Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 12

message: I've just merged WP:WIARM and WP:IAR, as that seems to have been the least controversial method of clarifying IAR. If anybody reverts, I'll let it be, but I still think that WIARM and IAR being apart is not a great idea. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully endorse the merge.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, that was definitely unnecessary. Keep a cool head when editing. And for the record, Wikipedia isn't a contest, and no one earns points for anything. - Chardish 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no personal attack in Misza13's comment. Daniel 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That essay has never had consensus to be policy, until that happens such a merger is inappropriate. I have reverted it. You know very well Lubaf that you should get consensus before making changes here that you pretty much know are contentious. You are not being bold, you are being stubborn. I also see no such attack in Misza13's comments. 1 != 2 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Chardish meant to link to WP:CIV -- while Mizra13's comment wasn't a personal attack, it certainly was dickish. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because I pointed out why this was a bad edit? Or perhaps because I predicted correctly that it won't stick? Or was that plainly because I am blunt when I comment? Really, if people take comments opposite to their own personally, then no wonder they label them as "personal attacks". Миша13 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger between WIARM and IAR 

message: No matter whether it is called "Ignore all rules", "Ignore a rule", or "Ignore rules when you have valid reasons to do"; it isn't important because well even admin doesn't honour you the right to do it. Not only that, in fact admin doesn't honor many major rules and it is just one of them.
Ignore any rule if it stops you from improving Wikipedia -- this right is just non-existent!
Note: Don't get me wrong!! I do realise I shouldn't take the rule literally. As far as I know, it is more of a spirit which tells us that no rule should be treated absolutely. Rules are not binding and should not be followed mindlessly. If you are in good faith and think the rule is bad or wrong and ignoring it will benefit the Wikipedia as a whole, you should act on it.
OK. Why do I say Wikipedia polices are non-existing in reality? It is because even admins have conflicting interests (eg they are also the editors of that page) and they tend to interpret rules in a way to favour themselves. They can even use "protection (page lockup)" and "banning" as a way to force you to respect what they say.
Admin Soum doesn't care to follow any rule he doesn't like -- The first example: Admin even blindly ignores the policies -- Admin Soum even breaks the five pillars of Wikipedia without any reasoning
===The cleanup incident in Comparison of one-click hosters===
Even admins will create new subsidiary rules to justify what they are doing, or treat even guidelines absolutely and other editors must follow. If they don't follow, admins may threaten you with a ban. Here comes the second example. 
Take a look at two pages - one before and after cleanup:
* Comparison of one-click hosters(before cleanup)
* Comparison of one-click hosters(after cleanup)
Before: it contains many filehosters to compare in the table.
After: All but three filehosters have been removed for good.
: Spam Event Horizon - opinions in an essay must be followed?
Why such an abrupt change took place? It was because admin Hu12 left a message in the discussion page saying he got fed up and said the article had been reaching Spam Event Horizon (Essay only) so a cleanup was necessary. Well he went even further and set up a rule that "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable one-click hosting services sites should be added. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not one-click hosting services should be removed."
If you take some time to click on Spam Event Horizon (Essay only), it is only an essay proposed by someone. Read what an essay means: 
Well but he demanded everyone to follow it. By the way, the article didn't say it is a good way to deal with spam event by literally eliminating everything.
: Common sense? Is it something you will assume admin must have?
Common Sense: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's fix them. 
Admin Hu12: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's discard everything and start all over again. 
Common senses should not taken for granted. I see something as pretty obvious while an admin like Hu12 thinks otherwise.
The table itself unfortunately contains some references to possibly infamous/unknown filehosters. Well it is a good idea to clean up the table a bit. If I were him, I would have a brief look at the table, trying to fix the problem by removing those infamous/unknown filehosters. Further cleanups can be done later to ensure a better quality comparison page. 
However the admin went to the extreme and removed all but 3 filehosters. If you asked me why he did it in this extreme way, I would say:
# Laziness: Removing all requires much little effort. A few clicks and it is done! Otherwise it took quite some time to examine the table to fix it. Of course the good contents will be retained and is much better in this way. But the problem is, it takes efforts!
# Anger: I believe he would want to remove it all together because he got fed up with some spams on the table, even in the expense of wiping good contents/items and the whole page. Well he viewed stopping spam is on top of everything, even over the overall benefits and the goal of this comparison page. Sigh!
# Stuck mind: I believe one's mind will be stuck after he reads too many rules. The original intention of the rule is good but once they get used to it, they tend to apply the rules rigidly without second thoughts. They don't realise the rule may not fit to that particular situation. They also refuse changes.
After all, forget about all those Wikipedia policies and principles. Try to judge the edit alone from a normal citizen viewpoint. I can hardly this edit (cleanup) due to worrying about the spam is anything helpful to the Wikipedia. It actually sucks big time. Two wrongs don't make one right. I see it obvious. He can't see it. Anyway one fact won't change - he has essentially damaged the whole comparison page to an extent that it becomes almost useless as there are literally 3 filehosters left. There are just a few comments from other visitors about the change:
: You have little room to argue with an admin
There are quite a few concepts and principles I disagree with that admin so I argued with him. Well it is not the most important. What I most disagreed is how the admin can discredit others' contributors work in such a way. I feel frustrated although I never contributed to this page. 
This is just plain silly from a user point of view. Is there any big problem about having some infamous/unknown filehosters? Why does he revert every work made by all previous contributors and request everyone to start all over again? I would say reverting is a very rude action. It is a serious disrespect and discredit of all those previous contributors.
That revert decision is also taken so lightly. He just posted a message on the discussion board complaining the article comtains bad spam items so a revert of all previous work is necessary. He didn't even waited to form any consensus/agreement first.
Did they read the [WP:revert|"reverting" rules]?
Do:
* Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.  [Comment: He took it very lightly without any discussion first]
* Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.  [Comment: The table has some spams but does it equal to vandalism? Does it deem for a complete revert?]
* If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.  [Comment: He only announced it not discussed it. No basic form of consensus is made before the revert. Some users complained but it didn't stop him from withdrawing the decision]
* If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.  [Comment: There are some spams. But he simply reverted it to fix it!]
Do not:
* Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
* Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
* Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
* There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
* Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
The above says it all. Even if there is a dispute, the admin still reverts it first to take advantage of it.
: "Ignore All Rules"? What if admin says otherwise?
Admin Hu12 requested others to follow the advice made in an essay, in addition to its additional advice: "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles... should be added. [Others]... should be removed." Otherwise any item you added to the comparison table will be removed.
You think that the rule is bad and stop you from improving Wikipedia. Well it is even not an established rule. It is only a "rule" set by the admin. You complain and would like to ignore his "rule" based on WP:IAR. Do you think it works?
In reality your contribution will be reverted immediately without mercy if you do. You will be warned to be banned. Now admin Hu12 took over the control of this page. Every item or entry added to the table must pass his examination. Isn't this against the spirit of Wikipedia?
The admin participates in the editing and discussion of this page. He has a conflict of interest. But he made additional "rules" and requested others to follow. So what's the point of WP:IAR when you can't even have a right to ignore it when you see the need?
Pretty much what they say is final. The discussion has been closed although they ask you to discuss when you disagree.
After all, you have very little room to argue with an admin. 
Why? Because admin has a "ban" button. You don't. If you believe they are wrong and criticise their actions, you may risk being banned.
===Afternotes===
I found out I get banned for an extended period of time when I sent this critic (glad that it was not a permanment ban becaue I believe I am honoured with it ;-D).
The reason is: Disruptive editing
You be the judge.
Try to review the history of Comparison of one-click hosters. I edited this page once only (revert the decision made by the admin by restoring the page).
I made some critical comments about his action and his reasons. Read the discussions for details.
He censored some of my comments. I supposed no one should edit or hide anyone's comment. Anyway he did. Impressive.
I believe someone who censored comments should be banned too by the way. The intention is evil.
Definition of disruptive editing and editors
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
*Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
*Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
*Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
In addition, such editors may:
*Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Do I really fit in one of the categories? Odd Master2 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez that is a long post, perhaps you could trim it down some. The fact is that IAR makes no promise that your ignoring of the rules will be accepted by others. 1 != 2 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accounts
--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore rules? Admin rules! (Can we really ignore rules even if we have good reasons?) 

