Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Straw poll

People who support, oppose, or are neutral to the existence of this policy.

(This poll has been running since 2003 or 2004, see history of WT:IAR for rest of page history. )

Supporters

 * 1) WojPob
 * 2) Jimbo Wales
 * 3) AyeSpy
 * 4) OprgaG,
 * 5) Invictus
 * 6) Koyaanis Qatsi,
 * 7) Pinkunicorn
 * 8) sjc
 * 9) Mike Dill
 * 10) Taw
 * 11) GWO
 * 12) NetEsq -- In its original form, which was apparently more or less restored after freedom-loving Wikipedians woke up to the fact that a small group of Johnny-come-lately control freaks with admin status were the only ones ignoring the rules and had restated IAR as, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
 * 13) Anth&egrave;re
 * 14) the rule I supported was this one (. It does not imply I support a later version. Anthere 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Lir
 * 16) Rotem Dan -- I think encouraging any constructive contributers is fine (as opposed to vandals and trolls), these folks may learn the do's and dont's in the hard way, but possibly lead the 'pedia into new directions..
 * 17) TheOmnilord -- In a very tongue in cheek way.
 * 18) &#9774; Eclecticology Rigidly opposing rigidity.
 * 19) Frecklefoot -- I didn't read all of the 'pedia's rule before contributing. When I needed to know a rule pertaining to something specific, I looked it up.
 * 20) Olathe -- I don't like bureaucracy, but I won't go so far as to start unnecessary wars. I can always undo my changes later if necessary.
 * 21) Fantasy
 * 22) Wikinator
 * 23) &#9999; Sverdrup[[Image:U-Svdp.png|Sverdrup]]
 * 24) 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) But Follow with discretion and occasionally ignore this rule. 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Eequor - better to be constructively wrong than destructively right.
 * 26) Guanaco 16:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Snowspinner 05:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This rule is the essence of soft securty vs hard security.
 * 28) The Cunctator 05:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think I'm going to support it again.
 * 29)  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  13:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) within reason.  Policy isn't meant to be absolute, but to aid the development of the encyclopedia.
 * 30) CheeseDreams
 * 31) Lst27  ( t a l k )  03:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) &mdash; Either I don't understand this rule, or people who object to this rule don't understand it. No editor has to know or follow the rules, because others will clean up after them, stop them, or do whatever else they have to do. It's certainly more polite to follow the rules, but in the end what we need is raw material we can polish into good content. Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Amgine
 * 34) Elian this rule is essential to maintain the openess of Wikipedia for goodwilling new contributors (see also de:Benutzer:Elian/Regeln in german)
 * 35) Beta_M. Yes, i was waiting for the rule like that. Otherwise you end up with "good old boy network" where only people who already know what they are doing are welcome to endit anything. Beta m (talk)
 * 36) Gubbubu 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) some editors like to use Wikipedia policies for killing other's oppinions. I'm fed up with them. Gubbubu
 * 37) Mindspillage (spill yours?): to me, this guideline is the heart of the project. It does not justify abuse, and it is essential to the project if we are to continue to be open to newcomers and not bound more by policy that the goal of building the content of the encyclopedia. I am disheartened at the growing opposition to this, and think it is misguided. (edited 03:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
 * 38) Dan100
 * 39) JondelI Jondel, do hereby pledge my support and strict obedience to this particular rule in law and spirit and to the best of my abilities. And please don't take this seriously.
 * 40) Kim Bruning 10:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I thought I'd already supported this!
 * 41) Dralwik 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) AMEN.
 * 42) Wgfinley 19:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) User-Name 22:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC) A little creativity never hurt anyone.
 * 44) Never realized there was voting on this. older &ne; wiser 02:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Okay, I'll support now. As long as people are happy and editing. Radiant_* 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) human if this is the only rule followed, vandals won't know what rules to break.  I think that as WP evolves into a better and better resource, the barrier to newcomers adding information will seem higher - hence referrals to this rule "invite them in" in a friendly way.
 * 47) Sarge Baldy 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) malathion
 * 49) Me 04:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Shackleton 20:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) - Seriously, some rules aren't even worth fighting for and exist solely for the sake of standardization, however arbitrary.
 * 51) Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC) - I can't believe I've neglected doing this for so long.  Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) zachol It could be rephrased, but the general idea (don't feel as if you have to follow the rules perfectly) should still stand. zachol 06:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Acetic Acid It comes in handy, as long as you don't abuse or misinterpret it. 10:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Egg 13:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC) - This rule doesn't say "Wikipedia is anarchy" and it doesn't invalidate all the other considerable rules. I comprehend it as: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
 * 55) Mysidia 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Rules are often right, but often wrong too.  Decent practice is more important, and the letter of rules should be ignored sometimes in favor of respecting the desire of the community -- we shouldn't need Wikilawyers, and we needn't fear making vandalism legitimate by retaining IAR.
