Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. Policy • Talk • Workshop • WIARM • UIAR • Versions	Shortcut: WT:IAR
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
v • e

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Straw poll (permanently active) This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived.
About archives • Edit this box

• Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.

---

Contents 1 Suggested guideline 2 Kibitzing requested 3 /Versions 4 Wording of IAR 4.1 Common sense 4.2 If doing so 4.3 Indeed users 4.4 Not sure 4.5 Well 4.6 Continued 4.7 Relatively complicated 4.8 They may 4.9 Straw 4.10 One more question 5 Cleanup 6 stupid policy

Suggested guideline

Policies should be applied only if doing so would help fulfill the policy's stated purpose or provide the project with some benefit.

Example: A stub article contains a two-sentence description copied from the subject's website. The subject wouldn't conceivably object to the copying (and let's assume the subject is notable). If there's really no possibility the copyright owner would object, there's no possibility of liability for the Foundation, impairment of the GDFL license, or the other purposes WP:COPYVIO fulfills, even if the two sentences might not be regarded as fair use. Since the stated purposes of WP:COPYVIO wouldn't be furthered by deleting the two sentences or the article containing them, we shouldn't simply apply it mechanically. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kibitzing requested

If I may, I'd like to ask some of the editors here to weigh in at User talk:Ling.Nut/3IAR; it's my contention that the essay User:Ling.Nut/3IAR is very far away from the common interpretation(s) of IAR, and that as a result it should not be included in the "see also" section of WP:WIARM.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rather than comment there, I'd ask anyone looking here to head on over to WP:Plagiarism and pitch in to help us build the page. Very excellent ripoff of Three Laws of Robotics - I suppose it's a fair-use paraphrase?

To the point, I can't see that page having a place linked from WIARM - isn't WIARM supposed to help people to understand? Put a humor tag on top, I suppose it would be fine, overlay it with the audio from Mr. Roboto, maybe. As a serious contribution to policy, no way. Feel free to copy my response wherever you wish. Franamax (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that just shows my ignorance of Mr. Asimov's works. And it would explain why it seems so out-of-sync with Wikipedia's existing guidance. Nonetheless, from what I can tell based on my conversations with Ling.Nut so far, it is meant to be a serious explanation of IAR and related ideas.--Father Goose (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's Doctor Asimov to you! :) He made many many workses, some were stellar, some were, ummm...

I have no doubt that Ling.Nut is making a sincere attempt to contribute, but they are trying to shoehorn an expansive idea into a pre-existing framework and it doesn't fit all that well. Laws 1 and 2 seem to be reversed IMO. I won't even start on the image, which seems to conflate communism with Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism and introduces an unwelcome off-site reference (yeah, better to not go down that path!).

So my call is, good effort, bad idea. I'm not sure I wish to enter into extended debate on this, but if it's not already done, I'll go over and link this thread on LN's sub-page talk. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks. Throwing the word "plagiarism" around colors the discussion in distinctly unhelpful (and highly inaccurate) ways. It is a path that leads to much heat (well, it could, I mean, but I'm not interested in that outcome) and a vast reduction in the amount of light. For merely one example out of thousands: think of the Terry Pratchett's extended and blatant (but unconscious, wink wink nudge nudge) spoof/borrowing/reworking of Fritz Leiber— weren't there even a pair of heroes in the first novel that were a patent spoof/borrowing/reworking of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser? But that discussion is irrelevant. The word "plagiarism" should never have been typed, or at least, the "save" button should never have been pressed after typing. I won't say more on that topic; if you wanna have the last word, you can.

The overarching point of WP:3IAR is that some rules/principles are unavailable for being ignored (grammar? sigh.). IAR is not the overarching principle of Wikipedia; the other four pillars of WP:5P stand in that position. Wikipedia is here to improve its content, but no one can be harmed along the way. End of story. Therefore, WP:3IAR accomplishes two goals: it stands firstly as a determined affirmation of what has always existed as the standard by which all behavior is evaluated... and secondly as a refutation of adding new crappy "I'm an admin, my opinions therefore reflect Wikipedia, therefore let's codify them" rules along the way. The first goal is given more stress than the second, but both exist. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I find new users have a greater tendency to try to create rules that compel their views than experienced users (such as admins) do. Most admins have learned that editing policy, especially in a way that reflects their views and not the community's, tends to fail. There are some exceptions where a sufficiently large and influential group of admins have edit-warred their way to "success" (WP:SPOILER is the most prominent case of this I can think of), but thankfully that is rare. Much much more common is users (not even necessarily admins) getting their way through aggressive, tendentious behavior, whether or not it's supported by policy, policy rewrites, or most commonly, misrepresentations of policy. Admins are not nearly as powerful as you seem to think they are... the most powerful editors are those that have been around a long time and know best how to navigate (and sometimes game) the system. Admin powers are secondary to that knowledge in terms of exercising influence over Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just try a few points here:

• Admins do not make rules, editors make rules. Admins enforce rules. FG has stepped on this a wee bit above, but in their comment above, change "group of admins" to "group of experienced editors, the majority of whom were admins" and it comes together better. (Bias: I agree with WP:SPOILER ;)
• To say that again, admins have no special status in the making of rules - policies are formed by consensus and strength of argument. It does happen though that the more committed and experienced users in many cases are also admins. Almost by definition, admins are more experienced in the promise and pitfalls of policy, so they will tend to be more involved, but they have no exclusive right.
• You, Ling.Nut, are welcome to contribute to any policy discussion you want, anywhere you want. If you think there's some rule that prevents you from wading into discussions where only admins are contributing - ignore it. You might find that no-one is responding to you, but as long as you don't get upset about that and cause a scene, you might also find that very subtly, people are adopting your ideas.
• And least important - I didn't use the word plagiarism, I put up a link to WP:Plagiarism, where we can use eyeballs and thoughts. I'll continue to hit "Save" on that, until we get a good working page fleshed out. Thanks for putting in the link to attribute the inspiration for your essay. Franamax (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth adding to WP:IAR/V. —Ashley Y 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

/Versions

I agree with various others that the Versions subpage is not a useful link in its current form. I guess I'd never actually looked at until recently, my concern was always that the original "if it makes you nervous" form was represented, and it is by its own separate link.