message: I found out I get banned for an extended period of time when I sent this critic (glad that it was not a permanment ban becaue I believe I am honoured with it ;-D).
The reason is: Disruptive editing
You be the judge.
Try to review the history of Comparison of one-click hosters. I edited this page once only (revert the decision made by the admin by restoring the page).
I made some critical comments about his action and his reasons. Read the discussions for details.
He censored some of my comments. I supposed no one should edit or hide anyone's comment. Anyway he did. Impressive.
I believe someone who censored comments should be banned too by the way. The intention is evil.
Definition of disruptive editing and editors
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
*Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
*Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
*Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
In addition, such editors may:
*Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Do I really fit in one of the categories? Odd Master2 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez that is a long post, perhaps you could trim it down some. The fact is that IAR makes no promise that your ignoring of the rules will be accepted by others. 1 != 2 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accounts
--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Afternotes

message: In what way is "ignore all rules" a good idea? First "improve wikipedia" is an inherently vague and subjective proposition. From what I have seen of administrators blocking users and protecting entries for petty political reasons, the last thing that needs to be done  on wikipedia is to ignore rules that are followed by the average, non-admin contributor. Secondly, within a hierarchical organization such as wikipedia there needs to be a standard base ruleset which is followed by everyone, not to be disregarded on a whim because you can. And if there is to be an "ignore all rules" policy, then it should be for substantial and incontrovertible reasons, not simply for improving wikipedia, whatever that means.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:WIARM for a further explanation of this policy. Hopefully that'll clear up some of the issues you have. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 08:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section moved to bottom of page. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While it does sound ludicrous it does actually work in practice. 1 != 2 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is nonsense 

message: Why does Wikipedia:Use common sense redirect here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos Machina (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor decided to replace that page with a redirect without asking anyone first. I reverted his action. - Chardish (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What The...?! 

message: I've come recently to believe that this policy page, and this process page, are examples of Wikipedia at its worst.
The spirit of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and that consensus is the process by 
The issue here is that we have come the decision that a policy which is one sentence long is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia which supersedes all other policy. Therefore any edits to the page are considered to be sweeping and significant, regardless of how minor, and are reverted within hours. Only the most unobjectionable edits are allowed to remain - usually ones that don't touch The Sentence at all.
The problem is that we are now in a perpetual bold, revert, discuss cycle here, one that shows no signs of ending because achieving true consensus on a matter so divisive is next to impossible.
The reason for that is that there is a contentious split between people who like the policy as is and people who want to change it. The latter group is being bold and the former group is reverting, and even though there is discussion being had, the only way for consensus to be achieved is for one of the groups to either be converted almost entirely to the other's side of thinking. 
The end result is that we have a page that bears the weight of policy, does not hold consensus as it stands, and the current processes for achieving consensus are inadequate to address the disagreements among users.
Wikipedia is not a battleground, but the edit warring and disagreement never stops here. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from making changes that no one supports. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from obsessively reverting changes that don't have consensus - even if no disagreement to the change has been expressed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but there's an unwritten rule that states that the letter of this law is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.
How ironic that we have a policy which tells us that the spirit of a rule supersedes the written letter of the rule, and we argue incessantly over the written letter of the rule.
IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement. The current process we have in place prevents its improvement.
This is Wikipedia at its worst. 
- Chardish (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wikipedia at its worst is characterized by name-calling, accusations of bad faith, and grudge-based refusal to stay on topic. We're actually behaving pretty well here.  There does appear to be a sort of stale-mate between people who insist that this page is a problem, and those who say that it's just fine. I still really don't see a cogent argument being presented for why the policy is problematic at one sentence long. If IAR upsets you, you may ignore it, and you'll probably be fine. Why is there a need to edit it? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually think this policy's history is Wikipedia at its best. Some people like it short, others think that it should be more comprehensive. Instead of fighting, we created a comprehensive supplement page, thereby appeasing both parties. That's middle ground, that's consensus at work, and that's Wikipedia at its best. I think we're doing pretty well right now. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia at its worst 