 * 56) —M ESSED R OCKER  (talk) 22:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC) - I like the whole concept of how rules shouldn't get in your way, though calling it "Ignore all rules" may give people the wrong impression
 * 57) --Celestianpower hab 23:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Encourages independent thought and innovation, saves wikipedia from choking under the weight of bureaucracy. Self-correcting: IAR cannot successfully be used against consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Those who oppose this idea out of fear of it being abused should rethink their position. It's better to be opposed to abusive editors than to be opposed to IAR.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Editing works by consensus, so why not come right out and say that application of rules work by consensus also?  It sort of already does, whether we want it to or not. Friday (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) David Gerard 13:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) * I'm of the opinion that, given enough transparency, communication, and consensus enabling tools, the best content is created through peer proofing, not through administrative content control. --Zephram Stark 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)  Changed my vote from Support to Oppose when the sentence "Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules does not give administrators the right to make up or enforce their own set of rules." was changed to "Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." I do not support a version that lets administrators use the IAR as an excuse to make up whatever rule they want.  --Zephram Stark 17:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) &mdash; Dan | Talk
 * 63) This doesn't really need a poll, it follows from the nature of the thing. Demi T/C 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Karmafist 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC), although I think it should be a bit more clear.
 * 65) DJ Clayworth 18:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Normally I'm in favour of rules, but we have to remember: the rules are there to make a better encyclopedia.
 * 66) TantalumT e lluride 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) — If Jimbo supports it, it must be right.
 * 67) Locke Cole 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) The rules are there to help us build a high quality encyclopaedia. If we ever find that adhering to a rule would hinder this aim, then we ignore the rule. Simple as that. David | Talk 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) IAR has become a well-entrenched tenet in the Wikipedia community, and is absolutely vital to ensuring that product continues to maintain precedence over process. The day that policy overrides individual discretion and judgement is the day that our project here fails, since a large proportion of what we do is reliant upon individual judgement as opposed to blanket rules. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) If we throw away this, then we might as well throw away the whole notion of WP:Be Bold as well. For then it will be rendered meaningless and hollow. IAR is the best weapon we have against Instruction creep.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Pradeep Arya 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) - IAR is an important "safety valve". It gives newcomers a chance to learn the ropes without being hung by them. It gives experienced editors leeway to make modifications that are technically invalid, but obvious improvements to the encyclopedia. It gives administrators the ability to mitigate disruptive behavior that is technically valid, but obviously detrimental to the encyclopedia. It succinctly addresses the fact that real life is sometimes messy, but people acting in good faith can (to an extent) police themselves using common sense. In my humble opinion, removal of this policy/guideline/tradition would be detrimental to the Wikipedia project as a whole. (Remember: Assume good faith)
 * 72)  freshgavin  TALK    03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) * ProhibitOnions 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Up to a point; I think the article should be called something other than the anarchic "Ignore all rules"; how about "Ignore rules as applicable" or, indeed, "Don't resort to Wikipedantry"? (Now Oppose)
 * 74)  S iva1979 Talk to me  14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Joey 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Rule of the Rebel. --h y dka t  09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Meditate deeply upon the wisdom of Ignore All Rules.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 78)  Grace notes  T  &#167; agrees! I like to believe that Wikipedia is an entity that has a check upon itself, so any flagrant abuses of this policy can be easily corrected once they are located. I support the spirit of this policy. 00:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Batmanand. I have my concerns, as everyone does, about exactly what "ignore all rules" means, but it what I would say it means seems fairly well represented in the current phrasing. Batmanand | Talk 16:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Anonymous Coward. All rules are shallow in the eyes of the people in charge. All hail common sense. This is obviously something we can all agree on. 24.23.137.188 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) SECProto I guess i never did sign here. I approve. This isn't a rule, so it can't contradict or override other rules. It's simply a page that is important. SECProto 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Sophia   Gilraen   of Dorthonion  When rules become more important than content you have a police state not an encyclopedia.
 * 83) Al 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Rules exist as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. When a rule fails to create the consequences it was intended to, the rule is no longer valid in this context and must be ignored. This is particularly true in cases where rules are intentionally abused by wikilawyers so as to impair editors' ability to contribute. Al 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) A year ago, I was shocked to see that this page existed. Now I occasionally find myself citing it.  When people argue that the wiki's rules must be followed purely for the sake of following them (even when their application makes absolutely no sense), it's nice to be able to point out that Jimbo disagrees.  &mdash;David Levy 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) This is the best rule as it affirms the intelligence of real people who can adapt to changing conditions, who can best use common sense and flexibly to adhere to the spirit of the rules, which should always override the actual letter of the rules. Actual rules are dead, imperfect, inflexible, and its absurd to think they are always right in all conditons. An englightened undertanding see the rules best as guides, since they are meant to serve an end, not become it. The real rule is do what is best to build an encylopedia given an understanding of all the rules and the principals they are meant to serve. When the rules get in the way of this, to ignore them is correct; they are by nature subordinate. Think of our democratic jury system, as an analogy. A jury has a built type of "ignore all the rules" option for the same good reason. The rigid enformcent of a rule because its a rule, or to punish someone who violated a rule simply because the rule was violated does not always produce justice--the goal. Infact, it's bound to produce the opposite of the goals of the rules, if adhered to in a dogmatic manner, treated as sacrosant.Giovanni33 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Strong support the version when I joined. I am alright with the version at the time of writing. Oppose adding too many "qualifications". -Dan 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) HighInBC The basic premise of wikipedia.
 * 88) Very Strong Support This page made me the happiest I have been as a wikipedia editor. "Improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality," that is what it's really about, not endless legalisms.  Breath of fresh air.  --VonWoland 07:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) The anti-policy is a great way to remind people to lighten up, as too many people on here get all wound up in fine print and lose sight of the big picture.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) as the perfect answer to wikilawyering. There are only three rules we don't ignore: WP:V, WP:NPOV and this one :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 91) Our escape from a legalistic, bureaucratic Wikipedia.  All wise editors will know when it's justified. AdamBiswanger1 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 92) Rules exist to make Wikipedia better. If you can do something unquestionably beneficial to Wikipedia only by breaking the rules, do it. --Zoz (t) 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 93) Mathmo It is short and fundamental.
