Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Why?

Why is Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means a seprate article? I mean, this article is only twelve words. 82.148.70.2 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, no answer. 82.148.70.2 (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the exact question we've been trying to answer for a long time now. And you're exactly right: no answer has been forthcoming.--Father Goose (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the above user asked why the policy exists as a separate page, not why it's so short.

And the latter question has been answered many times by many people. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to present evidence of an actual problem. —David Levy 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's so can you give me a link to a specific discussion? 82.148.70.2 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what? —David Levy 10:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is, that IAR is an official WP POLICY. It is the only "global" one, and therefore completely independent of all the other policies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused, how does it make it a policy with only twelve words? 82.148.70.2 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the fact that being so short and being a policy are contradicting or confusing to you. It is like an article of the Constitution or an amendment of the Bill of Rights: Few words can be enough to establish a universal rule, which is totally independent of any others. That's why I think it should not be merged with some other policy. It has nothing to do with the other policies. If this doesn't help, please specify a little more precisely where your confusion comes from. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what the twelve words mean?--Father Goose (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a question to 82.148.70.2 or to me? In any case, good question. On the first look I would say, these 12 words constitute the most powerful policy of WP, since it can in principle be used to violate any other policy. On the second look (if you are interested in a theoretical answer), however, I find that this statement is based on the assumption that IAR has a higher priority than the other policies. But I don't find any evidence for this. I wonder whether the 12 words themselves are this evidence, or if an additional sentence would be required, i.e. "If a policy X is in contradiction with IAR, then policy X does not need to be followed". In any case, let's consider the following 4 possible cases:

• case 1: policy X allows improving or maintaining WP and you follow it.

Both policies X and IAR have been followed. Result: WP has been improved or maintained.

• case 2: policy X allows improving or maintaining WP and you violate it.

You violate policy X. IAR can neither help you nor is it violated itself. Result: policy X does not allow you to harm WP.

• case 3: policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP and you follow it.

policy X is not violated, but IAR is. Therefore you may not do this. Result: IAR does not allow you to harm WP.

• case 4: policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP and you violate it.

policy X is violated, but IAR is followed. Now the priority question plays a role. If IAR has higher priority, then you may do this with the result that IAR enables you to improve or maintain WP. If, however, all policies have the same priority, then you may not do this without violating a policy with the result that policy X prevents you from improving or maintaining WP, while IAR cannot help you.

Concluding from this consideration, I would say: If the question is "What can IAR do when applied strictly?", my answers would be:

• 1.) IAR prohibits the use of a policy if it would prevent you from improving or maintaining WP.
• 2.) If IAR had a higher priority than all the other policies, it could be used to violate any other policy for the sake of improving or maintaining WP.

To be honest, my own conclusions surprise me. Is there a flaw in my logic? Please check. I am surprised, because the second conclusion would mean, that the obvious purpose of IAR could require an additional priority rule. The first conclusion was not obvious to me. Hm, I wonder what consequences it would have. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now the practical answer: I think the practical explicit use of IAR requires that you can show that the violation of a rule in a particular case is necessary for improving and maintaining WP. However, since most important decisions like deletion of articles, or banning of members, are made by admins, it requires you to convince an admin. Whether or not this is possible certainly depends on the case. Whatever happens, I expect that the universal outcome of discussions using IAR is that the admin gets what he/she wants. Your question indicates that you have done some thinking on this yourself. What do you think? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that if you attempt to tell people what 'ignore all rules' means, then you're making it into a rule, by restricting what can or can't be ignored. Perhaps it should be thought of as the most direct expression of the fundamental Pascalian wager of the wikepedia: the belief that edits will, by dint of human nature, be made in good faith more often than not. [the alternative being the uselessness of the wikipedia.] 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual use of IAR in question

Hello, I made the edit to change the page to this version.

I say, list *ONE* example where WP:IAR has actually been accepted. Truth is most people will reject IAR on all accounts no matter the reason. If examples could be provided of WP:IAR actually having had effect (and not in the form of being countermanded WP:IIAR-style), I would be impressed. Somebody should make a list, in fact. Then we could link that list and see how often someone gets away with using WP:IAR. -The Vandal (192.235.8.2 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Truth is, 192.235.8.2, you sound a lot like someone else around here, and you have that same strange twilight zone sense of humour. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many examples is enough? There's a reason I put decent reasoning (as per WP:WIARM) in many of my edit summaries O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All the current criteria for speedy deletion and speedy keeping started out as simple applications of IAR, which were such good ideas they eventually became guidelines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An example, ok. There once was a bot that was programed to find identical copies of images. To do so it would create a thumbnail of each on a page and then compare them. The problem was that many of the images were fair use and as such it was against the rules to put them on this page.

Well after a few admins talked about this we all decided to ignore the rule about posting fair use images in userspace because ignoring the rule allowed us to meet the spirit of the rule which was to control fair use images. The bot continued to run and has been clearing out doubles for some time now. If not for IAR we would have had to prevent the bot from working. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, 192.235.8.2 brings forth a very valid and important concern (I hope it's ok that I have changed the headline of this section). I think the question is NOT, how the use of IAR has been explored by admins (or other users) in order to establish more control, delete articles, debunk arguments, and so on. It is rather, if IAR has ever been successfully used by an editor, who has not been entrusted additional power, for example in order to justify the presence of an article about an exceptional topic, which fails to be supported by the existing guidelines? Some guidelines state that they have to be treated with common sense, since the occasional exception may occur. This and IAR suggests, that there might be challenges that fail to be appropriately addressed by strictly following the guidelines, because of their exceptional nature. It is hard to believe that nobody ever encountered such a challenge on WP, and I would indeed be impressed by an example, in which, for example, a basic WP user was able to prevent the deletion of an article with help of IAR. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the things about IAR is that you don't need to mention it by name to practice it. In fact, mentioning that you're practicing it tends to raise opposition, where normally if you're ignoring a rule to do something sensible, nobody gives the "violation" a second thought.

