This page 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. |
I've just merged WP:WIARM and WP:IAR, as that seems to have been the least controversial method of clarifying IAR. If anybody reverts, I'll let it be, but I still think that WIARM and IAR being apart is not a great idea. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I really like this idea, but I tried it a few months ago and it was violently shot down. It seems there are a number of people who insist on IAR being a single sentence, for reasons which continue to escape me. Still, I support you. - Chardish 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Awful idea. You made the page all fat again (detracting from the point), not to mention that it's been tried before. So, you neither get points for the end result nor for being original. On top of that, I predict you'll get reverted within 24 hours. Миша 13 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
At the top of every policy page it says "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I would like to implore people to respect this. If your idea is truly seen by the community as an improvement it will be accepted on the talk page and implemented. But when you pretty much know ahead of time that the version you are creating is going to be reverted then just don't do it, go to the talk page and get consensus. Creating versions you know will be reverted is disruptive. 1 != 2 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ supplementsection}}
If this ridiculous edit and revert war continues, I will restore the protection of this page. Discuss, don't engage in this childish behaviour. If you haven't gotten your way after seven reverts, you should know that you won't get your way after eight reverts either. A ecis Brievenbus 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that some people are being hyper-protective of this page, to a fault. I have made two edits to this page recently, neither of which were reverts, and then an administrator threatened to block me if I didn't desist. I challenge the notion that this page currently has any consensus, and strongly oppose the idea that protection of the page will help solve anything. - Chardish 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And the threat itself is juvenile and so vulnerable to manipulation as to be pointless. Either protect it or do not protect it, as appropriate, which protection in this case would not be appropriate. — Centrx→ talk • 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If the current editing dispute had been the first or the second, yes, my message would have been highly premature. But this is not the first editing dispute. Just look at the protection log. This page has been protected 14 times in just over two years. The editors involved are highly experienced and established Wikipedians, who should know better than to engage in an edit war. I fully stand by my message. A ecis Brievenbus 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
... as all the editors of this tiny little page.
Boy, I can't imagine how bad this page must have been 1000 edits ago, to need that much improvment. ;)
Or perhaps some of us can find something more useful to do than re-edit the same dozen words over and over again? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"The rules mean nothing when they conflict with expediency..." This is not the claim made by IAR, nor by WIARM. The rules don't mean "nothing"; they mean the distillation of lots of experience of what works and what doesn't. Does that mean they're infallible? No. Thus, when they fail, we deal with it.
"What's to keep the old-timers from lording over me?" Well, I've seen lots of people get de-sysoped, or fully run off the project, because they seemed to be here to lord over others, and not to work collaboratively, respectfully, and lovingly on the project. What keeps people from "lording over you" is other people. Talk to them, and everything will be fine. If you expect some kind of rule-structure to be a skirt to which you can run, then prepare for disappointment. - GTBacchus( talk) 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
IAR is wikipedia in a nutshell. So why would we be surprised that it changes every day? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Has anyone tried polka-dots yet?
No matter whether it is called "Ignore all rules", "Ignore a rule", or "Ignore rules when you have valid reasons to do"; it isn't important because well even admin doesn't honour you the right to do it. Not only that, in fact admin doesn't honor many major rules and it is just one of them.
Ignore any rule if it stops you from improving Wikipedia -- this right is just non-existent!
Note: Don't get me wrong!! I do realise I shouldn't take the rule literally. As far as I know, it is more of a spirit which tells us that no rule should be treated absolutely. Rules are not binding and should not be followed mindlessly. If you are in good faith and think the rule is bad or wrong and ignoring it will benefit the Wikipedia as a whole, you should act on it.
OK. Why do I say Wikipedia polices are non-existing in reality? It is because even admins have conflicting interests (eg they are also the editors of that page) and they tend to interpret rules in a way to favour themselves. They can even use "protection (page lockup)" and "banning" as a way to force you to respect what they say.
Admin Soum doesn't care to follow any rule he doesn't like -- The first example:
Admin even blindly ignores the policies -- Admin
Soum even breaks the five pillars of Wikipedia without any reasoning
Even admins will create new subsidiary rules to justify what they are doing, or treat even guidelines absolutely and other editors must follow. If they don't follow, admins may threaten you with a ban. Here comes the second example.
Take a look at two pages - one before and after cleanup:
Before: it contains many filehosters to compare in the table.
After: All but three filehosters have been removed for good.
Why such an abrupt change took place? It was because admin Hu12 left a message in the discussion page saying he got fed up and said the article had been reaching Spam Event Horizon (Essay only) so a cleanup was necessary. Well he went even further and set up a rule that "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable one-click hosting services sites should be added. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not one-click hosting services should be removed."
If you take some time to click on
Spam Event Horizon (Essay only), it is only an essay proposed by someone. Read what an essay means:
“ | This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. | ” |
Well but he demanded everyone to follow it. By the way, the article didn't say it is a good way to deal with spam event by literally eliminating everything.
Common Sense: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's fix them.
Admin
Hu12: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's discard everything and start all over again.
Common senses should not taken for granted. I see something as pretty obvious while an admin like
Hu12 thinks otherwise.
The table itself unfortunately contains some references to possibly infamous/unknown filehosters. Well it is a good idea to clean up the table a bit. If I were him, I would have a brief look at the table, trying to fix the problem by removing those infamous/unknown filehosters. Further cleanups can be done later to ensure a better quality comparison page.
However the admin went to the extreme and removed all but 3 filehosters. If you asked me why he did it in this extreme way, I would say:
After all, forget about all those Wikipedia policies and principles. Try to judge the edit alone from a normal citizen viewpoint. I can hardly this edit (cleanup) due to worrying about the spam is anything helpful to the Wikipedia. It actually sucks big time. Two wrongs don't make one right. I see it obvious. He can't see it. Anyway one fact won't change - he has essentially damaged the whole comparison page to an extent that it becomes almost useless as there are literally 3 filehosters left. There are just a few comments from other visitors about the change:
“ | Great. You've made what used to be a comprehensive list completely useless. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that it can have a comprehensive resources list like this WAS, kept up to date by interested parties. Now it's just a list of the big 3 or 4 sites. Now I refer people to an old revision if they are looking for an actual list of sites. Who decided sites had to be "notable"? What most people are looking for is "useful". You have deleted useful information. 210.17.201.108 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | I think this is a more useful list if more services are listed. It's supposed to be a comparison of one-click hosters, but so few are listed right now that it's almost completely useless. There's really no logic in cutting it down just because of some guideline about what lists are Supposed To Be. But then, I'm one of those wild savages who doesn't care about things like "wikipedia guidelines" and "notability." -- 74.75.145.125 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | ” |
There are quite a few concepts and principles I disagree with that admin so I argued with him. Well it is not the most important. What I most disagreed is how the admin can discredit others' contributors work in such a way. I feel frustrated although I never contributed to this page.
This is just plain silly from a user point of view. Is there any big problem about having some infamous/unknown filehosters? Why does he revert every work made by all previous contributors and request everyone to start all over again? I would say reverting is a very rude action. It is a serious disrespect and discredit of all those previous contributors.
That revert decision is also taken so lightly. He just posted a message on the discussion board complaining the article comtains bad spam items so a revert of all previous work is necessary. He didn't even waited to form any consensus/agreement first.
Did they read the [WP:revert|"reverting" rules]?
Do:
Do not:
The above says it all. Even if there is a dispute, the admin still reverts it first to take advantage of it.
Admin Hu12 requested others to follow the advice made in an essay, in addition to its additional advice: "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles... should be added. [Others]... should be removed." Otherwise any item you added to the comparison table will be removed.
You think that the rule is bad and stop you from improving Wikipedia. Well it is even not an established rule. It is only a "rule" set by the admin. You complain and would like to ignore his "rule" based on WP:IAR. Do you think it works?
In reality your contribution will be reverted immediately without mercy if you do. You will be warned to be banned. Now admin Hu12 took over the control of this page. Every item or entry added to the table must pass his examination. Isn't this against the spirit of Wikipedia?
The admin participates in the editing and discussion of this page. He has a conflict of interest. But he made additional "rules" and requested others to follow. So what's the point of WP:IAR when you can't even have a right to ignore it when you see the need?
Pretty much what they say is final. The discussion has been closed although they ask you to discuss when you disagree.
After all, you have very little room to argue with an admin.
Why? Because admin has a "ban" button. You don't. If you believe they are wrong and criticise their actions, you may risk being banned.
I found out I get banned for an extended period of time when I sent this critic (glad that it was not a permanment ban becaue I believe I am honoured with it ;-D).
The reason is:
Disruptive editing
You be the judge.
Try to review the history of Comparison of one-click hosters. I edited this page once only (revert the decision made by the admin by restoring the page).
I made some critical comments about his action and his reasons. Read the discussions for details.
He censored some of my comments. I supposed no one should edit or hide anyone's comment. Anyway he did. Impressive.
I believe someone who censored comments should be banned too by the way. The intention is evil.
