Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 9

message: Yup, definitely belongs here. Seconded.
And conflict of interest when a guideline maintainer and writer maintains and writes guidelines? ;-) That's a very interesting conflict! :-P --Kim Bruning 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. I'm just saying that there was no consensus to put it on the project page. And it's strange that the essay that Radiant did put up was his own... Rockstar (T/C) 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no consensus? How did you determine that? That and PPP is a perfectly decent essay. If you must muck this page up with more refs, that's the ref to do. --Kim Bruning 12:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh wait, so you had actually done a revert on that, (oops) um, shan't add to the edit count of the page by self reverting. Is there really a reason not to link that page? It's related, which is all you really need to know for a see also. (possibly we could link everything under the see also... and after that we need to do something to declutter the page) --Kim Bruning 13:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *See the section on top of the page. "Conflict of interest" is about people promoting themselves in an article, not about people who add a link to an explanatory page. It's not "my" essay, and it is interesting to note that, despite several months of existence, nobody has sprung up to say "no, this is false". That may be telling... >Radiant< 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  product process policy 

message: There seems to be an unwritten rule that this policy will always be augmented with weaseling and encrustations of interpretation.  I wish everybody would resist the impulse to gild the lily, but since they won't, well every now and then I have to go in and slim it down.
Please try to keep it slim. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change back to the long established version. This rule needs to be kept simple, write an essay if you want to go into further detail. (H) 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be simple? Give a solid reason. Rockstar (T/C) 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is a simple rule. It always has been. Since day one. (H) 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That's funny, because it was actually meant as a joke on day one. It was later changed to policy far after day one, and not in the same version that we have today. So maybe you should reconsider that statement. Plus, all this not to mention that your reasoning is completely invalid. Rockstar (T/C) 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of all the rules was different. I mean, for starters, "Rules To Consider". Heck, arguably, Wikipedia was not taken seriously on day one either. It was just a feeder for the real encyclopedia. Turned out the bizarro encyclopedia worked better. Who knew? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why those who think IAR is some ridiculously solid, deep, and immovable policy should reconsider their stance. Rockstar (T/C) 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point in your life, you were unable to walk, hold a conversation, or eat solid food. Should we regard you as you were, or as you are? Just because IAR may have started out as a joke (nothing personal, but the only bit of evidence is you saying that it was) doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered a serious policy now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a distortion of a quote from Larry Sanger where he called it a "...temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues..." which goes with the view that Wikipedia was just a "feeder" anyway; but IAR, like Wikipedia, has become ... well, maybe not "ridiculously solid, deep, and immovable", but certainly a good deal less temporary. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, it did start out as a joke. Your point is well-made, but poorly placed, as I do think that IAR is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. My response was to H's comment, who said that since day one, IAR has been a deep, simple, and unchangeable policy. That's just not true. Your baby comment fits in better as a compliment to my response rather than an argument against it. Rockstar (T/C) 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I misread what you said. Well, good to know that I still made a good point, regardless of how off-the-mark I was. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Well, be proud, because it's not every day that people make good points on this thread! ;) Rockstar (T/C) 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: EVula's not the only one misreading what others have said. Saying it started out as a joke is a bit of a misreading. Also, the H-man said it is a simple rule, and always has been, since day one. This is correct. There was a few times when people added and removed complications, like the short bout we just had a few weeks ago, but all the stable versions were simple. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2+2 is simple. IAR is not simple, it is "deep and subtle", at least according to Jimbo. Something that is deep and subtle is hardly simple. And all this not to mention that our current version of IAR came into existence barely one year ago. How old is Wikipedia? How long has this policy been around? Saying that IAR "simple" and "solid" is shortsighted, naive, and going against the spirit of the entire policy. Rockstar (T/C) 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey now, "solid" is your word. Here, simple is not in opposition to deep, but in opposition to complex, encrusted, verbose, weasly, etc, you know, the original context of this section? Right above? Now if you're quite done, perhaps we could get back to talking about fonts. I would like to use a bigger one, or more contrasting colours, since it really is hard to read. I am after all quite shortsighted. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solid wasn't in reference to you, but rather those people who swoop in at the last minute and say "this policy must never change, it's perfect the way it is." That's what I meant by solid, and that's not IAR -- you know as well as I do that such a statement isn't true. So note that I'm not arguing with you when I went on my tirade. And for the record, I like the fact that you're one of the few that adds constructive arguments and insight to this page. So please don't take anything I say personally. Hope that made sense. For what it's worth, I'm farsighted, so font size doesn't bother me. What I liked the most was Kim's black background. ;) Rockstar (T/C) 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. "Ignore all rules" refers to Wikipedia's rules, which is why I don't mind the word being hyperlinked. [ This] ignored all rules of good taste, and could easily have gotten him darned to heck. Incidentally, flattery will get you nowhere. But don't let that stop you. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't flattering you. I was speaking my mind. If I like someone, I'll tell them, and if I don't, I'll tell them. However, if you want me to call you a dick to make you sleep better at night, I will. Incidentally, I think it's ironic that in the five pillars page, IAR means that all the rules aren't solid, except the ones on that page. And, if you read the five pillars page, pretty much every policy and rule is there. Ironic? Maybe IAR has fewer teeth than we've ever though. Rockstar (T/C) 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are too many "See Also" links then it becomes unreadable.  2 or 3 key pointers is enough to digest!  Nice move. --PopUpPirate 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I restored the "See also" links that directly had a relationship to IAR. I don't think anything else (including WP:BOLD and WP:DICK) need to be mentioned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially because pretty much everything is already there in the "WP Principles" box at the bottom. No need to double it up. Rockstar (T/C) 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the harm in the "see also" links section? >Radiant< 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before, it was a massive collection of parallel links (such as WP:BOLD). It was rather bloated. While I don't agree with the outright removal that Tony did, I do think that it should only have items that are directly related (for example, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page got all fat again 

