Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.108.211.71 (talk) at 07:03, 4 August 2010 (→Rules are only as good as). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical

Let me start by saying I am a big fan of IAR. But we should face the reality: it is historical. Following IAR is a good way to get yourself blocked, banned and so on. Keeping it as a policy, when in fact it is just a reminder of the "good old days" because we developed into a full-fledged bureaucracy seems confusing at best, and misleading some editors into taking actions that get them in trouble, at worst. (If you disagree, please point out when the "I was following IAR" argument held water last time at ANI/ARBCOM?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think the associated essays do a pretty darn good job of explaining that if all you've got is "it said to ignore rules", you've got nuthin'. Whereas if you're able to explain how the encyclopedia was improved by your actions, you should be just as fine now as you were "then". Franamax (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's the theory. IAR was never meant as an excuse to do anything. But my point remains: is IAR (+explanation on how one's IAR action helped the project) still enough to escape punishment by bureaucratically-minded rules enforcers? Some examples would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is not, nor has it ever been, something to invoke as a rationale for actions disruptive enough to result in the type of scenario that you describe. —David Levy 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most effective uses of this policy, and the first instance of its use to my knowledge being acknowledged and approved by the arbitration committee, was barely three months ago. This policy is alive and well, and to all appearances more potent than ever. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds interesting; could you be more specific? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think TS meant this motion. --an odd name 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is I am afraid, pure historical revisionism. The rogue admins who went on that deletion spree never once justified their actions in terms of IAR, i.e. ignoring process constraints in order to enforce BLP for the greater good, nor did they once mention admin discretion or aggresive enforcement. They used their tools to ignore community consensus on the deletion policies and the BLP policy, to bring about what they thought was needed, a change in site policies and attitudes on BLPs, in a gross dereliction of their office as servants to the community, and they were fully expecting to be desysopped or even blocked, as martyrs. The 'IAR' story came about as a retcon from arbcom during the request for a case, which, despite objections from many arbs, was settled quick smart behind closed doors with a summary motion, much criticised to this day for being totally contradictory. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this happened when I think it did, I think one of them actually was taken to AN/I for refusal to slow down on nominating for deletion BLP (and other types) of articles (many of which were actually saved and not deleted) and there was a strong consensus of the Community against that indvidual and she(?) and the few supporters behind her tried to use the arbcom decision as cover. Nothing probably was done to the editor but no one bought the idea that what they did was acceptable and I think it probably made alot of us just not care to listen to ArbCom or accept their legitimacy anymore. Not that ArbCom actually ever impacted anything I ever did/do here on Wikipedia, but after that case I would rather see them not exist.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I think about it, that AN/I thread itself was a case of IAR in that those of us against that editor declared we dont give a shit about a "rule" handed down by ArbCom.Camelbinky (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can point to that motion and cite it as a recent example of this policy being followed with outstanding success and arbitration committee support. I cannot stop you entirely missing the point, though If you examine the changes in the treatment of biographies of living persons since then I think you will get it eventually. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I do miss the point. And I dont see the changes in treatment of BLP seeing as how there was just Eric Ely that was put up for deletion and even though User:Jimbo Wales Himself weighed in to support deletion it was kept for "no consensus" and spawned a thread on his talk page where many (including me) weighed in on whether BLP should be strengthened and if so how. It has now moved on to another page where I am not following the discussion. Nothing changed due to the ArbCom decision and those likely to follow it will still get slammed and disparaged (civilly of course) for their actions. ArbCom did not follow IAR, they followed "dont give a shit about the Community's disgust with their actions" and decided something totally inappropriate. Just because a minority of editors decide they will treat BLPs differently doesnt mean that's how all of us feel. In fact I'd say we are stronger in opposition to deletion of BLPs for meaningless reasons now that we've been mobilized and see the attack we are under.Camelbinky (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to continue the argument about deletion rules for biographies of living persons. I note that the BLP now includes a special new procedure for proposed deletion of unsourced articles about living persons, so the notion that the whole policy discussion is exactly where it was before Doc and his pals ignored all rules seems difficult to support.

