Misplaced Pages

talk:Ignore all rules: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:47, 30 August 2006 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits This should not be policy← Previous edit Revision as of 15:51, 30 August 2006 edit undoKusma (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators59,515 edits →This should not be policy: JimboNext edit →
Line 438: Line 438:


How disturbing that this just became policy under people's noses. This is pretty bad. Where is the consensus for this? --] <small>]</small> 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC) How disturbing that this just became policy under people's noses. This is pretty bad. Where is the consensus for this? --] <small>]</small> 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:It did not become policy by consensus, it was fortunately by Jimbo. ] ] 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:51, 30 August 2006

WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages
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 (. 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. ]
  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 Misplaced Pages 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 , | (Ë-Mail)
  35. Gubbubu 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) some editors like to use Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages: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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 § agrees! I like to believe that Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. All wise editors will know when it's justified. AdamBiswanger1 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  89. Rules exist to make Misplaced Pages better. If you can do something unquestionably beneficial to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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...
    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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, Misplaced Pages:Interpret all rules. and Misplaced Pages:Use common sense.
    Oppose (despite supporting this page above ...now below -Dan) 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
    Comment You should move that to the oppose section. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  92. Zos 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  93. Very, very strong supporter Goes back to the entire purpose of Misplaced Pages -- 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)
  96. Support - I feel that in cases of blatant vandalism, such a policy is necessary until administrative intervention (i.e., blocking) can take place. I do not believe the 3RR should ever be ignored if there is simply a POV dispute, or any other argument within normal realms of human disagreement. But we should be able to revert repeated page blankings, etc. past three reverts if a vandal keeps at it. Czj 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  97. Absolute support though to me its an extension of "Be Bold". --PopUpPirate 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  98. You can't follow the policies all the time... :p —Khoikhoi 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  99. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (yay, #100 =P )
  100. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) -- Assume Good Faith and Ignore All Rules... the very core of Misplaced Pages.

