Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

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)

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)

Does an enforced rule qualify as a rule that should be ignored? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

• There's a few considerations here:

• First, I'd generally say that IAR is for exceptions to normal processes - unusual situations where it makes sense to ignore the rules. What you describe yourself doing is basically normal editing that just ignores ECP completely. That's not really appropriate because the idea of "this isn't something the rules could have foreseen" doesn't apply. Another way of looking at it is that if your proposed IAR would cause you to just ignore a rule completely (or constantly in a broad context), you should really get the community to change the rule instead.
• More generally, the reason I feel that's how it works in practice is because whenever you invoke IAR, especially to do something bold or seriously policy-violating, you're basically gambling that the community will agree that your actions are important for improving or maintaining Wikipedia. In the case you laid out, no matter how strongly you feel that your article is an improvement, it's very clear that the community as a whole doesn't feel such contributions are worth the problems caused by ignoring ECP, so it's likely you would still face sanctions if you kept doing it, and unlikely that the community would endorse it.

That said, that's tangential to what you really asked, which is whether the article you created would be subject to WP:G5. And that's not even an IAR situation, because while your article would certainly be subject to G5, the CSDs only allow deletion; they don't mandate it. So an administrator could decline to delete it, and that wouldn't be IAR, that would be them using the discretion that CSD explicitly grants them. It's also worth noting that it is in fact possible to ask for early ECP per WP:EXTENDED; it rarely happens, but if you could make a convincing argument that you'll use it well then it certainly could. So most editors would probably just point you in that direction, if it was obvious that your contributions are good. (And, I mean, how would you, as the editor who created the article, even assert that IAR somehow protects your article from G5? You're not actually part of the process where it gets invoked; the administrator doesn't have to get your permission to G5 your article. So if they do decide to delete it, what are you going to do, go to their talk page and say "no, you must reverse your deletion because I'm invoking IAR?") --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

Hi Daask. That would be covered in Wikipedia:"Ignore all rules" essays and related topics, which is already listed in See also. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:Purpose isn't in Wikipedia:"Ignore all rules" essays and related topics, and probably shouldn't be. That list includes essays about the philosophy of rules. WP:Purpose isn't about WP:IAR. Rather, WP:IAR is about WP:Purpose. It seems bizarre to me that a policy that says you should focus on the mission (WP:IAR) doesn't link to the mission (WP:Purpose). Daask (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:Purpose could be mentioned in the article of this talk page, but it seems it intentionally isn't. At the end of 19.th century a lot of scientists thought the universe is deterministic and that when all universe's rules were known everything could be predicted, and if that were true, definite rules could possibly be found and enforced as laws.

Then things that couldn't be predicted came to attention of humans, and such where definite rules couldn't be found or formulated. That didn't include only physics and related sciences (including meteorology, magnetism of the Earth etc. etc.), but also biology, and psychology and sociology related sciences, including economics, historiography of any human or related activity, and also semiotics (evolution of meanings of symbols including words) and informatics. Almost every simple rule from Newtonian and Cartesian times we (probably including you) were taught was found to be only an approximation. Even in mathematics it was found - and as far as I know it still seems there are no firm foundations.

The guys (and galls) developing purposes and policies of Wikipedia seem to have been thoroughly aware of that. But they knew they needed some way to make WP useful and verifiable. So both purposes and policies were conceived (better: evolved) with evolution in mind. They seem to have been smart galls and guys, and didn't even think of trying to envision in advance every possible situation for which a rule (or even every existing rule consistently with each other) would need to fit (and were thoroughly tested before before it is put operationally in place).

One place where WP:IAR - as terse at it is now - is to stand where it is, is until those two evolve when changes in our reality make it necessary. As every other meaningful answer this is also a partial one, not an exhaustive one, but only one of possible needful uses of this "rule".

If somebody (I just read the GothicGolem29 (talk) before answering this) find WP:IAR - as terse as it is - confusing, it is the confusing reality we live in to make it so. Until (if it is possible, or even advisable) reality becomes less confusing, this terse simple rule IMO needs to stay as it is. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does this page have only one sentence, and what can we do to expand it? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

discussions have come and gone to expand it, and the consensus is that it needs to be brief to be a one-size-fits-all solution to occasions where treating rules like gospel would be suboptimal. to give it specifics and caveats would defeat the whole point of it

you could try discussing to see if that long, long-standing consensus could change, but i doubt it would gain much support consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 03:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

...okay, maybe this explanation could use some more squiggly lines

let's say a deletion discussion on an article is clearly and strongly headed towards a specific consensus (i.e. keeping, deleting, or merging). at that point, if it doesn't meet any criteria for speedy closure, it can be closed under the "snowball clause" (a procedure based and rooted on iar), where the conclusion is essentially "yeah, we all know this is gonna happen, no need to delay it"

alternatively, if someone's conduct is being discussed in a venue like ani, but during that discussion, they just randomly begin posting the entire bee movie script but with each instance of the word "bee" replaced with a different racial slur, an admin can block them on the spot (usually, those cases involve the account having been compromised, but that's not relevant to this hypothetical) for obvious reasons to stop that shit, regardless of if the discussion is still ongoing

effectively, when policy or procedure would result in something optimal or uncontroversial taking too long to happen or not happening at all, exceptions can be made consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 03:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

There is Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means that go into this in more detail so I think keeping it short is best, otherwise there will be constant edit warring. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives What about the copyright policies? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

? I didn't say we should copy them DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I understamd. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can not think of a scenario where ignoring our copyright policies would help to “maintain or improve” Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I am confused. None of us in this discussion have said anything about copyright or copying anything? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Um… the OP (Temp account 20026-34360-03) asked about copyright policies. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and to that I said that no had mentioned copying anything. Hence I am confused as to why you are saying "ignoring our copyright policies" when neither of us have mentioned anything like that? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I would assume the OP was asking if IAR applied to our copyright policies… and I gave my answer to that question. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

On Encyclopedia Dramatica, some twenty years ago or so, they had a template that said:

This article is perfect. Don't fuck with it!

Prehaps something to this effect is condign here. jp×g🗯️ 01:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Why should we expand this? It is our only policy that is not too long. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Will repeat my idea presented in the last full discussion of changing this policy. The one sentence policy, with exact wording and underlining, should be carved in stone as a sculpture. It can be presented to the Metropolitan Museum of Art or another major art museum who agrees to exhibit it but, yeah, carved in stone is a good descriptor for this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

not if it's basic ass stone

i'm accepting no less than sylvinite or foidolite consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You are correct consarn, the proposed sculpture should be sculpted from the finest stone, but don't know if the stones you mention are what passes as the best. Chisel away, someone. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Having a massive page of rules saying when and how to ignore the rules seems like it would be paradoxical. That said, if you have thoughts on it you could always write an essay. --Aquillion (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the fact that this is a simple definition of IAR is... quite magnificent. Really nails the point.

That is all. IndigoHatter (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)