Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

IAR vs. Admin Accountablity

As a long time supporter of IAR, I think Badlydrawnjeff's objection to IAR's application by Wikipedia administrators is spot on. To wit, rank and file Wikipedians should not have to worry about rulecruft when contributing to Wikipedia. However, whenever anyone seeks administrator privileges at Wikipedia and is subsequently entrusted with those privileges, he or she takes on the role of a constable and should expect to be held accountable for any of his or her failures to observe established policies or guidelines and to work within the system to change and/or abolish any rules that do not make sense. // Internet Esquire 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is a perfect beaurocracy isn't possible. Not now, not ever, not under any circumstances; it will not happen. Accordingly, the rules are impossible to be changed to perfection. They function as good principles which ought to be followed most of the time, however there has to be a clause which protects us from when they don't work, and that is not getting them further modified with their own clauses and subclauses until the beaurocracy reaches critical mass and explodes. IAR is our elastic clause. What each individual rule could do with pages and pages of exceptions, IAR does with twelve words. Thanatosimii 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We achieve accountability quite easily- logs of admin actions are easily viewable by all. As long as people are reasonable and able to explain why whenever they depart from standard practice, where's the problem? Friday (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that admins should be held accountable for their decisions. If observing some established procedure is not going to help the encyclopedia in some specific case, then an admin dealing with that case had better not follow that procedure. Admins are not expected to uphold all the "rules", or even necessarily to follow them. Admins are expected to use good judgment, and that means knowing when to follow rules and when to break them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, pay attention. Its simple trolling. Forget IAR and just start ignoring the trolls. Its a Wikipedia Piller for a reason, it defines who we are. We dont exist for the community, we exist to write an encyclopedia. You're supposed to ignore anything that makes that harder. And at the moment, you're not editing articles because your arguing with trolls about IAR. Hint. -M^ask? 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Centrx protected this policy a few days ago, when User:IBeatAnorexia was edit warring some major changes. That user seems to have gone away, so I've unprotected. Please feel free to re-protect if necessary, but I think that crisis has passed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Once this page was unprotected, IBeatAnorexia went right back to adding all sorts of badly worded and misspelled rulecruft. Has any attempt been made to rein in this particular user? // Internet Esquire 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's only following policy, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Which policy indicates that repeatedly imposing unilateral, consensus-defying changes helps in "improving or maintaining Wikipedia"? —David Levy 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This one. He feels the explanation improves the project, obviously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, don't be daft; repeatedly edit warring to make a major change without any attempt at discussion is not "improving Wikipedia". —Centrx→talk • 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Says you. I'd imagine he thinks otherwise, which is why he continues to do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be difficult to think for long that editing without discussing actually leads to improvements, if one is including any kind of reality check in one's considerations. The idea isn't to improve Wikipedia in some kind of fantasy universe where other people don't exist. Eventually, nothing is improved by knocking one's head repeatedly into the same wall; therefore, IAR does not condone such activity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, says you. As far as I can see, this editor thinks that expounding on said "policy" improves the project. You want to stand in their way? Well, this person's going to ignore you. This is actually a hell of a demonstration as to how asinine this "policy" is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the user is adding text that explicitly condemns such actions. He/she obviously knows that behaving in this manner is a bad idea, so you can't reasonably claim that the policy has led him/her to believe otherwise. —David Levy 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it at all, actually. Just because something may be a bad idea to you doesn't mean it's a bad idea to them. After all, the text, in their mind, improves the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The text added by IBeatAnorexia includes the following:

If you feel it is absolutely necessary to act against consensus, then be prepared to be reverted, and to explain yourself in detail, repeatedly. Remember that revert warring against consensus doesn't work, and in the end, if you can't convince people that your action was correct, be prepared to accept that you've been overruled by the community.

Ironically and hypocritically, the user is revert-warring against consensus to add this advice (which is analogous to spray-painting "no graffiti" on a public wall). —David Levy 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I do understand what you're saying. The issue is that what you're saying lacks a lot of relevance - this person is acting well within the spirit of the policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true (which it isn't), IBeatAnorexia cannot possibly believe what you claim he/she believes; the advice that he/she is adding to the policy states the exact opposite. —David Levy 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not IBeatAnorexia thinks the edit is an improvement. Even if it were, the simple fact is that it's not sticking, so I guess the improvement isn't being made after all. Huh. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not sticking, no. It doesn't have to, however. Whether the text sticks or not isn't really relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Super, if IBeatAnorexia thinks that making an edit that lasts for half a minute is an improvement, then it's been made, and good job. What's next? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And what? You're arguing that someone adding text indicating that it's bad to revert-war against consensus believes that it's good to revert-war against consensus. —David Levy 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, your response leads to me wonder whether you understood what I said at all. You seem to think I meant something other than what I meant. I guess if you think that I think IAR is a kludge, then your response might make sense, but I don't, because that would be stupid.

The editor is welcome to believe that ignoring people and reverting repeatedly leads to some kind of improvement, but that would be a delusional belief, because it actually leads to no effect at all, except for maybe being blocked, after enough reversions.

Believing that it would be good to get into the next room doesn't justify trying to get there via the wall, especially when there's a door available. That's not about IAR; it's about common sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This exchange as a whole details exactly the problem with IAR - how anyone can complain when a user accurately and precisely executes it in a way that's in line with wording and apparent current intent is beyond me. It merely proves my point - it's a disruptive, incoherent policy that can never be used "properly," and the protests because this person is ignoring rules you're okay with simply outlines the further hypocrisy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not protesting anything. Where have I protested IBeatAnorexia's actions? I've suggested to IBeatAnorexia that reverting without discussion is ineffective, but not that it's against some "rule". That's also what I'm saying right now. Being ineffective is not encouraged. This policy doesn't suggest that we fail to improve the encyclopedia by foolishly ignoring other people. It suggests actually improving things, which often involves communication with others, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are protesting. I am saying that one person's idea on how to improve the encyclopedia is just as legitimate as anyone else's - people can't bitch because they're ignoring a rule if you really think this "policy" is worth it. The user things they're improving things, that's all that matters as long as we're working from this position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - one person's idea is just as legitimate as another's. You're also right that it's silly for people to bitch that a rule is being ignored; the appropriate disagreement isn't over whether a rule was broken, but about the action itself. However, it's not true that the user thinking they're improving things is "all that matters". IAR doesn't say "throw away common sense". It doesn't say "fail to improve Wikipedia through poor communication skills." It doesn't say that you don't have to deal with consequences of your actions. I'm not talking about rules, I'm talking about reality. You can ignore rules, but you can't ignore reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that this person can ignore the rules if they feel that they're improving the project. In reality, we both know how dumb that sounds, and how dumb it is in practice. And yet... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, don't tell me what I know. You've never indicated that you have the slightest clue what I'm thinking, because you've never responded with comprehension on this topic. I can just as easily claim that you know how dense you're being, but I doubt you do. I think you probably think you're making sense. Don't presume to tell me what I "know".

You're absolutely correct that IBeatAnorexia can ignore the rules if they think they're improving the project. If this user thinks that an edit that sticks for half a minute is an improvement, then they can continue to make it. When they find themselves blocked, they'll realize it takes more than ignoring rules to get something done. It also takes having some kind of clue about how to get anything done.

IBeatAnorexia's problem isn't about breaking rules, it's about trying to open a locked car door with a wet noodle - ineffective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And if someone was to block them, that would be a problem, since they're working within policy. Which, of course, would then mean that this policy isn't true, since this person was blocked for following policy. And so on and so forth. And you're right - I don't think I'm being dense, and I don't think you really think that IAR actually improves things. Maybe I'm wrong on both, but I'm pretty sure I'm spot-on on the former, and spot-on about this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...except that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect. —David Levy 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...except it isn't. In fact, the policy hasn't been interpreted as intended for years, as demonstrated above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All of your arguments, Jeff, rely upon the presupposition that the harmful actions in question are accurate and precise executions of the policy's wording and spirit. It's been demonstrated time and again that almost everyone disagrees with you, but you continue to state this as a matter of fact. —David Levy 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay that you guys disagree with the facts. That's fine by me, it's your right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...just wow. —David Levy 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...except, of course, for the fact that the added text explicitly condemns such behavior. IBeatAnorexia's edits are ironic and hypocritical. —David Levy 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Much like the page they're being added to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Says you." —David Levy 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. You get it now! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you really don't get it. IAR doesn't say "be ineffective, as long as your intentions are good". It doesn't suggest stupidity or obliviousness as a course of action. It doesn't say "do whatever you want, and if somebody undoes it, just do it again". It doesn't even imply any of those things. You know why? Because a long revert war that results in no net change isn't an improvement.

IAR can't condone revert warring, because it condones actual improvement, not improvement that's attempted and foiled. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring can easily be an improvement. How silly to think otherwise. And even if you disagree, others may disagree with you, and thus it still applies because they think the rules are stopping them from improving the project. You simply can't have it both ways. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can explain how a back and forth revert war with no net change improves anything, I'm willing to listen, and if you can make sense, then you'll be right. However IAR doesn't say that believing that you're improving the Wiki makes all practical concerns melt away. If somebody thinks that IAR means they can ignore everything, including opposition to their actions, then they're terribly mistaken. I don't think anybody's ever argued that it means that. If they have, please point it out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering to argue with someone who believes that "revert warring can easily be an improvement"? —David Levy 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason we bother to even discuss how "ignoring all rules" can be an improvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to have this conversation every week? – Steel 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, do we? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All it takes is two people who insist on responding. To absolutely everything. Right away. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the policy

As far as I'm concerned, the problem isn't the policy, but rather the wording of the policy. Maybe that's what we should be focusing on. It's not that you can ignore the rules if what you think you're doing is improving Wikipedia, but rather it's that you can ignore the rules if you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that what you're doing would be 100% backed by community consensus if what you did was brought to a discussion afterwards. It's supposed to be a policy that stops bureaucracy and the need for red tape for every action, but I think it's turned into a much bigger monster because of the wording (or lack thereof). What we need, I think, is something like a field guide to IAR, so that if someone is an insatiable douchebag when applying (or attempting to apply) IAR we can refer them there. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been suggesting this on and off for a while, however the problem with making midrashic intepretations of esoteric rules is that the same over-beaurocratically minded people who don't understand the simple rule will just treat the commentary as set in stone law as well.
We have two basic reasons to leave IAR perfectly alone:
1) The only people who are afraid of it simply need to have an iron clad bearuocracy, which is one thing which wikipedia will never have and could never actually attain even if we tried. So what if IAR flies in their face? Wikipedia's essence does too.
2) When this rule is abused, the abusers are almost invariably trolls. Trolls don't misunderstand the rule, they're just using it as an excuse, and would do exactly what they're already doing with or without it.
Really, just tell me, how many articles haven't been written in the last month because we're all wasting our time bickering over a benign rule? Thanatosimii 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the above conversations. I think this rule is anything but benign. Important, maybe. No, I would say probably. But benign? Absolutely not. Not when it gets abused as often as it does. If you don't want to engage in these conversations, go write articles, but stop complaining when people actually want to clarify policies that are abused and shakily defined. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii is correct in stating that most inappropriate citations of this policy are by users who know exactly what it means and are attempting to game the system by pretending that they perceive it as a license to ignore the rules whenever they feel like it. —David Levy 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that's actually what I was saying. Thanatosimii was arguing against people who want to nix IAR completely (which I do not) and also said that most of the people who use IAR as an excuse are trolls, which is a false statement. Maybe it is true to a certain degree, but the most times I've seen IAR used was in deletion discussions, used by non-trolling editors attempting to push their viewpoint. Finally, Thanatosimii said that we should not waste our time "bickering" over this rule. There is obviously a problem with IAR, and I'm not the only one who's saying so, so we should at least attempt to fix it. I hardly think that doing so would be a waste of time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1) All pov pushers are trolls ipso nomine.
2) I was only disparaging the type of discussions that are constantly going on and on and on again by editors who don't spend enough time working on wikipedia proper. This is quickly becoming one. The same arguments and the same rebuttals are used weekly on this page. If we can't come up with somthing new, we need to have a moritorium on simply reiterating the old. Thanatosimii 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Not if they honestly believe they are improving Wikipedia. IAR is often used in that sense -- editors using it as an argument believing that their viewpoint does and will help Wikipedia. That is not the definition of trolling.
2) I'm sorry that you think that previous conversations have been unproductive. Consensus takes time and it takes effort. Period. Building a solid Wikipedia framework is just as important as working on Wikipedia proper. This isn't a waste of time. And I'm sorry you feel it is, but what is decided here affects the entirety of Wikiepdia, and there's really no downplaying that. -Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't do anything, becasue there is no consensus, no progress, nothing new. It's always the exact same thing replayed ad nausium. Thanatosimii 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it, remove it from your watchlist. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a red herring. It's still not justification for everyone always doing it. Thanatosimii 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you close your eyes for long enough it'll go away. Or maybe the reason why this debate often stalemates is because people swoop in and decry the fact that it doesn't get anywhere. Would it get somewhere if people didn't stop it? Possibly. Or maybe you should try being constructive in your responses or contributions to this talk page. Otherwise, there really is no point in your continuing to have this page watchlisted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very easy. If one user is repeatedly revert warring to insert text against consensus, one could either (1) say that this is disruptive and could warrant a block for disruption according to our blocking policy; or (2) say that said person is validly ignoring all rules, and could likewise warrant a block by an admin who is ignoring the blocking policy. Note that this has been done in the past; you can't have your cake and eat it. The net effect is the same: undesirable behavior is stopped, not because it breaks clause 17-b of rule section 18 dash four, but because it's undesirable behavior. >Radiant< 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where this breaks down is that undesirable behaviour is often defined by our somewhat arbitrary rules. People are blocked for violating the 3RR, even when their behaviour is not undesirable taken on its own. Repeatedly reverting someone who's making an article worse is behaviour which improves Wikipedia. It is only undesirable behaviour because we have conventions codified in the 3RR which say it is. People like having a bit of rules and structure and those rules get enforced. Deriving everything from first principles just isn't practical. Encouraging people to do it doesn't make much sense.