The problem with the Versions page is that it is a catch-all of "some versions, or suggestions". There is no indication of the history and level of acceptance, nor any links to why the suggestions were not adopted. As Father Goose says, it's a muddle. I don't see where it will help in understanding IAR, since it provides no context. If there's a good way to help the user understand the genesis of IAR other than saying "read the entire page history and talk archives" I'm all for it. /Versions is not the good way. Franamax (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and support the link's removal. —David Levy 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the link's removal. The page contains some real other versions of the policy as it has been in the past, but much of it is nothing more than a list of wordings that did not gain consensus labeled as "other versions". Much of the content of the page never really was an other version of this policy(other than being placed there without prior discussion then reverted). The "other versions" link is at the top of each page and called "history". Chillum 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a great deal of disagreement over the best wording for this policy, and some of the versions offer insight that the present version does not (due to the obsessive insistence on brevity). It's not supposed to be a list of historical versions, but a list of suggested versions. —Ashley Y 08:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. —David Levy 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't content. And it's no more a fork than WP:WIARM. It's just more views on the subject. —Ashley Y 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It isn't content? Then what the heck is it? Are you attempting to wiki-lawyer on the basis that this is a project page instead of an article?

2. WP:WIARM elaborates on the policy. the /Versions page is a disorganized dumping ground for different versions that failed to retain/achieve consensus, and there's a similar lack of consensus for it to be linked to. —David Levy 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You're the one arguing for removal based on a policy intended for article space, so I think you're the one wiki-lawyering.

2. /Versions also elaborates on policy by providing different perspectives on it. —Ashley Y 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least four editors asking for removal - you've been reverted a few times now. Time to talk. OR you could improve /Versions to address the concerns. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking. Look, here's me talking: /Versions elaborates on policy by providing different perspectives on it. I'm very open to ways in which it might be improved, however. —Ashley Y 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Actually, I'm arguing for the link's exclusion based on the lack of consensus that it improves the page (and my opinion that it doesn't). I cited Wikipedia:Content forking to provide an explanation of why content forking is unhelpful (not to say "we can't do it because a policy says so," which is a poor argument). Would you care to explain why you believe that the principle doesn't apply here?

2. No, the /Versions page is a backdoor method of displaying non-consensus wordings. —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It's a matter of spirit vs. letter, I suppose. Wikipedia:Content forking was intended for article space: that's its spirit. You're trying to use its letter to apply it to something for which it wasn't really intended, in order to argue for a change. I believe this is known as "wiki-lawyering". Perhaps it would have merit if /Versions were claiming to be another policy.

2. Actually, it's different perspectives on the idea, only some of which were attempted to become wordings for IAR. It's not claiming to be official policy or anything, it's merely a helpful collection of views and understandings. —Ashley Y 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing for the link's exclusion on the basis that the guideline says so. I cited it because it contains an explanation of why this is a bad idea. You then responded by pointing out that IAR isn't "content" (by which, you apparently meant "an article") which is irrelevant to whether the advice is applicable. This is, indeed, a matter of spirit vs. letter, but our positions are the opposite of what you claim.

All of the wordings in question are non-consensus forks of the policy (regardless of whether they're been formally proposed as replacements), and there is no consensus that they're "helpful." —David Levy 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're taking /Versions much too seriously. It's not supposed to be any kind of policy page, so it can't itself count as a fork. This is what Wikipedia:Content forking is all about: parallel articles on the same topic from different POVs, and it's a bad idea because such articles should typically be merged to achieve some sort of neutrality. I suppose you could argue that each entry in /Versions is a fork, but none of them make any claim to be policy. Wikipedia:Content forking isn't going to help you here without a lot of bending of its intent. —Ashley Y 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of a {{policy}} tag doesn't change the fact that the /Versions page is a disorganized mishmash of forked, non-consensus text. Linking to it from the policy is no better than linking to a list of non-consensus versions of an article. —David Levy 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It rather does change the fact, actually. It's "forked, non-consensus text" only in the sense that there's no consensus for it to be policy. This is a rather different case than an article, or indeed any other policy, as the actual text is deliberately kept short while explanation is kept on different pages (such as WIARM). /Versions is merely more explanation, albeit in an elliptical form. —Ashley Y 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What, in your assessment, does the page explain? —David Levy 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It helps explain IAR, albeit in an elliptical form. People get a better understanding of IAR's spirit by considering different wordings. None of these should threaten the "official wording" here, which is the actual policy. —Ashley Y 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that those wordings are accurate or helpful. Anyone can post whatever interpretation they please. —David Levy 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, people come here all the time attempting to change this policy. There's a reason for that: it's so brief it's hard to understand what it means: for instance, what exactly counts as "improving or maintaining" in the absence of the rules? The various attempts people have made to change or reword this policy collectively help understand its spirit. Now of course we need one single official IAR, but the various versions reflect others' attempts to clear up what they found confusing. —Ashley Y 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We have explanatory pages for that. A context-free list of forked wordings clarifies nothing. If anything, it might increase people's confusion. —David Levy 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I had intended /Versions to act as a lightening rod for the continual attempts to change the policy. These attempts actually include some good ideas, and I believe those are ideas worth saving. We can have the One True Wording and still let people get an idea of the variety of interpretation. —Ashley Y 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what its purpose has been. However, there haven't been a lot of lightning strikes lately, and as a list of discarded "variants", I don't think it's a useful page to link to. (I'm not necessarily saying that the variants should have been discarded, but unless they're presented in a coherent way -- not just a "list of versions or suggestions" or however you want to phrase it -- I don't agree that linking to it from IAR improves IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By "lately", you mean while the /Versions link was up, right? (Although there was one.)