message: Interesting results have been booked in traffic safety when all or most traffic rules were abolished in small given areas, see: Shared space
--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Abolishing all rules would work in Wikipedia if we were also to abolish Wikipedia's hierarchical structures. Something makes me think this theory is partially the reason why you gave up your admin bit, no? IAR works the best when there is no heirarchy. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice.  The traffic analogy for a wiki is apt in many ways.  Here, like on the street, what's safe and courteous does not always match what the rules say.  Communication and a recognition of the need to share the common resource count for much more than memorizing some list of rules.  I remember as a kid, learning to drive, and they tried to teach us rules by rote.  Then one day the lightbulb came on: it's very simple.  Are you going to drive across someone else's lane?  Then you need to yield to them.  Friday (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiments in Abolishing all rules (in road traffic) 

message: I see some value in the essay, but Haukurth made a good point about its description being misinterpreted.  As removing the offending text rendered it inaccurate, I've removed the link for the time being.  I won't edit-war over this (and have no strong feelings as to whether or not it should be included), but I believe that we should discuss this matter and get it sorted out.  —David Levy 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in a recent edit summary, just plonk it on WP:WIARM instead then :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay link 

message: Given the disagreement over how IAR should be worded (concise vs comprehensive), we've got WP:IAR and WP:WIARM as separate pages, sort of a compromise.  Since there's still some disagreement, I had semi-suggested moving the WIARM link up above the "See also" link.  Some other people were bold and tried it out.  That was soon reverted with the comment, "get consensus then change this long standing rule, it is already known these changes are no accepted", but without further comment.  So here I will attempt to encourage discussion and consensus.
In this section, please set aside the question of separation of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, which is being discussed in other sections.  I ask that people please focus on the specific question of the placement and wording of the link.
I submit for discussion: Moving the WP:WIARM link up above the "See also" line might help archive better harmony between the two "sides" of this issue, and also make it more prominent (and thus easier to find) for newcomers.  Concerns?  Objections?  Alternatives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Until{1==2) is being very nice.  As advised on WP:BRD, arguments such as "get consensus first" are specious.  Until(1==2) should not try to hide behind words like that.:-/ If you really want to discuss this, discuss on Until(1==2)'s talk page, and ask them for their personal opinion and reasons for that particular revert, as they are certainly personally responsible.. If they really, personally, don't like your edit for some reason, they should say so there, and explain their reasoning. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that summary was a bit curt, but not out-of-line, and asking for more discussion is rarely a bad idea.  I did leave a note on their talk page inviting them to join this discussion here.  Ultimately, though, a discussion between two editors doesn't really advance consensus much; that needs community involvement.  Hence the invitation for comment here.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My curtness is based on already talking all this through. It seems that every few weeks the same people come and try the same old thing once again without reaching consensus first knowing full well that the changes are objected too. BRD does not enter into it because once you have already done it many times and been reverted many times it is no longer bold but stubborn. 1 != 2 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually went through the semi-recent history of the page (500 or so), and the archive index, and never actually saw any discussion of this particular issue.  Lots and lots of disagreement over the wording of "IAR" itself, and whether or not WIARM should be on the same page with IAR, but not the wording and placement of the link to WIARM.  And to be honest, I don't really see how this changes the policy at all -- we're moving and rewording a link that's already there.  In the current version, this would actually eliminate "See also", which might actually be an aesthetic improvement (though that's subjective, of course).  So do you have any actual objection to moving the WIARM link above the "See also" line?   —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIARM link 