When people use WP:ILIKEIT types of arguments in deletion arguments they get scolded and told to base their recommendations in policy. But ILIKEIT is really just a subcase of IAR. Ignoring all policies and guidelines and going by what you think would improve Wikipedia is not a good idea. Telling people to do it makes for bad advice. Haukur 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's right on the money, and this is the kind of asinine behavior that is completely OK if you have a policy like WP:IAR. Because if an individual thinks that whatever s/he is doing is for the good of the Wikipedia or can assert so consistently and with a straight face, then that fulfills the "if" clause of WP:IAR, and then the user can do what s/he likes, to hell with consensus, to hell with actual effectiveness, to hell with anyone but those who have the technical power (i.e. Admins and Bureaucrats) to stop them, and even then, if the decision to bar that user from contributing were to go to Arbitration, and WP:IAR were asserted, who's to say which way it would go? Those of you who live by WP:IAR instead of the other policies with, you know, actual rules, made your bed. Now it's time to lie in it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above scenario would be quite troubling...if not for the fact that it's entirely fictitious. —David Levy 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What's troubling is that you believe it's ficticious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite actual instances in which users successfully (without rebuke) cited this policy in the manner described above. —David Levy 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's self-evident to me that the behavior under discussion (i.e. the behavior GTBacchus is reporting about IBeatAnorexia doing) falls under the umbrella of WP:IAR (whether or not IBeatAnorexia cares to cite the policy). WP:IAR is not about rebuke or lack thereof. It's about justifying asinine behavior instead of engaging in behavior that leads or is intended to lead to consensus decision-making. It's the ultimate cop out, or in this case is easily applied to provide the ultimate cop out excuse for asinine behavior. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm, the point is that citing a "rule", even this one, isn't sufficient justification for anything, and that one has to justify actions with actual reasons instead of rule citations, and if one wants to get something done, simply "following rules" isn't necessarily a sufficient way to get there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please cite actual instances in which editors successfully defended the type of behavior described above by invoking this policy. —David Levy 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently I'm too busy at work to do that legwork, but I see it in action in both Speedy Delete justifications and the sometimes subsequent DRV processes. Have a look/track it for yourself. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that your claims are accurate. —David Levy 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any antisocial behavior can always be excused by responsible Wikipedia users as being justified by WP:IAR. IBeatAnorexia's only flaw here that I can assume (and I haven't checked as to whether s/he is citing policy or not) is that s/he is not actually citing the policy. But if s/he cared to, what would we be able to do about it that didn't involve ultimate communal judgement (i.e. Arbitration) or invocations of WP:IAR itself? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in IBeatAnorexia's actions is that he/she isn't following policy (including this one). It makes no difference whether WP:IAR is explicitly cited; it doesn't apply (because edit-warring against consensus doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia). We needn't invoke WP:IAR to counter actions that violate policy. —David Levy 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

S/He is following policy - just because you disagree with him/her doesn't invalidate what's going on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we're back to your "I'm right and almost everyone else is wrong" (scare quotes) method of policy interpretation (along with your bizarre theory that someone attempting to reword the policy to explicitly indicate that it doesn't condone revert-warring against consensus believes that it condones revert-warring against consensus). —David Levy 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If the shoe fits. *shrug*. If you don't like her ignoring the rules regarding edit warring and consensus, too bad - you've supported the making of this bed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not about liking her "ignoring the rules", it's about the actions themselves in a context where we don't judge things based on their satisfying a rule set or not, but based on real world valuations, such as getting anything done or making any sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply aren't making sense. —David Levy 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the policy that doesn't make sense. Someday soon you'll see that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

David, Jeff is winning on this discussion. But that doesn't mean he's right in asserting that IAR should not be a part of Wikipedia. I think it's a discussion that's needed to reword the policy to stop any potential fuckups. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I odn't see this as win/lose, but let's be realistic - people can't bitch about folks ignoring the rules if they're in favor of IAR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but we can bitch about people's actions because they suck, not because they break a rule. Getting away from a rule fixation is the first step. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can (unless the rules ignorance is required to improve or maintain Wikipedia). Despite your continual claims to the contrary, the policy says nothing about ignoring the rules whenever we please. —David Levy 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:IAR policy also says nothing about not ignoring the rules whenever we please. Which is wherein I see the problem. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh, are we keeping score? I wasn't aware that this was a competition. Given that "Jeff is winning," I'll have to keep these "repeatedly proclaim that I'm right and almost everyone else is wrong" and "claim that someone believes precisely the opposite of what he/she says" strategies in mind.

2. I'm still waiting for someone to cite instances in which the policy was successfully [ab]used in this manner. —David Levy 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Wikipedia is failing because of IAR is easily disproven by the fact that Wikipedia is not in fact failing, despite having had IAR since 2001. >Radiant< 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the Wikipedia is failing. I'm saying WP:IAR is allowing the form of asinine behavior that GTBacchus is complaining about. The asinine behavior in question is in fact totally policy-supported (via WP:IAR), and doing something about it itself requires another invocation of WP:IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where am I "complaining" about anything? It's not about behavior being "policy supported" or not; it's about behavior making any sense or not. Thinking of things in terms of whether or not they're consistent with "the rules" isn't the only approach, nor the preferred one. That's kind of the point of IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Asinine behavior of any kind is not supported by policy. Part of Ignore all rules is to emphasize the fact that the important thing to ask is not whether some written policy or other can be read as supporting an action but whether the action improves the encyclopedia. That's a much more complex question, but one on which people of good faith can disagree without rancor. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still searching for the policy that refers to edit-warring against consensus as a means of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. —David Levy 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where? I see no such text. —David Levy 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be text that says edit-warring against consensus does not fall under IAR. There should be text that says any application of IAR against consensus does not fall under IAR. Christ, the reason why we have so many problems with this policy is because it's an esoteric seemingly contradictory idea that is explained in twelve words. There's no way a policy like this can be explained in twelve words, and there's a pretty easy way to fix that problem. I think that qualifying the rule would work for both sides. It would stop confusion on the side of people who like IAR, and it would limit its use on the side of people who don't. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put. The whole idea of having some esoteric twelve-word motto with "deep and subtle meaning" as a fundamental policy is absurd. Wikipedia is not a religion. It's meant to be accessible to people of different cultures - everyone in the world, in fact. We don't need deep and subtle rules, we need clear and simple rules. Haukur 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no problems with defanging WP:IAR by making the boundaries clear, but it's my sense that WP:IAR's strongest supporters love the flexiblity of not having to make boundaries clear, for whatever reason they might have (though clearly I personally suspect that those reasons are not always the most flattering for the public perception of their relationship to their power, or of Wikipedia itself). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think giving boundaries to IAR it's the right thing to do -- and I think the people you're talking about misunderstand the spirit of IAR. Maybe we should show them the way. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By now you know me well enough to know how important carefully worded non-vague policies are to me. You will probably not be surprised to know that when Guy first dropped WP:IAR on me in a situation that seemed like a "Because I'm the administrator and I say so!" situation, I almost left Wikipedia forever at that one instant (or shortly after I was able to determine it wasn't a hoax policy). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such administrative abuse will continue to occur with or without this policy. No one hates this more than I do. —David Levy 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Can you find that diff with Guy? And David, administrative abuse might continue, but adding boundaries to this rule would certainly curb it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not during a closing comment, but debate (on Darvon Cocktail, actually), but here's the diff. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thar she blows. Good enough for you, David? Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see an unambiguous invocation of WP:IAR. Now where's the evidence that this defied consensus? —David Levy 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is 6 votes to overturn versus 9 to endorse a consensus? Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is consensus determined via blind vote-counting?

Regardless, the debate's outcome was not mandated by WP:IAR. Had the closer determined that the application lacked consensus, it would have been negated. The fact that this debate even occurred is evidence of the fact that WP:IAR invocations are not held as sacrosanct. Improper closures (regardless of whether WP:IAR is cited) are routinely overturned at WP:DRV. —David Levy 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by blind vote-counting (except often in DRVs). And have you ever visited DRV? Improper closures are often upheld. There are many examples of this, too. But that's a different can of worms. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Irrespective of its validity, your complaint that improper closures are often upheld has nothing to do with WP:IAR. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I couldn't find citations of IAR in DRV discussion and closing remarks easily and quickly for you (even though I spend a lot of time on DRV lately) is that closing admins there prioritize bringing DRV discussions to a conclusion by any means necessary including majority vote and, if pressed, invoking IAR or uncited IAR, but simply application of personal interpretation and opinion instead of interpretation of other (non-IAR) poilicy. In addition I can personally testify to you that there are admins (whom I have promised not to name) who have e-mailed me (presumably partly to keep such mentions out of official record), but who have told me (paraphrasing here) that when policy is ignored, and majority or supermajority utilized instead of true consensus to decide and close DRV discussions within the stated 5 day limit, the philosophical principle driving that haste and driving that process is disdain for process and, ultimately, IAR.

Given the way the discussion is going, I'm not sure whether I'll put time into the search, honestly. Looks like our discussion here really isn't getting anywhere anyway.

Why not just try change and see how it fits? If it doesn't work out well, IAR can easily be put back the way it was. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're describing deliberate (and even secret) abuse. No rewording will address such misconduct. If you believe that administrators are abusing their position, I urge you to initiate a relevant community review. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind as well, David, the long-standing and wider consensuses regarding what's suitable for deletion, especially without a deletion discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And once again, you ignore the distinction between "letter" and "spirit," as well as the process through which our speedy deletion criteria have continually evolved. —David Levy 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was wrong three times with only two statements! —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There were three statements, the first implied: "Once again..." Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! —David Levy 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Any administrator who cites this policy as a license to do whatever he/she pleases knows full well that this is an egregious abuse. Changing the wording would do nothing to address the actual cause of this abuse. —David Levy 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the way society works, folks who have or assume authority also tend to have a kind of immunity to being called out for their egregious abuses, and changing the wording might give folks who challenge or are in doubt about abuse enough impetus to challenge someone who otherwise might be intimidated by that assumption of authority. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the Wikipedia community has zero reluctance to stand up to sysops who commit egregious abuse. The users who choose not to usually do so out of misplaced loyalty, not fear or intimidation. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then how do you explain me not calling for any kind of administrative of Guy yet? Do you think I might have been (and still am, partly because of the warm welcome you're giving me and my ideas) convinced that I won't get anywhere or it may be a bad idea for me to try? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that JzG committed such abuse. If you believe that he did, you're welcome to press the issue. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In theory, what you advocate makes sense. It relies, however, upon the assumption that the policy's wording causes "many problems." If you can demonstrate that people successfully exploit it to force through non-consensus acts, I'll reconsider my position. —David Levy 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Every last attempt to insert something like "...but respect consensus" or "...but don't ignore other people" into the text of this page has been resisted by its fans, including you. If this wasn't the case you'd have a much stronger position. Haukur 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm waiting for someone to establish that editors successfully defend the type of behavior described above by invoking this policy. Until such time, I see no benefit to the addition of redundant text. —David Levy 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. The page encourages certain behaviour which people don't actually get away with (like breaking the 3RR to defend against a decline in an article's quality), hence the page gives out bad advice. Haukur 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's an understandable argument. I disagree, however, that the page gives out bad advice. People misinterpret every policy, including ones that couldn't possibly be more detailed than they already are. The longer we make this, the less likely it will become that people will even bother to read it (so they'll only end up misunderstanding and misrepresenting it for that reason). Do you know how many times I've seen people cite Wikipedia:Avoid self-references without possessing even a rudimentary grasp of that page? Many more times than I've seen people improperly cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other policies and guidelines, like WP:ASR, can be misunderstood and misapplied. But at least those pages try to clearly explain what they're all about. Looking at WP:ASR I see a nutshell summary at the top and detailed information below. There's a world of difference between that and IAR where people have deliberately decided not to explain beyond what might be called a summary. Other pages try to be clear, this one is deliberately esoteric. And the page can't be explained because even its proponents don't agree on what it means. We have a page which refuses to explain itself but also proclaims itself "fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation". This is complete bullshit. Wikipedia would work exactly the same without this page. We could just as well say tat tvam asi is a concept fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation, in fact I think that's a much better explanation of Wikipedia than IAR is. Haukur 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see this previous reply to Rockstar915. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit, I think you may be asking for something that is semantically very hard to prove, especially to a skeptical/stubborn party such as yourself (I'm not saying you can't be reasoned with, but that you seem disinclined to make progress toward consensus and compromise in this discussion). To me, the patterns I see at work in DRV (where, for example, Admins make judgement-calls all the time, sometimes in conflict with apparent consensus or lack thereof, but rarely cite WP:IAR while doing so) are obvious examples of this kind of principle. But it seems like you're going to hold out for carefully harvested and stated URL links of histories and diffs, or perhaps Arbitration, Wikiquette or other forms of non-binding conflict resolution here in Wikipedia. Like I've already said, when I have time to spare, I'll put some effort into the work required to meet your standards. That said, if you'd be willing to look at the situations I refer to in general with an eye toward seeing the world at least partly from my perspective, I would really sincerely appreciate the effort you put into building the bridges we need to really reach consensus here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, I've been asked to prove something that is virtually impossible to prove (the nonexistence of a supposed situation).

I'm more than willing to work toward a solution if an actual problem can be demonstrated. People are claiming that this policy ties our hands (and forces us to allow editors to get away with actions opposed by consensus), and all that I'm asking for are citations of actual instances in which this has occurred. I'll gladly re-evaluate my stance if someone can show me that it has. —David Levy 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, then I am going to change the policy to add qualifiers, because I feel they are necessary and important, especially when dealing with new users, and for reminding experienced users of the limitations of this policy. If you disagree, that is unfortunate but I will revert you, and anyone else. I don't think 3RR applies here, because I'm going to IAR, because as I said, I think this is a crucial edit which provides necessary information. If you're prepared to deal with that, I will make the edit.--Crossmr 07:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As noted in my conversation with Jeff, someone advocating the insertion of such qualifiers cannot reasonably cite a directly contradictory interpretation of WP:IAR as justification for performing the edit. (I realize, of course, that you probably aren't serious about doing this.)

