Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Add discussion
Active discussions
Green check.png
This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy.

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia  
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
v e

Proposed wording tweaks for fifth pillar linkEdit

The current wording for the fifth pillar link in the see also section is The 5th of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has no firm rules. That language is a little clunky, which definitely stands out in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible. See also links are normally just the page title, so I'd be alright with the very simple Fifth pillar of Wikipedia, but if we're going to spell it out, I'd prefer Fifth pillar of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". My reasoning for the tweaks:

  • "Fifth" should be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL and because WP:Five pillars spells it out in the page title.
  • "Pillars" should not be capitalized, again to match the destination page title.
  • "The" should be removed per WP:THE.
  • The fact that the fifth pillar is the last of the five pillars is mediumly important, but not so essential as to be needed here. Anyone who clicks through will see its positioning.
  • Whether or not to include quote marks is the element I'm least sure about, but it should be consistent with the line directly beneath it, which puts quote marks around "ignore all rules", so for now let's do the same here.

Does all this sound alright? Thanks for humoring my pickiness. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember, Sdkb, to avoid confusion all humoring must be marked with {{humor}} or a similar indicator. EEng 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The quotes are in the last item because the linked page uses quotes. The just-above suggestion is good but it's too visually jarring to not have all words in blue. I would write:
Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • All blue works on the fifth pillar wording, but the italics don't fit with Wikipedia style. It actually reads as if it could go without quote marks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thank you , danke ,merci , dziekuje serdecznie i pozdrawiam. Jey8900 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool that you confirmed an understanding of "in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible". I have not pondered the details, but generally support the effort on and general nature of those minor tweaks.North8000 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedias 9th amendmentEdit

This is really just Wikipedias 9th amendment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing the wordingEdit

@Johnuniq: You have reverted my edit on adding an ArbCom decision into the page. I indeed should have first waited for community consensus or added a topic on this Talk page. So I'll just throw it here anyway.

Background for people who are not Johnuniq: I edited the page to include this wording from a 2009 ArbCom case: "However, ignore all rules should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.". This was reverted by Administrator Johnuniq.

You stated in your revert message this (rhetorical) question: "Does ArbCom dictate community policy?". While I do not know this, I assume, by the way you worded this, that the answer is "no". I have not fully immersed myself in the Wikipedia/ArbCom policies, but I thought the Arbitration Committee was a sort of Supreme Court of Wikipedia and resolved not only user cases, but also dictated how Wikipedia guidelines/policies should be interpreted (as in the USA the Supreme Court dictates how the law should be interpreted). There probably is some weird shortcut (WP:XXX) that proves me wrong, you can comment that with a ping.

Regardless of the role ArbCom playes in this, I think the wording of the article should be changed. Editors, especially newcomers, can think: "This is for the good of Wikipedia, so per WP:IAR I can do this", all the while only weighing in their personal opinion and not the community consensus.(What Johnuniq called: "doing dumb things")

Maybe we can come to a resolution. Or I'm completely wrong, you can say that too (with arguments please). I'd like to have a discussion anyway.

ItzLarz (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't need extra wording. As for facilitating IAR usage, that's always been handled on a case-by-case basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
IMO such extra wording would be bad. The impact of the policy is due to it's brevity. And the interaction with other policies does not need to be covered in this policy, There have been hundreds of extra things that people have wanted to add. Suggest reading some of the archives here if interested. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a page with a clear answer to my question but standard procedure is that the community sets policy. The Arbitration Committee resolves arguments in accord with existing policies. See the first line or two of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. A lot of people don't get the point of IAR but experience shows that adding words does not improve the situation. The purpose of IAR is to encourage a bold action that would benefit the project although whether it was a benefit might not be apparent for a while. Ultimately, if enough people decide an IAR action was not beneficial, it will be reversed. Meanwhile, it is refreshing to have this short policy waiting for the rare occasions when it is useful. The "see also" section has a bunch of information and opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
That purpose is served by WP:BOLD. (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this addition is needed. Perhaps it belongs in one of the several essays on the subject. This policy is short and simple on purpose. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
IAR's alleged merit of brevity is to be seen in the broader context of it being logically nonsensical and ultimately counterproductive. (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to me. It is really not that complicated and after almost 20 years of use it has been very productive and caused very few problems. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it was complicated. That people have interpretations that make sense to them from something that is clearly not logically consistent in any way objectively applicable is exactly the problem. (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish IAR could be applied to WP:JOBTITLES. Even though I am carrying out JOBTITLES commandments, concerning article content. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

But it does apply to that. Right up until people decide that it doesn't. Problem in a nutshell. (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is missing the joke templateEdit

People might think this is serious. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK so you have expressed your opinion, via implying that a widely held view is not "serious". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Easy, North8000, they are a day-old account. I think they were being serious. Still learning the rules, I'm sure. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought that that was "easy" :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
That takes two days, not one. :) Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Really? I wasn't voicing my opinion, I sincerely thought it was missing.
This makes no sense. Say I was making a death threat to John Doe and I wanted to add it to Wikipedia. Would that be against the rules? No, not if I made a page about Anonymous from Stack Overflow's death threat to John Doe, because Wikipedia was lacking information about that previously. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The key to understanding WP:IAR is that we can ignore a rule ”if the rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia”. Making a death threat against another person does not “improve or maintain Wikipedia”, and so our civility rules should not be ignored.
Reporting on (ie writing an article about) a death threat might be ok… if the incident is covered in reasonable depth by independent secondary sources (but then, that would be in compliance with our rules - so no rule is being ignored by writing the article). Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This should say that you must obey the US lawEdit

The US law can't be ignored, even if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bridge to cross by individual case, not by text language. How will breaking a U.S. law improve the encyclopedia (i.e. copyright infringement is not an improvement). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Should we also mention the laws of physics? I don't think we need to mention either. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a good question though by a new editor, shows that they are thinking of the welfare of the project and individual editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment came off as snotty. I did not realize this was such a new user. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the question. I think that the answer is that it is referring to Wikipedia rules. And to answer the possible next question, we don't want to make it longer to explicitly say that. We've kept it that way (through the hundreds of things that people have wanted to add) because its brevity gives it strength and focus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)