message: Why, exactly, do we need two shortcuts? The person who added the second one, WP:IGNORE, used existence as an argument, and the person who reverted my removal justified it by saying other pages are like that. In other words, it has yet to be explained why they are needed. (I was also sort of surprised I was reverted with an antivandalism script, but I'll let that slide.) Picaroon (Talk) 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, both arguments have about as much weight behind them... personally, I'd say let's just keep both of them (but I don't care that much to begin with). Now, can we please stop arguing over the number of shortcuts and get back to arguing about the font size? A much better use of our time... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer we get back to bickering over whether to have a customized policy-box or standard one, actually, but every protracted argument needs other minor disagreements to break it up. (Sort of like Garfield taking a break from dinner for a snack.) Picaroon (Talk) 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about bickering about the font size? I miss that. Rockstar (T/C) 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. :-p --Deskana (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *In general we list one or two shortcuts per page, regardless of the fact that many pages have 5+ shortcuts. The point of the shortcut box is to provide an easy mnemonic or two; the point of the whatlinkshere button is to give a comprehensive list. >Radiant< 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts 

message: I edited a bit of the above, and moved the old version (and its discussion) to the archive. I tried to take into account the opinions of people who feel that IAR should have no exceptions (though I would still argue that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should never be ignored for any reason.) Nonetheless, I think we need consensus if we're going to revise the wording, and the current wording clearly does not enjoy consensus. - Chardish 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the above 

message: It makes the spoken version of this article grossly out of date.  We need to record a new version!  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that we've fleshed it out... 

message: You generally know that the wording of something is disputed if there has just been a recent edit. Isn't the tag a bit redundant? --Kim Bruning 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Silence equals consent." This discussion could go on for quite a while, and it's good to let people know that it is going on, even if no changes are being made to the page. - Chardish 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new way that introduces it just slightly, as it kind of touches on what the real intent behind the anti-policy is - that we are not all-knowing and all-seeing, and that as such, the rules can't cover everything.  I also like that it encourages people to use their best judgement.  That puts a little assumption of good faith into the policy.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really understand why a scuffle over wording, rather than the substance of the policy, requires a tag.  -- Visviva 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording is disputed? 

