Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 13

message: Glancing over both essays, I don't see how they disagree. One leans more on pithy sayings, & other is more technical in its explanation & is illustrated with a flowchart. I can see how one would appeal to some people, & the other to other people. 
But for me, the most important point of "ignore all rules" is what happens when you ignore all rules. Rules are simply the best way we all have agreed on to get things done in the best way, & often they don't make sense for one reason or another. Sometimes you can ignore the rules, & all is good with Wikipedia; other times, ignoring the rules only make things worse -- for you & Wikipedia. 
Although this is only commentary on those three words, just like those other two essays, all of this emphasizes an important point: if someone hasn't thought about what might happen if she/he ignores all rules, that person probably is better off simply following the rules. -- llywrch (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outside opinion on [[WP:WIARM]] vs. [[WP:WIARRM]] 

message: From the Sydney Morning Herald. :
Gasp! How could he do that?  Could it be because he's ignoring the rules when they hurt Wikipedia? How can Jimbo just "steamroll" over anybody like that? Wikipedia is about Collectivism The Community. Jimbo must obey The Community! If The Community decides something, The Community should be listened to and before taking such bold action, he should first and always consult The Community.
People's views are subjective, but apparently some are more subjective than others. Wouldn't that, therefore, imply the existence of "objectivity" and "critical thinking," and thus a possible basis for "steamrolling" by individual editors who know what they're doing and whose efforts are hindered by The Community?
I mean, if The Community is always right, how could there even possibly ever be a rule which "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"? If such a rule even theoretically existed, the Community will fix it.
Keep in mind, I acknowledge that "consensus" is a good thing and some degree of compromising -- possibly even some small amount of false compromising is necessary. And I agree consensus is inescapable, but only in the long-run. The "long-run" is ambiguous. It could be a matter of weeks. It could be years or decades or centuries. Thus, what The Community says now does not necessarily hold any water, particularly if it isn't backed by reason and is objectively harming Wikipedia. 
The Community is not consensus and past consensus and current consensus should be totally ignored if it's harmful, because "consensus" is not only spatially global (across all pages), it is temporally global (throughout all time).
The act of ignoring the rules is not a violation of consensus, but a bold, radical step towards building consensus through breaking through a bureaucracy and\or democracy in violation of WP:NOT, in the same sense that Gandhi making salt and violating Indian law (under the British Empire) built consensus for an independent India.
Keep in mind: I'm not suggesting that any particular examples apply here, like "If I get WP:IAR clarified, suddenly I'll have a justification to engage in massive edit-warring, evil laughter!" I'm saying that, as a matter of principle, if a large number of users form a democratic bureaucracy, calling themselves The Community  and claiming to support "policy," such people and the policy pages they own should be ignored if they harm Wikipedia -- as an act towards building a future, rational consensus.
How is this interpretation unreasonable? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the community supports actions such as those described by Jimbo. There's no need to obtain consensus each time; it's understood. We block people who are blatantly disruptive. He's not even breaking a rule to do that.  Nobody is saying that we're going to let the rule of mob run roughshod over all our principles. Where is this mob? The community of Wikipedians is, by and large, and certainly in the long run, rational, thoughtful, objective and intelligent.  We actually do alright. We don't form bizarre local consensuses for asinine anti-Wikipedia activities, and if we do, then someone boldly ignores a rule to get people's attention, and then we talk it over and we make it better. That's all anybody is supporting here. That's the wiki process. We decide to do stuff, and then we do it. If someone points out that stuff is stupid, and if they manage to get themselves heard, then we fix it. If they fail to make the point, someone else makes it later.  IAR, at its best, prevents people from freaking out at the point where someone ignores a rule and starts the conversation going. It's difficult to keep people from freaking out at that point, and sometimes we have to wait for some dust to settle before the good work gets done. There are probably ways to improve this situation by editing policy pages.  By the way, what's with the trademark symbol? Are you scoring points or something? I don't think you're representing my position and that of others fairly and respectfully by doing that. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, no one owns this page. Well, maybe the community does... ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quote from Jimbo that may clarify things. 

