Wikipedia talk:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Ok, since this was removed from WP:IAR to avoid the potential for snowballing, I've followed the original suggestion by putting the text on its own page. Since this is a meta-meta-rule, I expect that people will have all sorts of ideas, complaints, etc. I ask that you discuss them here before changing the article itself. Al 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'd just ignore all rules and be bold. Though, for now, it's cool :-) Nice one! Kim Bruning 20:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins unblocking themselves

Can I repeat a suggestion I made a few months back? There are some editors who believe that WP:IAR never applies to admins unblocking themselves, even if it is manifest that a block has been inappropriately applied. There are others who believe it can apply. Should it not be mentioned on this page? David | Talk 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing every thing that IAR does not apply to would be silly. We could also say "Ignore All Rules does not apply those who wish to blank hundreds of articles a day which they don't like" or "Ignore All Rules does not apply to those who want to upload child porn pictures and link to them in random articles", etc. Any suggestions given need to be general. --Xyzzyplugh 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not out of ignorance

I'd argue this point. The path to becoming a solid editor is always bounded on either side by a vast ignorance. "IAR" is, in part, there to diminish the timidity of the beginner. I still get occasional references to the Manual of Style from other editors -- that doesn't mean my contributions haven't been worthwhile, especially since the MOS references grow fewer with time. There are way too many rules and special cases for an effective editor to always know exactly what rules apply to all actions. I would suggest that learning editors simply be conscious and conscientious, by frequently checking their revised pages to see what "ignored rules" have been red-flagged by others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, and we certainly shouldn't be suggesting that "you need to know all the rules before you do anything", but that's essentially covered by WP:BOLD. The current split gives a somewhat distinct scope between the two, which may be somewhat expositionally clearer. Alai 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer pressure

"Suggestions on how to ignore all rules" is a lame name.

Come on, all the cool WP:IAR spinoffs have good names. And shortcuts. You don't want to be the only IAR spinoff with a lame name and no shortcut, do you? 192.75.48.150 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a better name, and we'll use it. --Xyzzyplugh 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping you'd give me a better name, and I'd use it. But fine. Based on recent edits, how about "Suggestions on how best to increase instruction creep." 192.75.48.150 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also refactor a guideline page *down*, based on experience, you know :-) Kim Bruning 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. How about we call this page "Suggestions on how to change policy". 192.75.48.150 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already have one of those. (though that one's dysfunctional) Kim Bruning 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Understanding Ignore all rules"? I'd like to see a page tackle the history and progression of IAR, the "IAR cycle", mention all the spin-off pages. You a good NPOV wikipdia article about IAR. -- Isogolem 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Compleat Idiot's Guide to Ignoring All Rules ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed Guideline

Usually guidelines are detailed suggestions and help on following a certain policy, (for example WP:AGF is a suggestion to follow WP:CIV). This essay is the closest thing to a clear description of following WP:IAR, so I propose it to be upgraded to official guideline. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|^o ^n|it!> 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually guidelines have so-called "consensus", and this was turfed from IAR more or less because it didn't. 192.75.48.150 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be several disclaimers and corollaries on WP:IAR, but they were removed by Jimbo Wales to keep the rule simple and short. There are several people on both sides of the issue. If you wish to make this a guideline or add it to IAR, I'd suggest you draw in more interest, e.g. from the village pump. >Radiant< 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming. -- Isogolem 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major problem

First of all, this essay was created by User:Alienus who, aside from being banned, was a troll.

Second, this essay is nonsense (e.g. "ignoring should be done carefully and intentionally, not out of ignorance.").

There are two major parts of IAR: the first part is not taking pains to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and following them to the letter. That is, no one should be required to read every policy before doing something when the reason they are doing it is to improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and decisions do not need to be made by exhaustive references to statutes and case law; they need only be made by referring to reasons related to improving the encyclopedia. In this part, if someone points out the consensus reached on some guideline, one can still follow that. This essay is completely at odds with IAR here.