message: :Use your best judgement, treat your fellow contributors with respect, and focus on building the encyclopedia.
I like this sentiment and I'm sure it belongs somewhere, but I'm not seeing the relevance to WP:IAR. I think the virtue of this policy is its brevity and clarity - I don't think adding self-evident encourages to use common sense etc. really help. All policies should be exercised using best judgment, treating others with repsect and with the goal of building an encyclopedia - but I don't think we need to include that in every policy. Given the longstanding nature of the wording of this policy I think its for those who wish to make changes to establish a strong consensus for those changes. WjBscribe 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I care more about the page giving good advice than it staying tightly relevant.  Sure, the virtue is brevity- for those who get it.   If a few extra words can increase the chances of someone getting it, I don't see that they hurt anything.  Friday (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I understand the desire for brevity as well. The relevance here is in trying to convey that judgement, thoughtfulness etc are much more important than the rules. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Can we put it back in? Haukur 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That this statement, categorical as it sounds, is not meant to imply that you should ignore other people when you think they're getting in the way. Haukur 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All of that, plus telling sensible people to stop worrying and focus on what matters. In Guy's terms, Cluesticking Wikilawyers should not overshadow reassuring regular folk, and it'd be nice to better convey that Clue is both necessary AND sufficient. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but worrying about upsetting people also shouldn't stop us from taking actions beneficial to the encyclopedia. To quote that old adage - "You can please all of the people all of the time". People should exercise the discretion WP:IAR affords respectfully but it would be a make to change the policy such that it is applied timidly. WjBscribe 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I meant by my Cluesticking comment. Timidity is the opposite of what I want. I'll take a different approach: compare the ancient "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business" to the modern "If the rules prevent you from improving and maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" version. The old version is not much of a cluestick - the newer version is better for that. But in doing so it has lost some of the step-back-and-relax value and frankly the emboldening value to people who are sensible to begin with, and will not likely ever need cluesticking. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: recent change 

message: (Forgive the length, please...)  Is part of the confusion that arises from IAR the thought that it somehow conveys a level of protection to those who edit Wikipedia?  "I can do whatever the heck I want because I can always fall back on IAR!"  I've never seen IAR successfully used on an individual level as a defense, even though it's frequently cited as defense.  People see the operative words, "Rules... prevent... You... ignore... them."  Those of us from the United States, who may have a cultural bias towards individual rights and expression, may especially hold this to be equivalent to a Bill of Rights to protect the Wikipedia editor.  When in fact the word "You" is probably the least important word in the sentence.
To me, IAR is something which protects the encyclopedia, not the individual.  IAR does not protect one from sanction, reversions, blocks, or bans.  (IAR coupled with demonstrated good faith might, but that is no guarantee.)  IAR does not defend from RfC, Arbcom decisions, or pissed off editors leaving angry notes on Talk pages.  IAR is about the Encyclopedia, and giving editors a certain sense of freedom to move past the rules and not worry about 41 other policies that must be followed lest trouble ensue.  If the judgments which follow an edit justify that the encyclopedia is improved thereby.  That's it.  
Anyone who tries to use it for anything else than that will be put into the hurt locker by the community at large, sooner or later.  That statement isn't retribution or stalking or license to avoid WP:CIVIL.  It's prophesy or soothsaying.  And since the policy attempts to alleviate the stress of process wonkery and instruction creep keeping editors from editing, in my humble opinion that should be the focus of the statement.
Were I god of Wikipedia (and with more dictatorial powers than Jimbo Wales has ever had,) I'd rewrite it as follows:
"The encyclopedia may be improved by persons who edit while ignoring all the rules."  Or even more briefly, "The encyclopedia may be improved while ignoring rules."  Or, "Don't let the rules keep you from improving the encyclopedia - ignore them and edit until someone shows you a policy or guideline otherwise."
So maybe I'm glad I'm not the god of Wikipedia.  But whatever comes up, let it be short and focused upon improving the encyclopedia, and diminishing (or ignoring) the potential of it as a defense. LaughingVulcan 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212. I deleted it as "original research". No policy says I am allowed to do so. Bad decision? No, if you saw the article, you'd agree. Ignoring the rules to improve the encyclopedia? Yes. The reason people have never seen "successful applications of IAR" is because they expect there to be a big fuss about it, and expect it to involve something like deletion of Main Page or something else suitably ridiculous.  --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that this policy says you're allowed to do so. : ) - Your Deletionist Friend, Chardish 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not allow for speedy deletion of such content, last time I checked. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the reply.  I'm sorry if I communicated that there are no successful applications of IAR.  But does anyone know where IAR was successfully (and solely) applied as a defense of action?  I'm especially thinking of RfCs and Arbitrations.  It reads like to me that you were applying WP:OR, though I suppose you could say you were ignoring criteria for speedy deletion.  I sure don't want to see 5,000 XfDs per day.  For clarification, though, if the editor who created the article came back to you and requested AfD instead, would you do it?  (And, of course, you might be completely right, and I may be completely off my nut about this.)  LaughingVulcan  03:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rant on IAR meaning 