Definition of disruptive editing and editors
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
In addition, such editors may:
Do I really fit in one of the categories? Odd Master2 ( talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of a few WP:SOCK harassment accounts.
Odd master3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Odd Master2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Odd Master (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12 (
talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In what way is "ignore all rules" a good idea? First "improve wikipedia" is an inherently vague and subjective proposition. From what I have seen of administrators blocking users and protecting entries for petty political reasons, the last thing that needs to be done on wikipedia is to ignore rules that are followed by the average, non-admin contributor. Secondly, within a hierarchical organization such as wikipedia there needs to be a standard base ruleset which is followed by everyone, not to be disregarded on a whim because you can. And if there is to be an "ignore all rules" policy, then it should be for substantial and incontrovertible reasons, not simply for improving wikipedia, whatever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your premise is flawed. Wikipedia is not (intended to be) a hierarchical organization.
If people are protecting articles for petty political reasons, that does not improve wikipedia; please report them to the administrators noticeboard. If you feel intimidated by that location, you can also drop a note to me, and I can sort it out for you. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Use common sense redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos Machina ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Kaos Machina ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "all" seems really awkward. I can't conceive of any potential situation where literally ignoring either "all rules" or some particular rules (such as NPA, CIVIL, etc) could ever be useful. How about simply "ignore any rule"? This would additionally place emphasis on encouraging users to ignore as far as possible the fact that there are rules in the first place (which I think is at least part, if not the main aspect, of the initial thought behind this rule), rather than effectively saying "know the rules by heart (because they're so important...), and 'if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it'" (as in, deliberately break it). The current title diverts from the fact that we should have as few and unrestrictive rules as possible. (Also, everyone who is being bold and happens not to break any of our policies and guidelines is not knowingly "following them", but rather ignoring them alright, which is a good thing.) I dorftrottel I talk I 07:47, December 13, 2007
In particular, if the wording of the page WP:NPA is such that there appears to be some kind of loophole or technicality in the policy, then such wording should be ignored. We can respect the idea behind the rule (a principle), while ignoring the rule itself (a written document). - GTBacchus( talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree! The word "all" is awkward. It is rare one has good reasons to ignore "all" rules at one time, although if you do have it you may do it theoretically. However there are people who get used to it and don't want to adapt changes. After all, I hardly see anyone can use this rule in reality to help them to ignore any rule or even a guideline provided that they have good valid reasons to do, especially when you are arguing with an admin (eg soum). I hardly see they honour this right. So it doesn't matter at all. Odd Master ( talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I would propose "Ignore a rule" or "Ignore the rule" as the title of this page. Odd Master ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're putting too much emphasis on the ALL part, and ignoring the "as long as it improves wikipedia" part. If personally attacking someone would improve wikipedia, then yes, do so. This will, however never happen, because wikipedia could not possibly benefit from personal attacks. Therefore no one will ever be justified in not following that rule. Makes sense to me! IDIOTS!! (that's a joke there of couse, please find it funny :))
64.230.43.189 (
talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've come recently to believe that this policy page, and this process page, are examples of Wikipedia at its worst.
The spirit of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and that consensus is the process by
The issue here is that we have come the decision that a policy which is one sentence long is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia which supersedes all other policy. Therefore any edits to the page are considered to be sweeping and significant, regardless of how minor, and are reverted within hours. Only the most unobjectionable edits are allowed to remain - usually ones that don't touch The Sentence at all.
The problem is that we are now in a perpetual bold, revert, discuss cycle here, one that shows no signs of ending because achieving true consensus on a matter so divisive is next to impossible.
The reason for that is that there is a contentious split between people who like the policy as is and people who want to change it. The latter group is being bold and the former group is reverting, and even though there is discussion being had, the only way for consensus to be achieved is for one of the groups to either be converted almost entirely to the other's side of thinking.
The end result is that we have a page that bears the weight of policy, does not hold consensus as it stands, and the current processes for achieving consensus are inadequate to address the disagreements among users.
Wikipedia is not a battleground, but the edit warring and disagreement never stops here. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from making changes that no one supports. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from obsessively reverting changes that don't have consensus - even if no disagreement to the change has been expressed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but there's an unwritten rule that states that the letter of this law is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.
How ironic that we have a policy which tells us that the spirit of a rule supersedes the written letter of the rule, and we argue incessantly over the written letter of the rule.
IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement. The current process we have in place prevents its improvement.
This is Wikipedia at its worst.
- Chardish ( talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There does appear to be a sort of stale-mate between people who insist that this page is a problem, and those who say that it's just fine. I still really don't see a cogent argument being presented for why the policy is problematic at one sentence long. If IAR upsets you, you may ignore it, and you'll probably be fine. Why is there a need to edit it? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting results have been booked in traffic safety when all or most traffic rules were abolished in small given areas, see: Shared space -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see some value in the essay, but Haukurth made a good point about its description being misinterpreted. As removing the offending text rendered it inaccurate, I've removed the link for the time being. I won't edit-war over this (and have no strong feelings as to whether or not it should be included), but I believe that we should discuss this matter and get it sorted out. — David Levy 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the disagreement over how IAR should be worded (concise vs comprehensive), we've got WP:IAR and WP:WIARM as separate pages, sort of a compromise. Since there's still some disagreement, I had semi-suggested moving the WIARM link up above the "See also" link. Some other people were bold and tried it out. That was soon reverted with the comment, "get consensus then change this long standing rule, it is already known these changes are no accepted", but without further comment. So here I will attempt to encourage discussion and consensus.
In this section, please set aside the question of separation of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, which is being discussed in other sections. I ask that people please focus on the specific question of the placement and wording of the link.
I submit for discussion: Moving the WP:WIARM link up above the "See also" line might help archive better harmony between the two "sides" of this issue, and also make it more prominent (and thus easier to find) for newcomers. Concerns? Objections? Alternatives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit comment by Lubaf: "I'll consider anybody but Until (1==2) reverting me as a consensus against this version. Fair enough?", meh no, that would just be a lack of consensus for it. You can always try to convince people or make compromises, right? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem with this rule. And the problem is in the 'all'. Yes, most rules here on Wikipedia can be ignored, and should be if that helps building an encyclopedia. But ALL rules? I doubt it. To go from 'easy ignore' to 'never ignore':
Thus, I would say:
- Andre Engels ( talk) 09:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoa. I was with you up to point number 4. If you think bolding the title is bad, then you might start de-bolding titles. However, as soon as someone reverts you, why would you revert back? Isn't that kind of a dickish way to be? I mean, I don't care whether or not we've got a rule saying "don't behave like a spoiled child," it's still a useless way to behave. If someone reverts you, you talk to that person, not because of a rule, but because you'd rather get something done than screw around. You ignore rules, but don't ignore laws of nature, such as "courtesy matters".
Rather than your summary above, I'd say - "do whatever you want, but always be respectful of other people and what they've got to say." Respect covers it all; if you're being respectful, you won't get into a revert war, because it's obviously a silly way to behave. -
GTBacchus(
talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Far too hypothetical. Any checkuser attempting to justify release of IP data with this rule has clearly lost their minds, and none of them would. -- Deskana (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, everyone else has to be able to ignore all rules too. As the saying goes: their freedom to swing their fists ends at the tip of your nose. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If people pop in occasionally saying, "really, I can ignore all rules?", and then they get an explanation and learn something... what's wrong with that? That sounds healthy to me. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Z-man, I'm not making that claim. I'm not saying, "People should ignore rule X, because I think rule X should be ignored." I'm saying WP:IAR is ignored 90% of the time because the justification for why it exists is "just an essay," and people here are perpetuating this problem through preventing people from adding any "official" clarification. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument that WP:IAR should not have clarification is horrible and has harmed Wikipedia. It seems to be based in the naive belief that there is no such thing as "objectivity" or "facts." If this is true, however, is that a fact or is that a personal opinion? Such anti-intellectualism is a serious problem.
As such, I have added clarification and made WP:WIARM a redirect to WP:IAR.
I've also noted my changes on the talk pages of both articles. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:IAR is the first rule. Also, there is no "we", only "you" and "I." The linked essay is going to be ignored. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community is made up of individuals. It is not a hive-mind. Per WP:IAR, all pages can be ignored or embraced as people see fit. However, in some cases, people are less free:
Policy pages > Guidelines > Policy summaries > Essays > Talkpage discussions > Random vandalism.
You apparently think the justification for WP:IAR is not important enough for it to be at the top of that stack, so that more people will read it, be aware of the policy, and follow it. Similarly, people have pushed WP:BRD to the bottom of the stack also, which leads to silly comments like this and frustrated proposals like Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Fortunately, they haven't yet been successful at pushing WP:RS to the bottom of the stack, though it was apparently attempted. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, my test worked. I hate
making a point, but I wanted to find the most insignificant thing one could possibly change about this page, something that had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the interpretation of the policy, and see if it would get reverted. I decided to try
removing the bullet from the single item in the "bulleted list" under See Also. I didn't think that anyone could possibly object to it; I found the edit utterly meaningless. Sure enough, in under 11 hours,
it was reverted.