A second part of IAR is knowing some written rule, but being flexible with it or making exceptions to it, or disregarding it entirely, in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. This part appears to be what this essay was supposed to be for, but the essay itself is still nonsense and remains directly contradictory to the more significant purpose of IAR. —Centrx→talk • 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this opinion, and I think WP:DICK is more in tune with the deep and subtle meanings of WP:IAR. Because of this essay I thought WP:IAR was more of an admin thing, or more related to things like 3RR; but it is not, I sometimes catch myself arguing to be right instead of trying to reach consensus and improve articles. This essay again encourages such ways of thinking, WP:IAR is paradoxical and very Zen, explaining it with a bulleted list only ruins it, WP:DICK has all my support, it learned a lot by reading it. --Merzul 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two major authors, Alienus, and this fellow, who was trying to quarantine admin drama so that IAR wasn't ruined for the rest of us. Not much has happened since. 192.75.48.150 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that wikipedia has been here for 6 years and is TOP10 website, the focus should be more on new or regular users. I'm basically saying admins should probably already know what these policies mean. However, if the annotations that I added to WP:IAR are kept, then this essay could be put back with the comment that this is the interpretations for admins. My concern is that users shouldn't think this is an admin thing only. --Merzul 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reorg'd a bit. It certainly shouldn't give the impression that this is only an admin thing! Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this page would need to be renamed to "Suggestions to administrators on how to disregard rules", which is really not the same as IAR. —Centrx→talk • 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 1

Someone's trying to "expand" IAR again. While some of the material is pretty good, I think IAR itself should be kept short and to the point. I think this is the place for that material. The rewrite needed to incorporate that could also deal with any problems mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. --Random832(t c) 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I believe IAR should always be the one sentence that it currently is. It can link to other guidelines like this one - that's okay. YechielMan 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Given the comments above and the recent discussion on WT:IAR, I have greatly expanded and rewritten this. I've also given it a title which doesn't suck. Enjoy. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for putting the re-write on this page? Shouldn't they be split up? The previous "Suggestions on how to ignore all rules" was complete bunk created by a now-banned user. I don't see any reason to associate it with a legitimate essay which is not derived from it. —Centrx→talk • 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a 3-liner from a banned user, but there were always other hands involved. The "hey - don't worry about it" was added within 24 hours of its creation. Then merging with some other essays was proposed. And here we are, it just sort of worked out that way. If you would like to restore the old essay under the old title, that's fine too. Doesn't sound like you care too much for it, though. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the way through, the essence of the page was these three lines (with such absurd gems like "Before ignoring some rules, make sure you know what rules apply"). The introduction that was previously added is mostly fluff. The purpose here is to disassociate this legitimate essay from the essentially unrelated previous essay, and for no one in the future to look back at the page history and think that the previous version was sound. —Centrx→talk • 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

So it is written, so let it be done. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works?

The essay asserts this, but I think the jury is still out on this one. Sure it's been successful at aggregating a lot of information, but the accuracy of that information edited anonymously by anyone is still at question. Sure it's an essay and can take a position, but I hope a casual reader will question the rose-tinted view expressed here. —M (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the rest of that section is incredibly naive. The oversight function is one that very few can override. And actions by Jimbo are generally never overridden. This essay used to be helpful advice for new admins on how to ignore the rules like not blocking after a 3rr violation. Now it's just propoganda. —M (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it the rest of the section comes off that way, that is not at all what I meant. Normal functions can be undone. The next section deals with higher privilege levels. As to my rose-coloured glasses, well, yes, and I'm not sure that the ability of anonymous users to edit is relevant here. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, pretty much the way it was before: a section saying "if you're not an admin, don't worry about it", followed by "if you are an admin, think about this". I have, of course, greatly expanded the first part. The second part is roughly the same, but refocused on what seems to me underlies most IAR complaints, namely the perception and/or the reality of a power divide. Requiring administrators to know all rules beforehand, as pointed out above, is basically nonsense. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]