Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Refactoring, no big deal anymore

In the section titled "I try to keep this stuff like this off the talk page"! Chardish breaks his word, and is continually readding a thread which is IRRELEVANT, in that it took place at another venue, my talk page, where Chardish came to "troll", and was asked not to. THIS THREAD IS NOT RELEVANT, so how dare Chardish maintain it in that section. The hide, the hypocricy. YOU damn well have refactored over half-a-dozen of my posts, you twerp, but cry like a stuck pig wnen I try to redress the balance The HIDE, the hypocricy is breath-taking. You take up too much of everyone's time with your Childish antics, CHardish, so, since I do not want to waste any one else;\'s time in checking YOUR SNEAKY HANDIWORK, I will just put up with your impertinence for now. For now, that is, do not do it again. Think outside the box, and come and co-operate with us all. You are on your own with your ideas on editing, and you are on your own in this disgraceful censorship of legitimate comments. Grow up! Newbyguesses - Talk 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you didn't feel this way. I also don't know why you think it's "refactoring" when I replace my own comments that someone else removed, esp. when their edit is marked as minor and no summary is left. Please stop insulting me. - Chardish (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quibbles, again. It was a minor edit. I "always" leave edit-summaries, that was a one-off, where i hit save by mistake.

You are not refactoring "your" section, you are re-adding a comment of MINE, from my talk page, which is not only IRRelevant, but causes escalation if drama, not to mention making a mockery of your header (Trying to keep this stuff off the discussion page? Joke?

I feel, that if you get your act together and co-operate there is a future for this page, which you have tried on-and-off to WP:OWN ever since you showed up. That is how I feel. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- I, at least, try to use proper edit summaries. For instance, this edit summary ([[WP:UNDO not a personal attack by any means,user:Chardish, do not refactor so carelessly, let it stand, do not edit war on this page as well) accompanied this post. User:Chardish ignored it, and removed this innocuous post again. That was "disruptive". Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Anyway:

• You made personal attacks against me
• I removed them from the talk page, suggesting instead on your talk that we discuss this on one of our own talk pages, since your disagreements with my behavior
• You responded with more personal attacks, both here and at your talk page
• Since you insisted on discussing it here, I figured I should ask you to stop your personal attacks here, and cited examples.
• You repeatedly removed the example where you called me a dick, and in some cases even decided to edit my comment with your own opinions, such as typing "IRRELEVANT" above it in large lettering.
• When I tried to restore the original comment I had made - even moving your comments down to the response section where they belong - you accused me of refactoring your comments.
• I'm totally done arguing with you over this. This behavior towards me is not improving the page or furthering the discussion. If you continue this personal campaign against me, I will take it to formal dispute resolution. - Chardish (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- Dot-Point 2. No. I did not comment (I did not mean to) on your behaviour. I commented on your continued "disruptive actions". As for the rest, you are very , very mistaken. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My quibble. Do you ever leave edit-summararies? About half the time? Certainly you do not note your SNEAKY refactoring, just once did you do that. Check my contribs, I edit in good faith. I insult you? Mildly. You insult me deeply, with your hypocritical antics, and damage this page. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes two users to launch an Rfc, you and whom? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment you have added is IRRELEVANt. It was made at another forum, and does not help this page. You are the one escalating the drama, and personally attacking me, attacking my right to be heard by OUR peers. Do you fail to see that? You shoud NOT have that comment in 'your" section, so remove it, fix your own mistakes, stop wasting our time to try to get your own way by constantly quibbling, bickering with David Levy as you have for ten months or more, and use your brain. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend both of you take a short break (say 24 hours) and then later have a nice cup of tea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring, right or wrong?

Can someone experienced, if not too much trouble, care to comment on whether this edit was justified? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a helpful edit. It should be screamingly obvious that Chardish believes that what he has to say is useful, and it's not been demonstrated that he's wrong. We've wasted so much time talking about people's motivations that we've hardly addressed Chardish's real concerns. If you think his editing is disruptive, and you've expressed that once, politely, then the next step is to see whether others agree, and if so, consider escalating the dispute resolution process. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) That's after following Kim's suggestion about time and tea, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, gtb, but that edit restored a legitimate comment, not a personal attack to the talk page. Why do you say it was not correct for me to do so, following Chardish's provocative deletion of a legitimate post? Newbyguesses - Talk 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about the first time you made the post, not the restoring of it. I don't think it was a helpful comment. Restoring it... meh. He thought he was removing a personal attack. Re-inserting it seems less helpful than asking him why he thought it was a personal attack, and clarifying that no offense or disrespect was intended. Maybe find another way of putting it.

Reinserting it because the "rule" doesn't say he was "justified" in removing it seems a bit lawyerish, to me. Others probably disagree, but you asked for opinions. Maybe your re-insertion was "justified", if you're thinking in terms of rules, but I suggest you don't think that way. That's sort of the point of this policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not thinking about rules. I simply wanted it on record that i am claiming that Chardish is acting disruptively, a legitimate claim, and containing no personal attack. Chardish's attempt to deflect fair criticism was underhanded, (and such under-handedness is continuing, not that you seem to care, placing all the onus on me, as the victim, to put up with this situation, despite it being detrimental to this page to do so). Newbyguesses - Talk —Preceding comment was added at 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not placing all the onus on you! You were the one asking for opinions here. I also don't see Chardish's edit as an attempt to deflect fair criticism, I see it as his honest attempt to remove a personal attack, of which he felt the victim. Why not see things from his perspective a little bit? We'll make much more progress that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and having it "on record that Chardish is acting disruptively" makes no sense at all. You're both doing that. See, that's not all the onus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, but no, and no. You seem to be saying that Chardish has the right to do anything he likes, because he "percieves" a personal attack, where there is none, but you offer me no redress for what I "percieve" as a personal attack. Secondly, I have not been disruptive. I have not edit-warred. Or made ridiculous edits to the project page. And I believe it is legitimate to try to further this page, by reining in, somehow, Chardish's wilful continued unhelpful actions. Now, if I am wrong, it seems you are about to tell me. I have cut Chardish a lot of slack, over ten months, and this is how they repay my civility, calling me disruptive. No, I say, no. Do not reply if I have roped you into a situation you would rather not tackle, in that case, sorry. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I offer you no way to redress perceived personal attacks? I think you should address them the same way anybody should, by talking with the person and working things out. You know - dispute resolution?

As for disruptive, I don't think that you have been intentionally disruptive, but your stooping to making personal comments about Chardish does, in fact, cross that line. The comment that Chardish removed was somewhat disruptive, and re-inserting it is not a particularly helpful response to its deletion.

I don't know why you think I'm saying that Chardish has the right to do anything he likes. I agree that his editing has been disruptive, and I wouldn't object if someone had blocked him rather than protecting the page. I disagree with your response to his disruption.

If you really wish to address the disruptiveness of Chardish's actions, then I recommend a user RfC as the best way to do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GTB, my first comment was pithy, but ill-considered, I have withdrawn it. The second comment I made was by no means personal, was entirely in order and needed to be said, especially given Chardish's continued disruption and provocation. GTB, you give me no credit at all for good faith, but continually assert Chardish's good faith, which I do not doubt! I wish to apologise to Chardish for any untoward remarks which did real damage, I will try not to do same again. A thin skin is a good camoflage for furthering one's aims, but it is an illegitimate tactic. And, GTB, assuming good faith is a starting-point for discussion, it is not a conclusion; discussion, focussed, and finalizing is required for each separate matter which impacts on this page. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Newbyguesses, you misunderstand me. You say I give you no credit for good faith, but I give you infinite credit in that direction. I never have, nor never will, call your good faith into question. I don't believe you to be capable of bad faith.

As you have noted, I do have an ethos with which I approach WP, and I've put a lot of thought into it, and it involves and extreme version of 0RR and an extreme version of AGF, and the best part is that it works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good one, GTB. You may have noticed I have practiced a ORR rule on thisPROJECTpage myself since before when ;), deff, with you on that. Um, I clain(M)n the write to be wrong, sometimes, ie. not perfect, not extreme, but sometimes the mains aint plugged in, so... (ther human condition, which is improved most definately by mega-doses of AGF, both on WP and in RL, is my opinion on the matter. Yeah!) Newbyguesses - Talk 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No further action required here, all posts can stand, as is, and all deleted posts of mine can stay that way. All done, apologies all round (at the User:talkpages), also apologies noted on this page from myself, and User:Chardish. Next time, better. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have User KimBruning's concerns been addressed?

Have User KimBruning's concerns been addressed? (Re EDIT WARRIOR). It appears the issue is being avoided. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to lay all the blame on David Levy? Has not another editor, Chardish been equally if not more so to blame for the edit-warring? What to do? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC

Are you refering to this: "What I'm worried about is the situation where people often misunderstand IAR and Consensus, and they make a great big mess of things"? I think it would be helpful to give an example. That might help to find the actual problem, because right now it's not clear to me what kind of situation I have to imagine. Maybe I'm a blockhead, so please help me understand ;-) FeelFreeToBe (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a question that needs an excellent answer, or none at all. I'll sleep on it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, KIM, the above question is so utterly vague, not tied to any particular example, and using generalizations such as "people", "a big mess", "misunderstand IAR and consensus"??? that to answer it would be impossible, and to try to do so would be a BIG waste of time on this page. Try to focus more, please on small things. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Kim, your concern which has not been addressed was (Edit Warrior) There's no way to sugar-coat this, and I do need to ask (sorry). Viewing edit history of the page, does anyone else read it as David Levy conducting a slow, long term edit war? Ever so many edits is a revert by David Levy. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

Do you not care about that still, and can you see the point I am making that focussing on David Levy, who can amply explain his actions, was the wrong way to go about this editing problem. I note also, that taking "Request sanity check" to WP:AN/I, has not got us anywhere, and there appear to be no new eyes on this page, which would have really helped. Repeat, Kim, Have those concerns of yours been addressed? And the page has prospects of further edit-warring, when, if, protection is lifted? Newbyguesses - Talk 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When the page protection is lifted, about 23:00 today UTC, I am hoping, at this stage just that we can make it through 6 March without an edet-war, I really am. I would consider that a huge victory for reason and civility, and I gonna do my best to achieve it. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish, are you prepared to compromise

1) I have made an offer of compromise re my posts which you disputed, you have not replied as yet. Are you prepared to compromise, Chardish?

2) I have requested, and am now requesting again that you remove the IRRelevant post from "your" (mis-named) section. That is, get this stuff off the talk page, since you are the one escalating the drama, by putting a comment from another page, out of context, on this discussion page. Chardish, are you prepared, as I am, to compromise? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for opening this can of worms. All I was saying that the tweleve words seem a little bland. I did not expect edit wars to happen, Chardish being childish. I'm sorry for giving reason for an editwar. microchip08 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Insulting Chardish isn't going to improve the situation. Criticize his behavior if you must, not his person.--Father Goose (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When a user creates problems for us all, and bangs out the same complaints over and over, and continually makes unhelpful edits to the project page, and will not be convinced to co-operate, by any approach tried so far, well maybe those actions are "childish", to use a mild term. But, GTB [FG,sorry], you seem to want to prove some philosophical point, so you mis-direct us all, by pointing out that u:Microchip08 possibly mis-spoke, an adjective "childish", where an adverbial phrase "is acting childishly" would have been a smoother style of speech. Dont throw the baby out with the bath-water, if you get my drift. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

@Father Goose: apologies, it wasn't meant to be rude. I was just commenting how this page wouldn't have been hijacked if my legitimate request for comment on a new format for IAR had not taken place. However, I have added the Calm Talk template to the top of this page, in light of your comment. microchip08 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing if call a person childish or his actions childish. Either way it's an insult, and will inevitably anger that person. Then you've got an angry person on your hands, which never improves the situation.

If you want a chance to dissuade a person from behaving a certain way, don't make them angry.--Father Goose (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant... but it's not relevant. Sorry for any offence caused. Nice link! microchip08 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside to u:Father Goose, since we are friends, please note that i have apologised to U:Chardish, and I hope that alleviates your concerns at this time.

Let all posts stand. Apologies, Chardish. All done for me. Newbyguesses - Talk —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's cobble together consensus view of IAR!

Sorry, I didn't read all of your discussion above, but as I see it, the most promising approach towards a real improvement of the policy page hasn't been pursued further (see section Reformat - Initial discussion). Let me cite Father Goose: "Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would. [...] Now that I do understand it, reasonably well, I am desirous of editing the IAR page to share what I understand about the rule with others. Naturally, it doesn't have to be my understanding, exclusively; it should be a consensus view of IAR. Based on these months of discussion here, I do believe such a consensus view does pretty much exist. It is sad that we are so unable to cobble it together." I share Father Goose's desire and I don't believe the initial discussion was a dead end (although not even FG replied in the end, which is sad - has your concern be sufficiently addressed?). That's why I'd like to put new life to this idea by suggesting that everybody makes an attempt to phrase his personal version of this consensus view of the explanation of why we have such a rule in as few words as possible, hoping that we can finally "cobble it together". I would like to request those who think this is a foolish suggestion or a dead end, to express their reasoning for that - also in as few words as possible ;-) FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• To get it started, I will just repeat my previous version (even if I know it's not perfect): IAR ensures that you may take any action that serves the purpose of improving or maintaining WP, without caring about any rule, and even if it's against a rule. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are almost as many ways to express IAR as there are users.

[W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. [1]

One more to add to /Versions, or /Workshop. (See section Ignoring all rules, above.) This is my favourite version of the moment. PS This could be done at the/Wokshop, or/Versions pages, but here is fine. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that. But I like it. I think the "multiple rules" issue could be quickly resolved by simply omitting the first sentence (isn't really related to the rest of the explanation). Maybe a nice variation could be something like: "Since WP editors are generally presumed to be intelligent, they don't need ...". Hm, something to think about FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been working on this problem quite actively, by working on my own "dream version" of what I would like on the IAR page. I've made good progress with it. I can only hope that others will feel that it correctly captures the meaning of Christmas IAR, and that once I post it, people will choose to tweak it as need be, instead of reverting it.

