Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Archives
2002 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006

Straw

People who support/oppose the existence of this policy guideline essay thing.

Supporters

1. WojPob
2. Jimbo Wales
3. AyeSpy
4. OprgaG,
5. Invictus
6. Koyaanis Qatsi,
7. Pinkunicorn
8. sjc
9. Mike Dill
10. Taw
11. GWO
12. NetEsq -- In its original form, which was apparently more or less restored after freedom-loving Wikipedians woke up to the fact that a small group of Johnny-come-lately control freaks with admin status were the only ones ignoring the rules and had restated IAR as, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
13. Anthère
    1. the rule I supported was this one ([1]. It does not imply I support a later version. Anthere 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Lir
15. Rotem Dan -- I think encouraging any constructive contributers is fine (as opposed to vandals and trolls), these folks may learn the do's and dont's in the hard way, but possibly lead the 'pedia into new directions..
16. TheOmnilord -- In a very tongue in cheek way.
17. ☮ Eclecticology Rigidly opposing rigidity.
18. Frecklefoot -- I didn't read all of the 'pedia's rule before contributing. When I needed to know a rule pertaining to something specific, I looked it up.
19. Olathe -- I don't like bureaucracy, but I won't go so far as to start unnecessary wars. I can always undo my changes later if necessary.
20. Fantasy
21. Wikinator
22. [[User:Sverdrup|✏ SverdrupSverdrup]]
23. 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) But Follow with discretion and occasionally ignore this rule. 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
24. Eequor - better to be constructively wrong than destructively right.
25. Guanaco 16:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
26. Snowspinner 05:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This rule is the essence of soft securty vs hard security.
27. The Cunctator 05:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think I'm going to support it again.
28. —siroχo 13:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) within reason. Policy isn't meant to be absolute, but to aid the development of the encyclopedia.
29. CheeseDreams
30. Lst27 (talk) 03:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
31. Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) — Either I don't understand this rule, or people who object to this rule don't understand it. No editor has to know or follow the rules, because others will clean up after them, stop them, or do whatever else they have to do. It's certainly more polite to follow the rules, but in the end what we need is raw material we can polish into good content. Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
32. Amgine
33. Elian this rule is essential to maintain the openess of Wikipedia for goodwilling new contributors (see also de:Benutzer:Elian/Regeln in german)
34. Beta_M. Yes, i was waiting for the rule like that. Otherwise you end up with "good old boy network" where only people who already know what they are doing are welcome to endit anything. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
35. Gubbubu 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) some editors like to use Wikipedia policies for killing other's oppinions. I'm fed up with them. Gubbubu
36. Mindspillage (spill yours?): to me, this guideline is the heart of the project. It does not justify abuse, and it is essential to the project if we are to continue to be open to newcomers and not bound more by policy that the goal of building the content of the encyclopedia. I am disheartened at the growing opposition to this, and think it is misguided. (edited 03:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
37. Dan100
38. JondelI Jondel, do hereby pledge my support and strict obedience to this particular rule in law and spirit and to the best of my abilities. And please don't take this seriously.
39. Kim Bruning 10:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I thought I'd already supported this!
40. Dralwik 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) AMEN.
41. Wgfinley 19:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
42. User-Name 22:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC) A little creativity never hurt anyone.
43. Never realized there was voting on this. older≠wiser 02:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
44. Okay, I'll support now. As long as people are happy and editing. Radiant_* 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
45. human if this is the only rule followed, vandals won't know what rules to break. I think that as WP evolves into a better and better resource, the barrier to newcomers adding information will seem higher - hence referrals to this rule "invite them in" in a friendly way.
46. Sarge Baldy 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
47. malathion
48. Me 04:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
49. Shackleton 20:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) - Seriously, some rules aren't even worth fighting for and exist solely for the sake of standardization, however arbitrary.
50. Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC) - I can't believe I've neglected doing this for so long. Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
51. zachol It could be rephrased, but the general idea (don't feel as if you have to follow the rules perfectly) should still stand. zachol 06:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
52. Acetic Acid It comes in handy, as long as you don't abuse or misinterpret it. 10:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
53. Egg 13:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC) - This rule doesn't say "Wikipedia is anarchy" and it doesn't invalidate all the other considerable rules. I comprehend it as: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
54. Mysidia 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Rules are often right, but often wrong too. Decent practice is more important, and the letter of rules should be ignored sometimes in favor of respecting the desire of the community -- we shouldn't need Wikilawyers, and we needn't fear making vandalism legitimate by retaining IAR.
55. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC) - I like the whole concept of how rules shouldn't get in your way, though calling it "Ignore all rules" may give people the wrong impression
56. --Celestianpower ^hab 23:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
57. Encourages independent thought and innovation, saves wikipedia from choking under the weight of bureaucracy. Self-correcting: IAR cannot successfully be used against consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Those who oppose this idea out of fear of it being abused should rethink their position. It's better to be opposed to abusive editors than to be opposed to IAR. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editing works by consensus, so why not come right out and say that application of rules work by consensus also? It sort of already does, whether we want it to or not. Friday (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
59. David Gerard 13:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm of the opinion that, given enough transparency, communication, and consensus enabling tools, the best content is created through peer proofing, not through administrative content control. --Zephram Stark 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Changed my vote from Support to Oppose when the sentence "Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules does not give administrators the right to make up or enforce their own set of rules." was changed to "Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." I do not support a version that lets administrators use the IAR as an excuse to make up whatever rule they want. --Zephram Stark 17:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
60. — Dan | Talk
61. This doesn't really need a poll, it follows from the nature of the thing. Demi ^T/_C 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
62. Karmafist 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC), although I think it should be a bit more clear.
63. DJ Clayworth 18:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Normally I'm in favour of rules, but we have to remember: the rules are there to make a better encyclopedia.
64. TantalumTelluride 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) — If Jimbo supports it, it must be right.
65. Locke Cole 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
66. The rules are there to help us build a high quality encyclopaedia. If we ever find that adhering to a rule would hinder this aim, then we ignore the rule. Simple as that. David | Talk 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
67. IAR has become a well-entrenched tenet in the Wikipedia community, and is absolutely vital to ensuring that product continues to maintain precedence over process. The day that policy overrides individual discretion and judgement is the day that our project here fails, since a large proportion of what we do is reliant upon individual judgement as opposed to blanket rules. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
68. If we throw away this, then we might as well throw away the whole notion of WP:Be Bold as well. For then it will be rendered meaningless and hollow. IAR is the best weapon we have against Instruction creep.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
69. Pradeep Arya 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) - IAR is an important "safety valve". It gives newcomers a chance to learn the ropes without being hung by them. It gives experienced editors leeway to make modifications that are technically invalid, but obvious improvements to the encyclopedia. It gives administrators the ability to mitigate disruptive behavior that is technically valid, but obviously detrimental to the encyclopedia. It succinctly addresses the fact that real life is sometimes messy, but people acting in good faith can (to an extent) police themselves using common sense. In my humble opinion, removal of this policy/guideline/tradition would be detrimental to the Wikipedia project as a whole. (Remember: Assume good faith)
70.   freshgavin TALK    03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • ProhibitOnions 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Up to a point; I think the article should be called something other than the anarchic "Ignore all rules"; how about "Ignore rules as applicable" or, indeed, "Don't resort to Wikipedantry"? (Now Oppose)
71. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Joey 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
73. Rule of the Rebel. --hydkat 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Meditate deeply upon the wisdom of Ignore All Rules. --Xyzzyplugh 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Gracenotes ^T § agrees! I like to believe that Wikipedia is an entity that has a check upon itself, so any flagrant abuses of this policy can be easily corrected once they are located. I support the spirit of this policy. 00:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Batmanand. I have my concerns, as everyone does, about exactly what "ignore all rules" means, but it what I would say it means seems fairly well represented in the current phrasing. Batmanand | Talk 16:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Anonymous Coward. All rules are shallow in the eyes of the people in charge. All hail common sense. This is obviously something we can all agree on. 24.23.137.188 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
78. SECProto I guess i never did sign here. I approve. This isn't a rule, so it can't contradict or override other rules. It's simply a page that is important. SECProto 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} When rules become more important than content you have a police state not an encyclopedia.
80. Al 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Rules exist as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. When a rule fails to create the consequences it was intended to, the rule is no longer valid in this context and must be ignored. This is particularly true in cases where rules are intentionally abused by wikilawyers so as to impair editors' ability to contribute. Al 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
81. A year ago, I was shocked to see that this page existed. Now I occasionally find myself citing it. When people argue that the wiki's rules must be followed purely for the sake of following them (even when their application makes absolutely no sense), it's nice to be able to point out that Jimbo disagrees. —David Levy 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
82. This is the best rule as it affirms the intelligence of real people who can adapt to changing conditions, who can best use common sense and flexibly to adhere to the spirit of the rules, which should always override the actual letter of the rules. Actual rules are dead, imperfect, inflexible, and its absurd to think they are always right in all conditons. An englightened undertanding see the rules best as guides, since they are meant to serve an end, not become it. The real rule is do what is best to build an encylopedia given an understanding of all the rules and the principals they are meant to serve. When the rules get in the way of this, to ignore them is correct; they are by nature subordinate. Think of our democratic jury system, as an analogy. A jury has a built type of "ignore all the rules" option for the same good reason. The rigid enformcent of a rule because its a rule, or to punish someone who violated a rule simply because the rule was violated does not always produce justice--the goal. Infact, it's bound to produce the opposite of the goals of the rules, if adhered to in a dogmatic manner, treated as sacrosant.Giovanni33 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
83. Strong support the version when I joined. I am alright with the version at the time of writing. Oppose adding too many "qualifications". -Dan 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
84. HighInBC The basic premise of wikipedia.
85. Very Strong Support This page made me the happiest I have been as a wikipedia editor. "Improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality," that is what it's really about, not endless legalisms. Breath of fresh air. --VonWoland 07:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
86. The anti-policy is a great way to remind people to lighten up, as too many people on here get all wound up in fine print and lose sight of the big picture. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
87. as the perfect answer to wikilawyering. There are only three rules we don't ignore: WP:V, WP:NPOV and this one :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Our escape from a legalistic, bureaucratic Wikipedia. All wise editors will know when it's justified. AdamBiswanger1 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
89. Rules exist to make Wikipedia better. If you can do something unquestionably beneficial to Wikipedia only by breaking the rules, do it. --Zoz (t) 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Mathmo It is short and fundamental.
91. Thesocialistesq 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) It's important for an organisation, especially one so massive and decentralized as Wikipedia, to say, as its bottom line, "what is prudent is policy", allowing users to develop ideas and standards outside of a codified structure. To remove this would bind the edits Wikipedians to the official, approved policies already in place...
92. Zos 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
93. Very, very strong supporter Goes back to the entire purpose of Wikipedia -- a perfect article to post to red-tape loving Wikilawyers that are stuck on the rules instead of common sense.
94. Joeblakesley That would a much stronger support if the old version was used, or if we just got rid of the all in the title which implies to me that you should go round trying to break every policy (which will rightly get you banned) as opposed to just breaking policy if you think it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. (Maybe it should also point out that if you disagree with nearly all of the policies or with the guiding principles you should probably not be here.) Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
95. Support -Former assistant editor under the RJII Project TheIndividualist 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see this expanded, developed, and made a policy or guideline as opposed to a "thing". Perhaps with the inclusion of Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Interpret all rules. and Wikipedia:Use common sense.