Secondly, your hypothetical abuse of WP:IAR would fail (just as the abuse of every other policy fails). Again, some people are claiming that the policy renders us powerless to halt such behavior, and I'm merely requesting examples of when this has occurred. —David Levy 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How could Crossmr's application of IAR fail? What he thinks he is doing is improving Wikipedia. What you think he's doing is disrupting, but since he thinks he's improving Wikipedia IAR prevails, right? You can't say what he's doing is wrong if it's not written anywhere. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Crossmr's application would fail because his edits wouldn't stand (and if he persisted, he likely would be blocked).

Secondly, WP:IAR indicates that the rules are to be ignored when they prevent the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia. Even when someone believes that a particular edit is good, he/she should realize that edit-warring against consensus is not. Anyone who doesn't realize this fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia works (and this cannot be resolved by revising a single page to indicate otherwise). People need to avoid harming Wikipedia for the sake of not harming Wikipedia, not because a rule says so. Otherwise, we'll only reinforce the precisely the notion that this policy is intended to dispel. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how IAR itself does not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how it does? Certainly, it's subject to abuse (as any policy is), but correct applications are beneficial, not disruptive. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is disruptive (and interfering with research I could be doing to better Klinefelter's syndrome). I have had the policy used against me to disrupt the good I am trying to do for Wikipedia. I find the notion that any antisocial behavior can be justified in the mind of the antisocial by this policy a bit off-putting to wanting to continue donating time and energy to Wikipedia itself. So I think it's clearly disruptive for at least one individual contributor (me). Like I keep saying, the intent of the policy is not clear (unless you read the footnotes) to me, and as we've observed, it's not clear to some admins. And I think that lack of clarity in IAR as it's currently formulated encourages folks inclined to abuse it to abuse it. I think that clarifying wording would be a major help with respect to being able to remind folks of their obligations and also with respect to helping editors (new and old) feel like they could make headway challenging the remaining abusers. So in my mind, it's pretty disruptive. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of example

I don't know, I had a quick read of that discussion, and it looks fine to me. Guy didn't lead with IAR, he lead with an actual argument. IAR was a counter-counter-argument. When someone ignores your arguments, presents no counter-arguments, and says "please cite policy/procedure that supports your procedure, otherwise you are wasting my time" (exact quote), WP:IAR is a fair answer. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But please note that the diff I provided was not one of the ones I would have used to answer David Levy's requests for citations of IAR being abused. It was one that Rockstar915 asked for. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a reason why IAR needs to remain "official policy"? Someone else here said IAR shouldn't be religion (and I'm not a huge fan of "subtle meaning" either, but we can get to that later). On the other hand, rules shouldn't be scripture either, should they. And it's already the case that some people will totally refuse to pay any attention to you unless you can quote chapter and verse. If you want to contemplate people's relationships to power around here, then also reflect upon how policy is wielded as a weapon against others! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what I'm seeing here? There are some assumptions going on that should be pointed out. If one assumes that Wikipedia is a rules-based structure, then IAR is absurd, ridiculous, asinine, etc. If it were the case that "chapter and verses" citations meant anything, then we'd be in trouble.

The thing is, the point of IAR is that Wikipedia is not that kind of game, and citing rules here isn't sufficient justification for anything. We have to actually communicate with each other about reasons for things, and not just quote "rules". When people say things like "this rule allows for such-and-such behavior," they're assuming that "rules" "allow" things, which isn't necessarily the case. Maybe they aren't really "rules" and actions actually have to stand or fall on their own merits, and not based on whether some rule-set is satisfied.

IAR both sets us free, and condemns us to our freedom, that we have to deal with every action as a free choice, and be able to justify it based on actual reasons, and not on some loophole or clause. It's kind of like existentialism that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to be comparing IAR to existentialism? Really, just think about it. The analogy is therefore incorrect: the existentialists believed they had no more rules -- when God died, there was nothing left; hence the dispair found in Sartre and Kierkegaard. I don't think that we, the editors of Wikipedia, are in a state of dispair due to IAR. Well, maybe some of us we are, but I'm not. The fact of the matter is that we are not free of the rules, and IAR doesn't by proxy condemn us to be free. There are still rules, guidelines, and policies that latch us together. If there weren't then we'd be in a state of anarchy, and we all know about WP's beliefs on that. IAR does condemn us to think about consensus before editing sans the rules. That's pretty much its scope. That and making sure the rules aren't firm. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I really want to compare IAR to existentialism? I don't know; I'm willing to do a lot of things for the sake of discussion, and I can be prone to flights of fancy... You never know what you might find out. I don't feel that I'm in a state of despair despite my freedom, but I didn't find reading Kierkegaard to be a bummer either. I suspect Pascal could have used an antidepressant, or something.

On point, I do think it's necessary to understand that IAR is not another technical clause in a rulebook of technical clauses that has to be technically consistent. IAR is pointing out that you're fully responsible for your judgment. Just because "the rules" say something, doesn't make it right, and just because they don't say something, doesn't make it wrong. You actually have to think about what you're doing, which might or might not lead you to crossing "the lines", and if somebody asks you what you're doing, simply pointing at a rule isn't necessarily a sufficient answer. Similarly, the fact that someone's acting at variance with a "rule" isn't necessarily sufficient reason that they should stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you said; well, at least the part about IAR ;). But see, none of what you said (e.g. an editor pointing to IAR as an excuse for an action as not okay) isn't explicitly stated in the policy. As it stands, as easily as you can tell someone who uses IAR "You can't just cite IAR for your actions," they can just as easily say "I don't see that anywhere in the policy. Feel free to point me to the place where it says that, but for now, I can do what I want." And technically, as it stands, they win the argument. Adding qualifiers to IAR would do no harm and would only help the understanding -- just because the knowledgable WP community generally accepts what you said true doesn't make it true, because it's not written. Right now, IAR is some unspoken law based on interpretation, and that's not enough. Maybe if Wikipedia were edited solely by experienced editors, but as we both know, it's not. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You state above that such an individual "win[s] the argument," but that simply isn't true. (Finding oneself blocked because of disruptive editing isn't much of a "win.") You're saying that we need to be able to point these people to text formally indicating that disruptive behavior is prohibited, but this directly contradicts the policy's spirit (do what's best for Wikipedia instead of obsessing on the rules).

I understand what you seek to accomplish, but I don't believe that the proposed change would be remotely successful in the long run. Someone who feels that edit-warring against consensus improves or maintains Wikipedia harbors a fundamental misunderstanding that cannot be rectified via mere wording to the contrary. A person who believes that an apparent linguistic loophole permits him/her to commit obvious disruption (as anyone familiar with WP:3RR is well aware) will not be helped until they come to realize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy in which the best rules-lawyer comes out on top. Pointing him/her to yet another complicated rule would only reinforce this misconception. —David Levy 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The only people who should be blocked, per your reasoning, are GTBacchus and Bkonrad, because they started the edit war. IBeatAnorexia thought he/she was improving Wikipedia, and that's allowed in IAR. GTBacchus and Bkonrad reverted the edits, thereby disrupting the improvement Wikipedia, right? And listen, I don't care if we qualify the rule in the project page. I would just like to see some essay thing like AADD that we can point to if someone flagrantly violates IAR, some sort of field guide or how-to. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What did I revert? I never reverted IBeatAnorexia, I improved the wording of their edit, and warned that it was likely to be reverted. Don't go saying I was edit warring when I wasn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It was Bkonrad and David Levy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, editing a policy against consensus does not improve Wikipedia. Anyone who believes otherwise obviously misunderstands the project to an extent far greater than can be addressed by modifying a single page.

2. Again, IBeatAnorexia added text that explicitly indicated that this policy does not condone such behavior, so he/she couldn't possibly have believed that it does.

3. If you merely want to point people to pages that explain the concept in greater detail, how about this one, this one or this one? —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that GTBacchus emself has asked how it is that we can second-guess a person's motivations only from reading what they write (and not from what they actually state), so I think your point (2) may be suspect, at least in GTBacchus' eyes if not the rest of our interpretations. I do still think that IAR totally justifies IBeatAnorexia's behavior. There are rules that we should talk about changes before we make them. In contradiction, there is the admonition to be bold. There are rules that we not revert 3 times in a row. In contradiction, there is IAR. There are rules against acting against consensus, yet clearly there are DRV admins and Speedy Delete admins who seem to disagree. Thank you for the links, though. I must note, however, that some of the admins I've already dealt with on DRV seem perfectly comfortable ignoring all of that advice. Which is why I'm here in the first place, because IAR is the justification they serve up when they don't like my criticisms of their actions. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that IAR "totally justifies" IBeatAnorexia's behavior. That's where you're making your mistake. IAR doesn't justify anything; actions have to justify themselves. It turns out that actions are justified on their own merits, and not according to some rule-set, which is why IAR is not a paradox, seeming to undermine the rule-set of which it's a part. It's not part of a rule-set, it turns out. The point of IAR is that you shouldn't look for justification in rules, but in improvement to the project, identified as such by consensus, over time.

If all we had to do was comply with a set of rules, then maybe writing an encyclopedia would be easy, but it's not. We have to use judgment at every step.

In this case, it's appropriate to ask whether IBeatAnorexia exercised good judgment in making the same edit repeatedly without discussing. Our collective experience tells us that such behavior is not consistent with good judgment. On the other hand, the edits seem to have sparked this conversation, which may lead to something good, so maybe IBeatAnorexia did the best thing possible; maybe even intentionally. In general, edit warring doesn't lead somewhere good, and that's why it's a bad idea, not because it's against a rule. It's against a "rule" because it's a bad idea. If there's a case where it would be a good idea, in the sense of real-world effectiveness and minimal generation of heat, then that's when that rule should be ignored. Most edit warring generates too much heat to be a good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think GTBacchus has a very good, clear understanding of IAR. If only we could translate some of his knowledge to the actual project page. But then again, I'm sure that would be opposed because people love the status quo. Would you be opposed, GTBacchus, to modifying the current policy to make it slightly more clear? Like maybe moving from 12 words to 20? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar915, I'm glad you think I'm making sense. Sometimes on this talk page, I wonder how much actual communication is going on, so it's nice to find that any two people agree about anything.

Twenty words, huh? I'm not opposed to the idea of rewording this policy, but I would approach such an endeavor very cautiously, because only a really good edit is going to stick. The advantage to keeping it short and sweet (and paradoxical-seeming) is that hopefully more people realize that way that it's not a rule to be dissected and applied and invoked, but an anti-rule: a sort of zen slap reminding people that the rules exist for the sake of the project, and not vice-versa. Adding many more words would tend to dilute that effect, I think. There's also a slippery slope to worry about - once you add a clause, somebody else adds a phrase, and then somebody adds a second paragraph, and before you know it you've got volumes of legal-sounding terms and conditions... ugh.

That said, it's clear from this talk page that the policy, as currently expressed, doesn't have the desired effect on every reader. Some people take it to be a rule, or to introduce a fundamental inconsistency into our rules, or to just be a lazy excuse for admins who want to throw their power around. I'm not sure what one could say to prevent people getting those impressions. It might be inevitable that this talk page will play host to bi-weekly discussions of this sort, no matter how we word the thing. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, either. It makes us think about what we're doing, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is nice when two people agree on this talk page, as it's so rare. In terms of changing the policy, I don't know what I was thinking about necessarily, I was just hoping to get the wheels turning. Again, maybe the answer doesn't lie in the changing of the policy per se but rather in writing a comprehensive how-to or a how-not-to use IAR. I've read the other essays and have been unimpressed, so maybe there should be a new one. I don't know, though, I'll keep noodling about it but I think there's some happy medium that can be reached so that those who wish it to change and those who like it the way it is can both be happy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The other thing that pissed me off about Guy's response to me originally in Darvon Cocktail's DRV as well as in your response/analysis was that when I asked for citations of policy to answer my question, the topic under discussion was just what the hell admins thought they were doing overriding CSD criteria for the sake of Speedying articles they didn't like. So when Guy answered with IAR, he was, as I interpreted it, essentially saying that admins could exercise censorship because they said so, because of IAR, which, I think most of us here agree is supreme bullshit, as that's NOT what IAR is for, and he didn't provide any other policies that said that censorship was sufficient reason to speedy delete any article. The only policy that supported that bullshit was IAR. Which is, at the risk of being repetitive, bullshit, and something I personally find very alienating as a new editor/participant in Wikipedia. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I do think that one of the biggest harms of IAR is that admins use it at their discression but piss on regular editors who use it. IAR does very little but to widen the admin/editor gap. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot archived?

Would anyone be averse to setting up automatic archival of this talk page by Werdnabot? Since this talk page is getting long again, this could be an easy permanent solution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just set up MiszaBot to archive stuff older than 14 days. Anyone's welcome to change that, of course. – Steel 00:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, 14 days is a good lag-time, and archive bots are helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

14 days is good, but I changed it to Werdnabot rather than MiszaBot. MiszaBot's userpage indicated that it was not approved to handle archiving directly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding Werdnabot was only to be used to archive user talk pages?--Crossmr 07:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Werndabot does seem capable of archiving WT: pages - see Special:Contributions/Shadowbot3, though MiszaBot II is quite capable of that too. Not sure where this 'not approved' thing came from. *Shrug* – Steel 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this back since Shadowbot3 hasn't run for about three days. – Steel 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is IAR all things to all people and/or meaningless?

As a long time supporter of IAR -- about five years or so as I write this -- I think IAR was, is, and will be the essence of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. And while IAR is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation), it is not (as BadlyDrawnJeff suggests) a license to act like an idiot. Those who get IAR, get it, and go on quietly about their business; those who don't get IAR seek to "clarify" it, thereby imposing their own interpretation of IAR on others.