 * 94) Thesocialistesq 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) It's important for an organisation, especially one so massive and decentralized as Wikipedia, to say, as its bottom line, "what is prudent is policy", allowing users to develop ideas and standards outside of a codified structure. To remove this would bind the edits Wikipedians to the official, approved policies already in place...
 * I'd also like to see this expanded, developed, and made a policy or guideline as opposed to a "thing". Perhaps with the inclusion of Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, Interpret all rules. and Use common sense.
 * Oppose (despite supporting this page above ...now below -Dan) due to the paradox and deeming of other policy to be pointless, if, as I think you are suggesting, a policy tells you to ignore policy at the same enforcement and specificity/abstraction level as itself. Much better to make Interpret all rules into policy, or, better still, if this isn't already in policy, something to the effect that you should ignore rules if your current situation (which you have a reason to believe should be treated differently) was not considered in the devising of those rules, or were someone has attempted but failed to change the rules despite a democratic consensus to do so. I'm ignorant of most of the rules round here, so please tell me if I'm missing something. &mdash;Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You should move that to the oppose section. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Zos 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very, very strong supporter Goes back to the entire purpose of Wikipedia -- a perfect article to post to red-tape loving Wikilawyers that are stuck on the rules instead of common sense.
 * 1) Joeblakesley That would a much stronger support if the old version was used, or if we just got rid of the all in the title which implies to me that you should go round trying to break every policy (which will rightly get you banned) as opposed to just breaking policy if you think it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. (Maybe it should also point out that if you disagree with nearly all of the policies or with the guiding principles you should probably not be here.) Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -Former assistant editor under the RJII Project TheIndividualist 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I feel that in cases of blatant vandalism, such a policy is necessary until administrative intervention (i.e., blocking) can take place. I do not believe the 3RR should ever be ignored if there is simply a POV dispute, or any other argument within normal realms of human disagreement.  But we should be able to revert repeated page blankings, etc. past three reverts if a vandal keeps at it. Czj 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolute support though to me its an extension of "Be Bold". --PopUpPirate 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) You can't follow the policies all the time... :p &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) -- Assume Good Faith and Ignore All Rules... the very core of Wikipedia.
 * 7) Strong support. Micro management is the antithesis of freedom. And yet many restrictive and prescriptive rules are being added, and few enabling rules. Ignore all rules is becoming an increasingly important guarantee of freedom. IAR requires a level of accountability most edtors will not be familar with - understanding their actions in a broader context, rather than in the narrow confines of a particular rule or guideline. IAR comes with responsibilities: a willingness to listen, and an assumption of good faith, and a willingness to stand up for what is right. Stephen B Streater 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be describing some policy here other than the current dross draft we have at present, and as regards its application, it would be approximately 180 degrees away from the one you suggest. Alai 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps IAR should be rewritten then. My interpretation is aimed at cutting through inappropriate bureaucracy, not as an excuse for doing wrong things. It's usually pretty obvious which of these someone is doing by looking at the feedback. Stephen B Streater 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it indeed doesn't say that; it doesn't say "ignore all rules, but check after the fact for consensus"; it doesn't in any way indicate that people will get equal treatment when ignoring the rules as "inappropriate bureaucracy" in favour of their best judgement, since let's face it, they won't.  And I'm not about to rewrite it to say any of those things, much as I'd like to support it on such a basis, since one "rule" that's largely unwritten, but that one can pretty reliably expect fairly high-end sanctions for "ignoring", is "don't tangle with Jimmy Wales when he's exercising his 'special role', notwithstanding the fact that he won't say when he's doing so, or that said role is nowhere properly defined", as he seems to (though of course may not actually) have done here.  Alai 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is subtle. Ignore all rules it says, but it doesn't say ignore all people. In fact, interaction with people is part of what makes this system work, as the exchange of ideas leads to better answers. Stephen B Streater 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support per Stephen B Streater. Edward Chernenko 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) kingboyk 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC). Should have done this a long time ago -- IAR is the most fundamental concept we have.
 * 4) Lancsalot 19:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) googl t 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongest possible support. I cannot find words to express how perfectly this sums it all up for me.  Absolutely no doubt. Fractalchez 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Patchouli 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support But it should be called, improve Wikipedia at all cost. Zginder 2008-05-16T16:10Z (UTC)
 * How about 'Rules are not set in stone'? Rules should not be ignored, just not taken as a final word.  Citi Cat   ♫ 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongest possible support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. When this is no longer policy, someone should turn out the lights. — PyTom (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. And hope it will cause better review of content before being thrown out by bots.WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support. Actually, totally support, but I think it should be a guideline, and NOT policy. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) --Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) SupportHello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Very strong support Of course this rule is sometimes abused, no more and no less than are all rules. However, there are situations where this rule enables one to deal neatly with a situation which, if the wikilawyers had their way, would be problematic. I agree wholeheartedly with Mindspillage, who said "this guideline is the heart of the project"; it helps us to remember that improving the encyclopedia is our purpose, and rules ae a means to an end. When there is a conflict between the two the purpose must be allowed to win. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Absolute supportHello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - this is the most important "rule" on wikipedia! --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I can't believe anyone opposes this. Sithman VIII !! 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be must always take precedence over following rules. --Zundark (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, also support "Ignore all users in below section" --AerobicFox (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Surprised I never found this page before. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong Support --Sirtaptap (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) BDD -- This is an essential element of what makes Wikipedia great.