message: This was one of the first policies, made by Jimbo himself. I think that the current wording is proper, and not trying to expand this whole thing in to a long debate. The wording is clear:If the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them.
I would guess, before reading any above comments, that there may be vandals and sockpuppets being blocked, and claiming that they were just ignoring all rules. However, this is inappropriate, no matter how you look at it, because the policy clearly states that you are permitted to ignore rules if you are maintaining or improving Wikipedia. I don't believe this should be reworded. GrooveDog (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: your first paragraph, the current wording only originated a year ago. "Jimbo's policy" looked quite a bit different. Jimbo has said himself that no policy, like Wikipedia itself, is ever solid, and he even said above that he'd support a rewording. Just saying... Rockstar (T/C) 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion on rewording this 

message: It got fat again, so I trimmed it .  --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert wars do nothing towards achieving consensus. Repeatedly reverting to the revision you prefer      is not an act of maintenance, but rather a stubborn insistence that you are right and all other editors are wrong. This is contrary to every principle Wikipedia upholds. - Chardish 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all completely different diffs and separate issues. Also, this is irrelevant to most every Wikipedia principle. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The principles I mention being violated are ownership of articles (by the implicit statement that there is some rule that says that the page must conform to a certain person's vision) and reversion wars (by the repeated reversion of the page to a single wording, without a strong attempt to reach accord with the other editors.) - Chardish 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm certainly not interested in edit warring.  However when this policy document gets fat I like to clear out the unnecessary tripe. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The document does not "get fat." Other people modify the document in an attempt to improve it. It would be a gesture of good faith to incorporate their wishes for what the document should be when you make your changes, and preferably to not refer to their good-faith edits as "unnecessary tripe." - Chardish 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I support the retention of the page's current version, Tony's attitude regarding this matter troubles me greatly.  He has been dismissive and disrespectful of his fellow editors.  Regardless of the ends, his nonchalant "it got fat again" explanations are downright insulting.  —David Levy 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with David Levy. Calling other editors' works tripe is beyond uncivil. Atropos 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the first one doesn't count. In that case, it was me he was reverting, and you can hardly hold that against anyone. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got fat *again* 

