Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comments

I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. --User:Jimbo Wales

Additional previous comments may be found in the archive.

Michael Snow's revision

I really like this latest revision; tightened it up a lot and didn't lose anything important. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur :-) Kim Bruning 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. One of the virtues of this page is its simplicity, so I thought I'd condense it back to a more minimalist version. Personally, I would be fine with just the one paragraph, but didn't want to offend people by completely discarding the philosophical observations. Also, I toned down some of the language. When discussing a rule like this, you can only be dogmatic if your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek. --Michael Snow 06:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some rearranging of my own, and restored what I consider to be the most important sentence in David Gerard's version -- "Remember - ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia. " I say that this is the most important sentence because Ignore All Rules is (A) Very badly named, and (B) as a result, very badly misunderstood, which (C) causes it to be misapplied quite often. While I still think this is a very badly mistitled page, I think the current version at least communicates the right idea. →Raul654 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement I can accept, but the arrangement of things here does have to be very carefully considered. That nearly left us with a sequence of sentences from which one could reasonably conclude that the purpose that justifies "Ignoring all rules" is "cutting through bureaucracy and red tape" rather than "to make the encyclopedia better". It's exactly this kind of ambiguity that leads to misapplication of the principle. Bureaucracy and red tape are undesirable in many instances, but cutting through them just for the sake of the exercise is not a virtue. --Michael Snow 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point - I hadn't thought of that. Your version is quite good. →Raul654 07:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're here to create policy, huh Mike? Turn the article from "ignore all rules if you use common sense" to "do whatever an administrator tells you because he can make up whatever rule he wants?" --Zephram Stark 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you're going on about. The principle here applies to all editors, regardless of whether they are administrators or not. It's not specifically tied to administrators, and being an administrator does not put people in a position of telling others what to do. --Michael Snow 18:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." This sentence gives administrators a license to make up or enforce any rule they want. Even without that sentence, administrators have tried to cite the IAR as an excuse to control content. They are promptly slapped down by others on on the WikiEN-I. The IAR is a tool of freedom for those who can handle it, not a weapon of oppression for corrupt administrators. --Zephram Stark 21:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You claim: This sentence gives administrators a license to make up or enforce any rule they want. Wrong, that's a perfect example of the problem with selective interpretation of what the page says. In its totality, and as the discussion above shows, the principle being discussed can only be invoked "if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." This is nowhere near allowing people to make up anything they want. --Michael Snow 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." You do realize that every admin invoking this rule to enforce his own made-up rules will say they are doing it to make the encyclopedia better. So when are you saying it would not be allowed? - Tεxτurε 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You left out the word necessary the second time you quoted the passage. That should answer your question. The motive of any editor invoking "Ignore all rules" goes without saying, but that doesn't entitle them to invoke it. --Michael Snow 22:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Add the word and it is still an opinion and gives carte blanche to any admin. Each and every admin invoking this will say it is necessary to make the encyclopedia better.- Tεxτurε 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not "carte blanche". It means that instead of answering the question, "Why did you ignore this rule?" they have to answer the question, "Why was ignoring this rule under these circumstances necessary?" The answer, "To make the encyclopedia better" would be acceptable for the first question, but as an answer to the second it begs the question. --Michael Snow 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No admin has to justify anything if they don't get caught. You are telling each admin you are a god if you can get away with it. Even if it is reversed you will remain untouched and can do it again whenever you please. - Tεxτurε 22:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This line of argument is the equivalent to saying "be bold" supports POV or even vandalism "if you can get away with it." A problem with some administrators acting improperly, or some editors vandalizing articles, is not necessarily due to any problem with either that page or this one. --Michael Snow 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Be bold" does not say you can ignore other policies so it does not allow you to violate NPOV. - Tεxτurε 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't need to tell you that; the instruction to "be bold" has the same effect, considering that the page doesn't remind you to follow NPOV either. Anyway, your underlying concern with whether people "get caught" is a complaint about lack of effective monitoring. That's a technical and structural problem, and beyond the scope of this page. --Michael Snow 23:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators already have a license to block editors for highly obnoxious behaviour; it is explicitly enshrined in the blocking policy (see the 'Disruption' and 'Blocks without policy basis' sections). Further, 'negative consequences' doesn't necessarily mean blocking or administrative action of any kind. If you're being a dick–even a dick who remains within the strict confines of policy–you should expect criticism and possible censure from the rest of the Wikipedia community. The point of the section quoted isn't to give admins carte blanche–and I have difficult seeing how it could be read that way–but rather to indicate that our policies are necessarily evolving and flexible, and don't necessarily anticipate every contingency. The idea is to discourage the incredibly annoying and unproductive practice of 'rules lawyering', and to emphasize the importance of our goal–building an encyclopedia–over policy minutiae. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You need to re-read the blocking policy. These are the only reasons for a block:

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts
• Bans
• Anonymous & open proxies
• Disruption
• Improper Usernames
• Public accounts
• Bots
• Personal attacks which place users in danger
• Exceptional, widespread community support for the block

--Zephram Stark 22:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"The point of the section quoted isn't to give admins carte blanche–and I have difficult seeing how it could be read that way..." The IAR has been interpreted that way many times, even without the new sentence expressly giving permission to administrators to create "negative consequences" for those whom they label "obnoxious." If you want to change Wikipedia policy to absolute despotism, don't beat around the bush. Just place a big sign on the Main Page stating, "You have to do whatever an administrator tells you to do. Admins have total effective control of content at Wikipedia." --Zephram Stark 22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that certain people seem hell-bent on criticising Michael, I would like to chime in here and praise him and his revision to the skies, too. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Sometimes I come across a bit brusque when people ignore the edit summary and revert edits out of hand without a comment. I like Michael's edit too, in large part. I assumed that Michael acted in good faith when he wrote it. He needs to be aware that his failure to specify, as per the original article, that the IAR is not to be used for making up rules, is a change of policy. It was not the version that everyone above agreed upon. In fact, I would say that it is in direct opposition to the original spirit of the IAR: a promise to new editors that if they aren't dicks, they won't be fucked with. --Zephram Stark 01:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael's edit is great, really clarifies things - I haven't seen any reasonable objections to it so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy Change Proposal

Who likes User:Raul654's policy change proposal?

The IAR originally said, "Administrators should not use [IAR] to make up and enforce their own set of rules." Now it says, "Some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and may lead to negative consequences."

Who thinks User:Raul654's policy change proposal is a good idea?

Can't we have both? The sentence on obnoxious behaviour goes just as much for commoners as admins, and so a clarification regarding admins wouldn't be double up. (My reason to rearrange that particular sentence was to make it clearer; I didn't take a stand regarding admins.) --Eddi (Talk) 17:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What change in policy? It's always been that way. →Raul654 17:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have both. Sam Spade 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Both——I've seen arguments for and against despotic rule at Wikipedia, but the IAR never explicitly promoted despotism until now. How about an NPOV solution that takes no side, and does it without changing the powers granted by the IAR? Adding the phrase, "Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules does not give administrators the right to make up or enforce their own set of rules" would clearly state that policy has not changed even though the added sentence about "negative consequences" might make it appear so. If we kept both, I think it could please everyone, or at least be a good compromise. Editors for freedom and equality would know that despotism wasn't created at the IAR, while the corrupt element growing in the administration could still base their despotism on other policies. --Zephram Stark 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The page did not "originally" say anything like what Zephram Stark is trying to add. Originally, to pick a stable, long-lasting early form of the page, it was a lot simpler, and some effort should be made to keep it that way. The current form is not a policy change, it's an expression of what the policy has always been, and a pretty good one at that judging from the support it has received.

Before adding more instruction creep to the page, I would first like to see real evidence of administrators directly using "Ignore all rules" to actually "make up and enforce their own set of rules." We don't need to invent a solution to a theoretical problem. I haven't seen it, and I don't see how a principle about ignoring rules that already exist does anything to encourage people to make up new rules instead. --Michael Snow 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You sound like George Bush, "We aren't going to use the USA PATRIOT Act for things like that. Before making wild accusations about 'non-terrorist future crimes,' show me some evidence." Well, Mr. Bush, here's your evidence: USA_PATRIOT_Act_abuses, but it's a little late now, isn't it? The USA PATRIOT Act is already in place. Despotism reins supreme in the United States, and we have quality of life indicators to show the result.