message: I have a bit of a problem with this rule. And the problem is in the 'all'. Yes, most rules here on Wikipedia can be ignored, and should be if that helps building an encyclopedia. But ALL rules? I doubt it. To go from 'easy ignore' to 'never ignore':
* Suppose I want to write a Wikipedia article, but don't know how to bold something. Should I ignore "bold the first occurence of the title"? Yes, definitely ignore!
* Same situation, but the reason I am not bolding is that I think such bolding diminishes the readability of the article. Yes, ignore.
* Same situation, but now I go and de-bold every article I edit, or I even edit articles just to de-bold the title. Not a very good idea.
* When I do so, someone else reverts me and we get into a revert war. Should either of us break 3RR? Very doubtful.
* When I do so, an admin not only reverts me but immediately blocks me without any policy for it. Again, not a good idea.
* When this admin does so, they also ask a CheckUser for my ip address so it can be blocked. The CheckUser publishes a full list of my ip-addresses and when I used them, so they can all be blocked and people can try to find out who I am. Don't even start about this one...
Thus, I would say:
* DO ignore any rule about what an article should look like if they make it harder for you to write or improve an article. If they are really important, hope that someone else will make the improvement that you can't make.
* Do NOT make changes that you would expect to get a consensus against, even if you think they would improve the encyclopedia.
* Do NOT break major procedural rules unless that really is the ONLY way to get Wikipedia out of problems.
- Andre Engels (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, right.  WP:WIARM pretty much says this, although it doesn't put a relative scale on things.  You could try improving that page.  •  To be more zen, one of the rules you have to be able to ignore is "Ignore all rules".  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it? Where? Point 1 would indeed cover my first case, but the other 5 I don't see any clear statement being made either way or the other. - Andre Engels (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Andre Engels' comments above demonstrate precisely how a lot of users don't understand what WP:IAR rules. The exact nature of the policy is that if it isn't "all" rules, then there's no reason for it to even exist! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The misunderstanding comes from regarding Wikipedia as some kind of formal system, and from forgetting that, in all our interactions, we're people treating each other as respectfully as we can. If you know that Wikipedia is not a formal system, and if you remember about courtesy, then there will be no confusion. If WIARM can be made clearer on the "not a formal system" point, then by all means, edit it! -GTBacchus(talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And don't forget common sense. Just because you ignore a rule doesn't mean you are exempt from any repercussion and can do whatever the hell you want as long as you cite WP:IAR in the edit summary. If you go around unbolding the title in articles you'd be reverted and told to stop or people wouldn't care (which would be consensus through silence). Assuming you are told to stop and still continued, you would eventually be blocked - IAR is not carte blanche. You can still be blocked if you violate 3RR citing IAR - just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean everyone has to ignore it with you. I don't see how revert warring would be beneficial, but if you do, you could say that in your unblock request. Also, IAR only applies to our local rules, it can't be used to violate the Foundation's rules or actual laws. You can make changes you would expect to get a consensus against. Just expect to get reverted though, who knows, you might be wrong and people might agree. It's up to you whether you want to use BRD - or skip to the D. But use common sense. Finally, expanding on what GTBacchus said, acting like a dick on a collaborative project is not beneficial. Mr.Z-man 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: GTBacchus, WP:WIARM is perfectly clear and can't be substantially improved. The problem is: Nobody cares because it's "just an essay," so people pop in here from time-to-time, asking stuff like, "You mean I can really ignore ALL of the rules?! Oh really?!" ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zenwhat, I'm not at all convinced that nobody cares about WP:WIARM. Only someone who's already approaching Wikipedia as a lawyer will make the "only an essay" argument, for one thing. Additionally, I've seen it cited effectively in discussions; it's not ignored. It's pretty much the official explanation, because it won consensus support to be the sole resident of the "See also" section. That's not a sign of disregard.  If people pop in occasionally saying, "really, I can ignore all rules?", and then they get an explanation and learn something... what's wrong with that? That sounds healthy to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Like I said, just because you ignore a rule does not mean that everyone else must or will take the same position. If you ignore a rule and someone else finds your action to be disruptive, you aren't exempt from repercussions. To use a real world example, you can feel free to ignore the speed limit but the cop who pulls you over probably isn't going to care about how you speeding will improve society because he sees it as a safety risk. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In some countries, the police officer is free to not arrest you, even if you are breaking the law, if it is clear that you are at least not doing any harm. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it would still be his choice whether to allow it or not. My point was that you should not intentionally ignore a rule under the assumption that you are safe from any sort of consequence, be it a block or just a friendly note on your talk page. Wiki is not a vacuum - you need to take into consideration how other people will see your action or what effect it will have on those people. