Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Clarification for "ignore all rules"

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

Example:

If disruptive editing (which is a guideline) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia which does (example exhausting the community's patience), ignore it? Sheep (talk • he/him) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing never improves Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of disruptive editing? I have concerns that an editor is engaging in such, but would prefer clarification before I process. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There are examples at WP:Disruptive editing. That is the best place to start. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a place to seek review of an IAR choice?

Hello! I don't want to misuse this talk page and bring up a specific instance of IAR, but I recently made an IAR choice and disregarding a Wikipedia guideline in a way that affects the style of, in effect, an entire page. While I think I've made the right choice—and it's ultimately a style issue rather than a content issue, so the stakes are low, I was wondering if there's some forum asking for a second opinion on IAR decisions.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If such IAR edit might be considered controversial – consider starting a discussion on the corresponding talk page first, before doing the edit. If an "IAR choice" gets reverted, follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

If a particular talk page isn't attracting responses to your query, consider inviting people to the discussion on a relevant WikiProject or a noticeboard. All such invites should link to the original talk page – make sure to avoid discussion forks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! Yeah, unfortunately I appear to be the only editor around on the page. Since I don't think the choice is that controversial, I'll just go with BRD and will be fine if down the line another editor disagrees and reverts.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This policy is perfect.

I remember, many years ago, on an unmentionable BADSITE written as a loose parody of this one, there was a template that got put at the top of articles sometimes. It looked like one of our maintenance templates, but instead it just said:

I often find myself wishing we had one of these for Wikipedia. If we did, it would belong on this policy. Twelve words -- and twelve perfect words. What beauty! What simplicity! What power! jp×g 19:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Punk rock as hell, I agree. _Dial^mayo 12:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This policy is absurd

Who's moronic idea was this policy? Seriously, this gives anyone the license to violates Wikipedia policies and guideliens whenever they want, as all they have to do is self-servingly declare that their edits, even if unambiguous violations, are an "improvement"! Indeed, another editor just did this. Explain this to me. Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the most important thing to remember in any action taken on Wikipedia, whether you are following the rules to the letter or very loosely or ignoring them completely, is the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" part. Does your action actually improve or maintain any part of the encyclopedia? If not, then why are you doing it? If a slavish devotion to the rules causes you to take an action that does not improve or maintain something then it is not helpful and may be potentially harmful, and likewise a feeling of rebellion with reckless abandon against the rules may have the same result. This goes for both sides in a dispute, and if the two parties cannot settle the matter between themselves, then they should seek outside discussion. The rules are there for a reason, but they should be used reasonably. That's my take, at least, and I consider IAR a wonderful rule for what it is. BOZ (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe your bafflement means that you need to understand it better, in the context of Wikipedia. BOZ gave you a start. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@BOZ:BOZ, I agree that policies and guidlines need to be interpreted with reason and judgment, and not slavishly, and I've long approached editorial conflicts with this principle in mind.

But the problem with your apparent either/or approach to this is, as I said above, that anyone can then just violate a policy or guideline based on their personal preferences, arguing that what they feel like doing "improves" the article. Obviously, conflicts like this are why we have such rules. WP:PAIC makes it clear that cites go at the end of supported material, and WP:REPCITE says we don't use consecutive cites of the same source in the same pagraph. He doesn't feel like following this, saying that such repetition "improves" the article. I say it does not. Each one of us thinks they are being "reasonable", just as any participant in any editorial dispute. Such subjectivity is why we have policies and guidlines, including explicit ones. Saying that being "reasonable" is the criterion here ignores the fact that anyone can then do whatever they want, and say that what they're doing is "reasonable", "improves" Wikipedia, and so far. How do you not see this?

What other policies/guidelines can we toss aside by citing this ridiculous policy of WP:IGNORE? Should I continue reverting him, ignoring the rules against edit warring, because hey, I think following that policy prevents improvement of the encyclopedia? How do you people not see how problematic this is, given how editors who don't feel like following policies and gudielines may abuse it?

@North8000: Why assume that I don't understand it? Did I not accurately cite it? Was I not clear in arguing both the potential and extant problems with it? Have I not pointed out that what BOZ say is riddled with obivous problems? Why assume that because I have a critical view of it, that I can't undertand it? Why not address what I've pointed out about the problems with this policy by explaining why what I'm saying is wrong? Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The key part of my post was "in the context of Wikipedia". You left that out in your subsequent arguments, and your subsequent arguments are based on not viewing it in that context.North8000 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue concerns the edit war at John Demjanjuk. That issue should be discussed at Talk:John Demjanjuk, not in edit summaries. However, the edit summaries to the effect that certain text should have an explicit citation to avoid future nonsense is perfectly correct. The whole point of WP:IAR is that rules are a general guideline but they will not cover every situation. I don't know anything about John Demjanjuk but experience shows that certain topics need extra citations. Johnuniq (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not correct, perfectly or otherwise. WP:REPCITE makes it clear we do not include consecutive cites of the same source in one passage or paragraph.

You say it does not cover "every" situation. Why does it not cover this particular situation? Which ones does it cover, and why? Can any of you actually answer these and the other quesitons I posed to you regarding the problematic implications of this policy? Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We have rules but we know that they are not appropriate for all cases so people are free to argue that the fact that a rule exists does not in itself dictate what happens for a particular case. The article talk page is the correct place to apply WP:DR but given that the other editor has been active in that article for four years I would bet that they have a reason for thinking that the citation should be repeated and arguing about such a minor matter is very unworthwhile. By the way, please review MOS:INDENTGAP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Since, by not taking into account "in the context of Wikipedia" you are trying to use simple logic to analyze this, It might be useful to answer on structural terms. On those terms, Wikipedia interprets the determination under (sometimes conflicting) rules are mere inputs to a neural net which is how it actually operates. (Wikipedia:How_editing_decisions_are_made) And this rule helps set that up by saying that other rules influence the decision but are usually not categorical by themselves, and the same for this rule. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It prevents situations like this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nightscream: WP:GAMING and WP:NOTIAR are for those times. Parham wiki (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parham wiki but WP:NOTIAR is an essay though, where as WP:IAR is a policy, which is usually the argument that follows anyone using an essay in a dispute.

And while I understand your original point @Nightscream, it seems like you both could have taken it to the talk page and discussed your viewpoints rather than discussing through your edit summaries, since the space available doesn't always allow one to easily convey their reasoning on what they are trying to get across.

Or to look at it another way, you have been here for a lot longer than most users and almost broke the 3RR to enforce something that didn't really seem worth the risk. It isn't worth jeopardizing your account to make sure you are 'right', and none of this is meant as an insult or anything like that so please don't take it as a personal attack or the like.

Awshort (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)