Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 2

message: Yep, The shorter and less instruction-crept this can be kept, the better - David Gerard 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: I am aware of the fact that IAR causes quite a lot of trouble, however, it's nescesary in certain situations. So just like people do rc patrol to keep an eye on the downsides of "anyone can edit" , so also on that same patrol, people have to keep an eye out for the downsides of "Ignore all rules"
Kim Bruning 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR patrol  

message: The current policy as stated on this page does not reflect how the policy has been applied since its inception in 2002.
The removal of the policy tag seems erroneous, since no procedure has been followed to remove this page from policy, and this policy is still regularly applied (erroneously or not.)
Kim Bruning 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When exactly was the policy tag applied? when was consensus to amke this policy achived, and where? When i first looked at this page, it did not carry a policy tag, and that was before any of the recent disputes over the matter. The current state of the poll does not sugest the level of consensus usaully associated with a policy. I think the disputed tag was exactly the correct one to use. DES (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict): A policy designation seems to have been first applied on  7 October 2004 and removed again on  9 December 2004. It was then remarked as policy on 12:22, 8 March 2005 adn reverted the same day. It was marked as "semi-policy" on 17:34, 13 March 2005 and this was removed on  15:38, 5 April 2005. It next seems to ahve had an explit policy tag added on  23:48, 28 September 2005, and since then the issue has been much debated. For much of the time between April and Sept 2005 the debate was between thsoe who wanted an explicit "Not policy" tag and thsoe who wanted no tag at all. Thus for the majority of its recorded hsitory, this page does not seem to have been explictly labeled as "policy". DES (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *You might be interested in the timeline I offer, below. Demi T/C 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I learn new uses of NPOV every day! Kim Bruning 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It either is policy or it isn't. Which is it?  Was there a consensus gained?  A vote?  If not then it isn't anything but a wishful article. I think it was approved as a guideline or a policy but someone should determine which or else gain a new consensus for what it should be. - Tεxτurε 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you added it just on a whim then it likely is not.  No one should add a policy tag without determining if it was approved to be policy. - Tεxτurε 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See poll at top of this page, which has been running since 2002 :-) Kim Bruning 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. That poll currently shows almnost exactly 70% support, and was below 70% last week. Whether votes cast 3years apart can usefully be considered part of the same poll I leave to further discussion. DES (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (ec) I added it because, to me, this appears to be used as policy.  I suggested an alternate tag, describing it as one of the five pillars.  I guess that's in the archive now. Friday 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  There also exists policy from before wikipedia ever existed. (We inherited from meatball at one point). But that's details, this particular rule is still very strongly supported and promoted. Kim Bruning 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I freely grant that policy from a sufficiently early date will never have gone through a formal adoption process. However, thsi does not seem to have been labeeld as policy in any way until long after those early days, the long stable version listed it as a "rule to consider". I also grant that a good many people here strongly support and promote IAR, and treat it as policy. But a significant if smaller number strongly oppose it. Can somethign with as much dispute over its current propriety realy be safely tagged as current policy? I think the "unique status" tag now in place does a good job of describign the actual situation. Does anyone really disagree? DES (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like that tag! It's very wikipediaish :-) (see above reply to philwelch also) Kim Bruning 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps we are in agrement for the moment on this limited issue, and can let this discussion die back down for a time? DES (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: In attempt to get a handle on the status of this rule through the history of the page, I offer the following timeline. I've only investigated the changes related to the "officialness" or "ruleness" of the page, not its content, which has changed back and forth in various ways during the same period. Also, I have not really listed the various quite recent changes associated with the current brouhaha.
The page was created on 17 April 2002  with no particular statement about policy, shortly thereafter being described as a "rule"  in the text which wording it has held basically since.
On 7 October of 2004 (over two years later), a category was added identifying it as official policy ; this was changed to a semipolicy category on 9 December  and reverted to the policy category .
After four months of wearing the policy category, it was removed on 21 January 2005 . It was added back and reverted on 8 March 2005 ( ), on 13 March (  ), being left with a semipolicy category.
After not quite a month, various templates were applied, starting with an "inactive policy template", including "guideline," "notpolicy," and "validity disputed." It ended up with no identifier. This happened on 5 April (      ) and similarly on 19 - 21 September (starting with a proposal template and ending up with none          ).
The  tag was applied a few days later, on 29 September, and this stood for almost a month until it was changed to  on 23 October; then "inactive"  and ultimately removed on 24 October .
Demi T/C 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is inherently paradoxical ("ignore all rules ... including this one." See also Jimbo's comment above). People who try to force it into the rigor of rule/guideline/policy categories or generic templates are putting the page into a box where it doesn't belong. Attempting to do so mostly demonstrates one's failure to grasp the concept in the first place. This summary merely documents how lame such efforts are. --Michael Snow 18:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Policiness" timeline 