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But what happens when you start adding what look like rules to Ignore All Rules? If you make it vague, you risk people not fully understating it. If you make it specific you risk weakening it. Mr.Z-man 07:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it seems, thankfully, wonderfully simple. It does go along with things like consensus changing and being bold, and I really see IAR, in its present form, as about as concise as it can be. It certainly does not lack oversight, and I've always seen it as reassurance that if you break a rule, you may have bettered the project. If not for the better, it gets reverted and discussed. I've always had respect for this edit which showed quite an early grasp on the concept. the_undertow talk 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy. You're an admin, and you consider the diff above a successful application of IAR? In reality, it's a much better example of WP:POINT, and using IAR to excuse that editor's actions would be completely inappropriate. Your above comment explains exactly why IAR needs an explanation page; if an admin doesn't understand IAR, how can we expect new users to? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I like the implication that I don't understand the simple concept. I'm of the opinion that it needs no explanation. You need to take a closer look at the difference I provided. The new user did IAR and the overall result was that his edit was reverted, thus showing that just because one understands IAR does not mean there is no oversight. It showed just the opposite. I have quite a good grasp on IAR. If your wife is in labor, sometimes you have to break the speed limit. This, however, does not alleviate you from the officer who will be handing you a ticket in the hospital lobby. It's really quite simple. Essays and writings and deep psychological analysis are not going to make anything any easier on newcomers. It's one sentence. the_undertow talk 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are only allowed to ignore a rule (different from breaking a rule) if it benefits the encyclopedia. Furthermore, a truly successful application of IAR is one that no one notices; IAR bypasses bureaucracy and time-wasting, and gets things done by understanding exactly what consensus supports and improves Wikipedia. As Kim noted below, your example was perfect for WP:BRD, not IAR. And thus, I'm still not quite convinced that you understand the spirit of this policy. Maybe you should make your way over to WP:WIARM; hopefully then IAR's spirit will become clear. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you stop sending me to the essay? You are playing word games. If you are aware of a rule, then ignoring it and breaking it are the same thing. If you don't see that, maybe the essay is needed. Also, where is it implied that the unnoticed application is the successful one? The only reason we need an essay is because of poor assumptions like these. the_undertow talk 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All this from an admin. Really? Really? This makes me smile. Literally. Never have I been more glad that WP:WIARM exists. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just admit it. You're wanting to IAR when it comes to civility at this moment, right? Just Kidding, Rock. It's only discussion. We're good. At least you got a smile out of it. the_undertow talk 04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we're good. I'm glad you've got thick skin, too. Sometimes I get worked up. :) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 04:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Doesn't look like any rule was deliberately ignored there, that's just fine. It does look like a great opening edit if you're going to deliberately apply WP:BRD on something contentious. Did you manage to convince people in the end? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the 'rule' being that the user was not happy with how articles are speedily deleted. Instead of writing a better article, he deleted the rule. I consider it IAR, but the point was to bring a little levity and to show that nothing was broken as a result. Nothing was bettered, granted, but I still like the edit. the_undertow talk 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was very noticable, and it actually edited the rule itself (so much for ignoring it), so not a good application of ignore all rules (if at all) :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha. So the editor didn't ignore it, he rewrote it? All right Kim, I'll concede, if you can show me a 'good application' of IAR. The class is waiting. :P the_undertow talk 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I once saw a new article that said something along the lines of "John Q. Stinkbomb is the President Elect of Canada which is south of Mexico". This did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion because an assertion of notability was made, hoaxes are not part of speedy deletion. I speedy deleted it anyways because the rule prevented me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. (1 == 2)Until 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick! Let's desysop him! Where's badlydrawnjeff when we need him? ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um hoaxes are part of speedy deletion. They fall under G3. the_undertow talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, The undertow, you're really starting to frighten me now. A mere misunderstanding of IAR is one thing, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process? Please read Wikipedia:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes (note: not an essay), first sentence of the second paragraph: Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. Hmmm... <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't cower. Simply read G3 - Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. So where is it I was wrong? the_undertow talk 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we're all wrong. If someone speedy deletes a hoax, they're ignoring WP:HOAX. If they don't, they're ignoring WP:CSD. ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT>star (T/C) 04:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking that G3 was recently revised to include hoaxes. Whenever that was done, I guess someone didn't update Hoax.  Sounds like a project, eh? I do remember a time when I would get pissed that hoaxes had to go to AfD, and although thats just my OR, I think a review of the CSD page could probably show when hoaxes were included as vandalism. Good thinking Rockstar! the_undertow talk 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While some hoaxes are vandalism, others are people repeating something they heard and believe. In the former case G3 does apply, but if it is not clearly vandalism then the hoax should go to AfD. IAR can be used in such a situation but only with care, I have seen a few "obvious hoaxes" go to AfD and turn out to be accurate. (1 == 2)Until 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore ALL rules? 