It is a top-to-bottom explanation of IAR. Not twelve overworked words.--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that GTBacchus, and also FeelFreeToBe are working on similar essays. Hooray, progress - the race is on! Newbyguesses - Talk 13:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we have a version that keeps getting preference over alterations month after month, looks like a consensus to me. I could not imagine what idea would be competing with it as consensus as the ideas here rarely last more than a few days before changing into something else. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No bicycles at the IAR page

I think it is very clear that the bicycle idea, that is, rotating pages at IAR, is just not on for many reasons, which users have explained above here.

user:69-49-44-11 has rejected it (would be fun, but no)

david Levy has rejected it strongly

user:Until(1 == 2) also rejected it strongly

Newbyguesses rejects the idea

Father Goose doesn't like the idea

KimBruning has backed off the idea, I believe

GTBacchus doesn't think it is a good idea, in practice, though maybe in principle

Now, who is going to jump in and argue the case FOR? Otherwise, we are left with the 12word version, under page-protection, and various users are writing essays. Comments? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My first suggestion, if some editors do wish to follow up the "bicycle" idea, or any other contentious edit, they should do so freely at Ignore all rules/Workshop, it is not being used for much at the moment, and has it's own discussion page. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in editing "dead" pages, but thank you for the offer. :-)

I find myself in a position where we need to deal with "12 angry men" (actually, just 5). That doesn't seem to be an unattainable goal. I just got some provisional support from GTBacchus. I hope to obtain provisional or full support from others as well.

Wikipedia is in a constant flux. Experienced people leave, and new inexperienced people join.

We need to get the inexperienced people up to speed as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, more and more new people seem to just not be getting there. I think that this is part of the reason why wikipedia growth is slowing, despite our increasing popularity.

There needs to be some conspicuous way to find people who lack certain knowledge, and provide it. Directly offering courses doesn't help. Offering games at wikimania attracts the old "cabal" but... no new users.

We need to somehow find people who lack some amount of wiki-experience. One trick seems to be to edit IAR using BRD (the intent of BRD is to find people who are interested in some topic).

I guess that once again, the main interested people we're attracting are not those we want to meet. Or hmm, perhaps they are? The fact that some of them are (for instance) assuming bad faith upfront suggests to me that perhaps we might actually have found the kinds of people we really need to talk with.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(PS. Note that in response to criticism here, I actually went and tried a different and more direct approach instead: Wikipedia:Lectures. There are *NO* participants under "Interested in attending" :-(. So been there, done that, tried it, no response whatsoever.)

Huh, I do not agree that /workshop is a "dead" page at all, it can be used for any purpose, but best it might even house preliminary versions that are destined for the IAR page itself. Now my further suggestion at this time is for a name-change from IAR to xxxxx, - not likely, but. Note, I signed up for Lectures, thanks heaps, Kim! Lastly, when the protection is lifted, in about 20 hours, we all want smooth sailing, dont we. Lets. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the "bicycle" idea has been rejected by now. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most people have no clue what it is to start with. :-P

Also, please read my comments very very carefully. As we are trying to find people who are not familiar with wikipedia best practices (and are not certain if we are being successful or not), please check your assumptions. Are you certain you are that you are as familiar with all applicable wikipedia best practices as you think you are?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside-the-box thinking

So I took Kim's advice and took 24 hours off the talk page to regain a clear head. I'd like to think that I already had a clear head, but multiple people told me I was being disruptive so I thought I'd play it safe. I'm not really interested in revisiting any of the borderline-uncivil drama earlier, but I did have an outside-the-box idea for the page:

Where is it written that policy and non-policy content can't share a page?

We have this whole notion of policy and guidelines and essays being segregated onto separate pages: is it possible for the 12-word version to remain at the top, as policy, with something like WIARM or /Versions staying below that policy, under a subheadline, as "Commonly held interpretations of this policy?" We can tack on a disclaimer that it's not policy, but is generally accepted. It may not be ideal, but it feels better than what we have. - Chardish (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This probably belongs as a FOR comment in the "bicycle" section above, but good idea anyway to start a new section. I am not in favour of this idea presently, but if others are, and these mysterious and long-awaited essays do not materialize soon, I may be persuaded, or wont oppose the idea. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a new section. Tell the people writing the essays that you're going start marking them 3% off. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. With regards to why shouldn't policy and non-policy content share a page, the obvious argument against it is that it makes it difficult to distinguish between the two, especially after a few 'generations' of Wikipedians go by (whatever the length of an average involvement with the Wikipedia is), and people start to make references to what they remember in 'Ignore all rules' as being towards policy, and then someone decides to re-edit the page, and so on. My gut tells me that this might be a serious problem. I was looking through the xml'ed export of IAR the other night (7 Mb, or 3.6 Mb without the proposal that the policy be changed to "(UTC)09:25, 26 March 2007)" at about the halfway mark), and there have been four or five canonical versions of the policy (i.e. frequently reverted to by various people, over the course of time, and being largely identifiable despite formating and minor edits). More interestingly, there have been more at least three separate instances in which persons or factions did not know or were unwilling to believe that 'Ignore all rules' was really, officially, a policy, and attempted to remove the 'policy' tag; a brief one of which occurred after Jimbo Wales made his definitive edit to the page.

On the other hand, the page clearly needs to do a better job of articulating a policy - even if it's not the policy that I think it is or wish it would be. There's a situation in which one has a twelve-word policy, with no well defined meaning, that lends itself more towards citation as "WP:IAR!! WP:IAR!! No, it's a rule because it's one of the five pillars and it overrules WP:AGF under subsection two of WP:HARASS when the wrong person is right!" than towards the comfort of its historically original audience, those who do not know, are not sure, or are 'nervous and upset' about all rules in general. There's a clear semantic difference between the current version and the original with respect to that, and I'm not sure that there's any historically over-arching consensus as to what the policy means - which really, really should at some point have preceded a decision as to what the policy is. I wish I could say "except that it begins ' Ignore all rules:...'," but in fact there have been two efforts to move the policy page and remove those words from the language. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to both Chardish and NU:69+, i think you both have it wrong. If the text of WP:WIARM is imported to the IAR page, as a supplement, it becomes policy, the explanation of policy. Now, I suggest that leaving WP:WIARM as supplemental to IAR, as a link, achieves the effect you seem to be wanting. People follow the link, and find out more, if and when they want to. I am finding the idea that policy/guideline can exist at the same time on the same page, rather unnerving, verging on catastrophic, if in fact a mis-interprepation of a mere rule can be considered catastrophic, which I guess it sometimes would be, as in, following this line of endeavour does NOT seem fruitful, to me.

No sorry, I mis-read. NU69's ideas are considered though hard to penetrate for me, so i guess I am only saying to u:Chardish that I finding this suggestion ODD. Sorry. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer as to why they should not share the same page is that policy reflects wide consensus, and essays do not. So putting them on the same page would create a double standard for the content. I am not saying this can never happen, but it should not happen here. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not think Newbyguesses and 1==2 understand my idea. My idea is to fashion the page such that parts of the page are policy and parts are not. This would not promote WP:WIARM to the level of policy, nor would it demote WP:IAR to a guideline or essay - it would merely allow the two to share a page. This is the "outside-the-box thinking": currently it is presumed that policy and non-policy must be on separate pages. - Chardish (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I think it will blur the distinction even further than the link that exists now. When I said double standard, I meant two standards on the same page applying to different content, it will just confuse things. Those who want to know more will follow links, that is after all how they got to IAR to begin with, by following links. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

K.I.S.S.

This is the first rule, the "first rule to consider." Indeed, all other rules proceed from this rule: they are the accumulated wisdom (usually) of the community as to how to implement Rule 1. IAR is the same as Public policy, a basic principle of common law: even if law and precedent indicate a particular result, if protecting the public or promoting public welfare conflict with that, a judge may decide in the interest of the latter. Where it gets dicey is if the opinion of the judge is controversial, and, obviously, such a decision is subject to review.

I oppose any change to the policy page, beyond possible further See Also below. It's important that Rule 1 be stated very simply. Trying to weaken it (explain it, on this page) is the wrong direction to go. What happens with organizations is that gradually precedent and explicit rules accumulate, and Rule 1 can get lost. We should never lose sight of it.

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2 I was asked, "What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?" I answered, "We'll start with WP:IAR." I took quite a bit of flack for that answer, but I did go on to explain it, and, as a relatively inexperienced nominee (well short of the number of edits normally considered minimal to be promoted to administrator), I think my answer was absolutely appropriate. I found it odd, and a tad worrisome, that a whole series of administrators objected to my answering "what's most crucial?" with "the first rule to consider." And, with a little more experience, I still can't think of a rule more important than this one. We are normally extremely tolerant of those who violate policy and guidelines if it is reasonable to think that they were following IAR, i.e., that they had the welfare of the project in mind, but were perhaps mistaken about an application. Some policies and guidelines, beyond Rule 1, are important enough that violation must bring consequences, but, if I actually accept Rule 1, I might expect that I could be blocked if others think this necessary for the welfare of the project.

The problem comes when users imagine IAR means that they can ignore rules without an understanding of what is good for the project. The present page doesn't say, "if you think that a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia," it makes the direct statement. I'm pretty sure that most users do understand it correctly, and that the net effect of this, even accounting for the possible misunderstandings, is quite positive.

Indeed, we need to keep Rule 1 foremost, and WP:AGF actually requires us to assume that users do have the welfare of the project in mind, even if they may be mistaken about how to promote it, i.e., we should start with an assumption that if they violate a policy or guideline, they do so pursuing their understanding of IAR. Then, in response, we also are enabled by Rule 1 to use our own best judgment; however, and this is what is really important, the policies and guidelines that have accumulated represent the wisdom of those who have come before, who have long considered all these issues. At least usually they do. So if we truly value the welfare of the project, and we understand that our own opinions are not Kim Bruning God, then we will carefully consider the policies and guidelines and not lightly violate them.--Abd (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite by Until(1 == 2)

While I think the current version is fine, I think this would cover part of the spirit that is missed in the current version, the part where new users can proceed before knowing the rules.

• "If any of the rules, or ignorance about the rules, prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."

I welcome improvements to the rather clunky wording I have used if they keep the same spirit. Comments, suggestions, improvements welcome. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd say "stop wasting our time and actually alter the page and see if it sticks already! This is a wiki: {{sofixit}}, and remember to have fun! :-)" like I've usually done (and still do) for the past 5 years.

...but... I think our actual disagreement is about totally different views on WP:SILENCE, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR. Somehow, somewhere, some people seem to have picked up a different interpretation, which is admittedly alien to me.. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

U;KimBruning, i am finding this post of your among the most confusing I have read. A) "actually alter the page" - um, have you forgotten , the page is still protected? B) " totally different views on WP:SILENCE, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR. Somehow, somewhere" - how on earth do you think that dragging in references to a pile of essays, which you may be familiar with, but which are obscure, i am sure to many Wikipedians - how do you think that this interpolation of unfocussed, even irrelevant matter can help us here? Please try to find a topic, and stick to it, I am in perpetual confusion no doubt, but humour me not by increasing the load of that confusion with your own "reminisces" of the good old days, when a wiki was a wiki, and editors were bold, or whatever nostalgia it is that drives these posts of yours, forgive me. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A) So he should request unprotection ASAP.

B) respectively essay (proposed supplement to Consensus), supplemental essay (to Consensus), fundamental policy (supplemented by the first two), guideline (linked to by all of the above), and policy (also relevant to all of the above, linked to from several of the above, and generally considered related to WP:BOLD).

None of these are obscure either. WP:IAR is this page! WP:BRD was explicitly linked several times in above discussions by several people. WP:CONSENSUS gets constant lip-service here, at the least. Several people seem to be railing against use of WP:BOLD by Chardish. Finally WP:SILENCE is the only one that is not generally known (but as it explains one of the basic principles behind Consensus and BRD, it does belong).

