Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good essay

I thought that this was quite a good short essay.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope people find it useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

What about adding headers? It might make it easier to read, rather than a bunch of text on a page... Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule != Definition

I love the essay. However, the bullet point that says

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that Wikipedia is anything other than an encyclopedia of verifiable facts built by a community of volunteers with a wiki. (See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is not a rule, but a definition.)

sounded very like "Wikilawyering" to me. Specifically, rule!=definition is a technicality. Not that I disagree with the point, but is there any possibility to reword it so that it sounds as sincere and clear as the rest of the article? --Ishmaeel 10:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point should be stricken, WP#NOT is not special. I would suggest instead: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should only be ignored if ignoring it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Abuses of this, as with most abuses of WP:IAR will go under ignoring consensus. Taemyr 01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "rule != definition" is a technicality. There's a big difference between "ignore the fundamental goal of the project" and "ignore the rules that arise along the way". I'd like to know how ignoring "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (which is all that WP:NOT really says) makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

People actually try to cite "IAR" as grounds for using Wikipedia as something other than an encyclopedia. That point was addressed to those people, and I think it should be there, in some form. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" would probably not make for a better encyclopedia. But WP:NOT says quite a bit more than this. In fact, WP:NOT is ignored at times, for example by including glossaries, which are purely dicdef's.

The distinction between rule and definition might be seen as more than a technicality, but WP#NOT is a policy. The definition is simply Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And can be found on the front page.Taemyr 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point - distinguishing "rules" from "definitions" is kind of technical - and I agree that we shouldn't come across as technical. However, I think the gist of the removed text, apart from the technicality bit, is still good. There's a point worth making there, and it is that, while you can ignore rules, you can't ignore the basic mission of the project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. But WP#Not isn't the mission of the project. It's simply a collection of rules that consensus feels makes for a better encyclopedia. The overall mission is important, because we need something to form consensus about. Taemyr 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine then, forget WP:NOT, it clearly isn't the thrust of the point that I care about. I think that what we mean by "encyclopedia" is largely defined by where the limits of its purview are, i.e., what Wikipedia is not. That's beside the point though.

I'm trying to address a very specific problem, which is people misunderstanding IAR to mean that they can make Wikipedia into whatever they want it to be. I don't care about keeping wording that you or somebody else thinks is overly technical, etc.; I care about addressing that point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I've had a run at this, so that I'm not in terrible disagreement with it, but should we perhaps advertise this a bit more before declaring it "official"? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it's "official" in the same way a policy is official, I just changed the tag to reflect what is already believed about the page. Everyone on the talk page has agreed over time that the page adequately explains IAR. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We really ought to de-emphasize the way of thinking that holds pages as "official" or "unofficial". That would be in keeping with the spirit of IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing about the tag, by the way, just thinking aloud. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. To further the official/unofficial gap, maybe we should change the IAR wording to "Ignore all rules, but follow all essays!" :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

General disagreement

At this point I don't see anything specific that's incorrect. To me now it's just general incompleteness, namely the lack of faith in the sufficiency of people's good sense. I realize that sort of goes against the underlying assumption of this page, as some think "there's ample evidence that people misunderstand IAR unless we spell it out in excruciating detail for them". (I guess I must have slept through that part of the discussion.) It needs rebalancing, but of course this is harder than just removing or rewording things that I think are incorrect. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on linking separated to own section. Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Linking. Taemyr 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that we don't have a lack of faith in people's good sense. The vast majority gets what IAR is about. This still leaves a small minority that don't. Taemyr 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then it follows that the vast majority should get priority - they should do their best, focus on building the encyclopedia, and not worry. This is easily the most important point. It gets lost among the numbers. That's sort of what I'm getting at when I say this page is unbalanced. Here's an attempt. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does state that it enjoys general consensus. Additionally, almost always when someone is directed to this page it will either be because they either worry about how they should interpret IAR, or because someone directed them here because they apply IAR wrong. So starting with saying that everyone else gets this is likely to be contra-productive.Taemyr 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. For the first case, they may worry about how they should interpret IAR, but what do we expect - we've got a big "See Also" sign on IAR that points here, and this page has an intimidating tag on it. That they do worry doesn't mean that they ought to worry. In fact, that's kind of the point: normally, they should stop worrying and just get on with it. I say, let's tell them that right off the bat.