There are frequent cases where articles are kept (or deleted) despite what the rules might have to say about it. WP:Notability is ignored routinely, both when articles that are backed up by many sources get deleted (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture (see an archived copy if you're curious)), and when articles that are tenuously supported get kept (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kancho).--Father Goose (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can point another instance when the article got deleted inspite of lots of references : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil.

- Tinucherian (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

However, overall, AfD is not a good case study for IAR. Admins have a lot of freedom to close AfDs however they see fit, and they rarely get taken to task for their decisions, even when they're quite questionable. (That is not to say that AfD closures are usually questionable, but it happens.) IAR is much more important as regards everyday editing, where actual consensus, not an "executive decision", is the way things are decided. The bottom line is that if a rule is broken in a way that nobody minds, the rules have been successfully ignored.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the deliberate use of IAR during the editing process without mentioning it is not really what I had in mind. The "Kancho" example indeed surprises me, but I don't find it as impressive as I hoped, because it is a very harmless case, in which the admin did not really mind as I see it. Additionally, IAR was not explicitely mentioned. If IAR didn't exist, the outcome would have been the same, I think, because it is normal for people to ignore rules until somebody objects. It also would not affect the editing process. You don't need a policy for that. It only makes sense to me to have a written policy like this, if there were cases, in which it is necessary to prove a claim by refering to the policy in its written form. Maybe you could claim that you need IAR, so that users are not banned from WP because they ignored policies during the editing process. Still, an example in which somebody intentionally and openly used IAR and "got away with it" would impress me, other than for deleting articles. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, compare Wikipedia to a government, where laws can be enforced that nobody necessarily likes or agrees with. On Wikipedia, if nobody agrees with a law, it ceases to be a law. And even if they agree with it in general but not in a specific case, it will not be enforced. This is true even if someone says that it should be enforced -- if few others agree, it doesn't matter what tablet it was chiseled in.

You can claim that's a no-brainer, but if we didn't say it explicitly, people would think that laws were laws: inviolable, even if stupid. On Wikipedia, the laws derive their authority only from your willingness to support them. By default, you shouldn't even think of them as laws (which is to say rules), just as sensible ideas -- or maybe as senseless ones, in which case you should ignore them.

And again, AfD is one of the poorest places to evaluate the true impact of IAR, because the outcome is either that of a vote or admin caprice, and bears no resemblance to the give-and-take of a true consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It has an effect. BTW, what you say in your last paragraph is exactly why I would be impressed by an AfD/IAR case with the outcome of keeping the article. It does not even need to be IAR - a case in which someone "got away" by quoting the warning of some guideline, that you should use common sense since the occasional "exception" may occur, would impress me just as well. However, if no such examples can be found, that doesn't mean that IAR is useless as you and others pointed out. So it's not a crucial question at all. Thank you for linking WP:ROUGE. Do you know if there is (or has been) a useful discussion, in which the same topic is addressed in a serious way? The described situation (although humorously exaggarated) sounds somehow familiar to me and I would like to know, how cases like this are (or can be) handled in reality. Or is WP just not the right place for dissenting views? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm vaguely aware of some MfDs that were closed via ignoring rules. I'm not sure if IAR was actually invoked; again, it works best if you don't draw attention to the fact that you're ignoring the rules. Really contentious issues cry out for closure, and sometimes an admin makes a risky and imperfect but still sensible call that puts an issue to rest. WP:BJAODN, for instance, was deleted via a maelstrom of IARring on both sides. In the end, it just wasn't important enough to keep fighting over, so the deletion stood. Has the same thing happened with keep closures? Not really, because AfD is stacked in favor of deletion. An article can be nominated and "kept" (whether through rouge action, consensus, or lack of consensus) ten times in a row, but if on the eleventh time the vote comes out as "delete", the deletion is generally permanent, appeals notwithstanding.

I don't know of any place where admin misbehavior in general is discussed, but specific admin actions are called into question all the time at WP:AN. Usually they're endorsed, but not always. On rare occasion, an admin goes over a line nobody can defend, and it generally goes to arbitration. There is a history of such actions at WP:FORMER. Other than that, admin oversight is very scant on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee acts as a firewall, but we don't have much else.--Father Goose (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is 47 kilobytes long. Thankyou miszaBot II. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename Ignore all rules

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Proposals by User:Rocksanddirt, [1] concerning WP:5, (no comments r'cd yet, it is early days at the arbcom/workshop): Rocksanddirt has come up with a stimulating phrase. I am now proposing here, in fact, that the page WP:Iar be renamed to WIKIPEDIA:NO FIXED RULES.insert Of course newbyg really meant No firm rules from the start, but continued to mis-speak. well (?) inserted Well, this has probably come up before, I guess, but we do know that the word Ignore causes a lot of misconceptions, (see previous terabytes of archived chat).

I guess now i will be shouted down by those who can come up with reasons why "fixed" also lends itself to wiki-lawyering, or more so, but I am willing to make the suggestion in any case. It would be Wikipedia:No fixed rules, if renamed. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pondered name changes, but nothing I've yet considered really does the trick. If the principle of IAR is, more or less, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", then "no fixed rules" doesn't come anywhere near that idea.--Father Goose (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do indeed agree that (one of the primary functions) of the WP:Iar projectpage is to absolutely make it plain that

-*- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it -*-

Also, my personal starting-point, and where I hope we can all be in agreement, a founding principle which is now stated explicitly

at Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, -*- You do not need to know the rules before you contribute. -*-

Until I came to understand that, i was getting all hung up on researching the Policies, and the changes to Policies and Guidelines, before I dare to make an edit, at times. Now, I am BOLD! some say nbg is still as lame as they come,grrNewbyguesses - Talk 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. The two main "meanings" of IAR, for which there seems to be little dispute, is a) you don't need to know the rules before editing (as you said), but also b) if following the rules doesn't produce a good result, don't follow the rules.