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 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.//
  4. David
  5. Larry Sanger
  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, Misplaced Pages 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)
    No, it can't. 3RR has an explicit exception for vandalism. This is not an example of ignoring a rule, it is an example of a rule that isn't written in the most simplistic and brain-dead possible way. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. I would like to rephrase to: If all the rules on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    (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)
  17. You've gotta be kidding me. --LBMixPro 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 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)
  21. As explained below. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  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)
  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 21:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  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)
  25. Strongly opposed. The one-paragraph version was good advice for newbies to not sweat all the Misplaced Pages rules because there would always be someone who would come along and fix any mistakes made and help them them to become better Misplaced Pages 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)
  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)
  27. Tεxτurε 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  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)
  29. Changed my vote from Support to Oppose when the sentence "Misplaced Pages: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 /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 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Oppose for reasons well known Rex 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here's some rules we'd like everyone to follow, but feel free to do what you want then cite Misplaced Pages:Ignore All Rules as justification. Makenji-san 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
    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 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 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Common sense isn't common, so it doesn't make sense. - Ekevu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  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 Misplaced Pages procedure. This needs to be revised to remove any possibility of that poisonous interpretation. --CBD ☎ 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  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 Misplaced Pages should be, and not everybody agrees on this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  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 Misplaced Pages and never come back. -Ikkyu2 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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 Misplaced Pages:Use common sense instead, which says absolutely everything this page says without being misinterpreted to encourage vandalism. Kafziel 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Hyphen5 10:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  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 Misplaced Pages. ProhibitOnions 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
  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)
  46. Strong oppose WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy. Not policy anyway. Cynical 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  48. Strong oppose - if the rules are bad or not feasible, then change them. But don't institute anarchy. Str1977 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)
  49. 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\ 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose - Has been used by trolls and vandals to support their harmful decisions.--Conrad Devonshire 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. 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)
  52. Strongly oppose - This can be used by anyone to justify anything as if it is valid. --Chris Griswold 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. 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)
  54. 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 Misplaced Pages's quality, which is highly subjective. KV(Talk) 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Karwynn (talk) Strongly Oppose - Misplaced Pages is not subjective. How about, if the rules impede Misplaced Pages, 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)
  56. Strongly Oppose. When there is conflict between two human beings, there are only two possible solutions: (1) Peaceful resolution through the application of some rule, or (2) armed resolution by might makes right. If anything, Misplaced Pages needs more rules to prevent bullying. -- Nikodemos 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose, because Wikipedians have to follow rules in order to get along with the project. Everywhere you go, there are laws and rules--the same goes for this site. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Strongly Oppose. There needs to be accountability from the new editor with one edit count, all the way up to Jimbo. Everyone--n00bs, veteran editors, n00b admins, veteran admins, beurocrats, Danny, etc.: everyone has to be on the same playing field, and bound the same bylaws. This is a too easily abusable tool to allow people with "more seniority" perhaps to simply bypass process. It along with WP:SNOW are a major problem IMHO, that leads to too many people taking inappropriate unilateral action against what should be proper process. Getting rid of IAR completely would at once serve to reign in trolling--they can't say that they followed IAR in alleged good faith, but at the same time it will strongly reign in everyone. Everyone will have to abide to policy, and do everything by the book. Anyone being stupid or getting out of line in a negative fashion has nothing to fall back on. You violated policy, and you have no get out of jail free card by citing IAR. For this to work long term all policies at all times need to apply to all people working on Misplaced Pages. Jimbo is the only person who gets to pull an IAR move, because he has a policy that says he can change the rules. No one else. Get rid of this thing. rootology (T) 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. If you can justify an action to the point where it reaches consensus even though it violates a rule, then maybe the rule should be ignored, but more likely, I think it's an indication that the rule cited needs to be altered.Keppa 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  60. Strongly Oppose I believe that if you need break (i.e three reverts per day rule) a rule you should ask a sysop first. --Redlock 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose The spirit of the idea is correct, but as stated it would seem to justify doing anything that you want. See my suggestion below, "ignore the rules --- not the people". I would support it if and only if something like that were added. Bayle Shanks 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  62. Strongest possible opposeTimothy Usher 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Ignoring rules can makes sense insofar as is already covered by WP:SNOW, where the issue is only one of procedure. There may be an important point here which would benefit from a more specific treatment. The current wording follows the logic of a marketing slogan, selected for catchiness more than for meaning or clarity.Timothy Usher 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. It wasn't constructive when rules were broken, more often than not. They're not cast in iron anyway, that's enough for flexibility. --tickle me 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. We may just as well throw all the existing rules out of the window. Pecher 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  65. Strongly oppose. While it is endorsed by some excellent and conscientious users, who seem to understand it as meaning "Don't let the rules prevent you from doing the right thing", people will always differ as to what "the right thing" is, and the whole concept is very much open to abuse. There are exceptional circumstances where common sense might say that the rules don't apply — for example, if an editor I'm in dispute with starts posting another editor's name and address all over Misplaced Pages, I'm going to block immediately, rather than spending ten minutes trying to find an uninvolved admin. But I can do that without appealing to a slogan that others may appeal to for less justifiable reasons. AnnH ♫ 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  66. 1ne 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strongly oppose Just enables people to justify unwarranted, detrimental acts. Supporters think they live in some sort of dream-like Utopia where everyone wants to and knows how to act for the common good. Even if people think in good faith that they are acting for good, they frequently are not. We need strong rules and policies to make Misplaced Pages work. nadav 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I Walk The Line

  1. Jonny Cache 14:48, 24 August 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 Misplaced Pages:Strict constructionist deletion). I reproduce the text I added below for comment.

Misplaced Pages policy is not prescriptive; the written text of the policies on the Misplaced Pages does not absolutely control editing and failure to stay within the four corners of the stated policies is not an offense. Policy on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages: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\ 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's quality".