Whatever you may think of the arbitration committee, it's an elected body explicitly charged with acting as the final arbiter in matters of policy. If you don't like the committee's decision, you may appeal it, or elect a new committee. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"matters of policy" above should of course read "matters of interpretation of policy". Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be something like "matters of handing out arbitrary and pointless punishment to people outside the clique, while letting their friends do whatever they like". They dress up their ridiculous and corrupt proceedings in pseudo-legalese and policy-ese so as to fool people into thinking they're doing a good job and reelecting them. ArbCom in its present form is one of the stupidest ideas we have - I believe we need something like it, but not the kangaroo court it's become.--Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing about the powers of the Committee as they stand at present. If you have criticisms of what they do and how they do it, or suggestions for an alternative arrangement, make them on the appropriate policy talk page, and not here where they will have no practical effect. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to above, I think you not realising that the initiators of that fiasco were not invoking IAR as they went about it, is a case of you entirely missing the point tbh, rather than me. If find it wholly irrelevant that arbcom ultimately retconned IAR onto that shitfest, when considering the posters original point of whether "I was following IAR" is accepted at ANI and the like anymore, if invoked by the person doing whatever it is that landed them at ANI. As regards that retcon though, subsequent feedback showed that the signatory arbcom members will indeed get their asses handed to them on a plate in the next election for allowing that to be brushed aside with a contradictory motion and amnesty, which totally ignored the prevailing communuity perception of when IAR is appropriate - i.e. for situations when it is only beurocarcy for its own sake, rather than established site consensus, that is getting in your way of improving the pedia. Consensus post-event was also quite clear, admins who abuse their tools to ignore community consensus by using IAR as an excuse for wholly controversial ends, will also get their comeupance at any appropriate opportunity, until such time as a credible recall system is ever created. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is being complicated by unnecessary belligerence. The original misconception, that Ignore All Rules is some kind of "Get out of jail free" care that one must explicitly invoke either before or after being challenged, has been efficiently dealt with way up-thread, and I won't revisit it. Far from needing to be "retconned", this policy is the first and most important policy on Wikipedia (and yes, I mean literally, it is the first policy). Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He consensus post-event really had been clearly against the action taken, the RFC would have looked very different. But observations in that vein don't help to keep the discussion on topic. I note that you concede that there are community perceptions as to the appropriate use of this policy. It follows that we both agree that the policy is alive (and perhaps, rather alarmingly for some of us!) Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post-event feedback in Sandstein's view was pretty conclusive regarding the events (75 supports, 6 opposes, guess who was #6!), and WP:PIAR made it pretty clear what the feelings of the community would be toward any admin who might be tempted to use that motion in future to support deliberate abuse of IAR in the way the retcon suggests is now acceptable. It is only when the invoker truly understands what IAR is for, that they will be able to use it without getting blocked or hauled before arbcom as the OP suggests is now the case for all attempts to use it and therefore why it must be historical. Correct applications of IAR most likely go-unnoticed or generate very little heat once the motives are clear and any Reichstag climbers are properly dealt with - if you need arbcom to get you off for doing something, that is in itself a sure sign whatever you were doing was not a proper invocation of IAR at all. Which is why it was truly odd that they sanctioned it with a retcon, and why the motion barely scraped through. No, their days in the chair are numbered certainly. MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since TS claims on my talk page I was uncivil to him(?) or I guess his claim was that I was actually uncivil to an abstract idea or group of editors, by using a phrase that said those editors would still get "slammed and disparaged" (which I did point out the specific editor I mentioned taken to AN/I did in fact get that done to her) and TS has asked I change that wording and apologize here- I would like to change my wording from "slammed and disparaged" to MickMacNee's wording of they will get their "comeupance at any appropriate opportunity". Which is simply what I meant to say, but I am less elegant in my wording; and yes at times I'm downright crude. TS's statement that we are (or just me?) being "unnecessarily beligerent" I believe is unfounded though yes necessary given that TS accused me of "not getting the point" when as Mick pointed out it is TS who doesnt seem to be following the fact that the consensus of the Community is squarely against ArbCom and we dont see their decision as IAR. In fact TS's comment that ArbCom is the final arbitor of policy is incorrect; the final arbitor is the perfect pontificator of policy not ArbCom.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(There's probably some pithily-titled essay that addresses this type of tangent, but...) Can we just get back to discussing whether or not IAR is historical? (or get back to working on the encyclopedia...). Discussion so far suggests it is not. I used IAR last week to close an MfD that I had commented in, because the nom had withdrawn, and nobody had supported the nom, and continuing to have the MfD banner was unhelpful. I ignored process to help the encyclopedia.