These particular pages are all strongly inter-related. If you don't understand them, I really recommend reading them, as together they explain how to edit a wiki. (A short summary can also be found at editing policy, but that skips many of the details)

Some wikipedians know all 5 pages by heart. Most certainly can be expected to know at least Consensus, BOLD and IAR, because they are mentioned on the 5 pillars page. Many new wikipedians are introduced to the 5 pillars when they are welcomed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodo, KB. Now, I certainly do not know those 5 pages by heart, though I have some familiarity (!) But, are you missing one of the main points of "Ignore all rules" ie. "You do not need to know any rules in order to contribute", or is it me that is missing the point here? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an important point. When you do use IAR that way, that's fine. Then when someone tells you about the actual best practic for a particular task, you should listen carefully. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

further discussion

In response to Kim Bruning's comment of 18:14, 5 March 2008:

Given the contents of this talk page, it would not be responsible of me to make such a change as I have no reason to believe it reflects the communities wishes. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it does NOT reflect community consensus, then naturally you shouldn't waste our time by suggesting it. :-) But if you think there might be support, there's only one way to be sure, IMO, and it's wiser to find out sooner rather than later. (else you waste even more time). --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that it might be best to look for silence as supportive of consensus only in situations where there is an actual silence. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

69, regarding your suggestion of "uncertainty" being used instead of "ignorance". I am attempting to catch the part of the spirit that allows new users to go forth without even knowing about the rules. Uncertainty to me indicates an awareness of the rules but confusion regarding them, that is not what I mean. I do wish for a better word than "ignorance" as it carries a far greater negative connotation than I mean. I just can't think of an alternative wording that conveys the correct meaning with good flow of wording. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Okay. The sense that I was trying to get towards with 'uncertainty' was the case where people know there are rules and disputes, and whatnot, but don't really know what the rules are, and are hesitant to perform edits that they think [in good faith, or else IAR is red herring] would improve the Wikipedia because they don't want to be lambasted and humiliated as a consequence; so basically a similar thing. You're thinking that 'uncertainty' would lend itself to disingenuous use of [[WP:IAR|'Ignore all rules']? I'll try to think of another word to suggest. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Kim and Chardish, would you be willing to bold ' neutral ' and ' oppose '? Until(1 == 2), do you like '...or uncertainty about the rules...' any better? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno man...do we really want this to look like a vote? I could go either way, but there are implications when everyone's bolding. - Chardish (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just answer how you like, we are checking on consensus not holding an election. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Errr, I'm not "voting neutral" on the current version, I do not support voting on pages, and... well, to make a long story short: No. Sorry ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Would that make it look like a vote? I withdraw the suggestion, then. I thought it would help it in sort of an 'at a glance' way. What I believe we are doing is summarizing our positions succinctly, so that all the currently involved parties understand where each other are coming from. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a comma after "about the rules," at the very least. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support the existing version. KISS and stablility are both extremely important for IAR. If it's replaced with something else, it's very likely I won't bother to read it, particularly if it's longer or more complicated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

David Levy's reply to Zenwhat

As Zenwhat has posted similar criticism of my actions in multiple sections, I'm responding here.
Zenwhat has portrayed me as a renegade page-owner who's deemed a particular version sacrosanct and indiscriminately reverts to it in a unilateral fashion. This is entirely false.
1. Chardish's edits were deliberate defiances of consensus, introduced to make a point and have "fun." In stating that these revisions (which varied greatly, thereby creating the technicality that Chardish wasn't reverting) defied consensus, I mean that they either incorporated changes that have been discussed and rejected or they were patently absurd. Chardish performed these edits with full knowledge that they would be reverted (and that this probably would lead to protection, for which Chardish has expressed a preference), and his/her disingenuous claims that they were legitimate attempts to improve the page are downright insulting.
2. Bkonrad, CapitalQ, Locke Cole and Onorem reverted to the same page version that I reverted to. I wasn't acting unilaterally, and the fact that I performed the most reversions merely reflects the amount of time that I spend at a computer.
3. I don't believe that any version of the policy is set in stone, nor do I believe that my opinions outweigh anyone else's. In fact, I previously argued in favor of (and even reverted to) a change that went against my personal preference. I did so in an attempt to build consensus via compromise. —David Levy 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to give a little context here, it can be found in the archives that User:Zenwhat previously created a huge song-and-dance, accusing David Levy, Chardish, Lubaf, and myself of belonging to a CABAL in a section header, which was provocative, unhelpful, and which was utterly refuted. Indeed, ZW's input was foolish, in that Chardish, and Lubaf were, as i remember it opposed at most times to the consensus which DL discerned. I am not going hunting in the archives just now, i might provide a link later, which I am sure would support my characterization - go look yourselves.

These attacks by zenwhat are quite ludicrous, (do we wish to discuss blocking policy?), and put the page off-track, leading to the latest edit war, with the edit (Zenwhat) of 29 February 2008. I rather wish that Zenwhat would just drop it, being way off-beam, and David Levy can lay back a bit, which is deserved, from these accusations, unless there be substance, which Zenwhat's accusations do not have.

Drop it, Zen-, and contribute constructively, concerning the 4 proposals now in play, or make a sensible, focussed one of your own or just say anything sensible, as you do, on occasion, as long as it is on-topic, and not some crack-brained conspiracy theory. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Newbyguesses: My "song-and-dance" listed the total number of edits, by various users, over the past 500 edits, up until that point. It'd be great if a bot could do this same thing, but also correlate the number of talkpage comments, etc.. It isn't perfect, since the context of reverts and quality of talkpage comments are also important, but at the very least, we can't really deny that David's been owning this page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not attempting to own the page. That implies that I'm unilaterally forcing a version upon the community, which simply isn't true. —David Levy 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. You can't "defy consensus." That just doesn't make any sense. There is no such thing as a "consensus version" (a term you and many others have used before), because consensus can always change, and consensus is not some shadowy, cloak-and-dagger authoritarian regime which we must all appeal to, in order to make any sensible changes. See WP:BOLD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BUREAUCRACY, and WP:DEMOCRACY. Furthermore, this isn't just about you and Chardish.

2. If I edit-war and revert 50 times and, in the process of doing that, a few other people revert to my same version, that doesn't mean I'm not edit-warring. What other people do is totally irrelevant to the merit of my particular behavior. Similarly, if there is a riot and I set a car on fire, I can't say, "But there was a riot. Lots of other people..." it's irrelevant. You've edited WP:IAR far more than anyone else here and worse, you don't even have the same degree of comments on the talkpage here to really defend it. What comments you have made, as I've said, have just been variations of, "I don't like it," and "No consensus."

3. The very idea of regularly using the term "consensus version" and referring to changes as "defying consensus" or reverting them with the summary "without consensus" does essentially imply you're hostile to any changes to this page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can "defy consensus" when you act against what consensus has established. David is not edit warring as he has support of other editors (there's that "consensus" again). As an aside, I have no problem with constructive suggestions or improvements (again, what constitutes "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder, but that's true of any edit), but as it stands, I don't see where we could improve this policy (but I'm open to being surprised). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, David was only undoing edits that were contrary to the consensus on the talk page, I did the same and so did a score of other editors. That is not edit warring, that is the community(including David) showing their preference. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I explicitly noted that I was referring to the deliberate introduction of changes known to lack consensus. Whether the actual page (in its current form) reflects consensus is a separate matter. As I noted elsewhere on this talk page, there is clear consensus that the page's current version carries a higher level of acceptance by the community than any other version that has been proposed. Yes, this is subject to change.

2. You can refer to my actions with whatever term you please, but that doesn't explain why reverting edits performed specifically to cause disruption lacks "merit." Simply counting the number of reversions (and ignoring their context) is not a reasonable gauge. I also noticed that you haven't accused Chardish of edit-warring. Why is that?

I'm astonished by your assertion that I haven't posted enough comments to this talk page. (I've actually been told that I post here too much.) Your claim that all of my comments have been variations of "I don't like it" and "no consensus" is false.

3. No, I'm not "hostile to any changes to this page," but I have little tolerance for bad-faith changes.

Earlier today, someone added the word "just" to the policy. While I disliked this edit, I waited for someone else to revert it. I see no valid reason to extend such patience to edits made for reasons other than to improve the page. —David Levy 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'd rather not discuss any of this right now. We're making too much good progress above for this page to be once again mired in accusations of bad faith and disruption. Can we at least wait to see if the problem re-emerges after protection goes away before we go digging up all this bad blood again? - Chardish (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, isn't this all history anyways? Lets keep the productive discussion going. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I hope that you have noticed, u:Zenwhat, that David Levy, Chardish and myself are again(?) in agreement here. Maybe there is a cabal after all? Oh, and (count'm) a number of other editors, a number, yes, also in support of David's sensible, (and zealous), approach to this page.
  You, too, can contribute constructively, and effectively, though not by Banging Your Head Againt A Wall.
  I dont want to define "consensus", I just try to discern it as best I can. I see you going against a lot of sensible editor's opinions. Let's foget this for now, think straight please, and we'll get some work done, thanks. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence that David Levy has ever acted in bad faith in reverting or editing this page. Chardish has asked us to let the matter go. David Levy having expressed his feeling that this is a mischaracterization, and general support having been voiced, I feel that we can probably move on, unless ☯  Zenwhat feels that he or she has serious concerns that must be addressed. I feel that it would be best for the discussion of WP:IAR that those concerns be discussed in another forum unless they are inseparable from the consideration of WP:IAR itself. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be a cabal. Like the words Liberal and Socialist, that word, "cabal," though, has been thoroughly soiled, so let's use a more proper term: "Localized social cluster."
There is a localized social cluster of users that want to prevent any clarification of IAR (including very minor, silly changes, like adding images, the Zen koan, or minor text formatting) but who simultaneously want to re-write IAR themselves, to diminish its authority as policy.
i.e., they basically seem to be suggesting that we ought to rename IAR, "There just aren't really any completely firm rules sort of but their (SIC) kind of is, somewhat"
I won't name names, but you see a handful of users, all supporting mostly the same revision and the same idea, who have dominated the article and the talkpage. Others (like me) who disagree with them aren't willing to edit war, of course, because we're the marginalized minority view that will be blocked for edit-warring if we try to push things. The majority's long-term edit war, though, has gone unpunished.
And again, this isn't just something I'm pulling out of thin air, but could be objectively, logically demonstrated by edit counts of editors of particular views.
On consensus: Consensus never "establishes" anything. They just make impermanent agreements on what should go up, in order to keep the peace.
I liked Jimbo's remark here.

Versions which suggest that the meaning is simply that the rules don't cover every possible situation don't seem to me to go far enough, since we also want to cover the situation where the rules are simply wrong.

"The anti-IAR cabal" or perhaps more accurately, "The bureaucracy cabal," is a group of users which disagree with that statement, that the Wikipedia anarcho-democratic bureaucracy can never be "wrong," that rules and page revisions are "established by consensus," not just social conventions that anyone can ignore at any time, if they're stupid, thus working towards a new consensus.
Now, someone may rebut that last sentence with, "What's your definition of stupid?"
My response is (and has been): "Questions like that." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, you can espouse your theories about cabals elsewhere, this is not the place for long winded rants. We have had a lot of productive discussion today and I would hate to see it degenerate into an accusation marathon like it did before, don't make that happen. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That being said, the requirement that a rule must first prevent one from maintaining or improving Wikipedia before it is ignored covers Jimbo's concern about the rules being wrong very well as well as any other issue where a rule prevents the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, you dont happen to also think that David, myself, (1==2) and the rest of us all concocted the MOON LANDING HOAX as well do you? Pleaes drop it, now, Zenwhat, this is distracting, and you have plenty of other outlets for your prolific pen. Please contribute constructively, or not at all. No-one takes you very seriously when you BANG ON like this.

This page is 324 kilobytes long!! Newbyguesses - Talk 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, off-topic, too strong -Nbg)

<-- Zenwhat (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC) said ...There is a localized social cluster of users that want to prevent any clarification of IAR (including very minor, silly changes, like adding images, the Zen koan, or minor text formatting) but who simultaneously want to re-write IAR themselves, to diminish its authority as policy. [Nbg added emphasis] and says to ZenW-, complete bollocks --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In any dispute, both parties have the power to change the situation, and I would remind you all of this. The suggestion that there is a local consensus which cannot be easily reconciled with what would emerge as the global consensus, if such could be formed, should be taken seriously. It is not unfair to say that the expression of this policy is of political import to major disputes ongoing elsewhere in the Wikipedian community.

A 'Cabal', to my thinking, would be a group of Wikipedians who are acting in a concerted breach of good faith to represent a closed consensus local to themselves as the general consensus. My reading is that ☯  Zenwhat specifically rejects the allegation that there is an effort of such kind at work here.

With respect to whether the current version is the product of an isolated local consensus, I would introduce as evidence the page history. To my cursory reading, although there have been a couple of 'long versions' similar to Wikipedia:Understanding Ignore all rules or Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, and several attempts to re-establish the language of the original by Larry Sanger, the current version seems well representative of the past six yeas of consensus. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please just move on? As if personal attacks and bad-faith accusations weren't enough, now there are conspiracy theories. - Chardish (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirming existing consensus

I have two questions to help determine what the consensus is here. The first question is, do you support the current version of the policy?

