Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 8

message: Moved to WT:DRV. >Radiant< 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please replace the material that you moved without permission or consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I do think it makes more sense over at the DRV talk page. He was probably ignoring the rules anyway. ;) Rockstar (T/C) 18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I think it was equally helpful in both spaces. Maybe restore it here and keep talking about it on DRV too? Talk pages don't need to be properly categorized, on top of which when it's clear that Radiant isn't getting along well with me, it's not a good idea to pour fuel on the fire by unilaterally moving my (and others') words around. This basic lack of respect really puts my teeth on edge and tends to make me less inclined to compromise and find consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Obviously, discussing a project page is done on the talk page of that project page, not with some unrelated policy. The only reason we don't seem to be getting along is because you take things such as this personally (e.g. above), and because you allude to policies that don't exist (e.g. that it requires somebody's permission to move posts to the proper talk page. >Radiant< 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR is very related to DRV at this time, as you know, as others besides me in this dicussion and discussions on WT:DRV have asserted. Policies, guidelines and essays related to civility, consensus and not being a dick all broadly apply to our shared situation in this matter, interpretation which I don't believe for a minute is beyond you. You yourself took it very personally when I publicly stated that I thought you were doing wrong (and still do), so please don't act like I'm the only sensitive one here. You can act like you don't understand if you find that's the best way for you to cope with criticism, but if I see you doing things that I think are wrong, you'll hear about it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV 

message: Is it worthwhile to explore shifting the page to a focus on 'ignore any rule that gets in the way of your improving the encyclopedia'? There's some discussion above that there's a tendency by newbies to misunderstand this page as supporting any action in favor of their POV, and obviously there's wide disagreement on when and how to break the rules from an administrative perspective. I wonder if 'any' vs. 'all' strikes a better balance of respect for process and freedom to act when necessary? -- nae'blis 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic clarification: [[Wikipedia:Ignore Any Rules]]? 

message: It is very unkind of you to maintain only one sentence: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.
I added the second sentence to WP:IAR, quoting from WP:FIVE: Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles.
And I added the third sentence to WP:IAR from what I has just experienced in my talk page: However, never forget Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Accountability when you use this policy.
Regarding Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I think, it is very clear and necessary for any editors to be informed of these three sentences at least, though I don't know why such an unkind one-sentence policy had been maintained. Anyway, I followed WP:IAR, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, meta:Don't be a dick, Wikipedia:Accountability, etc. I don't mind someone's changing my edit, but please explain why, not only Edit summary but here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JungianPPP (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One sentence is not good. 

message: * What is the meaning of "rm" in your edit summary?
* What is the meaning of "cicular" in your edit summary?
* Why do you persist with such an unkind and unreasonable policy?
* I just obeyed WP:IAR: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Why can you deny my edit, in other words, WP:IAR?
* I just obeyed WP:5P, which has supported this policy officially. Why can you deny the sentence of WP:5P which has already gotten Wikipedia:Consensus?
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles.
* I just obeyed Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is needed when anyone use this policy. Why can you deny the existence of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is considered to be a part of Wikipedia:Consensus?
* When and where do you have Wikipedia:Consensus about your unreasonable reverting edits?
* Please revert your twice reverting edits by yourself.
-- JungianPPP 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 

message: I've centralized the lone sentence because the page looks lopsided with it over on the left. Picaroon (Talk) 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. +1 --User:Krator (t c) 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have been reverted, without an explanation as to what was wrong with centralizing the text. Picaroon (Talk) 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I provided the straightforward explanation that left-alignment is our standard text layout.  —David Levy 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Is it clearer though? :) Actually, the tags take up more space than the text here. Can we fix that somehow? --Kim Bruning 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized 

message: Is it?  I feel like this is probably true, but am much too lazy to go through all the necessary archives to find out.  -- Visviva 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest version I can find is this. "Ignore all rules" was at the top of the list of "rules to consider" in October 2001. Mike R 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Wikipedia policy 

