Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

...is this all?

This seems too short... NotJamestack (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar ~2025-41574-32 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you add? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add examples of when ignoring rules is alright, and give more explanation as to why ignoring rules is sometimes a good choice. NotJamestack (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
believe me, you don't wanna provide examples, especially if it has anything to do with redirects or procedure. those discussions will never end, and the best solution will likely be to leave iar as is consarn (grave) (obituary) 21:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not examples, but to avoid conflicts with WP:WL I think it would be helpful to not make this as vague; like, for example, what does "improve" Wikipedia mean? Adding more information? Removing information that was not needed or not true? This makes it REALLY easy for someone to justify a bad edit via WP:AGF and this. VidanaliK (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is that policies are vague. They are not to be interpreted as statutes. Examples are fine on the talk page, so could you gave any where bad edits have got through because of this? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any specific examples since I haven't been on Wikipedia that long, but by "examples" I mean a more concrete description like on WP:AGF explaining, for example "this does not apply for obvious and repeated vandalism" (not an actual quote from the article, my paraphrasing). In what situations would IAR apply and in what situations would it not? VidanaliK (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would apply to any edit that an editor thinks “improves or maintains Wikipedia”. It would not apply to edits that some other editor thinks does not “improve or maintains Wikipedia”.
IAR is something you DO, not something you INVOKE to win a dispute. When there is a dispute as to whether an edit “improves or maintains Wikipedia”, we discuss it, and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THAT. That would be a good thing to include, that it's something you do, not invoke to win a dispute. I think that WP:WL is a trap a lot of people can fall into, so clarifying that it's just saying that rules are not strict, and that this shouldn't be invoked after the fact to win an argument, could be helpful. VidanaliK (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge WP:WIARM with this? VidanaliK (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think it would, honestly. people actively trying to whip out the iar card to win the epic victory royale often just proves that they've misread and/or misunderstood iar. it's also tacking more words into something that really doesn't need them consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, Rjjiii (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do we need more? consarn (grave) (obituary) 20:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being short is the best part of this policy. It really doesn’t need to say anything more. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unrelated to the "discussing this" part of discussing this, did you have any trouble sending this reply? because this page randomly decided to give me like every error for a good while consarn (grave) (obituary) 22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is directed to me… no. I had no issues at all. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weird... must've just been my router having a cardiac heart attack consarn (grave) (obituary) 22:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it needs no further explanation. If someone doesn't understand it, they shouldn't invoke it. It is less used now because policies have been refined over the years. It is more about technical limitation, and absolutely not about preferred versions of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should IAR be overturned?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Redundant to discussion already underway. -- Beland (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this. We already effectively have an RFC above. We don't need another. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is more like an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion, and I thought it would be a good idea to start a properly formatted RfC, but apparently not. Sorry!
(To be clear, I oppose repealing IAR but I still think this discussion needs to be advertised more.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an rfc above its just a discussion GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are leaving bolded !votes and dozens of editors have participated. Contrary to your views that IAR and related policies shouldn't exist, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that we don't need a formal RfC to be opened to determine consensus (another thing that Larry wants to eliminate). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bolded votes can happen outside RFCs. It isn't always needed sometimes it can be useful and several no votes did argue for one. And my point above anyway was saying above is not an RFC rather than saying we need one(though it could be useful.) Also, IAR not existing doesn't mean it will become a bureaucracy or that common sense won't exist it just means there isn't this rule that causes confusion about ignoring rules. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been presented in the above discussion or Larry's essay that IAR causes any serious confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the afd they provided is proof of confusion over it. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this comment above, two AfD discussions is not sufficient evidence that IAR is causing serious confusion. Some people get confused between their right and their left; we're not going to abolish directions now, are we? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we should abolish the x axis!! consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say what happened in the afd I linked below is serious confusion as one side os saying you van keep an article because its helpful to people and another is saying that isn't how it works that is confusion and in my view something like that is quite serious(and indeed the result ended with no consensus.) Abolishing directions is not possible so it is not the same as abolishing iar.GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serious, as in widespread, not serious as in "in this individual case, a person misunderstood a policy page". If we abolished policies every time we had a single example of somebody making bad arguments based on one of them, we wouldn't have any policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A case like that with serious confusion in my view is enough. This isn't just a single person making a mistake it is multiple people disagreeing on if IAR applies in this case and no consensus was achieved. That is different than if just one person misunderstands a rule(and presumably no one would agree if it is one person.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basing decisions off of one single AfD where you think people got things wrong is a really dumb way to create (or eliminate) policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a policy causes that level of confusion in a discussion(which ended with no consensus) I don't think it is dumb to want to correct that confusion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the way to do that is to talk to those two editors who got it wrong, not revoke the entire policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The way to solve it is to revoke the policy so it doesn't confuse people anymore(and I will not several people in the afd explained in the afd already.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people are confused about NPOV, N, V, BLP, MEDRS, etc. Should we revoke all of those? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen those situations so cannot comment on them. What I have seen is real confusion caused by IAR and that is why it should be repealed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've seen plenty of confusion regarding the specifics of wp:xfd and wp:blar, that means they gotta go!!
