Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 18

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)

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)

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)

Oh I see Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Sorry, I got that impression off a recent deletion process that I was indirectly engaged in. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought my little addendum could clarify IAR. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Nonsense. The policy is, intrinsically, a possible defense of one's actions. Noloop (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rules are only as good as

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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? ChaosMaster_Chat 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

I think a sensible application of WP:KISS is in order here. The current version is simple enough that anyone can understand its intention, and it provides the links to expand on key should there be any disagreement on context.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad policy

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

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. Rules are only as good as the situations they can be applied to. When a situation arises that wasn't anticipated in the rules then those rules may stand in the way of making the right choice. In such an instance the best option is to ignore the rule and hope that it pays off in the long run--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Length

Didn't this article used to be longer? A LOT longer? I'm adding a stub tag in 24 hours unless somebody has problem... If it's been this short for this long I figure there's gotta be a good reason and I'm not looking hard enough. Vistro (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of one of the explanatory pages, such as WP:What "Ignore all rules" means? I think this one is short by design.--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Thanks for quick reply!) Then perhaps a link to that is necessary on this page? Vistro (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(It's already there, the 4th Seealso link ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

well yeah but nobody will find it unless they come here. the mainspace really should link and I think the article is pitifully short.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging the essays?

Is there any chance of merging some or all of the pages that purport to explain this policy? (merge into each other, not here)

• Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
• Wikipedia:Understanding IAR
• Wikipedia:Snowball clause

Different perspectives are good, but this is getting a bit overwhelming (particularly as regarding the "See also" section here, but also just in general). Thoughts, or alternatives? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The snowball clause is not related to IAR.

That aside, there is a great deal of resistance to changing wp:IAR, mostly by editors who are attached to its uber-simplistic form. I think the 'understanding IAR' is an outgrowth of that by editors who want to make IAR make sense but can't make any headway on the policy page itself. --Ludwigs2 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant merging them with each other, not merging them to here. I've clarified that now in my intro line. (I agree with this page's current and historic über-simplicity.)

The snowball clause states at the top that it is related to IAR, and we list it in the SeeAlso section. Hence... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ah, I see what you mean. I'd concur about merging the other two, but the main thrust of the snowball clause is "Don't waste people's time on silliness". IAR only applies in that we don't want people insisting on silly and impractical rule usage that clogs up the system; that's not exactly the spirit that IAR was written in. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal of a new name

I know, the current name is widespread. I have read all the discussions in the archives. The closest discussion is Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Archive_14#Suggestion to rename Ignore all rules.

What about "Rules are not a dogma"?

The rules are not established to be ignored. But they can be improved. The complete ignoring of a „rule” is almost impossible. I ask because for beginners (I am not a beginner) a suggestive title seems more effective than to explain them what that means. I will not argue further. I want just 2-3 opinions. --Turbojet (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The page's title has been retained largely out of tradition, and it sometimes leads to problematic misunderstandings. So I believe that we should give serious consideration to changing it, but I don't regard "Rules are not a dogma" as an accurate description.

In its current form, the page explains when/why it's appropriate to ignore a rule. So I propose that we switch to the title Wikipedia:Ignoring a rule.

Just as moving Wikipedia:Avoid self-references to Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid (now Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid)) addressed the widespread misconception (among users who either didn't bother to read the guideline or didn't accurately understand it) that all mentions of "Wikipedia" were prohibited, this change would eliminate the persistent problem of editors similarly taking the "Ignore all rules" name out of context ("I'm ignoring all rules, just like the policy says!"). As an added bonus, it would maintain the popular/recognizable WP:IAR abbreviation. —David Levy 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the strong statement that the title "Ignore All Rules" makes is important. And with hundreds of pages of imperfectly written rules, and people always finding ways to misuse them, such a strong statement as a last resort rule is needed. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy is more likely to be properly applied when it's treated as an everyday, commonsense approach, not something to be invoked as a "last resort." —David Levy 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello David. You're absolutely right. I guess I really meant that knowing that it is available as a last resort influences everyday use. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But the approach shouldn't be thought of as a last resort. Some particular applications of rules should be ignored immediately and routinely (often without anyone even noticing).

Problems arise when editors believe that contentious issues can be resolved by invoking the policy as a brute-force means of accomplishing something against others' wishes. ("It's okay for me to edit-war to insert unsourced information. I'm ignoring all rules!") —David Levy 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "There are no rules" would be a better direction to come from. (Of course it's not strictly true, since we have rules about copyright and so on, but that issue applies equally to the present title.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Why would it be helpful to state that our rules don't exist (instead of explaining that they should be ignored when doing so is beneficial)? Or have I misunderstood? —David Levy 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say we don't have rules as such, only recommendations and guidelines and advice in various forms, and vague social norms - the mistake was probably made when people started thinking that we have such things as "rules" in the first place.--Kotniski (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it's more accurate to say that we have rules, but they rarely are set in stone and shouldn't be followed when doing so doesn't make sense.

This is, of course, a matter of semantics. Both your description and mine carry essentially the same meaning, but in my view, the latter is less likely to cause confusion (because the statement "There are no rules" could be interpreted to mean that our policies and guidelines literally don't exist). —David Levy 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And "ignore all rules" could be interpreted to mean that no-one need take any notice of our policies and guidelines. Allowing yourself only three or four words to say something is never going to be enough to eliminate the likelihood of misunderstanding. (Which is why I generally prefer neutral topic names over slogans as titles for pages.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I propose that we rename the page Wikipedia:Ignoring a rule. It isn't a flashy slogan like "ignore all rules," but it would encourage users to seek an actual understanding of the policy instead of stopping at the title. —David Levy 07:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD to make edits that go against consensus never works and is always ignored. By its definition Ignor all Rules is telling us to ignore itself if it ever becomes a problem and that is exactly what many editors do when it is invoked incorrectly. With that said I'm supporting the current title which I feel is succinct, descriptive, and up beat. AerobicFox (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. I understand why the current name is preferred. Greetings :) --Turbojet (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ignoring the rule of WP:Ignore all rules

There is a discussion about ignoring the rule of WP:Ignore all rules here[2]. PPdd (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed add a quote, Doctrine of absurdity = WP:IAR

"He is not to be hanged because he would not stay (incarerated during a prison fire) to be burnt." - Doctrine of absurdity

PPdd (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Improve

I think the word "improve" is extremely vague. What I think might be an "improvement", may not be considered an "improvement" by someone else.VR _talk 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is intentionally vague. However, no damage done when two editors' views on improvement clash, if they seek consensus that is. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

More prominence for "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"?

I'm going to guess that 90% of the real uses of IAR are more thoroughly and usefully covered by Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which is HUGE and hidden and which few editors know about. Here's it's just in a long list with essays etc.. Is there any way to give it more prominence here without polluting the elegance and simplicity of this one sentence policy? North8000 (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

More specifically

The sparse elegance of wp:iar is so good that I would want anything ever added to be required to have thorough discussion and input and an overwhelming consensus (like 80%) And that would apply to my idea below.

What do you think of CONSIDERING adding a condensed (e.g. 2 sentence) summary of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy to wp:iar? This would provide the following benefits:

• elevate "not a bureaucracy" to a position in a policy
• unhide "not a bureaucracy"
• create one specific/accessible but guided way to use wp:iar rather than it just looking like the extreme nuclear option as it now appears

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your intentions seem reasonable to me. Do you have a more concrete proposal for consideration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RL buried today. I could have one in a day or 2. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First Try

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; it is not governed by statute, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice; they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My I suggest a condensed version of what you have above (in the spirit of the current one line entry) -

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Written rules do not proscribe future practice; they document community consesus about what has previously been accepted, and the spirit will always be more important than the letter of any rule or policy.

(But I'd also be sad to see anything added to the entry, as it's current one line is so pleasing.) Chendoll (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd change it to "the spirit will almost always be more important than the letter" (italics for emphasis here only), as there are occasions when the letter is just as important as the spirit - principally in the WP:CSD criteria (WP:IAR should never be used to speedy delete anything) and regarding WP:OFFICE. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I like both of yours better than my draft because they are shorter.

I think that a 2 sentence policy is in line with the elegant simplicity of this. The danger is that expansion would set a precedent. So I think that we must set brevity as an long term standard for the policy, and a high bar for any additions.

I like Chendoll's even better. Thryduulf, as as preface, I think that if the letter of a rule conflicts with the spirit/intent of it, then the letter needs fixing. But I think that what you actually thinking about (?) is covering a situation of one person doing something crazy, which would require going on their personal interpretation of "spirit". Even interpreting "spirit" would end up being based on consensus, which I think would cover that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If the letter of a rule conflicts with the spirit or intent of it, then either the letter needs changing or you are misunderstanding the spirit/intent. In neither case should this allow you to go against the letter of policies where there is consensus that the letter is important (CSD and Office are the only examples I can think of). You are of course free to propose changes to the letter of policies at any time (and if you feel that the letter contradicts the spirit you should). As an example there are many people who tag/delete/propose changes to WP:CSD#A7 that show they do not understand (or are not aware of) the spirit of CSD and/or that criterion. Because of this (and the fact that deleting something where there is no consensus to do so is never acceptable) it is not appropriate ignore the letter of the rules in this case. Perhaps more basically, IAR is about improving the encyclopaedia. I'm saying that the spirit of this is that you should ignore a rule where it s uncontroversial that your actions will improve the encyclopaedia, and that there are a few occasions where deviating from the letter of the rule will always be controversial and so saying you should "always" go with the spirit of the rule is incorrect, rather you should "almost always" go with the spirit. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the intentions, but also, like I think all of us, don't like the idea of lengthening of the nice short page we currently have. Maybe something of the same dramatic effect could be achieved by keeping the current sentence, and then using the slightly longer versions being proposed as the whole text of a second section called "Explanation" or something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand right, you are saying to leave the main statement alone as the primary statement. I thought about that. But "explanation" has it's pitfalls. 1. Invitation to a big expansion. 2. IAR can say alot of things, any explanaiton would cover only a part of them. How bout titling the new section "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and making the above a one sentence section? (by North8000 approx March 9)

Revised draft of proposal

Following discussion, here is a revised and further jelled proposal. Please keep revising it!

Add a new section titled "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", contents as follows:

Written rules do not proscribe future practice; they document community consensus about what has previously been accepted, and the spirit is more important than the letter of any rule or policy.