1. Absolute support though to me its an extension of "Be Bold". --PopUpPirate 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose (despite supporting this page above) due to the paradox and deeming of other policy to be pointless, if, as I think you are suggesting, a policy tells you to ignore policy at the same enforcement and specificity/abstraction level as itself. Much better to make Wikipedia:Interpret all rules into policy, or, better still, if this isn't already in policy, something to the effect that you should ignore rules if your current situation (which you have a reason to believe should be treated differently) was not considered in the devising of those rules, or were someone has attempted but failed to change the rules despite a democratic consensus to do so. I'm ignorant of most of the rules round here, so please tell me if I'm missing something. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Opponents

1. tbc
2. AxelBoldt -- deliberately breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad.

   comment: Semantics. You are a supporter, then. Ignoring in this context does not imply ignorance but a digregard of the rules, hence "breaking them."Giovanni33 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   comment on comment: I will inform Axel Boldt of this comment to make sure his vote isn't reinterpreted against his intention. That's no way to go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.//
4. David

   Larry Sanger (User has left the project)

5. Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
6. Noldoaran (Talk)
7. Lethe 15:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) -- (if you support "ignore all rules", shouldn't you be opposed to "ban repeat vandals"?)
8. BadSanta -- The proponents are NOT serious. Anarchy gives rise to chaos. Without ANY enforced rules, Wikipedia would experience rampant destruction. Freedom still exists abundantly (except to break rules).
9. SimonP 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC), with the three revert rule, and other regulations, users will quickly be banned if they decide to ignore official policies.

   Comment 3RR can be ignored in the case of vandalism. Acetic Acid 10:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

10. I would like to rephrase to: If all the rules on Wikipedia make you confused or depressed, ignore them and use your indwelling common sense and decency instead. dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. In favour of flexibility and bending/breaking the odd rule/guideline, but not in favour of anarchy (page name, "Ignore all rules"). zoney ♣ talk 20:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. тəzєті I am in favor for users that are new ignoring Wikipedia's markup and other rules such as this and users breaking small rules is not a problem, however telling people to ignore every rule as a wikipedia policy is encouraging vandalists and all rulebreakers.
13. The rule was formulated in the early days of Wikipedia to attract developers (see Larry Sanger quote below). Times have changed. We have a lot of developers and we do need the rules if we want them to be able to work together. (Of course, small rules can be ignored.) nyenyec ☎ 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. This is silly, and guaranteed to be followed in the worst way by the ignorant. — Xiong熊talk* 11:29, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
    • I still think the proposal is silly, but I do have to add how much I detest unnecessary rules. — Xiong熊talk* 08:36, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
15. This is both silly and dangerous. Within the past 24 hrs this was quoted to me as a reason for an admin to ignore a clear policy restriction on use of admin powers. This should be significantly qualified or else deleted. DES 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    (Late addition: A user was obstructing efforts to deal with a famous GNAA article deletion situation, by inappropriately applying the rules. Eventually one of the stewards stepped in and reverted him.) Kim Bruning 13:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

16. You've gotta be kidding me. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 12:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
17. Makes no sense. If rules make you nervous and depressed, grow up already, deal with the real world, go make your own blog or something and leave large projects like this the heck alone. DreamGuy 03:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
18. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
19. This is just a reason anyone can use to do any kind of vandalism. Elfguy 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
20. As explained below. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
21. I've seen people suggest that this trumps WP:NOT too many times. It's become a liability. Besides, the only sentence in it I see a real positive contribution from is "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden–including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'–will attract censure," although I'd like to see that rephrased to "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden-including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'-are expressly forbidden." The Literate Engineer 14:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
22. Too often this is an excuse for unilateralism. More than one administrator has justified their own actions with IAR, and it encourages sysops to act outside of policy or consensus; in short, to provide a preception of abuse of power.--Scimitar ^parley 21:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. This "policy" can be construed in two ways: one, in which it is self-contradictory and self-undermining (and thus harmless, but useless); and another, in which it is tremendously destructive. There is no good reason for it. --FOo 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Strongly opposed. The one-paragraph version was good advice for newbies to not sweat all the Wikipedia rules because there would always be someone who would come along and fix any mistakes made and help them them to become better Wikipedia editors. Somehow this page morphed into an excuse for experienced editors, administrators, and even arbitrators to blatantly break rules, make drastic changes, and ignore consensus. Worse yet, the current much longer version is a mess. The page should be reverted back to the one-paragraph version. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Strongly opposed Those inclined to use common sense don't need this policy. This page is mostly cited by trolls. Borisblue 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Tεxτurε 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Strong opposition, encourages admin abuse, discourages accountability. Contrary to the project goal of creating an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 22:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Changed my vote from Support to Oppose when the sentence "Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules does not give administrators the right to make up or enforce their own set of rules." was changed to "Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." (This comment added by Zephram Stark Demi ^T/_C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
29. Oppose. Bad bad idea. We don't need to give bad actors more "outs" to lean on. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Oppose for reasons well known Rex^(talk) 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Oppose Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's some rules we'd like everyone to follow, but feel free to do what you want then cite Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules as justification. Makenji-san 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Flexibility should be built into the rules where appropriate. Where consensus is that flexibility is inappropriate, individuals should not be allowed to ignore that. —Simetrical (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Strongly Oppose Though the text of this article can say something more-or-less reasonable, the real question is whether "ignore all rules" is a healthy catch-phrase for defining a Wikipedian's mindset. When compared with inspiring guidance like be bold and assume good faith, it should be clear that ignore all rules does not meet the bar for a mantra to be used in this community. Metaeducation 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Strongly oppose IAR means there should not be enforcement of NPOV or even grammatical rules. Oops! This is a policy that is clearly invalid. If we are to ignore all rules, why even suggest them? Miwa 03:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    Strongly oppose I was sure I had voted before on this. I have only seen this cited to justify out-of-process actions which IMO were not good ideas in any case. Herwith Siegel's Law: "Someone who cites IAR in support of an administrative action, does so becase s/he has no better arguments. Such citation is good evidence that the action involved is unwise." DES ^(talk) 03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    You had, actually: #16. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry I scanned the previous votes and couldn't find mine. I have re-formatted this not to add a number lest it seem i was trying to "vote" twice. DES ^(talk) 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