message: Based on some of the criticisms and remarks here and elsewhere, I made some major changes to WP:WIARRM.
If you read the article, you'll notice that I made the distinction between meek IAR and bold IAR. That seems to be where our disagreement lies. Some folks argue that WP:IAR should be "meek," that it cannot be exercised at any time, that it derives its power from consensus, and that it cannot be used to technically ignore every rule. I, on the other hand, believe that it can be both meek and bold, that it can be exercised at any time by anyone, and that consensus itself is just a rule that can be ignored.
On that last point: When I say, "consensus itself is just a rule that can be ignored," I do not mean that a person can ignore the principle of consensus. A person cannot of their own will attempt to exercise authority over the whole community through force. However, the principle of consensus is not necessarily the same as the policy or "rule." The policy stated at WP:CONSENSUS and the past and current community's understanding of it may be false. If this is true, ignoring the rule, which implies ignoring the past and current community, is a step towards building consensus with the community in the future. That's what boldly ignoring the rules is about. And that's why it is YOU (the individual) should ignore "ALL" rules if they harm Wikipedia, NOT you or The Community  should ignore "some" of the rules if you can get away with it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if I ignore a rule without any agreement, claiming that doing so improves the encyclopedia, I will get blocked. And if I continue to insist that everyone else is wrong and I alone am right, I will be banned and nobody will listen to me. That helps nobody. -Amarkov moo! 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zenwhat, you seem to be arguing that, if a wall is in place that shouldn't be there, then the "right" or "best" thing to do is to put your head down and run against it until you die of head injuries, rather than using some people skills and asking whether someone can help you take the wall down. I don't think we want to take such a stance. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so glad these discussions are GFDL licensed. (1 == 2)Until 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Zenwhat, I agree with you about taking walls down. What I disagree with is the idea that it's good to do it in the stupidest and least effective way possible. You're simply wrong about my position on policy. You think that I think we're giving and withholding freedoms, which is flatly incorrect. You are currently free to do whatever you want; break any rule, with or without explaining yourself. In some cases, you'll find yourself with a head injury, but what do I care? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't make any limitation on WP:IAR and WP:WIARM. The idea that I'm trying to keep those pages from changing is entirely your own invention. I support clarifying IAR (it's why I wrote WIARM), and as soon as I see a good edit made to it, I'll support it. I haven't seen an improvement in some time, but I've got one or two in mind, which I might try soon.  The whole "evidence might be so small we'll never find it until it's too late"... too late for what? What on Earth is supposed to be going wrong? I have no clue what you're worried about. There are no "loopholes" in policy, Zenwhat, because Wikipedia is not a rules game. Those who think that it is eventually find out that they're wrong. There is no such thing as a loophole here. You just talk to people, and you get things done. You can stop thinking like a lawyer. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not "ignore some rules." 