3/17/11 Revised draft of the proposal (even shorter)

Add this as a second sentence of the policy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

I think that this accomplishes most of the initial objectives while being very brief, and not creating a lot of new text. It gives the concept greater stature (compared to just being in the "see also" section) , as well as some specificity for common situations. Specificity = usability vs. just a general nuclear-appearing option. The separate guideline is given greater weight, but, since it is just linked, it is not specifically incorporated by reference into the policy. And we aren't adding any new material except a time tested/accepted phrase/title. What to y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: invalidates WP:IAR for controversial topics

As an editor of articles on controversial political subjects, my only weapon against biased editors is WP policies. The last thing I need is for an editor to evoke WP:IAR while violating WP:NPOV. I propose that WP:IAR should be invalidated for all articles on the Wikipedia:List of controversial issues and/or under the WP:1RR rule. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because this would mean that the Doctrine of absurdity would not override all in other problem areas of articles in that list. PPdd (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm I've also done some work on controversial topics here and there and I wish it were easier to invoke IAR. It is a great thing that Wikipedia has this policy and the biggest problems I see on Wikipedia are from people using absurd interpretations of policy pages in order to try to avoid consensus building and get their own way. Really obvious vandalism or trolling can be dealt with much more easily than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO People who blatantly violate the letter and intent of policies are the easiest ones to reign in, are usually short term problems, and I've not seen them invoke IAR. People who use wiki-lawyering to violate the intent and spirit of WP policies, are the tougher ones to reign in and are the more persistent problems. We need IAR for them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. This is a perennial proposal that is always shot down because it is based on a misunderstanding of IAR. This policy expressly does not give vandals and trolls license to do whatever they feel like. It only gives license to ignore rules when it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. --64.172.173.138 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Much harder to stop wikilawyering on controversial pages then to stop people using IAR which is itself just ignored in most cases.AerobicFox (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or trolling never improves an article, so, of course IAR would not apply. AerobicFox makes an excellent point, in that IAR itself is largely ignored. It seems to me that IAR has outlived its usefulness. It was probably a great idea when it was instituted, and it no doubt played a huge role in allowing Wikipedia to grow into the astonishingly vast and nuanced work that it's become. I think that there is just too much going on here now for "ignore all rules" to even be plausible, let alone a pillar of the encyclopedia. I would love to see, "If a rule prevents you from improving an article, ignore it" replaced with a simple, "Use common sense". The comments about trolling and vandalism notwithstanding, "ignore all rules" tells an editor that they can do anything they see fit when making a good faith edit that they honestly feel improves the article. And in reality, they can't. They can't ignore 3RR, no matter how passionately they feel that their edits improve the article. They can't ignore verifiability, even if they are certain that adding certain information would improve the article; in fact even if that information is true. And the list goes on. "Ignore all rules" probably worked well early on because it seems that there really weren't many rules back then. The policies and guidelines that have been implemented over the years were implemented gradually, and they seem, for the most part, to work. And while it's true that any of these policies or guidelines can always be changed, it's not necessarily true that they can be ignored. As I wrote last week in a talk page comment, everything in Wikipedia sholud be tempered with reason. "Ignore all rules" seems to have become archaic. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on most of those points. They are so broad and wide-ranging that I think that addressing them fully (including the reason why wp:IAR is necessary, important and influential, even when it isn't invoked) would take a book rather than a post.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the "broad and far-ranging part". I'ts almost amazing how complex one simple sentence can be. I've only been here for a few months, and my comments about this rule in times past are speculation, based upon what I've read, rather than the observations of someone who was here during the early days. I didn't expect to be in the majority. In any case, thank you for commenting. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on Jimbo's talk page about this, and he was kind enough to give me some feedback. He too, disagrees with me, and he made some very good points. I still, for the most part, stand by these comments, but there's certainly a lot to ponder here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The point about IAR is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (WP:BURO). Sure, in pretty well all cases, ignoring 3RR is going to result in a block—however the reason IAR does not apply there is that consensus supports 3RR (even if the edit is "right"). If some rule says an article has to be like so, then IAR can (rarely) be invoked to arrange the article differently if consensus supports the change as an improvement. That's different from law courts where the pettiness of the legal system is not an issue: if the law says something, then that's the way it is—IAR and BURO indicate that Wikipedia is organized differently. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another is that the rules are written imperfectly, making them open to misuse by wiki-lawyering. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points, all of them. Guess I need to rethink my oposition to this rule, in the context of the explanations I've been given. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I find your process and responses here to be very impressive. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think a lot of the nastiness I've seen on Wikipedia could be avoided if everyone kept an open mind, and discussed things respectfully, as we've done here. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a perfect set of rule with no exceptions works much better than a perfect set of rules will exceptions, as exceptions are when the worst things happen. However, no one can think of a perfect set of rules, and all flawed rule have loop holes which allow even more persistent abusers, so exceptions to rules are still needed, although they must be treated with extreme caution. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal distilled from March 1st-17th discussions

Proposal

So the proposal is to add the following as a second sentence of the policy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that it serves these objectives:

• unhide "not a bureaucracy", which is very germane and central to the reason for this policy. Being one of many "see also"'s is not enough to do this.
• somewhat elevate "not a bureaucracy" to a position in a policy, although not categorically so, because it is still merely linked, with no statement that the specific wording of that section is policy. Again, being one of many "see also"'s is not enough to do this.
• create one specific/accessible but guided way to use wp:iar rather than it just looking like the extreme nuclear option as it now appears.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this proposal? If not, I'm ready to "be bold" and put it in. If so, further discussion is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I object. That Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is an important element of this policy, but it isn't its sole basis (as such a revision would falsely imply). Therefore, the current link is appropriate and sufficient. —David Levy 22:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I too object. If this needs a second sentence it should be to stress that all actions taken under IAR should uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no "be bold" edit for me. I think that David Level makes good points. Ditto for Thryduulf's questioning of adding a second sentence at all. I would certainly oppose Thryduulf's idea for an addition, as that particular addition would essentially erase wp:iar overall. (render it inoperative)

So, it's time for discussion instead. I think that ANY change from the longstanding single sentence wp:iar should require either zero objections (per my "be bold" float) or a very strong consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore

Is ignore really the best word here? Breach or infringe might work better, because ignore implies acting as if the rule is completely not there. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't be "ignore", it shouldn't be "all" and it shouldn't be "rules". But this is one of those things that people have got so used to that they'll never agree to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Catchy phrase to illustrate a point is catchy and effective. --Karek^words?! 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. An accurate statement of the intended effect of this rule in the complex balance of how Wikipedia works would be immensely complex. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

how about changing it to "bending the rules"? I'd also suggest changing it more towards "only if"62.238.182.126 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck all rules. --TS 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bend some rules but not all the time maybe. Killiondude (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an epic policy!

I love this policy (Alicianpig (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

Opinion and Improving Wikipedia

Could this page be improved by specifying an objective definition for "improving"? As it stands, I could think an article on politics would be "improved" by me deleting all references to parties I do not support.211.30.171.128 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Block Evasion

If this is true, then people who practice block evasion to make constructive edits should technically ignore this. That obviously isn't true. This should be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.244.38 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If blocked users happen to evade and simply make constructive edits that don't call attention to their status, they likely can and will get away with it. There is no need to change this page to address that scenario. --Onorem♠Dil 01:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The ignore all rules policy violates itself

I respectfully submit that this "policy" is tautologically absurd, as if an editor decides that the policy itself stops them improving wikipedia, then they are mandated by the policy to violate that very policy. This is very silly indeed, and could cause an infinitly regressing edit war which would only stop when the entire interweb had run out of electricity--feline1 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the "improving or maintaining" clause kicks in long before the interweb runs out of electricity.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's realistic meaning does not have the issue that you describe. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the other policies that are absurd. The "Ignore All Rules" policy is the only policy that makes sense. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy states anything that stops *YOU* (i.e. ME :) improving or maintaining wikipedia. In other words, it spits in the face of the doctrine of consensus. For instance, if *I* feel WP:POINT is stupid and adding some hilarious satire to a page is the best way to tackle an edit war, then I am allowed (nay, OBLIGED) to OBEY WP:IAR and make satirical edits. And it doesn't matter if anyone else thinks I'm wrong, cos WP:IAR is all about MEEEEEE!--feline1 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Then you will have your misunderstanding of the principle of IAR explained to you, probably in your block message. Franamax (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that reflects a misunderstanding of wp:iar. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy as stated on the policy page is only ONE SENTENCE! Your "understanding" of it is non-canoncial. And moreover, I don't care, cos it stops me improving wikipedia.--feline1 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That would in no way prevent you from being blocked if your interpretation of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" becomes disruptive. This policy is not a free pass to do anything. It is an invitation to participate in improving the encyclopedia without worrying overmuch about following rules. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is illogical and incommensurate with WP:IAR. That is what I am trying to get you to understand. Your definition of "disruptive" is meaningless in the context of WP:IAR.--feline1 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. IAR does not give you license to be disruptive. There are two aspects to IAR. 1) It is not necessary to know and observe all the rules to be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. 2) Because the "rules" cannot fully anticipate all specific contexts, there may be situations where one or more rules can be productively ignored. But in no case does that give you a right to do as you please without regard for other editors. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But that it not what the wording of WP:IAR says! As currently phrased it is tautologically absurd.--feline1 (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the paradoxical, or the absurd as you put it, is part of the impact. Sort of like a Zen koan. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. When this page was nominated for deletion on April 1, I !voted delete and I was serious. I was disappointed when the AfD was closed by someone who thought it was just an April Fools joke. When WP:IAR is invoked, it's usually in the context of someone claiming, "I don't have to follow the guidelines, not even when arguing at AfD or on a talk page, because I think I'm right." I can't remember a time when it has been helpful to the discussion to have someone argue for an ignore all rules special case that, e.g., notability doesn't matter because this is an important person who's written a lot of books you can find on Amazon. We have guidelines both because they represent good choices of how we'll maintain high quality and because they allow us to resolve a lot of otherwise tedious arguments. My experience is that the guidelines work and that in cases where it's a judgment call about what the guidelines are asking or if the guidelines themselves should be changed, we have ways to deal with that. If the guideline is wrong, anyone can change it. But the place to defend that is there, not in an AfD or on talk page, removing yourself from the reach of rational argument by claiming we should ignore all rules. Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone needs an actual example of how WP:IAR gets cited in an AfD as an excuse for not needing sources, here's an example right now provided by an admin making that argument. I have never seen an occasion where WP:IAR gets cited as a reason for doing something sensible. It's always offered as a reason for doing whatever the person citing it wants no matter what the guidelines ask. If someone knows of an instance where WP:IAR led to a better result than could be obtained otherwise, I'd like to know what it was. Msnicki (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In that example, the person is not taking an action that violates a rule and giving WP:IAR as a basis. They are giving it as a part of the basis for their their "vote" in an AFD discussion. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point: So far as I can tell, WP:IAR never gets cited in support of the sensible actions it seems to contemplate required for the good of the project but which might otherwise be frustrated by our guidelines. The only time I ever see it cited is in AfDs, when someone insists WP:GNG doesn't matter, frustrating any sort of constructive discussion of how the guidelines might apply. Msnicki (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the most pervasive uses and benefits of IAR do not involve invoking it. Where it's mere existence keeps wikilawyering at bay. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If you successfully ignore all rules, no-one will ever know or care, they will look at the outcome of what you do, see that it improves the encyclopedia, and move happily on. If you find yourself having to explain that you are invoking IAR too often, there's a good chance you're not understanding it properly. I "ignore rules" all the time, in that although I'm aware of the rules I don't consult them on everything I do. I just do what seems right and if asked, explain why what I did helped the 'cyclo, sometimes by citing the rules but always with my plain words of what I meant to accomplish. Saying "I guess it's covered by IAR" is only an afterthought after I've justified my action from first principles, and it certainly doesn't mean I was right! Franamax (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary from a logic standpoint

Feline1, folks have been trying to explain it to you by how it really works. Perhaps another way is to provide a brief overview from a pure logic standpoint, where your statement misses several points:

