Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 19

This rule is sick

What's the point in having this rule as a policy ????????

No wait.. it's actually one of the 5 pillars !!!! Wrong.. very wrong I believe. SuperSucker (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a catch 22! I don't think we need a catch 22 as a policy (no wait.. as one of the 5 pillars). It's absurd to say "there're rules and one of them says all the others can be ignored". Indeed have a read at the original spirit of the "Ignore all rules" rule at Wikipedia:Trifecta. Uh? SuperSucker (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The point in having the pillar and the rule, to me, is to both encourage people to not be shy in trying to edit and to remind us that the point of Wikipedia is not to make lots of pretty rules for their own sake but to build an encyclopedia. You're certainly not the first people to believe as you do. You might be right. Yet the system as a whole seems to work, albeit always imperfectly. And many of us feel that it has a vital point and we very much need the Catch 22 of IAR. It took me a long while to realize that. Might I kindly suggest y'all read the other linked pages and explore it further? (Or, you can just always ignore it! :) ) LaughingVulcan 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing is deliberately absurd, to make a point. The point itself, that Wikipedia should not be so rule-bound that it prevents editors from creating an encyclopedia, is sound. You might want to try reading some of the essays referenced on the project page. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's so blatantly wrong. Think about the following: someone ignores the personal attack policy saying he/she ignored it according to WP:IAR. Who's right?? I guess you can only answer "it's up to admins".. and that's way loose.. a waste of precious time. It's practically and procedurally wrong. I could be wrong but I don't see how you can agree on keeping it.

Why should you make such a secondary point through a policy? "Wikipedia is not to make lots of pretty rules.."? What wikipedia is meant for is already laid out in the first pillar. "Wikipedia should not be rule-bound.."?!? What? SuperSucker (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to imagine a scenario where a personal attack improves Wikipedia. Also, the 5 pillars is not actually policy. The IAR rule in its entirety is not an invitation to "ignore all other rules", only those which get in the way of the right way of doing things. What is so wrong with a policy that recognises that some of the lesser rules may be wrong? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't recognise lesser rules may be wrong, it recognises any rule could be. And it does so from the height of a policy. I don't know either how a personal attack could improve Wikipedia but someone else may do, or believe so. However, the personal attack example is the first that came to mind, rather think about the violation of any policy or guideline then. I'm not saying it's not a good rule, just that it shouldn't be policy.. rather an editing guideline since it's about how-to-edit advice. SuperSucker (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• The point of having WP:IAR is that there will alway be rare situations where the best thing to do is to make an exception to a rule. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there are such situations, but since they are rare there's no point to make through a policy, because it's clear we all believe any rule has a negative side: the positive one should simply be larger, which I believe does not happen if WP:IAR is given the height of a policy. As a policy WP:IAR grants a false self-determination (it's a catch 22 as said, thus following it is never correct). SuperSucker (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you know they're rare? The best usages of IAR is when you don't have to explicitly invoke IAR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Because if they were not, the rules being violated would be fixed I guess? SuperSucker (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because we don't write reams and reams of rules to cover all cases or edge cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So the point with WP:IAR as a policy is that it's not convenient to expand the other—already existing—reams and reams of rules? It's not convenient either to have a policy that contradicts its other peers, inviting anyone to logically think policies are secondary to their self-determination.

What would you do if two articles of the constitution basically stated that:

1. "Law must be respected"
2. "Sometimes not"

It's the same argument: the constitution can be observed, judged, criticized by anyone, and even changed, but it cannot be contradicting. The constitution (policies, which are standards) cannot contradict itself, but it's fine to have laws (guidelines, which help to follow standards) stretching it.

That's my point in downgrading IAR. SuperSucker (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are most definitively NOT comparable to a constitution in any way other than some sort of contrasting alternative. The policies and guidelines are not foundational. They evolve over time and at any given point in time there are multitudes of contradictory and conflicting statements in them. IAR encourages editors to make good faith edits regardless of their familiarity or lack thereof to any particular area of policy and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 21:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Why "NOT comparable"? Do you prefer a comparison with chess? Ok, think you and your friend are going to play chess and agree that:

1. "The king must be captured to win"
2. "The king cannot be captured"

What's the point in it? A never ending game? That's a hyper game. SuperSucker (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded when Spock defeats the hyper-logical computer by saying "I'm lying". --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game (at least not in any conventional sense). And even so, IAR is not diametrically as contradictory as the proposed hypothetical. WP:Wikilawyering (i.e., a form of gamesmanship) is at least in part the reason why IAR is necessary is an system such as Wikipedia which is not strictly speaking bound by the rules defined in the policies and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure laws can be contradicting as they take into account the intentions of an actions. It is against the law for you physically injure someone. Heimlich maneuvers can cause bruising and fractures. However the intent was not to injure, so in this case, you can ignore assault laws, and it's okay for you to "injure" someone. Everyone would agree to that. Similarly, if you make an edit that is technically against "the rules" but everyone who comes across it thinks it improves the encyclopedia, there's no need to revert or comment further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction, it's a strech. Intentions? You go hit someone with a car and argue it was not your intention. Very loose. SuperSucker (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

WP has a single goal: the encyclopedia; nothing else matters. WP's "rules" tend to get worded like they're all important, thus IAR. It is loose. Get over it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, we just aim for the goal then: no field lines, no rules, no referee, no tactic. How do you even score? That's non-sense. SuperSucker (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There are lines, rules, and referees... and most of the time we play within the lines, follow the rules, and the refs call penalties... its just that sometimes (on rare occasions) the players ignore them, and the refs know when NOT to call a penalty. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you play.. baseball for instance ..if a rule explicitely stated: "all the others may be ignored"? Referee or not, you can't have such a rule. True or not? SuperSucker (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a timesink, plain and simple. SuperSucker has their own idiosyncratic definition of Catch-22 and can't bring themselves to understand that WP:IAR does not invite anarchy and a little give in our rules is a feature, not a bug. Nothing is going to come of his suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR would rather be a timesaver if only it was either downgraded from the policy status, or kept as policy but fixed by restoring its original sense which was explicitly slightly hilarious in order to restore its five pillar statement's attribute which was "..besides the four general statements above..". Or something on this line. Just sayin'. SuperSucker (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Said. Noted. Done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done what? SuperSucker (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pointless to interpret rules in a way differently than others do, only to argue that the rule as you interpret it is contradictory. IAR serves its purpose, it seems to be working and is rarely over-applied. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

To me it's rather about the enviroment it produces, a loose one. Rules are applied anyway, even if those required to follow them don't explicitly invoke them every single time.. it would be foolish and bureaucracy would kill a wiki (and in real life it works the same), can we agree on this? I suppose that's simply the tacit part laid as "the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording", meaning "do whatever you can not to let the rules get in the way of sound edits".

For the last time: in my humble opinion, as abundantly explained a rule cannot state "the rules may be violated", unless it's purpotedly expressed with some humor, explicitly remarking there's a catch, instead of making a catch out of every single rule. SuperSucker (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose nowadays it relies more on its seemingly paradoxical nature than on humor in order to make its point; but nevertheless it is a serious rule, and sorely needed. For a start, we have so many rules describing so many situations that it's impossible to follow all of them, all the time; in many places the rules contradict each other, and applying them is largely an exercise in knowing which one you should ignore for the best effect (I even wrote an essay explaining this point).

The essence of IAR is that we should never apply rules for their own sake; the ultimate goal is always to assess whether we're making the encyclopedia better by enforcing them, or not. I don't think that's something that could reasonably be objected to, as long as all the people involved at some particular case agree that "ignoring the rules" is the best thing to do there. Diego (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My question is: is it "serious and needed" to the point of having it seemingly paradoxically state that all rules can be ignored? Major rules (policies) are supposed to be clear, and not contradict the others. To ignore rules is a strictly personal choice, which naturally contradicts the point it's supposed to preserve: making the encyclopedia better. I still believe it should be either downgraded to guideline or fixed with the original explicitness it conveyed. SuperSucker (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Major rules are supposed to be clear, and not contradict the others. Uh, actually that's not something that we actively pursue on a deep level; when it happens, it's more a byproduct of people trying to make sense of how rules interact with each other, than a community-wide effort to define simple and clear processes. The actual overarching principle of policies and guidelines has always been "don't rely too much on them". (And note that "Ignore all rules" is not an absolute - it has the all-important qualifier "when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia").