message: GTBacchus made this note on my talkpage.  So, I thought I'd prove my point by digging up some stats. I wasn't talking about GTBacchus in particular, or maybe I was and if I was, then I was being an idiot.
In any case, there is a cluster here. Out out the last 500 edits:
Those statistics were made by hand. If any of them are off by one or two, let me know and I'll fix it. Anybody who knows how to use scripts or bots, please double-check them.
Now, a fair amount of those are vandals, several are bots, and several just made copy-edits. But as a basic measure of how this page is being run, consider from the fact above: Out of the last 500 edits to WP:IAR, a little under 1/3 of all edits were made by David Levy, Rockstar915, Lubaf, and Newbyguesses. Even though these are just four people, their wishy-washy opinion "ignore all rules doesn't mean you can REALLY ignore all rules," dominates this article. People come by every now and then and make edits to fix that and, when they do somebody, typically David, reverts them. GTBacchus is just a small part of this group, but he is still a part of this group. Saying, "I've only edited this article 13 times," isn't really much of a defense, because this article isn't edit that often. The last 500 edits have been over the course of 6 months. Editing this article 13 times over the course of several years is substantial -- it's that it's been a "cold edit war" rather than a hot one. But winning a successful edit-war of attrition, a "cold" edit-war, over a long period of time is not consensus. If you think is good for Wikipedia, regardless, I encourage you to completely ignore WP:CONSENSUS and to ignore me too.  If you're right and I'm wrong, then I have no authority to complain about any "consensus." That's the point.
I'm currently facing this same kind of problem at WP:There is no credential policy. I posted the page in WP:VPP, plenty of people apparently read it, a few made copy-edits, but none of them were that interested enough to help defend it or note anything on the talkpage. Then, I get a tiny swarm of users, mostly Rogue Penguin, willing to edit war without discussing their edits, and I'm supposed to just appease them, according to a rigid 3RR and false consensus. See the discussion, too: Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus. It's also the reason for expert rebellion. All you need to stop one rational editor is a few conspiracy theorist nuts willing to edit-war. Editors are free to be totally unreasonable, provided that they can form clusters of edit-warriors that create the illusion of consensus. To deal with this, these individual editors have to run to RFC, the noticeboards, admins, etc., and shout, "Help meeeeeee!! Save meeeeee!! These people are being unreeeeeeeasonable!!!!" and chances are, unless you can gather a cluster to support you (like the current "pro-science" and "anti-religion" cluster, i.e. Adam Cuerden, that's actually doing a very good job fighting off the religious and conspiracy nuts, while at the same time often going too far), then chances are you will not be successful. So, editing Wikipedia ultimately is not this hippie communistic "we all just get together and sing kumbaya and talk things out, dude, and somehow, it all just cosmically works out" On the contrary, it's more like living in the inner-city with a bunch of urban gangs all competing for spots to place graffiti. One guy walks up to a wall with a can of spraypaint in order to paint the Mona Lisa, and he gets jumped either by The Crips or The Bloods. (See East Coast-West Coast hip hop rivalry) And everybody has to join one of these two gangs, apparently.
This is why WP:IAR exists, ultimately. It's a fail-safe against bad policy. Policy Man's foot slips off the accelerator and his head is about to slam into a wall, but -- whoop -- IAR fortunately kicks in, the machine stops, and policy man's head remains intact. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no cabal. I am not sure the point you are trying to make. I don't see any gangs, and if you think of Wikipedia as a battleground then you will likely fail at collaborative editing. (1 == 2)Until 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hogwash, that was the word I was looking for. What a load of utter hogwash. (1 == 2)Until 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Both GT and I made valid points in our comments beyond our calling it hogwash. What you are proposing is basically an opinion poll, except it is created out of old comments created in a variety of contexts followed by confirming with the original posters. That sounds like a very round about way of determining the current consensus. Why not just propose that the two be merged here? I doubt it will be accepted, but that is generally how one proposes something. If you want more people to see it then make a post a WP:VPP drawing attention to the discussion here. But I don't think you can accurately judge the current consensus by rehashing old opinions, we need new opinions. (1 == 2)Until 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Zenwhat, speaking of advancing the discussion, have you got any idea how many substantive points of ours you've failed to respond to? It seems you'd rather pitch a fit about how some "cabal" is controlling IAR than actually work to improve it. I'm standing here saying, "let's improve IAR; let's talk about improvements," but you're more interested in proving that I'm part of a sinister plot. How does that advance the discussion?  Let's talk about IAR. Let's improve it. Are you in? Let's edit, and let's do it mindfully and effectively. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: More important than any of that is this: are you willing to work collaboratively? What do you want, for IAR to be clarified? Let's talk about that, not about non-existent cabals.  What edit would you like to make to WP:IAR to clarify the policy? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Zenwhat... you have accused me of trying to keep this page from changing, have you not? ("GTBacchus, if you agree about knocking down walls, then how can you really make the limitation that you do on WP:IAR and WP:WIARM?") Have I tried to keep this page from changing? None of my edits to the page have been in that direction, so what are your grounds for saying that I try to keep this page from changing? I've presented my evidence; what's yours? What limitation have I ever made on IAR? Name one. Or, even better, let's talk about what edit you would like to make to the page. Got one in mind, or are you just here to play victim?That was written in frustration earlier and wasn't civil. I apologize, and retract it. I'm sorry, Zenwhat, for taking a condescending tone like that. I'll watch myself more closely. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, wait, I got it... you want to merge IAR and WIARM, and you want to use the edit history to gauge support for that idea. I'm all for it. Are you willing to undertake the analysis? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But please not by hand, it sounds painful, try using something like grep. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Anti-IAR Cabal. 