It's helpful to consider that regardless of whether there exists a better wording than the present, there may still be deficiencies in the existing wording: deficiencies that various people have perceived and attempted to address. Reading them might help to understand the spirit of the original. —Ashley Y 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think one good wording and/or explanation is better than a dozen flawed ones. In that vein, I wrote WP:UIAR months ago, and I still feel that IAR's deficiencies could be overcome by simply placing UIAR's text on the IAR page itself.--Father Goose (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:UIAR is better than the present page. The key for me is that it mentions that consensus is important in successfully "ignoring the rules". And what its more, your page is potentially more open to any improvements and clarifications people may have, and a common understanding can evolve. /Versions might not be so necessary then. —Ashley Y 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That would convey to users that they must read a lengthy page before ignoring rules (which simply isn't so).

What's the problem with the current setup? —David Levy 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There really is no problem if there are sufficient people to help interpret IAR. Currently that unfortunately happens at WP:IAR, WT:IAR, WP:WIARM, WT:WIARM, WP:UIAR and WT:UIAR. It's a constant back-and-forth of edits, reverts and talk threads. What we really need is something like the Help Desk or the Reference Desks - a neutral spot for people to come and ask questions about IAR. Franamax (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you even need people to interpret IAR? Why don't you just figure out what it means, and put it on the page, like every other policy? Is the brevity really that valuable? —Ashley Y 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording of IAR

There are two versions that keep being reverted back and forth, so let's discuss it here:

If a rule, including this one, prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. OR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I don't see what about the first one makes it so desirable. Anyone want to elaborate? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's for clarity. It's not immediately obvious that the Ignore All Rules policy itself may be ignored. For instance, someone may still want to follow all the other policies, even though they think some of the policies prevents them from improving the encyclopedia, simply because they think following the rule of law is better for the encyclopedia than subjectivity. They may even distrust their own judgement on what is best for the encyclopedia, and therefore believe it's best to leave this to the lawmakers on all other policies besides this one. In these cases, they should be aware that they may ignore the "Ignore all rules" policy, and continue to abide by all the other Wikpedia policies. Ignoring the "Ignore all rules" policy may be best for improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. If someone believes that it's "better for the encyclopedia" to follow a rule than to ignore it, doing so is entirely consistent with IAR; one needn't ignore IAR to abide by another rule.

2. Nowhere is it remotely implied that IAR cannot be ignored, so this additional text is superfluous.

3. You referred to the addition as "non-controversial," despite the fact that it's been discussed and rejected in the past. You might not have been aware of this, but when I pointed it out, you replied that "according to 'Ignore all rules' consesensus [sic] is not necessary if it prevents me from improving the encyclopedia." I don't know whether that's a sincere rationale or an attempt to make a point, but it's been firmly established that IAR is not an invitation to unilaterally overrule consensus. (Doing so does not help to improve or maintain Wikipedia.)

4. You blindly reverted to the previous version (thereby reinstating an unrelated change). Please pay better attention to your edits. —David Levy 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against going against consensus anyway, so what you're saying is irrelevant. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How does that address what I wrote above? —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONS. It's kind of the ultimate rule, in terms of enforcement. If you defy everyone else by edit warring, you'll get tossed on your ass. If disagree with everyone without actually edit warring, that's okay, though consensus is still upheld in such a scenario.--Father Goose (talk)

In addition it's your opinion that going against consensus "does not help to improve or maintain Wikipedia." That's a very naive statement. It's easy to imagine cases where doing something the consensus is against improves the encyclopedia. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant that continually edit-warring in a manner defiant of consensus doesn't help to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Whether the actual edit does is irrelevant, as it will be reverted according to consensus (and if someone persists in unilaterally reinstating it, he/she probably will be blocked). This disruptive series of events doesn't help to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't think deciding this point (or protecting pages over it) will help you improve the encyclopedia, then...--Shirahadasha (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not especially in favour of this particular change, but David Levy inadvertently points out the problem with this policy:

it's been firmly established that IAR is not an invitation to unilaterally overrule consensus. (Doing so does not help to improve or maintain Wikipedia.)

Why should anyone believe that? An editor might have their own opinion on what counts as improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, the rules explain what it is to improve or maintain Wikipedia, but IAR says we can ignore them... —Ashley Y 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense

The only thing missing in this discussion is common sense - and it's linked from the IAR page. Everyone has their own opinion on what improves or maintains Wikipedia. That's why there are some explanatory essays linked - and they discuss the need for consensus and common sense. Blindly reverting to your preferred version whilst citing IAR is just not on - and blocks follow. Discussion, prudence and forbearance work much better. Semantic arguments such as this thread are probably the worst approach. Franamax (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's all explained in the rules. Which we are told we can ignore. —Ashley Y 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...if doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Anyone who reads the explanatory pages will know what that means, and those who believe that it's a good idea to disregard the policy's spirit in favor of exploiting an apparent loophole (by ignoring the explanations themselves) will quickly realize their error when they find themselves blocked. —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Common sense" tells me that a change is not an improvement because the consensus approves of a change, but simply because the change is an improvement. If it is an improvement, it is an improvement regardless of what the consensus says. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. IAR says you should go ahead and make such changes, since after all they are improvements even if everyone else disagrees. WP:Consensus says you shouldn't make such changes. The latter is what we want, I believe. —Ashley Y 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this analysis. IAR says to go ahead and make such changes, since after all they are improvements. That's being bold. And then when everyone else disagrees, WP:Consensus says you shouldn't go on making such changes again when they have been discussed and consistently rejected. --NewbyG (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm dubious that a policy exits that says consensus must be abided by in the first place. I'd like to see proof of such a policy. I don't see anything in WP:Consensus that says one has to go along with consensus. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Here's the thing - the policy has been kept to the canonical twelve words over a long period of time precisely because it is the minimal statement. It is deliberately minimal, it's intended to make you think. Not argue in circles about metaphysical notions of ignoring rules to ignore rules - just think on your own what is right. What helps you maintain or improve the encyclopedia? It's not an invitation for you to explain the not-rules to others or to find circularity in the concept. It's a guide to help you decide what to do in the million other scenarios you will find on Wikipedia.