I think this page needs serious attention in that the Wiki process appears to be utterly broken with regards to it. It is impossible to edit this page in any way without being reverted, and that is contrary to everything we stand for. See my above reasoning on why this page is an example of Wikipedia at its worst.
N.B. I understand that some people feel that consensus must be reached before an edit can be made. The fact that this page has undergone serious discussion for years and remains more or less the same is a counterpoint to that. Pages that undergo heavy discussion on a daily basis and don't get changed don't have consensus. This should be obvious to all involved by now... -
Chardish (
talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I would piont out that this page has been edited, in ways that stuck, several times since I've been watching it. The most significant edit was probably the pruning of the "See also" section down to one (bulleted!) link, to WP:WIARM. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've protected this page for 1 week to stop the edit warring on official policy. Everyone knows better here, so please take this time to discuss your edits and come to a consensus for any future changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
From WP:POLICY#Policies: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow."
This page is protected yet again due to people pushing changes that have not been discussed in any way. Policies have wide acceptance among editors, so when you change one you need to make sure your change has wide acceptance among editors.
This latest protection gives you the opportunity to attempt to convince the community to adopt your changes. These changes do not come through force, but through agreement. Seek it, if you fail accept that. Do not edit war. (1 == 2) Until 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So the reason I started wiki-editing on WP:IAR is to try and get the page out of its stuck position, where no one can edit (see comments by chardish, earlier today).
This did not quite work out, and apparently a lot of people are not aware of why it's important to do this kind of thing. I'll probably get a huge stack of talk page messages and such asking wtf I was doing now. I know I got mobbed on #wikipedia-en-admins.
I'll try to talk with everyone who leaves me a message. I'm also going to ask some friends to help out, if the number of people asking what's up grows too large. :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Right guys, I protected the article, but I've had no previous interaction of the page and no real thoughts on the policy before this. I think we should now try and move on with discussion, rather than hashing out things that have already been said. The main question that needs to be asked is quite simple: Does the policy need to be changed from what has been seen as the norm for a long time? On one side, it's been used successfully many times in the past to help Wikipedia as it currently stands, but I also respect the fact that people have tried to change the policy previously with little luck due to it being seen as unchangeable wording. Let's try and discuss this once and for all, so we can stop the arguments that exist over this policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else see anything inherently absurd by protecting the page on WP:IAR? And also, does anyone know if it's possible to get it "protected from protection"? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's my primary issue with the "discuss, then edit" philosophy: It doesn't work. It's happened numerous times on this talk page where an edit gets discussed, everyone in the discussion is happy with it, the edit gets made, and then someone comes along and reverts it: someone who has WP:IAR on their watchlist and watches the page itself but not the discussion surrounding it. Cue edit war again. One of the most serious problems with this page is that it is held up as a sort of uberpolicy that supersedes all other policy: if this is the case, it is impossible for any version to satisfy everyone, and no version can hold consensus. If that is the case, why cling obsessively to a single version of the page? If this page were mutable, and closer to a (constructive, positive) sandbox than many are perhaps willing to allow, wouldn't that demonstrate the spirit of IAR to users, rather than merely describe it? - Chardish ( talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Slac, are you a fan of Edmund Burke? I.E., to give historial context to your assertion which is roughly the main argument against improving IAR: One of the main arguments against the abolitionist movement was that slavery was such a long-standing tradition on the books for many years, that the economy vitally depended on it, and the "radical" proposal to remove it was dangerous. Here, you seem to be making the same arguments. You also hear the same arguments regarding sharia in Islamic countries. I'm not trying to assert that Wikipedia is slavery or that Wikipedia policy is law (such as sharia) and it's a very, very poor analogy, but it's hard to find a better one. In any case, all of the relevant aspects (the core reasoning behind both arguments) correspond, making it a workable, effective analogy, even if polemic, and thus one worth considering. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Since we are to some degree talking in circles, I have made a post in an attempt to gain more participants: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should IAR remain flexible. I have made every effort to ensure the message and its location was neutral to our disagreement. (1 == 2) Until 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To all those who claim that the current version holds consensus: can you demonstrate that? Can you point to a discussion where it was asked if the current version holds consensus, and there was not a significant number of people who said "no"? Or, can you point to a discussion where the current wording was decided upon with no major objections? I think that the huge number of edits to this page and massive amount of discussion going on is prima facie evidence that the current version lacks consensus. Just because the content is objected to in different ways by different people doesn't mean that there aren't problems generally perceived with the current version. - Chardish ( talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I can point to a discussion demonstrating consensus for the current, short version. It happened (in one instance that I recall) when we lined up a whole list of essays purporting to explain or expound on IAR, and we had a big survey of what people thought of each one, and WP:WIARM was the one that most people agreed explained IAR the best, and we also agreed that linking to it as a "See also" would be a good idea. Look in archives 7 and 8. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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) |
” |
In my statement that you quoted, I said that some kind of edit would be necessary, and as far as I'm concerned, that edit was made. We cleared "See also" of all links except for WP:WIARM, and that was a good edit. It stuck. See, the page isn't edit-proof; you just have to make a really good edit, and prepare the way for it with lots of talk page use. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians undoublethink. Mini-luv rectify fullwise. Undoublethinkers become unpersons. Wikipedians doublethink fullwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.61.85 ( talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My challenge to all and sundry: change IAR every day.
First person who makes it to the page on a certain day (UTC!) gets to set the theme for the day, or some such.
We'll hold a competition, the prettiest version of IAR that gets the message across best will get a prize at wikimania in July.
(I still need to think of a prize, any suggestions? A certificate, or some small thing under Eur 20 should do :-) )
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The prize stands. If someone gets reverted, add a constructive edit. Remember that the point is to improve the page! -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What a great idea! I love it. Cheers. Tparameter ( talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, WP:IAR does not trump consensus. Current consensus appears to be that this idea needs more discussion. So I'm withdrawing my contest idea for now. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I like your idea about a contest to improve our presentation of IAR, but I think there are less disruptive ways to do it than what you suggest. Using sub-pages seems like a good idea, and I don't think there's any harm in the main policy page not being edited. Just ignore the rule that all pages have to be freely editable! After all, it's a policy, not an article. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're willing to conclude that Kim is acting in bad faith, then you have a lot to learn about people. There is no situation on the Wiki that is ever improved by "concluding bad faith" or by accusing someone of bad faith. If you guys disagree, stop arguing and seek outside input. This back and forth is unproductive. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The impossibility of concluding bad faith in another is a matter of logic, and it can be proved. You cannot see another humans motivations, and it's impossible for humans to act in a way that does not seem best to them. Read Plato; he knew this. So did Hume; so did Einstein. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of accusations flying on this page. I think I'll protect it. the_undertow talk 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I was pointed here from a Village Pump post, and looked at the proposed Zen koan. [14] I think it is a bad idea to include it, because the nuances of this particular policy are difficult to understand, and including the koan will probably serve to distract new editors and the less proficient in English from the link to the interpretations page, as well as just being distracting. I admit the koan is interesting and sends a profound message. However, I am not convinced that the koan or its message can in any way serve to improve the encyclopedia or foster harmonious editing. I am interested in the reasons if others disagree, thinking it may serve to improve the encyclopedia. MilesAgain ( talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Read BRD. It says 1. Be BOLD, 2. Wait until you are reverted, 3. Discuss with that person. I waited to be asked why I reverted. What?
We're all obligated to communicate with each other, of course, but it's hard for me to answer unasked questions. Chardish never asked why I reverted. You said "what if I think [removing the bullet] was a stylistic improvement?", and I said, "well, I disagree, let's talk". You haven't taken me up on that yet. Do you think it looks better without a bullet? I think it looks bad, because it diverges from all our other "See also" sections. Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Kim's general point is that the wording shouldn't matter on the policy that tells us that the wording on policies doesn't matter. You would think that in this talk page, of all places, we would be more warm and open to experimentation. Instead of establishing a fixed code by which this page may be changed, the warm glow of IAR should be radiating on all of us ; ) - Chardish ( talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the ability of all editors to freely edit policy pages. I reject the idea that koan is in any way appropriate for this page. What I would support is a (possibly limited) merger with WP:WIARM means. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like GTBacchus's essay at WP:WIARM. He and several who agree with his essay don't seem to like anybody making changes to it.
So, I wrote an essay at WP:WIARRM which expresses an alternative view. I'd like your opinion on whether it's correct and why or why not. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat: First of all, it's not my essay. I own nothing here. I am very happy with many changes that have been made to it. I'd like to see evidence for your assertions about me. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I added an image to WP:WIARRM that's worth checking out. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotta stand with GTBacchus here, Zenwhat. It's kind of a rule that you don't edit an essay unless you do so in a way that retains its original message; doing stuff like reversing the positions of "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in the second paragraph here is practically asking for a revert. If there are other examples you can point to where you think you were unfairly reverted, please share them. - Chardish ( talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And I strongly disagree with this image. It seems to suggest that if you are in a disagreement and you can't come to a quick compromise that you can just steamroller over everyone else with IAR and call it a consensus. IAR is not a license to be a jerk. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" but Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Mr. Z-man 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man, notice the "think harder" part. A person cannot arbitrarily do what they want, because Wikipedia is not anarchy. However, if a person is correct, if their claims are rational, objective, factual, based in reality, correct, matter-of-fact, and so on, then they are fully justified in "steamrolling" over every policy and every person complaining about them violating policy, no matter how much such people there are making such claims. The reason is simple: The core of policy states that actions which help Wikipedia should be carried out, while actions which hurt Wikipedia should be ignored.