message: Apparently we now have three people who did not join in the discussion about the expanded version of this page objecting to the expansion because it wasn't properly discussed. Does that strike anyone as circular reasoning? >Radiant< 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 is a concensus in itself though ;) --PopUpPirate 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words you admit there's consensus for the new expanded version. Thank you for making that clear. >Radiant< 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant the three objectors, I'm sure... ha ha, only serious. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, yes. That's why this page never goes anywhere. I love it, though. Every few days, it's just add text, revert text, add text, change text, revert text, . It's like a roller coaster, just without the annoying kids and vomit. Rockstar (T/C) 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: The suggested revised wording does nothing other than increase verbiage. 
Look at previous versions:
:If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.
:If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.
Short and sweet. Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules explains the basic philosophy behind Ignore All Rules. --The Cunctator 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand this line of thinking. "Keep the policy short, because we have this non-policy essay to explain it." If the only thing that's special about policy is that it enjoys wide consensus, and the essay enjoys wide consensus, then why isn't the policy a variation on the essay? The only explanation I can see for this thought process is that more policy is bad, which, ironically, is not the case because of IAR. - Chardish 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively few people have read the essay and it has its own problems. Your additions to this page are also severely flawed and derive from some misunderstandings. IAR is a minimal axiom or a common denominator. Once you start adding to that, you have fewer people in agreement with the principles added. Other policies work in the same way, but IAR is distinctly not the place to have a grand sculpting and compromise process to add more rules. —Centrx→talk • 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly said that my aim is not to "add more rules" to IAR, but to explain the existing rule. IAR is needlessly cryptic, which is why your interpretation of what it means differs from mine. There is no point to having a minimal axiom if there is no consensus about what it means. - Chardish 02:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a  tag would satisfy your wish for more exposition.  Ignore all rules means ignore all rules. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the original versions of this page appear to have more to do with style guidelines than policies, however. "rules" is terribly ambiguous. -- nae'blis 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess the people who have treated it as core policy have simply ignored all rules in doing so.  Works for me. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only is "rules" terribly ambiguous (as we've already established that you can't circumvent foundation issues no matter what), "ignore" is terribly ambiguous, too. If you're always supposed to "ignore all rules", then there might as well not be any other rules - after all, if the rules are there, you might be tempted to pay attention to them, which is against a literal interpretation of IAR. - Chardish 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a largely semantic issue.  This rule is well understood and is successfully applied on a daily, even hourly basis by editors across the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the rule is well understood at all. User:Kim Bruning made a very good point in a previous discussion that you don't really "get" IAR until you've been heavily editing Wikipedia for several months. The obtuse, near-paradoxical wording is an obstacle to understanding. - Chardish 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worse 