And you are not told you can ignore the rules - no external body is telling you that, it's all of us together. As long as you think it's someone else telling you to ignore rules, you haven't understood IAR. We seek consensus, we challenge consensus, we are sometimes bold, we always discuss. We can each always use IAR to do something - once. After that we move to WP:BRD to resolve the situation. As the explanatory essays point out, IAR does not mean you're right no matter what.

(And RB, perhaps you need to absorb a little more culture and ethos of Wikipedia. If you continually ignore consensus you get blocked, simple as that. Franamax (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is deliberately minimal, it's intended to make you think." That's ridiculous. Why make someone "think" if it can be expressed explicity? What is wrong with making it clear that the "Ignore all rules" policy itself is included in the rules that are to be ignored? Again, I don't believe that rule against going against consensus even exists on Wikipedia. I'd like to see it. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Franamax, this too is all explained in the rules, which this policy says we can ignore. —Ashley Y 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If doing so

...if doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Anyone who reads the explanatory pages will know what that means, and those who believe that it's a good idea to disregard the policy's spirit in favor of exploiting an apparent loophole (by ignoring the explanations themselves) will quickly realize their error when they find themselves blocked. —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this clear. You said "If you continually ignore consensus you get blocked, simple as that." Are you saying that there is a rule against ignoring consensus? If so, I'd like to see it. Or are you saying, that you're simply going to make up your own rule and block, because you "Ignore all rules?" Richard Blatant (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) RB, the whole idea is to make you think. IAR can never be completely laid out. In your specific instance, if all rules can be ignored, then the rule to IAR can be ignored too - that's a trivial result. It's not necessary to state it explicitly. More generally, there is a continual desire to encumber IAR with explanations of what it means - but it doesn't mean anything. Every example you add only constricts the rule to a more narrow interpretation, but it's deliberately meant to be interpreted widely and tried in all situations. Strength of reasoned argument and consensus determine whether or not your individual IAR'ing is a good thing or not.

RB, secondly, consensus is the rule here. I don't have the page off the top of my head, maybe it doesn't exist. I'm not going to put effort into backing up the statement, you can easily research it yourself. Suffice to say, if you press ahead and ignore consensus to do whatever you want, especially if you justify it with IAR, you will very quickly find out how Wikipedia works - it works by consensus. (after e/c - I'm not an admin but the rule would be "blocked for disruption")

AY, I can only try to explain. You are free to ignore a rule if it helps you maintain or improve the encyclopedia. When people object to your application of IAR, again, you are free to ignore it. I can only suggest that you think very carefully about what you are doing, if people object, you need to consider the possibility you're wrong (I do that all the time BTW). And consider changing your approach to make your ideas more acceptable. Just don't get stuck on "I'm right", that rarely works out. Ignoring rules is a very difficult concept - unless you find that point of mind where suddenly it's clear. I'm sorry I can't convey that idea. Changing the policy page text won't bring it any closer. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is explained in WP:Consensus -- which is one of the rules that this policy says we may ignore. —Ashley Y 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...if doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Anyone who reads the explanatory pages will know what that means, and those who believe that it's a good idea to disregard the policy's spirit in favor of exploiting an apparent loophole (by ignoring the explanations themselves) will quickly realize their error when they find themselves blocked. —David Levy 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But why should anyone pay attention to the "explanatory pages"? Surely if they were important, they'd be part of the policy? And in fact one needs to understand WP:Consensus together with WP:Bold to get a good idea of what passes as improving or maintaining Wikipedia. So sure, if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it, though you might get blocked anyway if you didn't understand the precise understanding of "improving or maintaining" used here. —Ashley Y 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Users don't need to read the explanatory pages before applying IAR. They don't even need to read IAR before applying it, and they needn't read any rules before editing.

Editors acting in good faith—even in complete ignorance of the rules—generally do more good than harm. When they err, we don't block them; we correct/explain their mistakes and direct them to pages that assist them in editing constructively.

The same is true here. If someone applies IAR inappropriately, we don't rush to block them; we explain the situation and direct them to the explanatory pages. Only if/when they subsequently continue down a disruptive path do they risk being blocked. —David Levy 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed users

Indeed users do not need any of that. The problem is those who use IAR to ignore a rule because they believe they are improving the encyclopedia. Oh sure, we'll correct them, and they should listen per WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of the rules...

The trouble is, it's actually rules (for example, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD) that determine whether IAR is being applied "appropriately". It seems like common sense, but only to those who have internalised the rules. —Ashley Y 03:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to believe that editors are either entitled to exploit perceived technicalities or justified in believing that they can. Fortunately, that isn't how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Continually editing in a manner contrary to consensus usually is disruptive. Disruptive editing leads to blocks. —David Levy 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the rules explain that very well. —Ashley Y 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IAR doesn't state that ignoring a rule requires others to do so, nor does it state that ignoring the rules never carries any consequences. —David Levy 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consequences that are specified in the rules. —Ashley Y 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...which others have no obligation to ignore.