The folks here seem to think that WP:CONSENSUS is the first rule of Wikipedia and that WP:IAR was developed by consensus. No, that's not true. WP:IAR is the first rule and WP:CONSENSUS is just a "policy" on top of that, a very good one and one I agree with, although not with the actual page WP:CONSENSUS.
The idea that " Wikipedia is not a democracy doesn't simply mean Wikipedia is not ruled by a 51% majority. It also applies to 60% democratic majorities, 70% democratic majorities, 80%, 90%, and theoretically 99%." Otherwise, you are a democrat -- one who believes in a heavily pluralistic democracy which upholds "rough consensus" based on false compromise and opposes reason and success.
To quote Dudley Field Malone in the Scopes Trial, "There is never a duel with the truth."
The words "truth" and "objectivity" and "individual rights" seem to put a cramp in the mind of the current democratic majority which controls WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS, and I think that seems to be why this place is in the state that it is in. Furthermore, your actions are futile for a simple reason: The fact that you have ownership over the pages on Wikipedia policy doesn't in fact actually mean that you control Wikipedia policy, precisely because of WP:IAR, which is probably why people who actually understand WP:IAR aren't too worried about controlling the policy pages while you all think you're actually controlling something by making the changes that you do.
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions about the "democratic majority" which "controls" IAR and CONSENSUS and "the state this place is in" are sounding increasingly silly. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that anything is actually wrong. No harm is being caused by this policy. If there is any, show it to us already. Don't just expound on how it must be harmful, according to your theory.
You claim to understand IAR better than "the mob" (as determined by you), but you provide no evidence of this. I've asked you to back up several allegations, and you've ignored those requests. Your comments above betray a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia.
It is fatuous to say that anyone is justified in steamrolling 99%. You know why? Because it won't work. Ask.... scores that I could name. Would you like a list of examples? You see, no appeal to some abstract "right" will get around the fact that you can't make Wikipedians do something they don't want to do. All we have is the power to convince. If people don't agree to enforce something, it won't be enforced. Policy pages don't carry guns. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Rules derive their power to create consensus, not from it. The latter argument is an appeal to tradition and a rejection of the idea that consensus can change. If a rule leads to a consensus around a rational, constructive change to Wikipedia, it is good. If a rule does not lead to a consensus around a rational constructive change to Wikipedia, it is bad and should be ignored.
In this editing process, where is IAR supposed to be?
According to the discussions I've had with Kim, it's something like this. That seems to be what you're suggesting too, GTBacchus, since the only example you can think of, of where IAR would apply is either a newbie or veteran editor who chooses to be willfully ignorant of written policy.
If that were true, then we may as well just delete every page on policy. It seems absurd to claim that WP:IAR has no inherent value or meaning, or any inherent part of the editing process. You treat it like a statue of a Greek God -- not something that actually exists or helps anybody, just something to keep around to make people feel happier about themselves. It is insulting to think that WP:IAR is just kept in order to help people feel good about themselves when they come across the experience and objective conclusion that Wikipedia is a democracy and is a bureaucracy, despite the false claims made on WP:NOT.
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would add, in reply to Zenwhat, that it's incorrect that the only examples of IAR involve people being either inexperienced or willfully ignorant (like a veteran editor not bothering to read WP:CIVIL because, duh. Just be civil; what else would it say?). Other examples abound. Any time you think something should be done differently, you can try doing it that way, and then see how people react, and then proceed respectfully. It's how a lot of things get started. It's where our WP:CSD and WP:CSK came from. They didn't used to exist, and there were rules about letting VfDs (as AfDs were then called) sit for some fixed period of time. That rule was being broken, regularly, by people who were trying to move things along, and people were ok with it in certain cases. Part of hammering out just which cases those were involved writing the pages WP:CSD and WP:CSK, so we don't have to repeat each argument in each case. It all started with people ignoring rules.
What could have been another great example was the userbox situation, beginning on New Years Eve/Day 2005/2006 when one admin deleted a whole slew of userboxes, which started a huge and fairly bitter months-long discussion leading to the clarification of WP:USER, the writing of WP:USERBOX, the compromise solution of WP:UBM (which was a great solution, and another example of IAR, in a different sense - we just bypassed the creation of any rule, and started moving things around - we ignored the supposed need for rules), and tens of thousands of words about the question in which lots of ideas about what we're doing here were fleshed out, and a lot of people learned a lot. It all started with one person ignoring a rule.
The reason it wasn't a great example is that, after the rule-ignoring was questioned, the resulting discussion was not undertaken in a spirit of mutual respect, or in a manner that dignified the participants. That was a shame, but I think we learned a lot from it, and overall, the process wasn't entirely unhealthy.
I can provide more examples, if you like. In the history of WP:BLP, for example, I know there were some high-profile cases of rule-ignoring that ended up crystallizing into a new rule. Like I said, I can dig up specifics, if you like.
For now, I'd point out again that you haven't demonstrated or provided a lick of evidence for any harm done by IAR, only for the fact that it doesn't jibe with your theory of how Wikipedia works, which seems to be shared by... yourself? Please provide evidence that you're talking about anything real. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It can cause disputes, Mr-Z, hence the reason I agree that WP:IAR cannot be used as a blanket justification to always revert edits you disagree with. Wikipedia is not a government and policy is not law, but the analogy works good enough (which is why it was probably a bit cheap of me to resort to the cliche "Admins aren't policemen!" argument I used against GTBacchus), so let's go with it.
Assuming this analogy:
So, I really think that it makes sense to think of WP:IAR as civil disobedience. It would be stupid for a person to be "civilly disobedient" over something trivial like public roads or income taxes, because it's not quite clear what it would achieve other than a night in jail or massive fines. But on the other hand, figures like Gandhi, MLK, Tolstoy, etc., all demonstrated the fact that rules don't matter and should be ignored if they are evil. And though Gandhi's and MLK's actions violated policy and tradition (past consensus), they helped work towards future consensus.
In practice, it doesn't particularly matter even WP:IAR even states, "You can break whatever rules you want, LOL," assuming all other aspects of Wikipedia remain fixed, because users that are going to vandalize, make edits in bad-faith, and so on, are not going to need a policy page on WP:IAR to do it. They'll do it, no matter what, because they don't care about policy.
On the other hand, the purpose of WP:IAR is vigilance against democracy and bureaucracy. Even though WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not bureaucracy or democracy, due to human nature it frequently disintegrates into that and it's important that rational individual editors and reason be given some kind of official "stamp of approval" to encourage them to ignore everything when they're doing stuff that hurts Wikipedia. Even assuming objectivity or reason don't exist, promoting the idea as part of wikiculture seems to have merit.
On the 9/11 twoofers:
Even assuming good faith (which is disputable), they can't ignore all rules in the above model because they failed to follow the "think harder" part. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Kim might be right about this conversation belonging at WT:WIARRM. Why not just move the whole section there? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
GT, I assumed the part about the anarchist because I can't imagine what other kind of idiot (not that all anarchists are idiots!) would try to improve society through breaking traffic laws.
To change your analogy: Say your wife is giving birth. Should you speed? If it wasn't a silly anarchist or something along those lines, what was it? Simply a person lying to the officer?
If so, that's not a very good analogy because it assumes bad faith.
Also, you said that WP:IAR goes in the "make an edit" part. Question: Doesn't that imply that WP:IAR always has to be based on previous consensus? If so, how is that actually "breaking the rules"? I'd like to keep the conversation here so that it's all in one place and since we're not just talking about my essay -- we're talking about WP:IAR itself. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim: "GTBacchus is explaining pretty well. I wish people could find time to do that more often," is that a matter of fact or your subjective opinion? If it is the latter and you disagree that it is impossible to "think harder," what makes your opinion more valid than mine?
GTBacchus: About speeding... Sorry, my mistake. When I saw this image, I thought it was yours. I see it was BQZip01 who created it.
Mr-ZMan: We agree on everything, except that I think the MoS doesn't dispute the analogy of WP:IAR as civil disobedience because the MoS isn't really a "rule" that can be "guideline." It's mostly just a suggestion to make Wikipedia look nice and I can't imagine there ever being a conflict over strictly the MoS (not involving bad-faith, consensus, etc..).