In Larry Sanger's original formulation of IAR, its objective appeared to be to encourage people not to worry about whether they might be violating one of many petty rules; in its current formulation, IAR's application now appears to be restricted to acts done in good faith that purportedly "improve Wikipedia." Even in this current form, which remains controversial, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, IAR is worded just fine. And if IAR were somehow "clarified" to suit the tastes of one or more people, that would not stop people who should know better from intentionally abusing IAR as well as a plethora of other well written Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All it would do is violate the spirit of IAR by adding more unnecessary rulecruft to Wikipedia. // Internet Esquire 08:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but it's comments like this that make me want to side with Jeff. You said: Those who get IAR, get it, and go on quietly about their business; those who don't get IAR seek to "clarify" it, thereby imposing their own interpretation of IAR on others. I apologize that people are trying to clarify a rule that only experienced Wikipedians can understand but is "the essence of Wikipedia." It seems like the people who don't want to clarify it are the people who are the ones who misunderstand it and constantly assume bad faith of those who do (like assuming that people who want to clarify it are POV pushing). Furthermore, your second segment does exactly what you said we shouldn't be doing: you clarify the policy. To what? Your interpretation? IAR is a twelve-word rule that is understood by some unwritten law. That is just dumb. Finally, the point of clarifying isn't to do so to one person's perspective but rather a consensus. I'm sorry if you feel that clarification of an esoteric fundamental policy is a waste of time. If this is the attitude we're going to take towards IAR, however, we should absolutely nuke the policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing esoteric about IAR nor is it "a rule that only experienced Wikipedians can understand". It is simplicity itself. Trying to "clarify" something like IAR by essentially reducing it to a set of rules is, to say the least, counterintuitive. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? If it's so obvious and simple, how do you explain its massive abuse, misuse and misunderstanding? Seems like this is pretty far away from 1+1=2. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious, yes. How do I explain its abuse -- simple, there are some people who will abuse anything, given half a chance. older ≠ wiser 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between people abusing something and something that is mostly abused in its application. We're not talking WP:N, which people abuse sometimes to push a POV. We're talking something that is abused, and there's nothing stopping it from being abused. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, there's nothing written that's stopping it from being abused. Theoretically, as David says, Wikipedian community enforces correct and incorrect use of IAR, though there's been rather a dearth of that at DRV lately. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch with the wording. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I've seen no evidence that this policy is "mostly abused in its application." —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain the massive abuse, misuse and misunderstanding of WP:ASR? The answer, as I stated previously, is that this happens with every policy. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim that there's nothing esoteric about the page when it says itself that it's a "deep and subtle" "fundamental concept"? Haukur 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording itself is simple. A complete appreciation of its fundamental importance requires first-hand experience (and cannot adequately be conveyed in text).

When I was new to Wikipedia, this policy seemed ridiculous. I couldn't believe that people were actually advised to "ignore all rules." I know better now. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording itself is simple. A complete appreciation of its fundamental importance requires first-hand experience (and cannot adequately be conveyed in text). I think you did not succeed in making the case that IAR is not esoteric. In fact your sentences could be taken straight out of a commentary on the Upanishads. Haukur 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the "deep and subtle meaning" statement refers to the policy's significance within the Wikipedia community, not to its raw form. It's easy to understand what the policy means, but it isn't easy for someone lacking first-hand experience to appreciate its importance. —David Levy 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw this page I didn't have any strong opinion on it, if I remember correctly I thought it was a bit cute and maybe helpful for newbies to get into the spirit of things. Years later and with a completely different version of this page I think it's useless and possibly slightly harmful. People can do fine on Wikipedia without thinking this page is important at all. Wikipedia itself would do fine without having this page at all. Haukur 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you still believe that IAR is not license to "act like an idiot" (not my words, but sure), I wonder if you've been paying attention to the way it's ben used before. I will never understand it being the "essence" of Wikipedia, as if WP couldn't exist with a structure, but you're not seeing how IAR is used in reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't see that it is a license to act like an idiot. That people sometimes try to use it that way is irrelevant. People are quite capable of acting like idiots and justifying their idiocy with lame rationalizations with or without IAR. older ≠ wiser 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but rarely are they given a legitimate license. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's not that. older ≠ wiser 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So, to clarify, essentially what you're saying is that because you get what IAR is about, but clearly there are admins who do not, stating boundaries or limits on IAR that would help curb those misunderstanding admins and encourage community members to speak out about their excesses is of no use to you and therefore should be of no use to anyone else? Because, since I'm on a tear about what's bullshit, I think that's bullshit. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen. And, by the definitions of all of these hardcore defenders of IAR, what IBeatAnorexia did to this project (which was subsequently reverted by both Bkonrad and GTBacchus) should have been allowed. But they're not allowing it. Why? Because they have the "special knowledge" of IAR... I agree, Malcolm, this is bullshit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert IBeatAnorexia even once. Additionally, no reading of IAR suggests that anything a person decides to do is a good idea. IBeatAnorexia isn't wrong for breaking a rule, they're wrong for behaving foolishly, i.e., ignoring the "D" part of the BRD cycle. If Wikipedia were a rules-game, then IAR might be what as you're portraying it, but Wikipedia is not a rules-game, so these apparent paradoxes aren't really a problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, you're fight -- it wasn't you who reverted, it was David Levy and Bkonrad. As for the BRD, we're doing the D right now. Or at least we should be. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One needn't possess "special knowledge" to realize that edit-warring against consensus doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia.

And again, IBeatAnorexia added text that explicitly indicated that this policy does not condone such behavior, so he/she couldn't possibly have believed that it does.

Firstly, the above argument is circular. Secondly, anyone who believes that this policy is a license to ignore consensus shouldn't be an admin. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's true we should be desysopping quite a few people. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so. —David Levy 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So how do we get this done? Do you want a list, or do I have to take all of these folks to Arbitration? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in trying as it stands. You might try through WP:CN. ArbCom inevitably favors admins and won't punish them unless they totally fuck up or do something egregious. Misuse of IAR will, sadly, never get an admin desysopped, even if abusing an equivalent but differnet policy would. IAR literally turns into admins vs. editors. It's sad. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR for dummies

I don't get it: what is IAR? Is this a joke? Can someone put more info on the article page? I'll rather not scan through the discussions on the talkpage to find out on my own. I'm really lost here. I've been ignoring many of the rules for a long time, in hope that I would improve Wiki; but I didn't get very far. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that many folks are spending a lot of time trying to figure out what we really mean, your most meaningful, representative interpretation of the policy is most likely, unfortunately, going to come from reading the debates. Consensus is apparently not achievable. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, there was a consensus for the original formulation of IAR, one that was formed by allowing people to express their support with their own signing statements. To wit, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." (IMHO, this original formulation was fine, but the current formulation has the same essential contempt for control freaks and rulecruft.) As Wikipedia grew, many of those who once supported the original formulation of IAR withdrew their support, claiming that Wikipedia had "outgrown it"; others sought to rewrite and "clarify" IAR, introducing a shitload of rulecruft; still others sought to merge IAR with other policies, guidelines, and proposals, such as Use Common Sense, Assume Good Faith, Don't Be a Dick, Product Over Process, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

While I have my own personal take on IAR, which I am more than willing to share with others, I have never felt the need to "clarify" it with a bunch of rulecruft, and I recoil when I see others attempting to do so, just as I recoil when I see people imply that IAR is a license to act like an idiot and/or a license for admins to ignore the policies which they have a duty to uphold. Even so, I don't worry too much about people using IAR as a license for doing things that are objectively objectionable because when it comes to enforcing IAR, the crux of the matter is who has jurisdiction. This is where IAR reaches a practical boundary, and those who cite IAR as a license to act like an idiot or abuse their positions of trust quickly find that they are in a hostile forum where their arguments hold no weight. // Internet Esquire 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the people who repeatedly inhabit this talk page are inevitably only the people who have problems with IAR, and the people who have no problem with it work just fine ignoring all the words here, looking at the size of positions on this talk page is not an accurate determinant of consensus. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is also an unsupportable, potentially insulting assertion. A lot of people are not interested in politics or discussion about policy. A lot of people don't fully utilize all the watchlists and other mechanisms to monitor active discussion on policy. Not everyone has the time or inclination. So there could potentially be many folks who might have a problem with IAR who say nothing here. Your logic is not particularly rigorous and I object to the implication that my issues in discussion are particularly ignorable. Please moderate your tone. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If no census is reached, how can it then be tagged as official policy? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gooood question. It's strange that something that is, as it stands, so subjective can be taken as a policy. Internet Esquire's comments above just prove that IAR is useless right now because whenever it's invoked it just turns into an opinion war. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is currently and has been since roughly the beginning of Wikipedia, consensus for this policy, and it is furthermore essential to how Wikipedia operates. Just because everyone on Wikipedia doesn't bother to address every ignorant objection on the talk page does not mean that there is not consensus for it. —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange how your point of view clouds your judgement. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide more specific information, but if by "I ignored many of the rules for a long time in the hope that I would improve Wikipedia" you mean "I disregarded the rules despite people explaining to me why a particular course of action was more appropriate", that's not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should he need to explain himself? If you're one of those people who thinks IAR is good the way it is, why don't you answer his question, which was "What is IAR?". In answering his question, be warned that in doing so, you cannot invoke interpretations, unwritten laws or "common knowledge," as none of that is expressely written on the project page. This is a perfect example of someone who is unfamiliar with the policy and is asking for an explanation but cannot get one because the hardcore defenders don't even understand it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"In doing so, you cannot invoke interpretations... as none of that is expressly written on the project page." Where did you get that rule? You seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is some sort of formal rules game, where saying the right magic words will make an action right or wrong, and where lack of specific written policy leaves us helpless and without any sense of our own. That's just not the case. We're not claiming that IAR is at the center of our game of nomic; we're claiming that Wikipedia is not nomic.

As for explaining what IAR means, that's easy. It means that Wikipedia is not a rules game, and that everything is grounded, not in some sort of constitution, but in our defining goal of building an encyclopedia. IAR means that if you don't know all the rules, don't worry too much about it, and that the rules are never a substitute for exercising judgment - just because a rule says not to do something, doesn't necessarily make it bad, and just because a rule says to do something, doesn't necessarily make it good. Eventually, if your actions are questioned, you'll have to support them with common-sense reasoning, as we haven't got some kind of sacred laws to fall back on. It's not that complicated, really. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See, that sort of explanation is the kind I would love to have on the project page. Sure would make things less complicated. I think that IAR is one of the most important policies of Wikipedia, and I think that some sort of explanation would and could never hurt the project. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

More (questionable?) uses/citations of IAR?

1. AfD closed (almost) citing IAR
2. AfD closed (via redirect) citing IAR among others
3. AfD closed (almost) citing IAR
4. AfD commenter advises use of IAR
5. AfD commenter advises IAR
6. Some talk of IAR in AfD

I got tired of searching & sifting. I don't know whether these examples are or will be at all clear to anyone talking about the situation here on the talk page. Look, I know I'm too new to Wikipedia to know anything, as many people seem never to tire of reminding me, but the thing that strikes me strangest about IAR is that its proponents seem to think that it justifies ignoring guidelines and policy when making administrative decisions, but if you look at the footnote to WP:IAR that shows the original principles the founders wrote, it's clear to me that the principle that morphed into what we now have as WP:IAR was originally intended to encourage new editors not to be intimidated by the rules, not to entreat anyone who felt like it to do what they felt like doing, to hell with consensus or policy or guidelines. How, then, did we get to where we are now with IAR? Was the original wording too complex? To me, the current wording is nothing like the original. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to further your comments, IAR should be readily apparent and understandable to new editors who are trying to grasp Wikipedia. It's absolutely unacceptable for a "fundamental" policy only to be able to be understood by seasoned editors and admins. That seems to be biting the newbies, just written in policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people do understand it. In fact, most people don't even know that there any sort of rule-like pages on Wikipedia. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is not understandable to the vast majority of newbies. —Centrx→talk • 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the thrust of your thesis here, please understand that you're making essentially unsupportable assertions that are also potentially insulting. It would be nice if you could moderate your tone. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is so pointless. Whenever someone challenges or asks for clarification of IAR, it just turns into "You don't understand it." "No, you don't understand it," and then we lose focus of the original question and it never gets answered. Why? Because those who get upset about people attempting to clarify IAR just disrupt the conversation. I guess I just would have hoped that we could get a bit more maturity from an admin. Is that too much to ask? Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When a situation gets to the point where anyone objecting to the status quo is branded an extremist, it can take months or years to get any meaningful progress on moving away from that stance. As I read the body of policies, guidelines and consensus from the Wikipedia community, I'm fairly certain that this kind of dynamic (where the power to do actually focuses on not changing approach/philosophy/policy) is not what the original founders intended. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The funny part about all of this is that IAR is meant to show that the rules aren't firm. And yet people act like IAR is totally firm and unchangeable. Funny how people are totally illogical at times. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, what seems illogical is insisting that we "clarify" a policy that de-emphasizes the importance of always following the rules by adding rules to it and explaining to people that they need to abide by the policy about ignoring rules because it contains rules that say so. —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're both right, you know. Those both seem illogical. Different people approach situations with different assumptions. Some editors will find IAR completely natural, and will say that anybody wishing to spell it out as a clear "rule" is missing the point. Other editors will find IAR to be completely asinine, and will feel the absurdity is compounded by a stubborn insistence that it not be clarified. (There are certainly deeper assumptions underlying those two reactions.)

It would seem that the goal with this page would be to maximize the proportion of editors in the first group, and minimize the second group, right? As far as I know, we have very little evidence now regarding how many editors "get" (or don't get) IAR.

I don't think we're forbidden from talking about possible wordings for the page. If we could phrase the idea on this talk page in a way that makes more people happy than the current wording, then I guess we'd edit the policy then. I haven't seen that happen yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. This was a routine closure. No rules were ignored, so I don't know why Johnleemk referenced this policy.

2. EdGl redirected the page (which ordinarily doesn't require advance approval from anyone), thereby rendering the debate moot (until such time as someone were to object) and prompting Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh to correctly close it. This is a textbook example of a proper (and uncontroversial) application of WP:IAR. (The page should have simply been redirected in the first place.)

3. Once again, no rules were ignored, so I don't know why Johnleemk referenced this policy.

4. Yomangani recommended ignoring a rule, but this did not occur. (Mailer Diablo closed the debate normally.) Having examined the deleted article, I doubt that such an application would have been controversial. (In fact, the page arguably qualified or almost qualified as patent nonsense.)