And of course, it's standard procedure to repeatedly warn editors acting in good faith before blocking them. —David Levy 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

...warn them that they've broken the rules, which IAR said they could ignore. —Ashley Y 03:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned that they're about to be blocked for disruption, which IAR didn't guarantee against. —David Levy 03:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it, except that sometimes it might be considered "disruption" according to the rules, and you might get blocked for it.

I think a policy is flawed if it ever encourages anything sanctionable. —Ashley Y 03:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, we don't block people for applying IAR; we block them for continuing to cause disruption after they've been repeatedly asked to stop. To explicitly warn against that in IAR would be to suspend the assumption that we're dealing with rational humans. —David Levy 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that whenever anyone points out the deficiencies in the current wording, its defenders always adduce the idea of consensus. Which is fine, really, but it rather suggests consensus should be mentioned in the policy... —Ashley Y 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NO!!! Because if the policy said you needed consensus, you would never ignore rules! Consensus quite often adds up after someone ignores rules - and many other people realize they did something good - then the rule gets changed. IAR conveys the imperative to improve the encyclopedia. Not to improve your own personal idea of what's good for the encyclopedia, to improve the enycyclopedia itself. You don't know it's good when you do it, you just think it is. It's only after two, five or five hundred other people chime in and say it was a good move that you can start to believe that maybe it really was a good thing to do. IAR is only ever confirmed by consensus. Franamax (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree with that. I'm a fan of WP:Bold. The trouble is when people improve the encyclopedia when they know consensus is against them. IAR says they should, because WP:Consensus is just another rule, but WP:Consensus says they shouldn't, and I think that's preferable. —Ashley Y 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure

I'm not sure how to parse your second sentence there. I think that IAR almost by definition connotes ignoring consensus, or at least means ignoring whatever your own perception of consensus is - remember that we all see consensus from our own perspective. That's the only concept we want to convey in the policy, as vaguely as possible (much to the frustration of many editors). It doesn't matter if you think consensus is against you - if you think you can make the encyclopedia better, do it! Now there's a bunch of stuff after that - make your case, listen to other people, don't edit war, change your approach in response to feedback, don't freak out when your own particular change gets reverted. After that, you can take my approach - politely and endlessly raise your points on various talk pages, refine your arguments, take into account the views of others, adapt some more - and when some text gets changed from "a" to "the", frame the diff on the wall and pop a cold one. :) There is no possible way to put that approach onto this policy page but a lot of it is in the linked explanatory essays, with sound reasoning behind it. If your /Versions page provided equivalent context and explanation, I'd be spilling my blood to keep it linked here. IAR is a very nuanced concept, unless we have really sound ways to explain it, it's best left as the bald open-to-interpretation 12 words. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you think consensus is against you - if you think you can make the encyclopedia better, do it! -- Are you sure you really mean that? Suppose I'm in an edit war over some article, and I hold the (quite reasonable) belief that a more accurate encyclopedia is an improved encyclopedia. Ten other editors disagree with my content change, and have demonstrated so in a revert war (against just me). So, I think consensus is against me, and I think I can make the encyclopedia better, that is, more accurate. Should I continue to revert? Oh sure, there's all the (very sensible) "stuff after that" that you mention, but that's in the (ignorable) rules. —Ashley Y 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, Ashley, please keep ignoring WP:EDITWAR, since you've clearly got us beat here. You're completely right. You can ignore any rule you like, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. You've successfully outwitted us all. Keep reverting the page until we learn our lesson.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you considered taking a break from this policy/talk page? I'm pretty sure it's not worth making personal attacks over. —Ashley Y 00:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that a lot of drive-by editors come here to challenge policy and use similar arguments and go in circular directions just to be right. You could always try to ignore the rule of getting pissed off at a single flamy post and answering back, instead try a polite response (which you did do, I mean even more polite :). But back to the thread:

The example you give is a good one because it embodies some of the misconceptions about IAR. The "reasonable" belief there is yours and yours alone - in that case, if you truly are reasonable, you need to consider whether your article belief truly is reasonable. Ten people disagree and not one other editor is on your side? So then, it's best to back off, seek out some other opinions, find some good reliable sources, work on the talk page, anything but get into an edit war. Think about it - if you're right, RS will support you and other people will agree; if you're wrong, push the Off button and take a walk, smell some flowers and pat a dog. Either way, sleep on it and try again tomorrow. If you take the other course of insisting you're right right now! and you just revert against ten other editors - well then you'll get blocked and you don't end up improving wikipedia anyway, do you? Franamax (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You ought to give more credit to those "drive-by editors". There's a reason this page attracts a lot more attempts to fix it than other policy pages do. My own approach, as you know, is to accept that a lot of their ideas are helpful and to at least record them for their merit. It's more in the spirit of AGF, and it helps to broaden perspectives.

As for what to do in my hypothetical situation: it's mostly good advice, and discussed at length in the rules. The problem is, I believe, is that you and others (well, most of us) have been working on Wikipedia so long that you've internalised the rules as "common sense", when in fact it all needs to be learned. It's perfectly possible for ten people to be wrong and one person to be right, and to know that they are right. Internalised WP:Consensus, feeling like common sense, says "give it up if you can't achieve consensus", and this is a preferable course of action. But that's not what IAR says. It advises me to ignore WP:Consensus and improve the encyclopedia by making a change which I know makes it more accurate. I may well end up being blocked because I broke the rules, but I've been advised to ignore them. I think a policy fails if it advocates a course of action that leads to being blocked. —Ashley Y 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That post actually wasn't a personal attack, despite the sarcasm and link to WP:GIANTDICK. It was my way of pointing out that if you actually ignored every rule "...that this policy says we may ignore" in service of your points, you'd find yourself in the scenario outlined in WP:GIANTDICK. So replying to every point someone makes here with "this policy says we may ignore [that]" is empty. We know that. You know that.

