Commons talk:Be flexible
(Redirected from Commons talk:Ignore all rules)
Discussion of move from Commons:Ignore all rules[edit]
Informal move proposal[edit]
Hello, while I would have previously seen no harm in keeping this essay around, it is actively causing harm to the project now. If administrators are taking this essay into account in order to ignore our policies, this essay should be moved to a user page or draft page. It cannot lead administrators to feel they can do as they wish when controlling content here, and is confusing and directly contradictory to our policies in that way. See the deletion discussion here, which also links to earlier discussions. Regardless of the legal aspects, there has already been a consensus to delete or userfy the essay. I can propose a second formal deletion discussion/move request if necessary. ɱ (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- How about just deleting it? I would support deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think we need to somehow address the wiki tradition of "ignore all rules", so I don't think this should simply go away. We could change this to have a lede saying that IAR is not Commons policy, and emphasizing that this essay explains how to identify the rare situations where rules should be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think rules should be ignored. I think that in cases when rules are bad, a discussion should take place and a new consensus should be formed. This is nonsense: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Commons, ignore it." Ignoring copyright would improve Commons, in the sense that we could (at least until taken offline by lawsuits) host way more images if we ignored copyright. Much less drastically, I actually do think Commons would be drastically improved if we stopped requiring that all images hosted here be usable commercially (barring non-copyright restrictions like trademarks), but anyone ignoring that rule is routinely shot down because requiring commercial FoP is (unfortunately) a core policy of Commons. And if that nonsensical line is deleted, what is left? "No rules on this site may be ignored"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The absense of a Commons:IAR I trust would make a much clearer picture of Commons' stance on this wiki tradition, rather than repeating some of Wikipedia while calling it an essay, or saying it's not a policy. Just the very fact that a Commons:IAR exists as a page and as a link was motivation enough to persuade an administrator they could take the advice listed here and ignore some of our rules, and cite it in doing so. That's not how our system works. ɱ (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Speaking from the experience of over 15 years as an admin, I probably ignore one or another rule on at least a weekly basis, almost certainly more, and I can think of less than a dozen times anyone complained about the resulting action, and offhand none of those complaints were upheld. There are cases where a generally good rule doesn't reasonably apply, and where it isn't worth a rewrite of rules to account for an edge case because it makes for a legalistic thicket. I would say that most admins (and many other contributors) are often having to make decisions that don't tightly conform to the rules, but are obviously correct decisions. Yes, you should expect to be called on the carpet if you get this wrong (ignoring a rule where it should be obeyed): IAR does not mean "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." The effort to make everything entirely legalistic is a troll's paradise. It's amazing the damage someone can do by slavishly following a rule in a situation where it was obviously not meant to apply. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Gray areas are one thing; directly contradicting a rule is another. Perhaps you can give some examples of rules you ignored and what the situations were. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't think any of these arguments negate the fact that -by this page's own very existence- it has done substantial harm that almost went unchecked, and the same could very well happen in the future. I have never seen IAR abused in that manner on Wikipedia, but text is cheap and easy to replace; photos require a journey, a nice day, a good camera, a decent photographer, and an uploader who can categorize. Once an admin deletes the result of that effort, it's usually the last word. ɱ (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- (I agree that the undel process can be a pain, but technically there is nothing difficult about it. Normally, nothing here is hard-deleted.) Clearly "don't unilaterally delete stuff" is usually a bad rule to ignore. But, you know what? I've done it a few times. And gotten no complaints. In one case, a badly taken photo of no likely interest, likely to prove embarrassing to its subject, consent wasn't obvious, and the uploader was an account that had no other uploads: very different from the recent case. I can't recall the circumstances of the others, but they probably all involved avoiding the Streisand effect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to say you're arguing in bad faith, but it seems like your arguments are related to a yearning to keep this explanation that circumventing the letter of the rules may be necessary, in order to justify your own decisions as an editor or admin, and not related to the larger picture or others' experiences. It