 * 18) Absolute support Necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being a muddled bereaucracy. 069952497a (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Complete support - This policy balances and prevents absolutely ridiculous policies from gaining a foothold. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong support This provides an immense range of positive effects in the complex world or Wikipedia. and the negative effects are extremely rare.   Most importantly, it's most frequent and immense impact is by it's mere existence without even needing to be invoked. Knowing that there is a silver bullet which is the ultimate check against clever wiki-lawyering of Wikipedia's policies against the goals of Wikipedia (which are imperfectly written and thus vulnerable to such) reduces the occurrence of such and keeps it at bay. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Support -- LaughingVulcan - The longer I've been an editor the more I realize the fundamental need for IAR, along with the other Pillars and Policies. Laughing Vulcan  03:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Wikiloop —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 23) Total Support for this fine pillar of Wikipedia. This protects against the editors who wiki-lawyer, edit, and "own" the policies and guidelines to such an extent that they cannot see the forest for the trees. This policy sees the forest, can plant more trees to make the forest larger and stronger, and can offer a check-and-balance when and where the clear-cuts form. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 24) Absolute support and should be promoted Convert to a behavioral policy. Erkin Alp 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 25) Strongest possible support —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. It's important we not lose sight of the end goal. Benjamin (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 27) Support but I wish it would go into more detail about what it means (and maybe be a guideline instead of policy), kinda like WP:Be bold. Clyde!Franklin!

Opponents

 * 1) tbc
 * 2) AxelBoldt -- deliberately breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad.
 * comment: Semantics. You are a supporter, then. Ignoring in this context does not imply ignorance but a digregard of the rules, hence "breaking them."Giovanni33 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment on comment: I will inform Axel Boldt of this comment to make sure his vote isn't reinterpreted against his intention. That's no way to go. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.//
 * 2) David
 * 3) Larry Sanger - originally proposed the rule; later came out against it
 * 4) Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * 5) Noldoaran (Talk)
 * 6) Lethe 15:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) -- (if you support "ignore all rules", shouldn't you be opposed to "ban repeat vandals"?)
 * 7) BadSanta -- The proponents are NOT serious. Anarchy gives rise to chaos.  Without ANY enforced rules, Wikipedia would experience rampant destruction.  Freedom still exists abundantly (except to break rules).
 * 8) SimonP 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC), with the three revert rule, and other regulations, users will quickly be banned if they decide to ignore official policies.
 * Comment 3RR can be ignored in the case of vandalism. Acetic Acid 10:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it can't. 3RR has an explicit exception for vandalism. This is not an example of ignoring a rule, it is an example of a rule that isn't written in the most simplistic and brain-dead possible way. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I would like to rephrase to: If all the rules on Wikipedia make you confused or depressed, ignore them and use your indwelling common sense and decency instead. dab (&#5839;) 10:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) In favour of flexibility and bending/breaking the odd rule/guideline, but not in favour of anarchy (page name, "Ignore all rules"). zoney &#09827; talk 20:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)   &#1090;&#601; z&#1108; &#1090;&#1110;   I am in favor for users that are new ignoring Wikipedia's markup and other rules such as this and users breaking small rules is not a problem, however telling people to ignore every rule as a wikipedia policy is encouraging vandalists and all rulebreakers.
 * 4) The rule was formulated in the early days of Wikipedia to attract developers (see Larry Sanger quote below). Times have changed. We have a lot of developers and we do need the rules if we want them to be able to work together. (Of course, small rules can be ignored.) nyenyec &#9742; 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) This is silly, and guaranteed to be followed in the worst way by the ignorant. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk *  11:29, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * 6) * I still think the proposal is silly, but I do have to add how much I detest unnecessary rules. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 08:36, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
 * 7) This is both silly and dangerous. Within the past 24 hrs this was quoted to me as a reason for an admin to ignore a clear policy restriction on use of admin powers. This should be significantly qualified or else deleted. DES 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (Late addition: A user was obstructing efforts to deal with a famous GNAA article deletion situation, by inappropriately applying the rules. Eventually one of the stewards stepped in and reverted him.) Kim Bruning 13:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You've gotta be kidding me. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 12:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Makes no sense. If rules make you nervous and depressed, grow up already, deal with the real world, go make your own blog or something and leave large projects like this the heck alone. DreamGuy 03:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) This is just a reason anyone can use to do any kind of vandalism. Elfguy 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) As explained below. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I've seen people suggest that this trumps WP:NOT too many times. It's become a liability.  Besides, the only sentence in it I see a real positive contribution from is "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden–including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'–will attract censure," although I'd like to see that rephrased to "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden-including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'-are expressly forbidden." The Literate Engineer 14:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Too often this is an excuse for unilateralism. More than one administrator has justified their own actions with IAR, and it encourages sysops to act outside of policy or consensus; in short, to provide a preception of abuse of power.