![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. -- User:Jimbo Wales
Additional previous comments may be found in the archive.
I really like this latest revision; tightened it up a lot and didn't lose anything important. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur :-) Kim Bruning 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I did some rearranging of my own, and restored what I consider to be the most important sentence in David Gerard's version -- "Remember - ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia. " I say that this is the most important sentence because Ignore All Rules is (A) Very badly named, and (B) as a result, very badly misunderstood, which (C) causes it to be misapplied quite often. While I still think this is a very badly mistitled page, I think the current version at least communicates the right idea. →Raul654 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"The point of the section quoted isn't to give admins carte blanche–and I have difficult seeing how it could be read that way..." The IAR has been interpreted that way many times, even without the new sentence expressly giving permission to administrators to create "negative consequences" for those whom they label "obnoxious." If you want to change Wikipedia policy to absolute despotism, don't beat around the bush. Just place a big sign on the Main Page stating, "You have to do whatever an administrator tells you to do. Admins have total effective control of content at Wikipedia." --
Zephram Stark
22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael's edit is great, really clarifies things - I haven't seen any reasonable objections to it so far. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Who likes User:Raul654's policy change proposal?
The IAR originally said, "Administrators should not use [IAR] to make up and enforce their own set of rules." Now it says, "Some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and may lead to negative consequences."
Who thinks User:Raul654's policy change proposal is a good idea?
I think we should have both. Sam Spade 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The page did not "originally" say anything like what Zephram Stark is trying to add. Originally, to pick a stable, long-lasting early form of the page, it was a lot simpler, and some effort should be made to keep it that way. The current form is not a policy change, it's an expression of what the policy has always been, and a pretty good one at that judging from the support it has received.
Before adding more instruction creep to the page, I would first like to see real evidence of administrators directly using "Ignore all rules" to actually "make up and enforce their own set of rules." We don't need to invent a solution to a theoretical problem. I haven't seen it, and I don't see how a principle about ignoring rules that already exist does anything to encourage people to make up new rules instead. -- Michael Snow 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael didn't change policy, he clarified it. Zephram, please stop trying change policy in order to advance your RfAR case. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep, The shorter and less instruction-crept this can be kept, the better - David Gerard 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the fact that IAR causes quite a lot of trouble, however, it's nescesary in certain situations. So just like people do rc patrol to keep an eye on the downsides of "anyone can edit" , so also on that same patrol, people have to keep an eye out for the downsides of "Ignore all rules"
Kim Bruning 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The current policy as stated on this page does not reflect how the policy has been applied since its inception in 2002.
The removal of the policy tag seems erroneous, since no procedure has been followed to remove this page from policy, and this policy is still regularly applied (erroneously or not.)
Kim Bruning 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I subst'd and rewrote a unique tag, stating that some consider it policy, some don't, etc. — Phil Welch 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I added a policy tag a few weeks back and it was quickly reverted. As this is one of the 5 pillars, I still don't see how it could possibly not be considered policy, but maybe that's just me. Friday 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In attempt to get a handle on the status of this rule through the history of the page, I offer the following timeline. I've only investigated the changes related to the "officialness" or "ruleness" of the page, not its content, which has changed back and forth in various ways during the same period. Also, I have not really listed the various quite recent changes associated with the current brouhaha.
The page was created on 17 April 2002 [1] with no particular statement about policy, shortly thereafter being described as a "rule" [2] in the text which wording it has held basically since.
On 7 October of 2004 (over two years later), a category was added identifying it as official policy [3]; this was changed to a semipolicy category on 9 December [4] and reverted to the policy category [5].
After four months of wearing the policy category, it was removed on 21 January 2005 [6]. It was added back and reverted on 8 March 2005 ( [7] [8]), on 13 March ( [9] [10] [11]), being left with a semipolicy category.
After not quite a month, various templates were applied, starting with an "inactive policy template", including "guideline," "notpolicy," and "validity disputed." It ended up with no identifier. This happened on 5 April ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and similarly on 19 - 21 September (starting with a proposal template and ending up with none [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]).
The {{policy}} tag was applied a few days later, on 29 September, and this stood for almost a month until it was changed to {{guideline}} on 23 October; then "inactive" [29] and ultimately removed on 24 October [30].
Demi T/ C 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Do we take the Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, or the Raul654/Michael Snow/David Gerard consensus?
Hmm, I guess it's probably not good HEC to see-saw between consensuses, can we maybe find some compromise or so?