On Wikipedia, the only victories come from convincing your fellow editors, not outwitting them. The smart-alec replies you've been engaging in here are getting you nowhere.--Father Goose (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well

Well I think I'll follow Franamax's advice here. —Ashley Y 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you point above to an essential tension of the "rules" of Wikipedia. I'm at a disadvantage because after some years of reading articles, I spent several months looking at discussion pages, then following links to all these weird noticeboards and user pages trying to figure it all out - then I found IAR, read those 12 words and realized "I understand that, this feels like home to me". Then I made a few edits and someone pointed out BOLD and, well, here I am a year later reading all the threads with my morning coffee. And at lunch and dinner and late into the night. It's pathetic, I know, but IAR is what started it for me. I suppose I already had the context before I read it, or I figured it out shortly afterward - or maybe I took that leading "If" seriously.

Crucially, this policy has to exist -for- the serious editors, first and foremost. It is what grounds the most committed editors of the wiki, it's not a policy that should be oriented towards newbies. It is the fundamental principle for every one of us, experienced or not - be willing to ignore rules, be tolerant of those who ignore rules - if it improves the encyclopedia!! For newcomers, we can try to provide the explanatory essays, for the old hands, we need to leave the simple rule - IAR is a founding policy.

I understand your desire to make things more clear. You can do that by improving the /Version page to the point where it's suitable for inclusion here. It will need a lot of work though.

And beware of trying to explain things to newcomers. You pursue a laudable goal but consider the recently created your first article page. Observe the elaborate warnings about not creating your first article at the page, check what's shown in edit mode, check the warnings on the talk page. Now look at the page and talk page history, count for me the number of new articles created immediately adjacent to the warnings. Report back. WP:IAR is for all of Wikipedia, it can't be adjusted towards the people who only read the headings. It's too important. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Who decides whether someone breaking a rule is improving the encyclopedia? And how can it be proved one way or the other? Richard Blatant (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus.

And please don't argue that IAR grants users license to ignore that page. We don't write our policies/guidelines for the benefit of people who seek out and attempt to exploit loopholes to get their way. —David Levy 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the current wording of IAR does grant users license to ignore that page, and indeed someone might well do so in good faith. There have been many proposals to fix IAR to refer to CONSENSUS explicitly, but, you know...

Oddly enough, Franamax was arguing earlier that IAR connotes ignoring consensus. Again, the wording could be changed to clarify this. —Ashley Y 04:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not odd at all. Rules reflect consensus, rules are consensus. To ignore a rule, you must ipso facto be ignoring consensus. How else could you do it? That freedom must be there - but as has been said over and over and over, you are -not- free to ignore rules forever. Take your pick, read the essays; or ignore everything because this page told you to ignore it, march on to your block. Wikipedia editors need to have judgement, intelligence and common sense. Maybe this is the test. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am not free to ignore rules forever. But that's not what IAR says: it doesn't specify any limit, provided I am "improving or maintaining". And thus anyone who follows this policy exactly as written may well end up being blocked. Of course, we actually advise them to read it a particular way, but we don't put that advice actually in the policy because it would spoil its brevity, or something. —Ashley Y 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued

Again, such a block won't be applied without providing a sufficient opportunity to read the explanatory pages, and the fact that that information doesn't appear on the policy pages doesn't create a loophole that enables editors to behave unreasonably. —David Levy 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

IAR enables users to ignore all rules. I asked Richard not to argue that point because contextually, it refers to a scenario in which someone is deliberately being unreasonable. —David Levy 04:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, it seems to me that BOLD is what you first needed more than this page. I agree this page, like all policy, must be for all editors, and that's the source of the problem. It's not the fundamental principle actually, since on occasion it must yield to WP:CONSENSUS. For instance:

• Don't try to improve Wikipedia when there's a clear consensus against your particular action.
• Don't try to improve Wikipedia if it involves reverting an Office Action.

Of course you could say (like David Levy), "you can do that, but then others can block you", but that misses the point of policy. If anything, policy shouldn't advise anything sanctionable.

/Versions is mostly fine as it is, and I think the complaints come from misunderstanding. It's supposed to be no more than a set of alternative understandings. No particular entry should be taken seriously, and it's to its benefit that entries contradict each other to a certain degree. —Ashley Y 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone honestly believes that edit-warring against consensus or acting against office actions serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia, he/she has a fundamental misunderstanding that far exceeds anything that we can hope to address with this policy. —David Levy 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a "fundamental" misunderstanding only to someone who's internalised the rules. Why should anyone pay attention to an office action? Why is it such a big deal? The rules explain why. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, on its face anything that improves its accuracy is an improvement. Actually it turns out that certain things, such as edit-warring against consensus even when you are right, do not count as improvement. This is not obvious if you don't know the rules, actually, better an article be right half the time, or clearly in a state of flux, than be stable and wrong. There are lots of other things that don't count as improvement... but you need to read the rules to find out what they are. —Ashley Y 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone pay attention to an office action? Because we've explained to them the importance of doing so.

You seem to be under the impression that our rules are a system of laws by which we govern and hand down punishments (and that by allowing people to ignore them, we eliminate our "legal" standing). This is entirely incorrect. Our rules exist simply to describe how Wikipedia works, so perceived loopholes are meaningless around here. We rely on contributors to behave reasonably, and if they don't, we needn't consult page 374, section 3, paragraph 8, line 2 to determine whether they're technically following the rules. We just do what makes sense. —David Levy 04:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That explanation is, in fact, one of the rules. It's in WP:CONSENSUS. You can call it a rule or an "explanation", but either way and contrary to IAR, it shouldn't be ignored even if you think you're improving Wikipedia that way.