message: This is a great rule. I am supposedly blocked from Wikipedia. It was an improper block. It was falsely claimed that I was a sockpuppet of someon who was banned. This rule allows me to create sockpuppets to get around the block, without violating policy. I am here to improve Wikipedia, but sockpuppets is the only way I can do it. I had a dream 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't mean your socks won't continue to get blocked. It turns out "am I violating policy?" is the wrong question. The right questions are "am I improving the project?", "am I treating others with the utmost of respect and dignity?", and "is what I'm doing actually working (not getting reverted)?". Unless the answer to all three is yes, then you are doing it wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I have blocked the above user as a Billy Ego sockpuppet. --Coredesat 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people seem to think that generating a lot of conflict and opposition is a sign that they're doing something right, instead of the opposite.  It's weird. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but make a sarcastic remark here, but it's true - I have no idea where they came up with that.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is because some people can't discern conflict from other kinds of social friction (such as due to resistance to change) . --Kim Bruning 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Me again (I had to create this sockpuppet because "I had a dream" just got blocked). Well of course. But they can't find the sockpuppets unless they know where to look. I have about a hundred other sockpuppets that I use that still haven't been found. That's because they're used in articles that they don't know I edit. Also, for the really important stuff, I use proxy IP's for extra security (as a matter of fact, this is a proxy). GTBachhus, please don't be sarcastic with the "generating a lot of conflict" thing. One can't be an active editor who pushes for NPOV and against original research without generating conflict. You're assuming because I cause conflict that I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not. I merely try to ensure NPOV and make sure things are sourced. That generates a lot of animosity from POV pushers. (Ok, go ahead an block this one now). Like I said, this is a great policy. The Cloth 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More socks? We'll keep an eye out.--Wizardman 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can block my socks but you can't stop my shoe account from running. --Lankees76 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked again. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unblocked again. Mr.Sockman 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you get tired of playing cops and robbers, if you ever care to improve Wikipedia rather than to attract controversy and attention, you know how to find me.  Right now you're behaving foolishly, or else because you enjoy the attention.  Therefore, I'm signing off for now; good day. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sockman, you'd be surprised how easy it is to push for NPOV and against original research without getting blocked, or even attacked. You can do the right thing in ways that are really smooth and effective. Think of aikido, how you don't oppose a force directly, but use the attacker's energy againt itself. It works here, too.  If you find yourself at the center of many storms, then you really are the cause (or one cause), though you surely don't mean to be, and probably think you're doing your best to prevent it. It's nothing against you personally, and you're hardly the first to do it. As a wise man once said though, "if you're sure it's always everyone else, it's a good bet it's probably yourself." -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. The dream is alive 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great policy 

message: Well, at least the boxes are smaller. This looks more similar to the rest of wikipedia again. (OTOH, could we jut change the rest of the wiki to look simpler instead? ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after looing at it for a minute, this doesn't look bad at all either. Hmmm, now for the rest of the guideline pages. }:-)> --Kim Bruning 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Clear demarcation makes the main content easier to identify and read.  In the cited revision, everything blends together.  —David Levy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe demarcate the main content in one section, and all the "administrative stuff" (which is -admittedly- also useful), in a separate area? Since we're here anyway, might as well muck around with styles, and then apply anything we learn to the templates themselves? :) --Kim Bruning 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, I'm satisfied with the current appearance of the WP:IAR page and our project pages in general.  —David Levy 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxed in? 

message: I still don't see the point of having one. What's wrong with keeping the content in plain view? Also, why was the policy template omitted? — Deckiller 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be going for a minimalistic approach which does justice to the spirit of the policy (don't ask me for details, I came in late).  So I would say in both cases there is a twofold answer:  1.  It's simpler and prettier, 2.  It speaks to the elegant simplicity of the policy itself.  It is important to keep in mind that this is a very unique kind of policy. -- Visviva 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simplicity is good; overcompensation is not. I think everyone is trying a "little" too hard to promote simplicity by breaking the standardization just to  make the page stand out. Either way, I don't really care; I just think what's being done here is a bit unprofessional. But oh well. — Deckiller 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're just mucking around really. The other day the page was so full of cruft you couldn't even find the actual text of the policy back. (People were edit-warring over how to place the text so that you could tell it apart from all the tags ^^;;). I guess now we are over-compensating the other way just a weeee bit ... ;-)  --Kim Bruning 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The "show" link should be at the far right, under the shortcut box. -- Visviva 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well for whatever reason, it didn't work in Cologneblue skin. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show/hide box 