--Scimitar parley 21:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) This "policy" can be construed in two ways: one, in which it is self-contradictory and self-undermining (and thus harmless, but useless); and another, in which it is tremendously destructive. There is no good reason for it. --FOo 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongly opposed. The one-paragraph version was good advice for newbies to not sweat all the Wikipedia rules because there would always be someone who would come along and fix any mistakes made and help them them to become better Wikipedia editors. Somehow this page morphed into an excuse for experienced editors, administrators, and even arbitrators to blatantly break rules, make drastic changes, and ignore consensus. Worse yet, the current much longer version is a mess. The page should be reverted back to the one-paragraph version. Blank Verse   &empty;  08:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Strongly opposed Those inclined to use common sense don't need this policy. This page is mostly cited by trolls. Borisblue 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong opposition, encourages admin abuse, discourages accountability. Contrary to the project goal of creating an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 22:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Changed my vote from Support to Oppose when the sentence "Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules does not give administrators the right to make up or enforce their own set of rules." was changed to "Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." (This comment added by Zephram Stark Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
 * 14) Oppose. Bad bad idea. We don't need to give bad actors more "outs" to lean on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose for reasons well known Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's some rules we'd like everyone to follow, but feel free to do what you want then cite Ignore All Rules as justification. Makenji-san 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Flexibility should be built into the rules where appropriate. Where consensus is that flexibility is inappropriate, individuals should not be allowed to ignore that. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Strongly Oppose Though the text of this article can say something more-or-less reasonable, the real question is whether "ignore all rules" is a healthy catch-phrase for defining a Wikipedian's mindset. When compared with inspiring guidance like be bold and assume good faith, it should be clear that ignore all rules does not meet the bar for a mantra to be used in this community. Metaeducation 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Strongly oppose IAR means there should not be enforcement of NPOV or even grammatical rules. Oops!  This is a policy that is clearly invalid.  If we are to ignore all rules, why even suggest them? Miwa 03:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose I was sure I had voted before on this. I have only seen this cited to justify out-of-process actions which IMO were not good ideas in any case. Herwith Siegel's Law: "Someone who cites IAR in support of an administrative action, does so becase s/he has no better arguments. Such citation is good evidence that the action involved is unwise." DES (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You had, actually: #16. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I scanned the previous votes and couldn't find mine. I have re-formatted this not to add a number lest it seem i was trying to "vote" twice. DES (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Common sense isn't common, so it doesn't make sense. - Ekevu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While the original intent of this page ('do not worry about learning all the rules - just go edit and it will all get sorted out') was something I very much agree with it has far too often been re-interpreted as giving license for admins (with the power to enforce such action) to declare their own opinion as taking precedence over Wikipedia procedure. This needs to be revised to remove any possibility of that poisonous interpretation. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly oppose. The fundamental problem with this has been shown in the recent Kelly Martin fiasco. While there are some fundamental changes that should be able to be made (for example, duplicate articles under capitalized and uncapitalized names, or removal of empty articles) some admins have taken it upon themselves to use this a justification for pushing their viewpoint forth about how Wikipedia should be, and not everybody agrees on this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest oppose. Meaningless; essentially restates Russell's paradox.  Meaningless statements, in logic, can be used to justify anything or everything.  However, not everything is justifiable; not every action is correct.  The presence of this statement, and the fact that it receives any positive attention whatsoever, is far and away the single most disturbing thing that makes me want to leave Wikipedia and never come back. -Ikkyu2 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose I agree with CBD here - the current phrashing of the page isn't good since it's too prone to misinterpretations. Rbarreira 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I've never vandalized a Wiki in my life, but I still don't get the spirit of this page. It just seems pointless, like something a half-joking but reluctantly responsible little league coach would say when he wants the kids to think he's cool. "Okay, kids, the rules are.. there are no rules... well, except for a couple... but you don't really have to listen to those... except that if you don't you'll get banned... of course, you can ignore this rule too... but citing this page won't get you unblocked, so maybe you should follow some rules... well, just use common sense." And, at that point, we could have just gone to Use common sense instead, which says absolutely everything this page says without being misinterpreted to encourage vandalism. Kafziel 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Hyphen5 10:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose current phrasing It's anarchic, and this has a long and honorable tradition in the net community. But it's too prone to misinterpretation; anyway, what is meant is not ignore all rules, but don't let the rules get you down or the like; indeed, many rules (such as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL) should not be broken. In my other comments here, I suggest George Orwell's quotation instead ("Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous"), which seems far more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Very Strong Oppose Dreadful policy. Aside from the issue of exploitation by Trolls and trouble makers, it encourages bias and users to not abide by the necessary rules. We should be promoting order, not anarchy.--Cini 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Experience, long experience, long frustrating experience, has shown again, and again, and again and again... *ahem* Ok, well, long experience has shown that trolls and troublemakers actually exploit and hide behind the rules. I have never seen a troll or troublemakers exploit ignore all rules. When you apprehend them, it's the trolls and troublemakers who yell loudest that ignore all rules is being abused. They can't stand it! They can't abide it. Ignore all rules is the worst nightmare of every troll and troublemaker. It leaves them nowhere to hide and nowhere to run. Kim Bruning 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for your comment and forgive me for this belated response. Unfortunately, the behaviour I have seen in regards to Ignore All Rules since I have posted my Oppose vote has altered little. I still see trolls and anonymous users use this as justification for POV, personal attacks and other abusive conduct. While I have seen it used in a constructive manner in some instances, the abusive ways in which it has been exploited far outweigh the positives. I just believe this concept encourages anarchy and would prefer a more ordered, diciplined type of ideal. I will say though, that I can understand the reasoning behind this idea and appreciate the enthusiasm by its supporters. Sadly, actions speak louder than words and the way this concept has been used has been extremely discouraging. It is a partial reason as to why I contribute in a limited manner and rather, opt to lurk instead.