message: This talk page gets us nowhere. Malcolm's addition to WP:VPR got us nowhere. And I can guarantee you that a RfC or RfM would also go nowhere... as of right now, given the past few months, the only way this page will ever have any sort of decision made on it is at RfAr. Not that I'm saying I want to go through with one, but that obviously we're just wasting our time trying to get anything changed when various editors just revert any addition to the policy without even concerning themselves with the talk page. At this point in time, consensus through talk will never be reached, and if we want change, something a bit more serious has to take place. Rockstar (T/C) 16:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but it's a foundational principle. People don't seem to get somthing... this isn't a "rule", it's one of the Five Pillars of wikipedia... If we changed this, what remains would not be wikipedia. Now, people object to changing this policy because most of us view the supposed abuses as being totally disingenuous perpetrations of trolls, and changing the wording will not help solve the problem on iota, so the arguments being thrown around in AFD aren't necesarraly convincing. Now, everyone who has a firm grasp of this principle knows that this isn't a cart blance to do anything, so it's illegitimate to suggest that it be used in this manner, but adding so much as one more letter to this page would cause the very wikilawyering that this policy is designed to head off. Thanatosimii 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit available on the internet. Someone needs to change the subtitle to say From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has a foundataion principle/bigger than a rule/pillar of wikipedia called "Ignore all rules" that only consists of twelve words. Please keep hyperbolism out of this, it doesn't help any more than sarcasm. As much as I like the current wording, there's merit in the argument that its unclear to those who miss the point, and certainly more than the argumentum ad antiquitatem from Mr. Wales that is used in the policy box. Atropos 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Thanatosimii, to change it would mean Wikipedia would no longer exist in principle.  Any extension of this policy is at detriment to the entire spirit of a wiki. --PopUpPirate 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has a foundataion principle/bigger than a rule/pillar of wikipedia called "Ignore all rules" that only consists of twelve words is certainly far better than From Wikipedia, a social experiment where users fight over the exact wording of an inviolable set of rules and hope that in the process an encyclopedia gets written. That's exactly what's happening to it these days. You cannot have a perfect set of rules; it is impossible, it will never happen, and when problems arise if the response is to fix the rules, the encyclopedia suffers as we all wait for a perfection that cannot and will never come about. IAR exists so that we write an encyclopedia, not a law code, and adding anything to this rule, either adding words or adding a our own community midrash, takes this principle and makes it more like a rule. How, exactly, can writing a more complecated law code fix a problem caused by having complex law codes? Thanatosimii 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support an extension, but rather, an explanation. At present, the policy is far too arcane and doesn't actually describe what it's for. - Chardish 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't understand Ignore All Rules or it makes you unhappy, ignore it. --The Cunctator 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks. IAR changes. Get over it. It's not some set in stone rule. Read the talk page. Look at the history of the policy. Talk about the spirit of the Wiki, by saying that the rule can't change (and it is a rule as well as a foundational principle), you're going completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Rockstar (T/C) 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested change is bad.--The Cunctator 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying something without explaining it is worse. This isn't a vote. Rockstar (T/C)  16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  If people are reverting to the old version, it's probably because they like the old version.  I am an unashamed advocate of the old version.  The more you write, the more there is to wikilawyer over.  K.I.S.S. --TONY SIDAWAY 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The KISS principle, as used in the political realm of policy setting, was thrown out by academics years ago. It was cited as an ineffective way to manage groups. Ironic, right? Plus, there are only about three people who revert back to the old version. A vocal minority /= consensus. Rockstar (T/C) 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rockstar915.  The KISS principle doesn't work here, because we have ample evidence that the simplest possible phrasing of the rule leads to rampant misunderstanding.  On the other hand, we do link to an essay that explains IAR, so I don't necessarily see the need to refactor that explanatory essay onto the policy page.  There is some value in simplicity, and as long as we direct people to an explanation, we're not being overly obtuse. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When we finally were able to get that essay up, IAR improved -- in my opinion -- dramatically. The only issue is that when we point people to an essay we're bound to run into the "It's only an essay, it's not policy, and it only reflects the opinion of the author(s)" argument. And so, I am being bold and am changing the tag on the essay page. If we agree that the change is good, I think we can all be happy. Consensus is finding a common middle ground. Let's actually do it. Rockstar (T/C) 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, people have been fighting over this page since well before I started paying attention to this page about six months ago... in this time, myriads of people have protested changes, and only a handful of very vocal people have supported changing it. Thanatosimii 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only a handful of very vocal people have supported changing it." Of which one is Jimbo. And that was just over a week ago.  Rockstar (T/C) 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though if you read it, that comment is in opposition to the [] we had up there. If the comment supports anything specific, it would be the old-school version. Supporting some change, and supporting a specific change are, of course, different questions. That is of course part of the problem (if it is a problem). Even Tony isn't opposed to all change. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed I advocate a much slimmer version, namely a blank page.  If there's nothing there, there's nothing to wikilawyer over. --TONY SIDAWAY 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is one instance that I actually agree with you. I would be happy either with lots of explanation or no text at all. Rockstar (T/C) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a blank page is to communication, as shitting directly into someone's face is to cuisine.  It's like saying, "if you don't immediately get what I mean, then fuck you, I can't be bothered to communicate."  This is an encyclopedia, not a Rinzai Zen school. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GTBacchus wins the analogy contest.  The blank page is a cute idea, but I agree it's not very useful.  Friday (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: RfC sounds like a good idea to me.  The worst it could do is not help, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think a good question to ask RfC is: Would a slightly longer wording of IAR help explain it better? If so, what should the longer wording say? - Chardish 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus for change 

message: 
Very simple:
*Dutch interwiki: :nl:Wikipedia:Negeer alle regels
*Place the "reword" tag above the "policy" tag.
That is all :-) SalaSkan 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the edits, per the  request.  They seemed uncontroversial enough, and certainly not related to the dispute leading to protection.  If either edit was inappropriate (surely the Dutch interwiki is harmless), someone please let me know so I can self-revert. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit