believe that both my opinion and existing Wikipedia practice puts the burden of evidence on those suggesting a change from what is already accepted. 1 != 2 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly believe a better version of this policy will appear one day." That's an encouraging note. Do you have a personal notion of what a "better version" might incorporate or touch upon? You've seen me and a few others put forward some of our notions. I'd be curious to hear yours, if you would be willing to share them.--Father Goose (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your are making a good point, 1 != 2 in that consensus works everywhere else on Wikipedia, so why not here. I guess my concern is really that I would like some reliability and stability for this simple policy. I understand if a new, 1000 words long policy may deserve a lot of discussion, but not this short and well established one. There's so much going on here that it's easy to miss the real changes. Therefore, I herewith authorize anyone who sees that a real change is looming to canvass me so I can raise my voice against it if it doesn't show sufficient benefits. — Sebastian 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of us advocating for change here are in no way advocating for a change of the policy or the ideas underlying it, but just to present it in a way that is more readily grasped. The principle behind IAR is more profound and important to Wikipedia than the current wording manages to convey.--Father Goose (talk)

As proof of what FG says above: I'm advocating for change, because the current version lacks the nuance that IAR has when actually used correctly. I don't know what wording works in that respect, but the current version doesn't. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 08:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't fit my definition of proof. To the contrary, it's precisely the sort of unsubstantiated opinion remark that got me to write this proposal in the first place! — Sebastian 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked through the archives of this talk page? That would be a good place to start if you've previously been uninvolved in this discussion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through the archives fully and it does not meet my definition of proof either. I think Sebastian is doing a fine job in understanding the context of this discussion. 1 != 2 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One of these days (when I'm not busy doing real work) I'm going to go through the "What Links Here" just to show how often this policy is abused. In ten seconds, I've already found two examples. How many will it take to convince people? Twenty abuses in two days? If that's what you want, I'll come up with the evidence. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more interested to see how often the policy is successfully abused. —David Levy 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself, which is to say, the idea behind it, is in good shape; people often invoke it wrongly but I can't think of any cases where it was wrongly enforced. If anything, it's not invoked often enough, especially against policy abuse, one of its core purposes. I'll continue brainstorming about how to make the ideas behind it more explicit and more readily understood.--Father Goose (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While consensus, and for that matter most of our rules work most of the time, this policy is here for when they do not work. As for Goose's question as to what I think would be an improvement I have to say that I think the current version is fine right now. It says what needs to be said, nor have I been shown any evidence that it is being misinterpreted. Nor has there been any demonstration that the various new wordings would improve the perceived problem. I am seeing one suggested wording after another here, each once just slightly different from the last. I suggest that you will get the same result if you keep trying to do the same thing with slightly different wording. The crux of what you want seems to be that you want IAR limited to consensus, or working with others, or not being disruptive, or having to meet some requirement. Such changes weaken the policy regardless of subtle working changes. The policy is called ignore all rules, not ignore some rules but not these ones. 1 != 2 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)