Actually I don't care about the boxes and so, but the wording is different in the 2 versions. Let's see
Kim Bruning 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael: I liked your version better because it was closer to my actual preferred version: [31]
IAR is there to cut through red tape. But now even IAR gets buried under it. Kim Bruning 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
For my personal opinion, I strongly prefer the minimalistic version as it stood previously, as Kim is trying to return to, but clearly not everyone does, and I believe the version as posted by Michael Snow is an excellent compromise. It gets the point of the added material that had accumulated on the page in a tighter, generally applicable form, and separates it off from the heart of the page at the top—clearly giving the explanatory material secondary status. But it acknowledges that others will not accept the rule as it stands without that clarification for those who will otherwise claim it justifies abuse or disruption. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I can understand (and actually share, to a significant degree) Kim's preference for an ultra-simple version, I just didn't think the editing was really moving us in that direction. Kim tried a bit, but it was still picking up all this category- and template-cruft. I think Mindspillage explains very well the function of the page in its present form. -- Michael Snow 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some stable versions for comparison and commenting/voting? All the talk above, with dozens links to history pages, is a bit daunting to somebody like me who stumbled here from RfC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the current 172 word version of the page can be entirely encapsulated in the following 88 words:
The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. The rules exist to help explain how to do that. On the other hand, if you want to cut through the red tape and just go, so long as you keep in mind that you’re writing an encyclopedia and are willing work together with your fellow editors, it will probably work out. The spirit of all of our rules is "create a good encyclopedia," and that's far more important than the letter.
On the other hand, ignoring rules because you don’t like what they say is misguided.
What reasons can people find that this does not adequately replace the current phrasing? Phil Sandifer 03:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this "rule" recently after having to invoke it to explain why a particular AfD debate was not as simple as "it is a guideline and you can't argue with that." It got me thinking, and it seems that everything that we actually want people to get from "Ignore all rules" is not actually "ignore all rules" but "be aware that rules may have exceptions, including exceptions no one has thought to codify." We don't want people to ignore all rules; we want people to ignore those rules which aren't adequate for the current situation. (And I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who has seen "Ignore all rules" in practice more often being interpreted as "Ignore all dissenting editors.") Perhaps this policy would be more helpful if it told editors thinking of invoking it "you'd better be ready to make a cogent argument why this should be an exception.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
While freedom loving Wikipedians slept, the fundamental freedom to "ignore all rules" has been reduced to pointless sophistry and is now honored only in the breach, so why not replace said pointless sophistry with a candid admission of same?. To wit, "When given a choice, most intelligent Wikipedians prefer fascism, so the freedom to 'ignore all rules' simply had to go!" // NetEsq 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to make IAR a policy put it through the normal process of discussion for that. Don't just stick the tag on there by saying it's kinda sorta like something else which is a policy. You know very well that many people don't consider this a policy at all. Using gamesmanship in the effort to make it so is just going to bring you grief. I've done my part here, but I'm suggesting folks drop it or go through the right channels (where it will undoubtedly fail). Otherwise you'll get stomped on by lots of people who disagree with you. And you know it. So what's the point? Later. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As you are apparently aware... the straw poll above was initiated a long time ago. At that point the policy read as follows: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."
That's it. That was approved as a policy. If you look at the straw poll and discussion above you will see people objecting to the "Orwellian" alterations since then, noting that their votes only apply to the original, et cetera. If you want to make the original form policy then there are probably grounds to do so (though sorting out how many of the 'oppose' votes were directed to the original might be difficult). However, we all know there is no such consensus for the current form. So again... pulling up an ancient poll to support a current page is playing games. --
CBD
☎
✉
13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This page says nothing that WP:NOT does not already cover in the section "Wikipedia is not a bureacracy." It has no need to exist, really. The only difference between WP:NOT and IAR is that IAR expresses the same sentiment using stronger (and consequently more vague) language, which lets some people think IAR is an excuse to do whatever they want. Since we all agree that WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy, and that WP:NOT is policy, why not just redirect this page there, or cite it directly? -- causa sui talk 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just saying "no it isn't" might have something to do with why "some people" have difficulty understanding your position. -- causa sui talk 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, justifying it by pointing out that it's on the five pillars begs the question. What's at issue here is whether it should be so prominent, so saying it's prominent doesn't speak to the issue. Rather than redirecting to WP:NOT, what I think might be best would be moving this page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and keeping something very similar to the current language. "Ignore all rules" is just too strong. We can't be giving people license for that. -- causa sui talk 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we are trying to idiot-proof something that hasn't even shown itself to be a problem. Show me the people who have cited this policy in a way that does not fall under the clear meaning of "Sometimes it's more important to do the right thing than the procedural thing" and we might find cause to discuss changing. But absent that, this is a solution in search of a problem. Phil Sandifer 16:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my support of IAR -- in its original form -- I was particularly impressed with the commentary accommodating Metaeducation's vote againt IAR, which speaks to the issue of IAR being an attractive nuisance for misfits and trolls. Moreover, CBD/DES spoke to the fact that IAR -- in its original form -- no longer enjoys the popular support it once did. So why not recapitulate IAR -- in its original form -- as a "Wikipedia tradition"? We can then point out in the commentary to IAR that it "was once policy, but is now a tradition that has given way to a more recent formulation of a similar sentiment -- i.e., "Use common sense.'" I think this strategy would allow rule-hating individuals (such as myself) to claim a moral victory (i.e., by leaving IAR in its original form) while finding common ground where we can peacefully co-exist with other sincere Wikipedians who happen to embrace more authoritarian values. // NetEsq 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
<< if there's going to be a policy or pillar I'd like to see it replaced by a much more inspiring phase. >>
How do you feel about "Use common sense"? // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
<< I'm still having a hard time of thinking when [IAR] would be appropriate to cite in a discussion. >>
I like to think of IAR as being a rule that is enforced by the inalienable right to fork. Back in the day, I frequently cited IAR when stating my opinions on Talk pages, which would then allow me to back down from a good faith dispute. // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this page to the 2002 version. The 2005 version was unhelpful and the meaning of the page was obscured. Here a step-by-step review.
