Wikipedia talk:Understanding IAR

I chose not to spell out IAR as "Ignore all rules" because I feel this title "scans" better, despite it being an acronym. Maybe some day this will be folded into WP:IAR itself, in which case, the title won't matter.--Father Goose (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperate?

Why isn't this on WP:IAR itself? - Pureblade | ^Θ 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a few people there who are insisting that WP:IAR should be 12 words with no further explanation.

Wikipedia can be very frustrating sometimes.--Father Goose (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose - There are 3 (or 4) proposals under consideration at talk:IAR; I think this the best, (better than myDraft, probably) as they go. If it gets up, it will need a "See also" section, no doubt. --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge (1)

In concept, it doesn't differ from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, only in form - please merge and don't clutter the important thing with links. Thanks, Миша13 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This page has several minor issues that WIARM does not have. This does not preclude a merge, I suppose, but does require a heck of a lot of cleanup.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the minor issues? WIARM itself has more major issues, imo -- namely that a more fragmented and incomplete (though still decent) explanation of IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in concept, this page doesn't differ from IAR itself: the text on this page is IAR, expressed more accessibly than what is on the present IAR page.--Father Goose (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to systematically list them, and then I remembered I could just edit. So I did. :-D I may have still missed some though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a fine essay, but a merge discussion is premature. WIARM is on point and preserves the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. WIARM's long standing consensus explanation of IAR, addresses all the concerns, withought the uncertainty of "new" content or the drama by introducing an essay, created yesterday.--Hu12 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion best centralized on the discussion page for Ignore all rules, whilst continuing here, and at this page. At talk:IAR, I took the liberty of summarizing some sections, and moving some. HTH--Newbyguesses - Talk 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discusion is happening here. Your suggesting to centralize discussion in 3 places? *confused*--Hu12 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discusion is happening here. (sic) as. If I am expected to be in three places at once, it is difficult to disagree that I am *confused*. Will try to pay more attention, Pardon? --Newbyguesses - Talk 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ment I was confused, however being in three places at once is not always a bad thing .. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I been here and 'there' and also, there <drama> and um, where was I? Oh, yeah, Merge Y/N Hmm.--Newbyguesses - Talk 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I removed the Viriditas quote

I do like that quote, and I agree with much of it. However, I think we can't get away with saying "[the rules] exist for three reasons"; they exist for a myriad of reasons that can't be reduced to the three given, although the three given are good and important ones.

I especially dislike "there are almost as many ways to express IAR as there are users"; what we should be striving for is one really good way to express it. I want a single explanation of IAR that most people can agree upon, presented with as much clarity as possible for the sake of those who will read it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree Father Goose, I take your point. It were a suggestion, and i may re-use the quote somewhere else. --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for introducing me to the quote. I'll put it in my Rolodex also.--Father Goose (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The two most important implications

Unless someone points out other implications with equal importance, I assert that those two implications are the two most important. They come up time and time again when people discuss or explain IAR. They are the Big Two -- not to the exclusion of other implications, but they are the two most important implications all the same.--Father Goose (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree and agree (twice). --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My latest "attempt". Actually, "primary" is wrong (can't have 2 primaries), but "this policy" *linked*, I hope, works. --Newbyguesses --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. Seen it before, I think, and now I am no longer confused, truly. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BOLD vs. BRD

(to Kim) I changed the link in the last paragraph back to BRD; it is in a section relating to disputes, which is where BRD comes into play instead of regular old Bold. Boldness in general is vital, however, so I added it to the beginning of the "Successfully ignoring rules" section.