I think that's why you're having problems with "Ignore all rules", if you think that there should be a consistent and polished body of law. We certainly haven't got such thing now, and there isn't any coordinated large scale effort trying to make them into that.

Rules appear as compilations of best practices over some specific aspect of the project (such as disambiguation of article titles, style guides about esoteric cases of grammar and syntax, or behavioral guides regarding the best way to revert your fellow editors), and they typically can't be applied outside the scope of that particular aspect; so it's often the case that they apply unrelated criteria and even provide some contradictory advise. We often consider that a good thing, as it's really hard to make one-size-fits-all rules that adecuately cover all the cases in all situations.

The closest thing we have to a governing are the pillars and core content policies, and the various forums for enforcement of their spirit and resolution of large problems. All those were instituted in the early days of the project by our ancestors, and we keep them to this day, occasionally surprised at the creative ways in which we can manage to make them contradict each other, pointing out at the possible interpretations of the rules that firmly endorse opposite courses of action. Diego (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You're basically saying: "the reason for no rational body of rules is because we(?) are fine with it". This has always been the attribute of discouraging online (and not) communities, which is obviously wrong (indeed it contradicts the foundational principles). Simple and clear has always and will always be the preferred course of action in any rational enviroment (given that it's also right): IAR is wrong, it's unclear and produces complication. This argument is missing logic - rationality.

You don't "make sense of how rules interact with each other"? You don't believe in the sinergy of the rules? Would you agree with these two laws?

1. An underage citizen is lyable of embezzlement and jail time of at least 20 years and not more than 25, if the loot is valued above 1 dollar
2. An adult of age is lyable of embezzlement and jail time of at least 1 day and not more than 5, if the loot is valued above 1 million dollars

I really don't understand the point in this illogical carved-in-stone agreement you all seem to approve. Would anyone care to explain? SuperSucker (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's more like "the reason for our (rational) system of rules stems from an unconventional approach, and we're fine with it". The system of rules is rational within its intended purpose, and largely works; but it doesn't work as a typical judicial system, it was created following a different set of principles and axioms, and that's why it's different. I've asked you two questions below to see if we can figure out a way to explain you why the system was created this way. Diego (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for though: IAR doesn't say "Ignore all other rules", it says "Ignore all rules". Can you ignore IAR? Diego (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not that explicit. Through the years the explicit hilariousness has been removed for some reason, but I'm not convinced by any given one. It looks as an important rule (it touches all the others), and it appears it has been very badly morphed. SuperSucker (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am hereby ignoring IAR! So there! Logic malfunctions, and the space-time-continuum goes "pfft". Sigh. Oh, well, back to useful WP stuff. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be completely ignoring an important part of the policy, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" then you can ignore it. It does not say that anyone can ignore any rule they want to whenever they want to, a rule can only be ignored if it stops the improvement or maintenance of the encyclopedia. You are throwing all kinds of red herrings in that have absolutely nothing to do with this policy. If you can't discuss the actual rule and explain how to improve it this conversation will go absolutely nowhere and should be shut down as it accomplishes nothing. -- GB fan 13:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, but is that rather a guideline or a major policy?

1. Rules are written to regulate collectiveness by "taking over individality"
2. If you believe a rule should not take over that, then it should be made explicit there's a catch

Not? It's just too unclear the way it is written, to keep it as a policy. It should be remarked it's purpotedly unclear in order to communicate "denial of over-strictness" (instead of "looseness"), or made a guideline. SuperSucker (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Consisting of one simply worded sentence, this is probably the most clearly written policy we have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I second that :-) You can't get any simpler than that. The "policy" box at the top is also crystal clear: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". So there is no catch, this is a regular policy with all the force of policy. In fact, it's a simplification of the Fifth Pillar that "Wikipedia has no firm rules"; by being simpler, it is easier to apply in an operative way (it's easier to say "I'm ignoring this rule because it prevents me from improving Wikipedia" than it is to evaluate that "this rule is not firm and I think its interpretation should evolve").

SuperSucker, let me ask you two questions to see if we can find out where our positions start to diverge:

1. What do you think is the purpose of Wikipedia having a written set of rules? (In your words, what is the ultimate goal justifying that we should have a way of "taking over the individuality" of our editors?)
2. And equally important: How do you think that such system of rules should be enforced?

Diego (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is a very well formatted webiste with a wide amount of information, and that's its purpose (to be such)
2. I don't think I understand this question. I'm just pointing at the way a pillar/policy is written. I believe I know what it originally is meant for.

SuperSucker (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperSucker, I don't ask about the purpose of Wikipedia. I asked about the purpose of the rules in Wikipedia. This is a wiki, so why not just editors go around making whatever they think it's best and reverting whatever they other editors got wrong, with no overarching rules? What is the purpose of having a set of written rules at Wikipedia? And what do you believe is the best way to make sure that those rules are known and enforced? Those are my questions. Diego (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'm sorry, I got that wrong.

1. The purpose of rules in wikipedia is to permit wikipedia to reach its purpose
2. The best way to enforce the rules is.... woah, I never thought about that maybe. I guess the best way to enforce them.. is by applying the consensus process: debating and having admins who can decide when the debate is no longer productive (which is what happens in any context whether in real life or online).

SuperSucker (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we're on the same boat so far. If the purpose of the rules is to allow Wikipedia grown into a website with wide information, the characteristics of the rules need to be created to support that purpose. Now, some musings:

• In Wikipedia, more often that not there's no need to have admins deciding whether the rules are met. Most of the time, people discussing on a talk page can reach a consensus on their own, without the need for a referee. WP attempts to work in a decentralized way, and deferring to formal arbitration is seen as a last resource, to be used when there is no other possible way forward.
• You stated that a requirement of rules is that they not contradict all the others. A way to achieve that is by carefully writing all the rules so that they can't possibly contradict any other combination of rules; this would be needed if you were to apply all the rules at every situation. But ensuring that rules have that property is a lot of work, and all that work could be better employed for writing articles.

Though, from a strictly logical point of view, there exist a different way to achieve consistency, which is: don't apply all the rules always. At any given situation, use only a subset of rules that is consistent and relevant to the point at hand. This "local consistency" also produces clear, non-contradicting instructions; and it's much easier to write rules to work in this second way than it is to ensure that all of the written rules are consistent in every possible way.

Given that "enforcing the rules" is not a goal on itself, but only a tool to resolve conflicts as they appear, the second approach is preferred. It requires a lot less maintenance work, as rules can be kept much more informal than they would be if we used them as a legal body that must be kept coherent in its entirety. And, given that the rules are being re-interpreted to assess for consensus at each new situation, each discussion can have their own set of rules invoked and assessed; so the second, less formal approach is easily made to work very well. Diego (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's clearly very loose. Five million articles written respecting policies. Yet we are not able to write a few tens policies? Even articles are fixed if anyone contradicts another one. It's very obvious that's what it's supposed to be done.

Uhmm.. It looks as there has been a weird form of devolution - an "administrative decentralization", rather than an "editing decentralization" as you claim. SuperSucker (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly written yes, but wrong. SuperSucker (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is very clear as written. One sentence that says that you can ignore a rule if it stops you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. I don't understand what is unclear about that sentence. -- GB fan 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What's unclear is its relation to the other rules. I abundantly remarked this. We all know, I hope, what it actually should mean, yet it's worded differently. Rules are meant to not be contradicting, it's like math. Actually nothing is supposed to be contradicting, indeed contradicting articles are fixed. In real life, laws are mutually supportive. Anything on which people rely is required to strives to not be. It's plain logic.

Art may be contradicting, probably. Is wikipedia art? I don't think so. Maybe it is. But I really don't think so. Maybe it shares some attributes but it's not. It's culture, it's pop, but rather a product of rationality than art. This is getting philosophical.

I don't understand how you can support the way it's worded, since it defies common sense. SuperSucker (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are not a legal system, are not intended as one, and should not become one. If you think that the rules should work like a body of law, it's no wonder that you don't understand why it's done the way it is. The overhead of running a formally binding legal system is not something that the project wants to face, as we feel that the little improvements in coordination we would achieve over the current system do not compensate what is lost in lack of flexibility.