Thanks for the info. I don't think anyone paid attention to this warning because someone made WP:ENC separately.
This is the sentence I reverted to. Good sentence, I like it. Except for the bit about "use common sense" which was added in later-- the reason we call it "common sense" is because it's common sense, so that boils down to WP:DICK which is not the point of this page. The point of this page, in case you forgot it in the midst of all this blather, will be explained agonizingly below.
I don't know why there is a self-reference here but it doesn't seem to mean anything. Was this put there as a test to keep me from going any further? 'Cause it worked! This page isn't a rule anyway!!
Now you are comparing a non-rule to a rule. Don't get me wrong, WP:POINT is a great rule, but it's just one of our many rules here at Wikipedia, the free enyclopedia you can edit.
This is another part where the page subtly tries to not make reference to ways in which the rule could be abused, by talking about what the point of this rule is, which should be mighty obvious to its intended audience. It reminds me of that website about ninjas for some reason. The purpose of a ninja is to flip out and cut through red tape to construct an encyclopedia.
That's neither here nor there.
Some rules were made to be broken. Conversely, some brokens were made to be rules. This bit is simply wasting my time (it actually wasted my time three times because I had to read it three times before I got the gist of it).
This probably belongs on WP:5P or some important place like that. It's a good thing to say and would look nice on the page, but it would also make it a sentence longer. Do I want a longer page, or page that says one thing and says it well? Hmmm... Ashibaka tock 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Numerous very-long term editors - Michael Snow, David Gerard, and myself in particular - colloberated in writing the current version. THe reason being that the old version ("If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.") is (1) badly misunderstood, (2) constantly misapplied, and (3) a flat out lie. It completely and utterly faily to communicate the reason that one should ignore all rules, or the purpose thereof. It was often used to purpose that it was never supposed to, by people who didn't know better. Moreover, there are certain rules, that if ignored (like wikipedia:No personal attacks) will land you in some hot water - and I say that as a member of the arbitration committee. So, to put it simply, the old one is gone for good reason. Raul654 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now assuming I'm a brand spanking new Wikipedian who's run across this page for the first time, what am I supposed to think? "The rules are making it hard for me to create an encyclopedia the way I want it, so I'll take this to heart. The original page reminds me of WP:ABF, as it looks like it was meant for humor. The current version instead looks more more fit as Wikipedia:Use common sense (which redirects to WP:POINT for some reason). The point remains that you simply cannot "Ignore all rules", of course you can "Ignore some rules", but that would become arbitary ("So I can break this rule, but not this one? What's the point?").
How about
Ashibaka tock 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask again - is there anyone who is actually being misled harmfully by this policy? Particularly anyone who isn't, well, a complete idiot who is going to get himself shot anyway? Phil Sandifer 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit abashed when I saw
(cur) (last) 10:48, 2 January 2006 Raul654 (rv and protect)
I thought "eh ! is not that forbidden to *choose* a version of an article, then to protect it ?" (admin abuse blah blah blah)
Then, I was reminded on irc that it was indeed the "ignore all rules" page, so ignoring rules on this page indeed might make sense.
I understand he locked it because the version he's hacked out is integral to ArbCom findings of fact. Another reason to disambiguate this page. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul, how about I write up Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/temp and if it gets to a version that you like, you can unlock the page, move it in, and move the current page to Wikipedia:Product over process where you can work on turning it into an official policy rather than just an "important page".
Alternatively, I can join NetEsq in being rather P.O.'ed about your locking the page despite your involvement in the dispute, and cast about for more help. Maybe he is a troll but he has a good point. Ashibaka tock 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! I didn't notice. Okay, I'm just going to move it and place a message at IAR to invite a long-term solution. Ashibaka tock 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I remain opposed to the move/rename of this page, particularly if that rename should be to "product over process." Whether or not IAR still enjoys popular support in its original form, it's importance as a policy that was once unabashedly embraced should not be marginalized. // NetEsq 21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I propose changing this clause:
To read like this:
Haukur 13:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's a new proposal.