The second case is probably much less common. And even so, being directed here almost certainly not because of some polite meta-discussion on IAR, but rather in the context of some underlying dispute. If this page is being cited gently as something to consider, then a gentle lead section doesn't harm that purpose. If this page is being used as an appeal-to-authority to win an argument, then we should, as said above, de-emphasise that way of thinking. This page is for explanation, not WP:BASH-ing. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, I am not in any way disagreeing with the current intro. I am pointing out that when people read this article it is in order to gain a better understanding of IAR. So the article should be written for people who don't understand, or don't think they understand, IAR. Taemyr 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking

I disagree with this edit, which consolidated all the "see also"s to a list at the end. I think having them attached to certain points gave a clearer indication of which ideas are at work in which bullet point. Can you explain why you removed that structural element from the essay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page, or just on the diff's? Because this was also my initial reaction, but looking at the current page I feel the points have greater impact as they currently stand. Taemyr 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the whole page. I think it was better to have "see also"s distributed point-by-point. It's not worth arguing over much to me, but I didn't want it to pass without mention, either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I like the hidden-link approach. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, the "hidden-link" approach? I don't remember hiding anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I also liked the older format, but it was also mine, so I may be biased. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(dropping indentation) I went for that approach in order to include the direct connection between the see also's, while at the same time keeping each point concise. Taemyr 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag, part. 2

If we're going to use the {{poldetail}} tag, can I at least subst it to edit out the "part of a policy" clause in order to tailor it to be more specific? I hate stock tags, they're just too unspecific and boring. Anyway, so as to not get reverted, can we get some consensus to do this? It seems uncontroversial, but still... Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"This page discusses a part of policy in greater detail or (my emphasis) expands on the policy, but is not itself a policy. The actual policy is..." - What's wrong with that? This expands on the IAR policy. If there are more than a couple of pages like this, I think it's good to use the same tag, and possibly have it categorize them too. heqs ·:. 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that there's the "or" in the tag, but the fact of the matter is that we don't need the clause before the "or." We're not discussing part of the policy, we're discussing the policy. A simply subst and removal would solve the problem and make the tag appropriate for the page. Why would you want to keep it in? It seems counterintuitive to keep in a clause that is obviously false. That's all. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say it's the part after the or that is unneeded. We should not aim to expand IAR. Taemyr 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Essay"? --PopUpPirate 10:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay does not imply that there exists a consensus. Taemyr 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But you can have concensus on an essay, too. This seems like one tag too many, and blurs the line. --PopUpPirate 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You can, but the essay tag does not say if there exists consensus or not. Taemyr 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the essay tag states that the page only reflects the viewpoints of the author(s), aka /= consensus. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I thought it was a useful template, and was just trying to help. Not a big deal (to me) if you change it back. :) heqs ·:. 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, it's fine. Don't worry about it. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a rewrite

I made some nontrivial changes, that I think it wouldn't hurt to explain.

• I've "unhidden" links by taking them out from behind words and giving the full link titles in the text, mostly as parenthetical "See also" links. I think this is less confusing, especially since the page is aimed at newer users.

• I added the clause ""Ignore all rules" does not mean" or ""Ignore all rules" is not" to the beginning of each sentence in the second list. The "missing negative" phrasing achieved by truncating that opening made that section kind of weird, I thought.

• I did a lot of rewording: some was basic copyediting, other edits adjusted the meaning somewhat. If someone disagrees with a particular change, I'd prefer they revert that bit manually than reverting everything if it's only a point or two in contention.

Opinions and improvements are of course welcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit. Quick question, though: is there a reason why you decided to have ""Ignore all rules" does not mean" or ""Ignore all rules" is not" before all of the statements in the second list but removed all of the ""Ignore all rules" means" or ""Ignore all rules" is" in the first list? Do we not want to have consistency? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't remove the "Ignore all rules means" phrases from items in the first list; those were removed long ago in this edit. One could add those for consistency, but I don't feel that it's a big deal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you're right. Well, I don't care either way, I was just asking. I do like consistency, but it's not a show stopper for me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary page

WP:IAR is an "official" policy, so it may not matter whether WP:WIARM is described as an essay, or whatever. (We are ignoring the rules aint we?) But quite a number of editors have worked on it, and some sort of semi-official status seems justifiable, considering how it is linked to WP:IAR. Or just a less-confusing message-box is required? Newbyguesses - Talk 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with switching back to {{poldetail}} -- that is quite explicitly this page's purpose. I don't see how {{essay}} is somehow "simpler".--Father Goose 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's back to {{poldetail}}. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as IAR is policy, this explanation of it needs to reflect its supplemental status in explaining it. Odd nature 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag again