• IAR places two conditions on utilizing itself (that the action is improving Wikipedia, and that a rule is blocking you from doing so) It does not specify how it is to be determined whether those two conditions have been met, by default leaving those two to be interpreted by normal Wikipedia processes. And, to answer responses that you may thinking: 1. To whatever extent IAR has force, these self-imposed conditions apply and 2. The later wiki-processes themselves are not necessarily rules.
• Your thought also misses the meta framework / context that Wikipedia subjects all of it's rules to, acknowledging and adapting to the fact that their wording is not written perfectly enough to be utilized mindlessly. Including handling cases where this rule conflicts with other policy-level rules.
• It also misses that IAR is about an individual taking an action, not necessarily for the community to let that action stand or, if the action is particularly vicious, for the action to not have consequences.
• The net result is that if you are trying to imagine this as a pure logic question you are going to have to move past the 1 or 2 "gate" model which you are imagining into one with thousands of gates assembled into a neural net able to implement weighting of several variables. The stronger of a case that one can make that your action is (net)improving (including not significantly harming) Wikipedia and that a rule is blocking that improvement, the stronger wp:iar is a force to give license to try that action, and for it to stick after it is tried, and to provide a defense against any consequences for such actions. And the reverse is true for when such cases / parameters are weaker or not made at all. Again, this is the logical sum of all of the above factors. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes - this is all very well. But that is not what WP:IAR literally says, in its single sentence. If the Cab..., sorry, the community ;) want it to mean all that you just said, then why don't doesn't it say that on the policy page? In it's present form, its somewhere between asinine and tautologically absurd :p--feline1 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two pages (it used to be one, but it seems to have gone back to two separate pages for some reason [my bad, I'm misremembering things. I was thinking of a different set of pages]) that get into all of this: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia:Understanding IAR.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Feline1, good point on the explanation side; that has already been done as noted. But my post was on a narrower topic. Respectfully, it was essentially showing that your assertions that wp:IAR is tautologically absurd and that it violates itself are themselves logically flawed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If indeed the policy prevented you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and you decided to ignore it, you would have to appeal to the policy to be able to ignore it, and therefore it would not be a barrier but an aid to your improvement. So your argument defeats itself. Interchangeable 22:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• everything* defeats inself in an infinite (un)logical recursion, going by WP:IAR. It's total Castrovalva!--feline1 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you both avoided the points I made (e.g the conditions that wp:IAR places upon itself, and that it leaves the implementation details of those conditions undefined by itself) so it looks like the actual communication phase of this thread is over. North8000 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with your interpretation of WP:IAR, I am trying to get you to appreciate that the policy consists of a SINGLE SENTENCE, and none of what you have expounded is necessarily obvious to the casual reader. You sound like you have had some not inconsiderable education in philosophy/logic, which is not the case for most readers. You say above good point on the explanation side; that has already been done as noted but when I look at the page, I still see a single sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 14 April 2012

OK, thanks and good point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is prominently linked (and can be brought to editors' attention when necessary).

Adding this information to the policy itself (which has been discussed on multiple occasions) would create a barrier to its correct application; as noted above, the policy is intended to encourage users to contribute positively — even if they haven't familiarized themselves with Wikipedia's myriad policies and guidelines — so requiring them to first absorb a lengthy policy would be self-defeating. —David Levy 21:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if we accept that there's no way to re-write Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means so that it isn't a screenful of hard-to-follow waffle :) --feline1 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means can be improved is beside the point. I'm saying that one sentence is the policy's ideal length. A small amount of elaboration serves to unintentionally limit its scope (unless it's accompanied by further elaboration, which then necessitates further elaboration, etc.). —David Levy 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What, you mean in an infinite regression of quibbling that would only cease when the Internet ran out of electricity? Yes, that was my original point! Glad we agree at last :) --feline1 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)-

No, I'm not referring to argumentation (though that certainly could arise simultaneously). I mean that even if we were to collaborate amiably, any significant expansion of the policy's text would problematically affect its meaning and/or length. —David Levy 19:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy is not a coverall for whatever you think is best. Nowhere does it say that you won't have to justify your actions. It's concise and clear...and I've never seen an instance where someone who wasn't clearly looking to just waste time has challenged it on principle. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This has got to be the stupidest policy page anyone has every written on Wikipedia. Ignore all rules? Seriously? What idiot came up with this notion? Don't you understand all you're doing is giving ammunition to trolls, vandals, newbies and trolls who want to impose their personal vision on the project to do whatever they want, because they figure they don't have to abide by policies or guidelines? This is EXACTLY what I'm dealing with on the South Park articles, as there are loads of editors who are constantly adding unsourced pop cultural OR and trivia based on their personal observations, perceptions, biases and opinions of what particular gags in an episode are a reference to, and at least two editors now have actually justified ignoring WP:V and WP:PSTS by citing this very policy.

If your intent was to create a policy to advise editors to apply policies and guidelines with common sense and with regard for the spirit and intent with which they were written, then that's what you should've done, since that has nothing to do with merely "ignoring" all policies and guidelines. The first time I discovered this policy, I figured that it would give license to those who don't care about creating a reliable, verifiable encyclopedia to throw all principles out the window and add whatever crap to articles that they want, and now that's exactly what's happening. Seriously, you people are amazing. It's amazing to me how you go out of your way to give people who don't care about this project the means to damage it and the work that committed editors have been doing. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So they cited the policy incorrectly, and you are blaming the policy for their improper actions. Those were clearly not improvements to Wikipedia, and therefore they cannot justify them with this policy. Hate the vandal, not the policy. Interchangeable 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit sad to see that someone with the bit read the title of the page and decided to rant. This policy doesn't give anyone the ability to damage the project any more than they'd have without it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree with Nightscream. Obviously the Cabal thought that "Ignore all rules" was an *hilarious* aphorism. But taken literally at face value, it's tautologically absurd. All we get from its supporters basically reduces "Aaah, but it doesn't actually MEAN what it says - it means this instead"... in which case, I say relinquish the feeble whimsy of the current "policy", and put something sensible in it's place. It's like having a law worded as "You should only murder people with a *very* good reason!" ... and then waffle on in court when prosecuting murder trials that "yes but what the 'Murder (lols) Act 2012' *really* means is..." But I don't suspect The Cabal will take this point of view, as they're too self-satisfied in their hilarious sense of humour (from the same school, doubtless, that brought us recursive Unix acronyms like PINE and puns like the C Shell, and they consider anyone who doesn't "get" the joke to be an irredeemable troll anyways--feline1 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that I showed that even taking only what is written that it does not have logic problems. Nothing "unspoken" is needed except for that which is unspoken in ALL policies, which comes from the context that it is within Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no matter what you personally might understand, I contend that the majority of readers will interpret the single sentence of WP:IAR as meaning they can, er, ignore all rules, so long as they feel they are "improving" wikipedia (which might well include MAKING IT FUNNIER). If you think you have a better intepretation, that can be expressed in one or two sentences, then why aren't THOSE one or two sentences the policy, instead of this daft whimsical piece of nonsense we currently have?--feline1 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to previous post) I also don't see what you are intending to say by "tautologically" in "tautologically absurd" It's the adverb form, but in a context where it would be a metric/attribute, but neither seems to fit the definition of tautology/tautologically. Could you clarify? Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes: I am probably using it wrong. As I don't know much about philosophy and logic. And neither do about 98.5% of wikipedia editors. Which proves my point. Again! :-D--feline1 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I definitely don't consider myself part of any cabal. I don't think there's any joke to it. The murder comparison is far more absurd than the rule itself. It is what it is. People can be wrong in how they apply it...but that doesn't mean it's a bad policy. MAKING IT FUNNIER isn't an appropriate justification. Someone that uses IAR for that purpose should have it explained to them that MAKING IT FUNNIER doesn't actually improve the encyclopedia. The majority of readers who are interested in improving the encyclopedia will interpret the rule for what it is. The people who want to MAKE IT FUNNIER don't care about the rules in the first place. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Trolls, vandals and other nonconstructive editors might occasionally cite the policy to justify their inappropriate edits, but they're merely making excuses for behavior in which they would engage anyway. The same is true when editors attempt to abuse other policies and guidelines (a tactic that inevitably fails).

IAR doesn't enable bad edits. If anything, it actually helps to draw attention to them. (As discussed above, most valid applications of the policy are silent and inconspicuous, so when someone begins shouting "IAR! IAR!", this serves as a red flag.) —David Levy 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh you guys. Life is always better when it's funnier :) There's something I find inherently unsound about the justifications for WP:IAR in its current form. The mentality supporting it appears to be something along the lines of "Laws are unnecessary because Good People would never want to break them in the first place....apart from the fact that Bad People exist, but bad people are so bad that they break laws deliberately! So there's still no point in having laws cos bad people would only break them!" ... this is a very black & white way to label people! There's something rather disturbingly fundamentalist and cult-like about it. It also presupposes that people fully understand the core values of The Cabal before they come here. And those that don't are Bad. Or something.--feline1 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The above analogy relies upon the incorrect premise that IAR enables "bad" editors to ignore rules in a manner injurious to Wikipedia. It doesn't. If someone attempts to invoke the policy to justify harmful edits, he/she will fail (and eventually be blocked if the disruption continues).

No "laws" (or the Wikipedia equivalent thereof) are being abolished. We simply don't enforce them when doing so makes no sense.

Likewise, declining to punish someone for exceeding a speed limit while driving a critically ill/injured person or woman in labor to a hospital doesn't set a precedent that no one else in the jurisdiction can ever be fined for speeding under any circumstance. That would be "a very black & white" approach.

The ad hominems (e.g. "disturbingly fundamentalist and cult-like") are unnecessary. —David Levy 23:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be "ad homines", surely? (5th declension, plural). But it can't be, as we all know there *is* no Cabal :)--feline1 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ad hominems" is a correct pluralization in English.

I don't see how the (non)existence of a "Cabal" is relevant, as "rather disturbingly fundamentalist and cult-like" is your description of the support expressed here by real editors (irrespective of their affiliations or lack thereof). —David Levy 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Nor what I meant. And 'ad hominem' is not English, it's Latin.--feline1 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Prefacing your comments with "Oh you guys", you stated that "there's something [you] find inherently unsound about the justifications for WP:IAR in its current form." You then conveyed your understanding of "the mentality supporting" the policy and commented that "there's something rather disturbingly fundamentalist and cult-like about it." By all means, please explain what you did mean.