35. Common sense isn't common, so it doesn't make sense. - Ekevu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose While the original intent of this page ('do not worry about learning all the rules - just go edit and it will all get sorted out') was something I very much agree with it has far too often been re-interpreted as giving license for admins (with the power to enforce such action) to declare their own opinion as taking precedence over Wikipedia procedure. This needs to be revised to remove any possibility of that poisonous interpretation. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Strongly oppose. The fundamental problem with this has been shown in the recent Kelly Martin fiasco. While there are some fundamental changes that should be able to be made (for example, duplicate articles under capitalized and uncapitalized names, or removal of empty articles) some admins have taken it upon themselves to use this a justification for pushing their viewpoint forth about how Wikipedia should be, and not everybody agrees on this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Strongest oppose. Meaningless; essentially restates Russell's paradox. Meaningless statements, in logic, can be used to justify anything or everything. However, not everything is justifiable; not every action is correct. The presence of this statement, and the fact that it receives any positive attention whatsoever, is far and away the single most disturbing thing that makes me want to leave Wikipedia and never come back. -Ikkyu2 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong Oppose I agree with CBD here - the current phrashing of the page isn't good since it's too prone to misinterpretations. Rbarreira 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose - I've never vandalized a Wiki in my life, but I still don't get the spirit of this page. It just seems pointless, like something a half-joking but reluctantly responsible little league coach would say when he wants the kids to think he's cool. "Okay, kids, the rules are.. there are no rules... well, except for a couple... but you don't really have to listen to those... except that if you don't you'll get banned... of course, you can ignore this rule too... but citing this page won't get you unblocked, so maybe you should follow some rules... well, just use common sense." And, at that point, we could have just gone to Wikipedia:Use common sense instead, which says absolutely everything this page says without being misinterpreted to encourage vandalism. Kafziel 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Hyphen5 10:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose current phrasing It's anarchic, and this has a long and honorable tradition in the net community. But it's too prone to misinterpretation; anyway, what is meant is not ignore all rules, but don't let the rules get you down or the like; indeed, many rules (such as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL) should not be broken. In my other comments here, I suggest George Orwell's quotation instead ("Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous"), which seems far more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Very Strong Oppose Dreadful policy. Aside from the issue of exploitation by Trolls and trouble makers, it encourages bias and users to not abide by the necessary rules. We should be promoting order, not anarchy.--Cini 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    Experience, long experience, long frustrating experience, has shown again, and again, and again and again... *ahem* Ok, well, long experience has shown that trolls and troublemakers actually exploit and hide behind the rules. I have never seen a troll or troublemakers exploit ignore all rules. When you apprehend them, it's the trolls and troublemakers who yell loudest that ignore all rules is being abused. They can't stand it! They can't abide it. Ignore all rules is the worst nightmare of every troll and troublemaker. It leaves them nowhere to hide and nowhere to run. <evil grin> Kim Bruning 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Thank you for your comment and forgive me for this belated response. Unfortunately, the behaviour I have seen in regards to Ignore All Rules since I have posted my Oppose vote has altered little. I still see trolls and anonymous users use this as justification for POV, personal attacks and other abusive conduct. While I have seen it used in a constructive manner in some instances, the abusive ways in which it has been exploited far outweigh the positives. I just believe this concept encourages anarchy and would prefer a more ordered, diciplined type of ideal. I will say though, that I can understand the reasoning behind this idea and appreciate the enthusiasm by its supporters. Sadly, actions speak louder than words and the way this concept has been used has been extremely discouraging. It is a partial reason as to why I contribute in a limited manner and rather, opt to lurk instead.--Cini 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    I contend that this is properly used quite often. What you are talking about is it being cited. Not the same thing! -Dan 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

    I stated that I have seen it used in a constructive manner in some instances in my previous comment. Regardless if troublemakers use or cite it, it is too much of an anarchic concept for me to support.--Cini 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

44. Strong oppose; I could agree if it was Ignore the guidances of writting style, but Copyright and NPOV are inflexible rules. Mariano(t/c) 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong oppose WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy. Not policy anyway. Cynical 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Oppose Regularly misused by those who consider essential policy (eg WP:V and particularly WP:CIVIL) optional. Jakew 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong oppose - if the rules are bad or not feasible, then change them. But don't institute anarchy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    There's still enough rules enforced by the mediawiki software alone, that we can never actually have an anarchy. Kim Bruning 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    comment: "Institute Anarchy" is contradictory, and a red-herring since that is not the proposal. It also is a false dilemma (false dichotomy or bifurcation) in the sense that its either a support of this concept, or its "instituting anarchy." Poor logic.Giovanni33 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

48. Oppose. Encourages abuse of powers. --Ligulem 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose I understand where this policy is coming from, however, I strongly disagree with how it seems to be worded. It is inviting a Pandora's box, in which people will by pass the rules for their agenda and thus create a quagmire. It will generate something that could possibly get wildly out of control. Yanksox 19:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I hate - my stupidity... Yanksox 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment -- well it's had five years to do its worst and it hasn't made us wildly out of control yet... --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

49. Oppose - Has been used by trolls and vandals to support their harmful decisions.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Mild oppose. Have yet to see this invoked in support of anything that was both a) clearly beneficial and b) not justifiable within the existing rules. PurplePlatypus 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Strongly oppose - This can be used by anyone to justify anything as if it is valid. --Chris Griswold 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Oppose - The problem is, people have different ideas about what will make wikipedia of the best quality, and will encourage vandalism, and the disregarding of wikipedia policies. It's a nice idea, but wikipedia is becoming more and more mainstream, and it is important that as many steps as possible are taken to establish authority, so that vandalism does not increase. --nkayesmith 07:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Strongly Oppose - This whatever it is only serves to make already hard to enforce policies further unenforcable due to the shadiness of what qualifies as maintaining or improving Wikipedia's quality, which is highly subjective. KV(Talk) 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Karwynn (talk) Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia is not subjective. How about, if the rules impede Wikipedia, change them. SPecial cases and exceptions can be achieved by consensus. This is a sorry excuse to push a singular agenda. Karwynn (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add old version in quotes for historical context?

The current IAR page (26 Jan 06) is well done and helpful, but I would like to see the 'original' one sentence version ("if rules make you...") from 2002 given space on the page also. Maybe put it in a box with the attribution "Wikipedia Ignore All Rules page 2002-2004" since it looks like it was left more or less intact for that period of time. As a long-time user of Wikipedia who has finally gotten up the courage to start helping with content, I value the message of this page. I like the content of the current revision, but I think including the more whimsical tone of the traditional version would provide the best of both worlds.Ben Kidwell 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• <irony> there's probably a rule against that. </irony> Heck, I don't know. You have a reasonable point. Why not? But this page has been the subject of a plethora of revert wars, so whatever you put on there might set one off once more. Or not. Edit at your own risk. Radiant_>|< 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. Just cite it properly with a description and permalink. Deco 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• The historical version should be dewikified. Ikkyu2 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

IAR has been destroyed

I can't believe what this has been twisted into -- a brief, direct, and cogent point has been turned into policy babble. instruction creep anyone? It's spreading like a plague. I have half a mind to revert it back 9 months but I believe it's already been tried and reverted by those insistent on watering this down and thus depriving it of any meaning. --Wgfinley 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. —Guanaco 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lasted a while, I just put it back. To those bent on instruction creep did you notice with all of your addendums that you "bury the lead" on this? We're trying to introduce the concept of "ignore all rules" By the time you read through it all it's almost mentioned as an afterthought. Finally, we don't need a whole bunch of instruction creep on what to do if someone invokes IAR, etc, if they "invoke IAR" they obviously don't get it and should go back and study some more. Please, the vast majority of supporters signed on to this when it looked like nothing you want to make it into. This isn't intended to be policy, quit trying to make it one. --Wgfinley 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that. A WP:IAR page which has a long elaborate explanation complete with a manual is something of an oxymoron. The historical version is basically fine. There's no reason to make this longer than one short paragraph. Let's keep this page, if none other, simple. - Haukur 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The ignore all rules cycle

As this seems to be a procedure, perhaps we should write it down, including all intermediate points. What lessons can be gleaned from it? Perhaps all articles go through a similar cycle, albeit at a slower rate. Kim Bruning 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since this page gets a new (or old) version weekly, I think we should have a museum of IAR pages by now. Have a central page stating "Ignore this page all rules" that links (or difflinks) to all versions. Or whatever. Radiant_>|< 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Current wording is absurd

The current version of WP:IAR reads as follows: "If the rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." Apparently, this was the historical state of the "policy". However, the problem with this version is that it is complete bollocks. If I were to repeatedly "ignore" this rule or this one or this one, I would quickly find myself banned from editing Wikipedia, and rightly so. There are rules - a lot of the debate about IAR is really over whether they should apply to everyone or just to the unwashed masses. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say there aren't any rules, it doesn't say ignore all the rules all the time, it makes reference to there being times to ignore them. Ignore all rules itself is also a rule which itself should be ignored much of the time. Get it? --Wgfinley 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaaarrgh! The recursion! The horrible recursion! --Nick Boalch ^?!? 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules. It's pretty good. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the old version we made better-- it was only a few sentences longer and explained what WP:DICK means in this context. Ashibaka tock 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I changed the wording to "any of the rules" although it it still, of course, called "Ignore all rules"; I think this is pointlessly anarchic. Rules aren't unimportant, but petty adherence to every single one of them can be offputting and place dicks at an advantage over those who may have better intentions but are less legalistic in their ways. I think the current phrasing tries to be too concise and may fail to encapsulate this. ProhibitOnions 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about changing it to "Break any rules"? --Zoz (t) 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