5. Deltopia made a passing reference to this policy that played no role in the discussion or its closure.

6. Pan Dan presented a reasonable rationale for ignoring a rule, but an alternative solution was found.

In response to your question, the policy simply evolved over the years. In my opinion, it was the original wording that was harmful (but that's a separate matter). —David Levy 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What you said above (I didn't add this comment above your six analyses to avoid confusion) is not the most frustrating part about all of this. As I said before, I don't care if the policy itself gets qualified, I'd justl like a field guide to it. And I've already read those essays you pointed to above in the past, and I found in the past each one inadequate. It would be nice for a how-to, or at least a comprehensive how-not-to, pointing out when applying IAR is unacceptable. But by far the most frustrating and objectionable parts about these discussions is that when someone attempts to explain this policy or clarify it, admins like Centrx just swoop in and say "if you want to clarify it, you obviously don't understand it," and say furthermore that the talk page of IAR is not a good place to look for explanations of IAR because it's full of morons who don't understand the policy. Those sorts of comments are unhelpful, unproductive, offensive, and, especially for an admin, unacceptable. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. If you feel that those essays are inadequate, you're welcome to improve them and/or author one of your own.

2. I believe that you've misinterpreted Centrx's position, but there is truth to the claim that full appreciation of this policy takes time. When I was new to Wikipedia, I was appalled and horrified by the page. It was only after I gained experience that I came to recognize its logic and importance. —David Levy 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I would write something, though I'm sure that it'll just get vetoed by the people who hate IAR qualifiers. 2. It's sad when you can't grasp a policy of a project right when you join it. You know your project is in need of a change of policy if that is the case. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I declare IAR as a dillema

I declare IAR a dillema, a paradox and a logical contradiction because if one is set to "ignore all rules"--under whatever definition one may decide to do so--one cannot do that by taking into account another rule, which in this case, is IAR. That is, if one is set to ignore all rules, then one should also ignore IAR--which of course, it is exactly what IAR says; but if IAR says that all rules should be ignored and if IAR itself is being ignored, as a rule, then its existence as a rule is ironic.

Now, of course, we all know that this is not what it was meant to say. Wales and his friends wanted an exit for problems that rules cannot solve. They wanted an exception for things that are better left out without rules. This tool is used by many other factions, but those factions leave little that cannot be defined. For instance, some legal entities reserve the right to terminate or change certain things at their will, if their status is being threatened. Example of such a rule is Ezboard's Term of Use:

“ You agree that ezboard, in its sole discretion, may terminate your password, account (or any part of it) or ability to use the Service, and remove and discard any Content within the Service, for any reason or for no reason, including, without limitation, for lack of use, or for violating the letter or the spirit of this Agreement. You agree that any termination of your access to the Service may be immediate and without prior notice. You further agree that ezboard shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your use or ability to access the Service. ”

This may work when a totalitarian entity reserves the right to use such authority at their will; but when that option is presented to a large group of people--or as in this case, a massive group of people--, it is obviously set to fail. I don't think I need to explain why. The oldest legends of our world explains the reason for that; one of those legends is called Tower of Babel. One's definition for what is best could be a very subjective opinion, which gives way to conflict between editors. I don't understand why Wales is so stubborn in thinking that people--and that includes his Black Knight Administrator--can find a common ground on how to solve problems. To me, that is a naive way of dealing with things. This IAR working as an exception was meant to give the administration more flexibility, but instead, it made things more complex. I almost sound like Thucydides arguing against democracy, but how can they say that IAR is official policy, when that official policy is not even defined and when no census is reached? This is another example of Wales speaking out on things that have no solid ground. If Wales decided this to be an official policy, then I say that it should be his responsibility to describe and explain this official policy to those who do not understand it; and to those whose "common sense is not that common." I am among one of those people. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What you just said has been said before a million times. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself, Deskana. This is exactly what we've been talking about above as why IAR sucks right now: admins just swoop in piss on non-admins or new editors when they try to figure this rule out or try to engage in a civil discussion about it. Either contribute constructively or just shut up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If I thought it was a problem to mention it again, I'd remove it. Saying "this has been said before" isn't the same as saying "don't say this again". So I think it's pretty clear who needs to "shut up" here. Right now all I'm ashamed of is your attitude. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how I figured you would respond, and yeah, what you said does come with the subtext of "don't do this again." How about responding to Anittas' complaints instead of telling him it's been done before? Or at least point him to something useful? What you should be ashamed about is not my attitude, but rather the fact that your comment added absolutely nothing to help solve the dilemma. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't like what my response would be anyway, so I'm not going to say it, since I'm an evil admin and whatnot... if we're reading subtexts. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what your response would be, because it wasn't my statement. But I guess not responding to the statement is even more telling in the end. Oh, and for the record, I have no problems with admins; just ones with superiority complexes. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have a problem with people that read one or two posts by someone and judge them, rather than looking at their contributions, if we're being nice and honest. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have a problem with those people too -- for what it's worth, I had already read through all your contributions to this page before responded to you. But if we're really being honest, I have a problem with people assuming that other people don't do their research before commenting on an issue. This could go on for a while. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about my contributions to this page. This, for example, either proves you wrong or proves I'm a big fat liar. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then instead of discussing this, we should be working on how to respond to Anittas. Or maybe, per my experience, we should just sick GTBacchus on this. His responses about IAR are always good. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Being bold, in the talk page - Summary of edit trends/history patterns in IAR since this page's inception

For the purposes of current discussion: (Note that I'm not naming names, but I'm not surprised by the Usernames of some of the folks involved in IAR's history)

• Prior to 17 April 2002, IAR apparently was simply part of Rules to consider (which now redirects to WP:POLICY) and Wikipedia:Rules to consider (which also redirects to WP:POLICY. Neither of these pages/their versions were substantively different (except for formatting) from the article version available on nostalgia.wikipedia.org] until they were changed to redirect to WP:POLICY.
• IAR was first stably given the status of policy on 29 September 2005 apparently with a consensus of 4 discussing editors - while the talk page showed only 4 editors discussing this, it's been pointed out that more than that supported IAR as policy at this time, and in fact as early as 2001. These editors from the talk page concurred that because IAR was strongly related to the last of Wikipedia's 5 pillars it should be marked as policy. This tagging was later struck a month later (23 October 2005) after some active editing. It stood as an essay only (i.e. not policy) for about 1.5 months until the edits of mid-December, 2005. It currently has a custom-made box that looks like an official, shared one about policy but is clearly customized for IAR in particular. It should be noted, however, that this policy with big splashy boxes methodology was by 29 September 2005, about 6 months old (I'm pretty sure Template:policy was created in April 2005).
• The first time IAR was marked protected was 30 October 2005 (in a state where it was not marked policy).
• IAR was first radically rephrased from the founders' statements (Rules to consider) on 8 November 2005.
• Links to the five pillars and be bold were added on 15 November 2005. Other links have been added on and off throughout editing history. The most controversial is the link to Don't be a dick, which has been objected to on the grounds of decency, censorship and avoiding name-calling.
• Shortly afterwards, it was scrubbed back to the original Rules to consider statement and began to be elaborated again. It also acquired a link to WP:POINT, a factual accuracy dispute (and lost it), a policy tag (and lost it), a guideline tag (and lost it) during the ensuing edits. It also acquired an interesting box during the 15 November edits that I'd certainly accept: This page has a unique status on Wikipedia. It is considered official policy by some, a guideline by others, and meta-policy by yet others. Review the Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules discussion page for current interpretations. During the elaboration, the original Rules to consider phrasing was again lost.
• In Mid-December 2005, more edits came by, including edit warring about whether it should just redirect to other policies, and a very interesting custom policy-like box that I could also get behind. A couple of editors in late December started calling the non-Rules-to-consider version the "stable" version, though where they got that I'm not clear about.
• In early January 2006, it was marked as a humor page.
• Another interesting editorial/admin decision in early January had the page's box invite edits but was simultaneous with a page protect.
• On 14 January 2006, it acquired an "Applications" section cribbed from a "manual" proposal made on the Talk page. This section stuck for a week and was then converted to two new sections: How to and When to. When to was struck completely within a day, and How to struck shortly afterwards. The reverts/edits never seemed to return to the Applications section suggestion. On 19 January 2006, it acquired an examples section which was immediately (next revision) removed. There's some indication that the material was split off to another page.
• By 29 January 2006, it was back to the "Rules to consider" phrasing with the "very important to wikipedia" box.
• On 1 February 2006, a quote from Jimbo Wales (31 Jan 2006) was added and removed on the next edit.
• IAR was the largest and most elaborate it's ever been on 2 February 2006.
• On 10 March 2006, the "frighten and depress" language of the "Rules to consider" phrasing was removed from the key sentence.
• On 13 April 2006, an anonymous editor nominated it for speedy delete based on G1.
• On 15 May 2006, "discourage" was changed to "prevent".
• Around 1 August 2006, there was some rewording of "prevent" to "are unhelpful" or "are confusing" and variations (e.g.). Not entirely sure here, but I think it was reverted to "prevent" after this discussion.
• On 18 August, 2006, Jimbo made an edit.
• On 23 August, 2006, based (I get this from the edit comment) on Jimbo's sole edit, the page was again made policy instead of an important page or concept. Note that this edit was not made by consensus, but followed Jimbo's assertion/edit. Since then, editors have reverted the wording to this last version Jimbo edited on the strength of his allowing it to stand when he made the edit. The article has remained marked as policy since then.
• On 1 September, 2006, the page was again nominated for deletion (under MfD).
• On 1 October, 2006, page acquired Wikipedia's Principles footer.
• Since Jimbo's edit, pretty much all attempts to add-on short or long text, change the page significantly or change its status as policy have been denied or put down with varying degrees of verbal violence and stubbornness (as required).

Overall:

• A great deal of the discussion around IAR has always been reductionist. Many edit discussions/edit dialogs (war is too strong a term) are very reductionist in nature, with comments like "1 extra sentence is too long" or "remove text that complicates and duplicates the "improve" idea" (which was incidentally marked minor). One of the editing principles that seems to be applied heavily here is to try to keep this particular policy as brief as possible, for better or for worse. Of course, observant linguists may note that this tends to dilute and broaden what was originally a pretty focused assertion, whereas many of the folks who've tried to clarify the point have introduced extra text which largely had the effect of making the point clearer and more accessible.
• Attempts to mark WP:IAR as controversial are generally summarily deleted as personal opinions (even though it's clear the opinions are not particularly personal).
• The edit pattern recently seems to be deeply rooted in Jimbo's edit wherein his comments asserted that IAR has always been policy since the beginning, and have taken a cue to maintain the status quo from Jimbo's having left the policy exactly as it was stated on 18 August, 2006. This seems to me to be a bit weird, given that policy is often edited via consensus on Wikipedia, but for some reason Jimbo's word is final?
• Several attempts were made to talk about merging back in the manual essay or other essays on how to apply WP:IAR but all have failed.

After all this commentary, I would like to be bold and suggest that it might not be a bad idea to really strongly consider the idea that Jimbo doesn't seem to be the kind of person who appreciates monolithic or calcified rules and if there are editors who strongly disagree with the deep subtlety of meaning inherent in WP:IAR, it might be a bold idea to work on it a little bit (but clearly, not too much) and maybe add a few helpful links for the new or unsubtle. (like, apparently, me). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are missing a lot of history. This has been one of Wikipedia's "rules to consider" since 2001 (see [1])--where the number of people who are in favor there exceed your "4 editors" tagging it as policy, at a time when there were very few editors altogether--and Wikipedia pages were not tagged with huge categorizing tags until 2005. —Centrx→talk • 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to sound like you were dismissing my entire effort? If you review my original comment, you'll note that I referred and linked to "rules to consider" several times via its nostalgia link. Thank you, though, for the clarification, which is helpful. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Malcolm! You really outdid yourself with this one. Per Centrx's comments, I don't think it matters that it's been around since 2001 -- what matters is that it's not firm and it's changed. Malcolm brings up the great point that the way it's interpreted now (set in stone, status quo) is actually probably not what Jimbo wanted. Maybe it's time to start thinking about changing it and making it at least slightly less unstable. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

More very interesting information from the horses' mouths:

• Larry Sanger speaks on slashdot about stuff - If you search on "ignore all rules", you'll get the very interesting news that Mr. Sanger proposed the rule and never thought it was the most important thing about Wikipedia, and felt it was a sort of "a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc."
• In the earliest archive of talk comments on this page, Jimbo also has some interesting clarifications to make. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also very interesting and relevant is Jimbo Wales statement of principles. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another aspect of the discussion to consider, Argumentum_ad_Jimbonem reminds us that not everything Jimbo says is the incontrovertible, unless he invokes the power of WP:OFFICE, which I in no wise saw in this page's history. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just edited the main comment to integrate the early history Centrix mentioned in the first reply to the original comment. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Being bolder yet

So how about reverting to the version Jimbo edited? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be substantially different from the current version. However I think the main problem with any plan to edit this statement of policy is that it won't make any difference at all. The essence of "Ignore all rules" is to ignore...well... all rules, including this one. So this page could be changed to contain nothing but a picture of Van Clomp's The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies and it wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference to how the policy is interpreted on Wikipedia. The existence of this policy does, however, provide a useful starting point for educating misguided Wikipedians away from over-reliance on written rules. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's so, then why have almost all edits to the page been reverted since 18 April 2006? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The substantial difference between Jimbo's edit and the current version is that except in the edit comment, it was in no way marked official policy. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the edits are probably reverted because a lot of people like to keep this policy simple. And really, it is very simple. You either get it at first sight or you don't. If you don't, you come here and discuss it until the light dawns. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The text of the rule is just as simple in Jimbo's edit as it is now. As I said, the difference is that Jimbo didn't assert policy within the body of the article, only the comments. In fact his edit was to the box that said it wasn't actually policy, but a fundamentally important concept. Oddly, he said it was policy in the edit comments, but didn't change the box to look like a policy box, he just clarified the explanatory text inside the box. I get the text of the rule, but as should be obvious if you do take the time to read my comments so far, I think that the article in toto is not clear. If I were allowed to make edits that would not be reverted, I would probably suggest changing the title of the "See Also" section (certainly negotiable, but my first thoughts were something like "See Also/Other Views") and perhaps adding a couple more links to that section.