"Ignore all rules" captures both meanings tolerably well. It's kind of an overstatement, yet it's a useful one. We want to assert as aggressively as possible that if the rules get in the way of making a good encyclopedia, toss 'em. Yes, we meant it. Yes. Go ahead. Encyclopedia right over there. Rules in the trashbin. Go to it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh, the relavant sentence from WP:5 is

• Support - woops, –Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here–

Note it says here firm rules. Of course WP:% never comes under debate, does it? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: This page is (12,740 bytes) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 10d) to

--thanks to MiszaBot II.

PPs: see it, so far, at Wikipedia:No firm rules, the draft, which is an essay, or NO-TAG. Please update as necessary. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support changing the name of this policy to Ignore all rules. --TS 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate that, -- [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] has spoken. :) Newbyguesses - Talk 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time

lool, Newbyguesses - Talk 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1 (newby went off-topic)

• ignore all rules, follow the principles of Wikipedia:five pillars, currently we have Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2 discussion resumes

Changing the name will accomplish little, and make the policy unfamiliar to those who are familiar with it. I prefer to keep the name how it is. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If a change of name does not suit, that's another suggestion considered, fine. Now, maybe, or maybe not stating the obvious, Wikipedia:Five pillars applies on every page, because it encompasses the principles which Wikipedia preserve, and on this project page, Ignore all rules, WP:FIVE really dominates the bottom of the page, in the blue template box.

So then moving on to one or (two) other matters, there is the IAR /Workshop page, which is exactly as the current version, and then there is the page IAR/Versions page, which I believe gained your endorsement, User 1-2, with others, in a previous Archive. But are either of these sub-pages supported, or worth supporting, now, some week or two weeks later, they are maybe not getting very far. Comments on that then?Newbyguesses - Talk 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the /versions link is a benefit to the policy. It helps people see other's interpretations without claiming any one is the correct interpretation. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's... interesting.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me be more specific. Since the versions on that page are almost all variations of the one at WP:IAR, isn't it wrong to position the warred-over version as the "official" one, and the others as "other interpretations"? And isn't it even stranger to treat the original IAR as well as several other long-term stable IAR phrasings as "other interpretations"?--Father Goose (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at the moment it says "other versions" not "other interpretations". As I recall, the original suggestion was to alternate the main IAR page with the different versions on a roster, (ie. multi-forking). That idea was abandoned, but the /Version page was kept. Now u:Father Goose, how many versions are you up for contributing, in addition to the couple I put up already (at Wikipedia:No firm rules) from your posts to the discussion page? I would like to see more versions go up, though the /Versions page is probably headed to "historical" status. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

I'm sill working on a version to end all versions. Uh oh. As for the blurbs found in /versions, the more that are there, the less useful the page becomes, IMO. It appears to be acting more like a holding cell for any changes people attempt to make to the policy than an actual useful supplement to it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Though there is a lot of gold on the page (there are as many valuable ways of expressing IAR as there are users), I suggest Ignore all rules/Versions now might best be de-linked, maybe. It hasn't had much work recently. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that on the grounds that it exacerbates the problem of people having different opinions of this page rather than rectifying them. I just wish people weren't so afraid to have a policy be more than one sentence. Heaven forbid we actually explain what we mean. - Chardish (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Chardish, then update /Versions as necessary. I think the 3C's version is up there already. There have been few additions recently, and the format is rather boring. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My koan form is already up there. So is my 3C wording, I believe. Why add content to it just to clutter the page? Chardish (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

/Versions is like showing all revisions of an article simultaneously instead of trying to refine all the ideas different people have into a single best version. It's the opposite of good editing.--Father Goose (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- 1) It seems the current consensus is that /Versions is fine as a link. I think it is more "historical", though, than an active page.

2) The Ignore all rules/Workshop page is for, um, workshopping, but it isn't, and doesn't need to be, linked. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reformat?

[subsections by 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC), revert or remove freely if you find them disagreeable]

initial discussion

The simple 12 words, as it doesn't even cover a line, should, in my opinion, be embellished, like below. I believe that it is otherwise insignificant, if it is smaller than the surrounding templates and sections. I also propose that the See Also section is added with further line breaks, to break it away from the actual policy. microchip08 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out how to finish the size code. Could someone edit it for me? microchip08 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested reformatting

If a rule prevents you from

improving or maintaining

Wikipedia,

ignore it.

This makes me think of speaking louder when talking to someone who doesn't speak your language.--Father Goose (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Ich liken est, sehr gut, aber ist alles in ordnung, hier? Newbyguesses - Talk 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this. I made the change here. [2]

Also (almost forgot to mention), although we shouldn't use HTML tags for large text, according to WP:MOS, the revision looks good on every resolution from 800x600 to 1280x1024, so I think WP:MOS can be ignored. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look good at any resolution (IMHO). This is a policy page, and it's important that it look like one. The above makes it come across as some sort of joke. —David Levy 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, people have different tastes. I think it looks fine at average resolution. I don't think it (the large font) makes the page look like a joke, it is just a LARGE FONT!. However, I am not going to edit the projectpage against a pretty obvious consensus, the main reason being that such a format would have the effect of setting these words "in stone", and discourage further attempts to come up with a more expansive wording, for this policy, as many editors would like.

On that note, why are no editors working in the IAR/Workshop, or submitting versions to Ignore all rules/Versions, or commenting on Wikipedia talk:No firm rules? See section above, and maybe comment there. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we make the font slightly smaller, then? microchip08 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we retain the standard formatting used for every other policy? —David Levy 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat once again: I'm still waiting for someone to cite evidence of a problem. —David Levy 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the evidence. I didn't have a good grasp of the rule for a long, long time. I think I'm not atypical in that regard. Its role and application are not obvious from the naked twelve words. Now that I do understand it, reasonably well, I am desirous of editing the IAR page to share what I understand about the rule with others. Naturally, it doesn't have to be my understanding, exclusively; it should be a consensus view of IAR.

