Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 10

message: What about this:
:The rules are important, but don't obsess over them. After all, sometimes they are wrong. If they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them and use your best judgment. 
That wording:
*contains an exhortation against wikilawyering, which Jimbo stresses
*retains the "prevent you from improving the encyclopeida" wording which many people seem to be fond of
*explains that the rules are not infallible, which Jimbo stresses and pretty much everyone agrees is the case
*is still very short
*explains itself, which the current policy doesn't do (and virtually every other policy on Wikipedia does)
*doesn't require an entire extra page to explain (though I think it still benefits from WP:WIARM as further supplementary material)
I think it's a pretty good compromise wording that seems to reflect common ideas. - Chardish 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yecch, yecch, yecch.  I don't like the policy saying that the rules are wrong.  I do like the "use your best judgment" part, though.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it says that the rules are sometimes wrong. Jimbo agrees. (See the bottom of the third paragraph there. - Chardish 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the rules are right or wrong is subjective and not always applicable.  They can be ignored regardless, and there is no need to add the right/wrong argument. --PopUpPirate 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "Ignoring the rules is often more important than following them" --PopUpPirate 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily think that is true. Chances are (even if you're ignoring them), if you're improving Wikipedia you're probably following the rules anyway. Ignoring the rules is different from not following them. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see where Pirate is going, but the version is a bit awkward, yes. I've tried [ this] for another kick at the can. After all, in the bit just Chardish quoted, Jimbo also says that "being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a neat version at present.  I'd like "Ignore the rules if you like.  It is a wiki, after all." --PopUpPirate 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That still loses the focus, though I have to admit I like the idea of having no text on the project page. ;) Speaking of which, I'm waiting for the hour when Tony comes and "trims the fat." Heh. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise wording 

message: Is it for or of? Are you considerate for something? I think you're considerate of something, but I want to double-check before making a change. God, and I majored in English in college, too. Maybe I should go back to school. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "of" would be correct, but I just tweaked the wording (hopefully in a satisfactory manner).  —David Levy 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks good. I tweaked it a tiny bit more. I like! <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it has the nice "c" alliteration ring to it, too! :) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I just mentioned that in my edit summary before reading the above comment.  :)  —David Levy 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it! I also just added a link to WP:SENSE in the common sense part. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration of grammar? 

message: None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines can ever account for all possibilities. If a scenario occurs where the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is acceptable to ignore them and use your best judgment. 
====What this says about the rules====
* Rules derive their power to compel from historical consensus. They are not set in stone, but are rather a reflection of the shared opinion of a great many editors.
* Rules are sometimes poor attempts to put complex thoughts into words. The wording of a rule is never important; rather, the spirit of a rule is what counts.
* Rules are never final, as they are derived from consensus, and consensus can change.
* Rules tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. Follow consensus, not policy.
* Rules should be subject to constant scrutiny. When consulting the rules, consider not only what the rule says, but whether it is a valid rule to begin with.
* Rules cannot be lawyered with. There are no "loopholes" or "technicalities", as the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. 
* Rules should still be followed most of the time in most situations.
====What this means for editors====
* Over time, familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them. Read the talk pages about the rules: they often shed light on ideas in the rules that are contentious.
* Feel free to break the rules if you need to.
* Anytime you break the rules, explain to your fellow editors why doing so improves the encyclopedia. 
* At the same time, listen to your fellow editors: if many people disagree with your actions, consider reverting them.
* You are still responsible for reasonably forseeable effects of your actions.
* Consider all issues on a case-by-case-basis.
* Participation in Wikipedia is not contingent upon knowledge of any rules. If someone unknowingly breaks a rule, politely point her to the appropriate rule pages, but still consider that her judgment may be correct.
----
===Discussion of the above===
:The improved & most recent version of this, "Extended version", is at: old revision of page. —WikiLen 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-revised wording 

message: :The improved & most recent version of this, "Extended version", is at: old revision of page. —WikiLen 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the above