Are we going to wait to see the effect of this Wikipedia policy change too before doing anything about it, or can we learn something from the lessons that history keeps trying to teach us? "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."

How many times do we have to learn that a system is doomed to failure when some members are considered inherently more equal than others? --Zephram Stark 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael didn't change policy, he clarified it. Zephram, please stop trying change policy in order to advance your RfAR case. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I couldn't give a shit about my RfAR case. If this place falls to administrative despotism and content control, who's going to want to stick around here anyway?

I think I know the answer, and its already happening: only the vandalism control freaks and the administrative control freaks. --Zephram Stark 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New version

Yep, The shorter and less instruction-crept this can be kept, the better - David Gerard 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IAR patrol

I am aware of the fact that IAR causes quite a lot of trouble, however, it's nescesary in certain situations. So just like people do rc patrol to keep an eye on the downsides of "anyone can edit" , so also on that same patrol, people have to keep an eye out for the downsides of "Ignore all rules"

Kim Bruning 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• The problem is that a) I have yet to see or hear of a case where it was essential; and b) when attention is drawn to an action supported on the basis of IAR but out-of-procvess and undesireable, controversy tends to irrupt rather than die down, and the person who initally took the action rarely admits that it was unwise. I could cite no better example than the out-of-process (and IMO compeltely unjustified) deletion of several pages by User:Kim Bruning during the GNAA affair. (I know Kim disagrees with this view, adn thre was no cler consensus either way as far as i am aware.) DES ^(talk) 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that you were assisting the GNAA even after being advised of such. Kim Bruning 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) I did not belive, and still do not belive, that I was doing anything of the sort. I also did not, and do not, belive that the deletions were in anyway essential to the functioning of wikipedia, nor justified by any policy. That said, I know and proclaim, that a number of respected wikipedians, including you, felt otherwise. I mentin this because it was the use of IAR in this specific case that firmly conviced me that IAR was ultimately pernicious and harmful to the project, at least in conenction with administrative (as oppsoed to editing) decisions. Obviously, this position does not command consensus. I think from other discussion here, it does have the support of at least a significant minority of editors, enough that an unadorned IAR cannot be said to have consensus, nor to be policy. If I am mistaken on that, please show me. DES ^(talk) 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh shit, he was assisting the GNAA? So what? Unless you delete the GNAA article you too are assisting them. --SPUI (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ohhhhh deaaar.... Kim Bruning 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • My point was that you speak as though "assisting the GNAA" is necessarily a bad thing. Our mission here is to make an encyclopedia, not oppose all actions that help the GNAA. --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The current policy as stated on this page does not reflect how the policy has been applied since its inception in 2002.

The removal of the policy tag seems erroneous, since no procedure has been followed to remove this page from policy, and this policy is still regularly applied (erroneously or not.)

Kim Bruning 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When exactly was the policy tag applied? when was consensus to amke this policy achived, and where? When i first looked at this page, it did not carry a policy tag, and that was before any of the recent disputes over the matter. The current state of the poll does not sugest the level of consensus usaully associated with a policy. I think the disputed tag was exactly the correct one to use. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): A policy designation seems to have been first applied on 7 October 2004 and removed again on 9 December 2004. It was then remarked as policy on 12:22, 8 March 2005 adn reverted the same day. It was marked as "semi-policy" on 17:34, 13 March 2005 and this was removed on 15:38, 5 April 2005. It next seems to ahve had an explit policy tag added on 23:48, 28 September 2005, and since then the issue has been much debated. For much of the time between April and Sept 2005 the debate was between thsoe who wanted an explicit "Not policy" tag and thsoe who wanted no tag at all. Thus for the majority of its recorded hsitory, this page does not seem to have been explictly labeled as "policy". DES ^(talk) 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• You might be interested in the timeline I offer, below. Demi ^T/_C 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I subst'd and rewrote a unique tag, stating that some consider it policy, some don't, etc. — Phil Welch 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I learn new uses of NPOV every day! Kim Bruning 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It either is policy or it isn't. Which is it? Was there a consensus gained? A vote? If not then it isn't anything but a wishful article. I think it was approved as a guideline or a policy but someone should determine which or else gain a new consensus for what it should be. - Tεxτurε 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a policy tag a few weeks back and it was quickly reverted. As this is one of the 5 pillars, I still don't see how it could possibly not be considered policy, but maybe that's just me. Friday 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you added it just on a whim then it likely is not. No one should add a policy tag without determining if it was approved to be policy. - Tεxτurε 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

See poll at top of this page, which has been running since 2002 :-) Kim Bruning 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

True. That poll currently shows almnost exactly 70% support, and was below 70% last week. Whether votes cast 3years apart can usefully be considered part of the same poll I leave to further discussion. DES ^(talk) 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(ec) I added it because, to me, this appears to be used as policy. I suggested an alternate tag, describing it as one of the five pillars. I guess that's in the archive now. Friday 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• None of the times the policy tag (or former policy category) was added in the history, as far as i could see, was any explicit poll or other process cited. at one time there was a note saying that this page dated from a period when there were only 13 active contributors and all policy adoptionw as highly informal. That note also questioned the current applicability of the rule, and was removed after a few days. DES ^(talk) 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There also exists policy from before wikipedia ever existed. (We inherited from meatball at one point). But that's details, this particular rule is still very strongly supported and promoted. Kim Bruning 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I freely grant that policy from a sufficiently early date will never have gone through a formal adoption process. However, thsi does not seem to have been labeeld as policy in any way until long after those early days, the long stable version listed it as a "rule to consider". I also grant that a good many people here strongly support and promote IAR, and treat it as policy. But a significant if smaller number strongly oppose it. Can somethign with as much dispute over its current propriety realy be safely tagged as current policy? I think the "unique status" tag now in place does a good job of describign the actual situation. Does anyone really disagree? DES ^(talk) 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I like that tag! It's very wikipediaish :-) (see above reply to philwelch also) Kim Bruning 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps we are in agrement for the moment on this limited issue, and can let this discussion die back down for a time? DES ^(talk) 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Policiness" timeline

In attempt to get a handle on the status of this rule through the history of the page, I offer the following timeline. I've only investigated the changes related to the "officialness" or "ruleness" of the page, not its content, which has changed back and forth in various ways during the same period. Also, I have not really listed the various quite recent changes associated with the current brouhaha.

The page was created on 17 April 2002 [1] with no particular statement about policy, shortly thereafter being described as a "rule" [2] in the text which wording it has held basically since.

On 7 October of 2004 (over two years later), a category was added identifying it as official policy [3]; this was changed to a semipolicy category on 9 December [4] and reverted to the policy category [5].

After four months of wearing the policy category, it was removed on 21 January 2005 [6]. It was added back and reverted on 8 March 2005 ([7] [8]), on 13 March ([9] [10] [11]), being left with a semipolicy category.

After not quite a month, various templates were applied, starting with an "inactive policy template", including "guideline," "notpolicy," and "validity disputed." It ended up with no identifier. This happened on 5 April ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and similarly on 19 - 21 September (starting with a proposal template and ending up with none [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]).

The {{policy}} tag was applied a few days later, on 29 September, and this stood for almost a month until it was changed to {{guideline}} on 23 October; then "inactive" [29] and ultimately removed on 24 October [30].

Demi ^T/_C 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is inherently paradoxical ("ignore all rules ... including this one." See also Jimbo's comment above). People who try to force it into the rigor of rule/guideline/policy categories or generic templates are putting the page into a box where it doesn't belong. Attempting to do so mostly demonstrates one's failure to grasp the concept in the first place. This summary merely documents how lame such efforts are. --Michael Snow 18:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus version

Do we take the Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, or the Raul654/Michael Snow/David Gerard consensus?