BRD is about more than just "finding interested parties"; it is also about experimenting with solutions to a dispute without discussing them first. I very pleasingly put it into use just the other day: Talk:Vespa#Picture no picture picture no picture. Result: edit war over.--Father Goose (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Document at WP:BRD! Possibly there's a page on wiki-editing stuck split someplace between WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD which is what we should actually be promoting. We should totally write one. When there's some time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "If it ain't written down, it never happened"

Yeah, I've been meaning to rewrite BRD in a big way. But you know how rewriting policy (or pseudopolicy) is; you have to be masochist, and I'm getting all the lumps I need with IAR right now. I'll drag my cleaver over to BRD later.--Father Goose (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A machete? In the jungle? Seems sane enough. ;)--Newbyguesses - Talk 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Urk. But BRD is easy, btw. It just needs to be descriptive... which... is very hard if you don't use it often. ^^;; Maybe you can help with a page on Wikipedia:Wiki-editing process sometime. It's weird that we don't have a page describing foundation issue #3. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia's documentation is sorely lacking or disjointed. Who's running this place?!--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to run it, but I get a lot of opposition. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales talks to G-d, then G-d and Kim Bruning chuckle quietly together <smiley> --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Eek! Please no. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

20% off!

Based on Kim's feedback (and 1==2's, over at WT:IAR), I decided to scrap the entire last paragraph. While dispute resolution can be an important component of putting IAR into practice, advice on how to do so goes beyond an explanation of IAR. The paragraph also contained various contentious points, and was perhaps flat-out wrong in certain respects. I replaced it with a brief mention of consensus, as it relates to IAR, and left it at that.--Father Goose (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. This does leave the previous paragraph unbalanced, as it keeps talking about taking things to talk now. (while in reality it's supposed to be a cycle... hmm) <tries something> --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh

No doubt about it, this paragraph needs the most work. I write it, Kim rewrites it, I remove it, Kim expands it, Franamax overwrites it with my original draft.

We'll sort it out eventually.--Father Goose (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Paradigm shift

I tried rewriting GTBacchus' quote for a while, but ultimately I had trouble integrating it with the rest of the section. It has a scolding quality to it ("it's hard to accept that Wikipedia works this way") that I think I'd rather avoid.

If we manage to just describe how Wikipedia works and why it works, I think we can avoid making assertions about how people respond to it, though such assertions may be true (sometimes).--Father Goose (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I managed to reword it okay. Not sure how the general population will take to it though.--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This misses the concept of {{sofixit}} again. When in doubt, we're a wiki, edit the darn page already, get your friends and have them help. have fun! :-)...

I'm starting to get worried because lots of people seem to have forgotten that ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I keep telling people that one day I'll be banned as a troll because I'll just keep insisting that wikipedia is a wiki and an encyclopedia. They didn't used to believe me. Now? Who knows. :-P

Actually, in this thread I was only referring to the paragraph that now reads ("Wikipedia's rules are thus not 'rules' in the traditional sense..."). You're responding to the rewrite of the last paragraph of the successfully ignoring rules section, which has continued to be the hardest to write correctly.

I felt the latest rewrite strengthened the sofixit aspect, by emphasizing BRD more prominently in the third paragraph. In fact, I see the whole successfully ignoring section as sort of paralleling BRD overall: first paragraph is "be bold"; second paragraph is "hey, that's a rule" (revert); third paragraph is discuss (and continue to be bold).

There remains the fine question of what consensus is and what you have to do about it, which I'll pick up in the next thread in my response to Franamax.--Father Goose (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess you're right. If it was easy, it'd have been done already. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This any better? As soon as we get the kinks worked out here, I'm bringing it back to IAR as a proposed replacement.--Father Goose (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That could be tricksy. ;-) People tend to sneak kinks back in, then edit war over them... (one advantage of the 12 word version is that it's very hard to be sneaky ;-) ). Hmph. We'll see! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The disadvantage is that nobody realizes how rules on Wikipedia work because IAR is an enigma when it doesn't have to be. I think the failure to make IAR understandable is more than anything what has made it possible to abuse Wikipedia via its rules. Time to re-arm all editors with what they need to know to counteract the bashers and powermongers.

So, is UIAR is more or less correct now? Kim? Franamax? Anyone else?--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest change "imitate" to "adopt" so it sounds less slavish. Also, what about something short about "can ignore rules, can not ignore principles" to cover the recent debate at Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#So_it_just_occurred_to_me...? Franamax (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Although actually, I would be quite content with this the way it is at the time I write this (I changed a word), and I would suggest it be proposed as a guideline. Franamax (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Follow", that was a good choice.