I know you all love the simplicity and the bracing "spirit of Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages's quality. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 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)
What do you mean?! Look at the straw poll!! We have nearly 2:1 working consensus on this point!!! Stop messing with the consensus version... no, you're exactly right, and in fact, it seems to me that the phrase "consensus version" in particular is almost always an example of this sort of abuse, though perhaps my experience is unusual. 192.75.48.150 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible intentions?

Is it possible this was only made a part of Misplaced Pages to "demonstrate" how laid-back and free it is or something? Because it seems a little bizarre that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to be overwhelming and intimidating such that you are not able to contribute constructively to the project of building a 💕, then ignore the rules and simply do your best to improve Misplaced Pages. 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)
Can we get a coloured ticky mark for this page too? I vote for orange. 192.75.48.150 16:14, 2 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 Misplaced Pages.
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)
Actually, we had a talk at hacking days yesterday by a KDE/ openusability speaker. She talked about a study they'd done on wikipedia usability (including or focussing on images), and en-passant utterly destroyed any possible conception that our image use guidelines make any sense whatsoever. Actually that was for de.wikipedia + commons, who actually have somewhat simpler image use guidelines. I was amazed, I hadn't thought they were *that* bad. Kim Bruning 15:13, 3 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's quality. As I've stated before, I don't object to the inclusion of a link to Misplaced Pages: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)
Of course edit-warring is harmful. But the thing is, in an edit war each party thinks in good faith that they are improving the encyclopedia. That's the problem. I am in favour of some reference to Misplaced Pages:Consensus but not attached to any particular wording. —Ashley Y 20:24, 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)
I certainly do not want to seem unpleasant or brash. That's my first priority. The reason I reverted to the original version was so that we do not have this aimless altering of the text that is going on now, which is rather inconsistent with consensus. But what I really want to get across is that the wording I reverted back to (If the rules prevent you from maintaining or improving wikipedia's quality, ignore them), are absolutely perfect. They do not require change, and I see no reason to further specify, because that version is phenomenal in the spirit of nobility and anti-bureuocracy that it conveys. To add fine print would merely do nothing but add unhelpful and unneeded advice, and kill the said spirit. AdamBiswanger1 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's that "bracing Spirit of Misplaced Pages feeling" I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, while it may make people feel good, it doesn't make very good advice, as it gives license to edit war (since each participant can claim, in good faith, that they are "improving the encyclopedia"). We're not talking about "fine print" here, but it does need to be qualified with a reference to consensus.
We probably shouldn't be sacrificing helpfulness for "spirit". —Ashley Y 19:31, 2 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 thus why you need to ignore it. --W.marsh 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with W.marsh. An important element of IAR is that someone should understand why a rule exists before ignoring it. Advising users to ignore rules that confuse them actively discourages them from gaining a better understanding and making an informed decision. ("If the rules are confusing, instead of asking someone to explain them to you and attempting to understand what they mean, you should ignore them.") —David Levy 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if "confusing or unhelpful" doesn't fly then how about "contradictory or unhelpful"? Our naming conventions come to mind. Haukur 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems entirely redundant to me. Being "contradictory" is one of the ways that a rule can be "unhelpful." It's already covered. —David Levy 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't agree. Now, I can see why this might apply to people with special privileges, as these people really ought to know what they're doing, and can't be as easily reverted. An extreme example would be a bureaucrat's action to promote, which can't even be reverted by his peers! Maybe this is what motivates this sort of thinking. But these are unusual cases. For regular editors (which are the overwhelming majority), and especially for newer editors (which are still the majority), so bloody what if you don't understand the rule you're breaking? You will be educated shortly, and if not, then it probably wasn't really a rule, just something that happened, at that particular time, to be on a page with ticky mark on it. No big deal. 192.75.48.150 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Total agreement with User:192.75.48.150 and his/her inclusive viewpoint --PopUpPirate 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the statement above that an "important element of IAR is that someone should understand why a rule exists before ignoring it" is utter nonsense. IMO, there is absolutely no basis or justifiction for invoking IAR to justify deliberately breaking rules. Misplaced Pages:Use common sense is more applicable in such cases where process/policy fetishism taken to an extreme leads to nonsensical conclusions. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it okay to cite one but not the other? —David Levy 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We have collectively noted several possible scenarios in which application of IAR is both sensical and just. For example, leniency to an earnest 3RR violator, borderline incivility, etc. If the rules lead to a nonsensical or unfair conclusion, then they lead to a nonsensical or unfair conclusion, and you ignore them. You do not abide by them. You are almost suggesting, Bkonrad, that the rules are perfect and that they will invariably lead one the right way. But in the next sentence you proposed the use of common sense should they not, leading me to ask David Levy's question. Why is it ok to cite one but not the other? How can using common sense override a policy without WP:IAR? AdamBiswanger1 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. I don't really see how I implied that the rules are ever "perfect". As I understand it, the point of this rule was ENTIRELY intended as a sort of light-hearted shorthand to newcomers. Something along the lines of, "here are the rules, blah, blah, blah, ... but don't worry too much if you find them confusing or unintelligible; if you make good faith efforts to contribute to the project, any aspects of your edits than might not conform to the nth detail of some particular rule can get sorted out later." I don't think this rule was ever intended to justify deliberately breaking rules (although unfortunately it has been invoked for that purpose). Now, there are times when following the "rules", may result in either bureaucratic stagnation or nonsensical unintended consequences. In such cases the rules should be reformed, and an act of defiance may be just the jolt that is needed. For example, I think the time User:Ed Poor deleted AfD to make a statement about what a cesspool it had become was arguably worthwhile. But I think it was wrong to invoke IAR as justification for the action. In cases like leniency with 3RR or other policies, well, IMO, that is also a matter of common sense. Adminstrator discretion is implicit in all such rules. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that Uncle Ed's infamous WP:POINT violation was "worthwhile," you and I have very different views of this project and how it should be run. I do agree that it was an invalid application of WP:IAR, as it was to the encyclopedia's detriment. —David Levy 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I said it was "arguably worthwhile". I certainly would never have chosen to do so myself, and I very much doubt that I would have supported such an action if it had been proposed ahead of time. What was "arguably worthwhile" was that it did shake up the toxicity that had settled into AfD, at least for a little while. Ed's provocative action helped to refocus people's attention on the mess that was AfD. I think prod and perhaps some other alternative deletion mechanisms gained a better reception, at least in part, as a result of Ed's action. But in any case, that was only an illustration of people inappropriately invoking IAR. I seem to recall that was also tossed around in the userbox wars, again used inappropriately to justify expedience. A large part of this misunderstanding I think comes from the title--by itself, the title loses most of the wit and light-heartedness that the original phrasing expressed. And because the title (more than the actual content) was often invoked to justify expediency, later editors tried to shoehorn other considerations into the rule, once again only to lose the wit and light-heartedness. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that Ed's action had any positive effect (aside from eventually contributing to the long-overdue revocation of his sysop status).