Our policies and guidelines are like going to your ten best friends and asking them for advice on how to behave in a hurdle. It would make little sense requiring them that all agree to a single coherent position before you act upon their advice. It's a nice thing to have when you can get it, but not something to actively pursue.Diego (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice analogy Diego, perhaps it should go in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, or perhaps in a supplemental essay. older ≠ wiser 11:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is two people can look at the same words, one sees them as unclear, one see them as clear. Math and science rules are not contradictory. Once you get out into the social world you will find contradictory rules all over the place. Under US federal law it is illegal to posses or use marijuana but under some US state laws it is legal. In US federal law alcohol is legal, it is also legal in every state, but there are counties and cities where it is illegal. I know of one county where it is illegal to sell alcohol but it can be manufactured and sold by a single company on their property.

I understand you don't agree, but to me this is so easy to understand. If you can show how a rule stops you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, ignore it. You need to be able to justify why you ignored the rule and others might not agree. You might be reverted but if you can convince people it is an improvement it will stand.

There is no such thing as common sense. I could make a similar comment that it defies common sense that you can not understand this simple policy. IMO what people call common sense is developed based on the individual experiences of the person. Since each person has their own experiences each person's common sense is different.

I do not believe this discussion will go anywhere. I do think you need to drop it and move on. So far you are the only person who has commented in this discussion that doesn't understand the policy and disagrees with it. I am going to take my own advice and walk away from this conversation. -- GB fan 11:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

He may have walked away, but I should say that I believe there's no chance law is contradicting: IF a law contradicts another one, THAN it means there must be another one on the same level or above that regulates the contradiction.. So, I just googled "US federal law vs state law" and this came as first result: "The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation". It's just logic - common sense. SuperSucker (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That may be common sense for laws; but Wikipedia rules are not laws, they are rules of thumb. Diego (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference then? SuperSucker (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Our policies and guidelines provide general advice on how to handle similar situations; but just like rules of thumb, they're not meant to cover every case nor be infallible. And it doesn't mean that we need a higher-order rule that catches the situations not covered by policy, unless you count WP:CONSENSUS as such rule. (We always are to achieve consensus when editors need to collaborate and there are disagreements. But then we have WP:BOLD which somehow contradicts WP:CONSENSUS, so truly "there are no firm rules").

The thing is that here at Wikipedia we can make our own rules as we go, and stop using the old ones at any time if that's for the better. That provides a lot of freedom to improve every corner of the encyclopedia without the requirement of centralized supervision on which a judiciary is based. Your principles of a single, monolithic, coherent set of rules are based on the existence of a central government that dictates and applies the law, but here such kind of government would be a hindrance. Diego (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's a very slippery slope to require wikipedians to reach WP:Consensus appealing to no given set of immovable rules. That's like inviting self-determination to take over the collaborative approach. It really doesn't make sense.

I don't know what exactly happened during the years, but surely this is not the very meaning of "wiki". There's not even need to disturb the meaning of "wiki", everyone knows what logic is I believe. We are supposed to write articles in a big catch22-policies sup. Something's very distorted, very wrong. SuperSucker (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Hundreds of thousands of editors gotten by pretty darn well with the policy in its present form (~10 years). Why don't you actually try editing some articles? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Every editor knew about IAR, or cared to enquire? Yours is a very arbitrary statement, probably the only question of that nature is: could these 10 years have been more productive if IAR's original meaning had not been adulterated? Who knows.. SuperSucker (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This principle exists pretty much from the foundation of the project, IAR only documents it. Have you heard about Nupedia, which was designed by committee? (No? Exactly!) In fact, according to a chronicler, "ignore all rules" was the first rule that Wikipedia ever had. All other rules are superseded by this one, so I suppose we have found our top-level highest-authority supreme rule. Diego (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That article suggests something else than what you portrayed. The paragraph IAR is mentioned is the following: "Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule (to wit: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business"). This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc".

Just read what it was in December 2004, which is when WP:Trifecta (the prototype of the WP:Five pillars) has been formulated.

Then read its description in May 2005, which is when WP:Five pillars has been formulated.

It looks as IAR has originally been employed with humour and temporaneity in order to gather new editors according to your source. After the hoped flow of collaboration occured, instead of being either kept as it was or downgraded, it has been disastrously upgraded for reasons I IGNORE (according to WP:IAR) <--- THAT'S ITS SPIRIT. SuperSucker (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bold, caps, and sarcasm! Oh my!  ;) --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it worked to attract those editors, didn't it? Wikipedia became a roaring success. Even if the father of the rule disowned it, other have adopted it and we put it to good use. Diego (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone may have said this already, please forgive me if they have: IAR is, like everything else here, controlled by consensus. When someone does something which violates policy and someone objects that it's in violation of policy, what they're really objecting to is that the policy, per CONLIMITED, reflects the established consensus of the community. What IAR does is to allow individual exceptions to policy without having to amend or change the policy, but those individual exceptions must be supported by consensus. When a nonconforming edit is made and no one objects, it's supported by consensus by silence, the weakest form of consensus, and that persists only until such time as someone does object. When a nonconforming edit is made and someone immediately objects, then it becomes the burden of the editor asserting the nonconforming edit to obtain consensus for the edit and, if s/he wants to not have his effort to do so not be swatted down simply because the edit is in violation of policy, s/he also has the burden to make a persuasive case for why policy should not apply in that particular instance. Since consensus is based upon weighing arguments, the case the editor must make cannot be that that the policy is in general misguided or wrong or inappropriate — if s/he wants to make that case, then s/he needs to try to repeal or amend the policy, not create an IAR exception — but instead that there is something different or unusual or unforeseen in that current situation that the policy fails to take into consideration. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You just described an ideal democracy. We know it doesn't exist (neither in real life). There needs to be an attentive and wise administration above the rest that makes decisions of some form of arbitrary nature. There's always a risk the arbitrariness of the minority may "steal" from the majority, and we accept it and employ rules to set the administration itself under judgement as well. Arbitrariness is present even within the majority, since it's ultimately about freedom.. it can't be removed (there's no point in doing it, since rules are basically supposed to regulate IT).

There cannot be an ideal democracy neither in real life, yet the ideal guides the engineering of practical problems solving (e.g. the discussion and approval of a consistant body of rules). Indeed you must know better than me that Wikipedia is not a democracy. SuperSucker (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a demonstrable problem here? If there's evidence that editors cite IAR to do masses of chaos and disruption, we'd have to address that. If there's evidence that at least implies that having this rule weakens others and that stricter rules would improve WP, we'd have to at least discuss that. If, instead, there's only evidence that the wording of IAR is very short and simple, that's not a problem. IAR cannot be worded to explain in detail precise circumstances where it can be implemented, measuring relative amounts of "improvement" vs "ignorance" or whatever, because we can't make rules about when to ignore rules! It's present form captures it all. I move that this discussion be re-titled from "This rule is sick" to "This rule is slick". And then closed as non-actionable. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion rules are employed to permit the project purse its goals, and preserve everyone's freedom. Need any evidence to be strict about rules? Well, I don't. Rules are too important to not have them as strict as possible.

Look, to me the confusion showed in this thread is already evidence that the present wording of IAR is a timesink. SuperSucker (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that stricter rules would improve WP. Our current "rules" have phrases like "obvious vandalism", "disruptive", and even "consensus" without any precise definition; we leave that to the individual editor's own judgement. We accept the fact that there are gray areas, and even that plain old mistakes will get made in applying these "rules". Even where it's "proven" (meaning generally agreed) that the rules have been violated, we don't always come down with the proscribed blocks and bands if it doesn't seem like it would help. How could WP possibly operate otherwise? Some kind of police state? We're all volunteers. Making this into a land of exacting rules with ruthless punishment would turn it into a wasteland. WP is much more strict than it was a decade ago, and is getting far fewer new editors. If anything, evidence shows we may need to be less strict.

There is confusion in this discussion, but only on one side. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second: why are you mentioning behavior? This is bad faith. SuperSucker (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"A) There is confusion in this thread. B) Only you are confused." is not mentioning behavior nor is it in bad faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Blocks" - "bands" - "police state" - "ruthless punishment" are not related to behavior????