I pondered rules vs. principles a bit, but you can dispute the principles as well. For instance, IAR itself, as one of the five core principles, might conceivably get overthrown some day. (God forbid, but given the way things are trending... well.) I also pondered mentioning that policies usually convey principles which are less likely to come into question than guidelines, but you ignore both in the same way for the same reasons, so no point in making polices "scarier". If there happens to be a more solid consensus for policies, that will come out during discussion.--Father Goose (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that you can dispute principles - but you can not dispute them within IAR. Make representations to the board, create a fork, become a vandal. This ain't the place for that discussion. I'll cling to my naive optimism about "the way things are trending". And also, "consensus for policies" is already covered under keep advocating for a different approach - and is beyond our scope, this isn't the entire philosophy of wikis here, we still need the simple approach. Franamax (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR also (and most importantly) applies to Outside Context Problems, where your principles are not just wrong, they're toast. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (If IAR does not apply to OCPs, then the next time an OCP occurs, wikipedia is toast. :-P)

We might be flirting with a semantic disagreement here. You can reject the application of a rule if you don't think the reasons for applying it are sound, just like you can reject applying a principle if you think the reasons for doing so are not sound. As long as you can demonstrate that you have a reason for ignoring even a principle, you shouldn't get in trouble for ignoring it. That said, maybe no one will agree with your reason, and you shouldn't push your luck (hmm, I'm starting to think maybe we should mention WP:EDITWAR after all...)

What you truly can't do is ignore office actions (which I guess means WP:OFFICE is the one rule you can't ignore). Office actions are generally done for legal reasons, and may or may not be done in accordance with existing rules. You also can't ignore technical limitations of the Mediawiki software; as has been expressed somewhere else, the only real rules are software code. The Foundation can enforce its views through that code -- some of the most profound changes in principles were made more or less by fiat by the Foundation when they added article semi-protection and disallowed new users from creating pages (i.e., the right to edit without registering, a supposed "Foundation issue", was partially revoked). But those things, while interesting, are kind of academic where IAR is concerned.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes maybe this is semantics, or lack of clarity on my part. I'm trying to say that IAR must always operate within certain limits: if you ignore the rules and post a flat-out lie about Kim Bruning getting arrested at the Oscar Awards, IAR won't help; if WMF decrees a deadline for non-free image compliance, IAR will still end up in a redlink where your picture was; if the servers get shut down, IAR will not make en.wikipedia.org do anything in your browser. I'm not sure whether those aspects need to be mentioned here, they tend to creep beyond the scope of this (viz. my tirade below:) - this is a solid launching pad, the community will fill you in on the rest. Really, the main thing we want to convey is: think freely; respect others; observe limits to behaviour. Is there more? Franamax (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, WIARM has a part explaining where you always need to (be able to) provide a (debatable) rationale for each edit or action you make on wikipedia, which is still missing here. Didn't I see you write something about that somewhere once?--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in there, though not very emphatically:

"If you disagree with it, however, you should explain why you disagree with it. With any luck, other editors will respond, and either explain to you why they feel the rule is worth following..."

Maybe part of what Franamax just added can be used to strengthen or broaden it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Successfully ignoring rules

I'm a little uncomfortable with the way the third paragraph currently reads. The consensus policy seems to specifically rule out "If most of the commenting editors favor a given approach, that is the approach that should be followed" where it says consensus is based on sound reasoning, not numerical counts. How about "If the commenting editors have sound reasons to favor..."? I dunno, something better than the current statement would be nice. Franamax (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A start. There's several issues I think... --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is evil.

...to describe.

On some level, I'd rather avoid saying anything other than "form a consensus", since consensus is an invisible pink unicorn. However, to successfully ignore rules, you do have to know at least a bit about what it is, what it isn't, and how to form it. I've attempted yet another rewrite of that last paragraph, and I'm starting to be happy with it, though maybe in an hour, I won't be.

I'd like to rule out the "sound reasoning" approach to describing it, at the very least. Everyone's reason is The Only Sound Reason, so I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think FG is using "sound reasoning" here :) Rather than keep commenting here, I'm going to put in -sigh- another paragraph that I think will express the clarity I would like to see brought to bear. I won't be surprised if it gets hacked apart, just putting it out there. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll hack it apart here:

• Remember that if you want to ignore a rule, it is up to you to justify why doing so will help the encyclopedia.