Users should NOT, however, make Wikipedia look ugly because of their ignorance of the MoS. And WP:IAR is not about a sanction to promote public ignorance. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I've just merged WP:WIARM and WP:IAR, as that seems to have been the least controversial method of clarifying IAR. If anybody reverts, I'll let it be, but I still think that WIARM and IAR being apart is not a great idea. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I really like this idea, but I tried it a few months ago and it was violently shot down. It seems there are a number of people who insist on IAR being a single sentence, for reasons which continue to escape me. Still, I support you. - Chardish 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Awful idea. You made the page all fat again (detracting from the point), not to mention that it's been tried before. So, you neither get points for the end result nor for being original. On top of that, I predict you'll get reverted within 24 hours. Миша 13 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
At the top of every policy page it says "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I would like to implore people to respect this. If your idea is truly seen by the community as an improvement it will be accepted on the talk page and implemented. But when you pretty much know ahead of time that the version you are creating is going to be reverted then just don't do it, go to the talk page and get consensus. Creating versions you know will be reverted is disruptive. 1 != 2 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ supplementsection}}
If this ridiculous edit and revert war continues, I will restore the protection of this page. Discuss, don't engage in this childish behaviour. If you haven't gotten your way after seven reverts, you should know that you won't get your way after eight reverts either. A ecis Brievenbus 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that some people are being hyper-protective of this page, to a fault. I have made two edits to this page recently, neither of which were reverts, and then an administrator threatened to block me if I didn't desist. I challenge the notion that this page currently has any consensus, and strongly oppose the idea that protection of the page will help solve anything. - Chardish 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And the threat itself is juvenile and so vulnerable to manipulation as to be pointless. Either protect it or do not protect it, as appropriate, which protection in this case would not be appropriate. — Centrx→ talk • 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If the current editing dispute had been the first or the second, yes, my message would have been highly premature. But this is not the first editing dispute. Just look at the protection log. This page has been protected 14 times in just over two years. The editors involved are highly experienced and established Wikipedians, who should know better than to engage in an edit war. I fully stand by my message. A ecis Brievenbus 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
... as all the editors of this tiny little page.
Boy, I can't imagine how bad this page must have been 1000 edits ago, to need that much improvment. ;)
Or perhaps some of us can find something more useful to do than re-edit the same dozen words over and over again? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"The rules mean nothing when they conflict with expediency..." This is not the claim made by IAR, nor by WIARM. The rules don't mean "nothing"; they mean the distillation of lots of experience of what works and what doesn't. Does that mean they're infallible? No. Thus, when they fail, we deal with it.
"What's to keep the old-timers from lording over me?" Well, I've seen lots of people get de-sysoped, or fully run off the project, because they seemed to be here to lord over others, and not to work collaboratively, respectfully, and lovingly on the project. What keeps people from "lording over you" is other people. Talk to them, and everything will be fine. If you expect some kind of rule-structure to be a skirt to which you can run, then prepare for disappointment. - GTBacchus( talk) 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
IAR is wikipedia in a nutshell. So why would we be surprised that it changes every day? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Has anyone tried polka-dots yet?
No matter whether it is called "Ignore all rules", "Ignore a rule", or "Ignore rules when you have valid reasons to do"; it isn't important because well even admin doesn't honour you the right to do it. Not only that, in fact admin doesn't honor many major rules and it is just one of them.
Ignore any rule if it stops you from improving Wikipedia -- this right is just non-existent!
Note: Don't get me wrong!! I do realise I shouldn't take the rule literally. As far as I know, it is more of a spirit which tells us that no rule should be treated absolutely. Rules are not binding and should not be followed mindlessly. If you are in good faith and think the rule is bad or wrong and ignoring it will benefit the Wikipedia as a whole, you should act on it.
OK. Why do I say Wikipedia polices are non-existing in reality? It is because even admins have conflicting interests (eg they are also the editors of that page) and they tend to interpret rules in a way to favour themselves. They can even use "protection (page lockup)" and "banning" as a way to force you to respect what they say.
Admin Soum doesn't care to follow any rule he doesn't like -- The first example:
Admin even blindly ignores the policies -- Admin
Soum even breaks the five pillars of Wikipedia without any reasoning
Even admins will create new subsidiary rules to justify what they are doing, or treat even guidelines absolutely and other editors must follow. If they don't follow, admins may threaten you with a ban. Here comes the second example.
Take a look at two pages - one before and after cleanup:
Before: it contains many filehosters to compare in the table.
After: All but three filehosters have been removed for good.
Why such an abrupt change took place? It was because admin Hu12 left a message in the discussion page saying he got fed up and said the article had been reaching Spam Event Horizon (Essay only) so a cleanup was necessary. Well he went even further and set up a rule that "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable one-click hosting services sites should be added. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not one-click hosting services should be removed."
If you take some time to click on
Spam Event Horizon (Essay only), it is only an essay proposed by someone. Read what an essay means:
“ | This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. | ” |
Well but he demanded everyone to follow it. By the way, the article didn't say it is a good way to deal with spam event by literally eliminating everything.
Common Sense: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's fix them.
Admin
Hu12: There are some mistakes on the article. Let's discard everything and start all over again.
Common senses should not taken for granted. I see something as pretty obvious while an admin like
Hu12 thinks otherwise.
The table itself unfortunately contains some references to possibly infamous/unknown filehosters. Well it is a good idea to clean up the table a bit. If I were him, I would have a brief look at the table, trying to fix the problem by removing those infamous/unknown filehosters. Further cleanups can be done later to ensure a better quality comparison page.
However the admin went to the extreme and removed all but 3 filehosters. If you asked me why he did it in this extreme way, I would say:
After all, forget about all those Wikipedia policies and principles. Try to judge the edit alone from a normal citizen viewpoint. I can hardly this edit (cleanup) due to worrying about the spam is anything helpful to the Wikipedia. It actually sucks big time. Two wrongs don't make one right. I see it obvious. He can't see it. Anyway one fact won't change - he has essentially damaged the whole comparison page to an extent that it becomes almost useless as there are literally 3 filehosters left. There are just a few comments from other visitors about the change:
“ | Great. You've made what used to be a comprehensive list completely useless. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that it can have a comprehensive resources list like this WAS, kept up to date by interested parties. Now it's just a list of the big 3 or 4 sites. Now I refer people to an old revision if they are looking for an actual list of sites. Who decided sites had to be "notable"? What most people are looking for is "useful". You have deleted useful information. 210.17.201.108 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | I think this is a more useful list if more services are listed. It's supposed to be a comparison of one-click hosters, but so few are listed right now that it's almost completely useless. There's really no logic in cutting it down just because of some guideline about what lists are Supposed To Be. But then, I'm one of those wild savages who doesn't care about things like "wikipedia guidelines" and "notability." -- 74.75.145.125 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | ” |
There are quite a few concepts and principles I disagree with that admin so I argued with him. Well it is not the most important. What I most disagreed is how the admin can discredit others' contributors work in such a way. I feel frustrated although I never contributed to this page.
This is just plain silly from a user point of view. Is there any big problem about having some infamous/unknown filehosters? Why does he revert every work made by all previous contributors and request everyone to start all over again? I would say reverting is a very rude action. It is a serious disrespect and discredit of all those previous contributors.
That revert decision is also taken so lightly. He just posted a message on the discussion board complaining the article comtains bad spam items so a revert of all previous work is necessary. He didn't even waited to form any consensus/agreement first.
Did they read the [WP:revert|"reverting" rules]?
Do:
Do not:
The above says it all. Even if there is a dispute, the admin still reverts it first to take advantage of it.
Admin Hu12 requested others to follow the advice made in an essay, in addition to its additional advice: "only entries that are links to actual Wikipedia articles... should be added. [Others]... should be removed." Otherwise any item you added to the comparison table will be removed.
You think that the rule is bad and stop you from improving Wikipedia. Well it is even not an established rule. It is only a "rule" set by the admin. You complain and would like to ignore his "rule" based on WP:IAR. Do you think it works?
In reality your contribution will be reverted immediately without mercy if you do. You will be warned to be banned. Now admin Hu12 took over the control of this page. Every item or entry added to the table must pass his examination. Isn't this against the spirit of Wikipedia?
The admin participates in the editing and discussion of this page. He has a conflict of interest. But he made additional "rules" and requested others to follow. So what's the point of WP:IAR when you can't even have a right to ignore it when you see the need?
Pretty much what they say is final. The discussion has been closed although they ask you to discuss when you disagree.
After all, you have very little room to argue with an admin.
Why? Because admin has a "ban" button. You don't. If you believe they are wrong and criticise their actions, you may risk being banned.
I found out I get banned for an extended period of time when I sent this critic (glad that it was not a permanment ban becaue I believe I am honoured with it ;-D).
The reason is:
Disruptive editing
You be the judge.
Try to review the history of Comparison of one-click hosters. I edited this page once only (revert the decision made by the admin by restoring the page).
I made some critical comments about his action and his reasons. Read the discussions for details.
He censored some of my comments. I supposed no one should edit or hide anyone's comment. Anyway he did. Impressive.
I believe someone who censored comments should be banned too by the way. The intention is evil.