Hmm, I guess it's probably not good HEC to see-saw between consensuses, can we maybe find some compromise or so?

Actually I don't care about the boxes and so, but the wording is different in the 2 versions. Let's see

Kim Bruning 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

HEC? No disrespect, but there is no Kim Bruning/Snowspinner/Philwelch consensus, there's just been a flurry of edits, which haven't brought any real improvement to my mind. On the other hand, judging from the endorsements above, I think the version developed by myself and others did establish a consensus to serve as the baseline version of the page. You liked it yourself — is something suddenly wrong with it? Everyone's overwhelming urge to leave their own personal fingerprints on the page is detrimental in the same fashion that instruction creep is. --Michael Snow 18:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Michael. →Raul654 19:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too - hence my collapsing the two paragraphs of instruction creep into one, smaller paragraph of instruction creep. Or, actually, in my most preferred version, all three paragraphs to one. Phil Sandifer 00:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, recent edits strongly indicate there's not actually a consensus version. Friday (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael: I liked your version better because it was closer to my actual preferred version: [31]

IAR is there to cut through red tape. But now even IAR gets buried under it. Kim Bruning 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

For my personal opinion, I strongly prefer the minimalistic version as it stood previously, as Kim is trying to return to, but clearly not everyone does, and I believe the version as posted by Michael Snow is an excellent compromise. It gets the point of the added material that had accumulated on the page in a tighter, generally applicable form, and separates it off from the heart of the page at the top—clearly giving the explanatory material secondary status. But it acknowledges that others will not accept the rule as it stands without that clarification for those who will otherwise claim it justifies abuse or disruption. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I also note that the added text does not at all, in my opinion, change the nature of the rule. It operates, and has to, the same way it did when it was originally stated. The additional text is for the people who will otherwise misunderstand—and we have a lot of those. Perhaps it's best to accommmodate them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand (and actually share, to a significant degree) Kim's preference for an ultra-simple version, I just didn't think the editing was really moving us in that direction. Kim tried a bit, but it was still picking up all this category- and template-cruft. I think Mindspillage explains very well the function of the page in its present form. --Michael Snow 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we have some stable versions for comparison and commenting/voting? All the talk above, with dozens links to history pages, is a bit daunting to somebody like me who stumbled here from RfC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Instruction creep

I propose that the current 172 word version of the page can be entirely encapsulated in the following 88 words:

The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. The rules exist to help explain how to do that. On the other hand, if you want to cut through the red tape and just go, so long as you keep in mind that you’re writing an encyclopedia and are willing work together with your fellow editors, it will probably work out. The spirit of all of our rules is "create a good encyclopedia," and that's far more important than the letter.

On the other hand, ignoring rules because you don’t like what they say is misguided.

What reasons can people find that this does not adequately replace the current phrasing? Phil Sandifer 03:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The rules do quite a few things other than simply explain how to write an encyclopedia. Also, pairing "Ignore all rules" with "Be bold" can be, shall we say, too much of a good thing. I much prefer the connection currently made to "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" because it strikes a suitable note of caution, something that many people with concerns about this page feel is necessary. Lastly, I would lament the loss of the advice to "use common sense". --Michael Snow 04:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'll reiterate what I said earlier - the sentence about IAR being about cutting through red tape is, IMO, the most imporantant sentence on the whole page. Raul654 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I've fixed both of these. And I think WP:POINT remains ideal for a see also. Phil Sandifer 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

See alsos are part of the problem here, not part of the solution, because they encourage people to add their own hobbyhorse to the list. I still think we need to accommodate the concerns about the page's entire function with cautionary language. In that regard, "ignoring rules because you don't like what they say is misguided" comes across as a pretty feeble statement. An acknowledgement of the inherent paradox is also missing, which is an important part of the page. This path doesn't strike me as an improvement, other than perhaps word count, and evaluating instruction creep by word count alone is like evaluating admin nominations by edit count alone. I believe the current version is actually better suited to resisting future instruction creep than this one. --Michael Snow 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternate formulation?

I have been thinking about this "rule" recently after having to invoke it to explain why a particular AfD debate was not as simple as "it is a guideline and you can't argue with that." It got me thinking, and it seems that everything that we actually want people to get from "Ignore all rules" is not actually "ignore all rules" but "be aware that rules may have exceptions, including exceptions no one has thought to codify." We don't want people to ignore all rules; we want people to ignore those rules which aren't adequate for the current situation. (And I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who has seen "Ignore all rules" in practice more often being interpreted as "Ignore all dissenting editors.") Perhaps this policy would be more helpful if it told editors thinking of invoking it "you'd better be ready to make a cogent argument why this should be an exception.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I like the way it's expressed on WP:5P, as "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules". Friday (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look above, I have been saying for quite a while that this page is very badly named. There are several rules that if you break them, you will get yourself into hot water -- case and point, the no-personal-attacks rule. At least the text of the rule is correct now, though. Raul654 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When did the Ministry of Truth take over Wikipedia?

While freedom loving Wikipedians slept, the fundamental freedom to "ignore all rules" has been reduced to pointless sophistry and is now honored only in the breach, so why not replace said pointless sophistry with a candid admission of same?. To wit, "When given a choice, most intelligent Wikipedians prefer fascism, so the freedom to 'ignore all rules' simply had to go!" // NetEsq 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Games

If you want to make IAR a policy put it through the normal process of discussion for that. Don't just stick the tag on there by saying it's kinda sorta like something else which is a policy. You know very well that many people don't consider this a policy at all. Using gamesmanship in the effort to make it so is just going to bring you grief. I've done my part here, but I'm suggesting folks drop it or go through the right channels (where it will undoubtedly fail). Otherwise you'll get stomped on by lots of people who disagree with you. And you know it. So what's the point? Later. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhh.. it's been through that process already, as far as I can tell. Just see the poll at the top of this page, as well as some of the older edits of the article itself. —Locke Cole 13:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As you are apparently aware... the straw poll above was initiated a long time ago. At that point the policy read as follows: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."
That's it. That was approved as a policy. If you look at the straw poll and discussion above you will see people objecting to the "Orwellian" alterations since then, noting that their votes only apply to the original, et cetera. If you want to make the original form policy then there are probably grounds to do so (though sorting out how many of the 'oppose' votes were directed to the original might be difficult). However, we all know there is no such consensus for the current form. So again... pulling up an ancient poll to support a current page is playing games. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you say so. No more game-like than removing the tag simply because a handful of people disagree with recent changes to further explain the intent of the policy. —Locke Cole 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CBD. The present IAR policy bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original one that I supported and which was supported by noteworthy Wikipedians such as Lee Daniel Crocker and Jimbo Wales. As such, I have added the present Orwellian version of IAR to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. // NetEsq 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it back to the original that managed to gain consensus. I still feel that the expanded version conveys the original intent, but if others disagree, so be it. I still "get it" with regard to the intent of this policy.