Half correct; you also have to justify why enforcing a rule will help the encyclopedia. This pair of points is worth making somewhere in UIAR, though.

• If you find yourself reverted, don't start edit warring just because we have a policy to ignore all rules.

True, but in an earlier draft I mentioned "don't edit war" and Kim pointed out that it verged on WP:BEANS. If we explain the other stuff correctly, we can leave out WP:EW altogether.

• If you find that people disagree with your change, you should consider their reasons very carefully to decide where consensus lies.

Well, either you disagree with their reasons or you don't; that alone doesn't tell you where consensus lies. I know where consensus lies, inside of your heart, doo doo doo, doo doo doo.

• You can ignore rules, but you can't ignore consensus.

Wrong. If a group of editors decides to totally disregard WP:COPYVIO, the material has to be removed anyway. That's not to say COPYVIO is inviolable; someone might be interpreting it wrongly, or there might be a sensible rationale for violating it in a limited way. You can potentially ignore a local or transient consensus; one group of editors might come to a decision that another (or larger) group would disagree with. (This is what WP:CCC is about.) This is partly what makes consensus so hard to nail down; decisions on Wikipedia are non-binding.--Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a "the" in there we can keep? :)

• Presumably the rule exists because it has already been deemed valuable and has consensus. Placing a reverse onus might not be helpful (BEANS, since you mention it). Also, the "Why have rules" section above covers the other half somewhat.
• The edit war thing, I'm thinking of Hu12's comments elsewhere that IAR is used to justify too much, and in my opinion, a big part of ignoring rules is to back off, and I was actually thinking of your version. I think a specific injunction to not edit war is helpful for the newcomer (experienced users have hopefully already grasped what IAR means). Did Kim object in normal text or as a footnote:) ?
• Again, a reminder for newcomers to think about what you're doing and consider the possibility you may be wrong. An attempt to incorporate the tension in "consensus" between sound reasons and majority.
• And the final sentence is again a vague lesson for the newcomer. Maybe better would be "You can ignore rules, but you can't ignore consensus that is consistent with the basic principles of Wikipedia"? That covers your copyvio point and the part about never violating (the meaning of) NPOV, etc.

As we all agree, this is a difficult thing to nail down precisely. I think we'll always be left with some loose ends. I was trying to put down some points easily assimilable by the new reader. Once they're familiar with the whole concept, they won't need to refer back here anyway. They'll just be doing all these things as a matter of course. Franamax (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am thinking about a good place to insert the "always have a good reason" idea. Kim seems to favor something like it as well.

Edit-warring is not necessarily justified even when enforcing rules, let alone ignoring them, so I'm sort of doubtful about Hu12's worries that people try to justify edit-warring due to IAR; they try to justify it when wrongly bashing with other policies as well. I'm on the fence about whether we should mention edit-warring in UIAR. Newbyguesses, or anyone else watching this page, got an opinion about this? BTW, Kim brought up beans in an edit summary on the 8th. And we ate them.

I have serious doubts that telling someone to consider that they may be wrong is going to make them consider that they may be wrong. Anybody who's actually even-handed doesn't need to be told that, and everyone else will ignore it. Furthermore, this page is an explanation of IAR, not of all of Wikipedia (and I want to position it to become IAR itself), so the more we talk about dispute resolution, the more off course we get. Cover the basics and let the linked-to pages handle the rest. That we have as good a summary of dispute resolution as we do in one paragraph is nice, but I would also be prepared to toss it altogether for going beyond the scope of IAR.

As I mentioned above, you can call even the "principles" into question, or how they are interpreted. The most accurate thing one could say on this level is something that's been suggested over at IAR a few times -- "you can ignore the rules, but you cannot ignore other people". But that's basically a restatement of the advice we're giving on how to achieve things through consensus, in too vague a manner to be useful anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined not to mention edit-warring in UIAR for 2 reasons. 1) It aint a pleasant topic - lets pretend it never happens. 2) I am in agreement pretty much with until(1==2), in that I dont come across people using IAR as an excuse to edit war - who needs an excuse. You agree FG on that point, also? Dispute resolution is off-topic as well I think and yeah, describing pink unicorns sorry, consensus as "not ignoring people" is too vague. 2cents --Newbyguesses - Talk 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by the intended scope here. Is this intended to be a definitive statement of how to act in every situation on en:wiki? Are we trying to establish a set of prescriptions and interpretations for every user? Or would we be better off creating an essay meaningful to the new editor exploring the site and learning the limits? An essay (or guideline) that an experienced editor could come back and read, and think "you know, there's a lot more issues, but I basically agree with this, I've been here two years and it still makes sense"?