You know, I don't think this page needs a tag. I think the title pretty much sums everything up, and if we're going to be referring to this page as the expanded explanation of IAR, we shouldn't have a tag that says that the page merely reflects the viewpoint of the author(s). I think WP:NOTAG fits nicely here. Thoughts? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that a tag is not needed at this time. The tempate:Supplementary seems to be newly-created, what does it mean? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the discussions that led to the tag's creation, see Template talk:Poldetail and User talk:Radiant!#Template:Guidedetail. I've modified the wording to remove the "it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)" statement. —David Levy 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Rockstar - it depends on whether this page (WP:WIARM) is factual, or whether it reflects the authors' interpretation of IAR. As seen on IAR's talk page, many people interpret that page in different ways. >Radiant< 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's called equivocation where I'm from. I disagree, it explains a policy, and needs to be noted as such. Odd nature 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jump into the discussion at template talk:poldetail on how this might be best accomplished.--Father Goose 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:Radiant!, we have no way of knowing if this page is "factual". It is hard enough trying to determine whether people think it is helpful, and reflects a wide consensus. If it gets added to, and any additions are discussed on the talk-page, helfulness and consensus are addressed, but factuality cannot be garanteed. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. Well, until we actually know that it enjoys a wide consensus (as opposed to the half-a-dozen other pages that attempt to explain "what IAR means" differently) it shouldn't state at the top that it enjoys a wide consensus. I have noted that it explains a policy, because it does. >Radiant< 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely that question should be followed up on the talkpage for WP:IAR? There is a recent section there inviting any criticism or agreement with specific phrases of WP:WIARM, with currently no criticism at all, if you can believe that. Your views would be welcomed. Oh, and what other pages would they be that need to be considered? Thanks — Newbyguesses - Talk 09:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Category:Wikipedia process discussions holds about half a dozen "views" on IAR, and there's several others in CAT:E, and probably some in Wikispace and userspace that I don't know about. It would seem that your "recent section" has no criticism (or indeed, any response) because it was created only a few hours ago. >Radiant< 09:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I know this is a very bleedingly obvious, but perhaps we should make it clear that this policy does not let you carry out such things as vandalism, incivility, etc (if it does, it doesn't make that very clear). This is a good policy, though- I think a lot of wikipedians are ignoring it; recently there has been a lot of mindless adherence to the policies in topics that don't really work for them, but back on the matter of improving the article. Just thought we might want to add that before some immature people come here, read the info, and screw around with the encyclopoedia. Maybe we shoudl list what rules you are never permitted to ignore (I have my suspicions that it does not permit you to ignore rules on talk pages). Do you agree?211.30.134.111 07:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on it. I would disagree, as this is one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia ("The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider.""). Specifically, this is already covered under the current policy "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Vandalism and incivility do not fall under WP:IAR unless they somehow improve Wikipedia. Under this rule in Wikipedia, every rule specifically has an exception, so there are no rules that you aren't permitted to ignore...if, and only if, they improve the encyclopedia. Just my two cents. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we decide whether an item is vandalism, or whether it is a legitimate employment of IAR? Y.H.Crana 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it improve Wikipedia? That's the general idea. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking to the person helps, too. In an environment of uncivil communication or no communication, it can be very difficult to tell what people are up to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurt from being dumped on in such a big way by the Good Article fascists that I gave up editing adding what they had asked for, and from an appeals procedure which did nothing, I consider Wiki's own administration should reconsider their own priorities and methods in the light of this Principle. When the organisation shoots itself in the foot, then it's hard to accuse others of vandalism when you behave little better yourselves, stopping the people who know adding stuff you've not only asked for but also are incapable of adding yourselves, because all you're capable of is carping visibly all over perfectly acceptable pages about things not being perfect. Criticism is cheap, and worth about as much. The case in point is the Albigensian Crusade page, which is extracted from three contemporary chronologies, all listed. It's therefore self-indexed, and if you need to check the sources, you simply look the date up in each if the three chronologies. But no, the GA fascists look for distracting little numbers scattered throughout the text regardl;ess of the need, and when I asked politely whether what I was doing answers it, I was abused. This diktat of Rules, completely contravening this principle, also has a lot of the scientific sections upset, I observe, for similar reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.13.197 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image

Am I the only one who thinks the image is a bit out of place? How does it help to improve upon our understanding of the policy? Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I support its removal. It's cutesy and you have to view it full-size to see what it even has to do with the page.--Father Goose 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who added it. It is simply an illustration as to what it doesn't mean. I don't have to view it at full size to see a speedometer that is pegged and a speed limit sign of 30 mph. Again, it is simply an illustration, admittedly a bit of hyperbole, but done with the intent to improve understanding. Would a different caption suffice? Do you have a better image? A better idea for an image? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it does anything to improve understanding of IAR. I'm not a humorless guy, but the pic doesn't help this page. If it were a {{humor}} page, the pic would be more apropos.--Father Goose 05:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-added the image until such time as a consensus is reached. I too am not interested in edit warring, but I'd like to hear more before we just delete stuff. My logic is that I have already received several complements (see below) for one of them. Why not discuss it on this page first? I asked several valid questions ("Would a different caption suffice? Do you have a better image? A better idea for an image?"), but with no response. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the issues as I see them:

a) The image does not help to illustrate any point made in the page.

b) The spedometer doesn't look like it's at 140. It looks broken. If the image had been of someone driving at 120 in a 30 mph zone, that's a different story. Right now it just looks like you're pulled off to the side of the road because your car is broken.

c) Let's pretend the image did implicate the driver was driving at 140 in a 30 mph speed zone. So what? Jimbo says don't speed? Don't edit too much? Slow down? Chill out? It looks like you're attempting to say that you shouldn't break the rules. IAR doesn't say this. In fact, it's okay to go 140 in a 30 mph zone, if you're improving the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Finally, to answer the questions you brought up:

1) Would a different caption suffice? Maybe, assuming it said "Look at my broken speedometer." But then that wouldn't convey any message at all, would it?