And just as an aside: I don't see the problem with the policy being updated or expanded; many policies are changed without the policy tag being removed at random. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

<< I still feel that the expanded version conveys the original intent . . . I still "get it" with regard to the intent of this policy.>>

I wholeheartedly disagree. The original IAR policy was succinct and more or less said, "Don't worry about the rules." The new IAR policy is doublespeak in its most finely crafted form. I am reminded of how a constitutional scholar replied when asked how he might change the original Constitution if given the opportunity. "I'd add six words everywhere the phrase 'Congress shall make no law . . .' appears: 'And this time, we mean it!" // NetEsq 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, look, if that's how you feel, I have zero problem reverting back to the original version. My concern is with the intent behind "ignore all rules", and that there is community consensus for this to be policy in some form or another. With that being said, I'll go revert back to that version, slap {{policy}} back on it, and we can all go home happy. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that version is not policy either. The poll above currently shows a 2:1 count in favor, and that is hardly enough for a "fundamental" policy page, to say nothing of the fact that "support" was gathered over a period of years, soem of it from people who may no longer support this, and soem from people no longer active on the project. There is IMNO far too high a level of opposition to this to call ANY version of this policy. DES ^(talk) 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my support for the original formulation of IAR, I wholeheartedly agree with DES. Since the original formulation of IAR, Wikipedia has grown and changed to the point where I barely recognize it, and many of the people who originally supported IAR are now unabashed (albeit capricious) enforcers of Wikipedia's Byzantine collection of policies and rules. // NetEsq 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

IAR redundant with WP:NOT

This page says nothing that WP:NOT does not already cover in the section "Wikipedia is not a bureacracy." It has no need to exist, really. The only difference between WP:NOT and IAR is that IAR expresses the same sentiment using stronger (and consequently more vague) language, which lets some people think IAR is an excuse to do whatever they want. Since we all agree that WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy, and that WP:NOT is policy, why not just redirect this page there, or cite it directly? --causa sui ^talk 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

<< [This page] has no need to exist, really. >>

I wholeheartedly disagree, as did the other noteworthy Wikipedians who supported the original version of IAR. Some people have a hard time understanding this. // NetEsq 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saying "no it isn't" might have something to do with why "some people" have difficulty understanding your position. --causa sui ^talk 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The gist of "ignore all rules" is so simple as to defy the need (perceived by some) for further exegesis, not unlike trying to explain how and why "no means no," as in "Congress shall make *NO* law." (Emphasis added.) Engaging in debate with people who wish to challenge something so straightforward is a gracious concession in and of itself, as there's only so many ways that you can say, "No." Even so, beyond the advice to "ignore all rules," we can and should debate and discuss whether following such advice is a GoodThing(TM), provided such debate and discussion is clearly labeled as "debate and discussion." That ain't what's happening here. Rather, people who oppose the sentiment behind "ignore all rules" have reformulated and perverted the underlying assertion so that it now purports to mean something completely different, not unlike the perversion resulting in the assertion that "Four legs good; two legs better!" // NetEsq 15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't claim to understand much of the above, but I wouldn't want to see this made into a redirect. Many of the Wikipedia space pages are somewhat redundant. This page is specifically to remind people that making an encyclopedia is the purpose of Wikipedia, and the "rules" are only meant as means to that end. Friday (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree entirely with the senitment of IAR, but I think it is being (sometimes deliberately) misconstrued and abused as a justification for doing stupid things. Wikipedia does have rules, as Raul654 mentions above: For example, no personal attacks, and no legal threats. There are others. These rules may not ever be bent or broken. The relevant section of WP:NOT explains what IAR is trying to say, except in a much better language. I'm not against redundancy, per se: Which is why I would be happy if this article were renamed "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". --causa sui ^talk 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, even in the cases you mention (legal threats, attacks, harassment), IAR is fine– let them cite IAR. If their conduct is bad enough, and repeated frequently, other parts of the community will take over and correct it (RfC, RFAr). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying IAR is a trap, or something? Let people be fooled by it so we can catch them? I'm trying to analyze what good IAR is doing, and I just don't see anything positive coming of it that isn't already covered by WP:NOT. --causa sui ^talk 05:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, no.. just that people who ignore the rules (and don't have consensus behind them) will find out about it eventually. Afterall, wheel warring under the guise of WP:IAR isn't going to keep people from filing RfC's or RFAR's if they disagree; nor keep people from endorsing views against you if you persist against consensus. I like to think of IAR as being both a "don't worry about the rules, we can sort things out" clause as well as a "don't be afraid to try things that may be listed as expressly against the rules". People who later find out about the respective rules (in the first case) or are shown that there's a consensus against their view (in the latter case) should stop. People who persist and are decided to be disruptive can be dealt with if they refuse to stop. Hope that makes sense. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I like to think of IAR as being both a "don't worry about the rules, we can sort things out" clause as well as a "don't be afraid to try things that may be listed as expressly against the rules". I like this as well, but WP:NOT already does this. IAR does this, and it also makes people think they can break the rules when they feel like it. So why do we need IAR? Why not just spend some extra time emphasizing that WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy? Isn't that what you think is good about IAR? --causa sui ^talk 06:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, as well as a policy (well, that is, when the {{policy}} tag isn't being removed), I think this is important enough to warrant it's own article (even if it is just the brief passage originally voted upon). WP:NOT a bureaucracy hints at this, but this actually flat out says not to worry about the rules. We could redirect this there and try to modify the bureaucracy passage to include ignore-all-rules-like language, but I suspect the war over policy would just move there as well. I'd rather sort it out here. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, justifying it by pointing out that it's on the five pillars begs the question. What's at issue here is whether it should be so prominent, so saying it's prominent doesn't speak to the issue. Rather than redirecting to WP:NOT, what I think might be best would be moving this page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and keeping something very similar to the current language. "Ignore all rules" is just too strong. We can't be giving people license for that. --causa sui ^talk 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be at least three different 'interpretations' of what 'Ignore all rules' means;

1. Don't worry about learning all the rules and procedures. Just do your thing and if you happen to make a mistake it'll get sorted out.
2. If consensus is that a rule is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia it can be ignored or changed.
3. Any user (or more often any admin) can do whatever they want if they think it is better than policy.

I have no problem with the first two of these, but the last is the most poisonous sort of anarchy (or tyranny if de facto applying to admins only). We all have different opinions about how things could be done better, but taking unorthodox action and then sorting out whether consensus supports it or not is just going to create alot of hostility when the answer is 'not'. It is usually justified with extreme hypotheticals about 'emergency' situations where there is no time to get a consensus or, in my opinion illogical, claims that the project will function more smoothly if everyone (or really just the person making the argument) is allowed to make up their own rules. I think we need to clearly define which of these different definitions is supported by community consensus. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good analysis, that gets straight to the heart of the issue. I think WP:NOT could only be construed to endorse the first two statements, but not the third. IAR, on the other hand, could mean all three, which is why we are having such a debate about it. I don't think any reasonable person could think it's okay for someone to ignore rules just because he or she thinks it's a good idea; especially when it comes to non-negotiable rules like WP:NPA and WP:NLT. But we all agree that the sentiment expressed by IAR is an important one that deserves to be emphasized, not buried with a bunch of other points on a long policy page like WP:NOT. I've already suggested what I think would be a fair solution that addresses all these issues- but are there any other ideas about what we could do? --causa sui ^talk 12:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that I've recently seen some people citing 'Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy' to justify unilateral policy violations (despite what it says about doing so when there is consensus) in the same way IAR often is I'd be in favor of merging in / fully explaining this concept there and making IAR a redirect rather than arguing the same issue in both places. Alternatively the text here could be cut down to a general statement and link to the more detailed description at WP:NOT. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one, do not agree that the "sentiment expressed by IAR is an important one that deserves to be emphasized" I think it is a pernicious and poisenous one that ought to be eradicated as throughly and quickly as possible. I don't much like 'Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" either -- it is usualy cited to oppose abiding by consensus, or to oppose the creation or retention of reasonable procedures that help in building and maintianing the quality of wikipedia. I have yest to see either cited when i agree with the arguemnt -- no on second thought, some (albiet few) citations of "Not a bureaucracy" have been positive IME. Never have I seen IAR cited for what seems to me a positive purpose, or in a way that I think helps build the encyclopedia. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen it cited for that purpose? Well, I have, because I've done it. Though not in so many words. When someone comes and asks me "help, there are all these policies, I just want to edit, how do I get started?" I'm not about to demand they read the whole MoS first; they'll run screaming. (Yes, there are people who won't run screaming—I'm one—but they usually find the relevant policies and guidelines for themselves.) I say, pretty much, don't post copyvios, write neutrally, be civil, and by the way, there's a metric crapload of stylistic and behavioral guidelines; you'll get them eventually but don't worry about them, so just jump in and someone will come along and help you if you're doing something wrong.