So IAR - still useful and used. Anything else, or can we end this thread? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe the thread has evolved but hasnt gone a tangent. TS asked me to come back to the thread and apologize and so I did, yes that perhaps was a bit of a tangent but I was asked to do it so I did. Quiddity, you havent commented in the thread at all until now... not that that's a bad thing but really please allow discussions to evolve wherever they may go. Though I do agree the thread has probably run its course and there isnt much more to be said. But if TS feels his point of view is legitimate and wishes to try and convince us that ArbCom used IAR legitimately and that was a real case of IAR being used then that is his right to continue to talk about it in this thread. I dont agree with TS but I will support his right to be heard and talk in this thread about his issue.Camelbinky (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why Camelbinky thinks I told him he was uncivil to me. I'll stop commenting here now because the discussion long ago lost all relevance to the proposal to add a "historical" tag to the policy. Rather, it seems to have become a proxy for various grievances over recent changes in another policy. I've no interest in rehashing that change, with which I happen to be quite satisfied. --TS 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore ALL rules?

I think this should be changed. Even users who have abused more than one account could say "but I am helping Wikipedia!" if their edits are indeed quality. Tommy2010 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could say that. But they'd be blocked anyway. Or maybe banned. In practice IAR only applies in emergencies. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the case that this policy applies only in emergencies, but disregarding firm policy has to be justifiable to the extent that the editor will escape sanction. I believe this is known as "getting away with it." If other editors look at what you did and perceive a clear benefit to the encyclopedia, to the extent that your actions attract no sanction, that is a pragmatic (and decidedly post hoc) way of determining whether you have been justified in ignoring all rules.
In practice most instances of following this policy are carried out daily and without controversy by editors who most likely haven't even heard of it. They see a way of improving Wikipedia and do it, without asking permission. This policy stops bureaucratically-minded rule-mongers hampering such beneficial behavior. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see Tommy2010 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually one of the most commonly used areas for IAR. There are plenty of users indeff'd for various issues who slink back under the radar later when they've got it out of their system/grown up, and edit constructively, helpfully, and people turn a blind eye to it because the user is improving the encyclopedia while unneeded drama harms it. Hell, Willy himself became an editor. -- ۩ Mask 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they really are improving Wikipedia by ignoring the rule, why do you want to stop them? This rule is precisely aimed at those who care more about enforcing rules than about improving Wikipedia. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore WP:IAR

Since people are too hasty to invoke WP:IAR in deletion discussions as if its a policy, I tried to be bold and add this to the page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"people are too hasty to invoke WP:IAR in deletion discussions as if its a policy"—IAR is a policy, so that is moot. Quoth the page, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." --an odd name 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got that impression off a recent deletion process that I was indirectly engaged in. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my little addendum could clarify IAR. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you added seemed like an unnecessary witticism; the sentence included two negatives so it may be confusing for people. It's definitely not clarifying if it takes people a few minutes to figure out what you mean. I didn't see what the point of it was at all. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 10:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that people grab on to only 3 words (ignore all rules) and not the important conditional "if it improves the encyclopeida". I am not sure how to emphasize the conditional portion.Active Banana (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to explicitly invoke IAR in defense of your actions then you're not using the policy correctly. People spend far too much time worrying about what this page says, especially since it doesn't even matter. --Deskana (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The policy is, intrinsically, a possible defense of one's actions. Noloop (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? NO U! My point was that if you're ignoring the rules, then what you should have is a detailed explanation of why you're doing what you're doing and why it's a good thing, not "I'm ignoring all rules because it's good kkthxbye". Defenses that explictly invoke IAR tend to mean the person can't think of anything else to say. --Deskana (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Still, some rationale is required to let people break the rules because their opinion of what's best overrides the rules. That rationale is WP:IAR, and it's quite natural to invoke it if you are challenged for breaking the rules. I agree that you also need an explanation of the "improve Wikipedia" part. Noloop (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the detailed level, many of the main wp rules are written such that 90% of Wikipedia violates a thorough reading of them. It is only when taken in combination with other aspects (such as enforcement/non-enforcement by consensus [= taking other aspects into consideration]), or influenced by the wp:iar possibility that they, in the big complex picture, become workable and pretty good. So, IAR plays a major role in a system that overall, makes otherwise unworkable-as-written rules workable. Invoking IAR inherently requires one to make the case that, in the particular case, it is better for Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While most experienced editors understand that; there are amazing numbers of new editors (as well as obstinate experienced editors) who do not read the current language and understand that. Is there something that can be done to make the real understanding and application more clear on first readings to inexperienced editors? Active Banana (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is to write the detailed rules more carefully. And by "carefully" I don't just mean with "much deliberation" which they already have. By "carefully" I mean with thorough analysis of their consequences if taken literally at the granular level. This includes thorough review in the context of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I have made some attempts at this at wp:nor (which substantially overlaps with wp:ver) so far unsuccessfully. So I keep my sanity by understanding that WP works at the "big picture" level even if it has badly written policy paragraphs which continually cause problems. Policies can be badly abused, either to wiki-lawyer an article to their POV, or due to personality defects such as when my evil twin TheParasite[1] takes me over and takes my place. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are only as good as

Note: This edit is what is being discussed below. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not? --Ludwigs2 03:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You completely replaced a major longstanding Wikipedia policy with a few (way cool) personal thoughts of yours. Now, you can't go doin' that!  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, why not? I can explain exactly what I meant by it and why I think it's better than what's there, if you like. --Ludwigs2 06:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read the archives first. Similar revisions have been proposed, discussed and rejected on multiple occasions. —David Levy 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm not a newb, so please don't talk to me like I am. The current wording scores points for a kind or avant guard artistic style, and I appreciate the historical value of it, but it's not particularly clear or useful as given. or do you disagree? me, I think we can do better. --Ludwigs2 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the simplest answer is what it says at the top of the policy page "Changes to it should reflect consensus" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking down to you. I was trying to be helpful by pointing you to the past discussions (in which this ground has been covered repeatedly).
