Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 5

message: I nominate Process_improvement as the piped link for the word "improving" in the project guideline so as to give thoughtful readers and editors insight into some of the deep and subtle meanings of how "improving" something can be done in a logical and orderly manner so as to not let the overriding objective of "improving" Wikipedia be used as an excuse for the bane of lawlessness. Samuel Erau 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the improving is improving the encyclopedia, not necessarily improving processes. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process improvement 

message: If you have any helpful suggestion on what to change, please post them here. 128.226.160.124 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, anonymous IP user, here's an issue with your self-declared improvements - What exactly does the "summary of Jimbo's essay" (not actually an essay but a brief 4 paragraph musing which the "summary" repeats like 75% of... but whatever) add to this policy page. Even if I imagine I were an WP:IAR supporter, I don't see what it adds, as the full text this 75% summary is already linked from this page (plus Jimbo's opinions are already highlighted). What the "summary" does add is the POV editorial comment and intepretation. The Jimbo "essay" does not mention IAR at all, and it can be straightforwardly intepreted as an argument for rules to protect against mob vs mob opinion/the weight of numbers (and what's with the bolding of "10 years" that doesn't appear in the original). The "essay" comes from a page about the IAR debate and does not obviously show Jimbo's support for IAR. You could give it the title "Rules trump mob rule on Wikipedia" and it would make more sense  Bwithh 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, the whole thing's been reverted by another editor. Moving along... Bwithh 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was bemused by the idea in the IP's edit that those who would end controversy by casting an article in a truly neutral point of view might "gain the upper hand" over tendentious partisans being introduced as, "the dangers of leverage".  I'm pretty certain Jimbo was identifying a possible good ideal there, rather than warning of a danger.  His statement could be paraphrased "Wikipedia is different from silly usenet groups where arguments never end, because here we can step outside the argument, and satisfy all parties."  That's a "danger of leverage"?  Huh? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People who have issues with improvements can state them below and I will happily answer them