Definition of disruptive editing and editors
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
In addition, such editors may:
Do I really fit in one of the categories? Odd Master2 ( talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of a few WP:SOCK harassment accounts.
Odd master3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Odd Master2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Odd Master (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12 (
talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In what way is "ignore all rules" a good idea? First "improve wikipedia" is an inherently vague and subjective proposition. From what I have seen of administrators blocking users and protecting entries for petty political reasons, the last thing that needs to be done on wikipedia is to ignore rules that are followed by the average, non-admin contributor. Secondly, within a hierarchical organization such as wikipedia there needs to be a standard base ruleset which is followed by everyone, not to be disregarded on a whim because you can. And if there is to be an "ignore all rules" policy, then it should be for substantial and incontrovertible reasons, not simply for improving wikipedia, whatever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your premise is flawed. Wikipedia is not (intended to be) a hierarchical organization.
If people are protecting articles for petty political reasons, that does not improve wikipedia; please report them to the administrators noticeboard. If you feel intimidated by that location, you can also drop a note to me, and I can sort it out for you. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Use common sense redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos Machina ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Kaos Machina ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "all" seems really awkward. I can't conceive of any potential situation where literally ignoring either "all rules" or some particular rules (such as NPA, CIVIL, etc) could ever be useful. How about simply "ignore any rule"? This would additionally place emphasis on encouraging users to ignore as far as possible the fact that there are rules in the first place (which I think is at least part, if not the main aspect, of the initial thought behind this rule), rather than effectively saying "know the rules by heart (because they're so important...), and 'if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it'" (as in, deliberately break it). The current title diverts from the fact that we should have as few and unrestrictive rules as possible. (Also, everyone who is being bold and happens not to break any of our policies and guidelines is not knowingly "following them", but rather ignoring them alright, which is a good thing.) I dorftrottel I talk I 07:47, December 13, 2007
In particular, if the wording of the page WP:NPA is such that there appears to be some kind of loophole or technicality in the policy, then such wording should be ignored. We can respect the idea behind the rule (a principle), while ignoring the rule itself (a written document). - GTBacchus( talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree! The word "all" is awkward. It is rare one has good reasons to ignore "all" rules at one time, although if you do have it you may do it theoretically. However there are people who get used to it and don't want to adapt changes. After all, I hardly see anyone can use this rule in reality to help them to ignore any rule or even a guideline provided that they have good valid reasons to do, especially when you are arguing with an admin (eg soum). I hardly see they honour this right. So it doesn't matter at all. Odd Master ( talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I would propose "Ignore a rule" or "Ignore the rule" as the title of this page. Odd Master ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're putting too much emphasis on the ALL part, and ignoring the "as long as it improves wikipedia" part. If personally attacking someone would improve wikipedia, then yes, do so. This will, however never happen, because wikipedia could not possibly benefit from personal attacks. Therefore no one will ever be justified in not following that rule. Makes sense to me! IDIOTS!! (that's a joke there of couse, please find it funny :))
64.230.43.189 (
talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've come recently to believe that this policy page, and this process page, are examples of Wikipedia at its worst.
The spirit of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and that consensus is the process by
The issue here is that we have come the decision that a policy which is one sentence long is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia which supersedes all other policy. Therefore any edits to the page are considered to be sweeping and significant, regardless of how minor, and are reverted within hours. Only the most unobjectionable edits are allowed to remain - usually ones that don't touch The Sentence at all.
The problem is that we are now in a perpetual bold, revert, discuss cycle here, one that shows no signs of ending because achieving true consensus on a matter so divisive is next to impossible.
The reason for that is that there is a contentious split between people who like the policy as is and people who want to change it. The latter group is being bold and the former group is reverting, and even though there is discussion being had, the only way for consensus to be achieved is for one of the groups to either be converted almost entirely to the other's side of thinking.
The end result is that we have a page that bears the weight of policy, does not hold consensus as it stands, and the current processes for achieving consensus are inadequate to address the disagreements among users.
Wikipedia is not a battleground, but the edit warring and disagreement never stops here. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from making changes that no one supports. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there appears to be nothing in place to stop people from obsessively reverting changes that don't have consensus - even if no disagreement to the change has been expressed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but there's an unwritten rule that states that the letter of this law is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.
How ironic that we have a policy which tells us that the spirit of a rule supersedes the written letter of the rule, and we argue incessantly over the written letter of the rule.
IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement. The current process we have in place prevents its improvement.
This is Wikipedia at its worst.
- Chardish ( talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There does appear to be a sort of stale-mate between people who insist that this page is a problem, and those who say that it's just fine. I still really don't see a cogent argument being presented for why the policy is problematic at one sentence long. If IAR upsets you, you may ignore it, and you'll probably be fine. Why is there a need to edit it? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting results have been booked in traffic safety when all or most traffic rules were abolished in small given areas, see: Shared space -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see some value in the essay, but Haukurth made a good point about its description being misinterpreted. As removing the offending text rendered it inaccurate, I've removed the link for the time being. I won't edit-war over this (and have no strong feelings as to whether or not it should be included), but I believe that we should discuss this matter and get it sorted out. — David Levy 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the disagreement over how IAR should be worded (concise vs comprehensive), we've got WP:IAR and WP:WIARM as separate pages, sort of a compromise. Since there's still some disagreement, I had semi-suggested moving the WIARM link up above the "See also" link. Some other people were bold and tried it out. That was soon reverted with the comment, "get consensus then change this long standing rule, it is already known these changes are no accepted", but without further comment. So here I will attempt to encourage discussion and consensus.
In this section, please set aside the question of separation of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, which is being discussed in other sections. I ask that people please focus on the specific question of the placement and wording of the link.
I submit for discussion: Moving the WP:WIARM link up above the "See also" line might help archive better harmony between the two "sides" of this issue, and also make it more prominent (and thus easier to find) for newcomers. Concerns? Objections? Alternatives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit comment by Lubaf: "I'll consider anybody but Until (1==2) reverting me as a consensus against this version. Fair enough?", meh no, that would just be a lack of consensus for it. You can always try to convince people or make compromises, right? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem with this rule. And the problem is in the 'all'. Yes, most rules here on Wikipedia can be ignored, and should be if that helps building an encyclopedia. But ALL rules? I doubt it. To go from 'easy ignore' to 'never ignore':
Thus, I would say:
- Andre Engels ( talk) 09:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoa. I was with you up to point number 4. If you think bolding the title is bad, then you might start de-bolding titles. However, as soon as someone reverts you, why would you revert back? Isn't that kind of a dickish way to be? I mean, I don't care whether or not we've got a rule saying "don't behave like a spoiled child," it's still a useless way to behave. If someone reverts you, you talk to that person, not because of a rule, but because you'd rather get something done than screw around. You ignore rules, but don't ignore laws of nature, such as "courtesy matters".
Rather than your summary above, I'd say - "do whatever you want, but always be respectful of other people and what they've got to say." Respect covers it all; if you're being respectful, you won't get into a revert war, because it's obviously a silly way to behave. -
GTBacchus(
talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Far too hypothetical. Any checkuser attempting to justify release of IP data with this rule has clearly lost their minds, and none of them would. -- Deskana (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, everyone else has to be able to ignore all rules too. As the saying goes: their freedom to swing their fists ends at the tip of your nose. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If people pop in occasionally saying, "really, I can ignore all rules?", and then they get an explanation and learn something... what's wrong with that? That sounds healthy to me. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Z-man, I'm not making that claim. I'm not saying, "People should ignore rule X, because I think rule X should be ignored." I'm saying WP:IAR is ignored 90% of the time because the justification for why it exists is "just an essay," and people here are perpetuating this problem through preventing people from adding any "official" clarification. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument that WP:IAR should not have clarification is horrible and has harmed Wikipedia. It seems to be based in the naive belief that there is no such thing as "objectivity" or "facts." If this is true, however, is that a fact or is that a personal opinion? Such anti-intellectualism is a serious problem.
As such, I have added clarification and made WP:WIARM a redirect to WP:IAR.
I've also noted my changes on the talk pages of both articles. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:IAR is the first rule. Also, there is no "we", only "you" and "I." The linked essay is going to be ignored. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community is made up of individuals. It is not a hive-mind. Per WP:IAR, all pages can be ignored or embraced as people see fit. However, in some cases, people are less free:
Policy pages > Guidelines > Policy summaries > Essays > Talkpage discussions > Random vandalism.
You apparently think the justification for WP:IAR is not important enough for it to be at the top of that stack, so that more people will read it, be aware of the policy, and follow it. Similarly, people have pushed WP:BRD to the bottom of the stack also, which leads to silly comments like this and frustrated proposals like Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Fortunately, they haven't yet been successful at pushing WP:RS to the bottom of the stack, though it was apparently attempted. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, my test worked. I hate
making a point, but I wanted to find the most insignificant thing one could possibly change about this page, something that had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the interpretation of the policy, and see if it would get reverted. I decided to try
removing the bullet from the single item in the "bulleted list" under See Also. I didn't think that anyone could possibly object to it; I found the edit utterly meaningless. Sure enough, in under 11 hours,
it was reverted.
