Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6

message: A good way to figure out what this guideline means is to look at WP:UCS.
Jesin 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh... 

message: It seems to me the several important exceptions to this ought to be cited. 
Copyright rules will overturn the action of anyone ignoring them. Revert three times and you may well get blocked for your trouble. -- Yellowdesk 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I put it best in my philosophy statement on User:SchuminWeb right after citing IAR: "But just with everything else on Wikipedia, NPOV and consensus ultimately rule the day."  Consensus can help you ignore all rules, and consensus can get you blocked as well.  It's a two-edged sword.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several exceptions to the "no rules" rule. Bots for instance. Someone could say "My bot didn't get approved yet, but as that rule is hindering me from helping wikipedia, I should start using my bot in full anyway." As I understand it, thats a direct violation of a rule that is not meant to be broken, and can get you blocked regardless. Just my thoughts...--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Except... 

message: I propose to add the following to the article:
:"The purpose of this policy is not to encourage recklessness, or to make every single action justifiable, but to prevent ineffective practices from overwhelming the encyclopedia. Ignoring all rules is not new to society; in the 1780s, it had come to realization that the Articles of Confederation the Thirteen Colonies had been using is terribly ineffective. Rather than using the existing facilities to improve conditions, they ignored all rules and established the Constitutional Convention to change how the government worked. Had they stuck to using the rules and guidelines of the time, it is likely they would not have gotten anywhere. If it is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, it may be necessary, to circumvent the traditional policies and guidelines."
I'm sorry if it's too US-centric; feel free to expand the passage with other examples. It is just my opinion as a history geek that the Constitutional Convention which established the modern United States government is a great example of IAR. Who objects to me adding this into the article? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe this change is not needed and that it detracts from the essay, since it is short and sweet. In addition, not to be pedantic, but this is an essay not an article. I've seen people get themselves in a twist by not understanding that distinction before. --Deskana (request backup) 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a place where I can add it? I'm afraid that by limiting the length of this essay to that one sentence, people are not understanding (and maybe blindly objecting to) the existence of this policy to begin with. Also, I call it an article the way a body of text can be called an article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, didn't want to appear patronising about the article thing, which I think I did. Sorry about that. I'm not quite sure where you could add it to be honest. --Deskana (request backup) 03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how this could be considered a limitation to IAR. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if "limitation" is the word I'd use.  I think it's best described in WP:DICK as a corrollary.  Yeah, if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them, but don't be a dick about it.  That's the bottom line.  You can do just about everything without being a dick about it.  It's a matter of keeping things classy.  Once you start treading into that realm of dick-dom, you look really un-classy, and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: The fact that Jimbo endorsed this page as policy in its present form is often taken to mean (as above) that it should remain in this form and there should be no caveats to it.
However, it should be noted that it was also Jimbo who just de-admined someone on the spot following an invocation of IAR.
Make no mistake. There are caveats to this policy. Leaving them unstated is a bad idea IMO. Yes, many people 'get it' without being told explicitly... but there are plenty of times when that isn't the case and we get a big mess as a result.
If you know in advance that a significant number of other users disagree with you about 'what is best for Wikipedia' then invoking 'IAR' to force your opinion without or against consensus is a blatant violation of the 'Etiquette / Consensus / Cooperation' pillar... which is of equal importance to IAR and never invalidated by it. In short, you can use IAR only in so far as doing so doesn't violate the other pillars... IAR can't allow you to include copyright violations in Wikipedia, it can't allow you to use Wikipedia as a blog instead of an encyclopedia, it can't allow you to post personal info about another user or threaten to kill them, and it can't allow you to ignore consensus to get your own way. You can ignore the normal rules and procedures (aka 'policies' and 'guidelines') for how things are done around here, but not what Wikipedia IS and the way users are expected to treat each other and work together. --CBD 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to imply that Yanksox did what he did from misunderstanding IAR, I don't believe that is the case. If you're not trying to imply that, then I apologise, I misunderstood what you wrote. --Deskana (request backup) 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, WP:IAR does carry a caveat, and it's plainly stated in the policy.  It's appropriate to ignore rules when they prevent the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia.  Anyone who believes that including copyright violations in Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a blog instead of an encyclopedia, posting personal information about other users, threatening to kill people, or ignoring consensus to get his/her own way serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia fundamentally misunderstands the project's goals to an extent far greater than can be addressed on the WP:IAR page.  —David Levy 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the one hand, I myself have added stuff clearly stating the "unstated" concept of IAR, and been reverted sooner or later. I think people want this policy to be "short and sweet" but it's always annoyed me when important documentation is left out for some kind of wacky philosophical/stylistic reason. But on the other hand, WP:SNOW has plenty of documentation about not using it to justify circumventing discussion to make controversial action, and yet people frequently cite WP:SNOW as justification for just that, sometimes flippantly. I dunno... I think at least a sentence of explanation would help IAR, many people's initial reaction totally misunderstands the policy, and one little sentence could clear a lot of that up. But I suspect some people will perpetually resist the idea. --W.marsh 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that many people's initial reaction would be correct... that this whole place is a little bit different to the red-tape you find elsewhere.  That's why it's great as-is, it's empowering. --PopUpPirate 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone reads this page and somehow believes that they can just invoke IAR in the face of opposition and not cause a negative reaction that's likely to undermine whatever they were trying to do... then I'm not sure a sentence or two of caveats would help them.  I know nothing about the recent case alluded to above, but should there be an admin who imagines he can use IAR as a blunt object to crowbar whatever he wants into place, then maybe desysoping is just the cluebat that he would need.  Such behavior would a good indication that his dispute resolution skills (and maybe a reality barometer or two) had gone missing. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see someone else has, yet again, noticed that the consensus rule trumps IAR. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. —Ashley Y 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am extremely concerned that people are going to wave this around to get their way. I believe the consensus ammendment needs to be included in this  policy for it to be truly taken seriously. — Deckiller 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing whatsoever about IAR that says there won't be any repercussions from willfully ignoring rules in defiance of consensus. I fail to see why people have such a problem with this rule, which goes to the essence of what wiki editing is. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Jimbo and IAR 