I don't understand where in "don't edit war" there is an encouragement to edit war. Yes, there will be people who will still think they're right no matter what - but UIAR is not designed to address them anyway, we've got BLOCK and RBI for that. We need a clear guideline with easily demonstrable principles, something that people can refer to as they develop within Wikipedia. We don't have to express the torment within our own souls, they'll develop that all by themselves. It's really pretty good right now (unless it's changed by the time I save lol :) Franamax (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did remove your paragraph, but I re-added the two points "don't edit war" and "justify your choices". Unless people want to hack at it some more, in the next day or two I'll bring all of this over to the IAR/Workshop and pitch it as a replacement for the current IAR page.--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is an invisible pink unicorn

Here is another statement about what we call " consensus. If nobody bothers to edit the page, that is the best test of whether the current state has consensus. On the other hand, anyone can break that consensus at any time by editing the page - there is no stare decisis on wikipedia." — per Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) [1]. stare decisis -- ("to stand by things decided") is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Essence, beginnings, and other beasts

I'm not saying "the essence of ignorance" is the perfect wording, but the two items in that section aren't the "beginning" of IAR, they are its core, which is why I chose "essence". It also has a bit of consonance to it, which I like. I flipped through the thesaurus just now but didn't see anything I liked better. (I don't want "core" or anything blunt like that, either; I expect 1==2 would pick nits with words that were too assertive.)

I can see why you wouldn't like it if "essence" suggests "perfume" to you, but that isn't a strong association for me.--Father Goose (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Maybe I didn't say it so nicely :) Franamax (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I could go with "the beginnings of successful ignorance", that sounds catchy. Sorry I couldnt come up with anything better. The dislike of perfume is personal, and thus of no great import. A positive association I was trying to invoke was with The Getting of Wisdom, a movie or novel . But just chopping and changing a word here and there needs more finesse than I at times possess. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another beastly thing - our article on essence apparently is a bit light on references. It ought really to be quintessence, though that may not be right either, it is only a Dab page and leads to an Obsolete scientific theory, Aether. How about the "essentials" of innocence? (But why bother with all this over one word, it's fine as is). --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus statements

In its current form, I don't believe this section belongs here, though it has some potential. I'll leave it until I think about it some more. I certainly do agree with the general advice -- "give your reasons" -- although that is already in the "Successfully ignoring rules" section ("you should explain why you disagree with it... other editors [should]... explain to you why they feel the rule is worth following"). However, perhaps that should be stated more emphatically.

As for the phrase "consensus statement", I think the usual word for that is "rationale".--Father Goose (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten "Successfully ignoring rules" to try to emphasize these points better.--Father Goose (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically in a consensus system...

• You must provide a rationale for your actions, if you want your actions to gain consensus.
• Typically this is less important when you are doing things that you feel are 99% likely to have consensus anyway, though you still need to be able to do so, for the remaining 1% chance. (and if you make 100 edits, there you go already)
• it might be a good idea to formulate that statement upfront, before you take an action. (it helps to distill your thoughts, and you can check it against existing consensus/documentation of consensus (aka policy/guidelines/essays/talk pages/etc)
• the rationale ideally has 2 pairs of components (for a total of 4).
  1. A personal reason why you are in support of the action you are taking
  2. What would theoretically needs to be said or done to make you reverse that position
  3. A reason why you think others (will) support you (ie, why is this likely to gain consensus)
  4. What likely would need to be said or done to reverse the position of the community.
• Note that this rationale must exist on the wiki. WARNING: If for whatever reason you cannot provide a rationale in this form on the wiki, do not take that action! The longer you hold off on providing a rationale, the more trouble you can get in to.
• It turns out that people can demand a rationale from you at any time. If you really cannot provide one, make one up on the spot and hope it's good enough. If you're desperate, I figure even lying will work, but you'd better pray you never get found out! But whatever you do, provide that rationale!
• The above is an observation, your life gets a heck of a lot easier if you do it.
• People have gotten into massive amounts of trouble for not doing it.
• The first person to say one of "I don't know if this is a good idea" or "I don't think we should make people do this" is going to get laughed at :-P (it's an observation/ description. The community works like that, whether we like it or not, whether we should or not)