2) Does any of us have a better image? Not at the moment, but no image is better than a bad one.

3) A better idea for an image? Who knows? We'll take it when we see it. But not having an image is not a bad thing either. Again, just because there's no image doesn't mean we need one per se.

Hope that helps. If anything, the picture belongs at WP:TE. Maybe. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"But... officer... I was improving the integrity of the encyclopedia!"

Now it's funny.--Father Goose 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a much better caption! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't work. Again, the speedometer looks broken. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's funnier now, but it still doesn't do much in the way of explaining IAR or WIARM.--Father Goose 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...2-1 against with no one openly backing my position. In a bar fight, that generally means to walk away; I think I'll do the same here, but placement on the talk page seems fine enough for me. How about on the WP:IAR talk page too? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free, but they okay, we fight using chairs and broken bottles over there.--Father Goose 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Psssshhhhhhh...wimps...I'll bring my friends over and we'll dance... ;-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great page

I was introducing a friend to Wikipedia some tonight and found that WP:IAR had been shortened to its rightful size once more.. and that this page was created. I expected it to be junk, but I was delighted to find that the current version is fantastic and perfectly captures all of the points((and then some) I try to make when explaining the meaning of IAR. Thank you for this great page, it makes me feel proud and hopeful. --Gmaxwell 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help thinking this rule is a little bit silly.

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, though as I understand it I am encouraged to make bold edits. I took this liberty on the main page.

My entry may be considered as vandalism by some I suppose, considering its negative and unhelpful vibe. At the time of me writing this it may have already been removed without discussion.

The point I have entered, though, is not vandalism, inasmuch as it is a logical inevitability of the option of ignoring IAR, if this is an option. And because of the wording "ignore *all* rules" the literal interpretation would be that IAR itself can be ignored on occasion; but not only this, in spirit it will sometimes be desirable to ignore it. Essentially, it seems to me that it is unenforceable.

The unfortunate though logically derived conclusion is that IAR undermines itself. Whether or not this should be indicated on this page is up to you wikipeople I guess.

Why not remove the trouble by calling it something other than a rule, law or policy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y.H.Crana (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in its current form, WP:IAR is cryptic and seemingly contradictory. Would it make more sense to you if it read:

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

--Father Goose 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the argument is this:

IAR can be interpreted correctly (both literally and in spirit) as meaning that "any" rule can be ignored.

IAR is a rule, so IAR can be ignored.

When IAR is ignored, other rules may be enforced, as per normal.

When rules are enforced, they sometimes hamper the progress of the encyclopedia.

Conclusion:

Rules may be enforced even when they hamper the progress of the encyclopedia.

The problem I'm posing is a request for a specific reason my addition to the "What "Ignore all rules" does not mean" section should be removed. Pointing me to the Wikipedia rules article does not solve this problem.

I would like to see the reasoning behind the reverts, thanks.

Y.H.Crana 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you're trying to interpret IAR as part of some kind of formal system. The "rules" here are not a formal system, so the seeming "contradiction" never arises. The true spirit of IAR is, "stop thinking in terms of 'rules' at all; think in terms of building an encyclopedia." If you're deriving logical consequences of rules, you've already missed the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is that your edit is unhelpful; your statement doesn't reflect reality and doesn't improve the page.

Your above explanation is based purely on a series of technicalities that you mistakenly believe undermines IAR's effectiveness.

When more than one editor removes a unilateral addition to a page, it probably is a good idea to seek consensus for its inclusion (not to continually restore the disputed text and demand that its removal be justified). —David Levy 09:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also you are applying IAR wrong. You can ignore any rule if they are hampering your efforts to build a better encyclopedia. So you can only ignore IAR when ignoring IAR builds a better encyclopedia. Ie. you can't ignore IAR if ignorign IAR hampers Wikipedia. Taemyr 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're still interpreting it technically. Put the formal logic down, and approach the situation as a child. This is not a rules-game, and that's ok. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask that those reverting you explain why they disagree with your changes, if they were made in good faith. I don't fault Y.H.Crana for reverting in the absence of discussion. Happily that discussion has started now.

One of the reasons IAR is not a rule that contradicts itself is that it is really more of a principle than a rule (see the last entry at WP:5P). The principle it embodies is as GTBacchus explained: the rules on Wikipedia are not a formal system. Most of them do a good job of keeping Wikipedia well-organized and focused on its mission (and keeping us from being dicks toward one another); when the rules don't do a good job of that, ignore them.

Man, I wish I could put something very close to what I just said on WP:IAR itself.--Father Goose 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an essay

Can't have your cake and eat it too. :-P The essay tag claims that "you are not required to follow the advice on this page". For this page? Yes, yes you are.