Of course "ad hominem" is Latin (hence my reference to its use "in English", wherein "ad hominems" is a correct pluralization). —David Levy 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that I am saying WP:IAR is absurd if taken absolutely literally, and you are saying that it isn't *supposed* to be taken absolutely literally, and then getting perturbed by *my* comments because you are taking *them* absolutely literally. Which is ironic, n'est-ce pas? (What's the plural of that - ne sommes ce pas? :p) I am basically saying that WP:IAR appears to be an in-joke by The Cabal, rather than a serious policy. One of its/and/or/their premises is that there is a recidivist class of morlochs out there for whom there is not really any point having policies, because they'd only break them anyways. And conversely, policies do not need to make sense, because the Enlightned Who Think Correctly would never dream of breaking a policy in the first place, because to Them, who Think Correctly, all wikipedia's ideals are self-evident, rational and true and anyone who wouldn't want to behave that way is a morloch by definition. This is not so much proceeding my consensus, but making dissent inseperable from being Wrong. It assumes consensus already exists and those outside its walls must be wrong for even wanting to challenge consensus in the first place, *by definition*. See? :)--feline1 (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already shown that the actual sentence of the policy is NOT absurd and does NOT have logical problems if taken literally. If I'm not mistaken, I think you mean that some people will mis-interpret the policy to be just "ignore all rules" (instead of it's actual wording with conditions) in which case it would present a logical quandary. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." As has been pointed out ad nauseam, an editor's idea of "improving" may not be commensurate with the WP:CONSENSUS view on what constitutes improvement. Ergo, the editor should ignore consensus. Also WP:IAR is directly at odds with WP:POINT if the editor feels that making his point will improve other editor's behaviour....... and of course, you will come back and say "none of that matters, because The Caballity will still overrule the malfeasant editor" - i.e. WP:IAR is a sham pretending to offer free will to those of fine conscience, but in actual fact it is just a collective joke of the group mind. It's all getting a bit Degree Absolute--feline1 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. An editor apparently believes what s/he think to be true regardless of whatever explanations are provided. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that this is a case of IAR (Ignore All Replies)...--Onorem♠Dil 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

lol :) Look, it's not my fault that nearly everyone else is wrong! /sighs/--feline1 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, older ≠ wiser, you are wrong:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refers to a scenario of repeated EDITS to an ARTICLE that fly in the face of consensus. This is not an article. This is a talk page. And an ongoing discussion. (Which, as usual, only about 9 people have read in full and/or commented on. Which is about 0.00003% of wikipedia's readership. So bandying around terms like "consensus" is unwarranted--feline1 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It may refer to article edits, but that doesn't mean the theory can't be applied in other areas. If you want to say the title is absurd, fine...but the policy itself (12 words) says all it needs to and should be taken literally. I'm not a fan of expanding it since it really should just be that simple. The see also section allows for expanded explanations. --Onorem♠Dil 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Ignore all rules" is a bit of an unfortunate misnomer imho. The spirit of the policy is not to "ignore the spirit of policies and guidelines". It means "ignore the existence of P&G and just do your thing". Our concrete policies and guidelines are just works in progress, shadows of their spirit which exists independently from their current formulations and which must of course never be ignored. --87.79.211.105 (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Ignore all rules" is not the policy, it is the title. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  And as far as I can tell, it's one that we retain primarily as a matter of tradition (not because it's logical or helpful). We probably could eliminate a large percentage of the complaints simply by selecting something better. Wikipedia:Ignoring a rule would make sense, and we wouldn't even lose the "IAR" initialism. —David Levy 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly right, David. Ningauble, most people know "just the title", so the title has a profound and potentially confusing and distorting effect on the perception of the policy. Page names (of project pages as well as articles) should accurately reflect their content, since this is the "nutshell" shorthand by which it is known and quoted, and by which it thus enters the collective consciousness of the community. I'd personally favor Wikipedia:Don't worry about rules since I DGAF about initialisms. --87.79.211.105 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  I once jokingly suggested adding the following language to WP:NOT:[3]

  Wikipedia is not for people who only read headlines

  Someone who is reading an encyclopedia is digging for more information than can be gleaned by scanning headlines, and someone who volunteers to contribute to Wikipedia is expected to recognize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not to be interpreted by looking only at titles and section headings.

  A title is not, and should not try to be, complete nutshell. IAR is Wikipedia's shortest rule, consisting of just a dozen words. If somebody can't read even that far beyond the headline then I am not sure what can be done about it, but I would suggest they avoid reading newspapers. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the title is not the policy. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, and I'm tired of explaining that (and getting into debates that probably wouldn't have arisen if someone hadn't seen "ignore all rules" and gotten worked up about it). Noting the nature of this error is a sensible course of action. Preventing it from occurring in the first place would be more sensible still.

I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. For years, editors who failed to read and comprehend the page's text mistakenly believed that it barred all mentions of "Wikipedia" in articles (and sought to enforce this interpretation). So we eventually renamed it Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid (and later Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid), thereby conveying the fact that the page explains when to avoid self-references (as opposed to advising that it be done indiscriminately, as the original title implied).

Likewise, WP:IAR explains when to ignore rules (as opposed to advising that it be done indiscriminately, as the title implies). Yes, the policy comprises only 12 words, and people shouldn't draw conclusions based solely on the title, but they do (and this causes problems for all of us). —David Levy 17:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, spot-on. Btw Ningauble, since you mentioned WP:NOT, similar is true of that policy, which is not, in fact, a collection of things which Wikipedia is not, but a collection of things which the community agreed upon that Wikipedia should not be or become. NOT is entirely normative by design and conception, but for some reason we shy away from that level of pragmatically straightforward awareness and editorial assertiveness, replacing it with something that could only come across as wishful thinking to people who spend any significant amount of time with the project (cf. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). What you are saying, Ningauble, sounds a lot like "we shouldn't help people understand because they should understand it on their own". That attitude, you see, is punningly NOT conducive to building an encyclopedia. --87.79.130.145 (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest renaming

Should not be this policy named "Ignore the rules" since it states not to ignore all the policies but one that's disturbing you. Similarly for WP:Break all rules. extra999 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep as is. Again, the title is not the policy. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice to not have to explain that to people? —David Levy 03:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been suggested Ad Nauseum. It's not going to happen and shouldn't. The idea is that all policies/rules can be ignored when it makes more sense to do so. The name IaR is an institution in and of itself at this point that represents that idea not only inside the wikipedia community but outside of it in the various MediaWiki communities. --Karek^words?! 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we retain a misleading title out of a sense of tradition. How very un-wiki. —David Levy 03:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We retain a title out of accuracy as there's no particular limit to it's application in regards to rules. The tradition thing is just another cultural knock at the change argument as it's caught on due largely to it's titular accuracy, simplicity, and viability as a concept. If you'd prefer there is a Use Common Sense guideline as well, this is just largely that targeted at the idea of established page rules, policies, and guidelines. --Karek^words?! 13:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't assert that the title is inaccurate. I assert, with ample evidence, that it's vague and misleading.

People see "ignore all rules" and interpret it as encouragement to consistently and indiscriminately pay no attention to Wikipedia's rules. As North8000 noted, the title is not the policy, so it's frustrating that these individuals jump to conclusions instead of bothering to read a single sentence. But we can criticise this behavior until we're blue in the face, and it won't prevent it from occurring.

Conversely, we could easily switch to a title that doesn't carry the unintended connotation, thereby making things easier for all of us. I've suggested Wikipedia:Ignoring a rule, which would retain the "IAR" initialism. —David Levy 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you're adding connotation that isn't there. Apply WP:COMMON to your interpretation of IAR, what most users see this as is licence to ignore rules appropriate to ignore. As a furthering of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, which is what it is. I've never actually spoken with someone that didn't understand IAR to be what you assign to it that wasn't intentionally misinterpreting IAR.

Nothing will prevent this behavior from occurring. New users will never read wikipedia policies. To worry about a policy that essentially reminds old users of this and that it's sometimes good to not follow procedural pomp(like Wikipedia:Be Bold does) telling new users it's ok to ignore policies is a practice in futility. New users don't give a damn about IAR, or any other guidelines for that matter, they just want to contribute, it's common nature.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that because changing the title along those lines would actually be less accurate to the spirit and purpose of the policy. Not to mention confusing, would we be adding selective usage? Would I be allowed to ignore only one single rule? Is this a practical limit before I get hit with vandalism cases for not reading every single scrap of policy? The point of IAR is that rules aren't inherently worth paying attention to on a platform driven by innovative and expansive addition from as many contributors as possible. IAR is Wikipedia in it's ideal, rules and standards are a list of good practices applied in successive edits not a list of universally necessary ones for every edit.--Karek^words?! 14:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you're adding connotation that isn't there.

No, I'm not adding anything. I'm referring to a misunderstanding that frequently occurs.

Should it occur? I don't believe so. But it does.

I've never actually spoken with someone that didn't understand IAR to be what you assign to it that wasn't intentionally misinterpreting IAR.

I certainly have encountered users attempting to exploit the policy in that manner. ("I'm ignoring all of the rules. I'm only following policy! Hahahaha!") Indeed, no title change will prevent that type of behavior.

But I also have encountered users who genuinely seem to misunderstand the policy, based largely on its name. They express shock and dismay that we're encouraging anarchy ("How can you tell people to ignore all rules?!")

We then need to explain to these individuals that the policy doesn't mean what they think it does. "But it says 'ignore all rules' right there!" "Yes, but the policy isn't the name." "Then why do you call it that?" And so on.

This has become very tiresome.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that because changing the title along those lines would actually be less accurate to the spirit and purpose of the policy.

How so? The policy's spirit is that it sometimes is okay to ignore a rule. Its purpose is to explain when. How is "ignoring a rule" less accurate?

Not to mention confusing, would we be adding selective usage? Would I be allowed to ignore only one single rule?

The policy itself already refers to "a rule". I've never encountered an editor who even questioned whether the advice was limited to a single instance. That doesn't make sense.

And of course, "Wikipedia:Ignoring a rule" is merely a suggestion. Other possibilities exist. —David Levy 16:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Any shortening of anything for example (a title) is inherently "inaccurate". That is not a problem, it is the norm and reality. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Any shortening of anything for example (a title) is inherently "inaccurate".

I don't know what you mean. But as noted above, I don't assert that the title is inaccurate. I assert that it's needlessly vague and misleading (much like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references was). —David Levy 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Answering both, a title is just a title. It's not intended to be even a summary of the policy. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But we try to select the most helpful and least confusing titles possible.

Before we renamed Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, many editors who saw the name and either didn't read or misunderstood the guideline mistakenly believed that all self-references (i.e. mentions of "Wikipedia") were to be avoided. A simple title adjustment (from "avoid self-references" to "self-references to avoid") caused that problem to vanish.

Likewise, users who see "ignore all rules" and either don't read or misunderstand the policy misinterpret it as encouragement to consistently and indiscriminately ignore all rules.

Should this occur? No. Does it occur? Yes. Whom does it inconvenience most? Those of us who have to alleviate the confusion. Can it be prevented? Yes, simply by modifying the page's name. —David Levy 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a problem? I think I've seen other policies misused 1,000 times, but I've NEVER seen wp:IAR misused. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

People attempt to misuse the policy (and usually end up blocked). As discussed above, most of them are likely to behave that way no matter what we do.

I'm referring primarily to instances in which people who see the page's title are horrified to learn that we're encouraging anarchy (or so they think). It happens here and on other discussion pages.

