Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 7

message: As a long time supporter of IAR, I think Badlydrawnjeff's objection to IAR's application by Wikipedia administrators is spot on.  To wit, rank and file Wikipedians should not have to worry about rulecruft when contributing to Wikipedia.  However, whenever anyone seeks administrator privileges at Wikipedia and is subsequently entrusted with those privileges, he or she takes on the role of a constable and should expect to be held accountable for any of his or her failures to observe established policies or guidelines and to work within the system to change and/or abolish any rules that do not make sense. // Internet Esquire 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is a perfect beaurocracy isn't possible. Not now, not ever, not under any circumstances; it will not happen. Accordingly, the rules are impossible to be changed to perfection. They function as good principles which ought to be followed most of the time, however there has to be a clause which protects us from when they don't work, and that is not getting them further modified with their own clauses and subclauses until the beaurocracy reaches critical mass and explodes. IAR is our elastic clause. What each individual rule could do with pages and pages of exceptions, IAR does with twelve words. Thanatosimii 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We achieve accountability quite easily- logs of admin actions are easily viewable by all.    As long as people are reasonable and able to explain why whenever they depart from standard practice, where's the problem?  Friday (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that admins should be held accountable for their decisions.  If observing some established procedure is not going to help the encyclopedia in some specific case, then an admin dealing with that case had better not follow that procedure.  Admins are not expected to uphold all the "rules", or even necessarily to follow them.  Admins are expected to use good judgment, and that means knowing when to follow rules and when to break them. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR vs. Admin Accountablity 

message: Would anyone be averse to setting up automatic archival of this talk page by Werdnabot?  Since this talk page is getting long again, this could be an easy permanent solution.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just set up MiszaBot to archive stuff older than 14 days. Anyone's welcome to change that, of course. – Steel 00:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, 14 days is a good lag-time, and archive bots are helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 days is good, but I changed it to Werdnabot rather than MiszaBot.  MiszaBot's userpage indicated that it was not approved to handle archiving directly.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my understanding Werdnabot was only to be used to archive user talk pages?--Crossmr 07:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Werndabot does seem capable of archiving WT: pages - see Special:Contributions/Shadowbot3, though MiszaBot II is quite capable of that too. Not sure where this 'not approved' thing came from. *Shrug* – Steel 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this back since Shadowbot3 hasn't run for about three days. – Steel 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot archived? 

message: I declare IAR a dillema, a paradox and a logical contradiction because if one is set to "ignore all rules"--under whatever definition one may decide to do so--one cannot do that by taking into account another rule, which in this case, is IAR. That is, if one is set to ignore all rules, then one should also ignore IAR--which of course, it is exactly what IAR says; but if IAR says that all rules should be ignored and if IAR itself is being ignored, as a rule, then its existence as a rule is ironic.
Now, of course, we all know that this is not what it was meant to say. Wales and his friends wanted an exit for problems that rules cannot solve. They wanted an exception for things that are better left out without rules. This tool is used by many other factions, but those factions leave little that cannot be defined. For instance, some legal entities reserve the right to terminate or change certain things at their will, if their status is being threatened. Example of such a rule is Ezboard's Term of Use:
This may work when a totalitarian entity reserves the right to use such authority at their will; but when that option is presented to a large group of people--or as in this case, a massive group of people--, it is obviously set to fail. I don't think I need to explain why. The oldest legends of our world explains the reason for that; one of those legends is called Tower of Babel. One's definition for what is best could be a very subjective opinion, which gives way to conflict between editors. I don't understand why Wales is so stubborn in thinking that people--and that includes his Black Knight Administrator--can find a common ground on how to solve problems. To me, that is a naive way of dealing with things. This IAR working as an exception was meant to give the administration more flexibility, but instead, it made things more complex. I almost sound like Thucydides arguing against democracy, but how can they say that IAR is official policy, when that official policy is not even defined and when no census is reached? This is another example of Wales speaking out on things that have no solid ground. If Wales decided this to be an official policy, then I say that it should be his responsibility to describe and explain this official policy to those who do not understand it; and to those whose "common sense is not that common." I am among one of those people. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you just said has been said before a million times. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be ashamed of yourself, Deskana. This is exactly what we've been talking about above as why IAR sucks right now: admins just swoop in piss on non-admins or new editors when they try to figure this rule out or try to engage in a civil discussion about it. Either contribute constructively or just shut up. Rockstar (T/C) 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I thought it was a problem to mention it again, I'd remove it. Saying "this has been said before" isn't the same as saying "don't say this again". So I think it's pretty clear who needs to "shut up" here. Right now all I'm ashamed of is your attitude. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly how I figured you would respond, and yeah, what you said does come with the subtext of "don't do this again." How about responding to Anittas' complaints instead of telling him it's been done before? Or at least point him to something useful? What you should be ashamed about is not my attitude, but rather the fact that your comment added absolutely nothing to help solve the dilemma. Rockstar (T/C) 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't like what my response would be anyway, so I'm not going to say it, since I'm an evil admin and whatnot... if we're reading subtexts. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what your response would be, because it wasn't my statement. But I guess not responding to the statement is even more telling in the end. Oh, and for the record, I have no problems with admins; just ones with superiority complexes. Rockstar (T/C) 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have a problem with people that read one or two posts by someone and judge them, rather than looking at their contributions, if we're being nice and honest. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I have a problem with those people too -- for what it's worth, I had already read through all your contributions to this page before responded to you. But if we're really being honest, I have a problem with people assuming that other people don't do their research before commenting on an issue. This could go on for a while. Rockstar (T/C) 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about my contributions to this page. This, for example, either proves you wrong or proves I'm a big fat liar. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then instead of discussing this, we should be working on how to respond to Anittas. Or maybe, per my experience, we should just sick GTBacchus on this. His responses about IAR are always good. Rockstar (T/C) 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I declare IAR as a dillema 

message: For moving off the rock and making a change for the better. The standard policy box fits the bill for my criticism, I think, unless we hear otherwise from Jimbo, but I'm not planning on e-mailing him or anything. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to Radiant! for the standard policy box