Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 3

message: The current IAR page (26 Jan 06) is well done and helpful, but I would like to see the 'original' one sentence version ("if rules make you...") from 2002 given space on the page also. Maybe put it in a box with the attribution "Wikipedia Ignore All Rules page 2002-2004" since it looks like it was left more or less intact for that period of time. As a long-time user of Wikipedia who has finally gotten up the courage to start helping with content, I value the message of this page. I like the content of the current revision, but I think including the more whimsical tone of the traditional version would provide the best of both worlds.Ben Kidwell 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add old version in quotes for historical context? 

message: I can't believe what this has been twisted into -- a brief, direct, and cogent point has been turned into policy babble.  instruction creep anyone?  It's spreading like a plague.  I have half a mind to revert it back 9 months but I believe it's already been tried and reverted by those insistent on watering this down and thus depriving it of any meaning.  --Wgfinley 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. A WP:IAR page which has a long elaborate explanation complete with a manual is something of an oxymoron. The historical version is basically fine. There's no reason to make this longer than one short paragraph. Let's keep this page, if none other, simple. - Haukur 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR has been destroyed 

message: As this seems to be a procedure, perhaps we should write it down, including all intermediate points. What lessons can be gleaned from it? Perhaps all articles go through a similar cycle, albeit at a slower rate. Kim Bruning 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ignore all rules cycle 

message: The current version of WP:IAR reads as follows: "If the rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." Apparently, this was the historical state of the "policy". However, the problem with this version is that it is complete bollocks. If I were to repeatedly "ignore" this rule or this one or this one, I would quickly find myself banned from editing Wikipedia, and rightly so. There are rules - a lot of the debate about IAR is really over whether they should apply to everyone or just to the unwashed masses. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say there aren't any rules, it doesn't say ignore all the rules all the time, it makes reference to there being times to ignore them.  Ignore all rules itself is also a rule which itself should be ignored much of the time.  Get it?  --Wgfinley 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaarrgh! The recursion! The horrible recursion! --Nick Boalch ?!? 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules. It's pretty good. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. I changed the wording to "any of the rules" although it it still, of course, called "Ignore all rules"; I think this is pointlessly anarchic. Rules aren't unimportant, but petty adherence to every single one of them can be offputting and place dicks at an advantage over those who may have better intentions but are less legalistic in their ways. I think the current phrasing tries to be too concise and may fail to encapsulate this. ProhibitOnions 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current wording is absurd

message: <Grin> Texasdex put it rather nicely there ;-) Kim Bruning 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and possibly paradoxial 

message: No obscenities, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and offensive

message: I've added the text "This does not mean you should ignore other people." to the page.  This sparked a few more additions which were then reverted to an earlier, simpler version.  I agree that the page should be kept short, and I think the revert was generally a good thing.  I have, nonetheless, restored my addition, since it's something that has frequently come up during various recent disputes, and apparently does need to be stated explicitly.  Feel free to refactor mercilessly, but if you (want to) remove it entirely, please at least try to explain your rationale here.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this addition. Wikipedia is built on consensus, which is formed only through respectful discussion between contributors. Deco 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreement here as well.  I could show specific cases (a while back, so unfortunately it would take heinous amounts of digging) where WP:IAR has been invoked to basically say "you have made a clear argument backed by both the facts and by policy but guess what Ignore all rules so ha ha ha ha ha". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules ≠ people

message: I feel the reversion of my edits was somewhat unwarranted. Though I can appreciate the complicatedness creep, I feel this rule would encourage vandals. I know that we know what it means, but some people may see this as "If you don't know the rules, ignore them" and take that to mean "Do whatever the hell you want". I feel clarifying the "Ignore all Rules" point is worth the "risk" of it getting more complicated. Anyone care to dispute me here? Deskana (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hmph

message: I weighed up whether this edit was a WP:POINT violation in light of recent events, but came to the conclusion that it wasn't. I think this exception to IAR must be explicitly stated if it is true, because it will help admins who find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance to realise that, and not end up in a whole load more trouble possibly unnecessarily.
Of course, it may be untrue: in other words, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable for admins to unblock themselves. I guess if the edit is removed, then this is a community statement that IAR can be used to justify admins unblocking themselves. David | Talk 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there's any need for an explicit exception. There are reasonable cases in which an admin can unblock themselves, like if another admin's account is compromised and they start blocking everybody. Each violation of a rule needs to be judged by reasonable people involved in that specific circumstance. Deco 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there is an absolute need for an explicit exception, even if it is limited. The problem is implicit in your statement that there are other "reasonable cases": what is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another, and so just leaving it at saying "admins shouldn't normally unblock themselves, but can do so if it is reasonable" is a recipe for conflict and actually adding to disruption, as I have recently found out the hard way. David | Talk 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see IAR serves more as a reminder for Wikipedia and its editors not to get entangled in beaurcracy, rather than be given the license to "shoot first ask later". Too much of such is going on. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point - it's not necessarily the case that unblocking yourself is "shooting first". I unblocked myself, made constructive edits, didn't disrupt, nobody noticed until someone complained about a related block - and yet still consensus said I should be blocked to show that it shouldn't have happened. Without false modesty, if ever there was a case where IAR applied to admins unblocking themselves, this was it, and yet it didn't apply. Needs to be stated openly. David | Talk 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admins unblocking themselves

message: Did I miss where this page ceased to be a member of :Category:Wikipedia official policy?  Was this discussed and consented to? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually more like there was no such thing as "official policy" when this page was written, so it never got marked as such. Kim Bruning 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa! 