--Cini 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I contend that this is properly used quite often. What you are talking about is it being cited. Not the same thing! -Dan 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I stated that I have seen it used in a constructive manner in some instances in my previous comment. Regardless if troublemakers use or cite it, it is too much of an anarchic concept for me to support.--Cini 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose; I could agree if it was Ignore the guidances of writting style, but Copyright and NPOV are inflexible rules. Mariano (t/c) 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy. Not policy anyway. Cynical 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Regularly misused by those who consider essential policy (eg WP:V and particularly WP:CIVIL) optional. Jakew 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose - if the rules are bad or not feasible, then change them. But don't institute anarchy. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's still enough rules enforced by the mediawiki software alone, that we can never actually have an anarchy. Kim Bruning 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: "Institute Anarchy" is contradictory, and a red-herring since that is not the proposal. It also is a false dilemma (false dichotomy or bifurcation) in the sense that its either a support of this concept, or its "instituting anarchy." Poor logic.Giovanni33 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand where this policy is coming from, however, I strongly disagree with how it seems to be worded. It is inviting a Pandora's box, in which people will by pass the rules for their agenda and thus create a quagmire. It will generate something that could possibly get wildly out of control. Yanksox 19:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I hate - my stupidity... Yanksox 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- well it's had five years to do its worst and it hasn't made us wildly out of control yet... --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Has been used by trolls and vandals to support their harmful decisions.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you link to one such instance? Kim Bruning 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Mild oppose. Have yet to see this invoked in support of anything that was both a) clearly beneficial and b) not justifiable within the existing rules. PurplePlatypus 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose - This can be used by anyone to justify anything as if it is valid. --Chris Griswold 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - The problem is, people have different ideas about what will make wikipedia of the best quality, and will encourage vandalism, and the disregarding of wikipedia policies. It's a nice idea, but wikipedia is becoming more and more mainstream, and it is important that as many steps as possible are taken to establish authority, so that vandalism does not increase. --nkayesmith 07:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Oppose - This whatever it is only serves to make already hard to enforce policies further unenforcable due to the shadiness of what qualifies as maintaining or improving Wikipedia's quality, which is highly subjective. KV(Talk) 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Karwynn (talk) Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia is not subjective. How about, if the rules impede Wikipedia, change them.  SPecial cases and exceptions can be achieved by consensus.  This is a sorry excuse to push a singular agenda. Karwynn (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have got it. Ignore all rules is the key component of the consensus process that identifies which rules need changing. Kim Bruning 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose. When there is conflict between two human beings, there are only two possible solutions: (1) Peaceful resolution through the application of some rule, or (2) armed resolution by might makes right. If anything, Wikipedia needs more rules to prevent bullying. -- Nikodemos 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eek! No one taught you the art of negotiation? :-/ Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, because Wikipedians have to follow rules in order to get along with the project. Everywhere you go, there are laws and rules--the same goes for this site. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose. There needs to be accountability from the new editor with one edit count, all the way up to Jimbo. Everyone--n00bs, veteran editors, n00b admins, veteran admins, beurocrats, Danny, etc.: everyone has to be on the same playing field, and bound the same bylaws. This is a too easily abusable tool to allow people with "more seniority" perhaps to simply bypass process. It along with WP:SNOW are a major problem IMHO, that leads to too many people taking inappropriate unilateral action against what should be proper process. Getting rid of IAR completely would at once serve to reign in trolling--they can't say that they followed IAR in alleged good faith, but at the same time it will strongly reign in everyone. Everyone will have to abide to policy, and do everything by the book. Anyone being stupid or getting out of line in a negative fashion has nothing to fall back on. You violated policy, and you have no get out of jail free card by citing IAR. For this to work long term all policies at all times need to apply to all people working on Wikipedia. Jimbo is the only person who gets to pull an IAR move, because he has a policy that says he can change the rules. No one else. Get rid of this thing. rootology (T) 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you try that (and it has been tried in many online communities before) you will find that experienced trolls will follow policy to the letter. And you will be unable to do anything about them. What do you do next? Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. If you can justify an action to the point where it reaches consensus even though it violates a rule, then maybe the rule should be ignored, but more likely, I think it's an indication that the rule cited needs to be altered.Keppa 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you hit the nail precicely on the head. Ignore all rules is the first step in the rulemaking process. Once you have ignored a rule, please write down what you *did* do, as a new guideline (or modification of the old) Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose I believe that if you need break (i.e three reverts per day rule) a rule you should ask a sysop first. --Redlock 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What happens if you don't know the rules yet? Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The spirit of the idea is correct, but as stated it would seem to justify doing anything that you want. See my suggestion below, "ignore the rules --- not the people". I would support it if and only if something like that were added. Bayle Shanks 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is part of the policy trifecta and also of the 5 pillars. Either way, it does cooperate with rules that say exactly that.