• "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

The second question is, if you don't support it which version do you support? Any off topic comments should be made in another thread, any insults should be said into a pillow in private. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for more opinions in a neutral fashion at WP:VPP[2]. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think the current version should be changed, or could be improved, please try to provide a viable alternative in a subsection for further discussion. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• For the record I Support the current version, it expresses what we want to get across while maintaining the simplicity of the philosophy. I could get behind something like "If a rule, or ignorance about the rules prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." though(perhaps with better wording). _(1 == 2)^Until 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I am neutral towards any particular version. I do not support any version to the detriment of finding wider consensus. I do not support ownership or edit warring wrt any version. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose the current version due to its terseness and apparent self-contradiction: it gives people a powerful tool with no explanation on how to use it responsibly. People are not stupid, but that does not mean we should be cryptic. - Chardish (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• So far, I have reservations about the current version. I do not support any speedy or radical changes in the policy, and I would be more comfortable if we sought a broader consensus - reflecting a greater depth of experience than I can bring - if we came to a point where we were considering a change in the page that would reflect a definite change in the policy. In the immediate term, if there is an articulation of the policy which can be more explicit as to what is and is not meant by that twelve word sentence, that would address some of my reservations. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting! I think your position is self-contradictory. Can we discuss that someplace? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Absolutely! I'll ask you why on your talk page. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do not support either the current version or the proposed rewrite below. I think they are both far too prone to misinterpretation, and in fact the current policy is misinterpreted on a regular basis. I have seen a number of times when people have equated IAR to a complete lack of rules, and in some cases have tried to edit-war an article back to the version they wanted on the basis that they weren't bound by any rules (and citing IAR.) I think that the essay Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means states the "IAR" principle, and its limitations, much better than the single-sentence version. Although I have a couple of issues with the wording of that essay, I think the essay should become the policy, and go on from there. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• As much as I have reservations for the same reasons above, the clarifying statement is clearly stated @ WP:IAR?→ "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.' ^[3]. Sadly Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is not policy, has little weight and essentialy becomes impotent against tendentious editors pushing IAR. Widely abused/misinterperated in its curent form, and "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that where the "improving or maintaining" part comes into play? Franamax (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess I've see to much of the darkside, "improving or maintaining" is subjective and haven't seen it used much outside of situations where someone is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Every spammer thinks their spamming is "improving" Wikipedia, Every POV pusher thinks their view is both "improving or maintaining" an article, even when there is evidence to the contrary. --Hu12 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those people have no intention of following rules in any case. Either they get it when their inappropriate activities are explained or they just keep on going and get blacklisted. You certainly shoulder more than your share of the burden in that fight, but it will go on regardless. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think u:Franamax has a good point. If some user makes an unfortunate edit, or comment, then whether they have misunderstood, or perhaps ignored, "Ignore all rules" is not relevant. Some persons, unavoidably, fail to understand the simplest instruction, that is not to be laid to blame on the instruction. However, if there enough users who maintain, and can demonstrate that the "instruction" is, in fact, confusing, then helpful changes to that "instruction" would normally be required. For the record, I have submitted this DRAFT in a sub-section below. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do like the fact that it puts the rule in context. We are closing in on 6.6 million registered user accounts, having the full meaning in one spot will potentialy cull future edit-wars due to misinterpretation of the rules purpose. This may appeal to a wider diversity of wikipedians.--Hu12 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have great respect for Hu12's point that the onus is on the ignorer to demonstrate that ignoring rules has a specific benefit. I have even greater respect for this founding rule. The community is capable of working out what this rule means, it needs to be kept as simple as possible. Perhaps WIARM can be elevated to a guideline. The rule needs to be kept as is, along with "anyone can edit" and non-recognition of experts. Those are fundamental principles. We're all here to work within those principles, frustrating as it may be. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To state my basic agreement with u:Franamax, let me say that i have been a supporter (not an edit-warrior, though) of the 12words version for 12 months or so. It has been easy, because all changes that were suggested during that time were either defective, or did not suit in some other way. I have submitted my DRAFT, (which incorporates WP:WIARM onto the IAR page), in response to many requests that the page be made more helpful. If neither this Draft, nor any of the alternatives on offer, come to prevail, then we will come back, I think, to the 12 words. In either case, I will not be inconvenienced by the attempt(s) being made here, and which are being discussed here. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An incorporation of sorts, as proposed, would ease any reservations I may have, as it preserves the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. "I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule" --Jimbo Wales 18 September 2001^[4] ----Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hu12 for the very illuminating quote. At the risk of sounding too Zen-ish, perhaps the rule is the paradox, and the paradox is the rule? Put in another fashion, when we attempt to further define this rule, do we not risk the existence of the rule itself? Which is more important, the need for rules, or the need to ignore-all-rules? Your (forthcoming) answer speaks to the basis of the project. Franamax (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good exchange Franamax. Allow me reply Zen. To follow the "Rule of IAR" as truth, is to prove IAR incorrect. Hence the rule woulld logicaly exist within the paradox. Placing the rule in an apropriate context would be neither a restriction nor a definition, but a means of giving IAR an objective meaning--Hu12 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that new users (and some others) do not need to be given a philosophical riddle to figure out, they need some clear instruction on what the expectations are for their participation. They don't need to be given a "rule" that essentially, literally says "Do whatever you want" and be sent on some dialectic inquiry to find out, "Well, if you understood what we really meant, and the underlying, holistic philosophy of Wikipedia, you would have realized we didn't mean "anything". I agree with the "KISS" principle, but in this case "simple" means that you give the explanation along with the one-sentence statement. The answer is to add what is now at WP:IAR? to the current policy, and have that be the policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is indeed the solution see proposed version..--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ec(dedent for insertion) There is already a "See also" underneath the simple statement on the policy page. Yes, it's a "philosophical riddle," one that telegraphs an important message: this place is not rule-bound. The rule does not mean "do whatever you want." That's not what it says and that is not what it means. It's actually stated very compactly and quite correctly. My opinion is that most people will actually understand it, intuitively. And I'm not sure that those who sometimes seem to not understand it don't understand it, they just don't want to follow the real meaning. This is not "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Aleister Crowley? -- Abd (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support the current version in all its cryptic glory. Interpretation comes down to experience and common sense. I don't see any particular way to add either rules or clarity to the rule to ignore all rules. It's the hardest rule to follow anyway. Franamax (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For help improving this page.

Please see other language versions of this page. Some of them can be roughly translated using Google's online translator.

Of the 10 biggest wikis on Wikipedia:

Concise versions:

• English version
• Dutch version
• Spanish version (translation)
• Polish version
• Swedish version

Detailed versions:

• French version (translation)
• Japanese version (translation)
• Italian version (translation)

No IAR at all

• Portugese Wikipedia

I have no idea what some of those say, but looking at some of the translations, the detailed versions look nice.

Now, David Levy and Co., why can't we do the same, since there's clearly a lot of misunderstandings and disagreements over what IAR actually means? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a reasonable suggestion, if you mean that we should look to those pages for fresh ideas. Can anyone translate? -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the machine translations, I would recommend the French version, which is based in a commentary on translations of the English and German versions, and the Japanese version, which is breathtakingly Discordian. After translation, I guess. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the part in the Japanese version that says, "I wish the dog's urine?"--Father Goose (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is most likely a mistranslation. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet he does it, like a moth to a flame. WHY for crying out loud? Ok, I am now officially taking cover and not coming back for at least a weak. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you guys are clearly unable to solve this dispute by yourselves. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So therefore you make it worse? <looks very puzzeled> I'll take this to your talk page, as I just said I wouldn't post here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best that you and a few others step away from the situation now and let others deal with it - outside comments will help solve this not arguments over the same things. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... we had resolved the edit-warring portion of it. All by ourselves. If this brings in a singular mediator of great wisdom and insight, then, that's great. But if this makes it almost impossible to follow anything on the talk page, I'll be unhappy.

Are you sure that it was appropriate for someone who was not party to the prior discussion to go ahead and issue an RfC after such a brief consultation? Or have you been following this talk page for a while? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actually observed it for some time - I even protected the page at one point. I honestly don't care about the edits, but this is getting silly. We need outside views to determine whether or not the community (not just the very small number of users participating here) want a change. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it will work out. I'm not sure which changes you're talking about, as there's a variety of them that have been floated. So far it seems unlikely that anything beyond a very conservative expansion of the present language would take place. Should I infer that you feel the present version is best left unaltered? -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually - I don't even care :-) I don't even use this policy but I think the whole discussion is a mess and needs outside views to get it back in line. Discussin between a couple of users who obviously can't agree is not good for a policy page. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care, why are you involving yourself so assertively? This isn't clear to me. Because [edited to add this, so as not to be indirect] if it has any basis in past or current personal conflict between yourself and Kim Bruning, I do not feel that you have treated the rest of us very respectfully. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was the time before last wasn't it? I am worried that, in the face of an edit war, the Rfc process will be too slow to provide an answer. So then we are left with, what, Protection yet again, or Blocking of a user, as per the note at top of this page, if there is in fact one (or more) users who disrupt proceedings by edit-warring. I really don't want to see that happen again. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since you (RP) have been following, you may have noticed that the two Users whose views seem most to be at odds have been to date conspicuous by their absence, a very sensible move, for now. So, it seems that we substitute an old problem, which wont be resolved in their absence, for what looks like becoming a new problem involving new people. Oh, well. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful, now we have an unstructured forum for inviting potentially dozens more opinions into this debate without a pre-ordained means of organizing and conducting this debate. Could you at least have determined if we actually wanted this, User:Ryan Postlethwaite? - Chardish (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try to be nice to the people who show up, at least. Maybe a few will stay long enough to be constructive. And, be constructive. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good step forward, the only "resolution" there has been to edit warring here is protection, which will not do. More minds to better represent the community, remember the community? Chardish, policy is supposed to reflect the community consensus, so it is not really up to if someone "wants" more opinions, they are welcome and needed. _(1 == 2)^Until 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you probably have the right of it, although there's already enough people that when everyone starts adding edits at once, I get lost. And people tend to be sort of loud when they join a discussion - I don't know if that's the right word, or anything like what they actually tend to be like, but I react in a similar way. And, there's the not really understanding the motive for the RfC , as well. But, still, you're right. Ideally there'd be a steady trickle of people passing through; those who represented opinions heretofore unheard would hopefully feel the need to stop a while, or longer, and express them; if someone was completely blasé about what they saw, they'd presumably drift onwards. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The motive of the RFC is that the current group of people have not come to a resolution in over 3 months. Pretty much any time you get two groups arguing about what consensus is, you need more people. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved sections

I moved all the sections referring to current suggestions for a re-write to below here, hopefully that will facilitate discussion of all proposals. [Note This page is 292 kilobytes long.] Newbyguesses - Talk 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (as edited by QuackGuru) (which was reverted) return to original wording

Another interpretation of this concept is: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the text of the page, later cited as the first rule for consideration and attributed to Larry Sanger, when Lee Daniel Crocker created this page on April 17th of 2002. It's linked to in the box thingy at the top of the page, I think. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The revert was marked as minor. I disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did you add that to the main page and someone reverted it? I wasn't aware of the context. Yes, I agree that it was insensitive to mark such a reversion as minor. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the text that is supported by Jimmy Wales would be fine in IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for linking that, I wasn't here then. I notice that his support is not unequivocal; I mean, the Sanger version suggests a very passive disengagement from the rules, not effective action in the face of rules that are (under the circumstances, or whatever) "simply wrong," which he also seems to feel is important.

I believe that, at this time, before and in case anyone speaks, that it would be best if we absolutely did not get involved in any discussions surrounding the ol' hos, though. At least not here, for crying out loud.-- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I would support a rewrite and rewording of sorts, so long as it doesn't attempt to change policy but rather attempts to be more explanatory. For example, I liked the old old version which said that if rules make you nervous and depressed, ignore them. Versions which suggest that the meaning is simply that the rules don't cover every possible situation don't seem to me to go far enough, since we also want to cover the situation where the rules are simply wrong." --Jimbo Wales 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the essential part of Jimbo's view. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what Jimbo currently thinks about this. QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Claiming no knowledge of the man, I would still put the dollar that Newbyguesses owes me on some variant of "my, you people have an interesting hobby." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I really like the orginal. Ignore all rules: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. We can add this to the current version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That version was edited from for a very good reason, namely that "nervousness" and "depression" aren't good reasons to be doing things on the wiki. Desire to improve the encyclopedia should be the reason. I'm pretty sure that's why the wording changed, in a fairly uncontroversial edit that never really got reverted. That's the sort of edit that is supposedly impossible to make here... -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yeah, as has been noted long ago in the archives (well, actually i said it hmm), I aint nervous or depressed (much)–though I have grown to like these words since then, i dont think they should go back on the projectpage. Second point, there is no fault, I think, in marking an edit as minor, it is no insult, just that a couple of words here or there, revert or no, is just a minor edit. There is no need to make an issue of it. Thirdly, can we have a bit of a break from having Jimbo's words re-re-quoted—argumentum ad Jimbonum is not a great discussion aid, often. Thanks (for the good work though) Newbyguesses - Talk 12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"nervousness" and "depression" version (2001) is not a reason to be doing any editing on Wikipedia, particularly since there are 6.6 million registered user accounts. not the handfull that existed then--Hu12 (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

• In terms of minor edits, I feel that the primal articulation of the policy reads better after the edit performed by User:Until(1 == 2), removing the word "just" from the final clause. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "just" arrived in this edit, along with a change to the link. I am indifferent to the change in the link. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the word "just." It's more redundant, but it's just a single word and doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence.

OH, BUT WAIT... On the second thought, does the word "just" have established consensus? Is there anything in Wikipedian history or tradition which suggests that word is appropriate? Can anyone give me several empirical examples that people have been confused about IAR, because of the lack of this word? Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat your point perhaps could be better made without sarcasm, I think I missed your point. If I read just the first sentence and assume the other was not meant to be taken literally then I think I understand that you agree "just" should not be there. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes little difference, but reads better without "just".--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Until, see? You can't cite any traditions, any history, or any empirical examples.

I suppose we will have to revert to the consensus version, whatever that is. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Zenwhat, your not making sense? Everyone is agreeing with the change so why would I cite anything? We don't edit policy through tradition history or citation, we do it by consensus. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your ingenuous input would be welcome here, Zenwhat. Nobody has ever suggested that traditions, history, nor empirical examples are required for any edit. People are editing collaboratively; you're welcome to participate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC or mediation?

This dispute has been going on for a long time now and there's little resolution, with edit warring occurring frequently on the page. Can I suggest an RfC or mediation? Personally I think an RfC would be better so we could get a community wide input - I just don't think it's going to solve itself with endless discussion between the same parties. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's Not Do That Right Now. (tm) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Kim said, with hairs on end, and all manner of internal alarms going off

And why do you say that Kim? This has been going on long enough and the parties only represent a tiny fraction of the community - a wider input is important. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because entangling more people and more points of view into an existing mess makes that mess even bigger. What we actually want to do of course is to slowly and systematically untangle the mess. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been trying to untangle this mess between a very small number of users for months now - let other people help now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, u:RyanPostlethwaite. As a newby, I am quite unfamiliar with the Rfc process. Could you clarify please, are you suggesting a Request for comment on the "content of the policy"? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm suggesting an RfC on the actual wording on the policy. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies would be ideal for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this particular party, but I've been around the general party long enough to know that throwing all the straw-bales everyone's been sitting on into the fire will just get everyone on their feet and shouting. This is one of the fundamental rules, if Kim is saying slow down and think it over, I support that all the way. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If we found that we were able to agree on an elucidating articulation of the whats and whys of the dispute. That might be worth working on. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what mediation would accomplish unless we have a strict and intelligent mediator with sysop privileges who is capable of telling people, "Don't make any edits without discussion," and is willing to suspend people for doing that.

When King Solomon had this same problem, his solution was simple: "Cut the baby in half."