Also, as both Rockstar and I have asserted, we have seen some admins involved in Deletion Review and other places use the clearly wrong interpretation to justify actions of hubris. And guess what: they're getting away with it, because that alternate interpretation is currently equally as valid. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the admins are "getting away with it", then their intepretation is correct. If it wasn't they wouldn't prevail. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it just means that they have enough oomph behind them that us lowly folk can't do anything about it. I wonder how you come to your conclusions sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's clarification is correct. They're not "getting away with it" by consensus, they're "getting away with it" by assuming power and making their decisions stick. As admins, they can close Deletion Review and non-admins can't do anything about it (except escalate to RfC, which we haven't really felt empowered enough to do, partly because of IAR being policy and being widely misinterpreted there). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't feel "empowered" to file an RFC, then you're the only one holding yourself back. IAR exists, but it's not some kind of super-rule, justifying every admin action; quite the contrary, it's an anti-rule saying that no "rule" is sufficient to justify any action. If you think a situation or a person needs an RFC, then start one, not because they're breaking the rules, but because they're making wrong decisions, if that's what you think is going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll do that soon, after I have time to research who's doing what, and what a neutral read of their decisions might be. It's a bit charged because it's hard to disentangle the ego when I feel wronged, and I don't want to bring that to the conversation.

Still, what still bothers me about IAR in its present state is that it's presented as (and I certainly first interpreted it as) a monolithic policy with nothing in it to discourage me from thinking otherwise, except going away for a while, thinking about it and coming back to this discussion. While I understand that some folks feel this is the natural way to do it, it's apparently not working for some Admins (from my point of view), and I would deeply appreciate being able to modify IAR's text itself to make it clearer that it's not monolithic and doesn't hold to support folks who are apparently taking it the wrong way.

I think there are ways to do that that don't bite the newbies and don't keep the article quite as sparse as it is, but also don't dilute the almost ineffable philosophical meaning of the text as it is now.

What I'm arguing for is the space to do that consensus editing and decision-making, because even though I'm pretty sure I get what IAR is about (finally), I still don't think that making the learning curve so high is in the end best for Wikipedia and I don't think that keeping the learning curve high is improving my (or some other folks') experience of Wikipedia. I'm arguing to go back to being able to edit this thing iteratively and communally, without the fear that someone's going to just revert it back to the Jimbo-Wales-with-subsquent-custom-policy-tag-and-wikipedia-foundations-footer version that many current edit reverters seem to so strongly favor. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've said here. I think it's worth talking about how we can make the policy more accessible. For the present, however, I think it's a good idea to be... circumspect about it. Why don't we talk here, on the talk page, about suggestions for how to make it so more people are on the same page regarding IAR? A few ideas occur to me, including modifying the tag text, modifying the wording of the policy itself, writing a separate page with some (necessarily, brief) explanation that has the endorsement of most regulars here... there seem to be multiple ways to skin this cat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very cool, and I appreciate the effort of good faith (both in you assuming it and in you displaying it).

Kim Bruning, who was involved in some of the edits in late 2005 and early-to-mid 2006, is working on an essay about IAR that I think would be interesting to include in the current See Also section. Granting her some help working on it, as well as thinking about adding it to IAR's See Also would be a help, I think.

On that note, I think renaming See Also to something that indicates that not all links in See Also obviously support any one interpretation of IAR might help. I'm having trouble with keeping it short, but my best so far is Alternate Interpretations/Supporting Articles.

I like your ideas too. I'd be very open to modifying the tag text. I liked some of the older versions I saw in my recent survey of the history of edits for IAR, but I'd be cool with discussing new ones. As a point of reference, I bring to the discussion the text as it was (briefly) on 15 November 2005:

This page has a unique status on Wikipedia. It is considered official policy by some, a guideline by others, 
and meta-policy by yet others. Review the Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules discussion page for current interpretations.

I liked this text a lot because it seemed like an accurate representation of the diverse feelings people had about IAR and wasn't at all monolithic. I'm not saying we should use this phrasing precisely, but I did like it.

I also really like the idea of a separate/sub page with endorsements. I do think that there may need to be more than one, though, given that there is not really a consensus even here about what IAR is really about. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea

I haven't had time to individually reply to all of the new talk page posts yet (though I have read them), but I have a suggestion. How about linking the phrase "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" to a new page that explicitly outlines the types of actions that do and do not improve or maintain Wikipedia? For example:

You can improve or maintain Wikipedia by...

• Following the spirit of a rule (instead of bureaucratically clinging to its literal wording even when it's clear that a specific application was not intended)
• Setting aside a rule that only causes harm (or prevents improvement), again because this particular situation wasn't envisioned when the rule was written
• Adding useful information to an article, despite not knowing how to properly format it

You will not improve or maintain Wikipedia by...

• Ignoring rules not because they stand in the way of furthering the community's goals, but because you simply don't care to follow them (or prefer to further your own goals instead)
• Edit-warring to override consensus that a change does not improve or maintain Wikipedia
• Ignoring rules as a means of gaining an advantage over good-faith editors in a dispute or establishing some sort of "authority" to control a situation

The above are merely rough examples, of course. Opinions? —David Levy 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like this, although a) I think it needs to be on this page, and b) I think the clarification of the first line is flawed a bit, and leaves the door a bit too wide open). As deletion/demotion isn't on the table, this might be the best possible result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this work too. I promise not to let you do all the work, but I need (as do we all, probably because I'm a spammy bastard) some time to digest it all. Thank you, David. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of thing I was looking for above. Thank God. I do agree with Jeff, though: the first line does leave the door quite open and says, for the most part, that the rules can be interpreted any way one wants. But as for its placing, can't it just be incorporated into an essay and placed in the "See also" section? Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This actually wouldn't be too bad. Perhaps we should do it and see how it goes. However, if people start citing this beaurocratically and clinging to it's every word, I think that everyone who is advocating for no change whatsoever will go insane and fly right out of their gourds. Thanatosimii 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good point. Maybe there should be a statement that says something like "In the end, if you're using IAR correctly, no one will ever notice, and if they do, they won't complain." Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a sentiment most of the sane IAR supporters I know seem to agree with. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason Ignore all rules exists is because rules aren't much use. For instance, in the attempted clarification some of the wording says that you won't improve Wikipedia if you ignore the rules because "you simply don't care to follow them". But that's just not true. Part of this policy is to empower editors to use their commonsense and not follow the rules. If you start trying to write rules about not following rules, then you've completely missed the point. Stop clinging to rules. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While I recognize where you're going with this, and I recognize the value in this direction, I am also telling you that I have personal experience, over in rules-land (i.e. AfD, CSD, DRV, and all the other procedures set up to make sure that this thing doesn't turn into a huge bloated mess) of folks using this rule as a rule to act in ways that are in contravention with consensus, which, as I understand it here in Wikipedia as a whole, is not okay. This is why some of us are attempting to meaningfully clarify the issue. Can we get your buy-in, or are you consistently going to tell us we're wasting our time? I'd prefer the former. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. You're not completely wasting your time, though. In time you may come to understand Ignore all rules. Until then you'll be continually struggling with the belief that consensus means totting up some list of votes, and an action that contradicts a strict numeric count is "against consensus". --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I think I can justify (though I'm getting tired of doing so) that I have a long and fruitful history with the idea of non-voting formal consensus decision-making. I grew up a member of the Society of Friends (who NEVER vote, always make decisions, however long it takes, by building formal and universal consensus). Since then I've been trained in the various and wonderful methodologies of Transactional Analysis, Active Listening and Co-Counselling (many of these harken from the 1970's), and have practiced both formal and informal "Processing" to varying degrees of success throughout my life. To add on to the stack of whether I know or don't know what consensus is, I also have formal training as a suicide prevention hotline call operator, and have a minor degree in Women's Studies. So I hope you'll discard your notions about my understanding of consensus.

Also, I'm getting tired of this sanctimony you seem to delight in, wherein everyone who disagrees with you about IAR's format and form is obviously mistaken and only an egg and will stop bothering with it in time. So I think I'll stop responding to you as of this instant. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with MalcolmGin here. As a long time supporter of IAR, I must dissociate myself from the disrespectful demeanor of Tony Sidaway towards those who seek to clarify IAR's meaning and application. And Kudos on your list of consensus-building accolades, MalcolmGin. Perhaps its time to "shun" the sanctimonious individuals who can't be bothered with justifying and explaining their views. // Internet Esquire 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, shunning and punishing folks who won't participate is not the best way to go about building consensus and consensus is still most important. If you have the patience, then you should keep talking. I probably will return to talking with Tony in time. I'm just fed up for the moment. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Close readers of this discussion will already appreciate that I've avoided getting dragged into this endless nitpicking. It's fine if some of those engaged in this discussion want to ignore me. Those who listen and follow my comments will see that I express a consistent and easily understood view: that this policy means that the rules can be ignored in constructing an encyclopedia. With all due deference to MalcolmGin's self-expressed qualifications, there may be some who read his comments here and glean from them the conclusion that he does not understand Ignore all rules. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been led to believe in extensive conversation about IAR with other editors that that represents a simplistic view of IAR (which is not necessarily wrong), and that others have found much deeper meaning in IAR, which is why I express doubt about your interpretation. I have found a more subtle meaning, which you may find if you visit my query at the Village Pump. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reimagining the policy box wording

Current wording:

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. The concept expressed below is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation. It has a long tradition and a deep and subtle meaning. Please consider this before editing the page. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Suggested revised wording:

This page is part of the official policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia. The concept expressed below is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation. It has a long tradition and a deep and subtle meaning. Because of this subtlety, it is considered official policy by some, a guideline by others, and meta-policy by yet others. Please consider this before editing the page. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Thoughts? Advice? Railing? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It should be noted that the references in the original are switched in the revised wording, so the pointer to Jimbo's edit is ref 1 in the original and ref 4 in the suggested revised, and the pointer to the version from the nostalgic Rules to consider is ref 2 in the original and ref 3 in the suggested revised versions. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're making it far too complex, I fear. It's perfectly fine as it is. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is a community about consensus. While my edit takes into account your interpretation that the status quo is okay, it also accounts for my opinion too. That's the nature of consensus. You can't have it both ways. If you claim to know what consensus is, then act like it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're past the point where we can say it's perfectly fine as it is. (By "it", I mean the whole situation, and not necessarily the policy-box wording) There are clearly enough people getting the wrong idea about this policy that it's at least worth talking about whether we could communicate our principles more effectively. Malcolm, I like the way you're thinking, but I suspect this discussion is still going way too much in circles to get anywhere on wording yet.

Like, what exact problem are we trying to solve here, anyway? It seems like there are people interpreting IAR one way, and others saying that's not what it really means... I think there be more than two interpretations flying around, some of which may be entirely fictional. Which one(s?) are we trying to disabuse whom of, er... do you see what I'm getting at? I think defining a problem might help us find a solution.

How about we list some different interpretations of "Ignore all rules", and figure out who's following which, or which ones people think others are following, or however that works out? I'll bet most people on this page could agree that certain interpretations are certainly wrong, and to be avoided, so that's a start.

Does that sound like a good idea, or like a big waste of time, or... both?.. neither? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A major problem with the proposed wording is that WP:IAR definitely is a policy. This was debated in the past, but that was rendered moot by Jimbo's announcement. —David Levy 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I asked on Jimbo's talk page whether everything he says qualifies as an office action 24/7, and was linked to this (by another editor). If you like, I'm happy to e-mail him directly about it, but on second thought, maybe you should, since I'm not the one taking his word as The Truth. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that as it stands, IAR is a policy, with or without Jimbo. You can't, unfortunately, just change that on a policy's talk page. I think the best way to go about moving to change IAR from a solid policy to what you said it to be is to go through the village pump. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, not everything that Jimbo says should be interpreted as a commandment from above. Quite often, he merely expresses an opinion, and people are all too quick to read into it as some sort of official proclamation.

This is not such an instance. Jimbo didn't merely express approval of the page or an opinion that it should be policy. He explicitly stated that it is policy. Jimbo possesses the authority to unilaterally create Wikimedia policy (with or without consensus), so this is policy. —David Levy 01:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it, Jimbo has to go through an explicit process (not just say so) to create policy.

Thinking about it in a sort of King Midas way, I found that pretty intuitive when I thought about it.

If you'd like to participate in the Village Pump discussion, it's here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What leads you to understand that Jimbo is required "to go through an explicit process (not just say so) to create policy," and what do you believe this "process" to be? —David Levy 02:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE and corollary Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and logic and personal experience from having run a dictatorship, wherein I found it quite useful to defer to official process in order, as I've said before, to avoid becoming the King Midas of rulemaking. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Why are you citing the process through which "questionable or illegal Wikimedia content" is removed?

2. The point behind the "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" essay is that "we should not base our decisions on a haphazard interpretation of something [Jimbo] said on a semi-related matter several years ago," et cetera. Explicitly noted on that page is the fact that "he has the authority to create policy from scratch if he thinks it necessary." —David Levy 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I'd misread the intro of the WP:OFFICE policy. This one instead: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_started.3F, wherein it becomes very important to know what a "declaration" is, and whether the edit comment was a "declaration". I know there's at least one request for clarification on Jimbo Wales' Talk page, so I guess we'll see how that turns out.