That these individuals jump to such a conclusion based on the page's title is frustrating. And it's easy to shrug it off as "their fault, not ours". But that won't stop it from occurring, and we're the ones who have to deal with it when it does. —David Levy 23:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think this really deserves its own page. WP:WIARM should be merged in, because it explains the policy in detail. Listroiderbob (talk · contribs) 16:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me elaborate... This policy could be in Template:Nutshell at the top of WP:WIARM. Listroiderbob (talk · contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus to keep this policy short, sweet, and to the point; in no small part because constructing a more elaborate rule would defeat the point by inviting people to focus on the rule rather than just getting on with improving or maintaining Wikipedia. This is a bedrock meta-policy, and WP:WIARM, though it is important and very helpful, is a chatty sort of an essay. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I don't mind addressing questions, or debating issues, but for persons coming here, for this to be a standing core policy for so long means that hundreds if not thousands have concurred. Persons who have questions should word them with that in mind, rather than start with "I think this should be eliminated". North8000 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Audio format

Why is this page in audio format? It'll be much better if it's in the normal text form. It'll enable non-English speakers to read and take advantage of it. If you have to find something in the article, you can simple search and won't need to listen to the article all over again. And I'd also like to ask just why was this article subjected for deletion. Yashowardhani (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The audio version is identical to the text version (it's a dictation of the text). That's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, which aims to record-as-audio as much of Wikipedia as possible (but hasn't been very active lately). Having this policy page as part of it, is quite silly, as the policy is only a single line long (plus the header template). But humans often enjoy silly things.

This policy page was proposed for deletion in the past, but was kept (both times). The links to the relevant discussion threads are both at the top of this page; read them for more details. –Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand this right?

Here's how I understand IAR to mean:

• Take actions that benefit Wikipedia overall.
• Don't take actions that negatively impact Wikipedia.
• IAR applies to everything, not matter how insignificant.
• Although the rules typically give you guidance in how to help Wikipedia, they're not perfect, so if following one of them would hurt Wikipedia, ignore it.
• If you're invoking IAR to do something that hurts Wikipedia (or even just doesn't benefit it) then you're Doing It Wrong.

How close am I? --Tathar (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that if your question is that if the items that you listed are correct, the answer is generally yes. If you mean something more sweeping (that all of them come from IAR, that they constitute an accurate and complete summary of IAR, that every one is categorical and absolute and overrides all other considerations and processes) then the answer is probably no. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I request for situations to apply WP:IAR to avoid its misuse? This guideline may be short but full of meanings that can be understood in many different ways. --Bumblezellio (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a complicated one. Especially, since, IMHO 99% of its use is its effects when it is not even invoked, I.E. by it's mere existence. In effect it's mere existence says "don't wikilawyer to use rules against the goals of Wikipedia and if you do, there is a a rule (IAR) which can be invoked to stop you from doing that." Which helps prevent that from happening in the first place. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradicting WP:WIARM

I guess I failed to see how this edit contradicts WP:WIARM. In the revert message, the reverting editor also mentions that previous consensus rejected this type of edit (not clear if the rejection is of this exact edit) . Although previous consensus has some significance, it is not binding, as WP:Consensus can change. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Either way I'd oppose putting something in wp:iar that lets the rules in an essay restrict wp:iar. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain your opposition? My concern is that WP:IAR can be misunderstood to mean that rules can be broken willy nilly, which is certainly not the case. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why we link to WP:WIARM. But we don't require users to read it (or any other project-space pages) before ignoring rules. That's one of the basic elements of IAR, as explained in WIARM itself. —David Levy 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North and David. This very special policy page should stay special in its simplicity. Abuse of this particular policy would not lessen by making it more complex. Complex rules are actually in practice more likely to be the subject of abuse attempts because people think they can hide abuse in the complexity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that by placing the reference to WP:WIARM in the body of WP:IAR (rather than in the "see also" section) would discourage abuse, as it would be hard to argue around it. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Got that, and see the good intentions. Just don't think it works like that. BTW my comment should be seen as additional to those of North and David, not as an alternative. I also agree with their explanations. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

True, we don't require reading anything prior to editing, but I don't think that promoting WP:WIARM to the body of WP:IAR implies that. All that it would be doing would be to place a condition on "Ignore all rules", so that nobody gets the wrong impression that the rules are meant to be ignored. The way WP:WIARM is currently linked via the "see also" section, it suggests that the essay is loosely related to IAR, rather than a limitation of IAR. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You inserted the statement "This should only be done under the guidelines found in the essay What "Ignore all rules" means." No such "condition" exists. Editors are welcome to ignore rules without familiarizing themselves with that essay or even knowing that it exists. —David Levy 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I misread David Levy's comment, as he said that "we don't require users to read it (or any other project-space pages) before ignoring rules." That's not what WP:WIARM says: It says "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia." Victor Victoria (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw. —David Levy 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me unbaffle you then -- You can contribute to Wikipedia, and the community will generally assume good faith no matter what you do (unless you repeat something told not to do). I don't think WP:WIARM implies that you can invoke WP:IAR w/o understanding when it is and when it is not appropriate to invoke WP:IAR (if WP:WIARM implies that, then I missed it). Victor Victoria (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IAR isn't strictly about exceptions to rules with which one is familiar. It also means that users needn't worry about familiarizing themselves with every rule before editing. Such bureaucracy stands in the way of improvement and maintenance, so editors are encouraged to ignore the rules and do what seems right until learning otherwise. "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia." = "You're welcome to ignore the rules and get on with editing the encyclopedia."

You inserted text indicating that IAR is valid only "under the guidelines found in the essay". This is self-contradictory; it means that if users want to ignore rules, they must pay attention to rules on a page explaining that they needn't read the rules. —David Levy 22:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. IAR is really a misnomer, as it is not a license to ignore rules. There are restrictions placed on it, and those restrictions are found in WP:WIARM. While a title of WP:Under certain conditions that you need to familiarize yourself with, you can ignore all the rules is not a very appealing title, it is a more accurate description of how WP:IAR is implemented in Wikipedia -- as well it should be because rules exist for a reason. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no "conditions that you need to familiarize yourself with", apart from those currently stated in the policy. WP:WIARM provides helpful elaboration, but it isn't required reading.

I agree, however, that the policy is poorly named (largely due to tradition/inertia) and I've expressed support for the idea of moving it to a less misleading title. —David Levy 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"apart from those currently stated in the policy". The problem is that there is absolutely nothing stated in the policy. It's all shoved into WP:WIARM, which is why I think a stronger link to WP:WIARM is needed, as WP:WIARM is not an afterthought. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is absolutely nothing stated in the policy.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" might not be 100% clear to everyone, but I've haven't encountered anyone who seemed to sincerely interpret it as blanket permission to do whatever one feels like doing. I've only seen that interpretation hypothesized in discussions (such as this one) and feigned by trolls, vandals and other abusive editors.

It's all shoved into WP:WIARM, which is why I think a stronger link to WP:WIARM is needed, as WP:WIARM is not an afterthought.

Its separation isn't accidental.

I had similar concerns when I was introduced to IAR (the main difference being that WIARM hadn't been written yet). Only upon reading and participating in the various discussions did I come to recognize the importance of not complicating the policy with elaboration or additional conditions.

I suggest that you consult the discussion archives. I don't know whether you'll change your mind, but you should gain a better understanding of the reasons behind the brevity. —David Levy 06:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've haven't encountered anyone who seemed to sincerely interpret it as blanket permission to do whatever one feels like doing.

Why wait for a problem to occur? If it is conceivable (and may I add legitimate) that someone could interpret WP:IAR as a blanket permission for disregarding all rules, why not make sure that such an interpretation could not be made? I agree that this page should be brief, which is why it makes sense to put the "fine print" for WP:IAR on a separate page, which we call WP:WIARM, but there should be a good strong link to the "fine print", it should not be linked to as a "see also". Victor Victoria (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The only way someone could conceivably (or legitimately) interpret WP:IAR as a blanket permission for disregarding all rules is if all they did was read the title and not the extremely short and simple policy. The part about "improving or maintaining" is there for a reason. --Onorem♠Dil 01:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the intention is deliberate sabotage, then the intention would be to improve. For example, if someone has first hand knowledge of information that they know is true (WP:OR in WP jargon) then in their mind they will have improved the article by inserting this first hand knowledge. However, because the priorities placed by Wikipedia is to sacrifice completeness in favor of accuracy, the policy is to suppress the "WP:OR" until it could be backed up (WP:V in WP jargon). Therefore, you cannot ignore WP:OR, even if ignoring it could in a legitimate sense improve Wikipedia. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Like the hypothetical "do whatever one feels like doing" interpretation, the above concern has been discussed on multiple occasions. I again request that you please consult the archives before asking us to rehash that discourse. —David Levy 03:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to look at previous discussions, please point me to them. In any case, as I mentioned before, a previous consensus is not binding because consensus can change (although it doesn't appear to be changing in this case). Victor Victoria (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to look at previous discussions, please point me to them.

#Archives

In any case, as I mentioned before, a previous consensus is not binding because consensus can change (although it doesn't appear to be changing in this case).

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that the previous discussions' outcomes are binding. I'm explaining why it would be helpful for you to read them instead of seeking responses to arguments addressed numerous times. —David Levy 04:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Also, it works. North8000 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me, but then, this is not my project. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. It's just 1/100,000,000th your project and 1/100,000,000th my project.  :-) North8000 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is totally digressing from the original discussion, but I would say that it is 0% my project (and 0% your project), and it is 100% the project of the Wikimedia Foundation who relies on volunteer contributors like you and me to reach consensus to get things done. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Length of Page

Seems a bit short to me, for an important Wikipedia policy. 069952497a (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See KISS principle. It doesn't need anything else. Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I (and 16 archives full of stuff) agree. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least put the Nutshell template at the top so that people don't have to read the entire policy? :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

With Wikidata, it's down to below a kilobyte now, too. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Observation

I just want to point out that taken in part, this policy can be misleading. Only by reading WP:WIARM can you fully understand. Maybe the "See also" could put more emphasis on this. I still agree they should be kept separate. MGray98 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

modification

If following the rule inhibits improvement, then consideration to modify the rule should take place. I have made the proposal on the article page of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is welcome, but such proposals belong here, not on the policy page.