here's some unrelated links for no reason, by the way, five four three one two two twotwotwotwotwotwo fourthree five five five- ah dammit i don't have more links to questions about those squabbles that i was involved in atm to finish the reference consarn (giant pea-ness climbers) 00:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:XFD is different to what I am supporting as Wiki can't really just not have a deletion process in my view as that would cause all kinds of issues whereas it can remove certain policies and that includes IAR. What specifics about Wikipedia:BLAR(could not tell from reading the redirect links.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the point is that, even if a bunch of examples can be named, that's not necessarily a problem with the rules, so much as it is constant confusion and misinterpretation of them. it at best means some stuff could be clarified in both of those guidelines under the assumption that the average reader would be extremely not smart, but definitely not that they should be done away with. it is, as the younger folk would say, a skill issue
here's the difference, though: iar is a one-sentence policy that makes its scope, intent, and method of use extremely clear. to misinterpret it would require active and deliberate misinterpretation or a refusal to actually read it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 01:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a clarification of IAR to make it less confusing (as per the below rfc) if repeal does not happen but given the level of confusion I do still think repealing is the right choice. It is not extremely clear the afd made that clear given one side was saying that is not how this works works and the other was basing it on the exact words to say an article should be kept because it is helpful. That situation in my view shows how confusing this rule is and why it needs to be repealed not that this is a "skill issue". GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
really, the only idea i'd have to make it clearer without making iar itself less clear by tacking more words would add about six characters to it. that is, three apostrophes before the first i, and three more directly after the first f consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure why you think that would make it clearer? Personally I think it would make it more clearer to do the proposal in the RFC below or some other solution clarifying the rule more. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it is over the afd of that petition, the votes were about whether or not the petition should exist and why, not directly about iar itself, and the agreement was that, even if someone disagreed with it, it should be kept, and the nom was just being a bit of a stinkyhead. same for this essay's mfd
also, that afd happened 15 years ago, so it's ultimately not worth much for establishing anything recent. you know, consensus can change and all that, and even if would've resulted in a keep for the exact same reason if nommed now, that would be better for validating current opinions
if it's the others... whoopie, stuff gets misrepresented and misused, maybe we'll have actual news someday. hell, one of them wasn't even really about iar. they're also really old, and thus not really all that useful now for the same reasons i mentioned 41 words and an acronym ago. if someone has issues with something and the consensus seems outdated, they can try discussing it, and in this case, the consensus is more clearly that doing the thing would be a very not good idea consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperity they are specifically talking about iar itself with some trying to invoke it to keep the article because it is "helpful" and that iar exists and some saying that is not how this works. The afd I am talking about was 5 years about. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oops, thought this was sent before
that was iar being used "properly" as a way to ignore rules for the sake of improving or maintaining wikipedia, sure... but it's also pretty easy to see when cross-referencing with the article that it actually meant "keep as r with possibilities" for an article, which doesn't really work. it's not a problem with iar itself, more so a reason to tell buidhe and mark viking that the article as was was (and as still is still is) not actually good. it's also not a case where iar turns a discussion into a dead end or actually circumvents rules, but just one where the application warranted discussion consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it was used properly there but even if the people who invoked it were right the rule still caused confusion as multiple people said that is not how this works and that notability cannot be ignored. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, my point is that it actually wasn't, despite what it would initially look like