message: What goes in the "more detail" box?  
*At present the original quote is at issue.  Personally I think including the original form does a great deal of service to the community, by reminding of us of a time when Wikipedia was far less inflated with self-importance than it is today. However, in the spirit of minimalism it could certainly be done away with.
*What else, if anything, should go in the box?  A link to one or more of the explanatory pages discussed above would not seem amiss, now that it is hidden from the initial view.  Of course we wouldn't really want that to grow into a "See also" section again... -- Visviva 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The self importance bit is rather important. The more people take themselves (too) seriously, the less effective they are at doing any kind of useful work. Modest people are more likely to recognize mistakes when they make them, and correct for them. --Kim Bruning 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how the original quote reminds us of anything of the sort, but we can discuss that later. I just wanted to say that I agree with Haukurth's edit here. More detail means "more detail", not "more vague pseudophilosophical ramblings". – Steel 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These are not the droids you're looking for. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who cares, they're droids! Blast 'em! --Kim Bruning 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Kim, obscure... – Steel 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm really curious as to why people seem to be so against including the original intent in the language. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The meaning of the term has moved on as we've grown as a wiki and a community.  I'd suggest that strict constructionism isn't a lot of use on a project like this. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but it's kind of a compromise where some folks would let us simplify the page, as long as we did something about the history of the rule --Kim Bruning 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me, the original wording is far more useful than the current wording, which I find to be too broad to be of use, and which I suspect too many of us (i.e. of all the editors/admins on wikipedia) misunderstand to authorize too broad a use/abuse of powers to disrupt other editors based on personal opinion, and encourages individuals to unconstructively go forward with non-consensus-supported actions. The original wording seems to me to be far less susceptible to abuse, which is why I like it to be there, not necessarily as the primary wording or definition, but to keep us anchored and honest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detail 

message: I've protected the page for 5 days, please sort this out on the talk page. Thanks —— Eagle101Need help? 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please unprotect? So far the editing process has for the most part worked without protection. We discuss, make changes, discuss some more. Occasionally someone comes in and reverts to a months-earlier version. I've asked FeloniusMonk to come talk it out with us, which I hope he will do. There has not been any edit warring since last time Felonius stepped in, but I hope he'll actually talk it out with us this time. Thanks --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would suggest that you guys work on a draft version first, and then move to the page. In any case I'm seeing really recent revert warring, I suggest that you guys chat it out rather then hitting the undo button :). I don't mind unprotecting or any other admin unprotecting as long as there is an agreement that a version will stand without getting reverted. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot make promises for editors who waltz in without discussion at all and revert months back. This is what Felonius did and why I reverted him once and invited him to participate in the discussion. Not only has your protection quelled any momentum we've built towards building consensus, but it's also frozen Felonius' version and undid all the work we'd progressed toward so far. Please consider unprotecting so we can go back to the one we're building now. Please give this your careful consideration. I'm arguing for unprotecting so we can continue the editing work. Please review the rest of the talk page if you have any doubt that the rest of us have been working hard on look and feel, wording and references. If you can think of a way to encourage Felonius to participate, please let me know, and I'll follow it up. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've unprotected, I highly suggest that before you guys continue to revert each other you talk to each other. I can care less which way this goes ;), just please go about this the right way. Contact him on the talk page  if need be to get him to talk here on this page, whatever needs done. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected 

message: We have yet another Arbcom case resulting from admins looking at the rules, deciding what the correct result is, and then ignoring that and doing whatever the hell they feel like doing. Can we at least agree that a policy that causes that is not perfect? -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy does not "cause" any of that. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. A policy which says "You may ignore all rules if it improves the encyclopedia" certainly is the cause of people ignoring all rules to improve the encyclopedia. The ability to ignore rules is not something which anyone normally expects. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They did follow the rules WP:V and WP:BLP. The first two AfDs even went for the full 5 days. Getting rid of "Ignore all rules" would not solve the problem of conflicting rules or people who have different interpretations of rules. Also, if the problem is that there is an Arbcom case, the same problem, even bigger, would occur without IAR as people would then necessarily have to go through exhaustive wikilawyering, which would lead to the "Arbcom Court of Appeals". —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except those aren't the rules which I'm talking about. The Arbcom case isn't there because some admins ignored the rules about verifiability and BLP, the Arbcom case is there because some admins ignored the rules about not wheel warring. I'm not advocating getting rid of IAR, because that is definitely not a good idea. As you said, it would be too easy to win an argument by wikilawyering instead of actually having a good point. What I want is to have the policy stop implying that the rules are just something to be thrown out the window whenever they inconvenience you. Because as we're seeing, that does not improve the encyclopedia, unless it's actually worth a long drawn out Arbcom case to have the correct course of action over a single, unimportant, article carried out "RIGHT NOW". -Amarkov moo! 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's called Immediatism. :-) --Kim Bruning 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  For the record, I totally agree with you, but I am out of steam to argue the point for a while, so please feel free to take up the torch with my thanks. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look... 

message: Did someone just create new policy that's different from this policy by one line because this was protected?  And then rant to no-one on the new policy's talk page as though it were the real IAR talk page?  And then list it as an essay for consideration here?  
That's it! Delete the policy and remove it from the minds of everyone in existance. You have GOT to be kidding me! Miss Mondegreen  talk  20:38, May 21 2007 (UTC)
*Wow, that was fast.  Look like the shortcut is also gone.  Ironically, the simple and kind version was neither simple nor kind.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  20:46, May 21 2007 (UTC)
Proposed action plan:
*Try to establish consensus for the version in Mondegreen's sandbox.
*Use that version.
*Run away!!!
--User:Krator (t c) 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHOLLY CARP! 