2. I don't dispute you here. I do think it really matters to find out whether Jimbo meant to speak ex officio or as just a guy when he made the edit comment in question. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what David said (and also, WP:NOBOOK; in essence you're asking us to play along with "the rules" but not realizing that those "rules" are either assumed or made up by you, and do not in fact exist). I see no need to verbosify the tag; indeed, why doesn't it simply use {{policy}}? And what is a "meta-policy" supposed to mean, anyway? >Radiant< 08:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Meta-policy, I assume, from my decoding of the root meanings, is "policy about policy", which it objectively is. See above for my response to David. I understand that the simplest understanding of IAR is that there are no rules. But from what I understand of community feeling, consensus is still very important. Consensus, may I remind you, is that everyone, even the inconvenient ones like User:MalcolmGin agrees, if grudgingly, to the direction. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know my Greek, but that doesn't explain what it's supposed to mean. Policy is policy, and adding gradients among that is instruction creep. >Radiant< 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean how do you interpret it? Since it's not metapolicy to you, I shouldn't think you'd waste time on it. Why can't IAR be a policy, a guideline and a metapolicy? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because "policy and guideline" is a contradiction in terms, and "metapolicy" is not defined anywhere and is therefore either impractical or meaningless. You apparently seek to complicate this page for no apparent reason. >Radiant< 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that I'm asking difficult questions and refusing to be put off means I'm randomly trying to be complicated? Nice. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are, I hope, aware that "difficult" and "complicated" are synonyms? My point is that you're being difficult for no discernible practical reason. I suppose I should start ignoring you now because you're obviously not going to accomplish anything by being difficult for no discernible practical reason. >Radiant< 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing flies directly in the face of seeking and achieving consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It overrides other policy, so it needs to be policy. Otherwise you get people yelling "IAR is a guideline! CSD is policy! You can't do that!" the first time you use it on a policy. It should be the first and foremost rule taken into account before all others(accept for the rule where we should be excellent to each other). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's true (good argument, by the way) then it should rightly be something like "super-policy", shouldn't it? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, because that doesn't help anyone. It's not a third-level policy with 4200 experience points and three bonus feats, either. >Radiant< 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Radiant! for the standard policy box

For moving off the rock and making a change for the better. The standard policy box fits the bill for my criticism, I think, unless we hear otherwise from Jimbo, but I'm not planning on e-mailing him or anything. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporters of IAR and Opposing Views

At one time, the IAR Talk Page contained a list of supporters and opposers and their various positions on IAR. That is one thing that seems to be lacking from IAR's current incarnation, which has a Talk Page that is frequently archived. Why not create subpages entitled Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Supporters, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Opposition, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Interpretations and link to these subpages from the main IAR page? // Internet Esquire 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That IAR itself is not static could present a problem there, but if we handled it like Arbitration does, where each subpage or interpretation were stated, and then supperters/opposers/etc. were accounted for for each one, you might have a winner there. Although I think another worry might be maintainability, etc. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a subpage for Supporters of IAR, linking to the then current version of IAR and the then current version of its Talk Page. I decided against offering a signing statement or offering my own interpretation of IAR until other people have a chance to respond to this idea. // Internet Esquire 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The original poll is still here, look at the archive box (it's at the top): /Straw poll. I don't think, however, that the poll or list of supporters and opposers should be on the project page at all. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That straw poll is hardly "the original version." It is a version pulled out of the IAR Talk Page in September of 2006 and frozen in time, duly criticized as not indicating which version of IAR its purported supporters support, as it amalgamates supporters of the original version with supporters of various rulecruft versions. Also missing from the history of IAR are the various versions that existed when the page was temporarily renamed/moved. Even so, the archived straw poll will no doubt be very helpful as a starting point in determining who supported what and when, so I am going to link to it from the IAR Supporters subpage. // Internet Esquire 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about what's going on with listing "supporters". What's the point of this exercise supposed to be? Are we trying to show that the policy has support and opposition for various reasons? You know, we don't do that with any other policy. People oppose all of our policies, but that doesn't mean each policy is listed with pros and cons, as if it's somehow negotiable. Have we got a page on "Views opposing NPOV"?

IAR isn't a policy because the right proportion of people support it; it's a policy because this is this is Wikipedia, and IAR is part of what that means. It's not a question of supporting or opposing it; it's a question of understanding it or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While we don't currently provide a list of supporters, opposition, and interpretations for all of Wikipedia's policies, this was once common practice on Talk Pages, and there is no reason why we should not do this for all current Wikipedia policies, even those that are somehow non-negotiable, such as NPOV. On that note, I respectfully disagree with the somewhat bizarre contention that the vast majority of Wikipedia's policies are not based on consensus. As Wikipedia continues to evolve, "What Wikipedia is/is not" and "What Wikipedia means/does not mean" are questions that will always be open to re-interpretation. // Internet Esquire 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the point of having a list of supporters, etc, for any policy. We are all bound by all of Wikipedia's policies, whether we support them (or ignore them) or not. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I spelled out the benefits of providing lists of supporters, opposition, and interpretations of Wikipedia policies pretty clearly -- i.e., helping the community to reach consensus by overcoming objections and explaining policies to those who don't understand them. Dismissing those clear and palpable benefits with the assertion that "we are all bound by all of Wikipedia's policies" is a non sequitur. However, assuming, arguendo, that there's "no point" in annotating policies with explanatory subpages, where's the harm in having such subpages? // Internet Esquire 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying despite this article's history and sources, this article is incontrovertibly a policy? Because my research into the history says not. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what Tony was trying to say is that IAR is a policy now, and, for the most part, I agree with his sentiments. We don't need a list of supporters and opposers for every single policy we have (can you imagine having a list of supporters and opposers for WP:CIVIL or WP:COPYRIGHT?). If we want to change the policy, eradicate it, or just start a straw poll, then it should be done in the talk page. For the meantime, I'm removing the subpage links from the project space. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove them? Where's the harm in having links to explanatory subpages? // Internet Esquire 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think adding those in is a bit premature. – Steel 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I made myself clear in my original wording. I don't really think Internet Esquire's approach feels right (though I do admire the being bold). If we were to catalogue consensus or degree of consensus built, I'd rather see something like what I've seen in Arbitration decisions, wherein, on the project page or a subpage, an interpretation of the situation would be posted, and then the supporters/opposers and comments regsitered there. I think that would be more valuable over time for folks in the future coming to the discussion/project page for the first few times. So I don't object to the removal of Internet Esquire's attempts particularly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no doubt that Ignore all rules is Wikipedia's firmest and longest established policy. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But how can it be firm? Isn't the entire point of IAR to show that the rules are not firm? That seems... well, off. Rockstar915 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore the rules. Wikipedia policy doesn't come any firmer and more succinct than that. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore the rules? In any sense? Wait a minute, I thought just earlier we were saying you can't ignore the rules if you fuck this up because you'll just get blocked if you do. It's like saying "Oh, you can break the law. But if you do, you'll go to jail." So no, it's not that firm. The spirit of IAR is that you can ignore the rules if you're working on consensus and you know that whatever you do won't be challenged. That's not that firm. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule (or meta-rule, or koan, or whatever) is that you can ignore the rules as long as you don't proceed to be a dick or a damned fool about it. You can do whatever you want, but when somebody taps you on the shoulder and says you can't do that, you don't demand they tell you where it's written, and you don't tell them to piss off because you're ignoring the rules, you listen to them, and you talk to them, and you move forward informed by what happened and remembering that consensus is the goal, and civility is the way to get there.

The spirit of the rule, on the flipside, is that if you see somebody doing something that has been determined to be a Bad Idea, you don't go throw a rule in their face, you don't leave a templated warning turd on their talk page; rather, you assume that they mean well, you address your concerns to them in a dignified and dignifying manner, and you move forward informed by what happened and remembering that consensus is the goal, and civility is the way to get there.

The spirit of the rule is that, when those two people talk about whatever they're disagreeing about, the conversation isn't guided by determining which action is most in keeping with "the rules", but instead it's guided by thoughtful inquiry into the consequences of one action or another for the encyclopedia.

In that sense, Rockstar915, you can ignore the rules all you want, and you won't go to jail, because you'll be acting cooperatively, which is better than acting unilaterally at one extreme, and better than acting bureaucratically at the other. If you decide to be a dick or a damned fool, then you'll probably end up blocked or something, but that's not even our doing; it's natural law. We just watch it happen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this wouldn't work anyway, but I'd almost like to see an IAR caveat that admins performing admin functions are NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT, even to override consensus, but that would contravene one of the only times I think IAR is sensible to use, which is in extreme emergency. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that such lists are not a good idea because they won't actually resolve anything. It strikes me that people who read "IAR" as "do whatever you like" haven't actually read this page, because that's simply not what it says. Since even at the present length it turns out that people aren't reading it fully, verbosifying is unlikely to help anything. >Radiant< 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's cool, but are we sure the 12 words we have now are those that get the correct idea across to the most people? It seems that people are coming away from the page with different ideas, and I don't think it's just a matter of those who've read all 12 words versus those who haven't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah

People were looking for invocations of IAR. Here's one, which I must say is a rather novel approach. >Radiant< 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really surprised by this. If IAR can be used on blocks, then it certainly would become an anarchy, right?--Kylohk 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think IAR should never be used in disputes. Instead, it should be only used in uncontroversial and reasonable actions that are not according to the rules. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, as many of us keep trying to say, noone is capable of "using" or "invoking" IAR at all, it's not that kind of rule. Thanatosimii 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Where does it say that? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On this talk page, which for now is the de facto explanation of IAR. Remember that "where is it written?" isn't the right question to ask about WP policy; we don't work that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "How/where did you come up with that belief?" And yeah, the talk page really has become the new explanation of IAR. Sigh. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I wasn't trying to be difficult. I think the idea that IAR isn't something "used" or "invoked" is part of the understanding that those of us who claim to understand it claim to share. Personally, I find that the conversations on this talk page allow me to clarify my own thoughts about the policy, so I'm learning about it day by day. Basically, it comes down to this: if IAR is some sort of "rule" that you can "invoke" to do stuff, then Jeff is right and it's completely asinine. If IAR is actually different from that, and isn't a rule but more of a pointer beyond the rules and into actual accountability, without reliance on rules, then it's actually worth something, and worth holding as a fundamental principle for this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That has to be clarified. When many people see this, they assume its a carte blanche to just do whatever they feel like. We have to look beyond the intent and what the result is.--Crossmr 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many people get the wrong idea. They have to suspend common sense to hold onto that idea, because it's clearly untenable, but they do it anyway. This is why we're talking about clarifying it, but it has to be done very carefully. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, why does it have to be spelled out that nothing anybody writes down, anywhere, ever, obviates the need to pay attention to one's surroundings, and to treat other humans with respect? If somebody really thinks that something written on a webpage makes them omnipotent, and that everybody else will just shut up and let them do whatever they want... if somebody really thinks that, then they're some kind of sociopath, and they probably thought that before reading IAR. Am I missing something here, or is my judgment clouded by being in kind of a bad mood tonight? How is it not obvious to everyone that the "do whatever you want, and #@*& everyone else" interpretation is completely moronic through and through? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because we are humans, and we're competitive by nature. When we get in a dispute, we want to win. When someone is desperate, this can be seen as the "nuke". Hah, no one can argue with this! Humans are used to rules, and this looks like a rule. Almost a secret rule which lets you win any debate anytime. That is why its necessary. Even those who don't necessarily have the "lawyering tendency" might still try and pull this out now and then if they see themselves in an unwinnable position, which is almost always when I see this pulled. Someone gets in a debate, they can't defend their position and rather than admit that it was a poor position or they were wrong, some will just declare IAR.--Crossmr 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right of course. It's absurd that people don't realize that if they can use the secret weapon, then so can the other guy, so it doesn't actually work. You'd especially think they'd realize that when they're called out on it.

Anyway, what's the most succinct and effective thing we can say to prevent that misconception? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Salt the earth and don't talk about it? As I've said below, I think Be Bold really covers the spirit of IAR. Because we all know in reality you shouldn't ignore all rules when you do something anyway on wikipedia. Civility, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No personal attacks, those should all be followed no matter what.--Crossmr 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's one of the options on the table at this point. The fact that civility and NPA can't be ignored is just natural law; people who don't know that will find out eventually, and those willing to ignore those rules are willing to do so whether or not we have an "IAR" page. They'll reap what they sow, and then maybe they'll know. Verifiability and NPOV are just the definition of what project we're working on, so if you're ignoring those, you're not actually working on this encyclopedia, but on some other project.

At any rate, I think we've got to deal with the existence of this page, which means either leaving it just as it is, or editing it in a way that's actually going to stick, and that actually improves it. First someone will have to figure out what sort of edit that might be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the best way to prevent that from happening is to add an extra line at the bottom of the page, clarifying the circumstances in which IAR could be made, such as when there is a consensus among a group of editors that it is okay.--Kylohk 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in a general way, but it's not as simple as "when there's a consensus", I don't think. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we/where would we list essays ABOUT IAR?

I know there are at least a couple specifically about interpreting IAR. Can we put them in See Also, or should we make a separate sub/section or is it nothin' doin' (i.e. piss off, MalcolmGin, what good are you anyway?)? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other policies and guidelines list essays in the "See also" section. However, since there are already five links in the See also section, maybe we should create an "essays" section? But we should only add essays if we agree 100% with them and they reflect consensus. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if true consensus is possible, as it is clear that the official version of consensus is that it's a policy, but there are obviously folks (myself included) who think that that's inaccurate (in many different directions). But, I will ID the essays I mean, post them here and see if anyone else has an opinion. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Essay Candidates:

• Wikipedia:Follow_consensus,_not_policy (semi-draft status, but active)
• Wikipedia:Don't_be_evil
• Wikipedia:Suggestions_on_how_to_ignore_all_rules
• Wikipedia:Ignoring_all_rules_-_a_beginners_guide
• Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
• Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules,_except_for_the_one_about_consensus
• Wikipedia:Product,_process,_policy (only a short section is about IAR directly)
• Wikipedia:Advice_for_new_administrators (again, only a short section)
• Wikipedia:Process_is_important

If I've missed any, please let me know. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just written some thoughts down at User:GTBacchus/What "Ignore all rules" means. I'm not necessarily offering it for the "See also" section, but I'd be interested in what others think. It might be worth working on, and possibly moving to the project namespace, maybe with a different title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is good and I think gets down to the consensus meanings we're all talking about (i.e. Talk:Kundalini). I would nominate this and Kim's and maybe one other to a section on the project page itself about interpretations, if that's acceptable. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there's a lot of those, so might I suggest we simply link to Category:Wikipedia process discussions? The cat is admittedly not very well-named, but it was intended for precisely this kind of IAR-related pages. >Radiant< 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I really feel like we should just choose a few out of this list (or make our own as GTBacchus is doing, and Kim is doing) and choose those for a section titled something like "Essays" or "Interpretations". I think linking to the Cat might dilute the point. What do you think, though? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this will lead to many arguments about which interpretations are appropriate for listing. I do agree that we have too many of these essays, but I doubt that you'll get consensual support for deleting them. >Radiant< 13:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you object to selecting a few interpretive essays and listing them on the project page? It seems like a pretty simple process. We could also link to the category, but it would be good to have some good consensus-dervied interpretations right up front on the project page like GTBacchus and Rockstar915 and I have been talking about.

