Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcut

WT:IAR

This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy.

This box: []

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Lui (2013-05-11). "Why Wikipedia's Millionth Russian Page Is Worth Celebrating". Simulacrum. Archived from the original on 2013-06-09. Retrieved 2013-06-09.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19

/Draft1
Straw poll (permanently active)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Legal Concerns regarding how the policy is laid out

I am not a lawyer, but there are Wikipedia policies with legal considerations. These rules are firmer than the regular policies. There might be needed clarifications. Thank you - Writehydra - talk page 20:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we only apply this policy in situations where a policy/rule is preventing us from improving an article. A edit that breaks a law would not be an improvement, and so IAR would not apply. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wouldn't, "Crimes are not permitted on Wikipedia." apply to all articles, policies, guidelines, and so on? I can't think of a way to note this that wouldn't be superfluous. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention an exception about the License, Disclaimer etc. My idea? Luhanopi (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent or hinder

Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. JLCop (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. I can sort of see an argument for "hinders" instead of "prevents", because of the slightly different meaning. However my understanding about the consensus for this page is that we want the English, and the logic, very simple. I don't think anyone wants this page to be used for subtle legalistic arguments about relative inconveniences. Switching "improving or maintaining" to "bettering" means you remove "maintaining", which is however vitally important. You would also once again switch to more unusual wording. I prefer plain everyday English wherever possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "your ability" would also empower the more novice editors, and who knows, maybe the veterans as well.

Based on your comments, I would leave it at this:

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

What do you think? @Andrew Lancaster

JLCop (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding "your ability to" is a good idea either, based on the same reasoning I mentioned above about keeping the English and the logic simple. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems JLCop (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the point... It relies on community oversight and consensus to manage potential misuse. JLCop (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew. 'Hinder' and 'better' (as a verb) are relatively uncommon words and the simplicity of this policy is its strength. I'm also not sure that the intention behind switching 'prevents' to 'hinders' is correct. IAR is a safety valve for bad rules or bad applications of rules. Rules like WP:BLP, WP:BRD or WP:COIEDIT make it more difficult to improve the encyclopaedia without preventing it, for good reason, so they shouldn't be ignored for that alone. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of IAR is to allow editors the flexibility to improve Wikipedia even when rules might pose obstacles. It is not meant to encourage Reckless Disregard for important policies.

If a rule hinders but doesn't completely prevent improvement, editors can assess the situation to determine if ignoring the rule is justifiable. JLCop (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also empowers editors to improve Wikipedia effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to cover all of those nuances would turn it into a big complicated page, the opposite of what has been accepted and wanted. . And those are already taken care of by how this policy operates, and interacts with the fuzzy Wikipedia ecosystem. It currently has the strong, brief, simple widely accepted language. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew, Joe, and North. The policy is simple and direct. It serves its intended purpose as written. I don't think the proposed rewrite is an improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a good argument? Ethereal Whisper (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shu ha ri

Seems like folks missed the link with Shu ha ri. ( "follow the rules, break the rules, transcend the rules" )

I figured surely it must have been discussed at least, but I couldn't find mention in the archives so quickly.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that it is really connected… but… whatever. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or not

can this be used to violate the three reverts edit warring rule 119.234.4.105 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full article reads -

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

Can you provide an example where violating the three-revert rule would improve or maintain Wikipedia? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith reverts to remove vandalism is one example (however, since this is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a “violation”). Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this rule apply?

I was going to add to an article from the corresponding article on the Spanish WP, but the Spanish article only cited two sources throughout. I felt that I shouldn't translate any information over to the English article because of lack of citations. Should I have just added the info? The article in question: Herrera, Seville. BigChrisKenney (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right venue for your question.....the article talk page would be the best spot. But, as a quick note, there's a rule against adding un-sourcable material, there isn' a categorical rule agains adding unsourced material. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BigChrisKenney In the future, general purpose questions tend to get pretty good answers on WP:TEAHOUSE and HELP:DESK. I also agree with North8000 that Talk:Herrera, Seville is a better place to discuss this.

Regarding translating un-cited material, people do that a lot and really it just depends on the article and the content. In this case, I see hard facts in the geography section that are verifiable even though they are not cited. Citations would improve that content, but it likely meets WP:V without them. Compare it to a section like Jeep Cherokee (XJ)#Axles where the citations are absent, but it's all hard facts that can be checked.

Further down I see things like, "Si por algo se caracteriza el pueblo de Herrera es por las infraestructuras deportivas (más abajo detalladas) y por la amplia participación ciudadana en el deporte y la cantidad de eventos que se realizan la categoría que poseen." which probably needs a citation and in-text attribution (who says this characterizes the town?). Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]