message: I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but I've created Wikipedia:The Zen of Ignore All Rules, and would like to mention it here. Make of it what you will. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already a lot of essays about IAR. Perhaps you would consider merging yours with another one? --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What page would you suggest merging it with, then? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the above section "Opinions on essays", there are a lot of essays there which may be suitable for this page to be merged with. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit too metaphysical for Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, and wouldn't fit in with the rest. So, I repeat: What page would you suggest merging it with, then? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:The Zen of Ignore All Rules]] 

message: I reverted back to the last stable version. Theres far too much edit warring over something that really should be common sense. Lets adress some issues here people. The version that was the stable one up untill last week, what's everyones issues with it? Seriously, maybe we can address them, or maybe they're just off the deep end, but this is really one of the simplest pages on the whole damn 'pedia. Something is wrong with us if it's causeing this much grief. -Mask? 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt like all the hand wringing in the last one, but thats a preference, my only real issue is a lot of weirdly formatted text that was at the top made it hard to read, and didnt seem to adequately convey that this is policy, let alone one of the 5 Pillars. The last version of it almost seemed ashamed of itself. Im fully open to reworking the page, just that reworking it can not sacrifice readability or usability. -Mask? 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this better ? If "ashamed of itself" is what I've acheived, it was not at all what I intended. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks ideal. -Mask? 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Text: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."
Links: rules -> WP:RULES, Wikipedia -> Wikipedia.
Eleven of the twelve words are in plain english. I can see the argument for linking "rules". But I think we can dispense with the haikus and other hidden links. 
Please? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure we got that covered. Rockstar (T/C) 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of this page 

message: IAR doesn't always seem like an intuitive thing to grasp. It smells like anarchy and can look like abuse of power. The point is though, if you ignore rules in the cause of something reasonable, then you've done good. I can't think of an argument I can make that following rules when they lead to a bad result in a particular circumstance is a good idea. On a personal level, the principle makes most sense to me in the way that Zhuangzi's criticism of the rites (identified as Confucian) seems natural. It can also be likened to civil disobedience; this isn't a bad thing, since civil disobedience (certainly Thoreau's conception) is the idea that one should disregard laws that constrain oneself from doing the right thing. IAR makes sense on a philosophical level, and I think it would be good to think about why that is. If you'll bear with me, I'm going to post some quotations below in case anybody wants to think about them. They make the most sense in context, but since the Zhuangzi,  Politics, and "Civil Disobedience" are very well known works, you shouldn't have trouble filling in the context yourself, I hope.
What matters in being loyal or just is that you do fulfil the charge, in a wine-feast that you do enjoy, in mourning that you do grieve, in serving parents that you do please them. To the glory of fulfilling the charge you can pick your own route; in serving parents, if you do please them they won't raise difficulties about how you did it; in the wine-feast, if you do enjoy you won't be finicky about the cups; in mourning, if you do grieve no one quibbles about the rite.
The rites are what the custom of the times has established. The genuine is the means by which we draw upon Heaven; it is spontaneous and irreplaceable. Therefore the sage, taking Heaven as his model, values the genuine and is untramelled by custom. The fool does the opposite; incapable of taking Heaven as his model he frets about man, ignorant of how to value the genuine he timidly lets himself be altered by custom, and so is an unsatisfied man. What a pity you were steeped so soon in man's artificialities, and are so late in hearing the greatest Way!
—Zhuangzi, trans. A.C. Graham
Laws must be established, but they must not have authority insofar as they deviate from what is best, though they should certainly have authority everywhere else.
—Aristotle
Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?— in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.
—Henry David Thoreau
In my opinion any of these would do as text for the page, the first one especially, but that seems to be a controversial topic at the moment. :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you actually went and made it all well formatted too! Thank you so much Dmcdevit! :-) --Kim Bruning 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looked like an ugly heap of text before that. It's just stolen from my user page, anyway, where it's been for months. Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They would do sooo much better on Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Миша13 10:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal thoughts on why IAR makes sense 

message: It should stay. It's possible to follow Wikipedia:IAR and be a dick about it - especially when IAR includes rules of conduct. The link should stay. There are enough people on here who need all the reminders they can get. --Milton 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Some people need all the help that they can get.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it down to the bottom of the "See Also" list. It should in no way be at the top -- it's more of an afterthought than a fundamental qualifier. Rockstar (T/C) 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --Milton 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it being moved down. Having it at the top sends the wrong message. --MichaelLinnear 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Be a Dick 