...and possibly paradoxial

<Grin> Texasdex put it rather nicely there ;-) Kim Bruning 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...and offensive

No obscenities, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Rules ≠ people

I've added the text "This does not mean you should ignore other people." to the page. This sparked a few more additions which were then reverted to an earlier, simpler version. I agree that the page should be kept short, and I think the revert was generally a good thing. I have, nonetheless, restored my addition, since it's something that has frequently come up during various recent disputes, and apparently does need to be stated explicitly. Feel free to refactor mercilessly, but if you (want to) remove it entirely, please at least try to explain your rationale here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this addition. Wikipedia is built on consensus, which is formed only through respectful discussion between contributors. Deco 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreement here as well. I could show specific cases (a while back, so unfortunately it would take heinous amounts of digging) where WP:IAR has been invoked to basically say "you have made a clear argument backed by both the facts and by policy but guess what Ignore all rules so ha ha ha ha ha". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the phrase "don't ignore other people" per comments above, this time as the link text for meta:Don't be a dick. Perhaps that might be an acceptable solution? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hmph

I feel the reversion of my edits was somewhat unwarranted. Though I can appreciate the complicatedness creep, I feel this rule would encourage vandals. I know that we know what it means, but some people may see this as "If you don't know the rules, ignore them" and take that to mean "Do whatever the hell you want". I feel clarifying the "Ignore all Rules" point is worth the "risk" of it getting more complicated. Anyone care to dispute me here? Deskana (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Common sense...

• generates non-words like "aircrafts" and "costed."
• determines correct grammar by whether it "sounds right."
• varies among user backgrounds and education levels, and changes as users do.
• opposes the nature of a reference work, by substituting logical rules and facts with whatever personal bullshit a user believes at the time. --Xmnemonic

Fortunately, we have other users who will help us recover from the occasional bit of misapplied common sense. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this? Care to explain? Deskana (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if we have a few users who think that, for eg, "what the Aircraft's costed" 'sounds right', it won't do any lasting damage, because the majority have more sense and can gently correct. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the non-words are formed by the misapplication of general rules to inappropriate cases, a classic example of a failure to ignore all rules in favor of common sense. And correct grammar by tradition has always been a mixture of logical rules and sounding correct to most educated users; even the strictest authorities caution against allowing a too-strict adherence to the rules of grammar to lead one to create monstrosities. Demi ^T/_C 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I'm begining to think that Ignore all rules made a heck of lot of sense when there were very few rules and many situation that hadn't been thought of, when the letter and the spirit of the rules often clashed. But we've been going for a while now. The rules have evolved and matured a lot. Most of the rules that needed to be written have been. Any really common situation has been encountered heaps of times, so that it's only in unusual situations that the rules clash with common sense.

Most of the time the rules are pretty much what you would think they should be. So even if you don't realise that a rule exists, and you simply do what's sensible, the odds are pretty good that you'll have done exactly what the rules say you should have done. And if you get it wrong in good faith, the odds are that it won't matter much. The outcome will be close enough to right, and/or someone else will come along and correct it.

We can't get rid of this page entirely. There are, and always will be edge cases where the rules just don't fit. But that's now the exception, rather than the, er, rule.

Maybe it's time to consider moving Ignore all rules to Rules have limits?

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of ignore all rules and use common sense is that erm, actually precicely what you said. If you just use common sense, 9 times out of 10 you'll do the Right Thing anyhow, or should do. But the rules have matured? 640K must be enough for everyone! ;-) Kim Bruning 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have 640K of rules? Gosh. Maybe we need to Delete some rules?  ;-) Ben Aveling 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we're at 640KiB yet, but it's a famous quote by Bill Gates anno ~1980. Seeing that we currently install and use more like 640MiB of RAM on newer machines (3 orders of magnitude more), it follows that perhaps Mr. Gates miscalculated a bit. It's foolish to assume that everything is perfect and cannot be improved. :-) (see also:Wikiquote:Bill Gates.) --Kim Bruning 14:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From Ben Aveling: We can't get rid of this page entirely. Well, as I've always said, "ignore all rules" just is, it follows directly from the fact that our policies and procedures are not intended to be legal codes. That fact means that IAR exists and is binding, whether or not it's described as a policy, a guideline, a rule, an essay or whether the page in fact exists at all. Demi ^T/_C 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur entirely with this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. IAR is a sort of metarule that describes the extent to which our rules are considered binding and immutable and the manner in which they are enforced. It's more descriptive than prescriptive. Deco 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins unblocking themselves

I weighed up whether this edit was a WP:POINT violation in light of recent events, but came to the conclusion that it wasn't. I think this exception to IAR must be explicitly stated if it is true, because it will help admins who find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance to realise that, and not end up in a whole load more trouble possibly unnecessarily.

Of course, it may be untrue: in other words, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable for admins to unblock themselves. I guess if the edit is removed, then this is a community statement that IAR can be used to justify admins unblocking themselves. David | Talk 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any need for an explicit exception. There are reasonable cases in which an admin can unblock themselves, like if another admin's account is compromised and they start blocking everybody. Each violation of a rule needs to be judged by reasonable people involved in that specific circumstance. Deco 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is an absolute need for an explicit exception, even if it is limited. The problem is implicit in your statement that there are other "reasonable cases": what is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another, and so just leaving it at saying "admins shouldn't normally unblock themselves, but can do so if it is reasonable" is a recipe for conflict and actually adding to disruption, as I have recently found out the hard way. David | Talk 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see IAR serves more as a reminder for Wikipedia and its editors not to get entangled in beaurcracy, rather than be given the license to "shoot first ask later". Too much of such is going on. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the point - it's not necessarily the case that unblocking yourself is "shooting first". I unblocked myself, made constructive edits, didn't disrupt, nobody noticed until someone complained about a related block - and yet still consensus said I should be blocked to show that it shouldn't have happened. Without false modesty, if ever there was a case where IAR applied to admins unblocking themselves, this was it, and yet it didn't apply. Needs to be stated openly. David | Talk 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!

Did I miss where this page ceased to be a member of Category:Wikipedia official policy? Was this discussed and consented to? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually more like there was no such thing as "official policy" when this page was written, so it never got marked as such. Kim Bruning 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KISS

The beauty of IAR is to keep it simple, people keep trying to complicate it and turn it into policy, it s not. We don't need reference to not ignoring people because it doesn't imply that you should. Further, WP:DICK is about a lot more than just that so taking the wording of WP:DICK out doesn't follow either.

The rest I don't have issues with but it muddles the message and encourages others to keep adding on to this. Keep it short and keep it simple, that's what IAR has always been. --Wgfinley 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to note total agreement with this. The simpler the IAR page is, the better. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put Orwell's famous statement on ignoring rules on the page? ProhibitOnions 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's the quote I'm thinking of it was in reference to "serious sport" and not rules really, I wouldn't think it relevant. --Wgfinley 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the last one from Politics and the English Language [2]. He lists six rules:

• Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never us a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

The last one wouldn't be a bad motto for this page. ProhibitOnions 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Explaining IAR

I was talking with Amgine, trying to explain our most important rule, and he went like "Oh no! Wikilawyering some more"... I looked, it said "if any of the rules make you depressed " instead of just "if the rules make you depressed."

That was kind of interesting, to get a wikiexpert from outside to comment like that. :-) I guess it shows how much the rules-lawyers have taken over here that we forget that we're writing an encyclopedia. (He was commenting on that )

Kim Bruning 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Depressed and frightened

Those words kinda bother me. Don't they seem to be the kind of emotions that inspire the very worst episodes of WikiDrama and otherwise disruptive behavior? Being scared that you're being "wikistalked", for example, is not a good reason to ignore WP:NPA and launch a severe attack against someone, and yet this page would seem to encourage one in that state to "go on! ignore all rules! yay!". While I think there are some reasons to ignore rules, I find it troubling that depression and fear should be the only reasons given! --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not too keen on it either, it sounds like the introductory sentence in one of those Scientology brochures. If you're depressed and frightened by Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be taking part in it. ProhibitOnions 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Limits on IAR

I feel IAR is being abused and needs some limits. I have tried adding language to this effect but find myself quickly reverted. Here is what I tried to add: IAR is not and excuse for being disruptive and/or inflammatory. Please discuss.--God of War 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I made an argument in an arbitration committee workshop on this. All action is by nature disruptive and/or inflammatory. Given that sufficient people are involved, there will always be someone who will be somewhat harmed by your actions, and who will take exception to what you're doing. Ignore all rules neither helps nor hurts with this. Kim Bruning 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused by this article

Ignore all rules? I've never heard that before in my time on Wikipedia. The article's two sentences long. How am I supposed to know the implications of such a radical-sounding policy? I cannot see how this policy fits with other Wikipedia rules. (Ie, This is a request to CLARIFY this strange policy).