message: I added a section to the blocking policy... which seems like a logical extension of the problems I see (related to this). Please take a look. - Denny 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral action against concensus, disruption 

message: The .ogg file is out of date.  Specifically, it's from before Jimbo decided what this page should say. - Peregrine Fisher 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken word version is out of date 

message: Yes, I've wound up here like others having followed links from various Wiki problems, but I've long had a thought that I'm curious for intake on:
"If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." -->
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
The idea is: the plural invites an attitude of mind that may be unhelpful ("I ignore the rules, if I must"), but the singular demands a more specific rationale ("I ignored the rule in X case, for A reason"). It's a subtle difference, but I think important. Marskell 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy has always been called "ignore ALL rules" for a reason.  Changing it to "Ignore a rule" doesn't quite carry the same punch.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. I was suggesting lessening its punch. Marskell 11:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular, not plural 

message: Reference.com: implication
How about changing "a deep and subtle meaning" to "deep and subtle implications"? --83.253.36.136 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that any better? --Deskana (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm asking (about an old suggestion(1)). – Perhaps it's a little less "woo-woo" than "deep meaning"? On the other hand, "deep meaning" is kind of funny :-) --83.253.36.136 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep and subtle [[:wikt:implication|implications]]? 

message: Recently I have had cause to reflect on this rule.  I have been involved in an interesting case the article entitled Miriam Rivera.  The way IAR is worded, enforcing it's letter and not it's spirit. seemed to imply that it overrides all other rules if and only if it serves to 
"Improve" this encyclopedia.  I am told that it does not mean that.  Well then precisely what does it mean?  Tell me if this sounds right.  Ignore all rules means: To create new rules and practices on a case by case basis when and as needed, to use discretion.  Example legislators make a law for manditory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.  However  the courts being a separate and equal branch of government decide that in certain cases those rules are in appropiate (like sending a guy to jail for life under a three strikes law for petty theft).  In a sense IAR and common sense seem to be here to allow for flexibility. I was so hoping for clarity here. --Hfarmer 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the issue on the page? Mostly what IAR means is that the purpose here is to create an encyclopedia: you do not need to spend time poring over rule minutiae in order to justify an action, and if some "policy" page happens to say something at the moment that is in fact contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, then it is not binding. Nevertheless, the policy pages do generally contain the collective wisdom of other editors gained from experience in various circumstances and if there is a dispute over some issue then it should be reasonably discussed. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humbly 