Or at least, you are very very strongly advised to follow the advice, or you shall very rapidly lose any privileges and/or be banned from the site, and/or even be roasted in the media. We cannot stress this advice enough. I think the term "absolutely required" sort of goes in the right direction, though it might not be sufficient.

At any rate. "not required" != "absolutely required". So not an essay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the real policy, put here so as not to disturb the perfect concision of WP:IAR. —Ashley Y 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quiet, or we'll have to move it even further away! ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There has never been consensus that this be policy. It is an essay, if not then what is it? Ignore all rules required? That seems contrary to the very spirit of ignore all rules. This is not a hard set of rules, and it is not even a guideline. This is an essay. The content is not even written in the form of rules, but more of an exposition on one interpretation of a rule, the very definition of an essay. 1 != 2 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's not an essay. The essay tag claims that you do not need to follow the advice on this page. However, people who have failed to follow the advice on this page have had terrible things happen to them (like lose their admin bit, or get villified in the press). Are you sure you want to tell people to *not* follow the advice on this page? Does that seem like something you would allow to happen in good conscience? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think this should be more than an essay then get consensus for it to be more, but I don't share such an proposal. IAR is interpreted different ways by different people. This is one interpretation, and does not have consensus to be a binding interpretation. The whole point of the essay tag is so that people don't think such expository works are policy. The content on this page is not a set of rules, it is advice. That is the whole point of IAR. 1 != 2 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the initial revision of this page[1] showing that it began as an essay. I don't see anything on this talk page that shows it every became more than that. 1 != 2 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're avoiding the question :-) . Do you, personally, believe that it is ok to tell people that it is safe to not follow the advice on this page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Mike R (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Hmmm, I wonder... :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who disagrees with the advice on this page? I don't mean "disagree that this is not an essay", I mean actually disagreeing with the advice here? —Ashley Y 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Mike R's most recent edit is reasonable. 1 != 2 06:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantabulous! But tagging regardless, you don't actually disagree with anything on the page, do you? —Ashley Y 06:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find Father Goose's most recent edit reasonable. 1 != 2 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While I did agree to the addition of the supplement tag, I will point out that at the time it was worded as such: "This essay supplements Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. 1 != 2 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it truly unreasonable to demand that people always have an answer ready?

If you don't know what you're doing upfront, should you be doing it at all? If you have to make something up when challenged, you could try to pass off any old excuse, and then that excuse might well become policy, in the worst case... brrr! --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That would only work if several people feel "the excuse" was a good idea, and that it should have a greater impact. Taemyr (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And if they think the excuse was bad, wouldn't you be in a heap of trouble? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You would get reverted. I don't know if that counts as a heap of trouble? Taemyr (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: You don't necessarily have to have an answer ready, but you should be able to come up with one or such a change will be simply be reverted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I've done my share of things that could have potentially gotten me into trouble. At one point, within the space of a couple of hours, I got the following score: Deleting AFD pages, doing long sequences of reverts at deletion review, removal of admin reports, speedy closing AFDs with over 100 participants. Blocking the people who made the AFD nominations... Ohhhh, those were the days. can I feel old now?. Anyway, in that particular situation I made sure I had done my research and had my explanation ready. When morning arrived and one of the stewards showed up, she read my reasoning and immediately proceeded to enforce my position <griiiiin>. If I had had to come up with an excuse post-hoc, well, I had managed to get myself blocked somewhere along the way, and at the time, you couldn't even post to your user talk page when blocked. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (If you're curious about the aftermath, the blocking admin was later reprimanded in private: he failed to provide sufficient reasoning to support the block when challenged. Further, once the alleged "harmed party" finally woke up, he unblocked me so I could help him out with a featured article candidate :-P )

Oh, there should be a question to go with that. How much trouble do you think I could have potentially gotten into in that situation? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Radiant on cleanup patrol again?

It's always fun to see Radiant walking around testing if there's actually true consensus for a page. :-)

I wonder if he'll also use more {{historical}} templates to clean out essays.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Radiant, the current situation obfuscates the status of the page. It started as an essay and has never had any consensus to be policy or guideline and this "supplement" label only confuses its status. Sure it is a supplement, but it is also an essay. 1 != 2 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will also point out that the suplement template has changed considerably since people agreed to it being here. When there was agreement to its use it said: "This essay supplements Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. 1 != 2 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, several people have stated that this is actually the real policy. <scratches head> Now what? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. As I mentioned in the template's deletion discussion, we should revert to an earlier wording and restore the essay category and icon. I shall do so. —David Levy 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want this to be "real policy" then I suggest a post at the village pump so as to get more than 4 participants in the discussion. 1 != 2 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted this to be a policy page. I just have heard it whispered that this is the actual policy , and that other page is just a front ;-). I don't know that I disagree, but there's appearances to keep up. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, more seriously: come to think of it I actually have been quoting WIARM more than IAR these days. Perhaps there's a grain of truth. Interesting.