message: This policy is "abuse waiting to happen". For example, authors will ignore the three-revert rule and will start edit wars because they think that it will be "the best for Wikipedia". --Ineffable3000 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted language in the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming page at one point that attempted to discourage this, saying that NPOV and consensus would ultimately rule the day, but that language has since been removed.  So we have kind of touched on it, even if it didn't last for long.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's been a while since you made attempt at editing brain storming.  Why not take another swing at it?  -- Isogolem 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really. If they're not improving the encyclopedia—and edit warring does not improve the encyclopedia—they are going to be blocked for edit warring no matter how much they exasperatingly refer to their peculiar interpretation of this policy. —Centrx→talk • 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People that obviously need to be blocked will never be able to cite this policy as a defense be and listened to. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No. If I'm edit-warring and my version is superior then I'm improving the encyclopedia, the person reverting to the inferior version is not. You may say that by continuing the edit war I'm negatively impacting the community or environment of the encyclopedia but that's not the same thing. Haukur 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I'd have to agree with. Ignore all rules, really does mean ignore all rules. That also means blocks and block evasion. If someone is putting an inferior version of an article in place, following this often cited policy, you'd be well within your rights to go so far as to hack the servers to remove all opposition to make sure the proper version was in place.  I don't think anyone who supports this policy really has any idea what it actually means. If you have to ignore all rules in order to improve the encyclopedia there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.--Crossmr 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the servers are being hacked, that's a problem far beyond anything policy can address.  Aside from that, you are arguing from a rule-centric point of view; but Wikipedia is not and never has been primarily rule-driven.  It is consensus-driven.  If the consensus of editors regards a particular action as vandalism or antisocial behavior, it doesn't really matter whether the rules support that action or not.  The consensus will support reversion, and if that doesn't work the consensus will support blocking.  And once again, if the consensus of editors is  consistently supporting antisocial behavior, that's a problem far beyond anything that a policy can address. -- Visviva 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: consensus is a rule around here. There is a quote "If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie". Consensus doesn't necessarily mean its better for the encyclopedia. It may be wise to let consensus rule to avoid future fighting and issues, but that is exactly what this policy addresses.--Crossmr 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus isn't always right, but it's all we have.  Top-down changes don't work in a wiki system.  -- Visviva 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your edit-warred version is not going to be implemented. The only effect of the edit warring is to clog up and crowd out legitimate edits and get people angry. If in fact your revision was cemented in the page because of your edit warring, and ignoring the collateral effects of edit warring, then it could be seen as improving the encyclopedia, but that's not what happens with edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume everyone who edit wars isn't making legitimate, article improving edits. What is edit warring? Breaking the rules. What does this policy address? Breaking the rules to improve the encyclopedia. If its not okay to edit war to improve an article, than this policy doesn't really mean that you can ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, and obviously there are exceptions to this, hence why it needs to be amended or removed. Exactly which "rules" is it okay to ignore to improve the encyclopedia?--Crossmr 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, read my comment again. No matter how good the revision, edit warring is not going to result in that revision being part of the encyclopedia—in fact it may even prevent foment animosity against it. —Centrx→talk • 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your comment and understood it. That is a rule. This policy specifically states to ignore that rule. You see the problem. You claim edit warring has never benefited the encyclopedia, but edit warring takes two, or more. One of those versions was appropriate, and they were being fought over in an article. One side was obviously in the right. If there truly is a consensus that edit warring never improves the encyclopedia, then it should be amended into this policy, because obviously not ALL rules are meant to be ignored if one believes it would improve the encyclopedia. This policy requires personal interpretation. Just because you don't think edit warring improves an article doesn't mean user X  thinks the same thing.--Crossmr 06:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why "one side was obviously in the right."  In my limited experience, most such disputes are best resolved by finding a third option which everyone can live with. That's why we have mediation.  For the exceptional cases, where one party is clearly acting in bad faith, there are established remedies.   -- Visviva 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets say for example I make a wide sweeping change to an article that I believe makes the article better. You disagree and change it back. I revert. You revert. I revert again and someone else shows up and reverts it. We're edit warring. Either the original version that is being reverted to, or my new version is better. One of those people doing the reverting is "right". One of those versions will be kept, and eventually improved upon. The crux of this "policy" is that its personal interpretation. If you want to do something to improve this encyclopedia and its against the rules, ignore them. An admin would have no issue giving me a warning and a block at that time. But here I am, just following standing policy, so how does that work? It doesn't. If what I was doing was obvious vandalism "Bill Gates is a doo-doohead!" and fighting over that, but if what I was fighting over was perfectly fine sourced content, then I should be well within the bounds of wikipedia policy to edit war all day to make sure the version I think that improves wikipedia stays in. This is my point. Its quite obvious that IAR is not meant to actually mean "ignore ALL rules". As you said above consensus is all we have, well its still a rule, and this policy still says to ignore it if it prevents you from doing something that you think will improve wikipedia. You're giving license for any random individual, without knowing their motivations, to do whatever they think is necessary for improvement. This is great if everyone has exactly the same goals and ideas. Its not a great idea when you've got so many users with so many motivations and goals. That is why we have the rules in the first place. You and I may have slightly different ideas on what will improve the encyclopedia and basically this trumps all. No matter what you do, if I don't agree with it, I can say nothing because the response can be a generic "IAR".--Crossmr 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Geez, I think you people are getting carried away with extreme examples and literal interpretations of a rule meant to solve the problems caused by extreme examples and literal interpretations.  IMO, this rule serves one major purpose: to allow knowledge to be added to the encyclopedia without requiring an exhaustive search for "official" sources.  If I know from my job or history what chemical causes permanent markers to smell like permanent markers, I could type it up in an article without having to find a book somewhere that says the same thing.  Someone may come along and claim WP:NOR or similar to delete my addition to the Permanent Marker entry, but WP:IAR overrules them -- the burden is on the person deleting content to prove that it should be deleted, not on the person adding content to prove that it should be added.  If that were the case, we could delete about half of this encyclopedia because most of it comes from people just typing from the top of their heads and citing sources mostly as a way to resolve two conflicting stories.  If two stories conflict, the one with better references wins.  If neither have references, or both have equally credible references, then both stories stay (as is the case in many military related articles, where casualty figures are disputed).  If there's only one version and nobody has another version, then WP:IAR basically means "some information is better than no information at all" and it can stay until someone can demonstrate why it needs to be deleted.  I could use the rules to delete the entire Permanent Marker entry, because hey, where's their book citing proof that the ink is generally water resistant??  I could slam the rulebook on them and delete that whole thing.  But that would be "being a dick", and indeed, when in doubt, don't be a dick; we can let the entry stand under WP:IAR. --TheCynic 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to have a good long look at WP:V under burden of evidence. On wikipedia the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to add or re-add to the article the information, not the other way around. Otherwise we'd have all kinds of outlandish claims in articles. IAR is certainly not written to allow editors to jam half-baked theories and opinions into articles.--Crossmr 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or amend this policy 

