Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 23 May 2006 (BOLD!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Archive
Archives

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)[reply]
  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))[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 SidawayTalk 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  59. David Gerard 13:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  62. Karmafist 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC), although I think it should be a bit more clear.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  64. TantalumTelluride 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) — If Jimbo supports it, it must be right.[reply]
  65. Locke Cole 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  70.   freshgavin TALK    03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  71. Siva1979Talk to me 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Joey 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Rule of the Rebel. --hydkat 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Meditate deeply upon the wisdom of Ignore All Rules. --Xyzzyplugh 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  3. Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.//
  4. David
  5. Larry Sanger (User has left the project)
  6. Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  7. Noldoaran (Talk)
  8. Lethe 15:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) -- (if you support "ignore all rules", shouldn't you be opposed to "ban repeat vandals"?)
  9. 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).
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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.
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
  17. You've gotta be kidding me. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 12:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  18. 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)
  19. Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  20. This is just a reason anyone can use to do any kind of vandalism. Elfguy 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. As explained below. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23. 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)[reply]
  24. 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)[reply]
  25. 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)[reply]
  26. 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)[reply]
  27. Tεxτurε 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong opposition, encourages admin abuse, discourages accountability. Contrary to the project goal of creating an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 22:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 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))
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. Oppose for reasons well known Rex(talk) 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. 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)[reply]
  34. 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)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You had, actually: #16. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  36. Common sense isn't common, so it doesn't make sense. - Ekevu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 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)[reply]
  38. 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 Germany 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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)[reply]
  40. 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)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
  42. Hyphen5 10:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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)[reply]
  44. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Strong oppose WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy. Not policy anyway. Cynical 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Regularly misused by those who consider essential policy (eg WP:V and particularly WP:CIVIL) optional. Jakew 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Encourages abuse of powers. --Ligulem 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Aaaarrgh! The recursion! The horrible recursion! --Nick Boalch ?!? 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules. It's pretty good. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...and possibly paradoxial

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

...and offensive

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ummm... I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this? Care to explain? Deskana (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do we really have 640K of rules? Gosh. Maybe we need to Delete some rules?  ;-) Ben Aveling 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I concur entirely with this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to note total agreement with this. The simpler the IAR page is, the better. --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we put Orwell's famous statement on ignoring rules on the page? ProhibitOnions 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Actually, I prefer your last sentence (and Orwell's, above) to the rule as it currently stands. ProhibitOnions 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second the request for clarification. As a new user, this seems extremely bizarre to me. --Hyphen5 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
*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)[reply]

It's gotten shorter! :-)

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the sandbox is smaller: its just a comment and a template. -- 127.*.*.1 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is positively bloated compared with Wikipedia:Keep policies short. Pcb21 Pete 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

---

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

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

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

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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=54778960"