Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. Policy • Talk • Workshop • WIARM • UIAR • Versions

If ever there was a case where IAR applied, this is it.

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_threats_of_violence: --slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Essays

This page used to get fat by people adding unnecessary words to it. Now it's fat with links to essays. It's a policy page, there is no place for essays which are full of personal opinions. I've removed the essay links. Death to fatness! --TS 22:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means link is necessary. There's longstanding consensus for its inclusion, which helped to convince people to stop trying to lengthen the policy. —David Levy 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. WIARM is not a personal opinion essay, it is the product of broad consensus. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But don't agree with the other recent change of moving it on top of "not a bureaucracy" to the top of the list. I plan to swap. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rules

Hi.Can I add the line "This is Wikipedia,not a place which prevents you from editing freely because of rules.Be bold!"That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the "freely" statement is not accurate. Even wp:iar has its condition. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely, given the history, that any change whatsoever will be approved, at all, for the foreseeable future. causa sui (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pattern language

We ignore all Rules, because actually, the "rules" are a Pattern language. D'oh. Took me ages to realize that. --134.188.4.12 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Add a clause

Can we change it to "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Unless it's this one."? I think it prevents recursion and adds to the good humor we like in WP: pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.44.37 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Can all rules by ignored?

Surely rules such as WP:NPA are absolute, as are vandalism policies. I think this policy should be clarified to refer to content policies such as WP:3RR or citation policies, which can sometime get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Mr. Anon515 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a situation where WP:NPA would be broken or someone would vandalize in an attempt to improve or maintain Wikipedia? 3RR already doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. No need to invoke IAR on that issue. --Onorem♠Dil 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't ignore this rule. In order to ignore it, you must appeal to it, and hence you are being hypocritical. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that WP:NPA might otherwise be violated for the reason "Wikipedia has no set policy for this" or "my PA was necessary to express what I was trying to say". 3RR I see, on the other hand, as being able to violate in the circumstances of minor changes where the user feels the dispute in question as not being important enough to bring on the talk page. Mr. Anon515 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a significant change to the policy, I just want to put in a note that makes it clear that A: Users should always have good reasons to ignore rules and B: Behavioral policies are absolute and are almost always to be followed. Mr. Anon515 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

On the latter, in real life, that is akin to saying that everybody's interpretation of any behavior policy is absolute. Probably the most common use of wp:iar is to deal with misuse (=claimed use) of a policy or guideline. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not akin to saying that everone's interpretation of behavioral policies are absolute. WP:NPA gives clear examples of statements that are personal attacks. I think it should be noted that what is clear in a behavioral policy is to always be followed. Mr. Anon515 04:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Once you start qualifying it with a lot of verbiage "but it doesn't mean this and this and this and this" it loses its punch. It's got to be tight, simple, and direct. I think it is fine as it was. Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit made, as it's covered in the explanatory essay What "Ignore all rules" means. Let's keep IAR simple, please. --Izno (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No one ever justifies an apparent violation of WP:NPA by appealing to WP:IAR. Has anyone ever invoked WP:IAR as a justification for what someone else was calling as a violation of WP:NPA? Not that I am aware of. I don't think there is need for additional verbiage to "correct" a problem that is unlikely to exist. Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the wording is sufficient to prevent people from ignoring WP:NPA and others because there is no valid argument defending a personal attack as improving or maintaining Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The original version was better in some ways

"If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." — Koyaanis Qatsi (talk · contribs), at 04:00, 18 September 2001 (UTC); it is the original formulation of WP:Ignore all rules.

This has some important elements in it that have been lost. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The rule was formulated by Larry Sanger, not Koyaanis Qatsi (the edit history is incomplete, since the wiki software that Wikipedia used at the time didn't keep much history). The motivation for the original rule is clear: Sanger wanted to suggest some rules, but was worried that doing so might deter some people from editing at all, which could have killed Wikipedia entirely - so the first rule he suggested was that all rules could be ignored. Wikipedia now has a vast number of editors and is not in any immediate danger of dying from lack of participation, so the motivation for the rule in its original form no longer exists. --Zundark (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)