Based on these months of discussion here, I do believe such a consensus view does pretty much exist. It is sad that we are so unable to cobble it together.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I frequently encounter editors who fail to understand all sorts of policies and guidelines (despite clearly having made good-faith attempts to do so). That doesn't mean that the pages in question are at fault; it's indicative of the fact that we're human (and sometimes require some time and/or assistance from other humans).

If we were to expand the page in the manner suggested, I suspect that more users would simply not bother to read it (or would be discouraged from following the policy by the fact that they've paradoxically been asked to read and comprehend a lengthy set of rules before ignoring rules) than would be enlightened or empowered by the new text.

But of course, we now have WP:WIARM, which provides the desired elaboration without implying that reading it is a prerequisite to ignoring rules. How does that page fail to address your concerns? —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I agree with Father Goose that the IAR rule is a bit cryptical. For comparison, when you read the other policies (at least the ones I've read so far), you realize rather quickly why there is such a policy and what it does. So, what about a compromise? We could add a short, crisp explanation on the policy page, and for the long explanation we have WP:WIARM. I'm thinking about a short sentence like: "IAR ensures that you may take any action that serves the purpose of improving or maintaining WP, without caring about any rule, and even if it's against a rule." Is that a generally reasonable approach? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Newbyguesses, that was quick! I'm happy with it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:WIARM is a compromise.

2. I fail to see how the current wording fails to convey the policy's purpose (to ensure Wikipedia's improvement and maintenance) or how your proposed wording conveys any additional information. —David Levy 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, adding a short explanation doesn't really do much harm other than being redundant information for some people. If it helps others to understand IAR better and quicker or to make IAR's meaning intuitively clear, then I think there is no good reason not do do it. It really depends on whether it is helpful for some people or not. Maybe someone can come up with a wording that serves both purposes better (that is not being redundant and being helpful). In general, I think it's not a mistake to let a rule come together with its explanation, since the purpose of a rule is more important than the wording of a rule. In the current wording, this explanation doesn't seem to be intuitively clear as Father Goose and others have pointed out. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement regarding lightheartedness and caprice

I say we not be afraid to be a little bit lighthearted and capricious. Wikipedia is, by nature, capricious. - Chardish (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been assuming good faith on your part, but it now appears that you're fooling around. Please stop. —David Levy 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit was unfortunate. Adding an image would have the effect potentially of setting these words "in stone". We dont want that, do we.

[clarify- I personally think these 12 words are the best version so far, but am willing to see any reasonable efforts to better them go on the project page, to see how long they can be left up, without causing any of the dreaded "disruptions by editors who invoke IAR".] Newbyguesses - Talk 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image: I have no objections to someone replacing it with a different image. Regarding the nature of my edits: I see them as being lighthearted, fun, and harmless; a much-needed injection of spontaneity into a page that somehow refuses to ignore the rules, for any reason, ever. Remember: Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. survived an RfD, and the page it links to survived AfD. That's the kind of project this is. We aren't required by law to take ourselves seriously all the time. - Chardish (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I heartily concur! There is no person whom I take less seriously than myself. However, I must convey my sense that we are rather a bit required by law to take one another seriously, and to offer reassurance, each to each, that we are alike dedicated to the furtherment of this most excellent endeavor. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

dedicated to the furtherment, et cetera

By law? Goodness! I would like to reassure each of you, individually, that I am dedicated to the furtherment, etc. Please don't arrest me!

Chardish, I would note that you're awfully high up the wall of the Reichstag to be referencing that particular redirect as an example of what kind of scene we should or shouldn't create. Is changing this page into something more whimsical so important to you? Serious question: Why? Are we really at risk of something bad happening if it remains conventional-looking? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my little hobby-horse sidebar: Exactly sir, with my sympathies, save that it is eternally my initial belief that you would respond in good faith, were I taking myself seriously. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we understand each other. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the discussion resumes

1. While it was "fun" for you, this edit was not "harmless." It was disruptive.

2. No one is asserting that every page on Wikipedia has to be serious. We have many project pages that are humorous in nature, and that's fine. But this is a policy page (and a very important one at that). If you try editing any other policy page in a similar manner, I suspect that you'll consistently find your changes reverted. If you're under the impression that this particular policy page somehow is less serious than others, you're mistaken. —David Levy 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be big, red, flashing, handwritten, embellished, escorted by bodyguards, a poem, or driven home as a point. I think it is just fine as we have had it for over a year. Lets stop change for the sake of change. One of the reasons changes are being rejected is because those suggested do not improve the policy and often reduce its intended scope.

There is no magical protection on this article, if the community embraced a change it would happen. It is just that many of the suggestions going back months are contrary to the spirit and goal of the policy, or simple clutter it up with meaningless formatting or personal opinion. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference versus Disruption

Meh. You guys are kind of playing the disruption police at this point, where the argument du jour is oh no it's radically different therefore it's disruptive. Lighten up a bit. Maybe if you let one of the more creative versions stand for a while, you'd find that the encyclopedia doesn't magically stop working because the text on IAR is centered in a colored box. - Chardish (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think I mentioned disruption, I will say that any small action repeated long enough can be disruptive. They key factor is that if something is done over and over and over month after month with no significant indication that it is likely to be effective or welcome then it can be disruptive. It is a bit like holding your finger an inch from someone and saying "I am not touching you", or making the same harmless sound for hours on end. In itself it is not disruptive, but if one keeps doing it long enough it can be. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I never claimed that your edits were disruptive because they made the page "radically different" from the status quo. As Until(1 == 2) noted, however, it's disruptive to continually edit a policy page in a manner clearly contrary to consensus (particularly when your motive is to have "fun").