I agree that WP:IAR sometimes is abused, and you cited two excellent examples (Ed's deletion and the userbox saga). The key is that the rules are supposed to be ignored for the purpose of "improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages's quality." Even if the removal of userboxes accomplishes this goal (which I believe it often does), out-of-process deletions and wheel-warring most certainly do not. Like all editing, the application of WP:IAR should be guided by consensus. (Does the community agree that an instance of ignoring a rule is to Misplaced Pages's benefit?) More than one editor has attempted to insert language of this nature (including a link to Misplaced Pages:Consensus), but all such changes have been reverted. —David Levy 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think rules should ever be deliberately "ignored". If rules get in the way, I don't think "ignoring" them is the correct response. Actions based on such a deliberate choice are not made in ignorance. I do not think this rule was ever intended for that purpose -- those sorts of deliberate choices to step outside the rules are more appropriately addressed by other nuggets of wisdom, such as using common sense. older ≠ wiser 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "disregard" is a more appropriate word, but IAR is rather historical, and the point comes across all the same. Also, as I mentioned earlier, using common sense to override a rule is essentially IAR. One cannot use common sense contrary to a rule but for IAR, which is the only way out of strict legalism. AdamBiswanger1 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is IAR necessary for common sense? Common sense and administrator discretion is implicit in all rules on Misplaced Pages. Even core principles such as NPOV and civility can have varying nuances in application. This rule , as originally formulated, seems intended to address NOT the deliberate disregard of rules, but rather acknowledges that a sort of obliviousness toward the rules is acceptable, so long as you are acting in good faith. older ≠ wiser 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And that is exactly, exactly, exactly what IAR is, too. AdamBiswanger1 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? older ≠ wiser 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Because IAR "acknowledges that a sort of obliviousness toward the rules is acceptable, so long as you are acting in good faith". Sorry if that wasn't clear. AdamBiswanger1 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm a little dense, but I still don't understand. What is it "that is exactly, exactly, exactly what IAR is, too"? older ≠ wiser 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all--Well, you were trying to come up with why IAR is not needed/impractical and why UCS is superior. You then went into defining what UCS is, saying that it's not a deliberate disregard of the rules, but an obliviousness toward them. I really don't see the difference, as any action transgressing the rules in full realization of their existence is deliberate to me. But I said that the said obliviousness, which you mentioned, is "exactly" the same way IAR is intended to be used. The same reasons you laid out for the use of UCS are applicable to IAR, and produce the same result. They both really are "common sense" rules, that allow you to "break the rules" when needed. AdamBiswanger1 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, then I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that IAR is not a deliberate disregard of the rules, but an obliviousness toward them. I suggested that UCS was perhaps a better alternative nugget of wisdom to apply in cases involving a deliberate disregard of rules. older ≠ wiser 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry I had my finger on something completely different than what you said. But anyway, from when I've seen it used wisely, IAR is a deliberate disregard of the rules in full knowledge of their intricacies and the ramifications of the invocation, while being in complete good faith. But for now, I'm way too tired to make any sense...more tomorrow : ) AdamBiswanger1 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has been used in that way. But I think it is something of an unfortunate extension of IAR far beyond the original scope. IMO, invoking IAR to disregard rules gives a tacit license to a sort of agressive ignorance -- even if it is intended with good faith, it can give rise to unnecessary confusion over applicability. I.e., why are some editors allowed to deliberately ignore some rules while in other circumstances, deliberately ignoring the rules results in blocks? It seems a lot of the contortions (and the resultant loss of the original wit) has to do with trying to cover such contingencies. I suppose my suggestion would only shift the onus of this discussion onto UCS--but I think that invoking the use of common sense is somewhat less inflamatory that invoking IAR in cases where it may be appropriate to deliberately disregard the rules. older ≠ wiser 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said that editors should worry about accidentally violating rules that they don't fully understand. I said that they shouldn't be encouraged to deliberately violate rules that they don't fully understand. Indeed, if a user accidentally breaks a rule, he or she will soon be educated by someone more knowledgeable in that area. We shouldn't tell people to "ignore" such advice. —David Levy 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If only English had a separate plural "you", I would use it here. —Ashley Y 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad asks: "Why is IAR necessary for common sense? Common sense and administrator discretion is implicit in all rules on Misplaced Pages.".