I don't see why we can't do that here also. Let those who want a wishy-washy IAR which says it's about being ignorant have their clarification section, and let people who want to consider it the basis for all Wikipedia, period, and something that can be very passionately invoked have their section. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That was not the actual solution Solomon found. Pragmatically, I think that that would just formally devolve the disagreement to every circumstance in which someone actually cited "WP:IAR," with negative consequences. It would also seem to ignore that WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS are also indispensable to the functioning of the Wikipedia.69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what mediation is about - mediators don't make enforcements or block people. Mediators help channel disputes in the right direction. There's clearly a dispute here that isn't going to be solved via the normal channels, hence why we should move to RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I know that and I know how mediation works. That's why I made my point. Unless we have a mediator who is also a sysop who will simultaneously monitor this page for edit-warring (something that doesn't usually occur), no such mediation is likely going to accomplish anything because the involved parties apparently aren't interested. They have majority rule over this page and they watch it daily over the long-term, so they don't really have to listen to anybody. So, David can just revert over and over, and then come here and say, in so many different words, "I don't like what you're doing. It's not good. What you are doing is bad. It is not appropriate. It is wrong, harmful, and not helpful. It also looks ugly." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the dispute can't be solved by these channels, I am rather apprehensive about what will happen at RFC. RFC tends to polarize people, and makes any situation much, much, much worse.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um.... any situation/many situations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

break

Anon: If you have an account, please log-in. Editors which hide behind IP addresses drive me nuts. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel assured that I'm not hiding behind an IP address. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sixtynine, you have my support. Don't listen to anyone who tells you not to use an IP address as a username. You're logged in, but I hate discrimination against unregistered users. IP addresses write most of our content. Zenwhat, pay more attention. The user is logged in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Zenwhat, i know of no "rule" which would compel a NumberedUser to log in. Do you? And even if you do ,trying to bully someone because "you are nuts" is not acceptable. In fact the Numbered User has contributed productively to this page. I could not with a straight face say the same in relation to your input to date. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

s'okay, will be more fun to argue about policy. I'm not taking any offense. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rule, no. I just said it's annoying. If he doesn't want to be annoying, he should log in.

Not to mention that if he's somebody who has already discussed the issue above, it's misleading. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat is that an accusation? If so do you have any evidence. If not, keep your speculations to your self, your irritability may stir up the same in others, as it has in the past, and we have work to do here. Stay on topic, talk sense, and you might be capable of helping. (Sorry 69+, you do not need defending, which I am not, but I have issues here too). Newbyguesses - Talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't annoy me. I think u:69 has been contributing helpfully here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

☯  Zenwhat, please be assured that I am not hiding behind an IP address. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"IP editors- Are their contributions of value?" who made this ridiculous title? I didn't suggest that anons' additions are of no value. That is an incredibly insulting distortion of what I said.

I said it's annoying when they don't login, if they have accounts. If they don't have an account, I'm fine with it. If they do have an account, it's annoying and (if they've posted above) misleading. That's all.

It's not an accusation because I have no idea whether he actually has an account. I just said -- if he does -- to please login. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoth GTBacchus: "Zenwhat, pay more attention. The user is logged in." How ironic that you didn't pay attention to that comment. —David Levy 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Zenwhat, please pay more attention, get off your hobby-horses. The User is logged in! And, I note that User:Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven did not even deign to answer your repeated foolishness with a reply, or deservedly rebuke you, but I am just too annoyed with you to stay silent here. I want to let you know that the gulf between the best of what you offer, and the worst, is extreme, so clean your ears out, Listen please to others who will then listen to you, I know you have a lot to offer. Peace, --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

return to the topic at hand

I am all for more people, I am sure sanity will return when there are enough minds at work. An RFC would help. _(1 == 2)^Until 06:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that bringing more eyes to the situation is not a bad idea. Poorly crafted RfCs tend to make situations worse - let's have a well-crafted one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of - Blocking instead of protection

Permalink here

== Summary of - Blocking instead of protection section way, way, above

I have left a note at the top of the page - User:Until(1 == 2) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...a drag, but continually disrupting the page is excruciating for all concerned. - User:Newbyguesses 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection is bad because it followed an edit war, which was bad. - User:Newbyguesses 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer blocking, the reasoning for which is documented at User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring. Note Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus. --User:Kim Bruning 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

=== please stop - (User:Newbyguesses)

Instead of saying more, why not keep this page limited to talking about what IAR should be. - User:Until(1 == 2) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

--

(a lot has been ommitted ,here, hmm. - user:Newbyguesses summarized this, rather ruthlessly.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

If I had my druthers, I'd simply replace IAR with it. However, I have no interest in starting another edit war. For now, I'll just link to it from IAR, and maybe, just maybe, it can serve as a path toward a more truly consensual version of Ignore all rules.--Father Goose (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss this

Yes, yes, and very yes. This seems heavily influenced by the French version, which I like. I would wholeheartedly support replacing the current IAR page with this. - Chardish (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is as good essay! I suggest that we now need a more structured way to assess the merits of the various suggestions now in play, and any further that may eventuate. Ie, NbgDRAFT, "Understanding IAR", Until(1==2)'s (minimla) suggestion, and QuackGuru's suggestion (ie Sanger's words). Have I missed any? (Understanding IAR, is a good essay, I would link to it, but wonder where consensus will lead us, at this time. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay, I'm sure it has a place as a link in any version of IAR.--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much like the text of IAR to stay the same. It is properly ambiguous, as an Ignore All Rules rule should be. It's clear about the intention that overrides the rules, and we should, in our consideration of what rule-breakers have done and how to respond, always remember this rule, together with WP:AGF. I've seen a lot of mess erupt because this was not done. If someone really doesn't have the welfare of the project in mind, it will come out, but what I've seen, far too often, is that some action that might be difficult to understand as positive is immediately labelled as disruptive, and that causes disruption, as AGF violations almost always are. (More disruptive, often, than the original rule violation.)

However, given that, there is nothing wrong with linking to other guidelines or essays that explore the meaning of IAR, indeed, that's quite useful. How about a page of "Other versions of IAR"?

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned above is that IAR exists in recognition of the fact that reality is complex. No rule can anticipate all the conditions that might arise. Often this is stated as a mention that there are exceptions, without the exceptions being specified. And no list of exceptions can ever be complete. All rules, in fact, are merely guidelines or maps, even ones that seem written in stone ("policies"). Just because a respected guidebook says "Turn left here" doesn't mean that you ignore the sinkhole that just appeared in that road. Indeed, encountering such, you will properly go the wrong way down a one-way street, make a U-turn where prohibited, or violate other "strict" rules. I mention, above, Public policy, which is the western common law principle. In Islamic law it's "Necessity permits what is forbidden." A related principle is Urf. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems pretty good, but what is the substantive difference between WP:Understanding IAR and the already existing WP:What "Ignore all rules" means? I sort of like the bullet-point style of the latter, though it isn't essential. The other slight issue I have is with the part about what an editor should do when he/she disagrees with a rule. Shouldn't we tell users (as we do in the Five Pillars) which many get on their talk page when they join), that there are some rules that your disagreement and discussion are not going to change? In other words, the "foundational" rules such as NPOV, NOR and V. People need to understand that these rules are not going away. And yes, I realize that to some extent this undercuts the idea of Ignore All Rules, but it is also a better reflection of reality. If I were King of the World, Ignore All Rules would have been named something different from the beginning, because it causes too much confusion... but I seem to have misplaced my crown. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have tried out the idea of a name change, but it didn't get much support [see section (way,way) above], and Wikipedia:No firm rules. Your other point, USER:6SJ7, about the primacy of WP:Five pillars can be addressed suitably by the inclusion of the proper *templatebox* at the bottom of the page. I would certainly add *Template:Pol/Guide* or such to "my" suggested (above) NbgDRAFT as a matter of course if it gets past (provisional) draft stage. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I like "no firm rules," but it is a bit of a misnomer. NPOV violations, copyright violations, undermining office actions, undermining arbcom decisions, etc. are totally unacceptable in any circumstance. I think the Understanding IAR policy does a great job of explaining what we really mean by IAR. - Chardish (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I take your point, which I think is easily addressed. We make sure that newUsers, or any users, appreciate the Inviolable "rules" by A) Giving a link to WP:FIVE, hopefully with every welcome message. B) Putting template:Pol/Guide or such at the bottom of WP:IAR (or other name?) prominently. C) Inadvetant violations, or even deliberate ones, are reverted out, and covered by OVERSIGHT and other Admin actions, such as deleting COPYVIOs, without even the newUser being aware, until they need to be aware. E) Which is done by personal contact, usually, on their talk:page, rather than relying on the User stumbling across the pol. themselves. Can I explain this better, or does there still appear a problem? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Understanding IAR looks great. I wouldn't replace WP:IAR with it. I would just add it to WP:IAR as a section "Understanding what IAR means," with the single sentence at the top. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fine as a link. It goes well beyond the rule of IAR and is basically an essay interpreting it. IAR is as simple as it is because we don't know what context it will be used in. It is the safety valve for when other policies get too choked up with rules. If we choke IAR up with set in stone interpretations on what it is and what it is not then we diminish its value along with its scope.

That page describes some of the ways that some people see IAR today. We don't know how we will use IAR in the future, we can't know. That is why it is so wide in its scope. We have one goal here, to make an encyclopedia. All that other stuff does not belong in IAR, it would make a fine essay about IAR though.

By codifying what IAR is and is not, we are destroying its ability to adapt in its current form to changing situations. If we insist upon nailing down exactly what "IAR is" and what "IAR is not" based upon what it has been used for, when we have no idea what it will be used for, then we turn this dynamic animal into a still statue.

IAR is a small tool that can be used in many circumstances, like a hammer, and this suggestion would turn it into a specialized tool only usable in the specific environment it was written in, like a 3/4 inch reverse threaded nut. We don't need a specialized tool, we need a generalized tool. We can and have formed other policies to deal with any disruption people may choose perform, we don't need to cram it all into this policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I still have not been given an example of where anyone has successfully gamed the current version of IAR. I have seen people try, but it never works. The only times I have seen people use IAR successfully is when the person has a valid point in the eyes of the community, otherwise people IAR right back and with a greater understanding of the project goals and support of the community. I just don't see the abuse people are worried about and I have been around for years(the same years that the current or very similar version of IAR has been here). _(1 == 2)^Until 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the essay as retaining the generalized nature of IAR. While you're correct that it's nearly impossible to game IAR successfully, I think it's demonstrable that there are numerous occurrences of someone attempting to "invoke IAR" in order to implement something that's clearly unpopular. I think that the role of policies should be educating users about best practices, and this page doesn't really educate. It's like a calculus professor saying "If you want to find the antiderivative of a function, integrate it" and then walking out the door without explaining what that is or how to do it. - Chardish (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more like he says "integrate it", and then provides two links to pages explaining how to integrate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of IAR is to have something when "best practices" fail, if IAR becomes a set of best practices then it will no longer serve that intended purpose. People will invoke IAR even if it is changed to this essay, but in both circumstances it will be ineffective. The policy needs to retain the wideness of its scope so that it can be used correctly in unforeseen situations where best practices fail us. It is powerful when used right, and impotent when used wrong, that is perfect.

This page does educate, but not about a best practice. It educates on how to react when best practices fail us. What is in the essay is good info, but it may not reflect how IAR is used in a year from now and the current text will. I suggest it stays as an essay and is updated as our use of IAR evolves organically. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the current version of IAR is, or should be, set in stone. Am I reading your words correctly? - Chardish (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish you are not reading my words if that is what you get. I have said time and time again the very opposite of that. What I said above is that the current version is of wide enough scope to perform the intended purpose of IAR for a good long time. How you read that I think it should be set in stone is beyond me. If an improvement comes along I will support it, but all I have seen are a bunch of rules tacked onto "Ignore all rules" turning it into "ignore some rules under these circumstance only". _(1 == 2)^Until 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, relax. Since you said that the use of IAR evolves organically, my assumption was that you meant that IAR itself should not. - Chardish (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the first time my position has been mis-characterized as objecting to any change. IAR can change of course, but it needs to fit its intended purpose, and I have yet to see a change that accomplishes that. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I quite like this idea, from the section Ignoring all rules above,

[W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. [5]

I think it refutes (to some degree) both points made here - (1==2), there does need to be a connect from IAR to present policies (and best practices) even if they will change in future; Chardish - It is possible to move on, no-one (well no-one commenting here) is saying they prefer the policy, any policy, to be "set in stone". Read the standard disclaimer at the top of many Pol/pages. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't see the connection between the quoted text and my point. What type of connect from IAR to present polices were you suggesting? We already have the policy and guideline template at the bottom of the page. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am fine with that. The best point you make, which I have echoed, is that People keep claiming that interpretation of IAR has led to trouble, without providing very many examples at all, Yes?

However, I have also echoed this plea, as well, and other editors did, way,way above here, I think. --- Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes? Fg, is this what your Wikipedia:Understanding IAR is about? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have an explanation of what IAR is about it is linked at the bottom, people can't miss it, we have two or three of them. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If Father Goose is in agreement, consensus is developing for this version which adresses those concerns (and has the link to the essay).--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think it might be a bit early to say that DRAFTNbg has developed a consensus, that's a bit pre-emptive. I would be pleased though, if Father Goose was in agreement with the updated DRAFT, which links to Understanding IAR, if it doesn't veer to much from FG's expectations.

Also, Chardish, you wanted WP:WIARM on the IAR page at one point, but you now prefer this WP:Understanding IAR, as a link, or as the IAR page?

And Zenwhat supports this (Understanding IAR) as well. Father Goose, do you see it as a link or let's see if it gains more support, as there are other users I am sure watching, and waiting to weigh in. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Never to early IMHO, heres why. this proposed version contains every thing already agreed on through previous consensus, except that is on the same page (2/3^rds the way to a resolution). Changing the 12 words will most certainly not happen, This proposal does not change the 12word version of IAR. This proposal supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM. It addresses all the concerns, withought the uncertainty of "new" content or the drama over variation in the "12 words". 2/3^rds the way to a resolution--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Hu12 I see 2 people supporting it and one opposing it, I fail to see how one can tell if consensus is developing or not at this point. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no one agreeing on any thing else on this page (except the removal of "just"), I'd say that makes This proposal a great start.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer Understanding IAR over WP:WIARM. I feel like it discusses the philosophy behind IAR better, rather than merely listing what it does and doesn't mean. I still think that WP:WIARM is a good page and I would prefer it over the twelve-word version. - Chardish (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see some agreement that it should be short and simple, not much, but other than the existing version there is not much support for anything. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Amalgamation of current proposals

Just to set out the current proposals clearly, I hope.