"Ignore all rules" is a nice pithy statement. If you're into philosophizing about community and you read MeatBall in your spare time, you can head straight here. You don't cite it where it most applies, to new editors, for the same reason you don't say "sofixit" to them but rather go on to explain what to do if you spot a problem (or subst {{sofixit}}, for that matter). Like any nice pithy statement, it opens itself up to oversimplified or deliberately obtuse interpretations. (So does "sofixit", as long as I've brought that up. No, really.) That's what the explanatory text is for, that the hardcore supporters of the original formation (and I count myself among them) have (mostly) conceded to placing. It's essential to our open nature. "If rules make you nervous and depressed", ignore them. This doesn't mean you can be a dick. It doesn't mean you can ignore your fellow editors when they've told you that your actions aren't actually in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It means you don't have to pore over 50 pages of policy every time you want to make an edit. It means we don't have to write every special circumstance and possible outlandish scenario into policy; if you make an honest attempt to do the right thing, you're probably good, or at least you'll avoid trouble when someone who does know what to do comes by. (Our policies are pretty flexible, though. Most of the time, you don't need to ignore it; you just have to call on the bit that says "if there's a good reason not to do this, do something else.")

It doesn't justify abuse when you're deliberately acting in a way that you know will piss off your fellow editors. That hurts the community and isn't therefore in the best interests of the project—even if the aims are good. I've stated here before that I think any editor who supports this guideline also supports kicking the asses of those who abuse it. And perhaps us more than anyone else: nothing worse than someone misrepresenting your own position.

You say you've seen IAR and WP:NOT a bureaucracy cited to "oppose abiding by consensus, or to oppose the creation or retention of reasonable procedures that help in building and maintaining the quality of wikipedia". This falls under the above, so I'll say it again: you're not allowed to ignore your fellow editors when they've told you that your actions aren't actually in the best interests of the encyclopedia. You're only allowed to ignore the rules. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My first experience with IAR was when it was cited as a justification for the completely out-of-process deeltion of several pages, adn the subsequent removal of a listing on what was then VfU during the GNAA fallout last summer. Then there was the deletion of VfD. (more to follow) DES ^(talk) 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

More recently I have seen it cited to support speedy deletes of pages not included under any speedy criterion, sometimes ones I thought should not be deleted, often ones i had no particular fondness for, but thought should go through proper AfD procedures, because IMO it is a bad idea to delte pages with as litte discussion as happens for speedy deltes except in clearly and narrowly defined cases, tailored to avoid false-positives -- i.e. deletions of pages that should not be deleted. And I have seen "WP:NOT a bureaucracy" cited to attempt to support the deletion of WP:WSS/P and the removal of the consensus approval process for new stub types, which whould have IMO been likely to result in chaos in the stub system. In short, these principles IMO do far more harm than good. DES ^(talk) 06:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• IMO it is fine for editors to be ignorant of the rules -- no one knows all wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and traditions fully. It is fine to act Boldly in edting articles, and it is fine to act in accord with what you think the reles are or ought to be. It is not OK to ignore the rules -- once you know what the rules are, you ought to comply, possibly proposign a change, as pretty much any rule can be changed if a new consensus develops. An editor, particualrly a relatively new editor, should not be paralyzed from acting whiule trying to figure out the rules. But when the rules are explained, or when an experienced editor knows them perfectly well, failign to comply should not be seen as acceptable, and no one should need to wait for other editors to "tell you that your actions aren't actually in the best interests of the encyclopedia". Knowingly violating the rules is itself against the best inerests of the encylopedia, becauae IMO it damages the community trust that lets wikipedia work as well as it does. This is true evne if -- perhaps especially when -- the specific action involved arguably improves the encyclopedia, IMO. DES ^(talk) 06:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This artial simply needs to be changed from Ignore all rules to something more along the lines of Knowledge of the Rules is unessicary or Rules not meant to be followed by the letter. --T-rex 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we are trying to idiot-proof something that hasn't even shown itself to be a problem. Show me the people who have cited this policy in a way that does not fall under the clear meaning of "Sometimes it's more important to do the right thing than the procedural thing" and we might find cause to discuss changing. But absent that, this is a solution in search of a problem. Phil Sandifer 16:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not recapitulate IAR as a "tradition" rather than a policy?

Notwithstanding my support of IAR -- in its original form -- I was particularly impressed with the commentary accommodating Metaeducation's vote againt IAR, which speaks to the issue of IAR being an attractive nuisance for misfits and trolls. Moreover, CBD/DES spoke to the fact that IAR -- in its original form -- no longer enjoys the popular support it once did. So why not recapitulate IAR -- in its original form -- as a "Wikipedia tradition"? We can then point out in the commentary to IAR that it "was once policy, but is now a tradition that has given way to a more recent formulation of a similar sentiment -- i.e., "Use common sense.'" I think this strategy would allow rule-hating individuals (such as myself) to claim a moral victory (i.e., by leaving IAR in its original form) while finding common ground where we can peacefully co-exist with other sincere Wikipedians who happen to embrace more authoritarian values. // NetEsq 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The point in my vote—which I'm glad you liked—was that if there's going to be a policy or pillar I'd like to see it replaced by a much more inspiring phase. As long as that's done, I guess there's nothing wrong with keeping an Ignore all Rules page. It gives a nod to the historical notability of the phrase, allows for perspectives on interpretation, and would hopefully keep it from being "used" without preventing its "mention".

(Should IAR remain policy, I'm still having a hard time of thinking when it would be appropriate to cite in a discussion. Maybe the supporters should give specific cases of a process where it looks like it was applied properly.) Metaeducation 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

<< if there's going to be a policy or pillar I'd like to see it replaced by a much more inspiring phase. >>

How do you feel about "Use common sense"? // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

<< I'm still having a hard time of thinking when [IAR] would be appropriate to cite in a discussion. >>

I like to think of IAR as being a rule that is enforced by the inalienable right to fork. Back in the day, I frequently cited IAR when stating my opinions on Talk pages, which would then allow me to back down from a good faith dispute. // NetEsq 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how useful "use common sense" is. Since pillar #5 subsumes IAR and be bold, I think I'd merge those into something nice like be bold in evolving articles and Wikipedia policies. It seems so much better to get people caught up in the beauty of open and transparent rule-making that they come to respect the Wikipedia's policies more than traditional ones, precisely because they can be changed.

I definitely think the current pillar #5 phrasing needs an upgrade. It says "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules (except for the previous pillars)", which is not a pillar any more than Pillar #1 should be "Wikipedia has pillars that should be followed, and the following are them". Metaeducation 21:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On reverting 3 years of hard work

I have reverted this page to the 2002 version. The 2005 version was unhelpful and the meaning of the page was obscured. Here a step-by-step review.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia.

Thanks for the info. I don't think anyone paid attention to this warning because someone made WP:ENC separately.

Our rules serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia.

This is the sentence I reverted to. Good sentence, I like it. Except for the bit about "use common sense" which was added in later-- the reason we call it "common sense" is because it's common sense, so that boils down to WP:DICK which is not the point of this page. The point of this page, in case you forgot it in the midst of all this blather, will be explained agonizingly below.

Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one.

I don't know why there is a self-reference here but it doesn't seem to mean anything. Was this put there as a test to keep me from going any further? 'Cause it worked! This page isn't a rule anyway!!

On occasion, rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better. Disregarding a rule for other purposes is not good; the corollary to "Ignore all rules" is "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".

Now you are comparing a non-rule to a rule. Don't get me wrong, WP:POINT is a great rule, but it's just one of our many rules here at Wikipedia, the free enyclopedia you can edit.

Ignoring all rules is about cutting through red tape to construct an encyclopedia.

This is another part where the page subtly tries to not make reference to ways in which the rule could be abused, by talking about what the point of this rule is, which should be mighty obvious to its intended audience. It reminds me of that website about ninjas for some reason. The purpose of a ninja is to flip out and cut through red tape to construct an encyclopedia.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

That's neither here nor there.

Some actions may be reasonable, even if they might be against a strict interpretation of a certain rule. Conversely, some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and lead to negative consequences.

Some rules were made to be broken. Conversely, some brokens were made to be rules. This bit is simply wasting my time (it actually wasted my time three times because I had to read it three times before I got the gist of it).