I propose adding something like the above to the page. - Haukur 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I have done things which 10 people disagreed with, but something like 40 people agreed with directly, 40-60 people agreed indirectly (through previous polls that were along similar lines, but not a perfect match) and 200+ people got saved a lot of work that day.
But since a significant number of people (10) disagreed, should I not have done it?
(note that this problem had real time priority. Had I not taken action, 200+ people would have been inconvenienced, and some number would have left wikipedia, as is usual in situations with such large pileons)
Kim Bruning 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Once you have determined that to Ignore All Rules is the only way to proceed, you need not be entirely without guidence. Research existing guidelines first to see if there is anything tangentially related at least.
Failing that, look at previous admin descisions, polls that are tangentially related, and perhaps check meta and meatball to see if there has been discussion in related areas. As a last resort, check other wikimedia wikis, or other sources entirely. Go wild.
If there's really nothing out there that's close, you'll have to be creative.
But whatever you do:try to at least stay as close to existing policy as possible. A skilled application of Ignore all rules should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all.
Finally, if you notice that your application of ignore all rules has worked well (ie, it flew under the radar, or you were complimented) , write down what you did in the wikipedia: namespace, either by editing existing guideline pages, or by creating a new page, and marking it as a guideline. Further iterations of ignore all rules can then be based off your work.
In this manner, wikipedia guidelines become fluid and effortless.
Note that this is not a new proposal. It is just an explanation as to how much of the wikipedia guidelines have been created over time, but no one has bothered to write down.
Kim Bruning 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly the goal of the article, call it:
Wikipedia: Rules are meant to be broken.
That is, petty rule breaks aren't a big deal if the person isn't being a dick.-- Urthogie 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support:
Oppose:
Comments:
While I understand the history and tradition behind WP:IAR, the recent spate of wheel warring is the writing on the wall. It's time to get rid of this policy, which now ill-serves the Wikipedia community.
Dealing with blatant trolls and vandals is easy. Dealing with serious disputes between good-faith users is hard. WP:IAR makes it incalculably harder, since anyone can cite it to justify literally anything that they want to do. The caveats are no help, since, by definition, good-faith users think that what they are doing is right, that it will help in writing an encyclopedia, and so forth. Furthermore, almost all uses of WP:IAR are destructive: after all, it only gets brought up when someone is caught violating a policy or principle. It's very common for WP:IAR to be cited by people who want to violate consensus. Also, when WP:IAR is combined with administrative powers, other users are all too easily caught in the crossfire. What was meant to be a liberating rule becomes a reign of terror for those not fortunate enough to have the sysop bit flagged in the system. As Isaiah Berlin once put it, "liberty for the pike is death for the trout".
WP:IAR simply has not scaled. It may have made sense when Wikipedia was a small community and everyone knew and trusted one another - frankly, I can't be sure, since I wasn't here back then. But it is wholly inappropriate for the huge virtual community that Wikipedia is now. (Yes, I know the community is only a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. But we need it, or no work could get done.) It's time for Wikipedia to grow up. In the words of St. Paul: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." WP:IAR is one of those childish things; let's put it on a historical toy shelf and get back to the serious business of writing an encyclopedia. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea to merge into Wikipedia:Use common sense. The IAR invocations I've seen in the past month are sorely lacking in common sense. — James S. 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's true that one can attempt to use IAR as an excuse for anything, but it is not a valid excuse for anything - even IAR is ultimately at the behest of consensus and the community, and every attempt to invoke it must be weighed by rational affected contributors. The effect, which I consider positive, is that we can't settle every dispute by pointing to hard rules dictating the answer - with every violation must come thoughtful consideration of whether that violation is justified and whether the rule should itself be revised. Deco 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there's an unjustified assumption by some that rules will save us from the kind of problems mentioned. They won't. People should argue their case on its merits, not by competing rule citations. There need to be rules, but they need to be guidelines and advice, not laws. -- Khendon 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrote up a thing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive S#Ignore_all_rules. Ashibaka tock 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Per a comment on Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll, and some discussion I have seen above, this page should be moved to Wikipedia:Use common sense ( WP:UCS), which is slightly more accurate: we are not telling everone to ignore all of the rules all of the time, but rather to avoid becoming hidebound by the rules if and when they give a silly result. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the newer versions of IAR basically says to follow common sense mostly to explain how not to misuse IAR. I've went ahead and split the two versions to the different pages. The IAR fundementalists will still have the original point of IAR, and Wikipedia:Common sense will have have the reasoning behind the point. -- LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Only arbcom is nobility! :P -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Basically, this page isn't going anywhere. Because it's very old, and people like it.
However, I still think it can be rewritten to state a policy, if you do it well. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
WOAH! This is actually going places. :-) Cool beans. :-) Arigato Ashibaka! :-) Kim Bruning 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Trying to codify "ignore all rules" is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Ambi 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. -- User:Jimbo Wales
Additional previous comments may be found in the archive.