I think this page needs serious attention in that the Wiki process appears to be utterly broken with regards to it. It is impossible to edit this page in any way without being reverted, and that is contrary to everything we stand for. See my above reasoning on why this page is an example of Wikipedia at its worst.
N.B. I understand that some people feel that consensus must be reached before an edit can be made. The fact that this page has undergone serious discussion for years and remains more or less the same is a counterpoint to that. Pages that undergo heavy discussion on a daily basis and don't get changed don't have consensus. This should be obvious to all involved by now... -
Chardish (
talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I would piont out that this page has been edited, in ways that stuck, several times since I've been watching it. The most significant edit was probably the pruning of the "See also" section down to one (bulleted!) link, to WP:WIARM. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've protected this page for 1 week to stop the edit warring on official policy. Everyone knows better here, so please take this time to discuss your edits and come to a consensus for any future changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
From WP:POLICY#Policies: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow."
This page is protected yet again due to people pushing changes that have not been discussed in any way. Policies have wide acceptance among editors, so when you change one you need to make sure your change has wide acceptance among editors.
This latest protection gives you the opportunity to attempt to convince the community to adopt your changes. These changes do not come through force, but through agreement. Seek it, if you fail accept that. Do not edit war. (1 == 2) Until 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So the reason I started wiki-editing on WP:IAR is to try and get the page out of its stuck position, where no one can edit (see comments by chardish, earlier today).
This did not quite work out, and apparently a lot of people are not aware of why it's important to do this kind of thing. I'll probably get a huge stack of talk page messages and such asking wtf I was doing now. I know I got mobbed on #wikipedia-en-admins.
I'll try to talk with everyone who leaves me a message. I'm also going to ask some friends to help out, if the number of people asking what's up grows too large. :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Right guys, I protected the article, but I've had no previous interaction of the page and no real thoughts on the policy before this. I think we should now try and move on with discussion, rather than hashing out things that have already been said. The main question that needs to be asked is quite simple: Does the policy need to be changed from what has been seen as the norm for a long time? On one side, it's been used successfully many times in the past to help Wikipedia as it currently stands, but I also respect the fact that people have tried to change the policy previously with little luck due to it being seen as unchangeable wording. Let's try and discuss this once and for all, so we can stop the arguments that exist over this policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else see anything inherently absurd by protecting the page on WP:IAR? And also, does anyone know if it's possible to get it "protected from protection"? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's my primary issue with the "discuss, then edit" philosophy: It doesn't work. It's happened numerous times on this talk page where an edit gets discussed, everyone in the discussion is happy with it, the edit gets made, and then someone comes along and reverts it: someone who has WP:IAR on their watchlist and watches the page itself but not the discussion surrounding it. Cue edit war again. One of the most serious problems with this page is that it is held up as a sort of uberpolicy that supersedes all other policy: if this is the case, it is impossible for any version to satisfy everyone, and no version can hold consensus. If that is the case, why cling obsessively to a single version of the page? If this page were mutable, and closer to a (constructive, positive) sandbox than many are perhaps willing to allow, wouldn't that demonstrate the spirit of IAR to users, rather than merely describe it? - Chardish ( talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Slac, are you a fan of Edmund Burke? I.E., to give historial context to your assertion which is roughly the main argument against improving IAR: One of the main arguments against the abolitionist movement was that slavery was such a long-standing tradition on the books for many years, that the economy vitally depended on it, and the "radical" proposal to remove it was dangerous. Here, you seem to be making the same arguments. You also hear the same arguments regarding sharia in Islamic countries. I'm not trying to assert that Wikipedia is slavery or that Wikipedia policy is law (such as sharia) and it's a very, very poor analogy, but it's hard to find a better one. In any case, all of the relevant aspects (the core reasoning behind both arguments) correspond, making it a workable, effective analogy, even if polemic, and thus one worth considering. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Since we are to some degree talking in circles, I have made a post in an attempt to gain more participants: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should IAR remain flexible. I have made every effort to ensure the message and its location was neutral to our disagreement. (1 == 2) Until 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To all those who claim that the current version holds consensus: can you demonstrate that? Can you point to a discussion where it was asked if the current version holds consensus, and there was not a significant number of people who said "no"? Or, can you point to a discussion where the current wording was decided upon with no major objections? I think that the huge number of edits to this page and massive amount of discussion going on is prima facie evidence that the current version lacks consensus. Just because the content is objected to in different ways by different people doesn't mean that there aren't problems generally perceived with the current version. - Chardish ( talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I can point to a discussion demonstrating consensus for the current, short version. It happened (in one instance that I recall) when we lined up a whole list of essays purporting to explain or expound on IAR, and we had a big survey of what people thought of each one, and WP:WIARM was the one that most people agreed explained IAR the best, and we also agreed that linking to it as a "See also" would be a good idea. Look in archives 7 and 8. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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) |
” |
In my statement that you quoted, I said that some kind of edit would be necessary, and as far as I'm concerned, that edit was made. We cleared "See also" of all links except for WP:WIARM, and that was a good edit. It stuck. See, the page isn't edit-proof; you just have to make a really good edit, and prepare the way for it with lots of talk page use. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians undoublethink. Mini-luv rectify fullwise. Undoublethinkers become unpersons. Wikipedians doublethink fullwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.61.85 ( talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My challenge to all and sundry: change IAR every day.
First person who makes it to the page on a certain day (UTC!) gets to set the theme for the day, or some such.
We'll hold a competition, the prettiest version of IAR that gets the message across best will get a prize at wikimania in July.
(I still need to think of a prize, any suggestions? A certificate, or some small thing under Eur 20 should do :-) )
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The prize stands. If someone gets reverted, add a constructive edit. Remember that the point is to improve the page! -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What a great idea! I love it. Cheers. Tparameter ( talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, WP:IAR does not trump consensus. Current consensus appears to be that this idea needs more discussion. So I'm withdrawing my contest idea for now. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I like your idea about a contest to improve our presentation of IAR, but I think there are less disruptive ways to do it than what you suggest. Using sub-pages seems like a good idea, and I don't think there's any harm in the main policy page not being edited. Just ignore the rule that all pages have to be freely editable! After all, it's a policy, not an article. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're willing to conclude that Kim is acting in bad faith, then you have a lot to learn about people. There is no situation on the Wiki that is ever improved by "concluding bad faith" or by accusing someone of bad faith. If you guys disagree, stop arguing and seek outside input. This back and forth is unproductive. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The impossibility of concluding bad faith in another is a matter of logic, and it can be proved. You cannot see another humans motivations, and it's impossible for humans to act in a way that does not seem best to them. Read Plato; he knew this. So did Hume; so did Einstein. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of accusations flying on this page. I think I'll protect it. the_undertow talk 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I was pointed here from a Village Pump post, and looked at the proposed Zen koan. [14] I think it is a bad idea to include it, because the nuances of this particular policy are difficult to understand, and including the koan will probably serve to distract new editors and the less proficient in English from the link to the interpretations page, as well as just being distracting. I admit the koan is interesting and sends a profound message. However, I am not convinced that the koan or its message can in any way serve to improve the encyclopedia or foster harmonious editing. I am interested in the reasons if others disagree, thinking it may serve to improve the encyclopedia. MilesAgain ( talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Read BRD. It says 1. Be BOLD, 2. Wait until you are reverted, 3. Discuss with that person. I waited to be asked why I reverted. What?
We're all obligated to communicate with each other, of course, but it's hard for me to answer unasked questions. Chardish never asked why I reverted. You said "what if I think [removing the bullet] was a stylistic improvement?", and I said, "well, I disagree, let's talk". You haven't taken me up on that yet. Do you think it looks better without a bullet? I think it looks bad, because it diverges from all our other "See also" sections. Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Kim's general point is that the wording shouldn't matter on the policy that tells us that the wording on policies doesn't matter. You would think that in this talk page, of all places, we would be more warm and open to experimentation. Instead of establishing a fixed code by which this page may be changed, the warm glow of IAR should be radiating on all of us ; ) - Chardish ( talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the ability of all editors to freely edit policy pages. I reject the idea that koan is in any way appropriate for this page. What I would support is a (possibly limited) merger with WP:WIARM means. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like GTBacchus's essay at WP:WIARM. He and several who agree with his essay don't seem to like anybody making changes to it.
