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)

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. Dialmayo 12:01, 19 March 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)

Prevent or hinder
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 you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.


 * 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 think that's the point... It relies on community oversight and consensus to manage potential misuse. JLCop (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The intent of IAR is to allow editors the flexibility to improve Wikipedia even when rules might pose obstacles. It is not meant to encourage Reckless Disregard for important policies.
 * If a rule hinders but doesn't completely prevent improvement, editors can assess the situation to determine if ignoring the rule is justifiable. JLCop (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It also empowers editors to improve Wikipedia effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It also empowers editors to improve Wikipedia effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to cover all of those nuances would turn it into a big complicated page, the opposite of what has been accepted and wanted. . And those are already taken care of by how this policy operates, and interacts with the fuzzy Wikipedia ecosystem. It currently has the strong, brief, simple widely accepted language. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew, Joe, and North. The policy is simple and direct. It serves its intended purpose as written. I don't think the proposed rewrite is an improvement. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that a good argument? Ethereal Whisper (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)