This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zephram Stark (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 30 October 2005 (This article needs to stay Wikified. WP:IAR is not cast as a dispute resolution tool. Please talk about it in discussion or change parts you don't like, but leave it Wikified. Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:45, 30 October 2005 by Zephram Stark (talk | contribs) (This article needs to stay Wikified. WP:IAR is not cast as a dispute resolution tool. Please talk about it in discussion or change parts you don't like, but leave it Wikified. Thanks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
Misplaced Pages rules exist for the sole purpose of creating structure for dispute resolution when consensus is not reached. For those whose highest priority is to reach consensus, rules are not needed.
What to do when consensus cannot be reached
In a perfect Wiki, everyone would place the importance of collective thought above personal bias, but we sometimes find ourselves in disputes where bigotry threatens the NPOV of the article. Natural human tendency prompts us to offset unyielding partiality by any tools at our disposal——disparaging remarks, counterbalance bigotry, and unintended use of administration power——but these tools only compound perceptions of intolerance. Misplaced Pages has created policies and guidelines to assist us in resolving partisan disputes. These policies are not weapons to destroy an obdurate editor. They are only a means of achieving consensus. To minimize vandalism and enable the collective power of easy mass editing, our aim in using rules must always be to get to the point where we can ignore all rules. We must always strive for a system that works without them.
If rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one.
Toward our purpose
Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. The rules exist only to support that purpose. Our policies are meant to be neither straitjacket nor cudgel; they are merely a flexible framework within which we can cope with most common questions and problems. The spirit of our rules is far more important than their letter.
Common sense editing
Wikipedians are expected to use common sense. Actions that are reasonable but which contradict a strict reading of the rules should not be penalized, though they may be discussed. Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden — including the practice of 'rules-lawyering' — will attract censure.
Ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia.
When NOT to ignore all rules
- IAR does not justify actively disruptive or destructive behaviour.
- Administrators should not use IAR to make up and enforce their own set of rules.
- The more IAR looks like a stick of dynamite, the more you should think deeply before setting it off.