Yes, I disagree with you. Given your ample experience, I'm confident in your ability to consult the archives instead of demanding that I reiterate my position yet again. —David Levy 11:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can technically do that, but generally for major changes to long standing policies the practice is to discuss on the talk page and gain consensus prior to changing the policy (as noted in the big box on the top of the page). Active Banana (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that we've gotten all the reflex objections out of the way, let's get down to some serious discussion. the problem with the current version of this policy is that it is misleading; it doesn't actually say what I'm pretty sure the policy is supposed to be saying.
1. the intention of the policy is not about rules per se but about the misconstruction and misapplication of rules by editors
2. the intention of the policy is not that rules should be ignored, but that rules should always be subordinate to the construction of the encyclopedia
In fact, I'm tempted to suggest that a better wording would be something like "Where rules are applied in a way that violates the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative encyclopedia, ignore them". But even that's a little thin. The thing we want this policy to do is get people to consider what the particular application of a rule looks like in the 'big picture' of the encyclopedia, and decide whether or not they want to follow it on those grounds. --Ludwigs2 18:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your characterization of conflicting viewpoints as "reflex objections" is rather insulting. Didn't you just accuse me of being condescending?
2. Why do you refuse to consult the archives (where your points are addressed over and over and over again)? Do you not understand why it's frustrating for those of us who frequent this page to have to go through the same discussion every time someone comes along and insists on rehashing it? —David Levy 19:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. It IS about the rules. Sometimes we have bad rules. Sometimes it's, like you said, a situation they didn't anticipate. Both are bad. Both situations ignoring the rules is not likely to raise a stink beyond process wonks.
2. You really need to read the archives. -- ۩ Mask 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no intention of being condescending: I just recognize that sometimes we all speak before we consider things thoroughly (hence 'reflex objection'). this is even more pronounced on wikipedia than elsewhere, because of the medium. I do it myself... Now I will dig my way through the archives as I can (it would be nice if this page had an FAQ or some such to make that task less onerous), but I'm reasonably certain that I already know most of the talking points contained therein. The fact that this very talk page links to at least two essays explaining/redefining IAR tells me that the current version is being defended mostly because it's tradition than because it's clear, accurate and meaningful. All that going through the archives is going to do is bring me back here with objections to the historical arguments (which I will almost certainly have, since the historical arguments achieved this version, and this version has evident issues). It would be a lot easier if we just skipped all that and talked about it. up to y'all. --Ludwigs2 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your points have been considered thoroughly on many occasions. Our objections are not reflexive; they're reiterative of numerous extremely similar discussions.
2. Thank you for examining the archives. They wouldn't be nearly as vast if people had read them instead of continually duplicating the discussions contained therein. You're helping to mitigate the problem.
3. However, assuming beforehand that you'll almost certainly disagree with past arguments and preparing in advance to refute them (because, after all, the status quo clearly is wrong, so anything that led to it must be wrong too) is not the best approach. I'm certainly not demanding that you be persuaded, but you should be open to the possibility. Many users with concerns like yours have changed their minds. (I'm one of them.) —David Levy 12:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heavens to Betsy - lol. point of fact: "reiterative of numerous extremely similar discussions" is the very definition of reflexive. and I assume I will disagree with the arguments made previously because I disagree with their evident results, for what I think are sound reasons, which implies that my reasons are not the reasons used in previous discussions. It will be useful to look over old discussions, mind you, and I'm not here to make your life more difficult, but I'm not here to make it any easier, either: if you have a particular objetion to make, you can dig it out of the archives yourself. don't expect me to do your boring legwork for you.