message: I have been most vocal in my defense of this page, however I have one peeve which really needs to be adressed, I think. It seems apparent that there is more than enough consensus that you can't just "Per IAR" somthing as a defense for a change in an edit summary. Should there be some comment somewhere on this page stating that? Thanatosimii 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Per IAR" is really stupid; it is citing a rule about not citing rule minutiae, and does not include any justification for the actual action that is being taken, which is necessary in any circumstance. —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, someone should probably do somthing about the fact that IAR was just "Per IAR"ed... Thanatosimii 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Per IAR" 

message: To everyone who wants to revoke this or turn it into something different, note that this is one of the few policies instated by Jimbo fiat (), and as such not really subject to being overturned by the community. Aside from that, it is a fundamental issue that we can't plausibly expect users to read all the rules before doing anything. >Radiant< 08:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy wrote: "Please consider this before editing this page." We are doing just that. Jimmy's highly respected opinion is not an infinitely rigorous preservative. As far as i know, all policies are per tradition instated by a Jimbo fiat. It does not and should not prevent them from changing and evolving. Itayb 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "all policies are per tradition instated by a Jimbo fiat" is a false assumption. >Radiant< 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Jimbo also wrote of IAR that "The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia."  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a decent criticism to be made that he's not involved in the fundamental workings of Wikipedia anymore to make that sort of statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And, in fact, IAR predates this page. It must be coming up on 6 years at this point. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for the record 

message: How about replacing IAR with the following, whose content was contributed by GTBacchus when trying to explain to me what the IAR was all about:
Relax
There are a myriad guidelines, conventions, processes, procedures, forms to fill out, requests to file in triplicate, etc. Most of that can be ignored. That doesn't mean not to do it. It means that if you don't know it exists, don't worry about it, but if somebody stops you and tells you about it, listen to them, because you're following WP:CIVIL. If they tell you about a rule, and it makes sense, follow it. (if it doesn't, ask around) Then, if you see a situation where you think the rule is actually wrong, do what you think is right instead, and then say aloud that you just ignored a rule, and discuss it, always aiming for consensus.
Itayb 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite honestly don't see where this constant "world will explode if we don't delete IAR" mindset is coming from. IAR is perfect as is. Entierly perfect. Perhaps we need a commentary Wikipedia:IAR Commentary for those too beaurocratically minded to understand IAR to explain this to those that don't get it, but for the vast majority of us, there's no problem understanding this page. IAR means that the rules are not the final word on any subject and do not apply if they are found to be not useful in certain situations. However, it has to be phrased as simply as possible, because there are those out there that just have to have rules to wikilawyer by which are final and absolute, and this page functions as somthing of a WP:TROUT saying, "We're not giving you firm rules!" Thanatosimii 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  If you think IAR needs to be spelled out in any more detail, then you don't understand IAR.  Chew on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Such deliciousness.  As if IAr is the only thing that keeps our rules from not being firm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there lies the entierety of the problem you have in understanding this... IAR = "The Rules are not Firm". Even phrasing it the way you did is incorrect. IAR doesn't prevent rules from getting firm, IAR is the unfirmness of our rules. Thanatosimii 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  The fact that consensus can change and that our rules change with discussion is how the rules aren't firm, it has nothing to do with IAR.  We shouldn't keep bastardizing IAR willingly to make it fit what we want it to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide evidence for what you just said?  I mean, how do you know that changing through discussion is the only way the rules aren't firm?  How do you know IAR doesn't play a role?  A lot of people seem to think it does - how does one decide that you're right and they're wrong, unless one already agrees with you? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I, for one, have willfully and knowingly ignored rules without discussion and i've never been censured for it. Slac speak up! 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” -Douglas Adams. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relax: yet another suggestion