message: Nice. I like it. --User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's easy for new editors to understand. :) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We lost "maintain" again.  :(  —David Levy 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it in.  I wonder if this version will stick...  —David Levy 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops; my mistake. I knew it felt like I was forgetting something. Anyway, I'm glad you all like it! - Chardish 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chardish' "Triple c" rewording 

message: There is no reason to over-specify or over-explain IAR. We already have a page for that. The 12 word version is best. We are explaining to death something that does not need explaining. 
*Common sense is common sense. There is no common sense. The 12 word version is common sense!
*"Content" is an ambiguous and vacant term. There is a lot more to Wikipedia than "content".
*Consensus, while of the utmost importance, must occasionally be challenged. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that groupthink and "wiki-panics" never occur, and no groups here, even small ones, ever make collective errors. In any case, IAR is one of the five pillars, and all of this other stuff is elucidated quite well on that page, which gives the proper context of IAR. No need to be redundant here. heqs ·:. 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at other policies on Wikipedia. Note how they all explain themselves quite well, even though the policy itself could be summed up in a paragraph. This aids understanding for new editors. Anyway, let's look at your points: 1) There is "common sense", despite what that essay you linked to says. If an particular course of action has more than a niche opposition, it's common sense. I don't think there should be some metric for determining how large of a consensus constitutes "common sense," because I think it's common sense what common sense is. Furthermore, the twelve-word version is not common sense - a large number of editors have expressed that it is unnecessarily arcane. (Never mind the fact that your two arguments there contradict each other.) 2) Content is hardly an ambiguous term - talk pages and process pages are not content; everything else is. 3) There are some circumstances where consensus should be ignored, yes, but that's why ArbCom exists. 4) This page should give the proper context of IAR; editors shouldn't have to do research to locate it. If there is fault of redundancy, it is in the other pages that talk about IAR. - Chardish 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How has the longstanding wording of this policy failed us in the past? Sancho 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Through hundreds, if not thousands of editors failing to understand what IAR means. - Chardish 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, what were some specific results? Were the problems resolved without rewording of this policy? I don't have the most experience, so I'm a little ignorant in this area, but I haven't seen an inappropriate application of IAR that wasn't quickly corrected by consensus. Sancho 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not actually true. IAR is commonly used as a way for experienced editors to win arguments against newer editors. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. From time to time, I check the "What links here" tab and correct some seriously egregious misapplications of IAR. The new wording stops that from happening. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If I may add to what Rockstar said: Confusion caused by a policy is itself a problem, even if there is no lasting damage in the article space. This confusion requires editors to spend their time explaining policy, tradition, and process, and reverting erroneous judgments, rather than focusing on building the encyclopedia. For that reason, confusing policy should be clarified whenever possible. - Chardish 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good grief 

message: From Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Perhaps the wording of this policy should refer to the five general principles? Sancho 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're ignoring them and following the spirit of IAR, who cares if they're firm? ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess no-one :-). It just seems that ignore all rules really means ignore all rules, but not these five principles... that's what I was trying to say. But yeah, the spirit of the rule would have us still follow the five principles anyway. Sancho 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore all rules doesn't necessarily mean they we can ignore all rules, but rather that we can ignore them if they're preventive us from improving Wikipedia. That said, the rules are necessary to keeping some sort of stability to the project. Because of this, then, the rules, by nature, cannot be firm as they are evolving with the project. The Five Pillars are reaffirming a section of IAR, not the concept as a whole. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia does not have firm rules ... 

message: Why are you guys having a conversation in edit summaries of dummy edits?  Why not use the talk page?  Is it just impossible to look at the page without hitting "edit"? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using the talk page.  Dummy edits are useful to convey information to people who saw earlier edit summaries but might not see the talk page.  —David Levy 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true; you are.  I'm sorry to imply that you aren't.  It's still frustrating to see conversations going on in the edit summary at the precise same time that we're lamenting the page's instability on the talk page.  Anybody with the page on their watchlist also has the talk page on their watchlist, unless there's some way to separate them that I don't know about. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to view only pages from specific namespaces on one's watchlist, but that isn't my primary concern.  My primary concern is that people will read a particular summary in the project page's revision history and not read the corresponding talk page comments (possibly leading them to edit the project page in a manner that they otherwise wouldn't).  —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dummy edits also make the page history less useful. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  They can provide context that otherwise would be buried in talk page archives.  Such context often is provided via the summaries that accompany reversions, and this is an alternative that accomplishes the same task without fueling edit wars.  —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but don't we regularly discourage it in article editing?  I hadn't thought of using them purely to place information in the history.  Interesting... Off topic, too, I suppose... -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, talk pages suck. If the article history had a facility for leaving longer comments, I'd use that entirely and never use the talk page. But that's a whole other rant. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  I find them pretty useful, as long as people know to use them. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dummy edits? 