The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter.

This probably belongs on WP:5P or some important place like that. It's a good thing to say and would look nice on the page, but it would also make it a sentence longer. Do I want a longer page, or page that says one thing and says it well? Hmmm... Ashibaka tock 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Numerous very-long term editors - Michael Snow, David Gerard, and myself in particular - colloberated in writing the current version. THe reason being that the old version ("If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.") is (1) badly misunderstood, (2) constantly misapplied, and (3) a flat out lie. It completely and utterly faily to communicate the reason that one should ignore all rules, or the purpose thereof. It was often used to purpose that it was never supposed to, by people who didn't know better. Moreover, there are certain rules, that if ignored (like wikipedia:No personal attacks) will land you in some hot water - and I say that as a member of the arbitration committee. So, to put it simply, the old one is gone for good reason. Raul654 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still there underneath all the layers of explanation of what it means. "If rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia." Then it goes into all this other stuff which I don't think has persuaded anyone that rules are made to be followed. Even two days ago it was cited in Wikipedia:RFC/KM so that's a fat lot of good your rewrite has done. As long as you tell people they're not allowed to cite it as if it means anything, I don't see the problem with just letting it be as a guideline to new users.

As Jimbo says, "What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule." This page was never meant to have any policy weight. What you've done is obscure its purpose so well that it's never used as intended. Ashibaka tock 09:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

<< Numerous very-long term editors - Michael Snow, David Gerard, and myself in particular - colloberated in writing the current version. >>

And after checking the edits of said "very-long[sic] term editors," I discovered that not one of you was around when the original capitulation of IAR was proposed and endorsed by a majority of noteworthy Wikipedians. Rather, said Johnny-come-lately revisionists worked their way up through the ranks of Wikipedia while concomitantly inventing all sorts of rules and regulations, and then set about rewriting the only "rule" that hints at the fact that Wikipedia was once an open community. On that note, I am prepared to accept the fact that authoritarians have captured the reigns of power at Wikipedia, as this is one of the reasons why my participation in Wikipedia has diminished. However, I am not willing to lie down and accept the recapitulation of IAR as something that it never, ever was and was never, ever intended to be. // NetEsq 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of nerve-wracking to see that the original form of IAR is now re-interpreted as "humor ... generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community", but that's just because people are worried about the potential for abuse. You can rewrite it to remove these worries, keep the same spirit, and hopefully nothing will be lost besides the literal statement "ignore all rules", which I don't think is an essential part of Wikipedia. Ashibaka tock 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

<< I don't think [the literal statement "ignore all rules"] is an essential part of Wikipedia. >>

At one time, it was, notwithstanding Larry Sanger's revisionist commentaries on Slashdot. I take particular joy in being quoted anonymously by Larry Sanger as a "later commentator." To wit, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." (Me (August 25, 2002)); "That was certainly never my view. . . ." Larry Sanger (April 18, 2005). Back then, I was 1 of 14 people -- including Larry -- who supported IAR (3 people opposed) with Larry glibly commenting, "I think that those people who hate rules should ignore them, and let other people, who do care about rules, try, 'just try', to enforce 'em." // NetEsq 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution: keep the original 2002 version on this page, remind people how integral that original sentence is with quotes from Jimbo and Larry, and for its implications link to the new (proposed) policy and guideline pages. Ashibaka tock 01:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now assuming I'm a brand spanking new Wikipedian who's run across this page for the first time, what am I supposed to think? "The rules are making it hard for me to create an encyclopedia the way I want it, so I'll take this to heart. The original page reminds me of WP:ABF, as it looks like it was meant for humor. The current version instead looks more more fit as Wikipedia:Use common sense (which redirects to WP:POINT for some reason). The point remains that you simply cannot "Ignore all rules", of course you can "Ignore some rules", but that would become arbitary ("So I can break this rule, but not this one? What's the point?").

The idea this page is meant to convey is that Wikipedia is about the product (the encyclopedia) not the process (the rules). And yes, occasionally the two come into conflict - and if you don't believe me, feel free to look through the archive of the old arbitration cases. This page emphasizes that the former takes precedence over the latter. Raul654 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you. After all, "rules supress creatvity". I've been in situations where arguing about this policy, that guideline has sidetracked my ability to get work done, since I had to go through the lenghty dispute resolution proccess. But I still don't understand the reasoning of ignoring all rules in order to create an encyclopedia. If nothing else, I think the wording of the page is somewhat misleading. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand you right, the 2005 version does have policy weight, and that's why you protected it in this form? Is that why there's a pastel box here letting me know that the page is "very important" and inviting me to think it over? Well, I don't understand any of the mumbo-jumbo, as I explained above. Why don't you tuck this under a subpage of WP:ARB so nobody else will be confused by the obviously wrong name. Ashibaka tock 09:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been arguing against the obviously wrong name for a while. (Read up a bit on this page to see my previous comments to that effect). Raul654 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read the page-- and your older comments-- very closely and I understand why the second paragraph is important to ArbCom rulings. I would totally agree with splitting it up into a version which actually states a policy, and a version letting new users know not to be afraid of all the guidelines we have (which might actually be superfluous with the great tutorials we already have). Because this version does neither. Ashibaka tock 09:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul, if you are thinking about new titles, how about "Wikipedia:Product over process," or something along those lines? 172 09:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I find that title acceptable. Raul654 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What about moving this to Wikipedia:Use common sense (which is basically the message of the page), and bring back the orginal IAR page as humor. (met edit conflict from above comment)--LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about

• Wikipedia:Product over process for the official policy
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia has too many rules for the user guideline.

Ashibaka tock 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I have insomnia I am going to go ahead and write the second one to demonstrate how it could be useful. Ashibaka tock 10:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I love Wikipedia:Wikipedia has too many rules. Clearly states the one aspect of 'IAR' which everyone seems to agree on... 'let the newbies play'. Presumably the more contentious interpretations of 'IAR' would go in the red-linked 'Product over process'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? :-) --causa sui ^talk 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be merged into WP:NOT... :< Ashibaka tock 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --causa sui ^talk 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again - is there anyone who is actually being misled harmfully by this policy? Particularly anyone who isn't, well, a complete idiot who is going to get himself shot anyway? Phil Sandifer 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. Or does IAR contravert that? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As Raul said, another reason for expanding IAR into what it looks like now is because "the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter" is an integral part of all rules here, which has to be brought up as a Finding of Fact from time to time in ArbCom. That's why I'm thinking of disambiguating the page, not so that newbies won't be confused but so that they will actually have a neat guideline that isn't cluttered with this other stuff. Ashibaka tock 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Respecting rules

I was a bit abashed when I saw

(cur) (last) 10:48, 2 January 2006 Raul654 (rv and protect)

I thought "eh ! is not that forbidden to *choose* a version of an article, then to protect it ?" (admin abuse blah blah blah)

Then, I was reminded on irc that it was indeed the "ignore all rules" page, so ignoring rules on this page indeed might make sense.

Anthere

Anthere - cries of "OMG ADMIN ABUSE!" aside, if you look up, you'll see that protecting the page led to actual productive discussion on the talk page. (I have, btw, unprotected the page) Raul654 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you unprotected the page Raul. I stay a bit perplex otherwise. Especially when you are running for stewardship right now. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006#Raul654. It is a bit embarassing, but I think it is fair to mention the fact. I also support not following rules sometimes, but I find odd to justify it afterwards. Errr, I can not put exactly my finger on this. But well.... ant

The rules say you shouldn't revert to your preferred version when you are in an edit war. I don't consider protecting the "stable version" (CDB's words) created by and agreed upon by more-or-less everyone to be reverting to my preferred version (Or, to put it another way, Ashibaka was being bold, I found the new version unacceptable and reverted back. At that point, he should have discussed rather than re-reverted). Nor do I consider my single prior revert to be an edit war. And for that matter, I unprotected it myself hours later. Furthermore, after reading the previous comments on this talk page, Ashibaka agrees that the parts I was reverting to keep in should be in there. All in all, I think this was just a minor misunderstanding. Raul654 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. All is well then. Cheers Anthere

In other words, "Do as I say, not as I do." Sorry, Raul654, but adminship is a position of trust, and the fact that you have chosen to defend your faux pas as "yielding productive discussion" rather than simply apologizing for failure to follow the rules speaks volumes to your fundamental lack of respect for the Wikipedia community. // NetEsq 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. That interpretation of ignore all rules basically equates to 'these are the rules for everyone... except admins', which is really just a paraphrase of 'All animals are equal... but some are more equal than others.'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it *NOT* make sense, but Raul654 has clearly fallen on his own sword, as he is unable to follow the rules that he considers so essential to the proper functioning of Wikipedia. . . .