It's a fundamental implication of the wiki technology we are using, and therefore one of the oldest wikipedia rules. Much else is rulecruft, this isn't. Ponder the consequences of this rule for yourself and how it fits with what you know. But basically for now just this: We're writing an encyclopedia, so if you want to add something to an article, go right ahead, we'll sort out the details later. :-) Kim Bruning 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer your last sentence (and Orwell's, above) to the rule as it currently stands. ProhibitOnions 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I second the request for clarification. As a new user, this seems extremely bizarre to me. --Hyphen5 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

People create rules, because they think "they know best". This rules counterbalances it, for the sake of the greater good. Kinda. --PopUpPirate 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's technically impossible, impractical, and impracticable to make strict rules on a public wiki like this. Only guidelines. This particular guideline makes that explicit.

Once you grasp this, you are well on your way to understanding wikis :-) If you're having trouble, try edit on a smaller wiki, or try editing on smaller articles. It's easier to see how wikis work then, without a lot of the rulecruft stacked on top. Kim Bruning 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't a normal wiki - it basically is literally an encyclopedia - the wiki just a means to that end (this place isn't even close to a normal wiki culture, but that doesn't mean it is bad, either). Also, as we have seen with Jimbo, "strict rules" are fairly enforcable. I think in its earlier incarnations it was somewhat closer to a normal wiki, but for what are probably various reasons it is its own ballgame, in which you need to apply WP:IAR carefully (for example, using it to justify a 3RR isn't going to help your case usually). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

*Snicker* In fact you can, though it helps to gather consensus beforehand. If you do, you can think of doing things like soft-protect a page along a very narrow set of parameters. (One such application is even written into the rule itself: reversion of vandalism is explicitly permitted.)

Try stick to just writing an encyclopedia in the main namespace, and wikipedia works just fine as a wiki. :-) (Though to be honest, there's roughly eight hundred out of over one million pages where ignore all rules might fail)

Many of the other namespaces have become very crufty, though attempts to delete them have been strongly resisted, so far. Perhaps we should move them to a different wiki¹. That would help a lot.Kim Bruning 19:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

¹ This is the default reccomended action for things that don't really belong on wikipedia ;-P

Yo. Really, really, really easy explaination of Ignore all rules: You, as an editor is supposed to be a rational being and take responsibility for all your actions. in a society/system where everybody is rational, you do not need rules to govern peoples behaviour, because people govern themselves. A=A, you insensitive liberal clod!

See Objectivism, Anarchy (Does wikipedia come with a political agenta and a school of philosophy? yes, it does) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΊΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΉ, Ι-5 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

An idea whose time has passed

I wish this page could be deleted. An admin has just invoked it to justify violating page protection. It's kind of tiresome having people refer to IAR when what they mean is they do whatever they want. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I doubt there'd be any agreement to do so. Next time someone abuses WP:IAR, respond with WP:DIAR. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I believe this rule could use more clarification. I think all reasonable editors understand it's importance to the wiki-ecosystem; however, we have also seen less experienced (and sometimes very experienced) editors invoke it for obviously ridiculous reasons. I like the addition of don't ignore other people, but a few things follow from that for me, that may not follow for other editors simply from linking to "don't be a dick". First, I think if one editor references policy in a talk page discussion, especially with a compelling argument for why the policy is in fact well thought out and should apply to this situation, "WP:IAR" should not be considered an appropriate rebuttal. You should have to justify a compelling reason to ignore the rule in the specific instance (see: Talk: Facebook). Second, in many cases, it may require ammending the offending rule (through talk page consensus, of course) if there is actually some important exception to it. In that case, the only benefit I see to IAR is immediatism, which is almost always a recipe for disaster. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the following text to be in page, to clarify: "Just remember, saying you want to "ignore all rules" will not convince anyone that you're right, so if someone gets upset you will need to persuade them that your actions improved the encyclopedia." But other people kepe taking it out. Ashibaka tock 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

People abuse the Ignore All Rules rule just like people abuse things like the right to free speech or the right to a fair trial, or the freedom of information act or etc. All such abuses are annoying to any system of governance or organisation, but we still need rules like this to protect and help people who are actually making themselves useful.

I recently was told that the law of the sea also has a rule a bit like Ignore all rules, to do with that anything done in the spirit of good seamanship is ok. I'm going to have to look that up!

Maybe we could extend the rule here with just one caveat, just the one mind you! We could say You are free to do as you will, provided you are acting in the spirit of good wikipedianship.

Kim Bruning 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ps:randomly: Note that law at sea seems to differentiate between open ocean and coastal waters. Rules for coastal waters are rather more complex than those for open ocean. Something similar might be useful on wikipedia, where there appear to be two sets of social dynamics, depending on the busyness of a page.Kim Bruning

"If the rules discourage you from participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." If that's not an invitation to troll, spam and vandalise I don't know what is. I think it should say something along the lines of "ignoring rules is fine if you genuinely believe you are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia". That's the only context in which I ever quote this guideline. --kingboyk 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Spot on Kingboy-o.... It's a catchy meme but I see it causing a lot of trouble when misapplied. I favour keeping it, though, strangely enough. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr, the thing is that a lot of people are intimidated by the rules and don't participate (one learns this whilst reading OTRS ^^;;) . Many good willed people are put off by our rules, while trolls typically use the rules to their advantage. (the latter is learned by being an admin for a year). Kim Bruning 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy is original research!!! OMG, WTF!?!?!oneoneeleven

All wikipedia policy and guidelines are original research. D'oh. We made them up.

As for reference for the removed section, see

• Image:Articles_distinct.png
• Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png

Hmm, reviewing the data, I'll postulate that between 80-90% is more likely. I'll fix my numbers. :-)

Kim Bruning 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• OMG! Original Research? O RLY? YA RLY. R U SHUR? YA, RLY. NA. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

my reasoning was not entirely serious :) but why bother to postulate when you could just say "most edits" ? SECProto 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(digs in dictionary), Oh, one meaning is "assumed without proof". Ah... right, ok, I'll just *state* it then, as we can be pretty sure it's 80-90%. We just measured it, after all. :-P Kim Bruning 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

*scratching head*, yeah hmm. "Most" of the time is a tad weaselly. That could be 51% or better or somesuch. In fact it turns out that it's fairly unlikely that you're ever going to get in trouble with being bold and ignoring all rules. Granted, that's only if you act like a good wikipedian.

The problem then becomes: define "good wikipedian". Hmmm *scratches head some more*. Kim Bruning 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's gotten shorter! :-)

Amazing! More people should do that. Kim Bruning 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Or delete it entirely, because it needs so many caveats as to eliminate the point. In particular, WP:IAR must not be invoked to overrule the foundation principles like WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and as is currently happening in the Jarndyceian shitfight over The Game (game), WP:V or WP:RS. Kinitawowi 10:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Or make it simple - you can ignore all rules until someone requests you apply them. That way we don't tie up admins (for example) with useless red tape in performing actions which have overwhelming community support, but at the same time preventing IAR from being used as a +1 Golden Shield of Righteousness to avoid complying with policy. Cynical 10:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, most policy is mostly not useful most of the time. (see above :-) ) , so make that a +2 shield, and specifically for that purpose. Of course if you also go against common sense, and don't actually help make an encyclopedia... that's a different matter. (That and you're supposed to tread carefully as an admin anyway, but you already knew that, right?) Kim Bruning 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ever shrinking size

This page is referred to all over the project, yet we keep removing content from it. How can this be useful for people not familiar with the history of IAR? (And don't say go to the history, I'm speaking of this from a BITE perspective.) — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think no history is necessary, and would pollute what should be the shortest size - it is meant to be simple to understand. What is there to not get about "if the rules get you down, forget em and just improve the encyclopedia" ? It is basically a "common sense" clause to this whole place. SECProto 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"doesn't have consensus approval"

(from an edit comment)

Next to the comment being a pleonasm at best, erm, well, Ignore All Rules is a key component to the formation of consensus on a wiki. If you want to get consensus on it, you'd get into an endless recursion. If you meant it doesn't have majority approval, erm, see above for approval rating over several years. :-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortest ever Wikipedia page?

I've summarized the article from 14 to 13 words. Is this the shortest wikipedia page ever, not counting templates? Borisblue 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the sandbox is smaller: its just a comment and a template. -- 127.*.*.1 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is positively bloated compared with Wikipedia:Keep policies short. Pcb21 Pete 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that the 'summary' of IAR on Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset is twice as long as the page itself? :D It was like this before I changed it.

Just how many simplified rulesets are there? That one, five pillars, trifecta,.... ! Pcb21 Pete 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's three; simplified is sort of the base project, trifecta is a summary of that summary, and 5 pillars is the middle road. They're each useful:

• Simplified ruleset was originally intended to get you to admin
• trifecta can be followed as an admin
• five pillars is also useful for very new users

so folks have kept all three. Take your pick :-) Kim Bruning 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured essay tag

What is the problem with this tag? WP:IAR fits the criterion for being a featured essay as described in the tempplate (it is used widely in discussions and enjoys widespread support), so I do not see the ground for removing it. Please do not remove it again without providing your resons here. Loom91 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it fits the criterion. Even if it were to fit the critereon, adding this particular lovely stamp (I'm sure) is superfluous. Kim Bruning 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point out exactly which criterion it doesn't fit. Also please point out how it is superfluous to the article. Are the same words said somewhere else perhaps? Loom91 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a big discussion on whether this page was policy, guideline, or essay, and people basically agreed to disagree. The box you see at the top of the page is the final compromise people agreed on. Kim Bruning 13:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the issues with this page specifically: when did we get a "featured essay" concept? The "featured" tag is usually reserved for things useful to our readers, if I recall correctly; hence the resistance to having "featured templates" and "featured policies" and whatnot. This seems like a rather unnecessary new level of bureacratic fetishism. Kirill Lokshin 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't use featured for things useful to editors rather than readers. And is there a disagreement over whether it's correct to call this page an essay? It certainly is not policy or guideline but is sometimes used as something analogous, that's the point FE tries to get across. Loom91 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is certainly not what? Errr , okay .... <backs off slowly> Kim Bruning 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC) perhaps a different word might be more helpful, or some such, is there a discussion on this matter someplace we can look?