Let me make this clear though, because you seem to be misinterpreting my goals: In no wise am I suggesting, requesting or wanting that the category you mention be trimmed in any way. I'm only talking about adding, not subtracting. I think listing the category would be good also, but I still like the idea of listing a couple of representative essays that talk about good ways to interpret/apply IAR. Do you have objections to that line of thinking? If so, can you express them so we can know what you're thinking? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't object per se, but I predict that this will lead to heated debate and edit wars over which essays are selected. >Radiant< 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to participate in the selection process now, here on the discussion page? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Radiant, I like what you said above (incorporating some of WP:BURO), but I also think that we'll be able to agree on at least one or two essays. At least I haven't seen any opposition thus far. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your example

Several people have wanted an example of how this policy can be used to be disruptive, and here it is: [2]. The editor has gone so far as to declare "if we believe what someone is saying, we should use it as a source". I've repeatedly pointed out the applicable policies of Verifiability (V), Reliable sources (RS), No original research (NOR) and Neutral point of view (NPOV), given him ample time to come up with appropriate sources and he's failed to do so. Since he can't generate a reliable source, his response is to revert with a cry of "Ignore all rules". There is your example of how its misinterpreted to be disruptive, when just about everyone here agrees that you should never ignore those policies and guidelines.--Crossmr 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone has disputed the fact that this policy (like every other policy) sometimes is abused. —David Levy 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point made before by myself and others is that there are foreseeable abuses and we should nip those in the bud. Its always an abuse to use IAR to try and ignore core principles like WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Foreign language versions of wikipedia have recognized that and included that language already.--Crossmr 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see above for my (and others') explanations of why expanding the page's text likely wouldn't help. —David Levy 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why not leave it as an unwritten rule? New users probably shouldn't be IARing anyway and making sweeping changes without talking about it first. Experienced users would likely be here long enough that if they had a really good reason to IAR and make a change, they'd do it. I'm sure if you tally up the times IAR has been used for good and bad, the bad will far out weigh the good. Why even give someone in a dispute ammunition when all they're likely trying to do is just circumvent the rules for their personal cause without really thinking about Wikipedia?--Crossmr 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Per my above comment, I'm truly tired of covering the same ground over and over again (no offense). Please read the above discussions (and ideally the archived discussions too). —David Levy 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to no longer talk about it. I've read it, and participated in many previous discussions.--Crossmr 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that I no longer wish to talk about it. By all means, please raise an issue that hasn't been covered on this page a dozen times (or at least one that hasn't been covered in the past week). —David Levy 10:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, you write: New users probably shouldn't be IARing anyway and making sweeping changes without talking about it first. Nothing could be further from the truth. Be Bold and Ignore all rules are there, in part, to remind us grizzled old timers not to tell newcomers that their new, refreshing ideas need clearance with us first. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold can cover that without IAR. As we've pointed out many times before, the second someone reverts you, you shouldn't claim IAR, you should start talking about it. Telling people to be bold, try stuff, but make sure they talk about it if anyone disagrees is far more important than giving people the idea that they can just go around doing whatever they want because its a policy. I still haven't seen an application of IAR that hasn't resulted in a dispute of some kind.--Crossmr 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Every time an editor adds information to a page without checking first that they're following every aspect of MoS, you're seeing an application of IAR. That's Tony's point (please correct me, Tony, if it isn't), that an intimate knowledge of the guidelines isn't a prerequisite to editing. Every newbie mistake that's gently corrected and then not repeated is an application of IAR. It's just doesn't seem like it because you're looking for "applications" of IAR, and that's really the wrong thing to be looking for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. "Ignore" is not a synonym of "do the exact opposite". >Radiant< 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And you've just demonstrated why I don't feel this should even exist. They don't know that they're actively applying IAR and the only people who actively apply it, apply it incorrectly. Hence it shouldn't exist to be applied incorrectly. if someone has to invoke it by name, they're likely facing opposition and shouldn't try to win that debate by invoking IAR. As far as I'm concerned Be Bold covers this. I don't think Be Bold requires anyone to be perfect, and if they add information to an article without following MOS perfectly, they're just being bold, not ignoring all rules. Because that information still has to conform to WP:V, etc. At best they're ignoring some rules.--Crossmr 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re: Radiant and GTBacchus, ignoring something is far different from not knowing it exists. New users probably have no idea about IAR, BLP, WP:N, etc. etc. etc., and their editing is not ignoring the rules but rather being ignorant of them. Being ignorant is being passive, whereas ignoring is actively doing something (or rather not doing something). Though I do agree with GTBacchus that the spirit of the rule is that it's okay to be ignorant of the rules as long as you're improving the porject. But that's not what it says. What it says is that even if you know the rules, it's okay to ignore them. And to a certain extent that's true too. But maybe therein lies the issue. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having a hard time identifying precisely which interpretation we want people to come away from the page with. I think most of us are agreed that "newbies are allowed to be ignorant of policies and guidelines" is good, and I think most of us agree that "you can do whatever you want, and use IAR as an shield from accountability" is bad. Is there some way we can get more precise about where that line is drawn, somewhere between a forgiving learning curve and a complete free-for-all?

The more I think about it, the more I think it would be useful to look at a list a different readings of IAR, and work out which ones are to be avoided, which ones are desirable, and which ones we're not so sure about. Then we can ask whether some different approach could get the more correct ideas across to more people than what we've got now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad ya'll are talking about this, as it gets to the meat of the things I've been trying to discuss about IAR too.

Please look at the list of essays I posted in the discussion below about adding essays to the project page in another section. Would it be helpful to add those to the project page? I think it would. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't rush to just add a bunch of essays to a see-also section. I think it's worth talking about which interpretations we're agreeing with, etc. Some of those essays (Kim's new one perhaps?) might be quite good to add; others (WP:PI) not so much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wouldn't add WP:SNOW, considering how controversial it is (not to mention the recent ArbCom event). Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I listed all the ones I could find that talked about or mentioned IAR in the interests of being complete for the discussion, but I appreciate the focus and no, I don't think all of them should go into the article, just the ones that seem like they're talking/thinking about IAR in the consensus way. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think our current task is to figure out what the "consensus way" is to think about IAR, and then we can figure out how best to communicate that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to that end, I trust Kim Bruning implicitly, so I figure his essay is a good one, and you mentioned, I think, that one as well. We could put that one in either See Also or a separate section for Essays in a Be Bold sort of way and see what other folks think. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It turns out Kim is a "he", and I trust him too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well goddamn. Ain't the first time that's happened to me on the great Intarweb! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reword it to "You don't have to be perfect, if you would like to make a change that you feel would improve the encyclopedia, make it. Don't get hung up on the rules, but if someone questions your action, talk about it." and call it "Nobodies Perfect". This was just given to me, and it is yet another example of the problem with this and why this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later [Talk:Kundalini#Standardization_of_reference_formats]. I know it would rile some feathers, but perhaps we should remove the policy tag for now, because honestly this doesn't have consensus on wikipedia.--Crossmr 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gotta take baby steps, Crossmr. I like the content you suggest, but do you really think that's going to fly as a replacement for this policy, all at once? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, when you say "this doesn't have consensus on Wikipedia"... I think it's become pretty clear that we're not all in agreement what "this" even is. Which interpretation of IAR doesn't have consensus? We have to define what we're talking about if we're going to agree on anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. There isn't even consensus on what this is, which clearly indicates to me that there isn't consensus for what this, or what its supposed to do. As such we need to indicate that on the main page and direct people to the talk page if they have questions or need guidance.--Crossmr 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that some things that this policy represents have got plenty of consensus, but when someone wishes to vilify this policy, it's easy for them to say it represents some other things, that would never have consensus support. If we can clarify what it means and what it doesn't, and that what it properly means does in fact have consensus support, that might help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence why you're not going to explain it in a sentence. Why are we even having this discussion? Because the one sentence we have now isn't clear enough for people who don't have experience, and even for some of those who do. This is a complicated concept obviously, so its going to need an explanation of what it means, it will have to be detailed and include exceptions and things you shouldn't ignore.--Crossmr 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on a lot of that. All that I'd add is that this page has got a lot of inertia, and in order to edit it, we'll have to be very careful. In a policy so short, pretty much any change is a drastic change, and likely to be reverted unless we do it right. I think we have to take small steps, and keep using this talk page, and figure out precisely what we need to say to people, before we start editing the policy. I've got an idea on how to proceed, which I guess I'll start a new section for... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• With respect to wording, perhaps a quote from WP:BURO might help, "[rules] are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything ... is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should [not] be resolved through ... tightly sticking to rules and procedures". Or something like that. >Radiant< 08:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately any ambiguity can lead to issue surrounding stuff like WP:V, WP:OR, etc. There are a few core policies that we really need to stress are important on all articles, and that no amount of fudging gets around them, and npov, v, and or must be tightly stuck to. Its what gives wikipedia credibility.--Crossmr 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that certain policies (WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) aren't "rules" so much as definitions of the project we're working on here. Within the understanding that you're working on that project, and not something else, you can pretty much not worry about "rules", except insofar as you interact with processes that people are fussy about. In those cases, it's only polite to pay attention, and probably disruptive to do otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is currently in no different a position than NOT, V, NOR, NPOV. As its labeled and treated just the same, and often treated as trumping those when it shouldn't. Those apply to Wikipedia article space, encyclopedia wide. Most edits are done in article space, and I think most issues with IAR crop up from things happening in article space. These have no ambiguity dependent on which article you're editing, though some people would like to think they do, and that is often where I see IAR come in to play. People think that because the topic they want to write about is obscure they can claim IAR and use random unreliable forum post by user_x to source their article.--Crossmr 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. That's essentially why I came to this talk page and started causing trouble: This policy is so vaugely worded and so general that it can be interpreted to mean anything the user/abuser wants it to mean, and because Wikipedia is almost always enforced retroactively, i.e. after the fact of the use/abuse of IAR or any other policy, folks who come to IAR for the first time or times get to abuse it at their leisure, because it is not spelled out just what IAR means anyway. I'm willing to work with others here and work around the sanctity of the phrasing of the policy for now, in the spirit of the idea that there's something ineffable about the initial read of IAR, but that really boils down to mystical bullshit which I've noted to admins before around here is really puzzling given how absolutely obviously committed Wikipedia is otherwise to being verifiable, attributable, and transparent, not opaque, not like we had to go do Degoba and study with the Yoda of Wiki for 6 months before I could "get" IAR. Why is IAR so special and why aren't we at least using the original phrasing and not this scrubbed to almost useless form we have now?

If you want my honest opinion, I think it's because there are folks involved in unpholding IAR as it is who have an investment in that openness and flexibility that they want to preserve, because they've found the flexibility useful in the past and they want it around in case they need it again. Precisely the wrong kind of reasons for keeping it the way it is. I think IAR can in fact explicitly be improved so that it's just as useful in that way to experienced users on the light side but less useful to new folks or people who use it just for dark side ends. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's profitable to talk about why people might oppose editing IAR. That's not the road to improving the page.

I think we're largely agreed that it would be helpful to do something to address the problem of people getting the wrong impressions about this policy. Some kind of edit's going to have to be made. It's not going to stick though, unless we're quite careful. First, I think we'd do well to work out just which impressions we'd like the policy to give, and which ones we'd like to avoid. I'm starting a new section below to that end.

The reason I oppose drastic edits at this point is because nothing has demonstrated the kind of consensus it would take to stick, and I don't see a point in making changes that will certainly be reverted. Every interaction like that adds more inertia, so it's actually self-defeating, I think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I was hoping to make sweeping generalizations about all the essays. Now I have to respond to each of them! On to more serious matters, GTBacchus is right -- we shouldn't be talking about changing IAR, we should be working on changing IAR. Let's add an essay or two. But then again every change we make will likely get reverted. Speaking of which: can we get that old policy tag back? I don't like the new one. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll know it's time to edit the page when members of the Cabal start chiming in to support a proposal fnord. (That happens sooner than you think, on account of there not being a cabal.) I don't think the solution is to just add an essay or two as "See also"s. I'm not sure what the solution is, but seeing how people react to the essays will teach us something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! I'm a part of a cabal! And I agree that more needs to be done. But we've got to move in baby steps... baby steps... and then one day we can leap and fly away! Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is/was profitable for me to speculate/talk about why people might oppose editing IAR, and I'm used to being the rude bastard who says stuff like that, so don't be surprised if I say more like that in the future. I say it generally because I think that way, and then usually stifle it and work with folks (but sometimes, obviously, it slips out), because I've always been that way. Sorry about it, though. I do know it's rude, but I also know it helps to frame the conversation in my head and in others' (but not everyone's obviously).

Re: edits that'll stick, why can't we BE BOLD in IAR? I do agree that there seems to be more stubbornness rather than less the more things are talked about or experimented with here, which is pretty antithetical to the ideas we're writing about in IAR and related essays. I know that part of this must be past debates, vandalism, and rapidly diminishing senses of humor/abilities to be meaningfully flexible (I take this description from personal experience in real life, in personal life and in business, as well as at Wikipedia, so please don't think I'm singling anyone out) as we get more and more jaded to the topic or the subject.

Anyhow, I've responded to all the essays in the section you created below. Thank you for doing that. Having been instructed to do baby steps and further being very conscious of how carefully I'm being watched here, I've wanted to avoid the appearance of unhelpfully IARing and being BOLD in the text of the article for a while now, including feeling intimidated by the prospect of pissing everyone off simply with a new Talk heading and starting a new line of questions. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)