message: I was talking with Amgine, trying to explain our most important rule, and he went like "Oh no! Wikilawyering some more"... I looked, it said "if any of the rules make you depressed " instead of just "if the rules make you depressed."
That was kind of interesting, to get a wikiexpert from outside to comment like that. :-) I guess it shows how much the rules-lawyers have taken over here that we forget that we're writing an encyclopedia. (He was commenting on that ) 
Kim Bruning 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining IAR 

message: Those words kinda bother me.  Don't they seem to be the kind of emotions that inspire the very worst episodes of WikiDrama and otherwise disruptive behavior?  Being scared that you're being "wikistalked", for example, is not a good reason to ignore WP:NPA and launch a severe attack against someone, and yet this page would seem to encourage one in that state to "go on! ignore all rules! yay!".  While I think there are some reasons to ignore rules, I find it troubling that depression and fear should be the only reasons given! --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'm not too keen on it either, it sounds like the introductory sentence in one of those Scientology brochures. If you're depressed and frightened by Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be taking part in it. ProhibitOnions 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Depressed and frightened

message: I feel IAR is being abused and needs some limits. I have tried adding language to this effect but find myself quickly reverted. Here is what I tried to add:  IAR is not and excuse for being disruptive and/or inflammatory. Please discuss.--God of War 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an argument in an arbitration committee workshop on this. All action is by nature disruptive and/or inflammatory. Given that sufficient people are involved, there will always be someone who will be somewhat harmed by your actions, and who will take exception to what you're doing. Ignore all rules neither helps nor hurts with this. Kim Bruning 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limits on IAR

message: Amazing! More people should do that. Kim Bruning 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no history is necessary, and would pollute what should be the shortest size - it is meant to be simple to understand. What is there to not get about "if the rules get you down, forget em and just improve the encyclopedia" ? It is basically a "common sense" clause to this whole place. SECProto 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's gotten shorter! :-) 

message: This page is referred to all over the project, yet we keep removing content from it.  How can this be useful for people not familiar with the history of IAR? (And don't say go to the history, I'm speaking of this from a BITE perspective.) — xaosflux Talk 12:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no history is necessary, and would pollute what should be the shortest size - it is meant to be simple to understand. What is there to not get about "if the rules get you down, forget em and just improve the encyclopedia" ? It is basically a "common sense" clause to this whole place. SECProto 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ever shrinking size

message: (from an edit comment)
Next to the comment being a pleonasm at best, erm, well, Ignore All Rules is a key component to the formation of consensus on a wiki. If you want to get consensus on it, you'd get into an endless recursion. If you meant it doesn't have majority approval, erm, see above for approval rating over several years. :-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "doesn't have consensus approval" 

message: I was just wondering what the picture of this bird had to do with the policy essay page.  I understand it was on a similar page for a foreign language, but does that mean it belongs here? Timrem 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the exact same. It is clutter. If there is a decent reason, someone can add it back again. *removes* SECProto 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albatross 

message: Above, this page is considered a policy guideline essay thing.  How about calling it a concept?  IMO, that is better than just calling it a thing. Timrem 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the hat note of IAR, thinking about replacing one of the two "page" by "concept", and then decided that this isn't my bold day. -- Omniplex 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, and I felt bold enough to do it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this is 

message: I have removed this in line with similar removals from Wikipedia:Process is Important  and Wikipedia:Snowball clause  . —Ashley Y 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted. Wikipedia:Process is Important and Wikipedia:Snowball clause are essays, whereas IAR is one of our oldest and most fundamental concepts. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current incarnation of this page is not very old and there is a lot of difference between different versions of it. Haukur 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'current incarnation' of this page matches quite closely the original wording before people decided it would be a good idea to bury the essential message of IAR under piles of analogies, corollaries and instruction creep. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, why does it matter? IAR is still hugely significant to Wikipedia culture, whatever the precise wording of it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above where I argue for restoring the original wording and two fans of the current version tell me that the traditional version is crazy and that it means something completely different from the current one. Haukur 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do seem to have changed the tone. I guess after going through all the qualifications and caveats people were just happy to be back again. Funny how that works. 192.75.48.150 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "important to Wikipedia"