can be clarified elsewhere, or I am sure you can say you're following the spirit of Commons guidelines without having to refer to something that has and likely will continue to actively harm the project. ɱ (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- (I agree that the undel process can be a pain, but technically there is nothing difficult about it. Normally, nothing here is hard-deleted.) Clearly "don't unilaterally delete stuff" is usually a bad rule to ignore. But, you know what? I've done it a few times. And gotten no complaints. In one case, a badly taken photo of no likely interest, likely to prove embarrassing to its subject, consent wasn't obvious, and the uploader was an account that had no other uploads: very different from the recent case. I can't recall the circumstances of the others, but they probably all involved avoiding the Streisand effect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't think any of these arguments negate the fact that -by this page's own very existence- it has done substantial harm that almost went unchecked, and the same could very well happen in the future. I have never seen IAR abused in that manner on Wikipedia, but text is cheap and easy to replace; photos require a journey, a nice day, a good camera, a decent photographer, and an uploader who can categorize. Once an admin deletes the result of that effort, it's usually the last word. ɱ (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jmabel, based on your description, I would suggest that when you made that speedy deletion, you were making a reasonable, good-faith decision to place one Commons imperative over another, not brazenly violating a rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: and I'm sure that is what Andre thought he was doing, he just made a poor decision. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- My feeling is that we don't need an "ignore all rules" page. When someone ignores a rule, they must be prepared to defend themselves. Just FYI, Wikivoyage has no "ignore all rules" page, and if anyone created one unilaterally, I am sure it would be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK: Let's try again. "Ignore all rules" is absolute bullshit! The intention is to say that some rules can be bent or ignored in certain situations. Therefore, this page should be deleted. I am going to request deletion of this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jmabel, based on your description, I would suggest that when you made that speedy deletion, you were making a reasonable, good-faith decision to place one Commons imperative over another, not brazenly violating a rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Gray areas are one thing; directly contradicting a rule is another. Perhaps you can give some examples of rules you ignored and what the situations were. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Speaking from the experience of over 15 years as an admin, I probably ignore one or another rule on at least a weekly basis, almost certainly more, and I can think of less than a dozen times anyone complained about the resulting action, and offhand none of those complaints were upheld. There are cases where a generally good rule doesn't reasonably apply, and where it isn't worth a rewrite of rules to account for an edge case because it makes for a legalistic thicket. I would say that most admins (and many other contributors) are often having to make decisions that don't tightly conform to the rules, but are obviously correct decisions. Yes, you should expect to be called on the carpet if you get this wrong (ignoring a rule where it should be obeyed): IAR does not mean "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." The effort to make everything entirely legalistic is a troll's paradise. It's amazing the damage someone can do by slavishly following a rule in a situation where it was obviously not meant to apply. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think we need to somehow address the wiki tradition of "ignore all rules", so I don't think this should simply go away. We could change this to have a lede saying that IAR is not Commons policy, and emphasizing that this essay explains how to identify the rare situations where rules should be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Re-deletion request[edit]
See Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Ignore all rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Edits that purport to improve this essay[edit]
Re: this edit: Do we agree that the only defense for breaking a rule unilaterally is that spending time discussing it would be worse? Then why would we not insist that in cases in which something like the unilateral deletion of thousands of images could have waited for a discussion that either did or did not lead to consensus, acting unilaterally is against Commons policy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- And here's another attempt at making the point. This is a wiki. Wikis work based on consensus, or they don't work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Assuming your remark about "unilateral deletion of thousands of images" is a reference to the recent incident with Andre, I think everyone whose been editing here agrees that was a bad decision, but in my case at least, that's not so much because it "could have waited for discussion" as because for a lot of these images, I don't think there would have been consensus to delete.