Note that I referred to a particular edit as "disruptive" (in response to your claim that your edits were "harmless"). If you honestly don't understand why, I'll gladly explain. —David Levy 18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems clear, doesn't it? Newbyguesses - Talk 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see several reasons why the image-only version is objectively worse than the normal version. I can see no reasons why the colored, centered, bigger, etc. versions are objectively worse. I'm tired of seeing this page treated like the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant or something.

Besides, Wikipedia is a hobby. If I'm not having fun with it, I'll leave, and so should anyone else who doesn't have fun with it.

Remember that time when I added a bullet or removed a bullet or something, and it got reverted within hours? And then the person who reverted it gave some rationale about how it was conforming to style or something like that? Yeah, that's the sort of stuff that's not cool with me. WikiLawyering the page that explicitly says that WikiLawyering doesn't work is absurd. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go change the page again. Huzzah. - Chardish (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David Levy position

1. The versions in question are objectively worse because they deviate from our standard formatting (thereby decreasing the likelihood that the policy will be taken seriously) and offer no apparent benefit in return. They also are subjectively worse in the opinion of those of us who regard their appearance as incredibly ugly and/or silly.

2. No one is arguing that the page is off-limits to editing (the straw man argument on which you evidently base this entire campaign). We're saying that your edits make the page worse. You continually perform edits that others perceive as bad, and then you wait for someone to revert them (at which point you complain about no one allowing any changes to stand).

3. No one wants to spoil your "fun," but Wikipedia's quality comes first. Surely, there must be ways that you can have "fun" editing Wikipedia without being disruptive.

4. It isn't "wikilawyering" to revert a nonstandard formatting change performed without explanation and for no apparent reason. Your admitted attempt to make a point by removing that bullet fell flat, and I'm quite surprised that you don't realize that. —David Levy 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SCARE QUOTES - Chardish (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish, could you please reply to my above post? I'm interested why it is so important to you that this page be edited in some unconventional manner. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your reply? —David Levy 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish position

Sure, I'll bite. You might have noticed that around mid-2007 I was heavily involved in discussions about ways to better format this page, clarify its content, etc. It was stressful as hell and I didn't see anyone on either side of the bridge really budge that much. I realized that one of the problems with Wikipedia is that everyone wants to get their way unless there's clear consensus for the opposition. There's a lot of fear and paranoia surrounding this page - a sort of godlike status where there's this belief that if the page is m:The wrong version then people won't be able to understand it and they'll misinterpret it and they won't take it seriously and aaaaaaaagh, we can't possibly let this happen because this policy is so important!

Kind of ironic that one of the arguments against the image version of the page is that it makes it look like the policy is set in stone. I think when an editor (not just me, by the way) tries to make an attempt to improve this page and it's reverted within hours, that sends a far stronger message that the page is set in stone.

So my experiences being tarred and feathered and called disruptive and everything in between at this page have really influenced my wikiphilosophy. I think that too many people shoot first and ask questions later, when the question that really needs to be asked is "is it essential that this edit be reverted?" Raw patent vandalism, yeah, revert away. For all other edits, discuss first and then act because otherwise it's possible for hyperprotective users to not engage in talk page discussion and then just nay-say the edits they don't like. (For the record, David, I don't include you in that category because at least you're kind enough to talk here.) Forcing discussion before a revert makes contentious edits innocent until proven guilty.

The other big problem with this page is that it's so damn short. Change a single word and you've changed 8.5% of the page's content. Other policy pages have absolutely no problem with people rephrasing something for clarity, adding an explanation, adding examples, etc. - these are usually discussed if they're controversial and dealt with in a reasonable fashion.

Basically what it boils down to is that BRD doesn't work if all B is automatically followed by R. Then it becomes D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, change, and being bold is frankly not allowed.

As for your point, GTBacchus, I don't think it's essential to inject humor into everything. It's just a reaction against the trend in project space that has a tendency to inch policies closer towards the direction of WP:ENC and further from the direction of something cool and helpful and informative like WP:BOLD. Hey! Check out that big useless image. Kind of makes the page a bit brighter! : ) - Chardish (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was too long

To User:Chardish (and other editors [ec]), fine. This discussion is not finished you say. BUT THIS SECTION IS TOO LONG. Start a NEW SECTION, with a new header, if you think the discussion has reached an interesting point, but is unfinished. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The coloured big text version was rejected

The coloured big text version was rejected by a number of editors as too garish, and unnecessary on a project page. A suggestion was made that continued attempts to introduce changes to the project policy page, having no prospect of acceptance, is somewhat akin to "disruption". That section of discussion is finalized, for now, so I am starting a new section. Please do not continue to re-argue the same points, discussion becomes unwieldy when these sections just go on and on. Let's move on, or say nothing if nothing needs to be said. (This page is 36 kilobytes long.) Newbyguesses - Talk 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion template added. microchip08 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Microchip08/iar discussion re-added. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How to edit (this) page

Resuming the Discussion

This is a reply to the above section, in consideration of Newbyguesses' request. Chardish, I don't share your perception of editing patterns on this page. You claim that it is uneditable, but I've seen it edited several times in good ways that stuck. The so-called set-in-stone version has been evolving - quite slowly - since it was first written down. In between the steps of its evolution, there is a lot of noise. A lot of people come along and make some edit that doesn't improve the page. Those edits get reverted, sometimes amidst a lot of heat, and a little light for those who are looking.

This editing pattern pattern is not pathological; it's normal, and healthy. You seem to be committed to the idea that arbitray edits, such as adding an unconventional formatting or removing a bullet, should stick, as proof that the page isn't set in stone. That's not how it works. Proof that the page isn't set in stone is that edits that improve the page stick.