"Idea"? "Principle"? "Dogma"? "Commandment"? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my objections are threefold:

1. IAR isn't 'too informal to be a policy or guideline' as the featured essay template says, it is something that defies categorisation as a policy or guideline;
2. IAR isn't an essay either;
3. Having both the featured essay template and our existing consensus introduction is odd, because their advice on editing gives entirely mixed messages: one says 'feel free to update this page as needed' while the other encourages people to 'think hard about the reasons this page exists before editing it'. While this advice isn't totally contradictory, the effect of combining the two is needlessly confusing.

Basically I agree with Kim that the tag is superflous to what we already had. --Nick Boalch 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't fit the criteria. It does not have widespread support. (See the "opponents" section of this talk page. About 1/3 of votes cast were "oppose".) I support it, but it doesn't fit that tag. (actually, I only supported it when it had the "remember, don't be a dick" clause tagged on the end.) SECProto 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications and corollaries.

I'm proposing these as suggestions to be discussed:

1) Before ignoring all rules, make sure you know what rules apply and what their purpose is.

2) When ignoring a rule, own up to it: State the fact of your choice to ignore in the appropriate public place, specifying the applicable rules and your reasoning. This will help people notice that a rule has a consistent blind spot, which may suggest that the rule needs modification.

3) When ignoring, always lean in the direction of leniency. For example, ignoring 3RR when by not blocking someone for mistakenly making a fourth revert is better than ignoring so as to block someone for a second revert. Al 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't like these put on this page, but I think a page such as Wikipedia:Corollaries of Ignore All Rules should be created for them. I agree totally with what was said. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be much more helpful to have the corrolaries here to define the responsibilities of using this. Otherwise they may be missed. Ansell Review my progress! 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Would this page link to the new one? Al 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't like that on this page or any other. The ignore all rules is not a policy, it is a thought that some people agree with that says "if you dont understand red tape crap, go with your common sense". SECProto 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be a shame if an admin ever used this policy in its current form as a reference for their actions. They should know better. Ansell Review my progress! 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd start by saying that the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus:

Wikipedia's rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, and are all about building a great encyclopaedia. If the rules prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. Remember, though, that the neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable.

Ignoring rules is fine when it'#s unequivocally for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the interpretation I take. All rules are a means to an end, so when a rule intended to help Wikipedia only serves to harm it and its contributors, there has to be room for judgement.

Consider the case of a 3RR violation by a complete and total newbie. Sure, the rules allow any admin to block this person, but that's more likely to bite the newbie into giving up than to convince them that reverts should be limited. It makes more sense, instead, to explain the rule and its purpose, then warn them that further violations will be punished. This fulfills the goals of the rule without the collateral damage. Al 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, so what's the consensus on this idea? Al 01:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the points above as they encourage openess of the decision making process. Every admin should expect to get their decisions challenged - it goes with the territory. Every admin should also be secure enough that they can explain their reasons and accept if others do not agree. That is not the same as always going with the flow. If you have well thought out and logically consistent reasons for why you acted as you did the "injured party" will just have to agree to disagree - especially if uninvolved editors concur with your reasoning. The rules are there to help and support this process but as wikipedia is constantly evolving the rules will always be playing "catch up". If they get in the way of article integrity then they should be ignored but as Al says above - you should know what the rule is, what it's trying to achieve, and be able to clearly explain why you felt ignoring it was necessary. In most projects there is a "review" stage where feedback on the process is given so as to improve future working practices - Al's suggestions should aid this process on wikipedia. Sophia 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is, this is not a rule and never will be. It is a suggestion which may help you improve the wiki without needing to know all the rules. SECProto 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. See the poll at the top of the talk page, for instance. Kim Bruning 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? SECProto 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Al has good insights. :-) Kim Bruning 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that there is some ambiguity about the actual statis of IAR in the first place. It would be paradoxical to call it a rule, yet it's also not accurate to say that it's merely some essay for us to think about. As best I understand it, it is a meta-rule: a rule about all other rules except itself. Then again, I could be mistaken.

Given all this, perhaps the numbered items above could be added as suggestions for interpretting IAR.

In other words, I'm more interested in seeing whether there is a consensus to add them to the article on an advisory basis than in making these something we can enforce. Do you think a straw poll would help sniff out whether there's a consensus to do this? Al 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

<snicker> a straw poll on Ignore all rules ;-) That'd be the day. Tell you what. How about making a new essay page, as suggested above. Go on, BE BOLD!. :-) Kim Bruning 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to be bold here, I'd just change this article. I don't think a new page would be noticed sufficiently to make a difference. Al 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. I boldly inserted a slightly copy-edited version of the above three suggestions in the article. I ask that editors avoid reverting until they've first discussed the issue. Al 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. There's been a srong consensus about keeping this page as simple as coherently possible. We've noted in the past that additions tend to snowball as people add more and more corrollaries and qualifications until the page becomes a monstrosity. --Nick Boalch\^talk 08:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of you got it almost right, at least. I give it an 8 out of 10. We need a 10 out of 10 to actually get somewhere, of course :) It's quite alright to put the corrolaries on a separate page, since we'll be quoting them anyway. They'll get around! (Also, see what gems you can find from this talk pages' archives :-) ) Kim Bruning 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this needs to be bolded. Or linked at all for that matter... -Dan 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's not linked, then there's little hope of anyone finding it and reading it. I understand about the bolding though... I don't think it's necessary. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then 10 psychic points to me for unbolding but not unlinking. But like was said, the author(s) will quote them. If people like them, they will get around. I wouldn't mind tossing the entire See Also section, except maybe to refer back to Rules, Five Pillars, Trifecta... -Dan 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Albatross

I was just wondering what the picture of this bird had to do with the policy essay page. I understand it was on a similar page for a foreign language, but does that mean it belongs here? Timrem 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt the exact same. It is clutter. If there is a decent reason, someone can add it back again. *removes* SECProto 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What this is

Above, this page is considered a policy guideline essay thing. How about calling it a concept? IMO, that is better than just calling it a thing. Timrem 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the hat note of IAR, thinking about replacing one of the two "page" by "concept", and then decided that this isn't my bold day. -- Omniplex 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it, and I felt bold enough to do it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The revert warrior's mantra

Traditional version: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."

Current version: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them."

I think the current version is not good. The old one was light-hearted and friendly while the new one could be the mantra of any POV-pushing revert-warrior. "Go ahead", this seems to say, "revert for that fourth time. It's necessary to maintain Wikipedia's quality. Who cares about some silly rule?"

I suggest something like this: "If the rules make you nervous and depressed and not desirous of improving Wikipedia, then ignore them as you contribute to the encyclopedia." Haukur 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. Your wording states that it's okay for users to ignore the rules simply because they're inconvenient (id est, because they don't feel like following the rules). I'm baffled as to how you believe that this is less likely to be exploited by revert warriors. ("Go ahead", this seems to say. "Revert for that fourth time. It's necessary to keep you from becoming nervous and depressed, and to maintain your desire to participate in the wiki. Who cares about some silly rule?")