message: Consensus so far is limited to 
* This policy is meant to apply in situations where rules are wrong. "where rules are simply wrong". —quoting Jimbo (WikiLen) //quote fragment taken out of context, see below heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to know... is it correct that there is a consensus that the 12 word version no longer meets the needs of the community and the need it does not meet involves civility? —WikiLen 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus version, as attested by numerous users in recent posts, is If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. One sentence, twelve words. The version on the page at the time of this post is a compromise version, since some editor(s) keep adding something on to IAR, talk, wait a little, then add it back again and again till it stays. The particular version, with consensus, and their opinions, and other paraphenalia of no particular import, is an inferior version, many would agree, but in the interests of stability, it stays, as long as there are no more spurious additions, particularly to the 'See Also's. Posted by/at Newbyguesses - Talk 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For those new, consensus holds also, since at least this diff, 11 June 2007, for the See also item: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, (which expands on, "What 'Ignore all rules' means"). — Newbyguesses - Talk 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I rearranged your words a little bit. I think that brevity is a good thing, but brevity should not come at the expense of requiring other pages to explain the policy. - Chardish 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And just now removed by this user:Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as I was typing my reply here.  The link's presence merely reflects the current version of the policy proper.  I personally prefer the twelve-word version, but if we're going to reference "consensus," it's important that we link to the page on which the concept is explained.  Otherwise, people will impose all sorts of incorrect interpretations.  I don't understand why you've left the rewrite intact while removing the supplemental link intended to mitigate its potential harm.  —David Levy 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really a big deal?  I mean, if somebody clicks through to the explanation page, "consensus" is linked there.  It's not as if the consensus page is a secret, and anybody reading this page isn't far from that one.  It's not as if people aren't more than happy to provide a link to those who don't find it on their own.  The page is fine, with or without the consensus link.  We've reached a point where stability is more important than the differences we're still debating. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established as consensus? 

message: Can we please remove the text in the policy box about how the wording is subject to significant disagreements? Welcome to Wikipedia -- policy pages have edit wars, and IAR is no different -- just look at BLP, WP:V, etc. Just because someone disagrees with wording does not mean that we need to make a note saying "people disagree with the wording." Wikis are organic, disagreements happen, and adding that kind wording just makes us all sound stupid and like we don't understand the meaning of a Wiki. Let's think about this -- hundreds of thousands of Wiki pages are subject to disagreement. There is no need to single out IAR. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've removed the text in question.  It's impossible to please everyone with a policy's exact wording, so it always can be assumed that some degree of disagreement exists.  In fact, the policy's current wording isn't my first choice, but compromise is part of building a wiki.  —David Levy 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Thanks, David -- I appreciate it. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy box 