Now, you mention how stressful the discussion was last summer, or whenever. I would contend that discussion over this page is only stressful if you make it so. I've never been stressed out over this page, and there's no reason that anyone needs to be, unless they decide to be. That's why I keep asking, why is it so important to you to make some kind of arbitrary edit to this policy? Is your only objection the perception of immutability? That objection should be obviated by an honest look at the page's history, and the acknowledgment that it can be edited, and has been edited, albeit slowly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the process of change is overly contentious

To User:GTBacchus, some changes last longer than others. Outright vandalism ought to be, and is, reverted immediately. But, I wonder, if some odd -looking change is allowed to stand for a day or so, does that cause problems?

To u:David Levy, your thoughts, please, I repeat (from above) I am willing to see any reasonable efforts to better them go on the project page, to see how long they can be left up, without causing any of the dreaded "disruptions by editors who invoke IAR".] I also echoo your call, that examples of a particular version of IAR causing problems are not often supplied. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to good-faith attempts to improve the policy's wording (though I don't regard any recent attempts as successful). —David Levy 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. My issue is the fact that nothing can remain on the page without being talked to death. It's contrary to our principles for editing articles, and I think we need to eat our own dog food when it comes to policy pages. - Chardish (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that reverting controversial changes and discussing them on the policy's talk page is inconsistent with standard procedure? —David Levy 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if every change is regarded as controversial, then something is wrong with the application of procedure. One cannot make a change that hasn't cleared discussion first, and I believe you agree with that. I see that as being inconsistent with BRD. - Chardish (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that at all. It's perfectly fine to perform good-faith edits to the page without advance discussion. What isn't perfectly fine is continually making changes that the editor knows to defy consensus. —David Levy 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable, but then it immediately gets reverted. Thus it's de facto forbidden to make edits without prior consensus. - Chardish (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No. People revert changes with which they disagree. Then we can discuss them and gauge consensus. That's how the editing process is supposed to work. —David Levy 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But on a page this contentious (see above) there's going to be someone who disagrees with any given change. If not, can you find a counterexample, i.e. a change to content that someone made without discussing it first that wasn't reverted? - Chardish (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Your assertion is that every undiscussed edit is indiscriminately reverted, which is false. People revert edits with which they disagree. That this particular policy page has been the subject of a great deal of disagreement is another issue entirely. —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My assertion is that every undiscussed edit is reverted. The editors that revert are certainly discriminate (and revert in good faith), but that still doesn't change the fact that it's demonstrably impossible to make a lasting change to this page without discussing it first. Chardish (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding an image version

Chardish: I was going reply as well, but GTBacchus covered most of what I was going to write. So I'll just address one remaining point:
"Hey! Check out that big useless image. Kind of makes the page a bit brighter! : )"
It made the page look like a joke, removed links, and reduced the policy's accessibility to people with visual impairments. But hey, what matters is that you have "fun," right? —David Levy 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy, Dave, those would be the problems that I alluded to earlier when I stated that the image-only version was objectively worse. However, you missed out on "makes the page take longer to load," which regrettably disqualifies you from winning the gold in the Keep Arguing The Point Your Opponent Conceded event. - Chardish (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't regard this as a game. I was merely responding to the comment that I quoted (which you wrote after the post to which you've linked above). Indeed, you referred to the image-only version as "objectively worse," but you've yet to explicitly acknowledge that the edit in question was disruptive (though your agreement with my assertion that it "made the page look like a joke" seems to imply that). —David Levy 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of the comment that I made was that no one treats WP:BOLD as a joke policy because of its image. Was the image I posted the best possible image? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with an image just for the sake of having one? No. - Chardish (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with adding a bad image just for the sake of having one? Yes. —David Levy 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how long do you plan on continuing to argue that the image I said was bad is a bad image? - Chardish (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm merely replying to what you've written. If it wasn't intended to apply to this situation, I don't know why you posted it. —David Levy 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an answer to my question, particularly after I clarified why I made the comment I did. - Chardish (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That is an answer to your question. I'm not arguing the point that the image was bad; I'm citing this agreed-upon condition as an applicable distinction.

Where/when did you clarify why you made the above comment (at 02:33, 2 March 2008)? —David Levy 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be some confusion there. I simply want you to stop using "the image you posted was bad" as a rhetorical device since I already admitted the image was bad. - Chardish (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that isn't what I'm doing. As we're in agreement regarding the image's poor quality, I cited this condition not to assert its existence, but in reply to your statement that there isn't "anything wrong with an image just for the sake of having one." Here's a timeline consisting of pretend quotations that summarize our relevant comments:

---

Me: "The image is bad."

You: "I acknowledge that the image is bad."

(passage of time, during which other conversation occurs)

You: "It's okay to add an image just for the sake of having one."

Me: "Yes, but we've agreed that your image is bad, so it wasn't okay to add that one just for the sake of having an image."

---

Now do you understand? —David Levy 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. If we're going to have an image on that page, I don't think that should be the one. I thought that was implied but I guess there was just a miscommunication. - Chardish (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The speed at which reverts are made

Replying to Newbyguesses above, you asked, "I wonder, if some odd -looking change is allowed to stand for a day or so, does that cause problems?" I doubt it would cause any problem, no. What's the difference between two hours and two days, after all? That argument cuts every which way, too. If I encounter an odd bit of formatting on any page on Wikipedia, I'm likely to fix it, and I'm not likely to see whether it was introduced within the last 24 hours, and letting it remain if it's so recent. Odd-looking formatting just gets fixed, automatically, and there's no reason to discourage that. It's a good habit.