So, I wrote an essay at WP:WIARRM which expresses an alternative view. I'd like your opinion on whether it's correct and why or why not. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat: First of all, it's not my essay. I own nothing here. I am very happy with many changes that have been made to it. I'd like to see evidence for your assertions about me. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I added an image to WP:WIARRM that's worth checking out. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotta stand with GTBacchus here, Zenwhat. It's kind of a rule that you don't edit an essay unless you do so in a way that retains its original message; doing stuff like reversing the positions of "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in the second paragraph here is practically asking for a revert. If there are other examples you can point to where you think you were unfairly reverted, please share them. - Chardish ( talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And I strongly disagree with this image. It seems to suggest that if you are in a disagreement and you can't come to a quick compromise that you can just steamroller over everyone else with IAR and call it a consensus. IAR is not a license to be a jerk. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" but Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Mr. Z-man 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man, notice the "think harder" part. A person cannot arbitrarily do what they want, because Wikipedia is not anarchy. However, if a person is correct, if their claims are rational, objective, factual, based in reality, correct, matter-of-fact, and so on, then they are fully justified in "steamrolling" over every policy and every person complaining about them violating policy, no matter how much such people there are making such claims. The reason is simple: The core of policy states that actions which help Wikipedia should be carried out, while actions which hurt Wikipedia should be ignored.
The folks here seem to think that WP:CONSENSUS is the first rule of Wikipedia and that WP:IAR was developed by consensus. No, that's not true. WP:IAR is the first rule and WP:CONSENSUS is just a "policy" on top of that, a very good one and one I agree with, although not with the actual page WP:CONSENSUS.
The idea that " Wikipedia is not a democracy doesn't simply mean Wikipedia is not ruled by a 51% majority. It also applies to 60% democratic majorities, 70% democratic majorities, 80%, 90%, and theoretically 99%." Otherwise, you are a democrat -- one who believes in a heavily pluralistic democracy which upholds "rough consensus" based on false compromise and opposes reason and success.
To quote Dudley Field Malone in the Scopes Trial, "There is never a duel with the truth."
The words "truth" and "objectivity" and "individual rights" seem to put a cramp in the mind of the current democratic majority which controls WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS, and I think that seems to be why this place is in the state that it is in. Furthermore, your actions are futile for a simple reason: The fact that you have ownership over the pages on Wikipedia policy doesn't in fact actually mean that you control Wikipedia policy, precisely because of WP:IAR, which is probably why people who actually understand WP:IAR aren't too worried about controlling the policy pages while you all think you're actually controlling something by making the changes that you do.
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions about the "democratic majority" which "controls" IAR and CONSENSUS and "the state this place is in" are sounding increasingly silly. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that anything is actually wrong. No harm is being caused by this policy. If there is any, show it to us already. Don't just expound on how it must be harmful, according to your theory.
You claim to understand IAR better than "the mob" (as determined by you), but you provide no evidence of this. I've asked you to back up several allegations, and you've ignored those requests. Your comments above betray a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia.
It is fatuous to say that anyone is justified in steamrolling 99%. You know why? Because it won't work. Ask.... scores that I could name. Would you like a list of examples? You see, no appeal to some abstract "right" will get around the fact that you can't make Wikipedians do something they don't want to do. All we have is the power to convince. If people don't agree to enforce something, it won't be enforced. Policy pages don't carry guns. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Rules derive their power to create consensus, not from it. The latter argument is an appeal to tradition and a rejection of the idea that consensus can change. If a rule leads to a consensus around a rational, constructive change to Wikipedia, it is good. If a rule does not lead to a consensus around a rational constructive change to Wikipedia, it is bad and should be ignored.
In this editing process, where is IAR supposed to be?
According to the discussions I've had with Kim, it's something like this. That seems to be what you're suggesting too, GTBacchus, since the only example you can think of, of where IAR would apply is either a newbie or veteran editor who chooses to be willfully ignorant of written policy.
If that were true, then we may as well just delete every page on policy. It seems absurd to claim that WP:IAR has no inherent value or meaning, or any inherent part of the editing process. You treat it like a statue of a Greek God -- not something that actually exists or helps anybody, just something to keep around to make people feel happier about themselves. It is insulting to think that WP:IAR is just kept in order to help people feel good about themselves when they come across the experience and objective conclusion that Wikipedia is a democracy and is a bureaucracy, despite the false claims made on WP:NOT.
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would add, in reply to Zenwhat, that it's incorrect that the only examples of IAR involve people being either inexperienced or willfully ignorant (like a veteran editor not bothering to read WP:CIVIL because, duh. Just be civil; what else would it say?). Other examples abound. Any time you think something should be done differently, you can try doing it that way, and then see how people react, and then proceed respectfully. It's how a lot of things get started. It's where our WP:CSD and WP:CSK came from. They didn't used to exist, and there were rules about letting VfDs (as AfDs were then called) sit for some fixed period of time. That rule was being broken, regularly, by people who were trying to move things along, and people were ok with it in certain cases. Part of hammering out just which cases those were involved writing the pages WP:CSD and WP:CSK, so we don't have to repeat each argument in each case. It all started with people ignoring rules.
What could have been another great example was the userbox situation, beginning on New Years Eve/Day 2005/2006 when one admin deleted a whole slew of userboxes, which started a huge and fairly bitter months-long discussion leading to the clarification of WP:USER, the writing of WP:USERBOX, the compromise solution of WP:UBM (which was a great solution, and another example of IAR, in a different sense - we just bypassed the creation of any rule, and started moving things around - we ignored the supposed need for rules), and tens of thousands of words about the question in which lots of ideas about what we're doing here were fleshed out, and a lot of people learned a lot. It all started with one person ignoring a rule.
The reason it wasn't a great example is that, after the rule-ignoring was questioned, the resulting discussion was not undertaken in a spirit of mutual respect, or in a manner that dignified the participants. That was a shame, but I think we learned a lot from it, and overall, the process wasn't entirely unhealthy.
I can provide more examples, if you like. In the history of WP:BLP, for example, I know there were some high-profile cases of rule-ignoring that ended up crystallizing into a new rule. Like I said, I can dig up specifics, if you like.
For now, I'd point out again that you haven't demonstrated or provided a lick of evidence for any harm done by IAR, only for the fact that it doesn't jibe with your theory of how Wikipedia works, which seems to be shared by... yourself? Please provide evidence that you're talking about anything real. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It can cause disputes, Mr-Z, hence the reason I agree that WP:IAR cannot be used as a blanket justification to always revert edits you disagree with. Wikipedia is not a government and policy is not law, but the analogy works good enough (which is why it was probably a bit cheap of me to resort to the cliche "Admins aren't policemen!" argument I used against GTBacchus), so let's go with it.
Assuming this analogy:
So, I really think that it makes sense to think of WP:IAR as civil disobedience. It would be stupid for a person to be "civilly disobedient" over something trivial like public roads or income taxes, because it's not quite clear what it would achieve other than a night in jail or massive fines. But on the other hand, figures like Gandhi, MLK, Tolstoy, etc., all demonstrated the fact that rules don't matter and should be ignored if they are evil. And though Gandhi's and MLK's actions violated policy and tradition (past consensus), they helped work towards future consensus.
In practice, it doesn't particularly matter even WP:IAR even states, "You can break whatever rules you want, LOL," assuming all other aspects of Wikipedia remain fixed, because users that are going to vandalize, make edits in bad-faith, and so on, are not going to need a policy page on WP:IAR to do it. They'll do it, no matter what, because they don't care about policy.
On the other hand, the purpose of WP:IAR is vigilance against democracy and bureaucracy. Even though WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not bureaucracy or democracy, due to human nature it frequently disintegrates into that and it's important that rational individual editors and reason be given some kind of official "stamp of approval" to encourage them to ignore everything when they're doing stuff that hurts Wikipedia. Even assuming objectivity or reason don't exist, promoting the idea as part of wikiculture seems to have merit.
On the 9/11 twoofers:
Even assuming good faith (which is disputable), they can't ignore all rules in the above model because they failed to follow the "think harder" part. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Kim might be right about this conversation belonging at WT:WIARRM. Why not just move the whole section there? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
GT, I assumed the part about the anarchist because I can't imagine what other kind of idiot (not that all anarchists are idiots!) would try to improve society through breaking traffic laws.
To change your analogy: Say your wife is giving birth. Should you speed? If it wasn't a silly anarchist or something along those lines, what was it? Simply a person lying to the officer?
If so, that's not a very good analogy because it assumes bad faith.
Also, you said that WP:IAR goes in the "make an edit" part. Question: Doesn't that imply that WP:IAR always has to be based on previous consensus? If so, how is that actually "breaking the rules"? I'd like to keep the conversation here so that it's all in one place and since we're not just talking about my essay -- we're talking about WP:IAR itself. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim: "GTBacchus is explaining pretty well. I wish people could find time to do that more often," is that a matter of fact or your subjective opinion? If it is the latter and you disagree that it is impossible to "think harder," what makes your opinion more valid than mine?
GTBacchus: About speeding... Sorry, my mistake. When I saw this image, I thought it was yours. I see it was BQZip01 who created it.
Mr-ZMan: We agree on everything, except that I think the MoS doesn't dispute the analogy of WP:IAR as civil disobedience because the MoS isn't really a "rule" that can be "guideline." It's mostly just a suggestion to make Wikipedia look nice and I can't imagine there ever being a conflict over strictly the MoS (not involving bad-faith, consensus, etc..).
Users should NOT, however, make Wikipedia look ugly because of their ignorance of the MoS. And WP:IAR is not about a sanction to promote public ignorance. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)