That is an interesting opinion. Perhaps you should write an essay about it. 1 != 2 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be very ironic. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's policy by duck test. I keep asking folks if there's anything on this page they actually disagree with, but no-one ever comes up with anything. —Ashley Y 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quack! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up.

The argument that WP:IAR should not have clarification is horrible and has harmed Wikipedia. It seems to be based in the naive belief that there is no such thing as "objectivity" or "facts." If this is true, however, is that a fact or is that a personal opinion? Such anti-intellectualism is a serious problem.

As such, I have added clarification and made WP:WIARM a redirect to WP:IAR.

I've also noted my changes on the talk pages of both articles. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR was protected. However, I made some clarifications to this page. In particular, I find it absurd that WP:IAR is said to derive its authority from WP:CONSENSUS. WP:IAR was the first rule, hence it is not over-ridden by WP:CONSENSUS, which is itself merely a rule. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... you're still reading it as a rules-game. Wikipedia isn't trumps where something overrules something else. IAR derives its power from consensus for the same reason that all the other rules here do - they're nothing if a consensus of Wikipedians isn't willing to recognize them. IAR simply being written down on a page marked "policy" doesn't make it powerful; what makes it powerful is that there's a community of people who understand it and use it as a guiding principle. The "policy" tag is simply an indicator of that fact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, IAR derives its power from consensus, not from CONSENSUS.

The former is a kind of power; the latter is a collection of bytes on a server. In other words, our policies have power, not by virtue of their having "policy" or "guideline" or "essay" tags, but by virtue of being decisions made and endorsed by large groups of Wikipedians over time. They're things the group decided to do, and we also decided to write them down. We may change our minds. Focus on the content of the decisions, and not on their written manifestations, and you'll be correctly ignoring all rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines get their power from their enforcement by blocks and bans by admins and ArbCom. —Ashley Y 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With lots of guidelines, it never comes to that. If behaviors are empowered by habitual enforcement, then all it takes is consensus in most cases. Nobody had to get banned to give WP:MOSTM its authority, and I'd be shocked to see someone banned over it now. That guideline derives its power from the collective weight of a lot of conversations on a lot of talk pages, where a lot of us agreed to treat trademarks in a certain way.

We're actually working on a paragraph of that guideline now on the talk page, and I'm definitely going to see if we can get the language to be less prescriptive and more descriptive. Thinking about an actual concrete guideline in the context of recent conversations here and at WT:IAR has been illuminating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines such as these get their power from consensus, but consensus gets its power from WP:3RR and so on. —Ashley Y 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR only exists because there was a consensus for us to do that. If people weren't willing to enforce it, what would it be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR gets it power from its enforcement by blocks and bans by admins and ArbCom. —Ashley Y 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way to get consensus to "stick" in the face of one or more mad editors ignoring all the rules is by blocks and bans and the threat of them. —Ashley Y 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And who are admins and arbcom? Admins don't have to enforce 3RR, and we don't always do it. If people (admins are people) decided to stop enforcing it, then where would its power be? Oh, and who decides who sits on ArbCom? Come to think of it, there have been ArbCom decisions that the community has thrown back. I'll have to hunt for the example, but I know it exists. Also, admins are regularly desysopped for going against the community.

Think of it this way, in an entirely volunteer project, what can you really hold over people? Who can make something happen that the community is unwilling to carry out? Jimbo could. Who else? How? You need Wikipedians to enforce a policy or guideline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If all the admins decided to stop enforcing 3RR and other sanctions for edit-warring, consensus would lose its power. It's by the grace of those who have the power to block and ban that the rule of consensus is enforced. Their behaviour is in turn subject to the power of those who can desysop them. —Ashley Y 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What's at stake in this disagreement? If it's just a philosophical difference with no practical upshot, then let's drop it, but I think you're completely wrong. I could be completely wrong, but what I'm saying makes all kinds of sense to me, and what you're saying doesn't really.

When you say "if the admins decided to stop... then consensus would lose its power..." No. If the admins decided to stop enforcing 3RR, then that would be consensus. There are so many admins, they are also the community. We are ourselves. We do what we decide to do. If we don't decide among ourselves to do something, then we don't do it. This seems very clear to me, and I'm not sure how we're persistently talking past each other. We are Wikipedia; we do what we do. I think you're giving a lot of importance to distinctions between those with certain buttons and those without, but I don't think it means as much as you think it means. A non-admin who knows how to build consensus can be amazingly effective here, and an admin who defies consensus doesn't last long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Most admins don't enforce 3RR AFAIK, there are other admin tasks to do. If it was generally understood that no-one bothers to block or ban, ever, for any reason, then consensus would lose its power. This doesn't need consensus among the admins: if just one admin spends all their time doing 3RR blocks, for instance, then that policy is effective, even though one admin is not a consensus. On the other hand, for 3RR to be wilfully ignored, a consensus is not enough: you'd need everyone to voluntarily stop enforcing it. Of course, the 3RR policy could be changed by consensus, say to 4RR, but to be effective that relies on the ability to desysop any admin who wilfully continued to enforce 3RR.