It's gotta be explained someplace... but where does it go? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BRD? Or maybe a new essay?

I'm not sure it's 100% true, anyway; too many rationales amount to "It's better the other way", and no one gets in trouble for saying nothing more than that. Where policy pages are concerned, you can even stonewall with the "discuss first" tactic and I've never seen anyone get in trouble for that, either.--Father Goose (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately they only get in trouble for edit-warring, and then only if they're complete idiots and don't obey the "electric fence". More often a page just gets locked down, which as I've stated in the past is rarely the right choice.--Father Goose (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or if you're an IP or new user who edit wars (< 3RR) without providing edit summaries... but even then, a trigger-happy admin has to get involved.--Father Goose (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, so either you personally get into trouble, or the project/page you're working on is in trouble. I suppose that if someone stonewalls with inadequate rationales for too long, you can get one other person to support you and start a user conduct RFC, listing each rationale demand as "attempt and failure to discuss". (The "attempt and failure to discuss" requirement is the actual teeth behind the above) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An RFC isn't massive amounts of trouble. You have to be a dick on Viagra before you get in real trouble. And even then you'll be given a dozen more "second chances". All of what you recommend above is certainly commendable, but ignorable except in the most obviously disruptive cases.--Father Goose (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But when people ignore it, the page is definitely screwed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it's time for Wikipedia:How to engage in productive discussion.--Father Goose (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an idea. Hmm, note that sometimes people who ignore the above rules do actually get into trouble though, for instance, see Durova for a literally notorious example. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now much of what you wrote above makes sense. But that is such a rare situation (I hope). You can't play the "confidential evidence" card in any kind of normal wiki editing.--Father Goose (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the above is part of any good scope limiting excersize. Durova's refusal to reply to concernts at AN or on her talk page caused people to meatball:ExpandScope, which can get a lot more nasty than it sounds. (in short, beware!) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues to do with IRC (and consensus), shouldn't that all hang off the Wikipedia:IRC page, or WP:WEA; in particular, the "newly-formed" guidelines, and responsibilities of chanops, in the reddish info-box at WP:IRC. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels, the first issue that FT2 brings up is "ownership" of the various channels, which impacts on the legal position if more control over these channels were sought. I am glad these issues are being discussed, though I am not sure if there is any need for text at this page (or IAR) referring to IRC. I am not sure if WP:CONS needs any text added either, if the issue is fully discussed and documented at the most appropriate place.--Newbyguesses - Talk 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, ok. In the mean time, the text presented here (also) happens to contain a general code of conduct for off-wiki communications. Do you agree or disagree with what is stated? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll say two things about that. One is that I like what's written at Wikipedia:Block#Confidential evidence as regards Durova's unfortunate case. That section gets it just right, in my view.

Another is that I'm not sure what we can do about off-wiki discussions (or worse still, coordination) of on-wiki actions. Here is a notorious case of such behavior: [2], where jayjg accidentally sent an email to the EN list instead of his "pro-Israel" private list. Not a thing was done, despite the clear inappropriateness of this. Normally, people don't stupidly "out" themselves this way, so you can't do anything about that, and it doesn't look like you can do anything about it even when someone is caught, as long as it isn't done in concert with overtly disruptive behavior.