message: Inspired by Kim Bruning's suggestion that we should have a different variant of this rule every day, I created WP:Ignore all rules/Versions on which we can all put our preferred version. The purpose of this is not to be a workshop for replacing this page, or to be any kind of policy, but rather to record the varying interpretations people have of this rule. —Ashley Y 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Ignore all rules/Versions is not a workshop. —Ashley Y 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions 

message: It seems to me that much of the attempts to explain IAR are really explorations into the ramifications of IAR. IAR is really simple, if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That is not complicated. What it means is that you can ignore rules when the prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, not sure how much more explanation that needs.
WIARM, and the recent "explanation" added don't really explain what IAR means at all, they just explore what happens when it is used and traditionally legitimate reasons to do so. Just food for thought. (1 == 2)Until 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question for thought is the extent to which "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" fails to capture the actual spirit of IAR. The point of IAR is not to follow the rule generally, but ignore them sometimes. The point is to empower users to ignore them at all times. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IAR is not "don't follow the rules when the hinder you from improving the encyclopedia"; that sentence was never really accurate. IAR is "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." In other words, ignore all rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Fallen out of favor" is quite a claim. Could you back it up? I had assumed that this page being inaccurate recently was just a fluke, and because of its excessive brevity. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it's time to work towards a compromise, particularly if the policy is being misinterpreted as some claim. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see evidence that the policy is being interpreted as some claim. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation vs Ramification 

message: This one's worth keeping to one line, nothing more.
That said if anyone does want to "explain" (on a subpage or essay preferably) then try this:
::
The community endorses this principle [IAR] in two main ways:
; 1. Users are encouraged to enjoy adding content, not needlessly creating or having to read rules
: It is not necessary to read the rules before contributing to Wikipedia. Users are able to contribute immediately, and pick up any communal norms as they edit. 
; 2. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
: This was the original formulation of IAR. Rules and policies exist to document norms that the community has agreed upon. No policy can cover all situations, nor can words always capture the intention behind a policy in all cases. If policy wording were applied too literally without exception, it would sometimes harm the project, not help it. So although polices are communally agreed, and should generally be followed, in exceptional cases it may be for the best to use judgement and override them. Editors doing so should sure of their judgement, and be prepared to justify their actions.
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I agree with what you have said here. The suggested content is fine for an essay, a new one or one of the existing ones. (1 == 2)Until 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The original, and still correct, formulation is "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." The point of IAR is that one should actively ignore all rules (perhaps the name gives it away). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still correct? Say who? The community has preferred the current version of that version for some time, so what are you basing this "still correct" theory on? IAR should not be used for ones personal benefit but for the benefit of the project. It is controlled bypassing of the rules to achieve a goal, not anarchy. (1 == 2)Until 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR cannot be "used" or "invoked". It isn't a rule. It is a fact - that users are encouraged to ignore the written rules and go along with their business. The policy isn't "break the rules if need be". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer the one sentence version. The first(original) sentence says that you can ignore rules if they prevent you from benefiting the project, while the addition says you don't need to be benefiting the project as long as you don't harm it. Frankly I think that is a rather fine line, and that if you are ignoring rules you should have a specific benefit to the project in mind, not just to make you feel better. Regardless, I will see what others think .(1 == 2)Until 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have decided to revert to the long standing version until the addition has some level of consensus. I do this for the reasons I gave above in my post here of 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One line's best for this page 