- I've definitely ignored rules not just to avoid "spending time" but to avoid the Streisand effect. And as an admin I've definitely let things slide where I saw someone breaking a rule, but felt that their edit was nonetheless a good thing. An example I can think of is when someone has written a photo description that reads like a stub Wikipedia article on a topic of less-then-encyclopedic notability, but where I think that would probably be useful to likely users of the photo. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples, but it's not particularly something I keep track of. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, if you had thought that a discussion about deleting thousands of usable, duly licensed photos would have resulted in consensus to do so, you would have been OK with dispensing with a discussion? The ends justify the means? If so, that's very dangerous thinking. In terms of decisions you've made to quietly delete photos without discussion "to avoid the Streisand effect," non-admins are unlikely to notice those deletions, by your design, so we have no way to judge whether your decisions were justified, but you don't need a publicly-readable essay to justify them (make it readable only by admins, if you like, which is what deleting it does, but then never cite it in defense of anything). When you talk about letting things slide, though: admins have the discretion to choose how strictly to enforce rules. Lenience by an admin is not an active violation of a rule, and again, we don't need an essay to actively encourage people to break rules. What it amounts to is more or less the same thing as it does in daily living: you can choose to break a rule if you think it's the right thing to do, but then, if you are called on it, you must be willing to defend yourself and could face adverse consequences. We don't need an essay to say that, but if we want to keep one, we really need to retitle it, and I hope you would support retitling it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: "If you had thought that a discussion about deleting thousands of usable, duly licensed photos would have resulted in consensus to do so, you would have been OK with dispensing with a discussion? " did I say anything of the sort? You seem to me imputing to me the widely repudiated actions of a person with whom I openly agreed, who has now basically admitted he was out of consensus, resigned his adminship, and left the project. If you want to engage with me, fine. If you want to set up straw men, I'm not interested. And I'm not here be bludgeoned.
- If you have a problem with my conduct, feel free to bring it up. I promise to make a single response to you, then get out of the way of the discussion unless I'm specifically addressed. If you have a problem with someone else's conduct that I not only did not defend, but told him I thought he had not done the right thing, leave me out of it.
- But basically, this is supposed to be a place to discuss this essay, not my (or anyone else's) conduct as an admin. As far as I can tell, you are in a small minority in wanting to get rid of this essay, retitle it, etc. Several others of us have clarified it over time to indicate what it does and does not mean and to provide context for it. You simultaneously want it deleted, retitled, and to say something other than what it says. I don't see a group of people coming here and agreeing with you, and you repeating yourself with minor variations does not carry any more weight than you saying something once. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a complaint about any of your actions. I'm sorry I evidently misunderstood this as meaning you really cared only about what the result of a discussion would have been than whether there had been one or not: "in my case at least, that's not so much because it 'could have waited for discussion' as because for a lot of these images, I don't think there would have been consensus to delete." I guess what you meant wasn't that the lack of a discussion was OK but that the extremely likely results of such a discussion were even more important to you. Do note my disclaimer "if so," but even so, in the context of a discussion of when it might be OK to break rules, including examples of cases in which you believe you broke rules, I think my doubts about what you meant were understandable. In terms of what I want in regard to this essay, my preferences are in order: (1) deletion; (2) moving to someone's user page; (3) retitling to delete the word "all," which we all agree is not true; (4) make clearer that all rules cannot be ignored and that anyone who chooses to ignore a particular rule does so at their own risk and should think very carefully before doing so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- As for being "in a small minority," the deletion thread is so far 4-3 in favor of keeping this essay. If 3 is a small minority, what's 4? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a complaint about any of your actions. I'm sorry I evidently misunderstood this as meaning you really cared only about what the result of a discussion would have been than whether there had been one or not: "in my case at least, that's not so much because it 'could have waited for discussion' as because for a lot of these images, I don't think there would have been consensus to delete." I guess what you meant wasn't that the lack of a discussion was OK but that the extremely likely results of such a discussion were even more important to you. Do note my disclaimer "if so," but even so, in the context of a discussion of when it might be OK to break rules, including examples of cases in which you believe you broke rules, I think my doubts about what you meant were understandable. In terms of what I want in regard to this essay, my preferences are in order: (1) deletion; (2) moving to someone's user page; (3) retitling to delete the word "all," which we all agree is not true; (4) make clearer that all rules cannot be ignored and that anyone who chooses to ignore a particular rule does so at their own risk and should think very carefully before doing so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, if you had thought that a discussion about deleting thousands of usable, duly licensed photos would have resulted in consensus to do so, you would have been OK with dispensing with a discussion? The ends justify the means? If so, that's very dangerous thinking. In terms of decisions you've made to quietly delete photos without discussion "to avoid the Streisand effect," non-admins are unlikely to notice those deletions, by your design, so we have no way to judge whether your decisions were justified, but you don't need a publicly-readable essay to justify them (make it readable only by admins, if you like, which is what deleting it does, but then never cite it in defense of anything). When you talk about letting things slide, though: admins have the discretion to choose how strictly to enforce rules. Lenience by an admin is not an active violation of a rule, and again, we don't need an essay to actively encourage people to break rules. What it amounts to is more or less the same thing as it does in daily living: you can choose to break a rule if you think it's the right thing to do, but then, if you are called on it, you must be willing to defend yourself and could face adverse consequences. We don't need an essay to say that, but if we want to keep one, we really need to retitle it, and I hope you would support retitling it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
How about retitling?[edit]
This page does not really suggest ignoring all rules. So how about if the word "all" is removed from the name and text, so as to say "Ignore rules," or even "Ignore rules when necessary"? I doubt this will be approved, because Commons somehow just has to follow Wikipedia or something... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Or "Rules are not set in stone," as proposed by User:Innotata in the 2018 "ignore all rules?" thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I concede that this is a good essay at this point, but I maintain that the title is a problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Rename to Commons:Be flexible?[edit]
I know there are already four discussions above this one, initiated by Ikan Kekek and Ɱ, but see my talk page for why I'm initiating this fifth discussion regarding this essay this week.
"Ignore all rules", despite the title, does not literally mean ignore all rules – a bit of discretion needs to be applied before this rule is applied (and the former global policy). Yet, this essay has been misused many times in the past, with this being the latest one (resulting in the user in question resign as an admin). I'm copying the following below from my talk page, but this is basically what IAR is all about:
- "rule" exclusively refers to Wikimedia policies – it does not include anything in the Terms of use or any other legal implications.
- "improving or maintaining" means that the action should be a net positive to the project; general consensus should agree that whatever rule was broken was for the benefit of the project.
However, far too many users bullheadedly ignore this and only look at the title, leading them to use this as a shield for their actions, which, to put it simply, is unacceptable. What this page is truly for is for minor issues that would be considered net positives by the community but is otherwise prohibited per policy. To combat this, Ikan Kekek suggested that this page be renamed to Commons:Be flexible, because that is what this page means.
--SHB2000 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- If we do that, I'd still want it to maintain its current interwiki links, and would strongly prefer that we keep a redirect from the current title. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keeping a redirect makes sense. I don't know why it would be important to keep its current interwiki links if it would be easy to change them (maybe it wouldn't be easy?), but it probably wouldn't do any harm to this site to keep them. I would stop feeling like this file needs to be deleted if the title were changed to reflect its current contents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we move this page with a redirect, though? SHB2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think all three of us agree that we would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we move this page with a redirect, though? SHB2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Question Shall we do the move? I will be glad to withdraw my deletion request when the title of this essay is changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, no objection as long as the redirect is kept and the interwiki links are kept, because this will still be Commons' take on essentially that policy issue. - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Right. If no-one objects, let's do the move within 48 hours or so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think consensus is pretty clear. @Ikan Kekek: I presume you will be good to your word and withdraw the deletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Done, and thanks to all for being flexible in this process. I'm sorry for any offense, which should be chalked up to shock at the former name. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)