 | 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. |
 | 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. |
 | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
 | 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:
|
Index
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"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)
- 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)
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:
 | This article is perfect. Don't fuck with it! |
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)
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)
Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. JLCop ( talk) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 your ability to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. (version I prefer)- If a rule hinders you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (more direct and objective)
- What do you think? @
Andrew Lancaster
-
JLCop (
talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems
JLCop (
talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems
JLCop (
talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- What do you think? @
Andrew Lancaster
- 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)
|
| 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. |
| 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. |
|
| Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
|
| 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:
|
Index
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"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)
- 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)
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:
| This article is perfect. Don't fuck with it! |
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)
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)
Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. JLCop ( talk) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 your ability to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. (version I prefer)- If a rule hinders you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (more direct and objective)
- What do you think? @
Andrew Lancaster
-
JLCop (
talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems
JLCop (
talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems
JLCop (
talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- What do you think? @
Andrew Lancaster
- 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)