message: If someone adds a reasoanble explanation to this page, revert it. >Radiant< 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to bold "revert it." ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Revert this page, over and over again, until it matches the exact wording you prefer. Nitpick obsessively over things like plural nouns and whether or not we should wiki-link the words. If consensus seems to be against you, wait a week before reverting, hoping that no one notices. - Chardish 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, you're thinking of How to edit an article.--Father Goose 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how you say that when it's not been reverted for well over 48 hours... --Deskana (banana) 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the events of the past two months, I'd say that's hardly an accomplishment. I personally liked the "3 c's" bulleted list, which stayed for a few weeks, until Tony Sidaway decided to revert it to his favorite version, and then the revert/edit/nitpick war started all over again. I would support a reversion to the 3 c's version, because the current process seems to involve various people obsessively removing parts of the policy they don't like until we arrive at the same "12 word version" (or something stylistically equivalent), which is close to worthless. - Chardish 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh, screw it. I'm reverting. No sense bickering over a short form when the bulleted list explains everything as clearly and non-controversially as possible. - Chardish 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chardish, do you honestly believe that your unilateral reversions to your favorite version are more defensible than Tony's?  —David Levy 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that we were all happy with the "working with others" version... what happened to that? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. - Chardish 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be the one who says it, but that monosyllabic response won't win you many supporters. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I really just don't feel like getting back into this. I feel like I've invested a ton of myself already into trying to come up with better versions and compromises, and they eventually just wind up getting swept away or reverted by people who stalk the page even more than I do. At this point I would be happy with Jimbo coming in and declaring how this page should be worded, then permanently protecting it. Process has utterly failed us. - Chardish 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with putting in a lot of work only to have it not gain favor, but I would still like to praise you for helping to get the highly-important mention of community in the policy (hopefully it will remain there).  The exact wording doesn't matter, just as long as the message is good.--Father Goose 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because people disagree that your preferred version is "better"?  Has it occurred to you that this might be a reasonable difference of opinion (and not a systemic failure or injustice)?  —David Levy 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Or simply the way a Wiki works? It is by nature a collaborative process, so there's no need to get upset or feel like you're the only one carrying the burden. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for last night's revert; I was angry at the failure of process that I see happening. What it feels like the "process" now involves is one person's unilateral reversion, then a long series of nitpicky edits, and then a semi-stable version that sticks around for a while, then repeat. The issue that I see with this is that this page is not something that should be mutable once there's a consensus on what the policy represents. What's going on now is an endless, incessant debate over wording, which will likely end in whittling the policy down to a koan again. David Levy, I feel like your comment was in good faith but please do not use scare quotes in future discussion. : ) - Chardish 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't regard those as scare quotes.  I wasn't being sarcastic, and you certainly seemed to be declaring that your preferred version is "better" (your word) and that our failure to embrace it means that "process has utterly failed us."  —David Levy 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully speaking, you are missing the point. Process fails us when debate over a single sentence lasts for months, with no end in sight. - Chardish 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but didn't your unilateral reversions fuel the very debate that you deride?  As far as I can tell, the only distinction is that your version is "better."  —David Levy 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point in continuing to criticize me for an action I apologized for. - Chardish 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't my intention.  I was addressing your criticism of me by explaining the reasoning behind my previous (pre-apology) comments.  —David Levy 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unignorable Rule 

message: Rockstar, I don't really take issue with the reversion, but I wonder what you mean about the edit comment that 'no one should notice' is someone ignores a rule....um....I'm not quite sure how this is logically possible.  If you know the rules, you're going to know if someone is ignoring one, no? CaveatLectorTalk 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Rockstar was referring to this suggested line: "tell your fellow editors why you believe the rule should not apply in this case".  That turns "ignore all rules" into "only break rules when you provide an explanation first", which is no good.  One must be free to break a rule that is simply wrong for the given situation, without having to apologize for it.  It also wrecks an important secondary meaning of IAR: "You don't have to know what the rules are at all, just edit in good faith." (Mind you, that secondary meaning should not be thought of as the entire meaning.)--Father Goose 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologizing is not the same thing as explaining. If your action was not wrong, you don't need to apologize for it, of course. But if it's disputed, you do need to justify it, and common courtesy would be to justify it beforehand if you know someone will dispute it. If your best argument for ignoring a rule is WP:IAR, then you are applying it incorrectly. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That line still requires one to explain rule ignorations (uh?) that aren't likely to be disputed.  In either case, it goes against BRD.  Act first, explain later.--Father Goose 05:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see... If something is a rule, those who created the rule are almost certain to dispute ignoring it. BRD is not binding, so we need not tailor policy to make it work. And it doesn't actually say "act first, explain later"; an initial explanation is required. It's discussion that can take place later. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who create a rule are not going to see most instances of it being ignored.  Those who do notice might or might not agree with the rule, or the choice to ignore it.  BRD does say act first, explain later: #1 - make the change... #3 - explain and discuss.  BRD is not 'binding', as you say, but what it expresses is pretty fundamental to editing Wikipedia.--Father Goose 06:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One generally uses an edit summary, which contains some explanation of what's going on.  If someone happens to notice and point out that a rule was broken, further discussion goes on, as Father Goose describes, referring to BRD.  I don't think most people who "create rules" (I might dispute that description of the activity) worry much about policing and enforcing them, because ideally, they don't think of them according to that kind of paradigm at all.  The more descriptively the "rules" are written, the clearer this is.  I'm a bit suspicious of the classification of pages as "binding" or not... that implies a whole structure that doesn't really exist.  One doesn't ask whether the wind and rain is "binding", but one gets canyons eventually; Wikipedia should be a natural process.  It's just people writing an encyclopedia, not some kind of formal system.  One could understand "Ignore all rules" as "there are no rules, just a lot of people working.  Work with them and you'll be fine." -GTBacchus(talk) 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No one should notice 