I'm not all that pleased by the tone of the comments here, granting that I could be a bit more politic myself (bit stressed about other things, sorry). so why don't we all take a deep breath and restart this discussion on a civil note. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. A "reflex objection" would be one made automatically (with little or no thought given to your comments). We thoughtfully examined your comments and determined that they duplicate those from many previous discussions (which we don't wish to rehash yet again).
2. You regard your logic as sound now. The past discussions do contain such arguments, along with counterarguments that you likely haven't considered. If you read them with an open mind, perhaps these counterarguments will alter your opinion (as they have those of past discussion participants). I'm among those who have changed their minds. —David Levy 17:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the very definition of reflexive" -- you won't further your position by making obviously false claims that you could not possibly believe (and the worse for you if you do). You should follow your own advice and stop being a dick. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we change the wording to "I just want to get the facts, ma'am"....
I agree that this issue of "I can think of better wording that expresses the nuances of this policy more clearly" has been discussed to death, and there is very solid consensus for the current wording. The essays that are linked at the bottom of the page, give the more subjective interpretations, and the contextual implications and intents. If we try to extrapolate in this policy, it rapidly devolves into legalese or subjective wit. What we have now, which we've had for years, is what we can consensusfully-all agree on.
Anyone is welcome to discuss it. But just boldly replacing the years old policy-content, with an apathetic-sounding edit summary, and painfully bad revision ("life is too long", "sysop", "ding", "dick", "right thing", and general subjective philosophising), is not a good way to start off.
Lastly, could someone change the thread-title to something more relevant? And maybe a link to the actual text y'all are discussing? Oh hell, I'll do it. grumble grumble. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the edit covers the rule in a more detailed manor. I think it needs to be edted though, the first part could be included, but after that I felt it getting mean? ChaosMasterChat 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The archived discussions include explanations of why we choose not to cover the rule in a more detailed manner. —David Levy 14:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, your resistance to discussing the matter is starting to make me wonder whether you've read the archived discussions... --Ludwigs2 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, based upon the wink, that the above comment is at least partially jocular.
Regarding the underlying sentiment, I'm resistant only to the blind initiation of duplicative discussion for the umpteenth time. Disagreement is fine, but I'm tired of answering the same "Why don't we just do it this way?" questions, the answers to which are readily available. —David Levy 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly jocular, yes, though I will point out (philosophically) that repetition is one of those worldly concomitants that none of us can escape. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the intention of the policy is not about rules per se but about the misconstruction and misapplication of rules by editors"
That's false.
"the intention of the policy is not that rules should be ignored, but that rules should always be subordinate to the construction of the encyclopedia"
Which is what the text said before you touched it. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad policy

I think the policy is bad. Delete it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy should be applied as follows: anyone that considers WP:IGNORE, is obligued to apply WP:IGNORE to WP:IGNORE first. Then, if WP:IGNORE is not ignored, then the mayhap user of WP:IGNORE can be allowed to ignore other policies, unless the WP:IGNORE happen to be WP:IGNORED. If, on the other hand WP:IGNORE is not WP:IGNORED, then the editor is obligued to WP:IGNORE the policy WP:IGNORE. If that was perceived as a piece of bullshit, then also consider the WP:CIVIL and WP:INTELLIGENT discussion on Talk:GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#This_article_is_a_piece_of_biased_shit! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be informative!?

I think I understand this guideline and the five pillars in general. But I think it could be more clearly stated: People come to Wikipedia for information. Of course it need to be accurate, but it also needs to be informative. Every encyclopedia have also a pedagogical aspect, apart from the claim of correctness. And I haven´t seen this clearly stated in any of the guidelines and policy's. (Have I missed it, can you point me to it?) In this article it only says that the improvement of Wikipedia is more important than the rules, but it doesn´t say how it should and needs to be improved. In my interpretation this relates to the informativeness, because I can´t see why you need to break the rules to make Wikipedia more accurate. --WikiPBia (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the way that the other rules are written, especially if taken at the granular level and out of the context of enforcement-by-consensus and other general wording, is such that they can be used to work against the goals of Wikipedia. This policy IS a part of the big picture rules, and helps take care of those situations. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=377075623"