I really like this latest revision; tightened it up a lot and didn't lose anything important. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur :-) Kim Bruning 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I did some rearranging of my own, and restored what I consider to be the most important sentence in David Gerard's version -- "Remember - ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia. " I say that this is the most important sentence because Ignore All Rules is (A) Very badly named, and (B) as a result, very badly misunderstood, which (C) causes it to be misapplied quite often. While I still think this is a very badly mistitled page, I think the current version at least communicates the right idea. →Raul654 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"The point of the section quoted isn't to give admins carte blanche–and I have difficult seeing how it could be read that way..." The IAR has been interpreted that way many times, even without the new sentence expressly giving permission to administrators to create "negative consequences" for those whom they label "obnoxious." If you want to change Wikipedia policy to absolute despotism, don't beat around the bush. Just place a big sign on the Main Page stating, "You have to do whatever an administrator tells you to do. Admins have total effective control of content at Wikipedia." --
Zephram Stark
22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael's edit is great, really clarifies things - I haven't seen any reasonable objections to it so far. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Who likes User:Raul654's policy change proposal?
The IAR originally said, "Administrators should not use [IAR] to make up and enforce their own set of rules." Now it says, "Some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and may lead to negative consequences."
Who thinks User:Raul654's policy change proposal is a good idea?
I think we should have both. Sam Spade 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The page did not "originally" say anything like what Zephram Stark is trying to add. Originally, to pick a stable, long-lasting early form of the page, it was a lot simpler, and some effort should be made to keep it that way. The current form is not a policy change, it's an expression of what the policy has always been, and a pretty good one at that judging from the support it has received.
Before adding more instruction creep to the page, I would first like to see real evidence of administrators directly using "Ignore all rules" to actually "make up and enforce their own set of rules." We don't need to invent a solution to a theoretical problem. I haven't seen it, and I don't see how a principle about ignoring rules that already exist does anything to encourage people to make up new rules instead. -- Michael Snow 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael didn't change policy, he clarified it. Zephram, please stop trying change policy in order to advance your RfAR case. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep, The shorter and less instruction-crept this can be kept, the better - David Gerard 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the fact that IAR causes quite a lot of trouble, however, it's nescesary in certain situations. So just like people do rc patrol to keep an eye on the downsides of "anyone can edit" , so also on that same patrol, people have to keep an eye out for the downsides of "Ignore all rules"
Kim Bruning 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The current policy as stated on this page does not reflect how the policy has been applied since its inception in 2002.
The removal of the policy tag seems erroneous, since no procedure has been followed to remove this page from policy, and this policy is still regularly applied (erroneously or not.)
Kim Bruning 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I subst'd and rewrote a unique tag, stating that some consider it policy, some don't, etc. — Phil Welch 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I added a policy tag a few weeks back and it was quickly reverted. As this is one of the 5 pillars, I still don't see how it could possibly not be considered policy, but maybe that's just me. Friday 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In attempt to get a handle on the status of this rule through the history of the page, I offer the following timeline. I've only investigated the changes related to the "officialness" or "ruleness" of the page, not its content, which has changed back and forth in various ways during the same period. Also, I have not really listed the various quite recent changes associated with the current brouhaha.
The page was created on 17 April 2002 [1] with no particular statement about policy, shortly thereafter being described as a "rule" [2] in the text which wording it has held basically since.
On 7 October of 2004 (over two years later), a category was added identifying it as official policy [3]; this was changed to a semipolicy category on 9 December [4] and reverted to the policy category [5].
After four months of wearing the policy category, it was removed on 21 January 2005 [6]. It was added back and reverted on 8 March 2005 ( [7] [8]), on 13 March ( [9] [10] [11]), being left with a semipolicy category.
After not quite a month, various templates were applied, starting with an "inactive policy template", including "guideline," "notpolicy," and "validity disputed." It ended up with no identifier. This happened on 5 April ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and similarly on 19 - 21 September (starting with a proposal template and ending up with none [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]).
The {{policy}} tag was applied a few days later, on 29 September, and this stood for almost a month until it was changed to {{guideline}} on 23 October; then "inactive" [29] and ultimately removed on 24 October [30].
Demi T/ C 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Do we take the Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, or the Raul654/Michael Snow/David Gerard consensus?
Hmm, I guess it's probably not good HEC to see-saw between consensuses, can we maybe find some compromise or so?