message: * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
* Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
* Wikipedia is free content 
* Wikipedia has a code of conduct:
Can any of these statements ever be ignored? Is it ever appropriate to write non-encyclopedic content? Or POV pushing pages? or publish copyrighted text? Or break the code of conduct? I would argue: "no, never."
The five pillars of wikipedia state those four things and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." That rule links to this page. Now, unless someone can really argue that any of those four principles is ignorable, why not just change the rule to: Wikipedia is based on five core principles. Besides these principles, if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it."
First, this gets rid of that awkward "working with others" way of referring to consensus. Consensus is covered in the code of conduct. Second, I would argue that free text and encyclopedic content are no less important than the code of conduct. They cannot be ignored, period – to do so would be to undermine what wikipedia is. However, we don't want clause upon clause upon clause added to this rule, hence the typical minimalist view that would prefer nothing more than "if a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it."
We need to consider which core principles are ignorable, and which are non-negotiable. I believe those four are the four core principles that really there is no excuse under heaven for ignoring- they're not even really rules; they are, if you'll forgive the waxing poetic, the very soul of wikipedia. Why not both protect them all, which is really what all the people who want to change the rule are after, and at the same time protect the simple phrasing, which is what all the people who want it to not change are after.
Thoughts? Thanatosimii 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anecdote, maybe? I recently came across an editor who considered challenging anything that he did in an article, or pointing out incivility, POV-ness, or discussion of said incivility on his talk page as incivility itself.  In this kind of, ignoring WP:CIVIL (in his eyes) by reporting him and using the reasoning at WP:SPADE (which is an IAR application to CIVIL itself) 'ignoring' CIVIL or WP:NPA would be crucial to the encyclopedia.  (btw, I'm editing anon to avoid being harassed by this editor, though if people end up insisting on it, i'll identify myself).  68.32.142.51 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good points from User:Thanatosimii; the main one can be summed up as Wikipedia has five core principles. Five Pillars is a statement of Wikipedia's core principles. Five Pillars is not, technically, a rule, and cannot be ignored. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikpedia, ignore them should not be interpreted to mean ignore Wikipedi'a core principles, which it does not say. The core principles are above rules, or beyond being stated as rules. Ignoring rules does not outflank or outrank Wikipedia's core principles. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really... It's a slightly different situation here. "Free content" as far as that page goes refers to the fact that our articles themselves are licensed under a free liscence. Images and quotations for fair use aren't so much ignoring those principles, according to well defined rules. Changing IAR to say "don't ignore these" wouldn't invalidate those rules. Thanatosimii 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's sort of the point. As I've been trying to point out off and on for a few months here, whenever people object to "if the rules prevent you from improving wikipedia, ignore them," whenever anyone wants to add even one more word to prevent this principle from being abused, invariably these new clauses and conditions are part of the 5 pillars. I'm not comfortable with the way the code of conduct is being singled out like it were somthing special, superior to the other core principles. Thanatosimii 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can ignoring these ever be justified? 