This thread is about the wording of a phrase, which is policy as well as one of the 5 pillars. It's about consistency of rules. You're all very confused. SuperSucker (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oy. The "blocks and bands" I mentioned were ones not handed down. The "police state" and "ruthless punishment" are theoretical supports for very strict rules in WP, which we do not have. I'm sorry, but don't see how I've violated AGF -- a serious charge to make -- when talking about things that don't exist. But, yes, saying strict rules are needed is all about behavior. It implies most of our experienced editors are not competent to decide how to improve WP (without evidence).

I'll say I am confused on one important point: what, exactly, is the proposal here? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that back. That would just prop up the horse again. I'm done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This really is getting nowhere.

Rules are meant to be strict in the sense they should be strictly written, consistent, clearly written. This is what we have been talking about so far. I never mentioned not once behavior-related issues. This thread is (was) just about IAR as a policy being a catch 22. I believe IAR is just supposed to communicate denial of over-sctrictness, rather than to turn every rule into a catch 22.

IF we want to keep IAR as a policy (rather than downgraded to guideline) it should be clearly hilarious, like:

• If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it... including this one.

Or it could be kept a serious policy but in such case it should clearly except the first four foundamental policies, like:

• If a rule (besides the first four fundamental policies) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

IF we want to keep IAR as it is, then it should be downgraded to guideline (an editing guideline), or even merged into WP:BOLD (or viceversa). SuperSucker (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Pillar five explains itself quite clearly, "Wikipedia has no firm rules ... Be bold but not reckless ... And do not agonize over making mistakes". That pillar is in itself the most important one we have because it reminds us that our rules are not laws and should not be enforced as such. The only, literally only, exception to this is "the Law" (I mean actual real world laws; copyright, defamation, etc). It doesn't except the first four pillars for the obvious reason that these pillars are on equal standing. If an editor tries to "wikilawyer" themselves out of behaving by community standards then what will happen is block, longer block, very long block, indefinite block and finally ban (in that order). We may skip steps as required. If an editor is caught out in the erroneous belief that IAR allows them to do whatever they want, then that misconception will be swiftly corrected. Either by a block or warning, depending on the circumstances. Also, you seem to be holding the misconception that we have "strict" rules, "Wikipedia has no firm rules", only policies and guidelines which "are not carved in stone". Your suggestion to "fix" IAR is futile, IAR isn't broken, and this is quite clearly the consensus in this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I disagree plenty. Wikipedia has no firm rules meaning they evolve, not meaning self-determination overrides policies and guidelines.

I'm more and more convinced IAR is a "confusing timesink".

The 5th pillar statements are not policy, they look as a rather week attempt to save the actual policy they're commenting (IAR) with futile words.

Think about policies as the articles of the constitution, and guidelines as laws. The more looseness and inconsistency, the more confusion, time wasting and mistakes in a never-ending circular process. SuperSucker (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Think about policies as the articles of the constitution, and guidelines as laws"; I think this best encapsulates where our disagreement lies. Our guidelines "guide" and our policies "police" (to an extent) they are not a constitution and they are not laws, they are suggestions and best practices that editors have agreed upon and form the foundation of good editor-editor relations and not the groundwork for state-subject relations. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

100% confusion/bad faith.

So these are your counter-arguments: "Wikipedia is not a State" - "No need for ruthless punishment" - "We are volunteers" - "We don't need a police state" - "Rules are for children" - "Be a sinner and sin boldly" - "Rules are for fools" - "Break the rules" - "Rules should be less strict". That's all?

With due respect, I give up. SuperSucker (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not displayed bad faith (I think) nor have I said most of those things, I agree with statement in quotations 1 - 4, and the rest is either ludicrous or obvious. Statement 1 is obvious, 2 is for police states, 3 yes we are volunteers, 4 is again for a police state, 5,6, and 7 are just plain dumb, 8 is a necessity on occasion, and 9 is covered by IAR. My argument for IAR is; that it serves as a reminder that we are not the law, that we do not govern over subjects, but, collaborate with others and that our policies and guidelines are subject to change and should be treated as best practices only. I don't think your comparison to the constitution and body of law were in bad faith, merely poor comparisons. I wouldn't compare Wiki policy/guidelines to terms of service, let alone a constitution or body of law. The main function of these policies and guidelines is to help direct users in their approach to editing, collaborating, disputing and communicating with editors. The only exceptions that I can think of that exist to IAR are the laws that govern Wikipedia, namely U.S. Law. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK then, I learned something new these days: the rules of wikipedia. Thank you all for your collaborative efforts. SuperSucker (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may interject myself here, since I invoked IAR on AN/I just a while ago. There are many reasons to have this rule, one that I think of personally is; 1. to remove the fear of repercussions when trying to improve the encyclopaedia and especially so for new editors (many editors have complained about the hostile nature of Wikipedia both new and veteran, this rule is fundamental in reminding us and others that we are not the law and that you, the editors, are welcome here on Wikipedia) and 2. to allow an editor to be BOLD when dealing with other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarification

WP:ZEN say:

"Only the use of IAR that is unnoticed is a true use of IAR".

It occurs to me this is ha ha only serious and suggests a simple expansion of the policy, which will easily kill the concerns fruitlessly discussed above.

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

This policy does not allow you to ignore other wikipedans, who may think that yours is not an improvement.

Can someone put this smarter than that? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the single sentence is still better, but if I were to have a go at it:

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

This policy does not allow you to ignore a greater consensus.

One may ignore other Wikipedians as one wishes, one may not ignore a consensus larger than one currently has. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Re: "One may ignore other Wikipedians" - this makes no sense. Just the same I may write "One may vandalize wikipedia". Of course one may, only to be reverted and eventually blocked. No, you cannot ignore even a single wikipedian. You have to engage in a discussion with them. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The current policy is fine. No amount of tweaking would avoid the time wasting above—the only problem in the earlier section is that people kept feeding it. It's ok to let the person objecting have the last word. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No the current policy is NOT fine. We have HUGE number of abuses of the policy and equally inordinate time is wasted by numerous wikipedians explaining again and again that this policy is not this policy is not. Only last month (September) I witnessed 4 "nice tries" of playing the IAR card. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, a on-liner looks great. But wikipedia is not a stand-up comedy show. A policy must be clearly understandable. This one a magnet for wild libertarians. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Here you go; call the devil' name at night: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Please see for yourself how much time was spent by user:Bearcat. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And even more fundamental: Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Default_outcome_of_no_consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reinsert "Alternatives to ignoring all rules"?

I addressed one of poor advices I made. I changed the advice from using IAR as a "last resort" to using IAR at discretion. Shall I reinsert the essay? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I also eliminated poorly-worded advices I made and substituted newer ones, including an advice to write another advice. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Convert to a procedural policy

As title says. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The title just says you want to convert this to a procedural policy. You don't explain why. You don't explain the benefit to Wikipedia by making the change. You don't saying anything about this policy having no procedures. The title does not say it all. - GB fan 12:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As a procedural policy, this would take precedence to all non-legal non-procedural policies. I mean to resolve ambiguity in priority. This change will make IAR having precedence to regular policies. GB fan, as you said, rejecting procedures is also a policy of Wikipedia. See WP:BURO. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No thank you. Different policies have different weightings for different situations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

use of IAR in AfDs

hi all, I am a long time editor and probably participated in over 1000 AfD discussions. I've noticed some editors have tried to invoke WP:IAR into AfDs saying it gives a free pass to ignore any established notability guidelines such as WP:BIO. This has been used in the case of saying a certain occupation is inherently notable when it has not been granted such in any such guideline (and we have numerous occupations and sports people who are granted this). I don't think that's the intent of WP:IAR, to invent inherent notability that isn't in a guideline. ... unless in the case of the AfD this is backed by community consensus. any thoughts? LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts to expand or "clarify" this policy, however all these were rejected in favor of the current laconic catchphrase. And for a reason, which is fairly simple: you can IAR, but you are not a spherical wikipadian in vacuum: once your edit is objected, per WP:BRD you have to work hard to convince people in the merits of your edit or reasoning. I.e., IAR does not mean "on a whim". As applied to AfD: yes you may declare IAR with respect to WP:NOTABILITY, but you have to be extremely convincing. AfD is not a vote and IAR is not an argument per se: it is a "preamble" to a solid argument that in this special case rules do not really apply. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Staszek has it exactly right, but let me gild his lily. This rule simply says that our policies and guidelines are not writ in stone and exceptions can be made, but everything here is done by consensus and IAR doesn't give you the right to make an edit contrary to policy and then to insist on it "because IAR". Policies and guidelines are the recorded consensus of the community and to make an exception to them you have to come to the consensus that there is some good reason, other than just "I don't like it", that the existing rule should not apply in that particular case and that reason should, ideally, acknowledge the reasoning behind the existing rule and explain why the current case is different. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks people. it's what I was thinking, I know of an editor who consistently uses WP:IAR in AfDs to try to get a free pass for notability. This argument is not backed with consensus, in fact everytime he invokes WP:IAR, I can substitute WP:ILIKEIT and it sounds the same. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