Actually I don't care about the boxes and so, but the wording is different in the 2 versions. Let's see
Kim Bruning 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Michael: I liked your version better because it was closer to my actual preferred version: [31]
IAR is there to cut through red tape. But now even IAR gets buried under it. Kim Bruning 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
For my personal opinion, I strongly prefer the minimalistic version as it stood previously, as Kim is trying to return to, but clearly not everyone does, and I believe the version as posted by Michael Snow is an excellent compromise. It gets the point of the added material that had accumulated on the page in a tighter, generally applicable form, and separates it off from the heart of the page at the top—clearly giving the explanatory material secondary status. But it acknowledges that others will not accept the rule as it stands without that clarification for those who will otherwise claim it justifies abuse or disruption. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I can understand (and actually share, to a significant degree) Kim's preference for an ultra-simple version, I just didn't think the editing was really moving us in that direction. Kim tried a bit, but it was still picking up all this category- and template-cruft. I think Mindspillage explains very well the function of the page in its present form. -- Michael Snow 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some stable versions for comparison and commenting/voting? All the talk above, with dozens links to history pages, is a bit daunting to somebody like me who stumbled here from RfC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the current 172 word version of the page can be entirely encapsulated in the following 88 words:
The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. The rules exist to help explain how to do that. On the other hand, if you want to cut through the red tape and just go, so long as you keep in mind that you’re writing an encyclopedia and are willing work together with your fellow editors, it will probably work out. The spirit of all of our rules is "create a good encyclopedia," and that's far more important than the letter.
On the other hand, ignoring rules because you don’t like what they say is misguided.
What reasons can people find that this does not adequately replace the current phrasing? Phil Sandifer 03:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this "rule" recently after having to invoke it to explain why a particular AfD debate was not as simple as "it is a guideline and you can't argue with that." It got me thinking, and it seems that everything that we actually want people to get from "Ignore all rules" is not actually "ignore all rules" but "be aware that rules may have exceptions, including exceptions no one has thought to codify." We don't want people to ignore all rules; we want people to ignore those rules which aren't adequate for the current situation. (And I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who has seen "Ignore all rules" in practice more often being interpreted as "Ignore all dissenting editors.") Perhaps this policy would be more helpful if it told editors thinking of invoking it "you'd better be ready to make a cogent argument why this should be an exception.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
While freedom loving Wikipedians slept, the fundamental freedom to "ignore all rules" has been reduced to pointless sophistry and is now honored only in the breach, so why not replace said pointless sophistry with a candid admission of same?. To wit, "When given a choice, most intelligent Wikipedians prefer fascism, so the freedom to 'ignore all rules' simply had to go!" // NetEsq 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to make IAR a policy put it through the normal process of discussion for that. Don't just stick the tag on there by saying it's kinda sorta like something else which is a policy. You know very well that many people don't consider this a policy at all. Using gamesmanship in the effort to make it so is just going to bring you grief. I've done my part here, but I'm suggesting folks drop it or go through the right channels (where it will undoubtedly fail). Otherwise you'll get stomped on by lots of people who disagree with you. And you know it. So what's the point? Later. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As you are apparently aware... the straw poll above was initiated a long time ago. At that point the policy read as follows: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."
That's it. That was approved as a policy. If you look at the straw poll and discussion above you will see people objecting to the "Orwellian" alterations since then, noting that their votes only apply to the original, et cetera. If you want to make the original form policy then there are probably grounds to do so (though sorting out how many of the 'oppose' votes were directed to the original might be difficult). However, we all know there is no such consensus for the current form. So again... pulling up an ancient poll to support a current page is playing games. --
CBD
☎
✉
13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This page says nothing that WP:NOT does not already cover in the section "Wikipedia is not a bureacracy." It has no need to exist, really. The only difference between WP:NOT and IAR is that IAR expresses the same sentiment using stronger (and consequently more vague) language, which lets some people think IAR is an excuse to do whatever they want. Since we all agree that WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy, and that WP:NOT is policy, why not just redirect this page there, or cite it directly? -- causa sui talk 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just saying "no it isn't" might have something to do with why "some people" have difficulty understanding your position. -- causa sui talk 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, justifying it by pointing out that it's on the five pillars begs the question. What's at issue here is whether it should be so prominent, so saying it's prominent doesn't speak to the issue. Rather than redirecting to WP:NOT, what I think might be best would be moving this page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and keeping something very similar to the current language. "Ignore all rules" is just too strong. We can't be giving people license for that. -- causa sui talk 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we are trying to idiot-proof something that hasn't even shown itself to be a problem. Show me the people who have cited this policy in a way that does not fall under the clear meaning of "Sometimes it's more important to do the right thing than the procedural thing" and we might find cause to discuss changing. But absent that, this is a solution in search of a problem. Phil Sandifer 16:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my support of IAR -- in its original form -- I was particularly impressed with the commentary accommodating Metaeducation's vote againt IAR, which speaks to the issue of IAR being an attractive nuisance for misfits and trolls. Moreover, CBD/DES spoke to the fact that IAR -- in its original form -- no longer enjoys the popular support it once did. So why not recapitulate IAR -- in its original form -- as a "Wikipedia tradition"? We can then point out in the commentary to IAR that it "was once policy, but is now a tradition that has given way to a more recent formulation of a similar sentiment -- i.e., "Use common sense.'" I think this strategy would allow rule-hating individuals (such as myself) to claim a moral victory (i.e., by leaving IAR in its original form) while finding common ground where we can peacefully co-exist with other sincere Wikipedians who happen to embrace more authoritarian values. // NetEsq 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
<< if there's going to be a policy or pillar I'd like to see it replaced by a much more inspiring phase. >>
How do you feel about "Use common sense"? // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
<< I'm still having a hard time of thinking when [IAR] would be appropriate to cite in a discussion. >>
I like to think of IAR as being a rule that is enforced by the inalienable right to fork. Back in the day, I frequently cited IAR when stating my opinions on Talk pages, which would then allow me to back down from a good faith dispute. // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this page to the 2002 version. The 2005 version was unhelpful and the meaning of the page was obscured. Here a step-by-step review.