 * 1) Strongest possible opposeTimothy Usher 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ignoring rules can makes sense insofar as is already covered by WP:SNOW, where the issue is only one of procedure. There may be an important point here which would benefit from a more specific treatment.  The current wording follows the logic of a marketing slogan, selected for catchiness more than for meaning or clarity.Timothy Usher 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's almost always nonsense to quote one procedure when arguing for or against another procedure Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It wasn't constructive when rules were broken, more often than not. They're not cast in iron anyway, that's enough for flexibility. --tickle me 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The intent of ignore all rules is to state explicitly that our rules are not cast in iron. No more, no less. In short, I think we agree :-) Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. We may just as well throw all the existing rules out of the window. Pecher Talk 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules was used to write many of our rules. Why would we now suddenly want to just as well throw all existing rules out the window?Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose. While it is endorsed by some excellent and conscientious users, who seem to understand it as meaning "Don't let the rules prevent you from doing the right thing", people will always differ as to what "the right thing" is, and the whole concept is very much open to abuse. There are exceptional circumstances where common sense might say that the rules don't apply &mdash; for example, if an editor I'm in dispute with starts posting another editor's name and address all over Wikipedia, I'm going to block immediately, rather than spending ten minutes trying to find an uninvolved admin. But I can do that without appealing to a slogan that others may appeal to for less justifiable reasons. AnnH ♫ 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet you would have to appeal to it at that moment in time. Kim Bruning 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 1ne 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose Just enables people to justify unwarranted, detrimental acts.  Supporters think they live in some sort of dream-like Utopia where everyone wants to and knows how to act for the common good. Even if people think in good faith that they are acting for good, they frequently are not.  We need strong rules and policies to make Wikipedia work. nadav 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why we played Calvinball at wikimania. Calvinball is a game that acts very much like the wikipedia guidelines process. One thing that happened on occaision is when several strong rules collided and caused the game to halt entirely. It is logically provable why this must be so. In the same way, logic demands that strong rules on wikipedia must nescesarily make the wikipedia *stop* working on the medium to long term. Kim Bruning 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose Rules are not meant to be broken, and more importantly, admins are usually fags. If a rule could be broken by legitimately helping an article, that means a rule needs to be changed. --Ninja 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge you not to make use of homophobic slang on Wikipedia, especially in reference to other editors. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and consider the diversity of groups represented here before saying anything else you might regret. AdamBiswanger1 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If a rule could be broken by legitimately helping an article, that means a rule needs to be changed. That is exactly right. Ignore All Rules is our key guideline for creating new policy. This is why I am always amused when people who enjoy using our policies oppose the procedure that created them  ;-) Kim Bruning 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As ever, ignoring all rules is guided by common sense, and any example outside of that is erronous and irrelevant to the discussion.  More specifically, I fail to see how a personal attack could improve an article better than in its absence. AdamBiswanger1 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting example, which happens to be well documented: BrutalSarcasm. --Kim Bruning 22:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IAR must be used with thought - it doesn't do the thinking for you. And I also don't like personal attacks. While it is conceivable that a personal attack might fix a situation, IAR is for cutting through the bureaucracy when it isn't helping, not the rules which are helping. Stephen B Streater 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * True. :-) Kim Bruning 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Oppose.  It encourages admin abuse and allows trolls to get away with anything and everything.  It's a policy allowing other admins to do actions based on essays instead of based on community-established and -approved Wikipedia policy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to translate the last part: It means that a small group of people trying to form a tyranny of the minority cannot overcome the bulk of the rest of the community, whether that's just the administrators, or in fact everyone.
 * As for trolls and vandals, aren't you actually opposing because of the incident where someone was using ignore all rules to hunt down those self same vandals? Kim Bruning 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (I replied on her talk page. See also User:Idont Havaname/Wikiphilosophies.  Changing Strong oppose to a simple Oppose now; maybe I was too harsh.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. We, as a community, should be past breaking the rules when we don't like what's happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively we could be past needing rules :DPopUpPirate 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per AnnH's comments especially. A few months ago, the "policy" tag was being removed by a certain multi-classed 'crat/arbcommer/FAD (I wonder who that could be?), and now we're being told it's "always been policy"?  Gimme a break.  If the rules are  preventing anyone from doing their work here, they can be changed -- by GodKingly decree, as had been demonstrated a number of times.  Some sane version of this, along the lines of "ignore the rules when required to by urgent necessity" would be more palatable -- though still open to some of the kinds of rhetorical and practical abuse it's currently subject to.  But as it stands, this just upholds the imposition of some people's (alleged) "common sense" over any reasonable and reasoned attempt to codify accepted standards of behaviour, and of content, that we can all adhere to.  Alai 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong OppositionMagnum Serpentine To ignore the rules is ok eh? Well I say its Bunk. Wikipedia just joined the National Inquiror in my books.