message: When the rules get in the way of improving and maintaining Wikipedia, we ignore them.
--Father Goose 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "get in the way of" as an improvement (especially for non-native English readers), and I don't care for the "we ignore them" wording or the return to "the rules."  —David Levy 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get in the way seemed suitable at the time; the rules (plural) is better; we ignore them is, um, forceful. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm going to regret suggesting this. 

message: I've tried.  I really have.  I want very much to settle on a reasonable compromise (and I find myself arguing in favor of changes that move the policy away from my preferred wording), but someone always comes along and reverts.
I'll address the edit summary by Newbyguesses:
:working with others (over time) is *implied* in the phrase "improving or maintaining wikipedia"; numerous users (a majority i would think) have objected to this unnecessary addition - see talkpage
1. I agree that that "working with others" is implied in the phrase "improving or maintaining wikipedia"; I've argued this on numerous occasions.  But some editors don't agree, and I'm willing to make a minor concession in the interest of compromise.  Is that really so unreasonable?
2. Again, the "over time" part is a straw man argument introduced to the discussion by Centrx.  Someone improving or maintaining Wikipedia is working with others right now.
3. Please don't allow this to break down into a "majority" vote.  —David Levy 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, User:David Levy for your considered rejoinder; now, as i understand it, (i am relying on recollections of previous recent posts) we have both restored the 12word version before, it is your prefererence (and mine). We both have restored other versions, in the interest of consensus. We both understand that consensus can change. We both now are happy with the version you just put up. And its not a vote. We both are happy to give consideration to contributions to the page made by whichever editors, and many have done so. Now did i miss anything, i am sure there is something else we both find agreeable - Five Pillars. posted Newbyguesses - Talk 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally satisfied with the current version, but I'm mindful of the fact that some editors feel strongly about the inclusion of wording advising against defying consensus to impose one's personal idea of "improving" Wikipedia.  Given the fact that lengthy explanations have been proposed and implemented/removed, the addition of a few extra words seems like an acceptable compromise.  —David Levy 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like 'other people' back one way or another... Haukur 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No end in sight? 

message: I've been wondering lately if we could drop the current phrasing in favor of two or three sentences that state the principle of IAR instead of when to apply it.  In its current form IAR has become something of a "litmus test" for whether a person understands how Wikipedia functions; this test is a common question on WP:RFAs.  A rule as important as IAR should not act as a shibboleth to separate those who "get it" from those who don't.
I understand the dangers of overexplaining it, but it's really much more of a principle than a rule, and we're phrasing it as an imperative, not as an explanation.  The continuous warring over it strongly suggests that it doesn't say what it needs to say.
I've seen the actual principle explained several times briefly and effectively; Lubaf's "it's about how we want to avoid being rulebound" is as good as any of them.  The longer explanation I added to WIARM also works: "Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."
Can we work on trying to explain that principle concisely, and with maximum clarity, instead of being wedded to this severely-lacking minimalist approach?--Father Goose 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I view the current version (with the link to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means) as an ideal setup.  —David Levy 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that most users at best only understand limited aspects of it, and I'm coming to believe that the limited way in which it is expressed is at least partly to blame.  IAR is a principle (one of the five pillars) more than a rule.  Why don't we express it as a principle instead of as a cryptic command?  It's too much like a koan.  I still want to keep it very very short, but I think the "commandment" approach has gotten entrenched in everyone's minds, to the detriment of the wiki.  We must stop presenting IAR like a rule: it's something far deeper.--Father Goose 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to the idea of entirely new wording, but I've yet to see such a proposal that I liked.  —David Levy 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of making it less of a cryptic commandment; like David, I don't think I've seen quite what that would look like. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe it's time to change it 