You want rules!

You want rules!

. . . No rules for you!!!

// NetEsq 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arguably protecting it in a prior stable version is the proper response to an edit war under policy. Granted calling those changes an 'edit war' is a stretch, and Raul654's one prior edit might have been taken to kick in the 'not allowed if you are involved' clause... but we aren't talking about sending Boxer to the glue factory here. At most it's a minor violation... on technicalities. Which is not to say that I'm in favor of such... I'm not. I just am in favor of keeping a sense of perspective about things. Teeny tiny hypothetical violation... actual moderately productive results. I can deal. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Had Raul654 simply apologized, I could have bought into the "minor violation" theory. But he didn't apologize. Rather, he defended his faux pas and made a counteraccusation (i.e., a "personal attack") against the respected Wikipedian who pointed out his faux pas. On this note, I am prepared to modify IAR in one very minor way: "IAR does not apply to Wikipedia administrators, as they are charged with the responsibility of enforcing Wikipedia's rules and policies and are presumed to have an intimate understanding and appreciation of said rules and policies." // NetEsq 16:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand he locked it because the version he's hacked out is integral to ArbCom findings of fact. Another reason to disambiguate this page. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's integral to the arbcom rulings, per se -- it's more that it's important to help demistify the cult of "ignore all rules" that has sprung up, since (as my stated above in my comments about this page being misnamed) it's not really about ignoring all rules as it is about improving the encyclopedia and avoiding the occasions were process gets in the way. Raul654 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Resolved: Wikipedia administrators are not allowed to "ignore all rules."

Undisputed fact: Raul654 is a Wikipedia administrator.

Undisputed fact: Raul654 did, in fact, ignore Wikipedia policies and rules when he reverted and protected the IAR article.

Undisputed fact: Raul654 has yet to apologize for his failure to observe Wikipedia's policies and rules and continues to defend his actions as purportedly being a GoodThing(TM) because it purportedly "led to actual productive discussion" and because (according to Raul 654) "it's important to help demistify[sic] the cult of 'ignore all rules' that has sprung up."

Equivocate all you want. It doesn't change the facts, nor does it make a "technical" violation of the rules by a Wikipedia administrator any less of a violation. If Raul654 did, in fact, wilfully break the rules simply to make or prove a point, then he violated the trust that was placed in him as a Wikipedia administrator. // NetEsq 19:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

...why responding to NetEsq is a waste of time. Raul654 19:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Raul654. // NetEsq 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul, how about I write up Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/temp and if it gets to a version that you like, you can unlock the page, move it in, and move the current page to Wikipedia:Product over process where you can work on turning it into an official policy rather than just an "important page".

Alternatively, I can join NetEsq in being rather P.O.'ed about your locking the page despite your involvement in the dispute, and cast about for more help. Maybe he is a troll but he has a good point. Ashibaka tock 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pssst... he unblocked it earlier. Pass it on. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) As CBD said, the page is already unlocked, and has been for many hours (2) Rather than the complex reorganization you propose, I'd rather simply move the page (as is) to Wikipedia:Product over process Raul654 19:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't notice. Okay, I'm just going to move it and place a message at IAR to invite a long-term solution. Ashibaka tock 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back - I didn't spot this discussion, but it doesn't seem like a significant consensus. I think it's a little too bold. If you must move it, at least remember to check the box to move the talk page with it, please. Deco 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

<< I'd rather simply move the page (as is) to Wikipedia:Product over process >>

I remain opposed to the move/rename of this page, particularly if that rename should be to "product over process." Whether or not IAR still enjoys popular support in its original form, it's importance as a policy that was once unabashedly embraced should not be marginalized. // NetEsq 21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to renaming/moving this page to anything. At least so long as the title is "Ignore all rules" people can change the content all they like, the effect of the page name won't become any less. But changing the title to something else would neuter this to the point of being unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since some people only read the bottom of this page, I thought I'd repeat something I added above, which was the idea of changing pillar #5 to be bold in evolving articles and Wikipedia policies. This emphasizes everyone's empowerment in accelerating the improvement of the rules as opposed to suggesting they be ignored. I don't really care for product over process because I feel like that's sorta like ends justify the means, which creates a lot of tension (rightfully so, IMO, especially in the case of admin actions). Metaeducation 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Change proposal

I propose changing this clause:

Be careful when taking widescale actions which break rules and a significant number of people will disagree with.

To read like this:

Don't take widescale actions which break rules and a significant number of people will disagree with.

Haukur 13:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've condensed the page again and simply dropped this language, as the guidance applies just as well to actions and disagreements on a small scale.

Also, somebody added for everybody to the end of "make the encyclopedia better", requesting an explanation if this was reverted. Having removed this, herewith the explanation. It's unnecessary and simply too broad, inviting people to cry that insisting on a neutral point of view "doesn't make the encyclopedia better for me and my point of view." Implying that we're trying to please everybody encourages some to undermine the process of working toward a consensus. --Michael Snow 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I still think getting the following sentiment more clearly into the page would be helpful:

Do not take actions which break rules if you think a significant number of people will disagree with them. That's not cutting through red tape, that's just being a dick :) - Haukur 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change. In certain cases, it's necessary to make disruptive changes that a significant number of people disagree with, as long as they enjoy enough support that there is consensus. Consensus is what makes decisions on Wikipedia. Deco 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, how about this:

Do not take actions which break rules if you think there is no consensus for them. That's not cutting through red tape, that's just being a dick :)

- Haukur 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a new proposal.

Do not take actions which break rules if you know that there is no consensus for those actions and you think that a significant number of people will object to them. That's not cutting through red tape to get things done, that's just trying to have your way by force.

I propose adding something like the above to the page. - Haukur 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done things which 10 people disagreed with, but something like 40 people agreed with directly, 40-60 people agreed indirectly (through previous polls that were along similar lines, but not a perfect match) and 200+ people got saved a lot of work that day.

But since a significant number of people (10) disagreed, should I not have done it?

(note that this problem had real time priority. Had I not taken action, 200+ people would have been inconvenienced, and some number would have left wikipedia, as is usual in situations with such large pileons)

Kim Bruning 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if it's urgent and there's consensus for it then I don't see a problem. - Haukur 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hmm. Tell you what, I just noticed your proposal violates WP:BEANS! ;-)

I'd prefer IAR to stand alone. If you must remark, why not on the talk page?

But then, if you must remark, and wish to stay on the good side of WP:BEANS, perhaps an Ignore all rules manual page might be appropriate:

IAR Manual

Once you have determined that to Ignore All Rules is the only way to proceed, you need not be entirely without guidence. Research existing guidelines first to see if there is anything tangentially related at least.

Failing that, look at previous admin descisions, polls that are tangentially related, and perhaps check meta and meatball to see if there has been discussion in related areas. As a last resort, check other wikimedia wikis, or other sources entirely. Go wild.

If there's really nothing out there that's close, you'll have to be creative.

But whatever you do:try to at least stay as close to existing policy as possible. A skilled application of Ignore all rules should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all.

Finally, if you notice that your application of ignore all rules has worked well (ie, it flew under the radar, or you were complimented) , write down what you did in the wikipedia: namespace, either by editing existing guideline pages, or by creating a new page, and marking it as a guideline. Further iterations of ignore all rules can then be based off your work.