A non-admin who knows how to build consensus can be amazingly effective here because admins enforce the rule of consensus. If the admins did not enforce the rule of consensus, a non-admin building consensus would be no more effective than rogue editors ignoring all rules (except, possibly, that through numbers a majority could revert faster). An admin who defies consensus will "not last long" by being subject to the desysopping power of bureaucrats, who enforce ArbCom decisions and so forth.

The rule of consensus, or more generally the WP:Consensus policy, is nothing without the ability to enforce via blocks and bans, including the threat of doing so. If nobody were capable of blocking or banning, consensus would have no power to decide content. —Ashley Y 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I carry out admin actions, I don't enforce consensus, I read it. Blocks and bans are tools of consensus to enforce itself. Admins are tools of consensus to enforce itself. Consensus works because a group of people, acting in good faith, decide to make it work. That includes editors, admins, bureaucrats, arbcom members - the whole community. We make consensus, and we carry it out. If people weren't willing to enforce it, then it wouldn't be a consensus, because a consensus is necessarily a consensus to enforce.

Look, we could clearly go back and forth like this all day, but this is Wikipedia, not debate club. Neither of us is providing evidence, we're just laying out different theoretical understandings of Wikipedia and telling each other we're right and the other is wrong. What's the point? What's at stake here? Why do we care? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You enforce the rule of consensus. That means reading consensus and then enforcing it. If you enforced on some other basis, you would be desysopped. For any person in any role, the rule of consensus is enforced by those who have power to take their powers away. Admins have the power to take away editors' powers. Bureaucrats have the power to take away admin powers. Stewards have the power to take away bureaucrat powers. Community consensus has meaning at each level because the rule is enforced by the level above.

The rule of consensus is ultimately enforced by the foundation, who have the power to step in if the stewards behave badly (for instance, if one steward were to de-steward all the other stewards). The stewards are otherwise tasked with judging certain community decisions (promoting to bureaucrat) according to consensus. Thus, they enforce the rule of consensus for those decisions. It's true that community consensus decides who becomes elected steward, but it relies on the grace of the existing stewards to choose to actually pay attention to that consensus decision. A rogue steward could cause all kinds of damage, and no kind of community consensus would be able to stop that: only the foundation could do that. —Ashley Y 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, really. What's at stake? This conversation is fun, but I'm not going to go another 12 rounds with no practical upshot being decided. What are we talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay tag

It's not mine, Penguin. Notice David said this is an essay. If he can Ashley have a dispute over whether it's a "policy or a supplemental essay," how are you going to accuse me of violating WP:OWN by suggesting this is an "essay, not a supplemental essay"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, please do not revert war. Per WP:BRD, you've been reverted, therefore it's your turn to get a discussion going and establish a consensus before editing again. That's the way we get things done here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, BRD itself is officially "just an essay", though I consider it a guideline. —Ashley Y 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth does "just an essay" mean? Isn't not thinking that way kind of the point? Saying BRD is "just an essay" is kind of like saying universal gravitation is "only a theory" and then stepping off a ledge. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether you're saying to Zenwhat "everyone ought to accept BRD" (which I agree with, but Zenwhat might not) or "BRD is widely accepted" (which isn't clear from the page). The thing is, we're obliged to pay attention to rules that are marked as having consensus much more than those that are not, IAR notwithstanding. —Ashley Y 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I'd say something more like: the community broadly accepts the principle behind BRD, and any contributor who flouts it is likely to run into trouble. That doesn't mean they can't do it, but they shouldn't be surprised if they generate heat that way. The "obligation" we have to pay attention to any rules here is conditioned by our desire to get things done. If you don't care whether your edits stick, you do what you want. If you want to be effective, you'll follow lots of rules including some not written down, because you're editing smart.

What I meant by "per BRD" above was simply that Zenwhat would do well to discuss rather than reverting, as is explained on a page called WP:BRD. I don't care what status the page has; I care that it's a smart page about effective editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the community broadly accept BRD? It's not clear from the tag. People assume that when something is marked "essay" then it doesn't necessarily have broad acceptance. —Ashley Y 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's your experience on that question? Do we broadly accept BRD? I'm not convinced that so many Wikipedians are dismissive of essays. If the argument on the page is good, then people will go along with it, regardless of the page's status. That's an observation, not a rule. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not dismissive of the essays they like. But I can't keep up with all the talk pages to know who accepts what. I mean, I've heard a lot of support for BRD, and I like it myself. On the other hand I seem to remember people objecting to marking it as a guideline, so maybe it doesn't carry as much support as you and I think it ought to. That actually makes a difference...