message: Before we go all out on changing the wording, we really should ask ourselves if it's worth it. Is the current wording broken? If it is, does WIARM help fix it? What I'm seeing above is a bunch of new phrasings that are really no different from the current wording. Instead of being nitpicky about the policy, we should be asking ourselves how much changing it would improve Wikipedia. Does it really matter that much that? I'm staying neutral right now, and just thought I should propose the question before the project page turns into the inevitable edit war again. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it has been fought over is because it's cryptic.  A cryptic rule is not desirable -- so yes, I think it needs to be changed.--Father Goose 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but remember that consensus says that people do like this rule and do find it desirable. In order to make a significant change to the policy, there needs to be a solid reason for change. This reason must be solid enough that long-time supporters will say "You're right!" If you want to change the policy's wording, you're fighting a hugely uphill battle, and there needs to be a better justification for change than "I don't like it." And don't take these comments the wrong way; I'm just trying to prepare for what will come. Was that cryptic enough for you? ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it that what people are trying to do here is to find the best (or least worse) way to phrase the policy, rather than change the policy itself?  I reckon most people here have a grasp of what the thrust of IAR is, and have no interest in changing that; the disagreement is over how it's actually written down. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so.  There is quite broad agreement here about what the policy is meant to say, but a lot less agreement over how to make its meaning more readily grasped than it currently is.--Father Goose 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that WP:WIARM helped clear that confusion. At least that was the compromise made a few months back: those who loved IAR as it was were able to keep the wording mostly unchanged while those who wished for a clearer, less cryptic page had their wishes fulfilled in the supplementary page. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my impression also. Some of the most cogent phrases from WP:WIARM have been reproduced just recently on thistalkpage, with no user offering any criticisms of them. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need to do this? 

message: I'm really on a new section rampage. If we really are going to treat WP:WIARM as a consensus-approved explanation/supplement to IAR, why don't we move it to a subpage of IAR? For example, WP:IAR/Explanation. That eliminates the need for a tag, reduces confusion about the purpose and acceptance of that page, and simply makes official what is currently unwritten. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, User:Rockstar. However, I am unfamiliar with any cases of such usage of subpages that might already occur with POLpages. I wonder, though -- the present situation seems reasonably satisfactory to me, despite the wishes of some to continually rewrite the WP:IAR page, it is currently reflecting a consensus view, conveying policy properly, and with a wording which some users regard as a little inferior, but this is being discussed here on thetalkpage.  Newbyguesses - Talk 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIARM proposal 

message: Who dislikes this suggested wording, and why?
*The purpose of the rules is to help us work together to build Wikipedia. If the rules interfere with that, ignore them.
:--Father Goose 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of "the rules" is to help build Wikipedia. Most of them are not related to "working together". —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see no benefit to this wording.  —David Levy 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with this text. It conveys policy correctly. To improve and maintain Wikipedia is our aim, when acting together, or when acting alone .Newbyguesses - Talk 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's good. Use quotation marks when referring to "rules", though, as they are not rules in the ordinary sense. The reason for continuing to use the term "rules" at all is that it is more simple and direct than saying "policies and guidelines". Also, the word "guidelines" fits better than "standards"; and though the "policies" might not ordinary fall under the term "guidelines", in the context of IAR it is the best word. Also, repeating "rules" in both sentences isn't good. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't had quotes around "the rules" in any version to date (it's not Ignore all "rules"), so I don't see why we should start.  I'm not sure what you're saying about "standards", "guidelines", etc.  I don't think having "Wikipedia's rules" and "the rules" in two sentences is glaringly redundant, and it helps to keep both sentences short and clear.--Father Goose 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well there should be quotes around it; the linking served as a kind of quotation anyway. Replace "standards" with "guidelines for the reasons above. And once the redundancy of repeating "the rules" and the extra "we use to help us" are omitted, and it is converted into one straightforward sentence, we have the same IAR we had before: If the rules interfere with building an encyclopedia, ignore them. —Centrx→talk • 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant advertising 

message: Can we just make a virtue out of a vice? I'll retry my "let's make it a tradition to change WP:IAR at least once a day" proposal. 
Or is everyone too dug in about their commas and dots-on-the i? :-)
--Kim Bruning 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think other policies get changed even more often... but you can't help but notice the changes to this one.--Father Goose 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there's the fact that IAR, by its very nature, is a magnet for rules lawyers. And we all know what kind of people rules lawyers are, don't we? That's right! The type of people who engage in rules lawyering! Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just that each time IAR is changed, it become a little bit more of a rule. It seems fine in its current version. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vice to virtue