A ===' Suggested rewrite by Until(1 == 2)

Essentially, PolPage stays the same or, incorporates small changes, as in User:(1==2)'s slight amendments.

B === suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses

One with some support.

C === Understanding IAR

One with much support.

TO COMPARE suggestion B with suggestion C

• DIFF-comparison of the two long versions at this date.

Arriving at "consensus".

• Consensus-wranglers and other aficiondo's of Voting paradox, note Condorcet's jury theorem a theorem about the relative probability of a given group of individuals arriving at a correct decision, and Arrow's impossibility theorem - no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of reasonable criteria with three or more discrete options to choose from. In general it is very difficult to reconcile individual decisions between three or more outcomes.

Also from Arrow's theorem, positive association of social and individual values or monotonicity: if any individual modifies his or her preference order by promoting a certain option, then the societal preference order should respond only by promoting that same option or not changing, never by placing it lower than before. An individual should not be able to hurt an option by ranking it higher.

• Continue to comment in appropriate sections, probably NOT this one. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

" ..ignore it."

I don't know if this was lost intentionally. To me it feels like the bolding detracts slightly from the sentence, as a rule; it comes across more as emphatic advice. So personally, I'd revert it to plain, but I have no clue how anyone else feels.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is to be ignored." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like the bolding, but I don't feel remotely strongly about it. I don't care what color the bikeshed is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For myself, there is no particular hue or colour which is essentially preferred vis-a-vis with and in consideration of when the Bicycle-Stables situation stabalizes at, locally, nor, possibly, globally, at this point in time. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But whatever color bicycle am I to purchase?!?

"If a rule prevents you from marking articles for deletion in the Wikipedia, it is to be marked for deletion." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Red, of course! What a silly question. ;-o --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the bolding. To be honest, I don't really know how to justify it other than to say, "I don't think IAR is emphasized enough on Wikipedia." That's just a personal opinion, though, not an argument. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need bold, italics or ALL CAPS, or anything to make these simple words more than what they are. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's arguing that the bolding is a "need"; more of a preference, it seems. I like the way it looks. I like the way it emphasizes "ignore it", as if to say, "no, really. Ignore it. No joke." -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I don't think its appearance needs that, beyond need I don't think it will benefit from it. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On editing IAR

This activity is truly unproductive. The end result has no use. No necessary task has been accomplished. Time has been expended, nothing more. —Миша13 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Bonus points for the first one to name the exact reference.

False. Several of us have learned valuable lessons here, clarified our positions regarding the role of policy at Wikipedia, and material for potentially useful essays has been generated. This talk page is a productive place, and if you're not getting anything out of the discussion, that doesn't mean that nobody is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven of Nine from Star Trek: Voyager. Google ftw. [6]

Also, it's from a scene in which Janeway is teaching Seven of Nine how to sculpt clay. It's true that Wikipedia is more like an art (i.e. The Art of War) than a science, but it shouldn't be. I would, however, consider it roughly comparable to a pile of mud. And despite your sarcasm (assuming it's sarcastic), I agree that nothing has been achieved here, really. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Misza13, user:Zenwhat has been most clever here, do they get the bonus points ?. ZW, I disagree though particularly about the art of war. Please, dont think in terms of "fighting" think - CO-OPERATE. Peace --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat gets 2 bonus points for correctly naming a scene from the teaser of The Raven. He may use them up for reverting the page to his preferred version. Миша13 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let everyone who has achieved nothing agree that nothing has been achieved. Those who've been paying attention, learning, and achieving things, keep up the good work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Misza13 was being mostly tongue-in-cheek with (his/her) comment here.--Father Goose (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just referring to the fact that despite the last zillion edits, the only semi-permanent change seemed to be the loss of bolding on "ignore it". Миша13 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and that a few people have learned some things. I consider that semi-pemanent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of a section way above here

Permalink here

Viewing edit history of the page, does anyone else read it as David Levy conducting a slow, long term edit war? Ever so many edits is a revert by David Levy. --User:Kim Bruning 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If people would stop editing the page against consensus, there would be no need for reversions. —User:David Levy 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problem with any one of David's reverts, but there would also be no serious problem if he were to let other people revert more often, or to let the page float around a little more. User:GTBacchus 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTB. Now, if some editor is acting in good faith, but their continued edits are very largely unhelpful, verging on "disruptive", then what do we do? User:Newbyguesses 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone acting in good faith is disruptive, and if ordinary discussion doesn't convince them to stop, then we've got a dispute resolution process, -User:GTBacchus 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check: Indeed, slow reverts is still a way of gaming the system. User:Jossi 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused Chardish of bad faith, that is a red herring, I am accusing Chardish of "acting disruptively". - User:Newbyguesses 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[T]he best way forward is to identify and address Chardish's concerns -User:GTBacchus 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely responding to allegations of misconduct leveled against me'. —User:David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes that don't reflect consensus is not edit warring, I don't think David is guilty of that. User:Until(1 == 2) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These users, (in addition to Chardish and David Levy), not that I want to point fingers, were involved in the edit war -

20:47, 2 March 2008 CapitalQ (Talk | contribs)

20:37, 2 March 2008 Onorem (Talk | contribs)

19:52, 2 March 2008 QuackGuru (Talk | contribs)

09:03, 2 March 2008 Locke Cole (Talk | contribs)

20:51, 29 February 2008 Microchip08 (Talk | contribs)

17:37, 29 February 2008 Bkonrad (Talk | contribs)

19:45, 28 February 2008 Zenwhat (Talk | contribs)

They may not all have done reverts, or total reverts. Oh, (and i edited during that period, also) User:Newbyguesses 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bkonrad, CapitalQ, Locke Cole and Onorem reverted to the same page version that I reverted to. —User:David Levy 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, David has been edit-warring. And a handful of people of a particular point-of-view have been owning this page - User:Zenwhat 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is neither fully supported by consensus nor set in stone. It's one of several controversial versions that some people support. It's a particularly short and simple one, and there doesn't seem to be a more popular version. - -User:GTBacchus 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--

The section Edit Warrior way above here, will shortly be archived, which I am glad of.

(NOTE - This summary is approx 5% of the original section.)

However, if further action is required on that matter, I have summarized some salient points. Should there be, in fact No Further Action required, then this section (Summary) can itself be archived. Sorry for any inconvenience, --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no specific action is required based on that section. I'm not even sure what that would look like. Nice summary, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Relatively trivial note

I'm for separating the See Also section into a main and "closely related items" section (since inclusion of WP:BOLD in the see also section can easily lead us on the road to disorganization and that way lies madness), but apparently meta:Don't be a dick isn't a good second item. Anybody have any suggestions? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Well, I will add this one *Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, how is that, though it is currently linked from WIARM--) (top) How is that then, you like, user:Lubaf ? --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that WP:BOLD is more related to IAR than the other current links. I agree with the separation. I do think we only need one essay explaining what IAR is about, not 3 but in time. While Don't be a dick is on topic I think it is not needed once WP:POINT is linked. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "in time" (soon-ish) I hope we decide to have only ONE explanatory "Page" linked, and 2 probably as Related Pages. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy's re-statement of what IAR means.

Because of ambiguity, I asked Jimmy what IAR means.

He responded [7]:

What it means to me is very deeply tied to WP:BOLD and the nature of good rules making in an open social community. First, we want people to take bold action to improve the encyclopedia no matter what. The encyclopedia is the result of discussion, dialogue, consensus, common sense... and rules can be helpful to that, but rules should never get in the way of that. To me it means that newbies are not required to spend 2 months reading policy documents before they roll up their sleeves and get to work. If they misunderstand something, they can be helped. If they are producing mostly quality work, but which is odd in some way, it can be fixed. And so on. To make this works, rules should be written in such a fashion that anyone can more or less guess what the rules are without having to look them up. (So for example, WP:NPA is pretty transparently obviously a social rule people ought to follow as best they can, and it should not be written in such a way that most people would find it astounding in some fashion.

What do you think? I'd state my own opinion, but I don't want to poison the well.

Also, note: This isn't Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Jimmy isn't always right, but it is a fact that what he says can settle conflicts because of the practical reality that his words tend to carry weight. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<- Re- Jimmy isn't always right, but it is a fact that what he says can settle conflicts because of the practical reality that his words tend to carry weight. Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - Good points here ZW, but I think you have the emphasis wrong. The main input u:Jimbo has comes from experience, and careful thought before speaking. Jimbo's "authority" is significant, but the insight invariably contained in Jimbo's words is more helpful than the "authority quotient", I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo's interpretation and I would say the current version covers the points made by Jimbo very well. The only part the current version does not clearly convey is that one can ignore the fact that they don't even know the rules if that prevents them from helping. I think that can be fixed with a small addition, not several paragraphs. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it covers the points made by Jimbo at all. WP:WIARM covers those points much better. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you perhaps explain which portions are not being covered instead of just saying it does not cover it? _(1 == 2)^Until 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Until(1 == 2), and I'll also note that transforming the page into a lengthy set of paragraphs runs contrary to Jimbo's point that "newbies are not required to spend 2 months reading policy documents before they roll up their sleeves and get to work." As I've been saying for quite some, this would discourage people from reading the page and being bold. —David Levy 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a short and inviting message to the new users is far more likely to encourage them to be bold than several paragraphs that they may not even bother reading because they have 50 other policies to learn as well. This is the only rule one needs to know to start, it should be a simple one. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see that the RfC for this discussion (or village pump, or wherever it was) was an empty invitation. This page obviously has serious ownership issues. I guess you (collectively) are "ignoring" that rule, too. I'm not going to waste any more time with this. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagee, a little, (1==2). One needs to know NO rules to edit, not even IAR. I edited for some time before checking out IAR, with no bad effects. IAR can, and will, change, though not just for the sake of it.

To user:6SJ7, if you are still reading, the "fresh eyes" have been more than helpful, sorry if "we" here have our foibles and favourites, we seem to talk a lot and get not much done, the discussion is still 5% useful, if you disregard 95% of what goes down. (And I think GTB is right, some discussions do have "ripple: effects.) Thanks for your input, please reconsider, but if you have better to do... I repeat, "fresh eyes" at this page are extremely welcomed, by me, and I am sure, other editors. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right Newbyguesses that no rule is needed to work here. IAR is the rule that defends that position though. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that that's one interpretation of the policy that absolutely everybody seems to agree on: that 'Ignore all rules' affirms that it is perfectly all right to contribute to the Wikipedia in good faith, and in ignorance of the rules, regardless of whether or not one violates any rules and doing so. To wit, that ignorance of the law is innocence, and should not be rebuked, chastised, or punished, but rather informed and corrected. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that in the proposed FG/C version, new users need not, if the current version is sufficient, read any further than that; the twelve word version, clearly stated at the top of the document, remains the sole statement of the 'Ignore all rules' policy. The remaining paragraphs are a carefully non-restrictive explication of the policy, useful only if one finds the twelve words a bit cryptic, has difficulty believing that they are meant to be taken seriously, wishes to know somewhat about the history behind them, wonders why they constitute a good policy, and so on... as I submit that most new users do. I do not believe that Mr. Wales' concerns were directed towards such a case; rather, he was concerned that new users not be required to read long policy documents. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then what is wrong with the current situation where there are links to further reading? The curious minded will surely follow it. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had wished to point out that it was a mischaracterization of both Mr. Wales' statement and the FG/C document to suggest that Mr. Wales would, therefore, reject the FG/C document, were we to take the matter to his talk page. If your shift in attention indicates agreement with this, the question of linking versus inclusion is definitely worth addressing in another section.

[still need coffee. urgh.] 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of - Let's cobble together consensus view of IAR!

== Summary of - Let's cobble together consensus view of IAR! (section some distance above this one)

Permalink here

Let me cite Father Goose: "Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would". --FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are almost as many ways to express IAR as there are users.

[W]e do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. [8]

One more to add to /Versions, or /Workshop. (See also section Ignoring all rules, above.) - User:Newbyguesses 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been working on this problem quite actively, by working on my own "dream version" of what I would like on the IAR page... It is a top-to-bottom explanation of IAR. Not twelve overworked words.--User:Father Goose 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ADD-(see Wikipedia:Understanding IAR)

--

Summary of - Confirming existing consensus

== Confirming existing consensus (the next section, after a lot of resolved discussion.)

Snapshot here

• "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

• "For the record I Support the current version, it expresses what we want to get across while maintaining the simplicity of the philosophy..." _(1 == 2)^Until 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I oppose the current version due to its terseness and apparent self-contradiction: it gives people a powerful tool with no explanation on how to use it responsibly." Chardish (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "So far, I have reservations about the current version. I do not support any speedy or radical changes in the policy..." 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I do not support either the current version or the proposed rewrite below. I think they are both far too prone to misinterpretation... I think the essay should become the policy, and go on from there." 6SJ7 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "...I have reservations for the same reasons above [except that I believe the rewrite is an improvement. (interpreted by 69.49.44.11 (talk):please confirm.)]" Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "It's actually stated very compactly and quite correctly... most people will actually understand it, intuitively." Abd (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• "[I] Support the current version... [i]nterpretation comes down to experience and common sense. I don't see any particular way to add either rules or clarity to the rule to ignore all rules." Franamax (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

--

AND now we get back to business, with some "fresh eyes" over-looking the discussion, from the RFc (content) and the post to Village Pump. Please, all be welcome, and contribute constructively. --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be an adequate summary of the discussion. I saw some support, some opposition, and a great many who had reservations about the current version. - Chardish (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my summary was a bit "rough and readY". The section is still on the page. Please "capture" for us any views expressed by users that need highlighting, if that is best. Sorry again, I do hope I got most of this summarizing (4 sections) right. I saw a need, but definitely do not wish to mislead. I have been ruthless, otherwise there is no point in summarizing. BTW, Chardish, are't thou still happy with the "Archiving settings"? Keep at 3d for a bit longer? Cheers, --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some more viewpoints. I think that's everybody from that section. Apologies if I shortened them up too much, feel free to touch up your own, or add a statement I missed, everyone. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

--

Hmm my initial summary of this section did not "capture" the flavour of the debate. Just let me point out that, following input from "the usual suspects" ( Newbyguesses, Until(1==2), Chardish, Kim Bruning, and 69.49.44.11) comma the running was then taken up most amply by esteemed "over-lookers" Franamax, Hu12, Abd and 6SJ7. I must point out that the contributions by the latter Users has aided immensely in helping to "frame" the rather complex situation of merge debate(s) and other matters which are now under continuing fruitful discussion. "Fresh eyes", thanks for your help to date, and may there be more help, much more, to come. --

[NOTE] It is not the case that Aleister Crowley contributed in person to this debate, and certainly did not presume the "casting-vote" 5-4, rather it is the case that User:Abd was using a humorous trope at one point. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Essay links

There seems to be a disagreement about whether to label the linked essays as essays. There is support from me, Hu12 and perhaps David Levy to have the labeled as essays. There seems to be an objection from Father Goose to the essay label, or to labels in general.