In this manner, wikipedia guidelines become fluid and effortless.

Note that this is not a new proposal. It is just an explanation as to how much of the wikipedia guidelines have been created over time, but no one has bothered to write down.

Kim Bruning 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

New name for article

This is clearly the goal of the article, call it:

Wikipedia: Rules are meant to be broken.

That is, petty rule breaks aren't a big deal if the person isn't being a dick.--Urthogie 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. I obviously support this.--Urthogie 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No offense to you, but this proposal is equally or even more rediculous than the Current "Ignore all rules" Concept. It's like building a house with perfectly good doors than saying to people "Hey, use the Doors." Then, out of the blue, someone yells, hey "Rules are meant to be broken!" and the Incredible Hulk walks through the wall, while Spider-Man breaks your windows swinging through. And whiles its kinda Cool that the Hulk and Spider-man are in your house - You've now got broken windows and walls with holes in them... Makenji-san 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
2. This won't help anything. We need to make a disambig at this page to the actual policy pages it represents, and keep the 2002 text, explaining how it's useful, like I proposed at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/temp. Ashibaka tock 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Wow! That's a far better text than the current one we have. - Haukur 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Changing the name would take what little meaning remains and flush it down the toilet. People can muck about with the body of this page all day long, but they can't change the Ignore all rules title (short of moving it as you're proposing). I'm strongly against any attempt to rename/move this. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. That's even worse. Sorry. --causa sui ^talk 13:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• It rather reminds me of some Star Trek novel I read that said some nonsense like it was noble to have a Starfleet that made rules and then put loose cannons like Captain Kirk in charge in order to break them or something. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  03:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rules are meant to be broken doesn't mean please break the rules, it means sometimes rules have to be broken to help wikipedia advance. P.S I feel like I just walked into the Middle East and am being attacked by Arabs and Israelis ahhh!!! :) --Urthogie 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Forge 2006

Moved to /Consensus Forge 2006

WP:IAR should be deprecated

While I understand the history and tradition behind WP:IAR, the recent spate of wheel warring is the writing on the wall. It's time to get rid of this policy, which now ill-serves the Wikipedia community.

Dealing with blatant trolls and vandals is easy. Dealing with serious disputes between good-faith users is hard. WP:IAR makes it incalculably harder, since anyone can cite it to justify literally anything that they want to do. The caveats are no help, since, by definition, good-faith users think that what they are doing is right, that it will help in writing an encyclopedia, and so forth. Furthermore, almost all uses of WP:IAR are destructive: after all, it only gets brought up when someone is caught violating a policy or principle. It's very common for WP:IAR to be cited by people who want to violate consensus. Also, when WP:IAR is combined with administrative powers, other users are all too easily caught in the crossfire. What was meant to be a liberating rule becomes a reign of terror for those not fortunate enough to have the sysop bit flagged in the system. As Isaiah Berlin once put it, "liberty for the pike is death for the trout".

WP:IAR simply has not scaled. It may have made sense when Wikipedia was a small community and everyone knew and trusted one another - frankly, I can't be sure, since I wasn't here back then. But it is wholly inappropriate for the huge virtual community that Wikipedia is now. (Yes, I know the community is only a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. But we need it, or no work could get done.) It's time for Wikipedia to grow up. In the words of St. Paul: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." WP:IAR is one of those childish things; let's put it on a historical toy shelf and get back to the serious business of writing an encyclopedia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not deprecated, but rewritten and moved to Wikipedia:Use common sense. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ARGH!!! Already there! Then merge! —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In real world courts, a lot of people try the insanity defence as a last resort to not be hanged. On wikipedia, a lot of people cite Ignore All Rules in a similar way, as a last resort. Neither of these should be deprecated however, irl or wiki, as both also serve a valid purpose. Kim Bruning 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to merge into Wikipedia:Use common sense. The IAR invocations I've seen in the past month are sorely lacking in common sense. —James S. 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

But the invocations from other times don't count? I've managed to do a lot of good using ignore all rules. It'd be a shame to see it get taken down due to percieved abuse by a few. Especially since it's a cornerstone to quite a few policies, and policy creation besides (#IAR_Manual) . Kim Bruning 08:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

but you were doing it with common sense. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the combination of ignoring existing rules and using common sense that does it. ;-) Using either alone won't get you there. Kim Bruning 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that one can attempt to use IAR as an excuse for anything, but it is not a valid excuse for anything - even IAR is ultimately at the behest of consensus and the community, and every attempt to invoke it must be weighed by rational affected contributors. The effect, which I consider positive, is that we can't settle every dispute by pointing to hard rules dictating the answer - with every violation must come thoughtful consideration of whether that violation is justified and whether the rule should itself be revised. Deco 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an unjustified assumption by some that rules will save us from the kind of problems mentioned. They won't. People should argue their case on its merits, not by competing rule citations. There need to be rules, but they need to be guidelines and advice, not laws. --Khendon 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump

Wrote up a thing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive S#Ignore_all_rules. Ashibaka tock 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename/move to Wikipedia:Use common sense

Per a comment on Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll, and some discussion I have seen above, this page should be moved to Wikipedia:Use common sense (WP:UCS), which is slightly more accurate: we are not telling everone to ignore all of the rules all of the time, but rather to avoid becoming hidebound by the rules if and when they give a silly result. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Kim Bruning 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Disagree" with the proposed move, or that "use common sense" is a more accurate formulation than "ignore all rules"? Do you think IAR actually means "ignore all rules"? (Ignore the manual of style? Ignore consensus? Ignore civility?)

It is worth noting that WP:UCS redirects here. Having thought about it further, I think this policy is a restatement of WP:DICK. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• The only real reason this page is still called "ignore all rules" is because that phrase is a meme perpetuated by some of the older 'pedians. UCS redirects here because this page was briefly renamed "use common sense" (which I agree is a better name). Also, "ignore most rules" may be better since ignoring e.g. WP:POINT or WP:NPA is bound to get you in trouble. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've ignored those too at times (but only when I really really had to). It works ;-) As stated earlier: it's the combination of ignoring rules but still applying common sense that does it. Kim Bruning 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe IAR is about "use common sense". A more accurate name would be, taken from the original one-liner page text, "Don't worry too much about rules" - in other words, it's good to know rules and follow them most of the time, but go ahead and edit however you think is best, and don't worry about what rules you might be breaking, especially when they don't make sense in a particular situation. If there is objection, you can deal with that as it arises, taking existing policy into account in the discussion, and possibly pushing feedback back to the rule page for updating. It is ultimately not a policy or a guideline, but a statement about our culture: we expect the rules to carry weight and respect, but we don't expect the rules to be strictly followed in all circumstances - they're just a means of organization and dispute resolution that should be taken with a grain of salt and should be revisited often. Deco 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the newer versions of IAR basically says to follow common sense mostly to explain how not to misuse IAR. I've went ahead and split the two versions to the different pages. The IAR fundementalists will still have the original point of IAR, and Wikipedia:Common sense will have have the reasoning behind the point. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work. This is an eminently sensible solution. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobility

Only arbcom is nobility! :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Result of IRC discussion

Basically, this page isn't going anywhere. Because it's very old, and people like it.

However, I still think it can be rewritten to state a policy, if you do it well. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WOAH! This is actually going places. :-) Cool beans. :-) Arigato Ashibaka! :-) Kim Bruning 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to codify "ignore all rules" is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Ambi 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. Isn't it cool? (then again, I lack some amount of sleep, maybe when I wake up again I'll have a different point of view. Then again, maybe not. :-) ) Kim Bruning 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Because it's very old, and people like it." My personal opinion is that if you put the current version to a new survey, that it would be much less popular than the very basic pre-November 2005 version. If someone didn't understand the import of the original version, they aren't going to understand the newer, much larger version. ^BlankVerse 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been over and over. Nobody likes any version. I tried to put it up on the Village Pump, to restore the 2002 version with commentary, but I learned on IRC that the Pump was the wrong way to enact changes to IAR. The right way is to not change it. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)