It's only reasonable to ignore a rule when the situation dictates (because it doesn't make sense to apply the rule), not when someone's mood dictates. —David Levy 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the "nervous and depressed" wording is obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek but the version you reverted back to sounds dead-serious. "The rules are preventing me from improving Wikipedia", is exactly the mindset of problem users. As this page stands it's offering just plain bad advice. Haukur 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think insecurity and depression are good reasons to be telling people to ignore rules... whenever someone uses those kinds of emotions as reasons they're doing something, that's what seems like "exactly the mindset of problem users". --W.marsh 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should we be encouraging the idea that "the rules" are typically something that stands betwen you and improving the encyclopedia? This just makes no sense to me. I always saw this page as a sort of tongue-in-cheek reminder to people not to take things too seriously - and advice for newbies that they shouldn't be overly concerned about getting the nitty-gritty of our style guidelines down right the first time. Now it seems to be extolling some sort of weird anti-social philosophy. Haukur 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that myself and others really object to the idea that ignoring all rules should be based on insecurity and depression... that it's okay to ignore tules to make oneself feel better. That's a horrible thing to tell people, even if you think you're being tongue in cheek. Rules should be ignored when doing so improves the project, and that's it. I'm sorry if that's not fun to put it that way... but whatever. --W.marsh 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your perception of this page does not match that of the community. It's not a joke, it's not advice for newbies to not worry about learning the rules, and it's not a claim that the rules "are typically something that stands between you and improving the encyclopedia." It's a serious reminder that while the rules are important, they shouldn't be followed purely for the sake of following them. —David Levy 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rules should be followed because they are what enables thousands of people to work productively together on a very large project. They should not be ignored whenever you feel they get in your way, which is exactly what this page is advocating with no disclaimers about community consensus, rules being important or anything else. Haukur 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your wording advises users to ignore the rules whenever they get in the way of their contentment! —David Levy 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Supporters section above you'll see that a lot of the supporters are either supporting only the original version, supporting this as a tongue-in-cheek page or taking this as advice to newbies not to worry. Haukur 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That also applies to the "Opponents" section. Irrespective of what was true three years ago, this page has come become known as a commonsense, anti-bureaucracy advisory. That's the one and only context in which I've seen it cited (many, many times) since joining Wikipedia in February of last year. —David Levy 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't so much mind anti-bureaucratic but I do mind anti-social and that's how the page reads to me now. And that bothers me because I used to think this page was kind of cute. As for when it's cited - the last time I saw it cited was here and I wasn't very happy about it. Haukur 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't perceive the "nervous and depressed" wording as facetious. Your preferred wording literally advises users to ignore the rules when their moods dictate (when they don't feel like following them). How is this less likely to be exploited by problem users?

I also disagree with your interpretation of the current wording (with or without Hongkyongnae's addition). In the event of a content dispute, what constitutes "improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality" can be determined via consensus. This wording makes no reference to overriding consensus. —David Levy 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that rules should usually not be ignored, even when doing so improves the encyclopedia. You should not make that fourth revert, even if you are 100% correct. You should work within the rules to get the page corrected; like discussing the matter and involving other people. Now we have a page sounding dead-serious encouraging people to break the rules just as long as they think it improves the encyclopedia. Haukur 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's always been self-evident that ignoring all rules only works if consensus is that you actually did improve the project by ignoring the rules. If you make 4 reverts, saying that you were improving the article probably won't help much if no one agrees that you were actually making an improvement, but then again, saying it was okay to make 4 reverts because you were having a mood swing will just get your block extended even longer (if it's me enforcing the 3RR at least). --W.marsh 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that making four reverts can get you blocked even when people generally agree with your edit. And your preferred wording makes absolutely no reference to consensus being important. As far as this page can tell consensus is just one of those silly Wikipedia rules to ignore whenever it gets in the way of you doing what you think is best. Haukur 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians would agree that revert-warring does not benefit the encyclopedia, so your example doesn't apply.

IAR is about not getting bogged down in needless bureaucracy. We can discuss rewording it to eliminate whatever ambiguity may exist, but your version completely alters the meaning in a very harmful manner. (Again, I ask you to explain how advising users to ignore the rules when it benefits the encyclopedia is worse than advising them to ignore the rules whenever they feel like it.) —David Levy 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you're basically a sensible person you read some sensible meaning into the text. But it actually has absolutely no provision that "most Wikipedians" have to agree with what you're doing. The version I suggested was based on the traditional version which was here for years - but I'm not wedded to it. I'd prefer no page at all to the current version. Haukur 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not based strictly upon the majority/plurality opinion, so what "most Wikipedians" want is not a valid criterion. I understand your concern (and I don't object to the addition of a link to Wikipedia:Consensus), but I still don't understand how your preferred wording (which grants permission to ignore the rules without even the assertion that it benefits the project, simply because one doesn't feel like following them) addresses this issue. —David Levy 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only better in that I don't think anyone can take it seriously. The phrase "most Wikipedians" was from you. But let's try some caveats then. Haukur 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I see no reason why that version would be taken less seriously than the current version.

2. I used the phrase "most Wikipedians" in a different context. I wasn't implying that consensus is derived from majority/plurality voting.

3. Feel free to propose some revisions. —David Levy 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. *shrug* Your mileage may vary. To me it's more obviously silly.

2. Neither did I.

3. Done. Haukur 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Okay.

2. Okay.

3. I meant that you should propose the revised text here (and wait for feedback) instead of adding it directly to the project page. (You certainly may take the latter course, but you're likely to be reverted.) —David Levy 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice, I was reverted by PopUpPirate with an anti-vandalism tool and no explanation. [3] He ignored all rules there, you're not supposed to revert in this way. Haukur 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's very annoying, and it's becoming increasingly common. I've seen numerous sysops do it via the administrative rollback function, and that's even worse. —David Levy 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we at least stick to the wiki-principle on this page? Ignore any darn arbitrary rules people have made up, be bold, and edit the page! If it sucks, we'll revert you and whack you over the head with a whiffle bat until someone becomes enlightened. Kim Bruning 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In that spirit, can we get rid of the following warning? "It has a long tradition, so please think hard about the reasons this page exists before editing it." I think this is a strange place for a Be Timid! poster :) and in practice this page gets edited quite a lot. Haukur 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, just because you can ignore all rules doesn't mean you can turn off your brain. Quite the opposite in fact. If you're going to ignore all rules, you had better keep your eyes and ears open and your brain working overtime. No need to have people be lazy! (So imho, it's not saying 'be lazy timid' ;-) ) Kim Bruning 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Basic wiki guideline

Ignore all rules is one of the key guidelines in the trifecta, and also in the 5 pillars. It explains a basic inherent aspect of a wiki, and it's very hard to deny. Razors are sharp, things fall when you drop them, and people tend to ignore all rules on wikis, unless they're somehow enforced by software. (see also: Poka-yoke for how this can be done non-disruptively)

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with you?

Well, many times when you're involved in something tricky, you're going to have to improvise anyway. It's a bit too late to practice when you're already in an emergency though ;-P .

That's why it's a good idea to practice using the trifecta in normal day-to-day editing. Can you manage to justify anything and everything you do using only the trifecta and logic?

It's an interesting challenge. I've been practicing on this for maybe half-a-year to a year now. I wonder if/how-often people have noticed?

-- Kim Bruning 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) °

Trifecta, eh? Sounds like instruction-creep to me. That 'IAR' part seems pretty redundant - I'm going to one-up this and suggest a "policy duo": 1. Improve the encyclopedia. 2. Be nice. Haukur 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to be mean to be able to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes you need to let the encyclopedia wait so as to be nice (and it'll catch up in future anyway :-) ). Finally, there's a lot of wisdom-challenged people who wish to ban 1 and 2. Hence the need for IAR to deal with each of those contingencies.

KISS, cut things down to the bare minimum, but no less! :-) Kim Bruning 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When you give people two rules/guidelines to go by they'll figure out that they need to balance them against each other even without you giving them a pseudo-mystical third rule to that effect. And, besides, that's not what the IAR text says at all. If it said: "On Wikipedia you need to apply your own judgment and balance the rules and guidelines against each other as well as listening to other people" then I would be all for it. It sounds like you fear Wikipedia would be taken over by robots if the IAR page didn't exist :-) Haukur 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. WP:IAR is a corollary of WP:BOT. Kim Bruning 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"important to Wikipedia"

I have removed this in line with similar removals from Wikipedia:Process is Important [4] and Wikipedia:Snowball clause [5]. —Ashley Y 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. Wikipedia:Process is Important and Wikipedia:Snowball clause are essays, whereas IAR is one of our oldest and most fundamental concepts. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The current incarnation of this page is not very old and there is a lot of difference between different versions of it. Haukur 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'current incarnation' of this page matches quite closely the original wording before people decided it would be a good idea to bury the essential message of IAR under piles of analogies, corollaries and instruction creep. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, why does it matter? IAR is still hugely significant to Wikipedia culture, whatever the precise wording of it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See above where I argue for restoring the original wording and two fans of the current version tell me that the traditional version is crazy and that it means something completely different from the current one. Haukur 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do seem to have changed the tone. I guess after going through all the qualifications and caveats people were just happy to be back again. Funny how that works. 192.75.48.150 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Ngb

I added this today; ngb reverted it with some nonsense about the text being "as simple as possible". I think some expansion is necessary in light of someone attempting to cite IAR as a "policy" (see Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion). I reproduce the text I added below for comment.

Wikipedia policy is not prescriptive; the written text of the policies on the Wikipedia does not absolutely control editing and failure to stay within the four corners of the stated policies is not an offense. Policy on Wikipedia is ever-shifting, changing as our administrators and editors constantly encounter new situations and act in response to them, with the goal of constantly improving the encyclopedia. The written policy only covers the situations we have encountered to date, and not completely at that, so you may find yourself in a position where the written policy doesn't seem to cover the situation at hand, or even offers guidance that, to you, seems wrong. When you find yourself in such a situation, don't panic. Instead, do what you think is best, with the goal of improving Wikipedia. Do not try to figure out what "policy requires", because there is no policy that requires anything.

Remember, policy may be wrong. What matters is that you always work to improve Wikipedia.

Kelly Martin (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not policy? ^^;; But what we need is indeed a separate page where everything *about* IAR is stated. This page kept getting 20 miles long, which was a bit of a problem ;-) Kim Bruning 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, there's previously been a strong consensus that this page should be kept as simple as possible.