notability policies can be ignored in afd in theory, but i sure can't name a case of that actually being a good idea consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so we agree it was a bad use of IAR. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above quacks like a duck and as such many reasonable editors might call it an RFC. But even if it's not, the discussion is still very active. Launching a second discussion in the middle of it is counterproductive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it Quacks like a duck it quacks like a large participation discussion not a formal RFC that is sent out beyond the page. Not sure I agree as several participants in that wanted an RFC but the decision has been made by the editor who closed the RFC. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is not a formal RFC and care should be taken not to call it one. I also understand that (some) editors are prone to call a large participation discussion with bolded !votes "an RFC". All of this is beside the point. Starting a formal RFC with an identical question to an ongoing, high participation discussion is disruptive. The discussion above is likely sufficient to resolve the question. Whether a follow up RFC is necessary to resolve a different question or because there are real concerns about participation in the original discussion can only be determined after the current (original) discussion is formally closed or becomes inactive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problem is RfCs are widely advertised in stuff like WP:Centralized discussion and random notifications, other discussions are not. They help gauge opinion while avoiding forum shopping. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all that and again this is beside the point. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular reason a non-RFC couldn't be advertised in WP:CENT. Although in this case Voorts reverted two attempts. OTOH, it did already get advertised to a few of the Village pumps, which got plenty of people here anyway. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing magical about the letters "RFC". Some well-attended discussions arrive at a consensus that represents the view of the community, some don't. Some of the ones that do are RFCs, some aren't. Some of the ones that don't are RFCs, some aren't.
A well-formatted RFC (not all RFCs are well-formatted) provides a clear question and summary that together mean that everyone participating understands the same thing from the question and people can agree that everyone who answers in a particular way means the same thing. This is most beneficial when there is a topic about which there is significant disagreement and/or which is complex for those not involved to understand. Especially when it is clear that there isn't significant disagreement an RFC there is no benefit to holding multiple discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there shouldn't be an identical new RfC when the other discussion acts just like an RfC. But perhaps we should just add an RfC tag to the other discussion? It pretty much acts like one anyway. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because consensus for this proposal will obviously not develop and editors spent defending it (particularly newer ones) would better spend their time actually editing articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would still disagree on the disruptive part per my above comments but let's leave it at that given the RFC is closed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe add more clarification

I think that this might need some more clarification. For example, it may want to explain this case, and perhaps some others:

If you have been blocked on Wikipedia, but now you honestly want to contribute, should you create another account? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what "ignore all rules" has to do with your question. Blocked users should use their talk page, or UTRS if they are blocked from that, if they think they should be reinstated. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does an enforced rule qualify as a rule that should be ignored? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
any rule, if enforcing it would result in time, patience, or editors being wasted, can apply
however, iar can't really take priority at all times, because that would then just make wikipedia an incoherent hellhole, and we don't wanna turn this into a worse fandom
for the case you've suggested, i've never actually seen iar applying for not blocking socks outside of cases where an editor is older and morer maturer enough(er) that they could've realistically forgotten about having had an account before, as the criterion of "following this rule would be bad, actually" hasn't yet been met. plus, if an editor wants to make constructive edits but isn't competent or roblox-abstinent mature enough to avoid causing disruption, they can be or remain blocked for those reasons anyway consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what consarn, who seems to understand you better, says, nearly all of the time there is a rule that covers a situation, and it should be followed. "Ignore all rules" exists to catch those few cases where following a rule would lead to a bad outcome or no rule exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Per WP:IAR, does constructive contributions that violate WP:CT be blockable? What if I create an article within a CT area that restricts ECP users from creating articles relating to it that is reliably sourced with independent sources with significant coverage, within a neutral POV, and is notable based on the sources, but since I’m not an ECP user, can I still create the article and with it being exempt from WP:G5? Higstudios3333 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general if you have to ask then you shouldn't do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to WP:Purpose in the see also section that was removed by Randy Kryn. IAR emphasizes the importance of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". WP:Purpose defines what "improving" means. In my mind, IAR can be understood to mean that the purpose of rules is to achieve WP:Purpose, and we shouldn't let them become an obstacle to achieving WP:Purpose. IAR doesn't make sense without a mission, which is here specified vaguely as "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", but is described in more detail at WP:Purpose. I propose that the link be restored. Daask (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.