IAR itself has a requirement to utilize it "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and seeing whether or not that is the case is itself is a decision to be discussed. BTW, I think that IAR's most common use is against misuse of rules...with their complexity and imperfections, such is common. North8000 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

From What "Ignore all rules" means: "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged"; and "'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule". BTW, I think IAR's most common use is to reassure people that they can just get on with improving the encyclopedia – when it is an improvement – without fretting about the zillion labyrinthine rules first. IAR is used best when it is acted upon without being invoked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Like --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The meaningless words spilled by editors above in defense of this tripe haven't considered what LibStar is saying, at all. IAR is regularly abused to the point that I don't think it should exist, or that it ought to be downgraded to a guideline. The writers above spout their own legalistic claims of nuance while aware that the "laconic" version does not say anything like what they read into it. Meanwhile, editors at AfDs have to deal with a certain audience of inclusionists that invoke IAR. This isn't a BRD situation with an article where a talk page discussion results in consensus. This is about the use of IAR as a logic for keeping articles and deciding admins might be accused of SUPERVOTE if they discount IAR as a rationale. Where are North8000, TransporterMan, or Staszek Lem when that happens? Wikipedia is a bureaucracy; a procedural environment. When we have editors using IAR to allow whatever the hell they want, we leave well-meaning editors in the lurch. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignore rules vs. WP:ACCESSIBILITY

I was engaged in a discussion where an editor hinted about bureaucracy and linked to this page to support not necessarily following MOS. However, WP:ACCESSIBILITY states:

"A standardized structure of articles improves accessibility, because it enables users to expect contents to be in a specific part of the page."

This would also include across-the-board continuity in how and what content is provided in certain articles (e.g. television and film articles). I think it might be time to consider including a caveat about how ignoring rules may affect WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Just my 2 cents. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The key to "ignoring all rules" is that it can not be a unilateral decision... it requires consensus. Any rule can be ignored (even WP:ACCESSIBILITY)... if there is consensus that doing so in a specific instance is in the best interest of the project. That "if" is, however, crucial... in the case you present, it does not sound like there is a consensus. So IAR would not apply.

In other words... there is no need to change the policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with seeking consensus and what IAR needs (imo) is to include a link in one of the two columns to an essay or topic about consensus that cannot be ignored. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In third words, refer these editors to essays listed in the policy. There is a good reason for the KISS text of the policy. By the way, did anyone notice that this is the only policy which is never a sufficient argument is a dispute? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I did say in the discussion that the best approach was to seek consensus. But ... IAR doesn't make that loud and clear. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This Is an Actual Policy Of Wikipedia?!

Is this an actual policy of Wikipedia? It seems like a loop hole for people to vandalize this fine website. JustAGuyOnWikipedia: Is ONLINE. (Merry Christmas!!!) (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is not an improvement, so it is not permitted by this rule. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We assume good faith and that most people (even if they make a bad edit) are not intentionally trying to make a bad edit. That said, if some editors abuse this policy, they can be dealt with with blocks, article and topic bans, and other restrictions. For the most part, I have not encountered this policy being abused. If anything, it's under-used A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add to the above editors' views and recommend you also read WP:SENSE. Lourdes 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a stupid policy that, in principle, undermines and devalues all other policies and guidelines on the project. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

great policy....let's us weed-out those with zero common sense.--Moxy (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How does it do that, by encouraging disruption? Please provide an example of when this policy has enabled the "weeding-out" of a contributor with "zero common sense", and explain 1) why it was better to do it this way rather than by any other, and 2) why it is desirable to have a policy existing for a purpose other than what it purports to be. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is an actual policy. Those of us who craft policies and guidelines (the "rules") do our best... but we can't take into account every possible scenario. Inevitably there are rare cases when we need to make an exception... something that we did not think about when writing the "rules"... an exception that only affects one or two articles. Rather than bloat our policies or guidelines by listing an exception that only affects one or two specific articles, we say "If needed... just ignore the rule". Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That kind of nuance is not what the policy page states. It simply states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It doesn't say anything about applying only to exceptional situations affecting one or two articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to be all inclusive on my comment. I simply gave one example of a situation where blindly following "the rules" might prevent us from improving Wikipedia. There are others. The key is that this policy gives us the ability to be flexible when needed... to deal with unforeseen issues when they arise. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Policy pages already state that policies should normally be followed, with the word 'normally' linked to a blurb about common sense. This policy, as it is currently presented, goes beyond that. Can someone please present an example when it has been necessary to invoke this policy in order to improve the enyclopedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Deliberate invocations of this policy are usually misguided. The policy is meant for persons who want to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith but might be put off by the voluminous and often incoherent and inconsistent policies and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 19:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This Doesn't Make Sense

Isn't this a rule? I don't think this is good advice. 50.49.143.45 (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, most of the time, rules work, so you ignore this ;) Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 03:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Improve and maintain

Much as "rule" is defined by its internal links to "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines", "improve" and "maintain" need a definition. Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we go with the standard English language definitions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

While we might be able to more clearly define "maintain", I don't think it is possible to define "improve" ... as that is a very subjective concept. One editor may think a given edit is an improvement (and thus ignore a rule to make it)... but another editor may disagree with that judgement, and my think the edit is NOT an improvement.

Perhaps this policy needs to acknowledge this, and give some advice on what to do when such disagreements occur (ie don't insist you are correct, stop and discuss the edit on the article talk page... explain why the edit is (or is not) an improvement... and seek outside opinions and consensus). Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff in the linked essays, including Wikipedia:Understanding IAR#Successfully ignoring rules --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Inherent

Since it takes it for granted, this policy needs a direct link to an essay about why it is inherently good to improve Wikipedia, how it helps individuals and the world and universities or something like that. Hyacinth (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Huacinth, Feel free to write that essay... then we will consider whether to link to it. Blueboar (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:GOOD, but that takes one to "good" articles; WP:Benefits, but that talks about creating an account; and WP:Worth it, but that doesn't exist; so I suggest Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding. Hyacinth (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC) (04:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC))

• Philosophy

What philosophy does this policy descend from? Would a link to that philosophy make the policy worse and/or less clear? Hyacinth (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM please stop mucking around here. If you don't like what another editor did, address that point without wasting everyone's time. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Self evident

If this policy is self evident, why should I bother to ask a question about it on the talk page? Hyacinth (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Because something that seems self evident to you may not be self evident to another? And because another editor politely asked you to do so. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there any possible consequences to breaking a rule on Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure there are possible consequences. Editors get blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned every day. It is also possible to break a rule and have no consequences. ~ GB fan 02:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If there are possible negative consequences, yet no possible positive consequences, to breaking a rule on Wikipedia, does it seem responsible to tell someone to break a rule without warning them? Can the reason why it's worth it for an editor to make a losing bet be stated in the policy itself? Hyacinth (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC) (02:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC))