In general, the criterion for making an edit is not "does it fail to cause problems?", but "does it improve the page?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, GTB, I am with you there. I am wondering though, regarding a bang!, a minor change, if it is reverted after one hour, has that given time for a reasonable number of page-watchers to at least consider the edit, from a number of angles, rather than rule it out "shoot on sight". However, realistically, if the change (an exclamation point) is sufficiently unorthodox, though minor, it will only take an hour or so before one of the page-watchers is, justifiably, bold. Still, I think i could stand an unorthodox page for a day or so, if it resulted in fresh editors, with fresh ideas, adding to the discussion on this talkpage. (section is getting long.) Newbyguesses - Talk 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These subheadings

I added these because the last section really was too long, and because I find I have trouble, sometimes, on the talk pages, keeping track of the different places at which arguments (often the same one) are taking place. I've already concluded that, although much softer on the eyes, they're not a very good idea, but rather an open invitation to frequent revert warring on the talk pages. My thoughts on the matter wander well off-topic. Is there a talk page somewhere about talk page conventions? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page. I'm not sure what you mean about revert warring on talk pages, as altering anyone else's comments is generally a no-no, except for minor formatting fixes, archiving, and removing really nasty personal attacks.--Father Goose (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well you see, I often have to constrain my own levity, on occasion. So I went back, reviewed the headings, and tried to make sure they were as fair as I could make them. The process gave me occasion to imagine what it would be like if people started fighting over what a particular thread of discussion should be titled. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've found Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, now, so any discussion should be nearby. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of Refactoring a talk page, it is permissable to insert arbitrary breaks from time to time, for clarity. This still runs the danger of 're-framing" a discussion, if poorly done, though I would generally favour anything which breaks up long sections into more digestible chunks.

But, maybe it can be over-done, in which case there might be an objection from another editor. Recent refactoring (minor) on this page seems not to have attracted objection often. IE, User:Until 1 self -reverted once. Father Goose "archived" a section that was in the way. NewbyG, some time ago, commented out a disturbing image. Such generally is accepted, the civility factor on this page is way high!

I would suggest inserting headings, and sub-headings sparingly, but start a new section always if appropriate. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How could this rule still be in flux?

concise version reverted

Connoisseurs of the history pages will note that I recently edited the statement of the rule for conciseness, to read: "Ignore all rules." This edit was quite graciously reverted by User:Locke_Cole(talk), and no doubt correctly. Although I firmly believe that, as a technical matter, there is absolutely nothing that 'ignore all rules' could mean that is of more limited scope than 'ignore all rules' - and that the earliest editors of Wikipedia were being too clever for their own good when they captioned it thusly - the point of the rule appears to be the attempt to convey to the reader that the 'rules' are mutable and not absolute, and that if they're acting in good faith, they shouldn't need to worry about them.

three versions

absolute:	"Ignore all rules."
currently held:	"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".
original:	"Ignore all rules: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."

There don't seem to be any irreconcilable differences here. Are we sure that a good definition supported by overwhelming consensus has not, in fact, been reached in the past, and that there has merely been a failure to correctly document and preserve the memory of this?

69.49.44.11 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Ah, so that's the name! Well, I don't think under present conditions we can have all three versions on the page together. Now the [original] "nervous and depressed" version is well-loved, but has had it's day, it seems. The version with 12words [currently held] took over, and is still in vogue. 69's version, [the absolute] ie. just "Ignore all rules", just aint gonna cut it. So, QED it is still the twelveword version for now. We already discussed name changes, above, and that didn't fly either. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule in flux 2

[ Newbyguesses subsequently commits this edit]

Myself, I'm inclined to think your edit heads in the right direction. Some context and explanation of the rule would clearly be of use, from an encyclopedic perspective. I presume it reached its current minimal state due to (a) concerns that the explanations proffered effectively limited the scope of the rule, and (b) disagreements about what the rule actually meant. Unfortunately, without context, the rule does start to sound like a bit of a joke (which, to be fair, it was[3]), and no longer conveys a sense of liberation and sanction to good-faith editing.

Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that the article might benefit somewhat from a structure such as that proposed in the list that follows this paragraph. The second is that an actual wikipedia entry on "Ignore All Rules" - about the origin and history of the phrase - might be of great value. There are, by this time, many secondary sources to cite.

• The rule. (12 word version seems fine.)
• The history of the rule
• The meaning of the rule
  • Strong consensus notions as to what the rule means
  • Strong consensus notions as to what the rule does not mean
  • Notions regarding the rule that are regularly debated
• Frequent criticisms of the rule (without rebuttal).
• See also
  • Links to essays about the rule

David, is it possible that you are experiencing a bit of editorial fatigue? Myself, I did feel that the language of your revert was rather brisque. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply provided an honest explanation of why I removed the text. —David Levy 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. I was offering my perspective on how the language in which you did so might be perceived by others. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any tips on how I should've worded my summary? —David Levy 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, David L. I am not going to argue now in support of the recent change to the page. After all, you have said to the effect that what was written does not contradict the aims of thispolicypage. But the wording was sloppy, possibly redundant. I wonder, if the change had not been excised by yourself, whether in fact it would have been reverted by someone else, (TS perhaps?) within an hour or so. Hopefully, in the time it stood, the revision did not add any extra "disruptions" by editors who saw the new wording as a liscence to go for broke with IAR as their justification! We move on. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding A Link to a Workshop Page

I believe that we should place a warning that the Ignore all rules page is frequently reverted, and a link to the workshop page, at the beginning of this talk page.