I think they should be labeled essays because that is what they are and if not labeled then the policy tag at the top might misinform people about that status of the links. The presence of other links that are guidelines further compounds the confusion requiring clarification even more. Please discuss. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I too have a general dislike of all labels, and try to avoid labelling whenever possible. No, I am not a "troll"! I support FG's edit, I think it is clearer that way. And the word "essay" is to be avoided like the plague! Yes, I understand that they are essays, whattha, I read'm and consider what's said. General discussion point? Dont label, if at all possible, and say "page", or "thingo" or "bit of advice' ANYTHING but upset (certain) people by using the E-word, (though there is nothing wrong with essays, or the concept of essays (woops), I think. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add, I don't think, other than agreement with Newbyguesses. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its about those who are reading these pages, a description can only help. It's not like the page is to large, and we need to trim it..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the edit summary.--Newbyguesses - Talk 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well unless there is more support for the term "essay", then I guess it is out(even though that is the most accurate term). Thanks for the response. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have just made a change that tries to compromise almost all of the issues being discussed here. It avoids the issue of labeling the essays, by not labeling them at all. It also bridges the gap between those of us who would like to incorporate the text of WIARM or "Understanding" into this page, and those who don't, by eliminating the "See also" section heading. One might say that in effect, this makes the two essays part of the policy without saying so. Pretty clever, huh? Everybody's going to be happy with this and just leave it alone, right?

"Well, I see my compromise lasted less than a minute, with the reverter's edit summary saying no compromise is necessary! All you guys are comedians in real life, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Until 1==2, you say the term "essay" is not needed, my change did not use the term "essay", and you reverted me anyway! Why? 6SJ7 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My change didn't have consensus, no need to compromise. I also thought the compromise made it deviate from the manual of style in a not attractive way. It removed the separation between the policy and the links to further information which is not policy. I assure you the reason I make any edit is to improve the quality of the page, also I introduced a new version and did not revert to an old one. I felt it a productive edit. Don't feel bad, I got reverted too. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this edit reasonable[9]. Though I would prefer if the page made it more clear what is policy, guidelines, or essay. While you might not "like" labels, it is the community that decided to apply these labels to these pages and new users may find them useful. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If we must have 'descriptions' here, and it is a good idea, I think, then...--Newbyguesses - Talk 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion though, how about Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, another page which expands on this policy becomes Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, which expands on this policy? All this is moot, really, when the *merge* debate(s) get sorted, isn't it. We only want ONE *supplemental essay* at that time, do we not? --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, I bow out of this mess, probably for real this time. I have enough chaos in my life, and obviously the views of "outsiders" are not invited. I tried to finesse the issues, and it didn't even last 60 seconds. I don't see how the reverter even had time to read what I did before pushing the button. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again, User:6SJ7, how can we convince you that your input is most welcome? Please, stay and join the fun, we are all sure to lay-back on the edits momentarily, I think. You may not realize how HELPFUL some "fresh eyes" have been, esp, including yours. Fast or slow, please stay and help more, if you wish. Best of luck with all your projects!

[NOTE to Admins, there is *NOT* an edit war taking place, this is constructive, fast editing, and we are discussing on the talk page, as you can see].--Newbyguesses - Talk 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that 6SJ7. You can't take reverts so personally, especially when dealing with policy. I assure you I read it. We all have been reverted here at one point or another, that is natural and healthy on a page that must describe wide acceptance. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A grab-bag of comments

I generally like the current look of the policy page right now. Reading it downwards:

• Lose the reference to Jimbo in the green-check-box. Maybe dump the "first rule to consider" part too. Just keep it simple.
• Don't bluelink Wikipedia in the statement itself. No-one's got here and still needs a link to Wikipedia. Or rule for that matter.
• I don't like the wording after either of the two essay links, one supplements, one expands? How about "an explanatory essay" for both?
• With ref to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR:
  • Probably better as a link than incorporated into the policy page.
  • I really like the wording at the C/FG version, specifically I think the wording of the "Successfully ignoring rules" section is much better as it addresses the issue of needing consensus to ignore a rule. I think this is what Hu12 was worried about, oh, seven megabytes or so above.
  • If Understanding... had that change, I'd suggest giving it primacy, i.e. comes before WIARM.
  • And if it had that change, I'd be for giving it guideline status. Everything about the text in the C/FG version is guideline-worthy.
• I'm liking the two "Closely related guidelines", they are the most directly relevant and show the two sides of the coin.
• I'm even more liking seeing "Be bold" mentioned here. Loving it. From my own personal standpoint, I can't tell you how much of a revelation it was for me to find those two fundamental rules, IAR and BOLD, when I first started exploring the insides of WP. That was when I realized - I can be part of this, I just have to start, I can learn as I go. And like the rest of you, well, here I am :) Franamax (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree with User:Franamax here that,

WIARM ought to have been a guideline long ago.

UIAR makes a great supplemental essay, or guideline maybe, or the IAR page.

WP:BOLD and WP:POINT seem like a good pair of "pages" to me.

OK, however, (terminology) we don't "give" a page guideline status, that is for some sort of debate or other. For the rest of your present comments, I would say these points were "up for grabs". Oh, and how about

NO explanatory wording for the supplemental essays, its not needed.

Overlinking is generally encouraged, I think, in this short policy document, we will link rule and Wikipedia, that's not over-linking. --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WIARM becoming a guideline is not my suggestion. I can wrap around UIAR or C/FG much more easily than the WIARM essay. I do think it has value as an essay.

I'm still partial to using the C/FG workshop version of IAR for the IAR policy page. I also have no problem with linking it from the current very terse version of IAR. I'm going to go over there right after clicking Save here and post in my happy paragraph from C/FG. No chance of an edit war there, I'm quite used to being reverted. :)

Yes of course, guideline status is not "given" it is consensus-itized. I like what UIAR says (at least what it will say ten minutes from now) and I propose it as a guideline. There's always the option of invoking WP:IAR and just making it a guideline and watching what happens. Probly not appropriate here, n'est pas? ;)

I take your point about overlinking the basic policy statement, I could posit a messy explanation about the importance of not applying any rules to the statement about ignoring rules, alternatively, I would suggest that the policy should be stated in as stark and unadorned fashion as possible: the more plain and simple it is, the more effective. Nothing to click on here, just the totem, ignore all rules. Everything else is derived as a secondary consequence. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses

• This does not change the 12word version of IAR.
• This supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM.
• I am in favour of any worthwhile effort to render the text of WP:IAR less confusing, or more useful.
• I am not in favour of adding to the rules, by implying in any way that an understanding of any rules is necessary to "Ignore all rules".
• DRAFT
• I submit this DRAFT, (for IAR), in consideration of repeated claims that the 12words, on their own , are "too cryptic".

For discussion, if found relevant, Newbyguesses -Talk 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the updated draftNBG at Ignore all rules/Workshop. (Minor edit)- The POL/GUIDE/TEMPLATE has been added at the bottom of the page. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the tweaked proposed version. --Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE See the Section below here at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion

It is not very simple. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As you no doubt noticed, Unity, I seem to have come round to a position which is aligned very closely, i think with u:Chardish's position. Note also, that I have made it clear that this is a "draft", "suggestion" and "provisional" at that. I have not dropped the 12 words form this draft, and if those 12words are all that survive, I will be happy, if that is where consensus gets us to. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support for the whole thing. It looks like what I suggested in my earlier comment. The 12 word version is not enough. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. This puts the rule in context. it preserves the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. The added benifit is that this incorporation of WP:WIARM, as proposed, will potentialy cull future edit-wars due to misinterpretation of the rules true purpose. --Hu12 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the one rule that allows us to continue when the other rules get in our way. I will not support this level of codification on what is supposed to be a concept as simple as improving and maintaining the encyclopedia despite the rules. The whole point of IAR is that we cannot predict in what circumstances the rules will be used in, that is why we have kept it simple. I would says "strong oppose", but that really does not change the value of my point, _(1 == 2)^Until 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Logicaly placing the rule in context would not act to codify the intended concept but give it objective, purposeful meaning when the other rules do get in the way.--Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The context is unknown, as it has not yet come. IAR is supposed to work when a change in context makes the other rules a liability. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. - Chardish (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Thanks for the support so far. Now, I have added the Template/Pol-Guide to the draft, but it occurs to me that {{Wikipedia principles}} would be better. Any suggestions on that, and please continue to comment on this draft, if it might be found suitable. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be added either to the top or bottom, pending consensus.--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The (latest version of the) "DRAFT" is now 'live' at Wikipedia:No firm rules. This does not presage a "name-change" - hopefully, the "DRAFT" will get up and go on the WP:IAR page, or it will not, but then might be linked from there, if that is clear. (The original DRAFT is the definitive version, as it has attracted some support, which will be respected.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite by Chardish/Father Goose

This edit here. Basically incorporates Understanding IAR into the policy. Perhaps some stylistic changes are in order. - Chardish (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this

After two looks, I am gonna say just, I Like It. The structure makes sense, and all the words are sane. Now, this one, with a See also section link to WP:WIARM would do it for me. Um, if others prefer the other way with the WIARM text up and this as a link, fine, I think. For now, i am going with this suggested Chardish/Father Goose draft. Why not, it's pretty good? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with draft version. Explains the policy without adding or taking anything away. Also could use the link to previous versions in See also. Franamax (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I slightly altered so that the bolded bit reads "thoughtfully ignore it"; I thought that might be helpful to point out that ignoring the rules shouldn't be due to carelessness (kind of the opposite of the word "just" that was removed earlier). Is that useful? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that what you altered is not the C/FG draft that is being discussed in this section.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. :-) I guess if anyone thinks that was a fantastic edit of mine they will put it again themselves anyway. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to keep the C/FG version "live" on the /Workshop page so that people can edit or view it easily. I believe it's our best candidate for a replacement version at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Looks good to me, it gives a neat and reasonable overview. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have the text of WP:WIARM in the rule, with a link to the "understanding" essay. The WIARM text seems more simple and straightforward, and does not go beyond the subject of IAR itself, while the "understanding" essay goes beyond IAR to give some of the context about rules on Wikipedia. That is fine, but not as part of the text of IAR. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with this version. I've scanned it a bit - need to go out and feed the chicken in a moment - but I think the parties who were concerned about rule creep (Until(1 == 2)?) should go through it line by line, because it looks pretty clean to me, and then see how it sits in their stomachs. It looks like it's been carefully vetted for anything in the explanatory text that people might start referring to as part of 'Ignore all rules' (that they don't already, at least).

"If a silly quote appended to a remark offends thee, thoughtfully apply the strikeout markup to it (<s>...</s>)." -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now there appears to be virtually no one opposed to this. Where do we go from here? I think a claim of consensus is a bit premature, buy maybe another couple days of silence will help. - Chardish (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Chardish, and Father Goose, I am coming around to the idea that WP:WIARM in it's present state is the best contender to go up as policy, with a link to WP:UIAR as it's supplement. WIARM has been around so long, and been examined in depth on this-page. I still like UIAR, but am more comfortable with WIARM, the dot-points work for me. That's what I'm thinking now. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the biggest reason why we've failed all these months to replace the 12-word version. We have no unity whatsoever, whereas those who want it to remain unchanged have exactly one version they revert to time and time again.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion, I'd only use one "argh" in my edit summaries. What do you consider indicates failure? Lack of consensus to make a change is not necessarily a failing, it can equally be defined as success. I'm on record supporting the subject of this particular "discussion" and I'm not all that stressed about the current version either (see below, and amazingly enough, my edit to Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR has lived for three hours). Lets grind that Newby guy down until he gives some ground :) I don't think we're all that far away. Franamax (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the months I've been active on this page, I've accumulated a few dozen arghs. Based on what I've seen, and looking through the edit history, I estimate there have been dozens of people who have made edits to the page to provide an expanded explanation of the policy, and perhaps about a dozen who seem to revert to the "12 word" version on any regular basis (not counting vandalism or poorly-thought-out changes). I think there's a clear consensus for change, but since there's a million directions for change but only one direction for staying in place, staying in place has won out. Editors like 6SJ7 give up quickly in the face of such frustration, and only masochists like myself stick around and keep trying to find and foster alternatives.

I may be overselling UIAR, but I believe it's the most solid explanation of IAR this page has ever seen. If the dozens of us who would like a less cryptic page want to actually get that page, we'll have to agree on a single direction. So when I see Newbyguesses (who is a personal friend, and one of the aforementioned dozens) decide to separate from the handful of us who are workshopping UIAR, I have to 'argh' a few dozen times.--Father Goose (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, that the wording of the policy has remained stable for quite some time, though the number of editors in total would be well over two dozen. But what of those Wikipedians who read this policy, but do not edit it? What are their numbers, and what are their views?