Thanks for the info. I don't think anyone paid attention to this warning because someone made WP:ENC separately.
This is the sentence I reverted to. Good sentence, I like it. Except for the bit about "use common sense" which was added in later-- the reason we call it "common sense" is because it's common sense, so that boils down to WP:DICK which is not the point of this page. The point of this page, in case you forgot it in the midst of all this blather, will be explained agonizingly below.
I don't know why there is a self-reference here but it doesn't seem to mean anything. Was this put there as a test to keep me from going any further? 'Cause it worked! This page isn't a rule anyway!!
Now you are comparing a non-rule to a rule. Don't get me wrong, WP:POINT is a great rule, but it's just one of our many rules here at Wikipedia, the free enyclopedia you can edit.
This is another part where the page subtly tries to not make reference to ways in which the rule could be abused, by talking about what the point of this rule is, which should be mighty obvious to its intended audience. It reminds me of that website about ninjas for some reason. The purpose of a ninja is to flip out and cut through red tape to construct an encyclopedia.
That's neither here nor there.
Some rules were made to be broken. Conversely, some brokens were made to be rules. This bit is simply wasting my time (it actually wasted my time three times because I had to read it three times before I got the gist of it).
This probably belongs on WP:5P or some important place like that. It's a good thing to say and would look nice on the page, but it would also make it a sentence longer. Do I want a longer page, or page that says one thing and says it well? Hmmm... Ashibaka tock 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Numerous very-long term editors - Michael Snow, David Gerard, and myself in particular - colloberated in writing the current version. THe reason being that the old version ("If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.") is (1) badly misunderstood, (2) constantly misapplied, and (3) a flat out lie. It completely and utterly faily to communicate the reason that one should ignore all rules, or the purpose thereof. It was often used to purpose that it was never supposed to, by people who didn't know better. Moreover, there are certain rules, that if ignored (like wikipedia:No personal attacks) will land you in some hot water - and I say that as a member of the arbitration committee. So, to put it simply, the old one is gone for good reason. Raul654 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now assuming I'm a brand spanking new Wikipedian who's run across this page for the first time, what am I supposed to think? "The rules are making it hard for me to create an encyclopedia the way I want it, so I'll take this to heart. The original page reminds me of WP:ABF, as it looks like it was meant for humor. The current version instead looks more more fit as Wikipedia:Use common sense (which redirects to WP:POINT for some reason). The point remains that you simply cannot "Ignore all rules", of course you can "Ignore some rules", but that would become arbitary ("So I can break this rule, but not this one? What's the point?").
How about
Ashibaka tock 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask again - is there anyone who is actually being misled harmfully by this policy? Particularly anyone who isn't, well, a complete idiot who is going to get himself shot anyway? Phil Sandifer 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit abashed when I saw
(cur) (last) 10:48, 2 January 2006 Raul654 (rv and protect)
I thought "eh ! is not that forbidden to *choose* a version of an article, then to protect it ?" (admin abuse blah blah blah)
Then, I was reminded on irc that it was indeed the "ignore all rules" page, so ignoring rules on this page indeed might make sense.
I understand he locked it because the version he's hacked out is integral to ArbCom findings of fact. Another reason to disambiguate this page. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul, how about I write up Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/temp and if it gets to a version that you like, you can unlock the page, move it in, and move the current page to Wikipedia:Product over process where you can work on turning it into an official policy rather than just an "important page".
Alternatively, I can join NetEsq in being rather P.O.'ed about your locking the page despite your involvement in the dispute, and cast about for more help. Maybe he is a troll but he has a good point. Ashibaka tock 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! I didn't notice. Okay, I'm just going to move it and place a message at IAR to invite a long-term solution. Ashibaka tock 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I remain opposed to the move/rename of this page, particularly if that rename should be to "product over process." Whether or not IAR still enjoys popular support in its original form, it's importance as a policy that was once unabashedly embraced should not be marginalized. // NetEsq 21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I propose changing this clause:
To read like this:
Haukur 13:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's a new proposal.