Indeed it is. The thing is that if we don't spell things out, some people aren't going to get it. (Not everyone is a smart cookie, or willing to spend time digging through the rules to figure out every nuance). Hence IAR spells out what was implicit in the rules before, lest people forget about it, or change the rules and out of ignorance lose the implication.

Kim Bruning 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

Would anyone be averse to archiving this talk page? SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored sections with stuff less than a week old. I wouldn't mind archiving the straw poll, even though there's an appealing irony to it, in a sick and twisted way... 192.75.48.150 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the rules -- but not other people

The spirit behind this guideline is good, but as written it seems to encourage people to do whatever they want.

We want people to ignore the rules --- but without imposing their will on others.

I think we need to add something like "Ignore the rules -- but remember that Misplaced Pages is the joint project of many other people, who have ideas about how it should be, ideas which may be different from yours. Don't ignore other people." Bayle Shanks 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would be better advice to give. However, a number of people prefer the text as concise as possible, because they feel more inspired by it that way. —Ashley Y 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We could link to WP:DICK or something instead. 192.75.48.150 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We already do link to WP:DICK in the "See also" section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Ignore all rules is part of the policy trifecta as well as the Five pillars. Pick which of those you like best.

No single rule can do everything on its own. That's why we team it up with others! :-)

Kim Bruning 16:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Great way to put it Kim :) -- Laura S | talk to me 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"Ignore the rules ⇔ the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages's quality." --HantaVirus 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

graffitibox

Looks like people are constructively editing the graffitibox. Even so, edit summaries can only be so long... care to discuss here? :-)

I took out the "advice" part because imo ignore all rules is a kind of law of wikis. It tries to describe the following reality:

The software and the community act as a safety fence. So as long as you're acting in good faith, aren't a dick, and don't purposely violate NPOV, you can basically go wild, and you'll hardly ever screw up so badly that a couple of minor corrections to your edit can't fix it. (Or at worst, if you make a really big howler, people can just revert and then put back what you actually *meant* to say ;-) ).

The levels of support and oppose at the top of the page seem to contradict my view however. Perhaps people feel that the wiki does not sufficiently act as a safety fence? I'm unsure.

Could some people who would like to use "advice" please explain their reasoning? Separately, it'd be interesting to hear more detailed oppose reasons, and to discuss them.

I'm not sure about that poll. I mean, look at the time scale involved. I think recent votes are fairly evenly split, so perhaps the real percentage is about 55% of straw pollees in favour. On the other hand, this gets cited a lot as if it were policy by many people who have not voted above, and it is rare to see any objection. (I have never seen one. Granted, I don't hang around with admins. See below. section referred to was removed --me 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)) Disputes on naming, categorization, and actual wording aside, this thingamabob is something fundamental.
I don't mind the "advice" tag so much, because I think I have always cited this as advice -- not to justify any particular action (my own or another's). On the other hand, I don't mind seeing it removed either. 192.75.48.150 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Advice" is the simplest description of what this is. It's not a rule. It's not a guideline, apparently. What is it? It's advice. —Ashley Y 07:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears Fearless Leader has spoken... I wonder what this will do to the IAR "cycle"? 72.137.20.109 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Halmos on ignoring all rules

I like the way Paul Halmos put it in his autobiography: Don't break the rules until you find out what they are. Michael Hardy 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Closure?

JA: I know that you mean that in the least binding of all possible ways … Jon Awbrey 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you talking about my edit summary, I meant the merge discussion I'd intended to start was stopped because apparently it was the same discussion that's been had before. Only it's buried in the archives and change history, so I didn't know that before attempting it. If there's any talk page that deserves a summary at the top it is this one, what's been tried what has been suggested, what the outcome was. Blarg. As for the discussion page in general - no, I'm sure the cycle will continue. -- Isogolem 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Ah, very interesting … Yes, I only recently learned of this, but apparently one of the rules that some people like to ignore is the one about preserving edit histories. Jon Awbrey 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This should not be policy

How disturbing that this just became policy under people's noses. This is pretty bad. Where is the consensus for this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It did not become policy by consensus, it was fortunately decreed from above by Jimbo. Kusma (討論) 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)