It's true that rules sometimes should be modified, but that has nothing to do with this policy (which is about the need to ignore rules without changing them). —David Levy 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to reduce future agony so there should be a part about ignoring the rule for now but seek amending the rule. To not do so causes others to have agony when the event happens again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "agony" you're experiencing, but again, such a scenario has nothing to do with this policy. It isn't about ignoring a rule because it should be changed; it's about not rigidly adhering to a rule (however sensible it is) when doing so doesn't benefit the encyclopedia (either because an exception has arisen or because it's more helpful to dive in and make a few mistakes than to study policies and guidelines for months before contributing). —David Levy 11:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It would really go against the spirit of this rule to promote further elaboration and complication of rules. It's all about just doing the right thing without fretting about the rules. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A rule

Currently this appears to apply to only one rule at a time so if you break more than one rule you are violating the rule of IAR. I have changed it to make it plural and definite "a rule" to "the rules". I believe that this better reflects the spirit that any and all rules can be broken, if it is for the good of the encyclopedia. Regards, Crazynas ^t 07:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It also better aligns the text and title. Crazynas ^t 07:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. You just duplicated the wording used in 2007, when we switched to the singular form to avoid conveying that this is an all-or-nothing proposition (either follow "the rules" or indiscriminately "ignore them" en masse). In no way does the current wording limit the policy's application to a single instance, nor have I ever encountered that interpretation before. The pages's title (upon which editors tend to place too much emphasis) is problematic enough on its own. —David Levy 10:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with David except for his last sentence. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's okay; I don't expect agreement there.  :)

But past discussions (here and elsewhere) have shown that editors sometimes see "Ignore all rules" and get the wrong idea. As you've found yourself pointing out, the title is not the policy, so it's frustrating when these individuals jump to conclusions instead of bothering to read/comprehend a single sentence. As illogical as this behavior is, shrugging it off as "their fault, not ours" doesn't prevent it from occurring. And when does, we're the ones who must intervene to rectify the misunderstanding. —David Levy 11:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I come from a different experience. Despite having been around a lot, (>30k edits and lots of talk) I've never seen IAR actually invoked. But I consider it's effects to be widespread, immense and and good, primarily though its mere existence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes IAR is invoked obliquely, as when this edit summary says "taking liberties...." But if one invokes IAR to break a rule then one is not really ignoring the rule, one is acknowledging that it is being broken. If one were truly ignoring it then it would not even be mentioned – and it usually is not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the common reality is that most Wikipedia rules are (as they must be) in a way that is a bit fuzzy leaving them to work within the context of the rest of the Wikipedia systems. The fuzziness leaves them open to mis-use contrary to the overall goals of Wikipedia. (e.g. via wikilawyering). I see IAR as the unused nuclear weapon that both:

1. Actually causes rules to be ignored just in special cases when they are being mis-used (e.g. by wiki-lawyering) .
2. Acknowledges that rules can be mis-used, and thus makes a big statement that rules are not themselves the goal, they are a merely means to the goal.
3. Like an unused nuclear weapon, by its mere existence, it is a deterrent against the mis-use of rules.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To extend the analogy, IAR also functions as a slingshot whose silent use is largely invisible (because it serves to improve or maintain the encyclopedia, so no one notices that a rule wasn't followed to the letter). When the policy is "invoked", this usually means that it it's being applied incorrectly. —David Levy 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I come from a different experience.

Slightly different, perhaps. But our opinions of the policy itself are similar, and both of us have addressed misunderstandings arising from the title.

Despite having been around a lot, (>30k edits and lots of talk) I've never seen IAR actually invoked.

I've seen it invoked numerous times, typically by persons seeking to override consensus (example from today) and trolls/vandals seeking to cause trouble ("I'm ignoring all rules, per policy! You can't stop me!"). Such individuals would use some other excuse if IAR were unavailable, so the policy's existence, wording and title aren't really relevant to that problem.

But sincere misunderstandings arise among persons horrified to learn that we're condoning anarchy (or so they believe). They see "Ignore all rules" and either disregard or don't bother to read the policy's actual text (all one sentence of it). Then we have to explain to them that "the title is not the policy" (I'm quoting you) and the policy doesn't actually advise editors to ignore all rules; we simply retain that misleading/provocative title for the sake of tradition.

But I consider it's effects to be widespread, immense and and good, primarily though its mere existence.

I do too. And I believe that an accurate title would eliminate prejudice preventing even wider acceptance. —David Levy 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

David, I respect your opinion that the page title might be incorrect. I was unaware that the text changed in 2007 or the reason for it. I do think that this rule condones ignoring rules en masse when one is improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Regards, Crazynas ^t 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. My point is that the policy doesn't present the binary option of following all of the rules or ignoring all of them indiscriminately. "The rules" aren't a single entity requiring either perfect adherence or thorough disregard. It often makes sense to apply one rule while setting aside another. (I realize, of course, that you don't claim otherwise.) —David Levy 21:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not ignore all rules

This policy encourages users to do what they think is true, without thinking about previous consensus. Old rules won't be improved in this way. My suggestion to you is that if you know your action is against a policy, first try gaining consensus to change that policy. Only in very urgent situations where immediate action is needed use IAR. It is OK to ignore all rules if you don't know the right rule to apply in a certain situation, but I strongly oppose ignoring rules knowingly and without an urgent cause. (Sorry if my English is not good, just a thought I had when examining a situation in another wiki) 2.180.168.187 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:WIARM. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What if this rule is preventing me from making something good?

Just hypothetically speaking, if this rule prevented me from making an improvement, should I ignore it? I'm new to this wikipedia stuff, sorry for asking stupid questions like this. --88.134.165.12 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

What is the improvement that would require you to ignore a rule? --Onorem♠Dil 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring a rule to ignore rules? !(!rule) = rule? Kind of puzzled here. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Ignore all rules at the Village Pump (policy)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 105#Update to policy for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules about updating Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to reflect the 5 generally accepted exceptions. Please take some time to offer comments. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This thread has already closed. Nothing more to see here! Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense

Wikipedia is all about rules. Ignoring them. Hell not even knowing them or having a difference of opinion about what they are gets you in trouble. Wikipedia is a cold place with people "robo-editing" for stats. In doing so they run over everyone who disagrees or is new. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest having a cup of tea and chilling out a while before persisting with making WP:POINTy edits. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not WP:POINTy edits. No body notices the talk pages. POINTy says "As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." that is not what is going on here at all. So stop removing my edits. WP:IAR needs a warning. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You've been Bold, which has been Reverted. Now Discuss on the talk page to see if there is consensus for your change. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) You've not offered any cogent rationale (aside from incoherent ranting), so I'm sorry if I find it hard to take your edits seriously. Until you can demonstrate consensus for your edits to this core policy, they will continue to be reverted. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

None of you have offered any reason it should not be there. Saying it is not useful is your opinion. It's not WP:POINTy. So why does it have to be removed? Is it untrue? All anyone ever does is talk about rules. Meanwhile no page edits can happen. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a core policy page. Any changes to it should reflect consensus. Please explain how your change reflects consensus. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me how you can get consensus without making a change first? What is this magic consensus too? You have effectively blocked discussion now because your default is always to immediately revert. Do you make consensus? Does the two of you? Its maddening. Here is a rule for you Wikipedia:Don't_revert_solely_due_to_"no_consensus" . So put my changes back.Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Consensus for some background on how consensus works (sort of) on Wikipedia. In general, consensus, especially on policy pages, is established by discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia:Don't_revert_solely_due_to_"no_consensus" is not a "rule". It is a user essay and while it might contain some useful advice, it is only an essay. older ≠ wiser 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Useful advice no one follows. IAP needs something to state that no one honors it. It's a joke. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice people follow every day. Your apparent inability to understand the simple concept doesn't mean that it hasn't worked for years. --Onorem (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) For starters, you might try reading the useful advice that you point to. That essay has clear exception for "pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy", which is what this page is. You've still not offered any reason for the change apart from some ranting. older ≠ wiser 22:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You get consensus by talking about the change on the talk page. Your change definitely doesn't have consensus on the policy itself...so trying to force it there while discussion goes on makes no sense at all. --Onorem (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop saying I did something I didn't. As soon as people came here I stopped reverting. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You added it and then reverted 3 times. Whether it was on this talk page or not, you were edit warring to include it. History is clear on that. --Onorem (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So? They were willing to remove it and not discuss it. So I put it back. What your going to tell me about 3RR on IAR? LOL You people are funny... Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm done. You've done enough trolling. --Onorem (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL Yes. What i am saying has no credence. I'm just trolling now. Do you people actually read this crap or just oppose all changes? WP:ZOMBIE Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jason: This is a really old page. It is purposefully kept as short as it is.

See almost all of the 18 talkpage archives (linked at top right) for discussions of this. (The quantity of "See also" links, that it currently has, is by far the largest amount it's kept for long periods, and will probably be reduced soon.)

It's a "zen" rule.

Do you know the saying "Common sense isn't very common" ? This policy was created, and is kept, to preserve that underlying spirit of common sense that must lay at the heart of all discussions. It provides the fulcrum for the balance between Idealism, and Realism/Pragmatism, which we all have different quantities of. It is necessary that it remains as short as it is, and adding further details beyond the single existing sentence, which has been basically unchanged for 6 years, will never be agreed upon. See even older versions, for what it grew out of.

Hope that helps make sense of it all. –Quiddity (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I appreciate what you are saying. Moreover, I like the civility and lack of condescension. But change is desperately needed on Wikipedia. Nothing can get done for lack of consensus or any number of a thousand reasons. Like when I linked to wp:zombie I had no idea that was a real page. It was very clever though. I imagine the writer couldn't get anything serious discussed so managed to try to say what I am saying under the guise of humor. No one wants to edit or help you edit or help you edit to consensus they just want to revert. But again thanks for actually talking to me like a human. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

JasonAJensenUSA I agree with you that change is needed. But for someone with that spirit, you have picked the worst possible target and and a really wrong / counterproductive way to pursue it. North8000 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We have, iirc, 10,000 regular contributors, and 100,000 irregular contributors. We're a small metropolis of focused individuals, from every age group/culture/demographic/etc, with nothing in common except curiosity and dedication. We all have vastly different ideas as to what the "perfect end result" of Wikipedia could be. See meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, or my own User:Quiddity/How it Works, for some confusing/interesting tours around our psychology. We're all human, and all make regular mistakes, and all use language/word-choices that accidentally confuse others. So it goes. –Quiddity (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well. I didn't start here. I was on psychology pages. Where I think there is a lot of malfeasance. The idea people can advocate locking you without crime for your own good makes my blood boil. But no change is allowed there either. That is where I ran into a robo-reverter. Then after discussion, with him and others, I tried cronologing my experience on my user page user:jasonajensenofusa. But you can't do that either. Any post that talks about "perceived flaws" of an editor has to be deleted. Yup, my page is on the misc delete request. So it is impossible to say bad things are going on here. I mean who would believe you and if you cite examples of what your saying it gets deleted. It is the perfect catch 22 for stagnation. So I came here to find people who would agree with my plight and vote not to delete my page. Just cause I am making a point don't make it wp:pointy i believe wholeheartedly in what I am doing. And no I am not interested in my pov on a bunch of pages. They already are POV. I want to make them more balanced. see e. fuller torrey where there is original sources, uncited stuff, and other crap. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here (at Wikipedia), you have jumped down the rabbit hole into a weird and complicated place. You are probably right overall, but you have picked the wrong (=counterproductive) place and method to pursue it. Overall, good luck to you! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm right. But there is no right place or method to pursue it. So I give up. Someone else can fight to make the changes. I no longer care. It's sad too. I used to have such a high opinion of wikipedia. Now I'm with schools and colleges - wikipedia is junk. Not worthy of a citation. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you've been (correctly) taught not to cite Wikipedia, you're learning... Eventually you will probably come full circle and figure out what Wikipedia's valid functions are: a first step to further investigation of serious topics and a quick and easy way of learning correct answers to questions dealing with the mundane trivia of daily life. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DICK Do try not to cause drama or anymore trouble for yourself. If you are going to leave due to users disagreeing with you, do so quietly. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is being the WP:DICK? Pretty sure it's you. 173.22.197.168 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:DICK: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick". Ken Arromdee (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Additions to page

I highly recommend an addition that reminds people to stay within reason when ignoring rules; such as "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (within reason). Mainly though, I urge the addition of a section reminding people that actually improving Wikipedia might not be what they think it is; I might want a much larger article on my hometown with large sections on things people from my town like to do, where we like to go and who we like to see along with a list of every person currently living in the town and all my friends that have moved away. Wikipedia would be worse with that sort of thing. Please at least consider adding a small reminder with links to the basics of what Wikipedia wants.