I propose adding something like the above to the page. - Haukur 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I have done things which 10 people disagreed with, but something like 40 people agreed with directly, 40-60 people agreed indirectly (through previous polls that were along similar lines, but not a perfect match) and 200+ people got saved a lot of work that day.
But since a significant number of people (10) disagreed, should I not have done it?
(note that this problem had real time priority. Had I not taken action, 200+ people would have been inconvenienced, and some number would have left wikipedia, as is usual in situations with such large pileons)
Kim Bruning 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Once you have determined that to Ignore All Rules is the only way to proceed, you need not be entirely without guidence. Research existing guidelines first to see if there is anything tangentially related at least.
Failing that, look at previous admin descisions, polls that are tangentially related, and perhaps check meta and meatball to see if there has been discussion in related areas. As a last resort, check other wikimedia wikis, or other sources entirely. Go wild.
If there's really nothing out there that's close, you'll have to be creative.
But whatever you do:try to at least stay as close to existing policy as possible. A skilled application of Ignore all rules should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all.
Finally, if you notice that your application of ignore all rules has worked well (ie, it flew under the radar, or you were complimented) , write down what you did in the wikipedia: namespace, either by editing existing guideline pages, or by creating a new page, and marking it as a guideline. Further iterations of ignore all rules can then be based off your work.
In this manner, wikipedia guidelines become fluid and effortless.
Note that this is not a new proposal. It is just an explanation as to how much of the wikipedia guidelines have been created over time, but no one has bothered to write down.
Kim Bruning 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly the goal of the article, call it:
Wikipedia: Rules are meant to be broken.
That is, petty rule breaks aren't a big deal if the person isn't being a dick.-- Urthogie 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support:
Oppose:
Comments:
While I understand the history and tradition behind WP:IAR, the recent spate of wheel warring is the writing on the wall. It's time to get rid of this policy, which now ill-serves the Wikipedia community.
Dealing with blatant trolls and vandals is easy. Dealing with serious disputes between good-faith users is hard. WP:IAR makes it incalculably harder, since anyone can cite it to justify literally anything that they want to do. The caveats are no help, since, by definition, good-faith users think that what they are doing is right, that it will help in writing an encyclopedia, and so forth. Furthermore, almost all uses of WP:IAR are destructive: after all, it only gets brought up when someone is caught violating a policy or principle. It's very common for WP:IAR to be cited by people who want to violate consensus. Also, when WP:IAR is combined with administrative powers, other users are all too easily caught in the crossfire. What was meant to be a liberating rule becomes a reign of terror for those not fortunate enough to have the sysop bit flagged in the system. As Isaiah Berlin once put it, "liberty for the pike is death for the trout".
WP:IAR simply has not scaled. It may have made sense when Wikipedia was a small community and everyone knew and trusted one another - frankly, I can't be sure, since I wasn't here back then. But it is wholly inappropriate for the huge virtual community that Wikipedia is now. (Yes, I know the community is only a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. But we need it, or no work could get done.) It's time for Wikipedia to grow up. In the words of St. Paul: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." WP:IAR is one of those childish things; let's put it on a historical toy shelf and get back to the serious business of writing an encyclopedia. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea to merge into Wikipedia:Use common sense. The IAR invocations I've seen in the past month are sorely lacking in common sense. — James S. 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's true that one can attempt to use IAR as an excuse for anything, but it is not a valid excuse for anything - even IAR is ultimately at the behest of consensus and the community, and every attempt to invoke it must be weighed by rational affected contributors. The effect, which I consider positive, is that we can't settle every dispute by pointing to hard rules dictating the answer - with every violation must come thoughtful consideration of whether that violation is justified and whether the rule should itself be revised. Deco 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there's an unjustified assumption by some that rules will save us from the kind of problems mentioned. They won't. People should argue their case on its merits, not by competing rule citations. There need to be rules, but they need to be guidelines and advice, not laws. -- Khendon 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrote up a thing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive S#Ignore_all_rules. Ashibaka tock 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Per a comment on Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll, and some discussion I have seen above, this page should be moved to Wikipedia:Use common sense ( WP:UCS), which is slightly more accurate: we are not telling everone to ignore all of the rules all of the time, but rather to avoid becoming hidebound by the rules if and when they give a silly result. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the newer versions of IAR basically says to follow common sense mostly to explain how not to misuse IAR. I've went ahead and split the two versions to the different pages. The IAR fundementalists will still have the original point of IAR, and Wikipedia:Common sense will have have the reasoning behind the point. -- LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Only arbcom is nobility! :P -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Basically, this page isn't going anywhere. Because it's very old, and people like it.
However, I still think it can be rewritten to state a policy, if you do it well. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
WOAH! This is actually going places. :-) Cool beans. :-) Arigato Ashibaka! :-) Kim Bruning 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Trying to codify "ignore all rules" is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Ambi 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)