I suspect there are many more than 2 dozen adherents for the original "nervous and depressed" wording, and many more than 2 dozen who favour the 12words, but do not feel the need to edit or comment currently. There are over 6 million registered accounts.

Sorry, FG, if I seem to back-track, I am not (see my suggestion(s) in a section above). I see no prospect for any formulation of WP:IAR at this time which does not prominently feature the 12words

If WP:UIAR gets a few paras. sorted, I could well favour that then. We have a debate, I am not the only one changing their mind, or their position, and I only wish we get the BEST version up, with the BEST possible debate.

I predict, though, 2 months, and the 12words will still be on the IARpage. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

break - user:Until(1==2 )suggested an edit

I still prefer the current wording, some of the issues with the workshop version are:

• Where it says "The two most important implications of Ignore all rules are", it would be less opinionated to say "Two important implications of Ignore all rules are".
• The section labeled "Why have any rules, then?" seems a bit off topic, and would better be suited as an essay.
• The section labeled "Successfully ignoring rules" delves heavily into opinion based interpretation of the rule. The part about there needing to be a consensus for ignoring a rule is plain false, that has never been a requirement.
• This proposed change does not seem to address the concerns about the current version. It does not explain that IAR does not provide protection from the consequences of your actions, nor does it take any other measure to prevent the often mentioned but never demonstrated abuse of the rule.

If we must change it why not keep it simple like:

• If a rule, or lack of knowledge of the rules, prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia then ignore it. Please don't ignore other people. You are still responsible for your actions.

That addresses all the concerns and keeps it simple, and unrestricted. Unless someone objects, I will boldly introduce that version and see if it is accepted. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiver settings

Due to the insane size of this page I have switched the settings on the archiver bot to archive sections more than 3 days old. This should dramatically shorten the page; I think we should leave it like this until discussion dies down. - Chardish (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. If someone feels a section that has been lost track of still needs discussion, my personal preference would be if they introduced a digest of the salient content in a new section, rather than bumping it. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "dramatic". It went from 343K to 255K, which remains insane. Миша13 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Misza13, I agee the page still too long by about 210K, does anyone have a more direct solution for now, like an emergency archive of more of this? Just a suggestion, GTB, (1==2), good/bad idea? Or we just let it go for now? OK with me either way. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the long talk page a bad thing because it loads slowly for people with slow connections, or is there something else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nbg has a slow connection, that's great, it reminds us how the ROW experiences the Internet. I'm a little over one year separate from that, I was on dialup - less than one hour's drive from Toronto, Canada too! The length of the page was daunting in and of itself, it's very hard for someone to find the current discussions and find a way to opine. We need to all be aware of the benefits of brevity, they are multiple. I put some backlinks in the forward-summaries to compensate for the archiving - can't I have a pat on the back? :) Franamax (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm on dialup too. But the biggest problem with the size of the page is that with so much discussion going on in so many threads simultaneously, it's hard to keep track of stuff. Getting rid of inactive threads quickly under these circumstances gives one fewer threads to scan (and a shorter page makes it easier to scroll back through several diffs).--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Long pages make for fractured discussion as well as long loading times. The first problem would be helped if users started new sections where appropriate, and concluded discussion points before introducing asides and new topics. For now, I am glad that at 06:49, 10 March 2008 MiszaBot II (Talk | contribs) m (91,740 bytes) IS (Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 3d) to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 15.) (undo) --Newbyguesses - Talk 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some talk pages are just that active. Why worry about it? -- Ned Scott 07:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page just went from (246,938 bytes) to (128,009 bytes) when MiszaBot II ArchivED 10 thread(s) so, Thankyou miszabot II. --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that adding notes about MiszaBot's activities just adds clutter to the page...--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I do agree, but then, on the other hand... --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time.

The WP:IAR page will look like this in about two months time.

Make your comments in the appropriate sections below.

Since we do NOTVOTE, there is no need to add Support to your comment. There is no need to add "Oppose".

The 12 words

The twelve words are -- -- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Broadly in support of WP:UIAR (with/without) a link to WP:WIARM.

Comments -Broadly in support of WP:UIAR with/without the 12words, with/without a link to WP:WIARM.

Broadly in support of the 12words plus WP:UIAR with a link to WIARM.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words plus UIAR with a link to WIARM.

Broadly in support of the 12words plus WP:WIARM with a link to WP:UIAR.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words plus WIARM with a link to UIAR.

Broadly in support of the 12words alone with some other combination of links.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 12words alone with some other combination of links.

Broadly in favour of Larry Sanger's (original) version of IAR.

As Larry Sanger prefers to put it, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."

Comments -Broadly in favour of Larry Sanger's (original) version of IAR.

Broadly in support of the 3 C's version from 2007.

The thrust of the 3 C's version was to emphasise being nice to people. A link to WP:CONSENSUS was/was not added to the policy statement, or in the See also section.

Comments -Broadly in support of the 3 C's version from 2007.

Some of the above.

Comments -Some of the above.

None of the above.

Comments -None of the above

Comments off the wall

Um?

Procedural matters.

Procedural matters.

Summary, later.

Summary, later. (I am betting on the 12words, for the next two months at least.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

futile

The Past year diff shows little change to the page with exception to the messagebox, cats, Sound file and ignore them to ignore it. I see this being the same case in future years. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, a lot of wasted energy here. If someone really came up with something better then it would be accepted in a heartbeat. Though I would not class the subtle improvements made to style and wording as futile, just very very inefficient improvements considering the energy expended on the talk page. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what sort of thing would be better, that you'd accept in a heartbeat? What do you regard the shortcomings of the 12-word version as being? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess it goes to show that just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be changed. The sort of thing would be better, that would be accepted in a heartbeat has yet to be found or demonstrated. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I must suggest that the reasoning here is invalid.

1. "If someone really came up with something better then it would be accepted in a heartbeat."
2. "I haven't accepted anything."
3. "Therefore, nothing anyone's come up with is really any better."

It's equivalent to 'I don't like it,' unless _(1 == 2)^Until can substantiate that he believes that anything could be better. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

69, I never said anything was based on what I felt. The suggested changes have not been accepted in general, not just by me. You attributed 3 points to me, but I really only made point #1.

I don't see any real shortcomings to the current version, I have never seen it fail us. If there was something the community saw as an improvement, then it would not be difficult to get in. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean something "if there was something to which no-one objected, it would not be difficult to get in..."? Because what you've said appears to me to be either a truism, or something that I think is pretty uncertain. A substantial portion of the community, remember, seems to feel that a certain amount of monopolization has occurred with this policy, and while they may be incorrect, it seems clear that they would question your assertion. At what point can we say that 'the community' sees a change as an improvement? When no-one here objects? When no-one involved anywhere in the wikipedia objects?

I apologize if you feel that I falsely attributed those statements to you; I hadn't meant to do so, directly, but it wasn't very clear. I had meant to outline the course of argument to which I objected. If you did not meant to imply that point (1) proved point (3), then I misunderstood the gist of your comment.

My questions, which I think were more interesting and useful, remain. What sort of thing would be better, that you'd accept in a heartbeat? What do you regard the shortcomings of the 12-word version as being? — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Normal editing continues

Since Page Protection expired.

A) The original "nervous and depressed" wording was re-introduced and rejected.

B) The word "just" was added and rejected.

C) Some edits were made adjusting the "bolding".

D) Some changes were made to the "See also section" (introduced WP:POINT).

Normal editing continues; that at least is not "futile", though not much progress be made. The Big Debate may lead somewhere, or be a BIG fizzer. Who knows? --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey (another one)

At the risk of spawning another thread, what are the yes/no opinions here:

• The WP:IAR rule itself should be the canonical twelve words.
• The WP:IAR policy page should be minimalist (similar to the current version).
• If the page itself is minimal, should some other page(s) exist as a guideline?

As I've said above, I don't think the resolution is all that far away. Franamax (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(replaces policy page with the sound of one hand clapping) c'mon, there are infinite subtleties but can't you guys muster a three-word sequence comprising yes and no? Which of these are questions-unaskable? Do you think I'm leading into some obscure sequence where you'll be trapped by your answer? I'm trying to contribute, can you enlighten me? Franamax (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer them, but not as yes/nos. In fact, I started in on a fairly complex answer, but I'm too tired to finish it tonight, so I'll see you tomorrow.--Father Goose (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the morning!! Hooray! wake-up-wake-up-wake-up-wake-up! 69.49.44.11 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(Tis still deep in the night for me, though.) I suggest NOT a straw poll.

A) Retain the 12words, yes or no, then

B) If NO, then WIARM or UIAR are the best options. --Newbyguesses - Talk 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the promised long answer:

I think the twelve-word or other minimalist variations don't tell prospective editors what they need to know about IAR. Employing, or even just tolerating the use of IAR requires a deeper understanding -- the whys and the hows that I attempted to document in UIAR -- than the twelve words provide. Now, if we are to provide explanations, we do have to get them right, rather than boxing IAR into a corner not truly representative of its purpose and use. I accept this concern that 1==2 and others have voiced. However, without any explanation, IAR has become something of a vestigial organ on Wikipedia -- people like Ryan Postlethwaite, above, don't even realize that they use it every day, and worse still, don't know how to use it purposefully.

I'd further say that a lack of understanding of IAR has caused Wikipedia policy to stray from its original purpose and devolve into rigid prescriptions (not descriptions) used as clubs to cow newbies and experienced editors alike. I'm sure we've all encountered other editors invoking some rule somewhere in an attempt to present their views as fiat. Certain people perch jealously over policy pages, knowing that if they get their views inserted there, they can mandate them throughout Wikipedia. IAR is the rule that is meant to combat that, but in the absence of explanation making its role clear, IAR itself usually goes ignored, which is a tragedy for Wikipedia. Nicholson Baker, a very articulate "newbie", spoke of this in his article The Charms of Wikipedia.

Should the explanation of IAR be on a separate page from IAR? No, not if it's the correct explanation. That would be about as strange as having WP:V read, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and having all further details of WP:V relegated to "essay" pages as "interpretations". It'd be even stranger if a single-line policy was supplemented by a separate guideline page explaining it. If the details are considered "official", and directly pertain to the policy, such separated pages would be fodder for immediate merger. The separation of policy nutshell and policy detail would be nonsensical.

My view is that WP:UIAR is very close to the "right explanation" we've long needed to have IAR become accessible to average editors -- and to restore it to its full power, through those editors' embrace of it. The last paragraph (centering on dispute resolution) still needs work, based on the feedback it's gotten so far, but I think we're at the doorstep of a renewed and revived IAR, instead of the cipher (definition 10) that it has been to the average Wikipedian for far, far too long.--Father Goose (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explication. I personally think that this was just about perfect. While you were moving stuff from UIAR to the Workshop page, I was busy moving the same area from the Workshop page onto UIAR :) I see it's been there for almost a full 24 hours now, one of my longest-lasting contribs to WP yet, and I didn't even write it! Franamax (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only read the questions at the top, not the rest of this thread so keep that in mind.

I do not think IAR should be either canonical, or set to a limit of 12 words. I don't think the current 12 word version is canonical, nothing on Wikipedia meets that description. It does have a long history of support and has served us well though.

I do think that IAR should be minimal, as it is a simple tool, more like a nail than a forklift. The community at large seek to avoid the ever expanding list of rules from getting to big. One of the primary purposes of IAR is to allow for a much simpler explanation of how one can contribute than the existing policy. It is also there so that well meaning policy that no longer applies due to strange, or different circumstances does not stifle our productivity. By keeping it simple, and broad, we make sure that the policy is capable of fulfilling its intended function throughout changing times.

In regards to the idea other pages being a guidelines to this page, I assume you mean "guideline" as a dictionary definition and not the Wikipedia page class known as "guideline". I do think this is important, and we have this. We not only have essays on IAR, but we also have policies and guidelines that cover pretty much any type of abuse of IAR that one might think of. And if we don't have something to cover it, then we can just IAR can stop them anyways.

IAR in its current form is often invoked, but really only sticks when it is used wisely. When one does attempt to abuse IAR they very quickly find it does not work, but when someone uses IAR for a situation that really needs it, then it almost always works.

I understand that vague things are disturbing to the human mind when we seek order, but this needs to be vague so that order does not stifle our productivity. The rules seems counterintuitive in its simplicity, but I assure you that is an illusion. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do read the rest of the thread when you get the chance.--Father Goose (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Endless-loop, I fully agree that vague things are disturbing and that is exactly why they are so useful. That's exactly why I claim the "12 words" are canonical (sure hope I'm using that word correctly) - that is the irreducible statement of the rule, it should be as bare as possible, all extraneous words should be stripped. I'm misleadingly summarized a little above here, I said keep in all its cryptic glory. I think that totally simple statement goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is all about.

I'd also call your attention to FG asking you to read the details of this thread. There's a version sitting out there with the bald simplicity of the irreducible statement, and a small discourse below which lays out the context of the why and how of IAR. Crucially, it also needs to contain an explanation of what to do when you want to IAR and I want to observe the rules.

And I take your point, and the points of many in the preceding megabytes, that these TLA's all too often become a convenient crutch for doing whatever it is I/you/they want to do in the first place. I've taken to measuring my success on Wikipedia in terms of how rarely I can type two capital letters in a row on any given day, it's just too easy to spool off those WP:XXX's. I'll lay claim now to this coin-of-phrase: "Escalating alphabeticals" and I'm thinking of writing an essay thereto. Don't you dare disagree with me, that would be ABF, maybe a COI, certainly POV and a BMF besides. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, personally I was thinking about doing an "Alphabet soup" essay (WP:ALPHABETSOUP isn't free though, unsurprisingly), maybe we should compare notes! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't they already exist, in the form of WP:WTF and/or WP:BASH?--Father Goose (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer calling it WP:WOTTA!. In the same spirit is WP:DTTR, the principle of which can easily extend to "don't link to policies that you know your interlocutor can find on their own quite easily." -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)