Realistically, is there a way to change this state of affairs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Short of "don't get caught"? :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

To be clear, this is a proposal for guideline and not policy. Discussion of this proposal came from IAR's talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposal is to discern if the community feels Understanding IAR is correct and worthy guidance on the subject of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you feel it isn't correct, please speak up -- or edit it to correct it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There is an old discussion about this above. I've recently completed a merger of both WP:COMMON and WP:NOCOMMON into Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. The existing body text in WP:IAR? could use some... body (pun completely intentional) added to it. In my opinion, it should be converted from a list format into prose, regardless. I should mention as well that this proposed merge is in no way an indictment into the work done here by User:Father Goose and others. I actually plan to supplant a good portion of the content there with the content here, in light of the change to prose style I mentioned before. I'll wait 24 hours before actually starting anything regardless, and I'll be copying items from here to WP:IAR? before redirecting this page there as well. Nothing should be lost, and redundancies will be vastly reduced, but if anyone actually objects then I'm here to listen.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does it need more body. Is the existing version somehow confusing? Who's confused, and about which point? I think the effect of a merge would be to dilute the message here. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it will take some convincing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Essay versus supplement

I'm suspicious about the notion that this or any other essay is a "supplement" to any policy. I've switched to the "interprets" form of template:essay, which to my mind is more in keeping with the idea that this is an essay.

Ignore all rules used to get fat and would regularly have to be pruned to its ideal small size; this was because of the wish of some editors to impose their own interpretations on the policy. These essays (this and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means) are a more appropriate expression of those opinions, but we mustn't mistake them for a representation of anything other than the opinions of the authors, shared by some others. The fact that there are two of them should be a clue. If there is a wish to upgrade these essays to guideline status, that can be done by discussion and seeking wide consensus on their appropriate content. --TS 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

template:quote

I'm not sure why the instance at the bottom is not working.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

{{quote}}

We have 3 quotes on this essay using {{quote}}. We should standardize how they appear.

Do we have consensus of the formatting in the top quote?174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here would be a case where discussion with the disagreeing parties -- i.e., me -- would have been better than trying to bring other parties in straight away. RfCs often bring in no new commentators anyway, and if I didn't know you, I'd be bothered by this seeming attempt to bypass me in the course of our disagreement, petitioning others to try to settle the issue in your favor. You want to (try to) get me to see your points, and to give me a chance to explain my side of things to you. Which is as follows:

Your change to the bottom quote broke the attribution: [3]. I used custom formatting for that one back when it was first put in because {{quote}} doesn't get along with external links and permalinks. Specifically, I subst:'ed the quote template and changed the parts that broke the attribution. I suppose I could try to fix the quote template to no longer barf on external links, but I've got a solution here that's already working.

I accept removing the italics from all the quotes, but I would rather put quotes around the original phrasing of IAR because it's not just an embellishment to the page like the other two quotes. It's saying, "here's how the original phrasing went: 'If rules...'".

The formatting of the attribution of all three is different because the source and the purpose of the quote is radically different in each case; the first one is meant to be a citation, not simply an attribution; the second is a straight-up quote from an author writing in a named source (which is a book, so it should be italicized); and the third is an excerpt from an unnamed poem by a Wikipedia contributor. Each one warrants a different attribution style.

As for your question, "do we have consensus" -- well, shit, you ain't gonna get that through an RfC. You have a reasonable party as your opposition in this case, so please, reason with me. That's how you forge consensus. Polls -- which is what RfCs usually take the form of -- really only work when you know you've got many against few and can steamroller them. (Not that that's consensus either, but in cases of many vs. few, the many generally get their way.)--Father Goose (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the bits of that which are a nastygram/straightforward truth, I agree with what you say. I'm entirely unsure why an RFC is needed here. (And I've reverted two recent changes to the page) Franamax (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no difference between an attribution and a citation.100110100 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The IAR passage is a statement of fact in the midst of the essay, and the footnoted citation is used in the same way all citations-of-sources are used on Wikipedia.

The Bringhurst and NewYorkBrad quotes are stand-alone quotations, and their attributions are part of that stand-alone unit.--Father Goose (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not going to fight with you any more on this. If you still really believe that is how you should format quotes, if you really still see a difference, have it.100110100 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case I think the variations in formatting are called for, given how differently the quotes are being used. I don't mind that the quote templates themselves are now used more consistently, nor do I mind the removal of italics, which I have come to understand is usually not necessary. I believe we can remove the RfC, which I've done.--Father Goose (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)