I'm probably going to forget about this so send me a carrier pigeon or scream my name to the heavens if you want a response

UniversityofPi (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT are good pages for those purposes. Perhaps add them in the "see also" section? Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 19:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, each hypothetical/possible problem arising from wp:iar brought up here as a reason to mess with wp:iar has never actually been a problem in real life. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does "ignore all rules" encourage or discourages boldly improving encyclopedia?

I'm told to ignore one rule in case that I could be prevent from improving an encyclopedia. But it didn't say that I am allowed to boldly do what the policy discourages me to do. Shall I or shan't I do what the policy prevents me to do, especially if I can ignore it? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy means, in effect, you can be bold and ignore rules if they get in your way. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 22:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The rules are principles - "Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion." -- Moxy (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Would that prompt future reverts if someone else follows the "ignored" rule? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Most will do what is reasonable I think. If not then we have many service departments and direct assistance available to help with all kinds of problems. -- Moxy (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In practice, this policy is no longer in force, so you might as well disregard it completely. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some reflection will provide the correct answer to the original question. Suppose one editor uses WP:IAR to justify changing some text from A to B (assuming there is some rule suggesting that generally such a change should not occur). But then another editor uses WP:IAR to justify reverting the first editor. What happens then? Is my IAR better than yours? The way a situation like that would be resolved is that other editors would (eventually) join in, and a consensus would form. The consensus may be along the lines that while there is a rule saying B is not preferred, in the case in question it is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Therefore, the final result would be B, despite some rule that generally A is better. The reason that experienced editors do not often use IAR is that the rules are generally very good, and it is quite hard to find an exception that really would improve the encyclopedia. However, if you do find an exception, by all means invoke IAR, but the ensuing discussion has to resort to reasoned argument, and there should be no more mention of "I ignored the rule"—that fact will probably be clear, but the question is whether the change was an improvement, and that needs to be justified. As Moxy explained, it is the intention of rules that is important, rather than their precise wording. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, John. I'd love to live in the world that you just described. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to as well. What happens now is that people still make bold edits, but instead of discussing it they bicker about it on the talk page. I've been seeing this progressively more and more. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 03:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But is IAR being cited during such bickering? I see it cited less and less. Or maybe you are saying that it should be easier to cite in such cases? Not sure that would help. IAR is deliberately vague. Other policy pages are the ones trying not to be vague. IAR is the one telling us that the other policy pages might not always explain every case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be cited more. I see people holding other editors hostage over policies and regulations, particularly the manual of style. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that is true but I think there are cycles in popular types of wikilawyering. IAR was once a bit over-cited. On this talkpage we can not do anything about that, but we can discuss whether there is anything that can be improved in the current wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that IAR is commonly slightly influential and seldom cited. If anything it needs to get used more. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally am not a fan of IAR simply because there is no real criterion as to whether it can or can't be invoked. For example, suppose a user creates an article for a sport frequently played in his neighborhood called, I don't know, frock ball. The article is then prodded by another user for violating WP:MADEUP, but then the creator de-prods it and justifies it by saying he's ignoring the rules because "it's going to become really popular someday". Conversely, a user can create an AfD discussion for Anna Nalick, and another user may !vote "speedy keep" because she passes WP:MUSICBIO, to which the user invokes IAR by saying, "It doesn't matter. She hasn't done anything recently." I mean, what determines IAR's applicability? (This also leads to WP:IARBIAS.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is Not a Rule; It is a Guideline!!

Remember the 5th Principle of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not have Firm Rules. I want to make this very clear so that other Editors and Visitors can understand this Guideline, Not Rule. Ignore all Rules does not exactly defines as "Break all Rules", but rather implies us to Not "think" of any Guideline in Wikipedia as a Rule, including this Guideline itself. We are not machines so just go with the flow of any human being. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

but rather implies us to Not "think" of any Guideline in Wikipedia as a Rule

Oh that's correct, I have been here for a few months and I immediately forget about the fact that there is no rule but only guideline on Wikipedia. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this apply to 3RR?

Though I am not the kind of editor who edit-wars, I wanted to know if someone who repeatedly and persistently reverted other people's edits on one page could cite IAR to justify their violations of the three-revert rule. Of course, what is more important is whether they could make a persuasive argument for why they shouldn't be blocked by doing so. Jinkinson talk to me 21:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Citing" it would only be the beginning. Then (if it was a pure edit war in the spirit of what 3RRR intends to avoid, they would run up against the impossible task of saying that they even met the conditions of wp:iar, which, long story short, I think is highly doubtful. But if (due the edit warring policy being so badly written to where it nearly EVERY edit as a "revert") if 3RR got invoked in a non-edit warring situation, I think it would carry some useful weight. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Exception

What about WP:COPYRIGHTS? 203.100.0.82 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringement doesn't assist in Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance, so that isn't an exception. —David Levy 23:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But it's still a rule, so I think someone should put that in. 203.100.0.82 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR says to ignore any rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Adding copyright violations would not assist in any way, just as attack pages and nonsense are not improvements and are similarly not permitted by IAR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that, but what if someone else believes that adding copyrighted content is "improving and maintaining Wikipedia"? 203.100.0.82 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What if someone believes that anything detrimental (such as one of Johnuniq's examples) serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia? He/she will learn otherwise when the justification "But...but...IAR!" is rejected.

Additionally, we link to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, wherein the policy's inapplicability to copyright violations is explicitly noted. —David Levy 03:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

IAR's dark side

This little snippet of text helps vandals. One could violate a rule and then use IAR to get away with it. If you can fix it, great. If not, I'm willing to PROD the page. Lightning BOLT! (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to fix. Please provide one instance where the policy has ultimately helped vandals get away with anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it did, I'm saying it could. Lightning BOLT! (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Every rule has its dark side, hence the need to sometimes ignore them. If WP:IAR prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It certainly does not prevent anyone from reverting vandalism or blocking vandals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's like telling Rosa Parks it can sit at the front of the bus, then arresting her for it. 209.133.108.60 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In the history of horrible analogies, you do not come in first...but you're in the discussion. --Onorem (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Love the referring to Rosa Parks as an "it". —Will^(B) 05:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Demotion to guideline

Is it so often invoked successfully that it is currently a policy on Wikipedia? It's lack of widespread use makes me question why this ought to be a policy or cornerstone of Wikipedia, if nothing else than as mainly keeping up a tradition since 2003. And it's also very much open to interpretation, one editor's citing IAR to improve the encyclopedia can be easily construed by another editor to be tarnishing its reputation. I've seen more editors sanctioned for citing IAR than editors citing other Wikipedia policies, and almost no editor successfully citing IAR and having their changes stick. It's one of the more abuse-prone policies cited around Wikipedia than any other I could think of. My last attempt at using this backfired, with more editors concerned about the rule of a policy and equal application of it over its spirit; that a one-off exception could "set bad precedent" for Wikipedia, as they say. I don't know, perhaps I am getting a little burned out over this. This has minimal force and/or effect in Wikipedia, so it should be more apt to stay as a guideline than as a policy page. Ironically above, a misapplication of IAR has once again led to more rules, more calls for evidence of consensus before change. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As discussed previously, this policy is not something to "invoke". Most of its use is silent and goes largely unnoticed.

When something is sufficiently controversial that someone feels the need to "cite" the policy, discussion probably is needed. Please see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. —David Levy 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the policy is fine. Its main point is that other policies can be violated if doing so would assist the project—in other words, there is no bureaucratic requirement that forces certain outcomes "because that's what the rules say". IAR works when it is clear that the case assists the project—if there is significant dissent on that point, IAR is no use. In fact, no policies are useful when it comes to intractable disputes because one side will say that WP:V requires one thing, and the other will say that it doesn't. In that respect, IAR is no different from all the other policies, but IAR is useful on infrequent (or even rare) occasions when consensus agrees that normal procedure would be to do something, but the particular case under consideration would benefit from doing another thing. Obviously an editor cannot successfully defy consensus saying that IAR means their desired edit has to be reinstated—the editor would need a reason, and IAR is merely saying that if that reason has consensus, it can be applied regardless of some other rule. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more on the side of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Consensus can change? I thought it was a given rules, as well as their application, should be determined by consensus. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is analogous to "use some common sense". For example, WP:V is a core policy which says, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." But we have hundreds of thousands of articles in this state (or that have a source list at the bottom) and no one is likely to strip out content just for the sake of stripping out content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that IAR has a good impact in 20 times more situations than it is actually invoked, as a deterrent to Wikilawyering. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. As David noted above, it's most followed silently or with pointers to essays like WP:SNOW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is such a fundamental policy that it is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Demoting it to guideline status would leave no escape clause in the set of policies itself. The policies must have an escape clause.

I completely agree with those who note above that the most important and pervasive impact of the rule is not when it is invoked in discussion: it is when people realize that they can just get on with improving the encyclopedia, and proceed to do so without further ado. When it is raised in discussion, it should be to say "I realize the rules don't provide for this but I think it is a good idea because..." in order to focus the discussion on whether it is a good idea rather than lawyering the rules. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The most crucial of all policies. It is sage advice a guideline. If it was a guideline then people would argue that you can only argue with other guidelines.

I just used it recently and was able to maintain and improve Wikipedia despite the rules being in the way. Chillum 07:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

People don't get it

I think this policy could be improved with an "In a nutshell" section. Diego (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It already fits in a nutshell. Exactly which part of this is unclear? There is a rule, it prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia... you can ignore it. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a tongue in cheek-ish comment (the policy itself couldn't be made any terser), as many people appear to have forgotten that this is an option encouraged by policy. However, maybe something like "Focus on improvements, not rules" in a nutshell would reinforce the base meaning. I'll give it a try, if only to get people talking about this forgotten rule that so few people nowadays pay more than lip service. Diego (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, twenty minutes and nobody has stepped in to revert or comment on an edit that changes 40% of a policy page. Nobody cares about this policy any more, do they? Diego (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In whose opinion?