The rules exist to describe how Wikipedia works, including what will get you blocked. We rely on contributors to behave "reasonably", including interpreting "improve and maintain" in IAR in a particular way. In practice, though, "reasonably" means following the way Wikipedia works as described by the rules. It only seems like common sense when you've internalised the rules. —Ashley Y 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. —David Levy 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm arguing that WP:CONSENSUS shouldn't be ignored even if you think you're improving Wikipedia that way (contrary to IAR). —Ashley Y 05:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The places where we keep talking about the explanatory essays linked from the policy page - do you know what "essay", "linked" and "page" mean? Have you tried reading the essays linked from the policy page? Everything you're saying is already answered. The essential step is that you read it. Franamax (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's all there. But why do you need explanatory essays? Why don't you just put the explanation on the page, like every other policy? —Ashley Y 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you asking questions that already have been answered? —David Levy 05:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the answer? —Ashley Y 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating myself. You'll only ask again. —David Levy 06:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's the answer? Point to a diff if you like. Perhaps you are confusing you having already answered it with me having already asked it, but you didn't answer there either. —Ashley Y 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[de-indented]

[1] —David Levy 06:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Users don't need to read the explanatory pages before applying IAR. They don't even need to read IAR before applying it, and they needn't read any rules before editing."

But apparently they do. Why else is Franamax pointing to them, if they don't need to be read?

There seems to be some inconsistency on this point. Whenever I point out that IAR is hard to understand, I'm told "just read the explanatory essays". So why not just put them on the policy page? Because apparently they're not necessary after all. Well, which is it? —Ashley Y 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Again (and I see that it was futile to try to avoid repeating myself), we advise editors to read the explanatory essays when they appear not to understand the policy. They also are can be helpful to those who choose to read them before applying IAR, but this is not required.

2. You overlooked the other relevant reply from that diff: "That would convey to users that they must read a lengthy page before ignoring rules (which simply isn't so)." —David Levy 06:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. But still, why not put it on the page? We put helpful explanatory text on all the other policies, and not all of it is required to be read. Generally, the "nutshell" will do, unless there's something one doesn't understand. Why not do the same thing here? It makes it clear that it has some kind of consensus, which cannot be assumed from looking at the essay tag.

2. In practice, people just follow the nutshell of a policy, and only "read a lengthy page" if they're having trouble understanding it. —Ashley Y 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

IAR's text isn't a summary; it's the entire policy. It really is that simple, and that needs to remain clear. —David Levy 06:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But every other "entire policy" has all explanation and clarification included. Why do we put this on a separate page? After all, you could do the same thing with any other policy. Consider WP:NPOV. You could replace that with the single sentence "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.". And it would work as an "entire policy", but only provided everyone knew what it meant. It's the same with IAR. It works as an "entire policy" only if everyone knows what it means. But in practice, to understand exactly what "improve and maintain" means, or what applications of IAR are going to get you blocked, you might need some explanation. We have that explanation, it's even got some sort of consensus. Why not put it on the page like we do with WP:NPOV, and every other policy? —Ashley Y 07:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Relatively complicated

WP:NPOV is a relatively complicated policy based on arbitrary standards. WP:IAR is advice to ignore rules when they prevent one from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The former contains many intricacies that must be boiled down, while the latter is a refreshingly simple concept that can only be elaborated upon.

IAR encourages users to edit without worrying about reading the very type of content that you seek to add to IAR. —David Levy 07:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV is no more than "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.", but, crucially, with a particular understanding of each one of those terms. It's that understanding that requires all the rest of the policy. It's the same with IAR: it only appears "refreshingly simple" because you have internalised a precise meaning of "improve and maintain". In practice it contains certain intricacies that can cause problems or being blocked: WIARM explains some of these. Now most of the time people just aren't going to run into them, but sometimes they'll be unsure and then they'll need to read what would be the rest of the policy.

It should be the same as any policy, where users read the full text only if they're unsure on some point. Otherwise, they just read the nutshell and don't worry about the rest. —Ashley Y 07:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 08:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The "essay" status, after all, suggests it's not all that reliable. —Ashley Y 05:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't what "essay" means. —David Levy 06:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion is that they might not have consensus. —Ashley Y 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They may

"They may range from personal or minority views to statements that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors." (emphasis mine)

[I experienced an edit conflict when attempting to post the above, due to the revision in which you changed "don't" to "might not."] —David Levy 06:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Might not" is accurate. —Ashley Y 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and "might not" = "might." —David Levy 06:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The "essay" tag simply provides no guarantee of any kind of consensus. Now, I believe WIARM has in fact some kind of consensus, but that's not obvious from looking at it. How are they supposed to know that it's a sensible explanation? —Ashley Y 06:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose that it be labeled a guideline. I would support such a proposal. —David Levy 06:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, we're engaging you in good faith here, but it really is getting a little tiresome. You are arguing from specifics to generalities. You're talking about office actions and why should they be important - you might as well ask why we have to click that pesky "edit" button, it only gets in the way of us improving the encyclopedia. You're now asking for every single rule, policy and convention to be completely laid out for you (or the hypothetical new editor). Surely you understand it's not possible? IAR cannot be a page listing every way to ignore or not ignore each and every rule; no more can there be any single page that lists every rule of Wikipedia. You miss the point that IAR helps new people to work in Wikipedia, they can do what they think is right, then someone else will help them to understand. You're moving now from what I thought was a focussed discussion towards everything but the kitchen sink. If you have a specific issue, please refocus to it. Otherwise, lets continue on your talk page or mine and archive this thread. It's been an interesting discussion but I don't think it's going anywhere relevant to this page at this point. Franamax (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw

I'm not that straw man. The principle of IAR is important, but it's not the most fundamental rule, and its current wording is flawed. It's not a binary choice between the current brief wording and a grand listing of every possible exception.