 * User had less than 100 edits at time of of edit. Kim Bruning 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is too easily abused. It serves no purpose other than to give admins the ability to throw caution to the wind and do whatever they want regardless of what anyone else thinks.--Crossmr 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check Suggestions_on_how_to_ignore_all_rules, you'll see that it says that admins must document why they ignored a particular rule, and how it helps the encyclopedia. And then they must listen to what other people think too. This is the process how our guidelines were originally written, and how most policy pages were successfully created (as opposed to the process at the current How to create policy which has << 10% success rate ;-) ). Kim Bruning 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is great, but it still serves no actual purpose that current process doesn't serve, other than to annoy other users, and remember those are only suggestions not a policy. I'd be more inclined to accept this with tighter restrictions.--Crossmr 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which current process that is operational would that be? Kim Bruning 00:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose after an administrator abused this policy (specifically WP:SNOW), I'm strongly against it. I changed my view on it from when I original supported on August 15, 2006. AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) An opposition none greater than which can be conceived.. I find the policy to be a bad suggestion simply because I don't think that people can be trusted to apply it correctly. If God’s wrote Wikipedia than yes, I would accept it but we mortals need the letter of the law. I don't think that any mere rewording of this policy would be enough to overcome this problem. I also think that in light of how unpopular this straw poll reveals the policy to be the policy should be repealed, every policy should be accepted only if a great majority of serious users endorse it.Timothy J Scriven
 * 3) Oppose This thing was once admirable, as a way to remind newbies not to fret over rules, or to allow admins to do the right thing in cases where policy was unclear. Those good purposes are now supplied by Interpret All Rules.  Now, Ignore All Rules is most notably employed by relatively mean-spirited people to push their own idiosyncractic views of "policy," against contrary consensus, and common sense.  Mind you, I don't care much about this poll, because, if Ignore All Rules is policy, then I will simply ignore "ignore all rules" itself, and refuse to grant it any recognition ever.  Interpret all rules works for the good cases, so we don't need the idoicy of ignore all rules.
 * 4) Oppose as written There's an important point that it's trying to express, but the current wording with its suggestion that it is the most fundamental rule is unhelpful. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly Oppose : If there are no rules, no one will be able to decide that whats wrong and whats right. Thanks --Richardmiles2470 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) The whole point of a rule (i.e. policies or guidelines) is regulate behaviors, set boundaries, and draw a line that cannot be crossed. Before a rule can be made official in a body of regulation, the creators must be certain that no problems are being caused by its creation, and that it can't be ignored. While it may seem the same, using exceptions to a rule is not ignoring a rule, quite the opposite-- for example, the three-revert-rule includes exceptions for reversions such as "obvious vandalism" and copyright infringement. Instead of allowing policies/guidelines to be subject to ignoring in the event that one thinks they're right that they're improving Wikipedia, there should be a list of exceptions for every policy that includes such. Subjecting policies/guidelines to IAR ignoring also, I think, causes a lot of confusion and subjectivity to one's own views, which in the end, can cause problems, such as lack of finalization. Rules are final, but this policy implies that rules are not final. This policy does Wikipedia no good, but harm.— Mythdon  (talk)  (contribs) 18:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly Oppose. WP:IAR is tautologically absurd and mandates its own breaking, potentially triggering an infinitely regressing edit war that would only cease when the Internet runs out of electricity. I respectfully submit it's not so much a policy as an in-joke from the the Cabal, from the same fiendish mindset which brought us recursive unix acronymns like PINE and GNU.--feline1 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Too often have I seen this rule abused. "Improving or maintaining Wikipedia" can mean almost anything to anyone, and while there is a case for following the spirit of policy over the letter, and making common sense exceptions in appropriate cases, having a policy for it goes a mile when an inch will do. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Super duper absolute opposition - I actually agree with the rule in theory but Wikipedia is incapable of living up to the high standards and ideals it proposes. Wikipedia is now entirely about rules so much so nothing can get accomplished. For this reason, the police should be removed to better reflect reality here in wikiworld. -Just one more discouraged would be editor... Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) I oppose the current wording: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Someone could use this as reasoning to ignore or even violate the policies and guidelines (rules), which have been set in place for a reason. I think Caerwine's suggestion from the neutral section would help prevent misuse: "Rules can't anticipate every possibility. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore it, but be prepared to explain why. If you feel that it is likely to be ignored again for the same reason, work to change the rule." StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Jonny Cache 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Needs rewording.  The spirit behind IAR is definitely worth keeping, but the way it is expressed leaves it wide open to potential misuse.  Perhaps to something like: Ignore A RuleRules can't anticipate every possibility.  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore it, but be prepared to explain why.  If you feel that it is likely to be ignored again for the same reason, work to change the rule.</dd></dl> A bit clunky, but at least it keeps the IAR abbreviation while avoid the suggestion that rules are meaningless that the current wording does. Caerwine <small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines  05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Caerwine. -- ( trogga ) 02:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Caerwine. Note: from the current straw poll results it's undeniable that the current version is not generally accepted by editors. The proposal to improve the policy's formulation to better reflect its intention makes sense. Harald88 15:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree - a lot of people come across the rule that says "ignore all rules", without going on to read "...if that rule gets in the way of making a better encyclopedia".  I think a better name and a rewording (like the above example) would lessen this problem, and remove a lot of the 'oppose' votes above.  It is important that it retains the original spirit of IAR though. --HappyDog 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) As Caerwine. Ignoring all the rules completely takes away the purpose of Wikipedia's, rules which are frequently cited in Wikipedia debates. Parthian Scribe 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) If I were to ignore all rules, I would be ignoring this rule, hence following it. But if I were to follow the rule for ignoring all rules I would no longer be ignoring all rules. Attinio (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree with a rewording like Caerwine's. Over and over, we meet people ignoring a rule they don't like, who feel no obligation to discuss their position at the rule's talk page. There's no way to discuss the subject intelligently while pretending we ignore all rules; Wikipedians are always debating rules. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Attinio is correct, and his reasoning is logically sound. Therefore his opinion is of no value at Wikipedia. I'm voting neutral because I think it's appealing to vote in a poll over five years after the last person did who agreed with me. I keep writing Paul Tsongas in for President for similar reasons. He'll make a comeback one of these days, just like Wikipedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)