The positive consequence that this policy is talking about is an improvement to the encyclopedia. What the policy says is that you can break a rule if it stops you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. If you think the policy needs changes you can propose them here to get consensus for the change. ~ GB fan 02:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you advise someone to break a law to improve Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No, but what does this have to do with anything? Our policies and guidelines aren't real-world laws. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise someone to break a law, and I also question what that has to do with this policy. ~ GB fan 02:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Every time a user follows this rule and breaks a different rule, they are put at risk. They may be banned for life. That is a fairly solid consequence to receive for following an immaterial rule. Hyacinth (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't "ban for life". As an admin you should know this. You should also know we don't write policy to address (so far out as to be almost invisible) edge cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me an example of when a rule was followed and Wikipedia was harmed. Hyacinth (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. See this? Big scary message saying "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Look at the next edit. I decided (before I became an admin) that after doing the necessary research the IP was incorrect/trolling and restored the blanked article. "Following the rule" would mean our readers would be prevented from accessing the info until the perennially backed up CCI board investigated the case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We must have a misunderstanding because that is an example of this rule being followed that allowed Wikipedia to be improved, the opposite of what I asked for. Hyacinth (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for an example where this was not followed and another rule was followed to bring harm to the encyclopedia? Hopefully there are no examples of that because that would mean we currently have something wrong in the encyclopedia. ~ GB fan 12:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the "point of the policy" and can the goal be stated in the policy itself? Hyacinth (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The point of the policy is already stated, improvement or maintenance of the encyclopedia. ~ GB fan 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What historical edits is this a response to or criticism of? If this policy instead is anticipatory, what makes editors assume that other users would harm the encyclopedia? Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I suspect you are not the Hyacinth, but someone who usurped this account :-). user:Hyacinth has been on Wikipedia for nearly as long as this rule has been here. The true Hyacinth would have known that the first place to look for the origins of the rule is its very first talk archives. Be it known to ye'all the rule was set forth at these auld lang syne when Wikipedia was feeble and its rules were both weak and strong. And these were few and confusing, including the very this one. Today the rules are no more few but infinitely more confusing and infinitely more strong and scary. So if one pauses and tries to contemplate and fathom and grasp and grok the whole wholeness of the Code of Wikipedia and its exegeses, they will never dare to even replace a dot with a full stop. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Only experienced editors will recognize that the internal link, within "rules", to "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines", makes it so that the policy only refers to Wikipedia rules when it says "rules". Noneditors may assume at first glance that the policy refers to any and all rules, including laws. Hyacinth (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I have to suggest you step away from the computer and come back when your judgement is less... impaired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should WP:AGF and stop assuming that I am opposed to this policy in any way. Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said you're opposed to this policy. I am saying some of the comments you're making are ridiculous and show a lack of common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, unlike most of this chat, the last remark about a surpizing wikilink actually makes sense. I've been fixing non-evident wikipipes from common words for as long as I remember myself here. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes

Can people please stop messing around with a one sentence major policy and propose changes here first? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Come ON! ... Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jokes aside, it is way no longer a major policy. Pray tell me how many a time you told a newcomer to use it? In my practice I was always telling NOT to (mis)use it. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I rarely advise new editors to use it... but I do remind experienced editors that they can use it. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's a good reminder that one does not have to learn wikilawyering unless there is a controversy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that it has an immense impact by merely existing. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this discussion about? Should the page be protected or frozen, as is, if some editors are intent on changing it by themselves? It is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, and is actually a non-policy policy, and, as the fifth pillar of this entire encyclopedic project, has a long history and certainly has its uses. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I read it as saying that too often people are making big changes to a core policy without any discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what the pillar protects against. There are so many rules and regs being written and voted upon that only one or maybe a handful of people are aware of each individual change or even of major policy shifts, and this pillar is a protection against anyone using the policies and guidelines for their own agenda, especially those which are little known or worded in a wiki-lawyering way. Enough people seem to be watching this to protect it against vandalism, so my question is, to save those watchers time, should it be permanently protected so someone can't just wander in and change a word or two. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And stop doing nonsense like this. And you're right about what you wrote above. It also ties into the 'B' part of WP:BRD. For example, if a newbie adds some good content but puts the source as an external link alongside the text, I'm not going to revert and yell at them for breaking the "no external links in the article body" rule. A thank you and some guidance are much more in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Why the freaking heck is it nonsense? Every policy and guideline has a "nutshell" hatnote. This one was missing. Your revert with edit summary 'come ON!' is hardly enlightening. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeating the entirety of the policy in the nutshell is unneeded and makes us look like unthinking robots. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is your (I'd say reasonable) opinion. However in my opinion this repetition only stresses the policy. I do not think that the added nutshell will increase the number of people thinking "this is nuts" after reading the policy, as this very talk page proves. (Anyway, I am not insisting on my change.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole struggle to keep this haiku of a policy in the form of an deep-thoughtful hauiku despite numerously reported misuses smacks of religious dogmaticism. The very fact that the shortest policy ever collected the longest talk archive is telling. It has much become like a verse from Koran which probably made sense to wild nomads back then, but today requires lots of tafsir freaking lots of Wikipedia essays to explain it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"There is a good reason for the KISS text of the policy" someone once said :-) But any changes should be suggested and workshopped here, instead of making policy changes on the fly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is. But there is probably an equally good reason why time and again new generations of Wikipedians are coming to try and "fix" it. Could it be a good idea to add a disclaimer-like hatnote to this talk page, compiled from talkarchives, as a quick reference to aspiring improvers of this policy? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Would be a better idea to just fully protect the page. The good faith addition of a nutshell which repeats the pillar in full would bring consistency to the site-wide use of nutshells, but because all it does is repeat the policy directly under it, it's not needed and makes the page look unusually repetitive. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference is it's brevity. If you don't count other links, it's just one sentence. So ANY change is a major change. I don't know about protecting it, but as a minimum we should add something making that point and saying that any changes to core wording are major changes to a core policy and would first need a strong consensus in talk. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the current edit notice and if there are tweaks we can agree on, I'll make them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

How bout adding "any change to the text of this core policy is a major change." — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential addition for discussion

I think the IAR policy would benefit from including a caveat... something to warn newer editors that ignoring the rules can be controversial. We should make it clear that there may be disagreement as to whether ignoring a particular rule actually does "improve or maintain" the article. Thus, when ignoring a rule, editors should be prepared to answer questions, to engage with others on the relevant talk page. They should be prepared to explain how (in their opinion) ignoring the rule will improve or maintain the article... and finally, something that says editors should defer to consensus if others disagree with their opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like something that says, "If IAR is the only justification you can provide for your actions, then you're using the policy wrong". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point / explanation. But is there really a problem to be solved there? And the cost would opening the floodgates of cluttering up this policy.North8000 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, and any of these concerns can be covered in the See also section if they're not already. The minimal text of the page seems fine as is, and any tinkering or explanations will only add or subtract to the policy (actually one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia), and thus subtly or unsubtly change it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a thinning of the herd rule... if people don't have the common sense to understand it....I don't think they should be editing here at all. No need for change.....it allows us to see who has common sense to edit here.... if someone needs more of an explanation they shouldn't be here.--Moxy (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, some people grew up and exist in pretty regimented environments so I have some sympathy when they ask, "what the heck is this?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your right in a way.... the old days of Wikipedia our gone....we no longer are filled with academic individuals but people with their own point of view and causes. But we have many essays that cover this.--Moxy (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge content from essays

I don't see why this policy should remain at just one sentence. The essays under See Also are quite useful in improving the policy. Proposing to add content from Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time, Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules – a beginner's guide, Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Versions. KingAndGod 15:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO, in general, such would detract from / dilute it. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archives are bulging and bursting with suggestions akin to yours. The answer was always "No". I don't see why -- read the archives. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Should not IAR be worded "Use discretion when applying the rules"?

That's what it seems like to me in the enforcement region. Ellenor2000 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Columns and templates

Sorry, but I think some of the formatting on this page looks weird, so I wanted to discuss it and maybe fix it. Let me start with the least controversial part: I want an asterisk before {{wikiquote-inline|Rules}} so that it appears as a member of the list rather than as a paragraph. I previously got a WP:LISTGAP fix undone and then redone on another page, so I try to be more careful this time.

Next, why is the see also section written in two columns? And why did you put the __NOEDITSECTION__ template in there? I'm guessing the columns were added because of the length of the section and because it contained lists, and the section editing links removed because getting them in the middle of columns is confusing. But really, something with headings in it looks weird when split into columns. If you really want columns, I'd suggest applying them to individual lists and making sure each list is visually separated from the others. Template:div col can be made to insert horizontal lines between the sections, but I think these lists are so short it might look better without columns entirely. And why is the table of contents explicitly removed? The page is short enough that it won't have a TOC by default anyway. Only users who set an option in their preferences to display it will be affected by __NOTOC__. So why do we have it then?