message: Do we take the Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, or the Raul654/Michael Snow/David Gerard consensus?
Hmm, I guess it's probably not good HEC to see-saw between consensuses, can we maybe find some compromise or so? 
Actually I don't care about the boxes and so, but the wording is different in the 2 versions. Let's see
Kim Bruning 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HEC? No disrespect, but there is no Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, there's just been a flurry of edits, which haven't brought any real improvement to my mind. On the other hand, judging from the endorsements above, I think the version developed by myself and others did establish a consensus to serve as the baseline version of the page. You liked it yourself — is something suddenly wrong with it? Everyone's overwhelming urge to leave their own personal fingerprints on the page is detrimental in the same fashion that instruction creep is. --Michael Snow 18:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with Michael. →Raul654 19:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Me too. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too - hence my collapsing the two paragraphs of instruction creep into one, smaller paragraph of instruction creep. Or, actually, in my most preferred version, all three paragraphs to one. Phil Sandifer 00:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To me, recent edits strongly indicate there's not actually a consensus version.  Friday (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I also note that the added text does not at all, in my opinion, change the nature of the rule. It operates, and has to, the same way it did when it was originally stated. The additional text is for the people who will otherwise misunderstand—and we have a lot of those. Perhaps it's best to accommmodate them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus version

message: I propose that the current 172 word version of the page can be entirely encapsulated in the following 88 words:
The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. The rules exist to help explain how to do that. On the other hand, if you want to cut through the red tape and just go, so long as you keep in mind that you’re writing an encyclopedia and are willing work together with your fellow editors, it will probably work out. The spirit of all of our rules is "create a good encyclopedia," and that's far more important than the letter.
On the other hand, ignoring rules because you don’t like what they say is misguided.
What reasons can people find that this does not adequately replace the current phrasing? Phil Sandifer 03:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules do quite a few things other than simply explain how to write an encyclopedia. Also, pairing "Ignore all rules" with "Be bold" can be, shall we say, too much of a good thing. I much prefer the connection currently made to "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" because it strikes a suitable note of caution, something that many people with concerns about this page feel is necessary. Lastly, I would lament the loss of the advice to "use common sense". --Michael Snow 04:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And I'll reiterate what I said earlier - the sentence about IAR being about cutting through red tape is, IMO, the most imporantant sentence on the whole page. Raul654 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've fixed both of these. And I think WP:POINT remains ideal for a see also. Phil Sandifer 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See alsos are part of the problem here, not part of the solution, because they encourage people to add their own hobbyhorse to the list. I still think we need to accommodate the concerns about the page's entire function with cautionary language. In that regard, "ignoring rules because you don't like what they say is misguided" comes across as a pretty feeble statement. An acknowledgement of the inherent paradox is also missing, which is an important part of the page. This path doesn't strike me as an improvement, other than perhaps word count, and evaluating instruction creep by word count alone is like evaluating admin nominations by edit count alone. I believe the current version is actually better suited to resisting future instruction creep than this one. --Michael Snow 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction creep

message: I have been thinking about this "rule" recently after having to invoke it to explain why a particular AfD debate was not as simple as "it is a guideline and you can't argue with that."  It got me thinking, and it seems that everything that we actually want people to get from "Ignore all rules" is not actually "ignore all rules" but "be aware that rules may have exceptions, including exceptions no one has thought to codify."  We don't want people to ignore all rules; we want people to ignore those rules which aren't adequate for the current situation.  (And I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who has seen "Ignore all rules" in practice more often being interpreted as "Ignore all dissenting editors.")  Perhaps this policy would be more helpful if it told editors thinking of invoking it "you'd better be ready to make a cogent argument why this should be an exception.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me.  I like the way it's expressed on WP:5P, as "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules".  Friday (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If you look  above, I have been saying for quite a while that this page is very badly named. There are several rules that if you break them, you will get yourself into hot water -- case and point, the no-personal-attacks rule. At least the text of the rule is correct now, though. Raul654 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate formulation? 