"Improving Wikipedia" in whose opinion? 109.153.236.229 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR is rarely invoked. Those involved in something less than constructive will not cite WP:IAR as a defense of their actions. WP:IAR is a highly suspect policy in my opinion. Only those sure that they are doing something wholesome will have the courage to cite WP:IAR in support. I think it is a good policy. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In the opinion of the Wikipedia community. To me it is similar to equity in law. If a strict adherence to the rules defeats the purposes they were designed for, then break them. TFD (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot reconcile your idea of improving the encyclopedia's with the community then the result will be the same as with any other policy. If you think people will revert you and tell you not to do it again then it is probably not going to improve the encyclopedia. Chillum 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I mean that the article itself should clarify this. At the moment it can be understood as saying that you can ignore all rules to force your change through if you believe it is an improvement. 31.51.134.168 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not how I read it. It does not say anything about ignoring the community. Again, if people are going to revert you then what you are doing is probably not improving the encyclopedia. Chillum 20:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not say anything about taking any notice of the community either. Again, I am not suggesting that you keep explaining it here, but that someone amends what is a fairly silly statement so that it makes sense and is workable in practice. 86.152.161.11 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It also does not say anything about fried turnips. We don't need to mention everything it is not. It does make sense and it does work in practice. It has been in this state for several years and there has not been an abundance of confusion. If you look at the "See also" section you will see that your concerns are addressed in various essays on the subject. Chillum 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It also does not say anything about fried turnips. We don't need to mention everything it is not. But, it could easily say more precisely what it is. Is it an ability of the community to override rules on a case-by-case basis? In my opinion, 86.152.161.11 does raise a good point about the possibility of making consensus an explicit requirement for ignoring rules. djr13 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not reference opinions, because it is not talking about opinions. It does not reference communicty, nor consensus, because it is not talking about those either. It is very simply talking about improvement qua improvement. If you are improving the encyclopedia -- by the absolute objective standard of improving the encyclopedia -- then you can ignore, without consequences, every rule in the book. There is some question whether you can ignore the other four pillars, such as WP:COPYVIO and WP:NICE and WP:NOT... and in particular WP:NPOV... but those are all very brief rules listed at WP:5 and should be 100% compatible with any use of WP:IAR that I can think of offhand. If you merely *believe* you are improving the encyclopedia, aka in your *opinion* you are improving the encyclopedia, but you fail to actually IMPROVE the encyclopedia, according to an absolute universal standard of improvement, then you are going to be reverted. Not because you were mis-using WP:IAR, but because you failed to understand the meaning of the term 'improve' ... which as I've gone to pains here trying to point out, is not subject to a bangvote, nor is it subject to anyone's opinion. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It means exactly what it says. There is no contradiction. There is no clarification needed, as long as you understand the plain meaning of the words being used. The rules are based on bangvoting, and on consensus, and on collectively-ascertained opinion. When such rules conflict with improvement-qua-improvement, pillar five says that improvement ought to win. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we might need someone to upload another audio transcript for this.

Alrighty. So, I see that the audio version of this page is outdated by, like, uh, 5 years. The rest of the article is OK, but the audio should be changed out. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@OmegaBuddy13: Considering there's just a bunch of links on the page, I don't personally feel as if a new audio version is necessary. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@NottNott: Well, I guess you're right. It said that the audio was uploaded a few years ago, but I must've forgot to look at the recent edits, other than vandalism corrections. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

was WP:Before ignoring all rules now called WP:Alternatives to ignoring all rules

The essay WP:Before ignoring all rules was recently added to the See Also section by User:George Ho. This essay seems to me to go against the spirit of IAR, as it advises editors to first read up on all the policies, guidelines and essays, so they know exactly which rules they're ignoring. But half the point of IAR – according to all the other essays linked from this page – is to reassure new editors that they shouldn't feel compelled to learn all the rules before contributing. Thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an essay. By the way, I change some portions to make it less of a guideline and more of an essay. How is it against the spirit of IAR? --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I know it's an essay. The question is, is it an essay we want to implicitly endorse by linking to it from this policy page? DoctorKubla (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of the point of IAR is that one does not need to know all of the rules before doing something. That being said all of the essays contain opinion. HighInBC 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be linked here. Insofar as it recommends doing anything and everything but ignore rules (including all of "Et cetera, et cetera..."), it is really an anti-IAR essay. That in itself does not make it bad, but as such it is not particularly useful for helping users understand the situation – not enough to link it from a major WP:5P policy page. I can see a place here for a good essay about how the rules are there for a reason, and why ignoring them is not always the best course of action. This is not that essay. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I added an advice saying not to ignore all rules if to do so does not improve Wikipedia. At which page can I place the essay if IAR is no longer a good place for this essay? George Ho (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Without looking into it deeply, perhaps WP:Process_is_important, a phrase often quoted in RfA and Arb-pages, or one of the constellation of see-also and category-linked pages tied thereto? But the point of common sense is that it *is* common, and that one does not have to read about common sense so as to fully understand it. Similarly, although part of the point of IAR is that one should feel free to knowingly break a rule, if doing so will improve the encyclopedia, the flip-side of the coin is equally (or perhaps more) crucial, namely that everyday humans armed merely with common sense should very much be encouraged to WP:BEBOLD, and very much not forced to first read the WP:PAG and deeply understand all the nuances. If we are going to link to an anti-IAR-thing in the see-also, my suggestion would be "See also WP:PAG for the antonym to WP:IAR" or similar phrasing. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

New disputes section

Disputes

Wikipedia operates on consensus. Rules are only enforced when people agree that they should be enforced. Attempting to ignore rules is unlikely to succeed if most people disagree with you.

Would anyone like to endorse / oppose / revise this addition? Alsee (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

IAR is tricky—people either understand it or they don't, and adding explanations or qualifications is unlikely to help. Several essays are linked at the bottom and they are probably the best that can be done because the original IAR (before the recent addition) was beautifully simple, yet the addition doesn't tell a new editor enough of the background, so we would need more-and-more points to explain what IAR does not mean. The text about rules are enforced only when people want is not quite the point—we don't arbitrarily decide to suspend rules just because everyone who has commented so far thinks that would be good. Rules are suspended when they would prevent an improvement—the need for consensus comes when working out whether a proposal really is an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's not a good idea to add to this page. We have plenty of pages explaining how to apply and understand IAR. This sentence you added is more of an explainer pointing out how IAR interacts with WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS, which is covered elsewhere. Basically Johnuniq puts it well. BethNaught (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The irony of IAR is that people usually don't bother citing it when a rule would prevent a non-disputed improvement. It it typical pops up after consensus and policy are going against someone. It would be nice to have some shortcut here that basically suggests consensus will decide if disputed-IAR really is an improvement. Alsee (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a list of essays describing this policy and they all have their own take. Really all the rule needs to say is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia then you can ignore it. Your proposed addition is good advice in general but I think it belongs in an essay. HighInBC 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Does this improve the encyclopedia?"

I wrote up an essay interpreting IAR mainly in the context of notability guidelines. Not sure if it belongs on Wikipedia-namespace yet; certainly not the main IAR page (since it's not been cited), but I figured it was worth mentioning here to be in the talk archives. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Catch

This rule is generally okay, but I advise adding a catch: "to use this rule, one must explicitly invoke it". Otherwise, it seems like just an excuse for editors (and administrators and arbitrators and even Jimmy Wales) to potentially (or actually) do whatever they want without transparency.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

When IAR is followed correctly, this often goes unnoticed; fellow editors see the encyclopedia being improved, not the absence of a rule's illogical application. The editor ignoring a rule need not have IAR in mind (and might not even be aware of its existence). It's the results that matter.

Instances in which the policy is "explicitly invoked" are the most likely to be inappropriate and controversial, as they tend to reflect a mistaken belief that IAR grants permission to override consensus by disregarding Wikipedia's rules on a whim.

IAR is about editing sensibly, without allowing pointless bureaucracy to stand in the way. Mandatory adherence to a special process would directly contradict its purpose. —David Levy 17:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This rule is already a special process. If someone deliberately disregards another Wikipedia policy or guideline, I don't think it's too much for the community to ask for a heads up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the policy. In some instances, an editor hasn't read the relevant rule (and might be unaware that it isn't being followed to the letter). He/she needn't even read this rule or realize that it applies. It's the end result that matters. —David Levy 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This policy is clear: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't see how a person can ignore a rule they don't know about. But if it makes a difference to you, I would have no objection to this caveat: "to deliberately ignore another Wikipedia policy or guideline, one should cite this policy explicitly to give other editors a heads up".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a person can ignore a rule they don't know about.

Have you read each and every Wikipedia policy and guideline in its entirety? If not, you've ignored some of them. Does this render you unable to improve the encyclopedia?

When users simply dive in and do their best, does unknowingly performing an edit inconsistent with the letter of a rule result in catastrophe? Would Wikipedia be better off if everyone erred on the side of caution by not touching a single article before becoming 100% familiar with all of the rules?

But if it makes a difference to you, I would have no objection to this caveat: "to deliberately ignore another Wikipedia policy or guideline, one should cite this policy explicitly to give other editors a heads up".

You continue to misunderstand the policy. Please see the supplementary essays. —David Levy 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If this policy is not supposed to mean that you may ignore a rule that you correctly believe would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, then this policy is very poorly worded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If something is obviously an improvement then no rules need to be cited – including this one. If it is contested then one may argue the merits of the improvement instead of arguing the rules – including this one. Citing rules – including this one – is not ignoring them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that summary of the status quo. But I disagree that it cannot be improved per my suggestion. As of now, a person can rely upon this policy without saying so, whether the article edits are contested or not. When a person deliberately decides to ignore a policy or guideline, I think there should be a heads up whether the edits are contested or not. The heads up may result in the edits being contested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits should be contested on the merits, not because "the rules say so". —David Levy 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The rules exist to help advance the merits, and edits can be contested on a combination of the rules and the merits. Keep in mind that we're not just talking here about article edits. This policy is phrased very broadly to include lots of other things too, from article deletion to interaction bans. When editors or admins knowingly ignore rules based on IAR, why not say so? That would attract closer scrutiny on the merits. And if a rules-based debate is already in progress, it's extremely counterproductive for one side of that debate to conceal that he's actually ignoring the rules that are being cited against him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If ignoring a rule doesn't facilitate Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance, this policy doesn't apply (no matter how strenuously it's "invoked").

If ignoring a rule facilitates Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance only if the action is explicitly brought to the community's attention, the policy's current wording requires it. —David Levy 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One does not need to invoke IAR to ignore a rule that is preventing them from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. As others have said if done right then nobody will need an explanation. If someone thinks it should be mentioned then by all means do so, but it should not be a requirement. HighInBC 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least if someone wants an explanation then I think the IAR explanation needs to be provided instead of pretending to follow the other rules. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I will be moving along now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not required that someone explicitly invokes IAR... However, it is important to remember that CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE... a consensus to ignore a rule can always be challenged ... and a new consensus can be formed that decides to follow the rule after all. This means that... In practice... the more you can explain why the rule was ignored in the first place, the less likely it will be for a new consensus to form. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar:If one or more editors form a consensus to deliberately ignore a rule, for example the NPOV rule, then the most effective way for them to preserve that consensus is to not openly admit that they are deliberately ignoring that rule.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This page's text can also be explained as: "All editorial efforts must be considered on their merit, that is on their worth in improving or maintaining Wikipedia, not in adhering to rules". Carlotm (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I fully agree with what this policy says. However, ignoring rules often leads to disputes, so I think a note of caution should be added. So, I propose that the text be amended to:

• If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you may ignore it. However, be aware that other editors may not agree that ignoring the rule actually does improve Wikipedia. When this occurs, discuss the situation on the article talk page, and attempt to reach a consensus.

Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion looks like to be a kind of preventative effort, ie "You surely can ignore rules but it's better you don't, because you will incur in a lot of troubles." As an hyperbolic comment, I might say that this amendment is about bulling editors, especially new ones, on writing on talk pages for search of a consensus that, maybe, is not even requested, then on the real pages. It happened already to me that I was reverted for an addition that was considered inappropriate. Then, after I submitted myself with my little essay in talk page, that addition suddenly became fully accepted. There are people here totally unable, or unwilling, to consider editorial merits, and adding this amendment will give them even more bullying strength. Carlotm (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• What on Earth does any of this have to do with bullying? HighInBC 03:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, the rule just needs to go! What it should be replaced with is, "Use your best judgement!" --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the policy is great the way it is. We could fill pages describing the best way to use IAR, and we have essays doing just that. There is already an entire Essays on this subject devoted to the interpretation of this policy, no need to do so in the policy itself. HighInBC 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)