I feel like the noeditsection thing was probably to make it slightly less obvious how to edit the page so it wouldn't get vandalized as much. How much vandalism it stops could probably be seen by looking at the edit history before and after that template got added. But notoc doesn't do anything, so it probably shouldn't be there. So is it okay if I remove notoc and the columns and to add the asterisk before the last list element? If I can't get rid of the columns, could I at least make the number of columns react to the width of the screen, as they actually look cramped when I resize the window or change the default font size? Div col should be able to do that. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The wikiquote stuff has gone and that seems desirable. NOTOC is not doing anything at the moment but if there were more (short) sections it would useful because the point of this page is to be an exception to how things are generally done, with a focus on the very short point of the policy. Similarly NOEDITSECTION is just right here. Maybe fiddle with the columns if there would be some material benefit, however it should be two columns on a desktop-sized screen. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a third user decided to make it three columns in the meantime. Forced three columns, that is, so these will be even narrower on small screens. The third column was for the read aloud version, which isn't really a "see also" thing. If they want it back in the see also section, they can explain why here on the talk page.

As for NOEDITSECTION, it makes all but the lead section hard to edit on mobile. Try editing this if you want to see for yourselves. Most people wouldn't want to edit the lead section anyway, whereas See also and it subsections actually have stuff that people will change from time to time. If it's there to make some people think the page can't be edited at all, you could say that. – Pretended leer {talk} 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

May be dangerous

Coming here after checking a recent emergency desysop. It is a dangerous rule: e.g. one day a "superadmin" (e.g. a Founder) may overuse their authority and shut WP down, resulting in many forks or worse. Ping me if you have comments. Zezen (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Um... we don’t have “superadmins” on Wikipedia (no one has that sort of authority... not even the founders). Also... this policy could not be “misused” to shut down WP... as doing that would not “maintain or improve Wikipedia”. So, I don’t think we need to worry. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on List of suicide crisis lines and WP:IAR, etc.

I have created an RfC on the application of WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, and WP:IAR as it pertains to the content of the article List of suicide crisis lines. The RfC is located here. Thank you. 9³ (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The Fifth Pillar

If Wikipedia has no rules, but instead policies and guidelines, then this page is both misleading and unnecessary. One need not ignore rules which do not exist, and Wikipedia contributors should not be misled to think that there are rules if there are none. To be clear, I am not saying that "a Wiki[pedia] without rules" is terrifying or risky. "Wikipedia has no firm rules...Wikipedia has policies and guidelines." Hyacinth (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you read the exact language of WP:Five pillars, it says “Wikipedia has no firm rules” (bolding added by me for emphasis). In other words, WP actually does have rules... in fact it has has MANY rules, but they are meant to be flexible... and can be adapted, amended ... and even ignored... when the situation calls for it. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A proposal

I am proposing to revert to Jimmy's wording and escalate this into being a conduct policy. Erkin Alp Güney 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide that version for comparison? As for escalating not sure I see a change that would result in higher status as policy is policy. --Moxy 🍁 17:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Rendered: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=921065849

Conduct policies have precedence over miscellanous policies. Erkin Alp Güney 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

On some other hand, at the Book it's listed as a site-wide policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Should probably stay as is, but will watch the discussion. The 2011 sound-bite on the page recites the current long-term language. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

History

For comparison with the first draft of this wonderful policy, see see this edit] by Lee Daniel Crocker (otherwise known as "the creator"). I'm not suggesting that the policy go back to this language, just interested to ask him here (if he monitors his account) to please give a bit of the history of how you came up with the idea of an "Ignore all rules" page, the thought process, and your thoughts on how it has evolved. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that the rule was actually created by Larry Sanger, but it wasn't originally on a separate page. (It was on a page suggesting that perhaps there ought to be some rules on Wikipedia, and it was given as the first suggested rule.) --Zundark (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the page in question, as it was on 16 April 2001: RulesToConsider. --Zundark (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and the good add to the history. It shows the supporters, including Sanger, but did Larry Sanger write it (also noticed that Jimbo Wales supported it). WojPob, AyeSpy, OprgaG, and Invictus. Maybe some of them can write about the thought process and the policy evolution. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanger wrote it, and he says a bit about the reasoning behind it in his memoir The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir. --Zundark (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. A good Wikipedia history resource. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia loss of creative contributions

The original rule spoke to the need to for Wikipedia be a welcoming place for people to contribute, as well as to establish that the framework is self defined and flexible (avoiding nosy neighbor types complaining about how people break rules). This seems very prescient, as many of the pages have fallen into disrepair and once major improvement projects have been abandoned for so long that the rating system is completely broken. All because it is too painful for people to contribute due to:

• the rules we impose
• the nosy neighbors reverting content because it breaks rules instead of fixing it
• the lack of a community that accepts casual contributors that may be IP

It takes a welcoming community that values its contributors to keep wikipedia alive. I strongly advocate language that can be seen as giving leverage to the viewpoint that ignoring rules is critical to becoming a more welcoming community and fixing issues rather than punishing individuals by reverting and warnings should be the SOP. I do not know if this would help, but it is important to slow the decline in any way we can.192.26.8.4 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

If somebody uses IAR as an excuse for vandalism, do administrators also use that as an excuse for the block? 83.9.194.6 (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Already answered at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:IAR. - Station1 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

188.163.99.14 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No change has been suggested. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

From an old arbitration case

I found this on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#"Ignore_all_rules":

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

EEng 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have on many occasions ignored a rule here, but I would not dare ignore arbcom :) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedias 9th amendment

This is really just Wikipedias 9th amendment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed wording tweaks for fifth pillar link

The current wording for the fifth pillar link in the see also section is The 5th of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has no firm rules. That language is a little clunky, which definitely stands out in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible. See also links are normally just the page title, so I'd be alright with the very simple Fifth pillar of Wikipedia, but if we're going to spell it out, I'd prefer Fifth pillar of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". My reasoning for the tweaks:

• "Fifth" should be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL and because WP:Five pillars spells it out in the page title.
• "Pillars" should not be capitalized, again to match the destination page title.
• "The" should be removed per WP:THE.
• The fact that the fifth pillar is the last of the five pillars is mediumly important, but not so essential as to be needed here. Anyone who clicks through will see its positioning.
• Whether or not to include quote marks is the element I'm least sure about, but it should be consistent with the line directly beneath it, which puts quote marks around "ignore all rules", so for now let's do the same here.

Does all this sound alright? Thanks for humoring my pickiness. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember, Sdkb, to avoid confusion all humoring must be marked with {{humor}} or a similar indicator. EEng 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• To tweak your good idea a bit, how about: Wikipedia's fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The quotes are in the last item because the linked page uses quotes. The just-above suggestion is good but it's too visually jarring to not have all words in blue. I would write:

• Wikipedia's fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules
• Ignore all rules essays and related topics

Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• All blue works on the fifth pillar wording, but the italics don't fit with Wikipedia style. It actually reads as if it could go without quote marks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

thank you , danke ,merci , dziekuje serdecznie i pozdrawiam. Jey8900 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool that you confirmed an understanding of "in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible". I have not pondered the details, but generally support the effort on and general nature of those minor tweaks.North8000 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing the wording

@Johnuniq: You have reverted my edit on adding an ArbCom decision into the page. I indeed should have first waited for community consensus or added a topic on this Talk page. So I'll just throw it here anyway.

Background for people who are not Johnuniq: I edited the page to include this wording from a 2009 ArbCom case: "However, ignore all rules should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.". This was reverted by Administrator Johnuniq.

You stated in your revert message this (rhetorical) question: "Does ArbCom dictate community policy?". While I do not know this, I assume, by the way you worded this, that the answer is "no". I have not fully immersed myself in the Wikipedia/ArbCom policies, but I thought the Arbitration Committee was a sort of Supreme Court of Wikipedia and resolved not only user cases, but also dictated how Wikipedia guidelines/policies should be interpreted (as in the USA the Supreme Court dictates how the law should be interpreted). There probably is some weird shortcut (WP:XXX) that proves me wrong, you can comment that with a ping.