message: The primary concern is that people are misinterpreting the short wording. I have not seen any evidence of this, regardless I think it can be fixed by pointing out what Ignore all rules is not. I have started with a few ideas in an essay here: User:Until(1 == 2)/What "Ignore all rules" is not. Let me know what you think, if it gains some acceptance I will move the essay into the Wikipedia: namespace. (1 == 2)Until 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your essay represents consensus, we should add some of it to this page. As I pointed above, we shouldn't hide our policies inside essays. Let's be honest about what we think the rule means, rather than claiming "it's obvious". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until(1 == 2), I agree with your revert here.  That classic version about "nervous and depressed." People shouldn't just ignore them like that, so arbitrarily. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ignore all rules is not 

message: Is it necessary that this be included? This has been one of our policies for quite a long time, as the rules to consider part of the message box attests; one edit by Jimmy saying the same thing doesn't strike me as particularly important. How would the following wording be?
	The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and was Wikipedia's first [ rule to consider].	
--Picaroon (t) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '...and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been"' 

message: * Current version enjoys broad community support. (Is this true?)
* Avoid instruction creep.
* Ain't broke; don't fix.
* It would be self-contradictory; new editors are supposed to be empowered to edit without worrying about reading a lengthy set of rules.  [added by David Levy, 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against merging

message: I will be adding a short history and background of the policy -- a factual one -- to this page, not to WIARM.  Any objections to this suggestion, at least in principle?--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wicked. Or make a separate history page, or use horizontal rules! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you please elaborate?  When you say "this page," are you referring to the policy page, or do you mean this talk page?  Will you be inserting a link, or do you intend to add the compete text to said page?  —David Levy 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, to WP:IAR, not to this talk page, and not a link, but text right on the IAR page.  Nothing elaborate, I anticipate -- a handful of sentences describing its inception; its evolution beyond the original "nervous and depressed" phrasing; and how it is actually used in current practice on Wikipedia.  I'll keep it as simple as possible.--Father Goose (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd be surprised if what I have in mind could be used in that way.--Father Goose (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you show us what you want to add then ask here. I can't really endorse something I can't see. (1 == 2)Until 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking for an endorsement or a commitment, just whether people are opposed to the general idea.  You'll always have the option to edit or revert the specifics, should we get to that stage.--Father Goose (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to the idea of adding such text to the policy page (thereby leading people to believe that they're required to read it before utilizing the policy).  A link to such text on a separate page might be okay.  —David Levy 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think that's the approach I'll have to take.--Father Goose (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, considering the "History" button at the top, and the "Other versions of this policy" link at the bottom, I think we got it covered. Good idea for an essay though. (1 == 2)Until 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's no good; the staggering signal-to-noise ratio in the edit history makes it useless for that purpose.  The actual history is actually very simple, though no one has made an attempt to simply write it down.  And the "other versions of this policy" page is just more noise, to be blunt about it.--Father Goose (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A policy should include what is needed to respect a policy, nothing more. This belongs in an essay which we can have volumes of. (1 == 2)Until 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree, though what we're striving for is "nothing more, nothing less".--Father Goose (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You know, you keep asserting that all other authority here derives from IAR which is the "first and only rule". I'm not sure your interpretation is shared by the community. It sounds as if you're trying to formalize IAR into something it isn't. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR is not the basis of all other authority on WP. Ultimately authority lies with the foundation which is a "a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity". Beneath that is consensus, and IAR must fit into that consensus. While an application of IAR that does not fit into consensus is possible withing the spirit of the policy, it will not be successful if it is not accepted by the community. (1 == 2)Until 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the policy