In keeping with the " bold, revert, discuss" model, I have been [bold], Chardish has [reverted], and it is now time to discuss the notion. I feel that it would help to facilitate the formation of consensus, in an environment where any change is necessarily major. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather foster an environment on this page where changes are not necessarily major. If every change is de facto automatically followed by a revert, then something about the system is broken. I think any sort of an editing system that removes being bold would betray our status as a wiki. - Chardish (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would, but as a de facto matter, nothing short of a change to the code base could remove 'being bold' from the Wikipedia. My hope was that the warning would advise people as to the situation, and offer them an alternative; it was certainly not meant to read as a imperative. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chardish, I'm borrowed by your assertion that "every change is de facto automatically followed by a revert". That's not the case with this page. Some changes do not get reverted, but rather stick. The page has been successfully edited, repeatedly. I've made this point before, and I don't believe you've replied to it. An honest examination of the history of WP:IAR does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the page cannot be edited. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This idea, or similar, was suggested before, by User:Luc something, and failed. We do not like to clutter up the projectpage with notices (warnings) that do not achieve their purpose, and look poorly. Newbyguesses - Talk 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[moved leftwards for clarity: you were addressing me, right? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]

If experiment elsewhere, or in the past, has demonstrated that such warnings don't work, then that's that, then. Oh well. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here is one example. This was the most recent example, I think, but there were others. Newbyguesses - Talk 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrior

There's no way to sugar-coat this, and I do need to ask (sorry). Viewing edit history of the page, does anyone else read it as David Levy conducting a slow, long term edit war? Ever so many edits is a revert by David Levy. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If people would stop editing the page against consensus, there would be no need for reversions. —David Levy 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Believing that an adversary is simply "uncooperative" is never an excuse for an edit war. Edit wars are defined by actions, not motivations. - Chardish (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time."

My behavior has been to honor consensus. Yours, conversely, has been to continually defy it (with some edits bordering on outright vandalism), apparently for the sake of making a point and having "fun." —David Levy 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the vast majority of my edits have been good-faith attempts to improve the page. I can think of perhaps only 2 or 3, ever, that were not. But hey, whatever you can say to make me seem like a bigger dick, right? - Chardish (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In this latest round of edits, I assumed good faith on your part until you performed the edit that you don't want me to mention. Given your previous acknowledgment that you edited the page purely to prove a point, you've made it difficult to separate the good-faith edits (many of which appear to stem from an inexplicable desire to change the page for the sake of change) from the others. Frankly, most of your edits come across as pointy or spiteful (even assuming that you honestly do seek to improve the page in the process) and obviously (including to you) defy consensus. —David Levy 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

David, please remember that there is never, ever, ever, ever any excuse to stop assuming good faith. (Please don't quote WP:AGF at me that you don't have to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary - that's utterly contrary to the point of AGF, which is meaningless except in the presence of evidence to the contrary.) Nobody here is physically capable of acting in anything but perfect faith. If we start questioning each other's motivations, everything goes to hell. You know this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1. User:D Levy has executed many edits to the project page.
2. DL is rarely challenged on the p-page, nor on this discussion page.
3. DL it seems, represents close to the majority or consensus view, or else DL would be challenged more often, and successfully.
4. User:Levy contributes frequently to this discussion page, as user:KimB did used to recently.
5. User:DL's input is always aimed at improving the page (that is, when it is not part of some snippy back-and-forth).
6. The same cannot be said for all of user:KM's contribs, which KM would do well to remember.
7. Despite a tendency to a trigger finger, I support, in the main, the editing of User:David Levy on this page over recent months, even when i have been reverted.
8. User:DL's input is mainly in response to edits, many of which are either ill-considered, or have no chance of achieving consensus.
9. Discussion is welcomed, disruption is not.

My current views, and no offence to KB is implied, Newbyguesses - Talk 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Newbyguesses. I sincerely appreciate your kind words. —David Levy 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problem with any one of David's reverts, but there would also be no serious problem if he were to let other people revert more often, or to let the page float around a little more. No serious negative consequences would arise from skipping a revert on occasion. I can see how David's good-faith editing might lead to the perception that he wishes to control the page. It would actually be quite excellent for each of us to avoid being a primary reverter of others' experiments, simply because the more people carrying out reversions, the clearer the consensus position.

I see at least two people here making a similar kind of error: Chardish seems to find it very important that the page change, and be seen as mutable. David seems to find it very important that non-consensus edits not be allowed to stand on this page. Both are placing too much importance on something that's not nearly such a big deal. If this page seems immutable, what harm results? If this page drifts a little, and experiments with formats, what harm results? The answer, in both cases, is none. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this page. If it's not fun, then you're missing the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

* I request a sanity check. Can you provide a comprehensive list of diffs of edits to this page that you have had problems with. I always have a WP:WIARM explanation for every edit that I make, and I can and will provide that explanation for each diff you provide. We can then decide if any of those edits were inappropriate.

* Just because others support someones edits does not mean they are not an Edit warrior. At the time, people like User:RickK were supported too (and many people still support his actions of the time). But we as a community have moved on, and instituted rules like the 3 revert rule, to curtail that behavior. Edit Warriors are not evil, and were at one point considered to have a useful function.

* In the past, my insights were also aligned with David Levy's. I reserve the right to possess progressive insight into a matter, however.

That covered: Can you list recent edits by David Levy that have *not* been reverts or essentially reverts?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you list recent edits by me to the policy page that didn't reflect consensus? Are Chardish's continual edits (which deliberately defy consensus) somehow okay because they keep changing? —David Levy 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chardish's edits. Reverts of good-faith edits tend to fail to reflect consensus. But that's my interpretation. I've requested a sanity check at AN/I. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you regard this as a good-faith edit?

2. Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that it's inappropriate to revert consensus-defying edits performed in good faith? —David Levy 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, sorry, user:KB, but no, no, and no. I do not wish to slip into long-winded back-and-forths that just rehash past minor edits. Nor am i going to debate at endless length about meta-principles, or damned GNOMIC twaddle, which i wish i had never heard of. Just improve the page, do not debate to have fun, or make a point, or play gNoMiC games, and philosophise at length. (Much as I also, would wish to philosophise, but try not to, on this page). Sorry, no, but thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

Sanity check: Indeed, slow reverts is still a way of gaming the system. Maybe David and others need to consider WP:BRD instead of WP:BRRR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Continually devising new ways to edit a page in defiance of consensus (thereby enabling the editor to say, "But you're the one reverting! Each of my edits was different!") is way of gaming the system. —David Levy 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)