Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcut WT:IARWT:IAR This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. Policy Talk WIARM UIAR Versions This box: [ view edit ]

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.

The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Lui (2013-05-11). "Why Wikipedia's Millionth Russian Page Is Worth Celebrating". Simulacrum. Archived from the original on 2013-06-09. Retrieved 2013-06-09.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

/Draft1 Straw poll (permanently active)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

or not

can this be used to violate the three reverts edit warring rule 119.234.4.105 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full article reads -

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Can you provide an example where violating the three-revert rule would improve or maintain Wikipedia? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith reverts to remove vandalism is one example (however, since this is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a “violation”). Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow 110.168.224.246 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are pinging me here now. I'm still waiting for a sample violation that would improve or maintain Wikipedia. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to remove vandalism possible (talk page stalker) Willbill6272 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Blueboar says above: vandalism removal "is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a 'violation.'" - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.

I have taken the extraordinary step of fully protecting this highly-visible, highly-linked page from live edit warring. Everybody likes WP:BOLD until hackles go up. We've seen bold. We've seen revert. Now shall we DISCUSS this disputed change? BusterD (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I think we should merge this page, WP:IAR? into WP:IAR. This page is a very simple page that doesn't say much, but I think when we merge IAR? into this page, it will give readers a better understanding of what IAR is and what it is not. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is one policy that's useful to keep simple and to the point IMO. As with the spirit of the rule, it makes for a nice contrast with the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's been proposed many times, but keeping this very simple page simple has consistently been the consensus. --Onorem (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:IAR? and WP:IAR is a textbook example of why we have Template:Supplement - that is instructional creep.Moxy🍁 22:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per comments above. The separation is fine and simple is not always best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to the other reasons, it's strength is its brevity, focus and directness. Like the Google home page, the blankness is the most coveted place to want to put something to get noticed. Or like preferring to smoke in the no-smoking section because there are no smokers in it. :-) North8000 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the possessive form of "it" is "its"!! consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its all good. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  take a cold shower with your clothes on consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:01, 20 February 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.

Protected edit request on 19 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you please tag this page with the following code? It is related to the discussion above this one.

{{merge from|Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means|discuss=Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Merging proposal|date=February 2025}}

Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put up an edit request like this for a proposal that is not going to happen? Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...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]

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]

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]