Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

• Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.

---

Demotion to guideline

I think that this page should only be a guideline, and NOT policy. Who's with me? Jonathan321 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the policy that set me free and convinced me that I could be productive here. It has a Zen-like simplicity that is typically hard to interpret until you finally "get it" - then it is utter simplicity. Misinterpretation of the policy sometimes causes problems, not the policy itself. And it is fundamental.

For those reasons, count me out. Franamax (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just a policy, it is the most important policy. I think it should be policy. Past discussions on this subject have supported it remaining policy too. Chillum 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brevity.

This policy page is too short. Surely it must be longer - examples, for example? I only understand it from seing someone paraphrase it to - Use common sense. Also, can anyone see a particular point in time where this can come into play? That would be a useful addition. This article needs expanding. --82.46.179.208 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want long, take a walk back through this talk page and its archives :) You will find lengthy discussion on why exactly this policy is best kept to its stripped-down 12-word essential. Basically, if we include an example saying "this is where you would ignore all rules", someone will take the example as meaning "in this case, I should always ignore rules", which is not true. To aid in your understanding though, you can have a look at the linked essays, WP:WIARM and WP:UIAR.

As for a point in time where IAR comes into play, when your own understanding tells you it's time, it's time. Until then, watch how other people interpret the policy and how successful they are at doing so. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WIARM would produce that problem, but UIAR would not; it lays out the principles and the working methods of IAR instead of approaching it as a "laundry list".--Father Goose (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any reason for maintaining WIAR as a separate page from IAR at this point, especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off deleting the main page. The nutshell summary is fine, but reducing the whole article to that summary seems to be a rather poor compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... "especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off deleting the main page." Where are you finding such first-time readers? People who read IAR and then go off and so something stupid on account of it are in a vanishingly small minority - I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing happen. Can you cite any example based on experience of people's misunderstanding of this page, showing that any harm has actually been caused by it? -GTBacchus^(talk)

I like how it is. People seem to get it well enough and if they don't we will just hit the magic revert button. Chillum 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Related link

I don't know if this is appropriate for the policy page, but this TED talk explains nicely the reason why IAR is important.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree! This is an excellent talk. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Websites that start playing sounds when loaded are really annoying. Chillum 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Very. Pyritie (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Change

I changed the rule to:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it as common sense dictates.

from its previous wording:

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

in order to emphasize the fact that IAR should be interpreted in the light of common sense. There might be some resistance to this change, though, and I personally don't have any investment in whichever wording is adopted. Does anybody have any thoughts or comments on this? – Thomas H. Larsen 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is sense that other people commonly share with you. If the sense was common there would be no need to ignore the rule, people would agree. Sometimes it is sense that you have that is not common that shows the need to break the rule. Common sense is not a requirement, only that the action be improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I like the spirit of the addition, but I think IAR goes beyond common sense. Chillum 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I follow your logic. The policy could do with a little clarification, but I agree with you that "common sense" is perhaps not the best possible phrase. – Thomas H. Larsen 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Long discussion has pretty much always ended up just keeping the canonical twelve words though. The danger is that any additions to this actual policy page intended to clarify it will lead editors to interpret the policy by the strict wording, which is not the intent. At least IMO, it's deliberately intended to be vague. It's an exhortation to do what you think is right, the community will tell you right smartly when you're wrong - but it's not meant to be restrictive. Common sense is among the several linked essays which attempt to provide some understanding of what IAR means, but none of them qualify (pace FG) for inclusion in the policy itself. You would have to choose very carefully any proposed change of wording. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hullo! ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag as historical

I propose this "policy" be flagged thusly. Discuss. -Stevertigo 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose one of the founding policies of wikipedia. The policy is still very much in active use today, so historical doesn't really apply. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's not really a "policy" though is it? If it was, it would sort of claim to trump NPOV, which is thought by some people be a fundamental concept, or WP:CIVIL, which some people might like a lot. IAR is more of an essay, rather than a policy. -Stevertigo 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hahaha + Oppose - a proposal with no rationale? Puh-leeze. This policy is active and relevant. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. I'll ask that my response to n12 above be taken as a kind of "rationale." I had thought the reasons would be obvious, but I will of course answer any comments you can think of. -Stevertigo 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a policy, it has been since the beginning, it is the policy that prevents the other policies from bogging us down. Something does not need to trump NPOV to be a policy. It is policy because it represents our best practices. Chillum 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Oppose. Throwing away one of our most important safety valves is not a good idea. Chillum 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:IAR of course must be used with common sense, but it is a tenet of Wikipedia that makes this place not operate like a bureaucracy. JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Can we please close this discussion? it was recently unarchived for the second time (meaning added three times) and does not appear to be a reasonably calculated to improve the main page for which this page serves as a discussion forum. In my last edit summary I called it "trolling disruption" which may have been harsh. But the editor nominating this article for deprecation has been here seven years, and surely knows the score. Is this a joke? Is it some kind of ironic WP:POINT about WP:CREEP? For anyone unfamiliar, the policy to "ignore all rules" is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and as such it cannot be undone by simple consensus. It does not mean what the title implies; rather, it is an admonition to use common sense so as to always act in the best interest of a good encyclopedia rather than applying strict or bureaucratic enforcement of rules for their own sake. A proposal to mark it as "historical" could be taken literally as a proposal that we should indeed forgo common sense in favor of rules. A proposal to do away with such a significant foundational principle of Wikipedia would deserve a thoughtful explanation and extended discussion at the highest levels of Wikipedia. It cannot reasonably be initiated by a simple several word proposal to delete it. However, this does not seem to be what is proposed. The nominator, at the time, was on a roll of ignoring rules and warnings, as a "criticism of Barack Obama" article he favored was deleted (it had been speedily deleted several times already). He eventually took the issue arbitration (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles). Although his underlying point is not clear, his complaint seems to be that the rules are being applied too strictly or in a wiki-gaming way to ensure that the encyclopedia has a bias in favor of the American President, Barack Obama. Such a concern has been voiced offwiki, and occasionally here, by editors claiming that we should insert matter ranging from fringe conspiracy theories to opponent's disparagement of the president. As such, the proposal could also be taken as a comment that consensus has now turned against common sense, so this policy should not incorrectly imply that Wikipedians are using common sense. Or in other words, Wikipedia obviously has a liberal bias so we should stop pretending we are simply following rules. Whatever it is, a number of relatively junior editors (compared to to the nominator nearly everyone here is a junior editor) have taken the bait, gotten needlessly worked up, and responded seriously to what does not appear to be a real proposal. If the nominator truly wishes to suggest we have a discussion somewhere about whether overly strict rule interpretation has resulted in a pro-Obama bias, he may have found a home for that discussion in arbitration. If he wants to talk about that more generally, I am not sure this is the page but let him say in a straightforward, literal way, what he wants to talk about. Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, 9000 edits indeed makes me relatively junior, but I disagree with your characterization as having "taken the bait" and getting "needlessly worked up". The OP hasn't been here fanning flames, no-one is flying off the handle. I'm agnostic on hatting it or leaving it open but please leave your wars elsewhere. "Trolling disruption" was indeed unduly harsh and the editors getting worked up here seem to be those carrying a dispute with StVert across to here. Thank you, but please feel no need to protect us from ourselves. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)