IAR must yield to WP:CONSENSUS (the policy, not the abstract idea of consensus). Sure, it seems like any violation of WP:CONSENSUS is obviously not an improvement, but that "common sense" comes precisely from internalising the rules, either as written or by experience editing. For example, we used to have "working with others" to suggest consensus, an improvement along these lines, but people were worried that it might suggest one had to get consensus before making a change.

The best I can say is, go read /Versions, and think about each entry and what it's trying to say. Sure, many of them are silly, but some offer insight not found in the twelve words. —Ashley Y 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. IAR enables users to ignore all rules. They needn't be familiar with a single one to improve or maintain Wikipedia.

2. Again, users become aware of the importance of honoring consensus when we explain it to them. And again, our rules have no loopholes. We don't expect users to follow rules because they have blue/green ticks above them; we expect them to follow rules when it's reasonable to do so. Anyone who believes that they can get away with something controversial via the technicality that "IAR doesn't say that I can't!" is playing a childish game that he/she cannot win. We needn't modify our guidelines and policies for such individuals' benefit. —David Levy 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. They needn't be familiar with a rule to improve or maintain Wikipedia, as long as, by and large, they don't actually break it. If they know what they are doing breaks WP:CONSENSUS, even if they quite reasonably think they are improving Wikipedia, they should not ignore it.

2. Yes, but that explanation is codified in a policy document, which gives it its importance. It's not about people "getting away with something controversial", it's about someone improving Wikipedia with "OMG THE TRUTH" (or whatever they use to justify their edit war) in good faith, but in violation of WP:CONSENSUS.

Just offhand, can you think of any instance where WP:CONSENSUS should be ignored per IAR? —Ashley Y 05:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whenever someone edits Wikipedia without reading it. —David Levy 07:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a different sense of "ignore" than is used by IAR. Can you think of any instance where WP:CONSENSUS is understood, but should be disregarded per IAR? Or if you prefer, any instance when WP:CONSENSUS prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and should thus be ignored? —Ashley Y 07:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. No, the non-requirement to familiarize oneself with rules before editing is an important application of IAR.

2. I'm not personally familiar with such a scenario, but that doesn't mean that one couldn't arise. —David Levy 08:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So I can be blocked when abiding by the rules by a person with the power to block me if he thinks blocking me improves the encyclopedia. His justifcation would be that I didn't ignore the rules when I should have. On other other hand, someone with the power to block can allow someone else break rules if he subjective likes what they're doing to the encyclopedia. I'm starting to think that this policy is really nothing more than a way for adminstrators to have special privilege to block editors arbitrarily, and have undue influence over the content of articles. Richard Blatant (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. —David Levy 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Blatant, do you have a point that you can sum up in ten words or less? If you have a problem with administrator powers or judgement, this is not the place to discuss it. If that's your issue, say so, we'll direct you to the appropriate forum. If you just want to argue in circles, please stop. You are not making a productive contribution, and you're getting in the way of others who wish to do so. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One more question

I was just trying to understand the policy. I just summed up my conclusion above. I think I have a pretty good grasp on what the policy is all about now. Richard Blatant (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you really don't. —David Levy 04:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, only because you can't really understand the policy from the current wording. —Ashley Y 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One more question. If someone gets blocked, they should ignore the rule against violating a block by coming back with a different IP and resuming editing because being blocked prevents them from improving the encyclopedia, correct? Richard Blatant (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you intend to achieve via such rhetoric? —David Levy 04:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Understanding. What do you intend to achieve with yours? Richard Blatant (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you again Richard, what is your purpose on this page? Please state it clearly. You are straying into disruption now. Please stop. Franamax (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My purpose is to thoroughly understand the policy. I already said that. How am I disrupting? Are you going to block me now under "Ignore all rules"? Richard Blatant (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to read Wikipedia:Understanding IAR. If, after you've read it, you feel you still don't understand the policy, let me know; I'll have to improve it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And since you've expressed worries about being blocked several times now Richard, and since around 10% of your edits in the 40 or so days you've been registered on Wikipedia have been to this page [2] - is there anything more you'd like to tell us? Franamax (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm new, doesn't it makes sense for me to get aquainted with Wikipedia policies by asking questions? This is not the only policy page I've been asking questions about. If you have a problem with me asking questions, then don't answer them. Let someone else does that has a better attitude than you. Richard Blatant (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

(51 intermediate revisions not shown.) /NewbyG (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the rollback, a lot of, ummm, stuff has floated under the bridge. However, I moved back nine steps to this version which I felt was the last good one. It lacks the reference to "Jimbo says", which I feel to be an improvement. Sad to say, it seems that 42 revisions yielded only that benefit - and that benefit being only in my eyes! Sadder to say, it is almost looking like page protection may be needed shortly. I hope not, we do have some relatively good discussion happening. Franamax (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Protection is a last resort, and we're still in the first stage of dispute resolution. I'm de-sysopping the first admin that protects this page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) With my magic wand, if you must know.

Protection is unnecessary. If anything, the flux helps people appreciate the different approaches people have. —Ashley Y 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The brief flurry has subsided. As long as talk is proceeding and reverts are quiescent, the wiki-world is unfolding as it should. I was worried about the trend-line. The trend no longer exists and I am heading to bed soon anyway. :) Franamax (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

stupid policy

dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to your intelligent eloquent argument against it? Chillum 13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this policy if EVERYTHING that doesn't follow the ordinary rules gets deleted? Can you provide an example where somebody Ignored All Rules and improved (by wiki's standards) Wikipedia? 24.218.12.158 (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 2 October 2008, at 00:56.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.