message: While freedom loving Wikipedians slept, the fundamental freedom to "ignore all rules" has been reduced to pointless sophistry and is now honored only in the breach, so why not replace said pointless sophistry with a candid admission of same?.  To wit, "When given a choice, most intelligent Wikipedians prefer fascism, so the freedom to 'ignore all rules' simply had to go!" // NetEsq 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the Ministry of Truth take over Wikipedia? 

message: Once you have determined that to Ignore All Rules is the only way to proceed, you need not be entirely without guidence. Research existing guidelines first to see if there is anything tangentially related at least. 
Failing that, look at previous admin descisions, polls that are tangentially related, and perhaps check meta and meatball to see if there has been discussion in related areas. As a last resort, check other wikimedia wikis, or other sources entirely. Go wild.
If there's really nothing out there that's close, you'll have to be creative.
But whatever you do:try to at least stay as close to existing policy as possible. A skilled application of Ignore all rules should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all.
Finally, if you notice that your application of ignore all rules has worked well (ie, it flew under the radar, or you were complimented) , write down what you did in the wikipedia: namespace, either by editing existing guideline pages, or by creating a new page, and marking it as a guideline. Further iterations of ignore all rules can then be based off your work. 
In this manner, wikipedia guidelines become fluid and effortless.
Note that this is not a new proposal. It is just an explanation as to how much of the wikipedia guidelines have been created over time, but no one has bothered to write down. 
Kim Bruning 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR Manual 

message: While I understand the history and tradition behind WP:IAR, the recent spate of wheel warring is the writing on the wall. It's time to get rid of this policy, which now ill-serves the Wikipedia community.
Dealing with blatant trolls and vandals is easy. Dealing with serious disputes between good-faith users is hard. WP:IAR makes it incalculably harder, since anyone can cite it to justify literally anything that they want to do. The caveats are no help, since, by definition, good-faith users think that what they are doing is right, that it will help in writing an encyclopedia, and so forth. Furthermore, almost all uses of WP:IAR are destructive: after all, it only gets brought up when someone is caught violating a policy or principle. It's very common for WP:IAR to be cited by people who want to violate consensus. Also, when WP:IAR is combined with administrative powers, other users are all too easily caught in the crossfire. What was meant to be a liberating rule becomes a reign of terror for those not fortunate enough to have the sysop bit flagged in the system. As Isaiah Berlin once put it, "liberty for the pike is death for the trout".
WP:IAR simply has not scaled. It may have made sense when Wikipedia was a small community and everyone knew and trusted one another - frankly, I can't be sure, since I wasn't here back then. But it is wholly inappropriate for the huge virtual community that Wikipedia is now. (Yes, I know the community is only a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. But we need it, or no work could get done.) It's time for Wikipedia to grow up. In the words of St. Paul: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." WP:IAR is one of those childish things; let's put it on a historical toy shelf and get back to the serious business of writing an encyclopedia. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not deprecated, but rewritten and moved to Wikipedia:Use common sense. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ARGH!!! Already there! Then merge! —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In real world courts, a lot of people try the insanity defence as a last resort to not be hanged. On wikipedia, a lot of people cite Ignore All Rules in a similar way, as a last resort. Neither of these should be deprecated however, irl or wiki, as both also serve a valid purpose. Kim Bruning 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But the invocations from other times don't count? I've managed to do a lot of good using ignore all rules. It'd be a shame to see it get taken down due to percieved abuse by a few. Especially since it's a cornerstone to quite a few policies, and policy creation besides (#IAR_Manual) . Kim Bruning 08:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but you were doing it with common sense. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's the combination of ignoring existing rules and using common sense that does it. ;-) Using either alone won't get you there. Kim Bruning 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:IAR]] should be deprecated

message: Wrote up a thing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive S#Ignore_all_rules. Ashibaka tock 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Village Pump

message: Only arbcom is nobility! :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobility

message: Basically, this page isn't going anywhere. Because it's very old, and people like it.
However, I still think it can be rewritten to state a policy, if you do it well. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Isn't it cool? (then again, I lack some amount of sleep, maybe when I wake up again I'll have a different point of view. Then again, maybe not. :-) ) Kim Bruning 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because it's very old, and people like it." My personal opinion is that if you put the current version to a new survey, that it would be much less popular than the very basic pre-November 2005 version. If someone didn't understand the import of the original version, they aren't going to understand the newer, much larger version. BlankVerse 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been over and over. Nobody likes any version. I tried to put it up on the Village Pump, to restore the 2002 version with commentary, but I learned on IRC that the Pump was the wrong way to enact changes to IAR. The right way is to not change it. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of IRC discussion