What has happened in the past is that people have, in all good faith, attempted to 'expand' IAR with explanations. Other Wikipedians have added corollaries to those explanations. Other Wikipedians have added counterexamples to those corollaries. Other Wikipedians have expanded the original explanations. The net result is that IAR ends up snowballing into a ridiculous, long monstrosity that is no use to anyone.

Therefore, what's been done is to reduce this page to its simplest possible form and save the lengthy explanations for other essay pages: these are linked to in the 'See also' section. A good place for your text might be Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules.

This is far from 'nonsense', and I expect that you will apologise for rudely and unnecessarily calling it that. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 13:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current version, where other people are mentioned as important, is superior to the previous one. Haukur 14:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The addition makes sense, however, it is completely unneeded. If someone thinks that your addition was not good they will revert. And they will have the rules on their side. IAR cannot be used as a defence, since it isn't a rule or a guideline or anything of the sort. It should be kept as simple as possible. SECProto 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

License to edit war

“ If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. ”

One can justify any POV edit with this, no matter how many times it's been reverted. Surely some appeal to consensus is appropriate here, just like there was? Bear in mind that in a typical edit war, both sides think they are "improving Wikipedia's quality".

I know you all love the simplicity and the bracing "spirit of Wikipedia" feeling you get when reading this as a single sentence. But as written, it's bad advice. —Ashley Y 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does need something. In the somewhat-romantic-sounding way that this reads, it should end with something like, "And consensus will prevail in the end." SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am not correct this is the (or one of the) oldest "rule" in the book, am i wrong? Which basically means the whole WP:3RR thing gets trumped in favour of the anarchy that started up this project. Not to be too cynical of course! :) Ansell 06:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Both sides in an edit war may think they're right, but both should realise that having an edit war self-evidently doesn't improve Wikipedia's quality. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all self-evident, as responsibility for the edit war can easily be placed on the other person, who keeps reverting "my improving edits". Your "should realise" part is the caveat to this rule that would be better stated explicitly. —Ashley Y 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Haukur 11:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This page isn't policy. Using it to justify actions will just get people's asses kicked. They can't say that "I was only doing as I was told" because the page states quite clearly that this page isn't policy or a guideline. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deskana, you know exactly where this page stands. Noone can justify their actions with this page - It is not a rule, or a guideline, or anything that someone can use as a defence of any sort. SECProto 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If people take even this rule that literally -- and taking rules literally is something this very rule is telling you not to do -- then there is probably no helping it. Specifically, I doubt tacking on "obey concensus!" would help, for exactly the same reason. In fact I think that "reverting to consensus version" shows up in edit summaries far more often than "ignoring all rules". 192.75.48.150 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, "not policy". Its status is advice. And as a single statement, it's bad advice. —Ashley Y 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think it is better advice without saying "only if people agree with you". This hurts a central point in the vain hopes that certain clueless people will thereby be prevented from doing clueless things -- as I say, it will probably not help them, for similar reasons that the original page wouldn't. Incidentally, if we really were to take things that literally, then, it was obvious that lots of people do not agree with your addition, therefore, according to your addition, you shouldn't have re-added it. Obviously that can't be right. 192.75.48.150 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The "central point" is actually bad advice left unqualified. We're not trying to prevent people doing clueless things, only refraining from encouraging them to do so. —Ashley Y 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accept, for the sake of argument, that this whole page really is pointless to begin with, as we seem to be implying, even then, I'm not sure we've even accomplished what you think, because now people have even more reason to beat other people over the head with their favourite notion of "consensus", which is far more often abused a word in edit wars than this page ever was, so I trust you won't mind that I reverted your change to, shall we say, the consensus version, and let us conclude this run-on sentence with a hymn. AND DID THOSE RUUULES! IN ANCIENT TIIIIME! -Dan 192.75.48.150 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your use of "consensus version" seems to be an example of that abuse, apparently? I'm not seeing a consensus emerge yet. —Ashley Y 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible intentions?

Is it possible this was only made a part of Wikipedia to "demonstrate" how laid-back and free it is or something? Because it seems a little bizarre that Wikipedia would have such a complex set of rules and systems to enforce them and then have something so very, very open to interpretation and abuse. Any thoughts? Karwynn (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How, in any way, is Ignore All Rules open to abuse? SECProto 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It encourages people to edit-war. Sure, it's not policy, but it is advice. —Ashley Y 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not encourage people to edit war. It encourages them to improve the wikipedia. SECProto 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing with edit wars. Both sides think they are "improving the wikipedia". Thus, this advice encourages edit wars. —Ashley Y 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even necessarily saying it encourages it, it's just that it's open to abuse. Anway, about my original question? Karwynn (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think with some sort of "consensus" caveat it would be considerably less open to abuse. —Ashley Y 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To Karwynn, yes. I'd like to see this taken more in the spirit of the original phrasing. Something along the lines of, If you find the myriad, often seemingly self-contradictory and incongruous rules of Wikipedia to be overwhelming and intimidating such that you are not able to contribute constructively to the project of building a free encyclopedia, then ignore the rules and simply do your best to improve Wikipedia. Keep in mind that those who abuse the rules under the pretense of ignoring rules will face censure from the community. older ≠ wiser 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this, too. —Ashley Y 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Haukur 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is too long and has too many big words. :) SECProto 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WALK OVER EDITS GOOD AND CLEAN! No, this predates most of that. Ostensibly, it tries to get people to carry on and not take the impressive volume of legislation we were accumulating (even then) too seriously. But in reality, it gives old farts an excuse to carry on about Ancient Time. 192.75.48.150 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think the tidbit about self-contraictory should be in there to. Any thoughts? Karwynn (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how often we've been here at precicely this spot? And thus the cycle starts again ;-) BTW, as far as I'm concerned, yes, ignore all rules is policy. Can you figure or understand why I think that?

<blatant plug> If you want to learn more, how about signing up for calvinball at wikimania? ;-) </blatant plug>Kim Bruning 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the meaning of IAR has been changed in this edit war. IAR is intended for any instances in which the rules prevent one from improving the encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with interpretations or complicated language or anything like that. I am going to restore the clause it to its original state, and any change at all should be considered major, and therefore require a consensus. AdamBiswanger1 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The version you reverted to is a far cry from the original version. I don't like it because it seems to suggest that "the rules" are commonly preventing you from doing the right thing. That's a far cry from the truth. At most the rules may slow you down in doing what you want to do - usually by making you talk to other people about it. Haukur 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't true. This isn't merely a matter of expediting matters by ignoring rules that cause delay. In some instances, following a rule means acting in a manner that defies common sense and harms Wikipedia.

For example, several people have advocated the replacement of certain GIF icons with PNG/SVG icons that are larger and less compatible. There's absolutely no benefit, but they insist that we should follow the rules purely for the sake of following the rules. (They're referring to our image use policy, which makes sense in most cases.) This page serves as a reminder that the rules are a means, not an end. —David Levy 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they do, such as in a case of an earnest 3RR violator, or an obvious statement that has no "acceptable" sources. Now, it is my personal feeling that anyone who wants adjustment of the wording of IAR is simply too married to the idea of legalism and perfect definitions, in a sort of mathematical mindset. We must think realistically and realize that it will not be abused, and even if it is, anyone doing so will be quickly admonished by the overwhelming majority of us who have common sense. So, let's not throw the brevity of IAR in the fire to prevent unlikely circumstances. It is perfect as it is. AdamBiswanger1 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The version you reverted from was no longer than the one you prefer. Your "mathematical mindset" theory amuses me a bit since just 10 minutes ago you were making this somewhat legalistic procedural point: "any change at all should be considered major, and therefore require a consensus". But as it happens I do like the original version of this page and I don't think there was ever consensus to move away from it. Can we have that one back, then? Haukur 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There most certainly was consensus to move away from the original version. This resulted in the page's natural evolution. Are you looking for some sort of formal poll? —David Levy 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this short version encourages edit warring. Both sides in an edit war are encouraged to "ignore all rules" and, in good faith, "improve Wikipedia's quality". I think we can give better advice here. —Ashley Y 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that edit-warring is harmful, so it does not improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality. As I've stated before, I don't object to the inclusion of a link to Wikipedia:Consensus. I thought that Haukurth's recent addendum ("Of course, it's critical that other people agree with you.") was fine (and you obviously agreed), but it was repeatedly removed. —David Levy 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam's accusations of legalism are unhelpful. Surely we should be asking "what is the best advice we can give here?" Advice should be brief, but this misses an crucial caveat about consensus. AdamBiswanger1 even alludes to it by mentioning "the overwhelming majority of us", as any argument about the interpretation of IAR always must. —Ashley Y 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving reasons for ignoring rules

People seem to keep wanting to put in reasons for ignoring rules... like if they're "confusing" or if you're "depressed" or "scared". It is utterly beyond me why these would be good reasons to start ignoring rules, in fact acting on those kinds of emotions is pretty much where we see a lot of the most disruptive stuff come from. If you're going to ignore a rule, it should be in a calm state of mind, with a clear understanding of the rule, and why you need to ignore it. --W.marsh 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)