message: The argument that WP:IAR should not have clarification is horrible and has harmed Wikipedia. It seems to be based in the naive belief that there is no such thing as "objectivity" or "facts." If this is true, however, is that a fact or is that a personal opinion? Such anti-intellectualism is a serious problem.
As such, I have added clarification and made WP:WIARM a redirect to WP:IAR.
I've also noted my changes on the talk pages of both articles. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The harm to Wikipedia is not at all obvious. Please provide evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm missing something. You believe that IAR needs an explanation, yet you are redirecting the page of said explanation to the policy? the_undertow talk 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I added the information in WP:WIARM to WP:IAR, and then I made WP:WIARM a redirect to WP:IAR. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering this recent edit, you should really discuss such changes here and get consensus before doing that because that is the exact opposite of what we are about. That being said I agree IAR does need explaining to the uninitiated, and the linked essay does a fine job of sharing one interpretation of this policy. (1 == 2)Until 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not accurate, that the linked essay will necessarily be ignored. I've seen it cited effectively, repeatedly. Please provide evidence that the page which has gained consensus support as the one explanatory page linked from IAR is "ignored". -GTBacchus(talk) 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually there is a "we", it is the Wikipedia community. It is important to acknowledge them, if you think of this in terms of you and I then you will get the wrong idea of what this place is about. We don't "order" our rules in a hierarchy, so I don't get what you mean by first rule, even if it did come chronologically first(which I am not sure of) I don't see what that has to do with anything. (1 == 2)Until 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, if people want to ignore the linked essay they can. Essays are advice and can be ignored or embraced as people see fit. (1 == 2)Until 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IAR, like everything else, on Wikipedia, requires common sense. It's not a "do whatever the fuck you want and ignore all dissenters" pass. If you get reverted, it means people do not think you're improving anything, and consensus still comes into play. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up. 