message: This article refers to itself, and I added the appropriate sentence. I don't think there is any reason this shouldn't be in here, since other similar wikipedia related articles contain the same sentence. Flying Hamster 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see the self-reference notice is only for categories, my mistake, srry Flying Hamster 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self reference" typically doesn't mean articles referring to itself, it means more like articles saying "This article will cover" or something like that. The article should basically read like it is from an encylopedia, with no references to it being an article on Wikipedia, online. Aside from this, anything outside of the main namespace (for example, Help:, Wikipedia:, Talk: etc) is exempt from this rule, as they are not articles. So this rule doesn't apply here anyway. But thanks for your effort to improve Wikipedia. Good luck! --Lord Deskana (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Reference 

message: This policy desperately needs to include the assertion that Wikipedia is an encylopedia in its statement - as a minimum protection against misunderstanding e.g. the revised version could be "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedia, ignore them." Way too many people don't see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but as the dumping ground for whatever kind of info they fancy. Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia is official key policy no.1 and its "singular common goal" as stated in WP:POLICY Bwithh 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable.  In my view -- which is perhaps a bit eccentric -- this and all the other core policies derive fairly directly from the definition of Wikipedia as "a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit." Making that clear can only be a good thing.  -- Visviva 07:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ... added:  although all in all, I'd prefer to drop the word "reputable" there.  Prone to misinterpretation.  -- Visviva 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia 

message: If WP:IAR prevents me from improving Wikipedia, I will ignore it. --Ineffable3000 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used frequently, such as any time someone wants to make a change but doesn't want to look it up in a rule book. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How does IAR prevent you from improving wikipedia? — Seadog 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because other editors use it as an excuse to make changes to an article you don't agree with?--Crossmr 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any changes must stand or fall on their merits.  If the community accepts the changes, they stay; if not, they go.  I don't see how this page makes any difference one way or the other, except that it makes it clear that no rules are absolutely binding; but in the wiki context, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.  If you are having problems with the specific editors active on a specific page, there are a wide variety of options available to resolve the disagreement.  Cheers, -- Visviva 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:IAR]] 

message: For everybody asking about whether this policy has ever been used, I thought I'd offer up the example of :Template:Blackwater, which certainly doesn't fall within the rules of Template useage, but greatly improves Wikipedia's ability to accurately and NPOVly report on this event, in the many articles it sees near-identical references within. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Rule

message: It seems rather odd to simply ignore rules that are quite possibly defunct and detrimental to the encyclopædia, instead of altering or deleting/nullifying those obsolescent guidelines, or establishing them as such without community discussion - something this project is based heavily, if not entirely, upon. As it stands (as has been mentioned), there are a few cases in which this rule becomes rubbery, and might encourage vigilantism - something that really only causes more problems than solutions.
Therefore, could the policy be changed to something a little less self-empowering? The last thing we need is a one-man army. Blast 25,01,07 1714 (UTC -5)
:This rule causes problems. It's also how a lot of people Learn to Stop Worrying and Make a Free Encyclopedia. I believe that as we come closer to finishing, the problems will start outweighing the benefit. But it doesn't need fixing yet. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finishing"?  No.  Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, and like much content online, is never "finished".  It's always growing and evolving...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, but it's not important. "If we ever were to come closer to finishing, the problems would start outweighing the benefit. But it doesn't need fixing now." Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested revision of policy 