If a page says "guideline" on it, I'll assume it has some sort of consensus and that people will complain if I don't follow it (without some justification), even if I don't really like it. But if it says "essay" and someone complains about me not following it, I'll want to specifically why what I did is wrong, rather than merely being pointed to some page someone wrote that may not represent consensus. —Ashley Y 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you would do well to place less stock in how a page is tagged and more stock in what role it plays in day-to-day Wikipedia life, which you learn with experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in an ideal world every editor would be up-to-date on all the discussion on all the project talk pages to know what the precise consensus view of each WP: page is. In practice, the vast majority of editors are too busy building an encyclopaedia on the article pages, and will treat a given unfamiliar project page very differently depending on whether it is marked as "essay", "guideline", "policy", since generally all they want to know is how much consensus it has and how much they're obliged to follow it. —Ashley Y 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why be concerned with "obligations" at all? I don't follow any page here because I feel "obliged" to; I do things because they're good ideas. The worst that can happen is that someone will tell you that what you're doing isn't a good idea. At no point is a legalistic understanding of our "rules" helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That works great if there are no disagreements on what ideas are good. In practice, editors might very well dislike some rule or other, but mostly they'll follow its spirit if they're aware it has broad consensus. And they know people will point to the fact that a page is marked "guideline" or "policy" if they do otherwise... and in some cases that if they persist they might very well be blocked. We have an obligation to follow certain consensus-agreed rules including those we individually don't think are good ideas on pain of various sanctions starting from the mildest, being asked to stop.

It's not a matter of spirit versus letter for any "legalistic understanding". I agree that the spirit of the rules is more important. The point is that that spirit is backed up by sanctions and the threat of them. —Ashley Y 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what you kept saying above. My point is that editors who don't think of it that way are happier and more successful. I don't know how you could think it's a good idea to edit against consensus without convincing people first. That would be a strange notion of "good idea" that involves being reverted and possibly blocked. When there are disagreements, we talk, and we reach an agreement. If you don't think a policy is a good idea, you're not obliged to follow it; on the contrary you're obliged to point out to others why you don't think it's a good idea.

Some people follow rules, not because of threat of sanctions, but simply because they're trying to work collaboratively.

Again, is there any practical upshot to this disagreement, or are we just arguing semantics for fun? If it's the latter, then I'm going to walk away, again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to edit against consensus, that's exactly the point. For instance, there are some rules that have consensus that individual editors may not agree with, even after all the relevant discussions have been had. Instead of editing against consensus, however, they (hopefully) accept consensus and follow the rule, but only provided they know it is a rule and not just some essay someone came up with that doesn't have wide support.

If you don't think a policy is a good idea, and you've already argued it out, and consensus ended up against you, then you generally are obliged to follow it on pain of sanctions. —Ashley Y 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So that would be a "no" on the practical upshot? I'm unwilling to use this page as a debate forum. We're saying the same things in different words; that quickly loses its novelty. I disagree with you, for considered reasons, but I won't discuss them unless you explain why debate has a point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What considered reasons? —Ashley Y 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my previous comment? If you wish to continue this argument, you have to explain what the point is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One says" Not an essay", the other says "is an essay". There is no dispute as you've tried to rationalize. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving and maintaining

The policy this page seeks to explain (currently) says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

There seems to be a lot of explanation here of what the "ignore it" part means, and much less on what the "improving or maintaining" part means. —Ashley Y 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That tends to be decided in discussion if there's any question, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but decided on what basis? It's easy to say "consensus", but what does that mean? WP:CONSENSUS points out the issue here:

• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply.

So it turns out a great deal of "previous consensus" is relevant to any discussion of what counts as an improvement: it's not just the consensus of people who happen to be in the discussion, to "improve or maintain Wikipedia" they must pay attention to it or they'll find their decisions overturned by people citing policy. —Ashley Y 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok; what do you think we need to add to the page then? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines that "improving or maintaining" is something decided by the community rather than the individual choosing to ignore all rules. It's very easy to look at the existing text of IAR and say "hey, I think this is an improvement, I'll do it". Sure, be bold, but stop when everyone else disagrees, even if you still think it's an improvement. Perhaps also that the community's idea of "improving or maintaining" was formed by long discussions and is largely (but, of course, not perfectly) codified in the very policies and guidelines that might be ignored. —Ashley Y 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this address the concern you're raising? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's great. Maybe there's more to add, I don't have a clear handle on it at the moment. —Ashley Y 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a slight problem with that being circular, since policies and guidelines are formed by people ignoring all rules in the first place. By deliberately acting somewhat contrary to policies and guidelines, you set what the actual rules are. I guess there's a cycle. At all times, you do have to continuously remember that consensus has primacy. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what is being said. You don't need prior agreement that ignoring a rule is needed for improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, one can get that after the fact if they are confidence it will come. But you do need others to accept your application of IAR or it is likely to be reversed, and in extreme cases may result in negative attention such as blocking. One must judge their confidence that the community will agree with them in an application of IAR. I have had good success with this in the past. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)