message: So the reason I started wiki-editing on WP:IAR is to try and get the page out of its stuck position, where no one can edit (see comments by chardish, earlier today). 
This did not quite work out, and apparently a lot of people are not aware of why it's important to do this kind of thing. I'll probably get a huge stack of talk page messages and such asking wtf I was doing now. I know I got mobbed on #wikipedia-en-admins. 
I'll try to talk with everyone who leaves me a message. I'm also going to ask some friends to help out, if the number of people asking what's up grows too large. :-) 
--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to throw in that I back Kim's actions and I'm willing to openly discuss with anyone who talks with me as well. Chardish (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you back Kim's actions.  You've openly acknowledged that the two of you orchestrated your editing via AIM.  —David Levy 08:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And we discussed via aim, because we supported each other's aims, and were using the real time environment to collaborate our edits. #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en have sometimes been used in a similar fashion as well, especially by WP:FAC editors. I would have liked to have more editors pitch in and help out. There were several standing by, but their edits didn't materialize due to your actions. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean my reversions of your deliberately disruptive edits?  —David Levy 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we have already adequately debunked that claim. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't.  You've merely insulted everyone's intelligence.  —David Levy 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or he's presenting a cogent argument that warrants consideration. Choose carefully how to react. - Chardish (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, my pet, "Lucky," is either a cat or a goldfish.  He has four legs, fur, whiskers, paws and claws, and he meows and purrs.  Upon careful consideration, I'm going with "cat."  —David Levy 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:Foundation issues]] #3 

message: Since we are to some degree talking in circles, I have made a post in an attempt to gain more participants: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should IAR remain flexible. I have made every effort to ensure the message and its location was neutral to our disagreement. (1 == 2)Until 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Random response:  The change was fine.  Reverting the change was also fine.  It is right that this page should be in dynamic tension. -- Visviva (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I requested outside opinions 

message: Wikipedians undoublethink. Mini-luv rectify fullwise. Undoublethinkers become unpersons. Wikipedians doublethink fullwise.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.61.85 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Think