message: The consensus issue gets raised so often in relation to IAR, I wrote this essay: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. —Ashley Y 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that people frequently get scared by this particular rule. However, a person trying to invoke IAR has to put together some amount of his own argumentation to do so, so it is very rare that core policies would ever be ignored. Anyhow, it would seem to me that a proposal to ignore a consensus would have to have consensus itself, thus consensus is inherently immune. Thanatosimii 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure there are cases where consensus can be ignored. For example, with a fast growing user-base, the newbies will always outnumber the people who understand through experience which things work well. Stephen B Streater 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since consensus is usually "rough" anyway, it is reasonable to dismiss the comments of people who are acting in good faith but clearly don't know what they're talking about in favour of the more well reasoned experienced users. IAR doesn't need to be used at all. --Deskana (request backup) 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe doing something on Wikipedia when there's a consensus that you shouldn't always leads to pain and suffering. —Ashley Y 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus and IAR 

message: Should we amend IAR to accomodate WP:COI? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it appears Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus already does that. Forget about it, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR and COI 

message: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria #8 is "talk pages of pages that do not exist". I created Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company with some notes to be useful for anyone who writes the article. Is this a valid way to ignore the CSD? See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28#Talk:Long Island Electric Railway. --NE2 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but why would you?  It takes all of thirty seconds to make a decent stub as a placeholder if nothing else, and then you can note yourself all day on the talk page relatively confident in the fact that you won't get speedied.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even see how creating a talk page of a non-existent article is "ignoring" the CSD.  There's no rule saying that talk pages of non-existent pages must be deleted, simply that if they're to be deleted, an AfD isn't necessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28#Talk:Long Island Electric Railway: a similar page was deleted. --NE2 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented at the DRV.  It seems people are reading "may" and taking that to mean "must".  On the other hand, it's quite easy to write a short stub and avoid the whole problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess that's a good point - I could simply say "The New York and Long Island Traction Company was a streetcar company in the U.S. state of New York." Or would that be too little to avoid a speedy? --NE2 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add a reference, an external link, a few categories, a stub template, and maybe an infobox (if you can) and I can't imagine anyone trying to speedy it. --Deskana (request backup) 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a valid application of IAR?

message: This has been removed three or four times now on the grounds that dick is "profanity" and that using it is, as per the last edit summary, immoral. If this became an edit war, it would most definitly be on the "lamest edit wars ever" page, but there are a few points to make clear.
1) WP:NOT censored. Profanity is to be avoided if unnecesarry, and in this case the impact is quite neccesary to make a point on occasion with thick headed editors.
2) Moreover, if there is an issue with use of that word, take it up with the essay itself and propose a move. If you have a dispute over whether said essay's content is relevant to this page, you have a reason to believe it should be removed. If you don't like the name, get that changed.
3) It is ironic that it is the IAR page itself wherein this dispute is happening. I have always understood that part of IAR meant that if there was dispute over the usefulness/applicability of a rule, you adress it on the talk page, instead of repeatedly citing it in edit summaries. Or perhaps that's just me.
I'm not getting into a revert war, however in my experience said essay has been , when used very sparingly, the only thing capable of making certain editors get the picture that part of IAR means that they aren't allowed to ramrod their own views onto other editors by wikilawyering. Thanatosimii 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanatosimii, I'm with you.  I think that the "don't be a dick" piece is highly appropriate for the IAR page, since it's one of those things that brings things into perspective again, as perspective so often can get lost on here.  If someone can find a more eloquent way to phrase the sentiment, then more power to them.  I think that they'll be hard-pressed to find one.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A pig, after having been cleansed, returns to its mire. Samuel Erau 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Thanatosimii, 1. It is not necessary, due to reasons that are somewhat explained on the talk page of the linked to article;  2. I have no real problem with there being profanity and even some unnecessary profanity distrubuted throughout Wikipedia, except where it comes to the point where I and other users have to view it in the normal process of examining the rules, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia.  Even though it is not clarified elsewhere, there should be a higher standard for those latter types of pages.  And I suppose that this discussion might be the first to confront that need.; and 3. That may have been a rule ignorance liberty on my part regarding not resorting to this talk page sooner.  I'm sorry if that bothered you. Samuel Erau 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of the other page is necesarry for this page, however, regardless of if you think the name is not. Sometimes the only thing that'll make a dense person understand is a good shock, and if you can suggest a better way to completely reorient someone's philosophy on editing to get them to understand that unhelpful behavior is not ok, feel free to object over there, but not here. Thanatosimii 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored - there's really no other way around it - well, except for ... uhh ... this page. Using WP:IAR to edit WP:IAR - interesting Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: removal of meta:Don't be a dick