Regardless of the role ArbCom playes in this, I think the wording of the article should be changed. Editors, especially newcomers, can think: "This is for the good of Wikipedia, so per WP:IAR I can do this", all the while only weighing in their personal opinion and not the community consensus.(What Johnuniq called: "doing dumb things")

Maybe we can come to a resolution. Or I'm completely wrong, you can say that too (with arguments please). I'd like to have a discussion anyway.

ItzLarz (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't need extra wording. As for facilitating IAR usage, that's always been handled on a case-by-case basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO such extra wording would be bad. The impact of the policy is due to it's brevity. And the interaction with other policies does not need to be covered in this policy, There have been hundreds of extra things that people have wanted to add. Suggest reading some of the archives here if interested. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a page with a clear answer to my question but standard procedure is that the community sets policy. The Arbitration Committee resolves arguments in accord with existing policies. See the first line or two of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. A lot of people don't get the point of IAR but experience shows that adding words does not improve the situation. The purpose of IAR is to encourage a bold action that would benefit the project although whether it was a benefit might not be apparent for a while. Ultimately, if enough people decide an IAR action was not beneficial, it will be reversed. Meanwhile, it is refreshing to have this short policy waiting for the rare occasions when it is useful. The "see also" section has a bunch of information and opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That purpose is served by WP:BOLD. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this addition is needed. Perhaps it belongs in one of the several essays on the subject. This policy is short and simple on purpose. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IAR's alleged merit of brevity is to be seen in the broader context of it being logically nonsensical and ultimately counterproductive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. It is really not that complicated and after almost 20 years of use it has been very productive and caused very few problems. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was complicated. That people have interpretations that make sense to them from something that is clearly not logically consistent in any way objectively applicable is exactly the problem. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish IAR could be applied to WP:JOBTITLES. Even though I am carrying out JOBTITLES commandments, concerning article content. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

But it does apply to that. Right up until people decide that it doesn't. Problem in a nutshell. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is missing the joke template

People might think this is serious. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK so you have expressed your opinion, via implying that a widely held view is not "serious". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Easy, North8000, they are a day-old account. I think they were being serious. Still learning the rules, I'm sure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought that that was "easy" :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes two days, not one. :) Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? I wasn't voicing my opinion, I sincerely thought it was missing.

This makes no sense. Say I was making a death threat to John Doe and I wanted to add it to Wikipedia. Would that be against the rules? No, not if I made a page about Anonymous from Stack Overflow's death threat to John Doe, because Wikipedia was lacking information about that previously. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The key to understanding WP:IAR is that we can ignore a rule ”if the rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia”. Making a death threat against another person does not “improve or maintain Wikipedia”, and so our civility rules should not be ignored.

Reporting on (ie writing an article about) a death threat might be ok… if the incident is covered in reasonable depth by independent secondary sources (but then, that would be in compliance with our rules - so no rule is being ignored by writing the article). Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to add Template:Humor to this page?

Hello there, I'm not sure if I did this in an earlier archive, but if not, I feel like the article itself is just simply too short as of now, to make it "valid" for the humor template. So, I 'd like to request if you could add it, because I think it would fit perfectly into the article. Thank you. 🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This content on this page is not meant to be humorous. Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and that's putting it mildly. Marking a core policy page as being humor is unthinkable.North8000 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This should say that you must obey the US law

The US law can't be ignored, even if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bridge to cross by individual case, not by text language. How will breaking a U.S. law improve the encyclopedia (i.e. copyright infringement is not an improvement). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we also mention the laws of physics? I don't think we need to mention either. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a good question though by a new editor, shows that they are thinking of the welfare of the project and individual editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came off as snotty. I did not realize this was such a new user. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the question. I think that the answer is that it is referring to Wikipedia rules. And to answer the possible next question, we don't want to make it longer to explicitly say that. We've kept it that way (through the hundreds of things that people have wanted to add) because its brevity gives it strength and focus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you still have to obey the United States law, as well as local laws, international laws and Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, even if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. WPEditor42 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There may be other exceptions to the ignore all rules policy. WPEditor42 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Page expansion

I think that this page should be expanded to indicate what IAR means and does not mean in the policy, not necessarily in essays. I think it would make the page more accessible and summarize the key points of WP:IAR? and implement them in the policy. If no objections are raised, I'd be happy to do it. Interstellarity (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would object… what makes this policy beneficial is its simplicity… I don't think it needs further explanation. If you feel that a rule is hindering your ability to improve Wikipedia, ignore it and improve Wikipedia.

The only thing that I think might be added would be a caveat noting that (when you ignore a rule) it is likely that other editors will object, and you will have to convince them that "ignoring the rule" actually results in an improvement. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

When I first read this comment I was going to reply against adding anything to the page to keep the simplicity of the rule and page intact; but after reading Blueboar's comment, I would not object adding the caveat mentioned above for the reasons above. Johnson524 (Talk!) 23:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Adding words rarely achieves its aim. The policy is fine the way it is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This policy is a source of great reassurance.

I only came across this today, despite being a daily Wikipedia user for 20 years. It's an extraordinarily positive policy to have. Knowing that ultimately the useful furtherance of the project takes precedence over the letter of any rule, and that this itself is codified somewhere, sends a very positive message about Wikipedia's administrative priorities. It also gives people a leg to stand on when making a positive change that would otherwise be prevented by policy. I've always followed 'Be bold' in that same vein in the past, but this goes further, and it made me very happy to see it. I agree that brevity is crucial to how it makes its point. Peskydan (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This is often misunderstood to give people the right to make a change that they see as being for the benefit of the encyclopedia even though it violates a policy or guideline and then to edit war over it or demand its inclusion when others disagree and point out that the inclusion violates some policy. Everything here - including the existence and the wording of this policy - works by consensus and policies are the recorded consensus of the community. What this pillar does is, first, it gives the right to in general edit boldly (there are some exceptions such as this and this which can cause an editor to be blocked for even a single edit) and then, second, to argue (not demand or insist), typically through discussion on the talk page, that a policy should not be followed in a particular circumstance and to obtain consensus that it should not. But in operation, unless you can obtain such a consensus (most often called a "local exception" to a policy) then the policy will apply.

You say, "It also gives people a leg to stand on when making a positive change that would otherwise be prevented by policy." But it's not much of a leg. If your argument as to why policy should not apply is little more than "I don't like it" that's not going to carry much weight. And the same is true if you merely argue that the change is super important in your point of view. (Due to the MEDRS policy's sourcing requirements we regularly exclude medical information that some people think is incredibly and vitally important to people's health.) And the same is true about an argument that the policy just shouldn't prohibit it in the first place (in that case you'll probably be told you need to seek to get the policy itself changed). The kind of argument that can work to make an exception is that the information that you want to add is a kind of idea, subject matter, or "wrinkle" that is utterly new and novel and was never even considered when the policy was made. Successful arguments of that kind are few and far between because most of Wikipedia's policies, especially the "big" ones that tend to be used to exclude information, have been fought over and refined to the point that coming up with something that's never been considered is highly unlikely.

In short, this policy is important but in practice it's more of an ideal or principle. You're already making the primary use of it by editing boldly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignoring all rules isn't anarchy, it means that you can break the rules IF it improves the encyclopedia, and IF a rule is standing in the way, and (only) IF a consensus would agree with you. This is most commonly done with formatting, galleries, and the like. Not so much with actual content. If you are reverted, you go to the talk page, you never edit war over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me this page is a joke. This does not re-direct to an official policy. Furthermore, there are rules and locks for a reason. Even if this policy was true, this page should be written in a different tone, at absolute minimum. StrategicReview (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a joke. It's essentially a brief restatement of Wikipedia's fifth pillar (which even links to this page). And rewording has been discussed and rejected many times. --Zundark (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I must be on the wrong rendition of Wikipedia. Do you have a link to the discussions for where this has been rejected. I'll fix it on this version of wikipedia too. StrategicReview (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@StrategicReview, you could start by reading through the most recent archived discussions: Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 19. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2023

@User:StrategicReview… you complain that this page “does not re-direct to an official policy”… that is because it IS an official policy. Official policies don’t redirect to other official policies. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)