message: Great, now we're having an actual edit war between two nearly identical versions that differ only in the extra "It has [...] follow" part. Am I being paranoid and see a systemic conspiracy to remove that or maybe I'm blind when seeing that the page is a  with all implications of that fact? , please! Миша13 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think one reversion is really an edit war (and it's as many reverts as I'll be doing on this matter)... But anyway, the existing version developed dynamically out of the above discussion and previous BRD history over the past several days, and expresses what appears to be a widely-shared feeling that the standard policy template overshadows both the spirit and the letter(s) of this highly unique and critically important policy.  Also, I don't really see in what meaningful sense can IAR be "a standard all users should follow"... Anyway, just my 2c; I'm off for now.  -- Visviva 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: People were confused by the nonstandard tag here. That was apparently resolved by simply using . Unless people wish to instate some hierarchy where one policy is more policic (?) than other policies, I see no real reason not to. But it's too WP:LAME to argue about, really. >Radiant< 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy or not? 

message: * Wikipedia:Use common sense
* Wikipedia:Consensus
* Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
* Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
* Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules
* Wikipedia:Trifecta
* meta:Don't be a dick
These go in a really nice order.  Everything important is there--nothing unnecessary is--it starts with common sense, ends with don't be a dick and the whole thing flows nicely.  We should keep this order.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:55, May 29 2007 (UTC)
*I suggest adding links to WP:PPP and WP:SNOW, as discussed earlier on this page. >Radiant< 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also 

message: Please pay no attention whatsoever to Wikipedia:Ignore this page. >Radiant< 09:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the above comment, and this one too. --Deskana (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damnit, I lose! -- nae'blis 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So did I. --Milton 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: This is an idea that might clarify what people think about different approaches to "Ignore all rules"  I'm listing all those essays that MalcolmGin collected above (thank you, Malcolm!), and under each one, setting up a section for reactions to that essay.  We'll see if we can determine any kind of consensus from what people say, and then maybe we'll be more informed about how this page might be edited.  If anybody would like to add anything to the list, please feel free to do so, and to write it first, if it doesn't exist already. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on essays 

message: (semi-draft status, but active)
;reactions
* Good This precisely is the interpretation of IAR I've come around to. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy]]

message: ;reactions
*Weak Bad It's not horrible, but it is too vague and too open ended and doesn't talk about the possible abuses of IAR except in very vague terms. That said, it doesn't, at least, perpetuate what I've come to think of as the short sighted intepretation of IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Don't be evil]]

message: ;reactions
*Weak Good Not really as thoroughly explicit as Follow Consensus, not Policy, but pretty good. It also does not treat very thoroughly the kinds of excesses admins can potentially get into because it's written to reassure that non-admin editor. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules]]

message: ;reactions
*Good I like this one. It's in the spirit of Follow consensus, not policy. Might make a good complement because it's more chatty and less systematic/formal. I'd think the two different approaches might work for different types of readers. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules - a beginners guide]]

message: ;reactions
*Abstain My feelings about seeing this one abused are in strong conflict with my having a reasonable opinion about it. I think folks who abuse WP:SNOW are just as likely to abuse WP:IAR no matter what the language or the references, and I do note with pleasure that the WP:SNOW article currently does say that WP:SNOW actions that are objected to probably aren't good candidates for WP:SNOW (sort of like the best readings, I think, of CSD A7 wherein folks take the simple assertion of notability as a negation of CSD A7). It's just that I also note that folks who abuse WP:SNOW generally ignore or find rationalizations to ignore the inconvenient fact of someone objecting to its application and ignore the objection too. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause]]

message: ;reactions
*Weak Good I think this one works, but it is still a bit open-ended for my personal taste, though it does emphasize the importance of consensus in decision-making as well as as a check against too much practical ignoring. So my reservations are about its open-endedness and therefore the higher probability that someone will misinterpret it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus]]

message: ;reactions
*Good Another one I like. Another one that I like because the format/approach is different, but the article talks about specifics in what I think is a very accessible way. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means]]

message: (only a short section is about IAR directly)
;reactions
* Good article, not right for inclusion here I like what little it has to say about IAR, but it's not enough, and the essay's not primarily about IAR anyway. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Product, process, policy]]

message: (again, only a short section)
;reactions
*Good article, but not right for inclusion here I like what little this one says about IAR even more than the Product, process, policy article, but it's not as a whole about IAR, so not really suitable for inclusion here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators]]

message: ;reactions
*Good article but not suitable for inclusion here Another article I like, but it's not about interpretation of IAR except pretty tangentially. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Process is important]]