Talk:Ignore all rules

History

Article was created in Oct 2004 with essay-style text wholly unrelated to title (except for the editor ignoring the rules by posting the essay to that title). Two years with that anomaly! In Dec 2006 it was cross-redirected to project space, which was better but went against WP:R#DELETE, for 1.5 years. Musing what to do, I determined that there are enough reliable sources for this meme that it is notable in its own right (i.e., independent of its relation to WP), and so I decided to see who'd bite. Well, I've removed the WP:PROD now (which I can do as not being the creator), and we've stubbed it. Now is the time for all good editors to come to the aid of WP:IAR and flesh out the article with other citations to reliable sources about the concept of ignoring all rules, as I have done. Thanks! JJB 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Consider also [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] to start. JJB 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just how can this help wikipedia and wikipedia editors

I'm wondering just what the point of this article is. I mean lots of wikipedia admins are very strict (some overly strict- Generalization and Quadell for example) about following policies and rules, and you could really never invoke use/this to challenge/override them, it's pretty useless. The snare (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On Bots

One aspect which has come to concern me is the methodology by which Bots are used on the site. They go through memes, assessing them according to rules they are charged with, and then stick flyers on the front page depending on thir findings, thereby imposing rules on Wikipedia, which is a contravention of this principle, particularly as there is no appeal by a human to a machine, which is particularly offensive. An example is the Albigensian Crusade page, why I withdrew from editing (see the discussion page): you can't both criticise a page and compliment it at the same time, and when no explanation or correction is forthcoming, then the entire system falls into disrepute, which is sad. As a result, we now find an institutionalised refusal in the UK educational system to accept Wikipedia data as authoritative, which is worse. An improvement would be for an initial posting to be made to the Discussion pages to see if the problem is owned, including a reaction poll offering "I will correct this" and "I disagree". The selection of "I disagree" means the bot backs down, no reply means the page gets added to the Orphaned list (much like this one!) and the "I will correct this" sets a clock running for a review which may mean a flyer gets added to the top page. Jel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.154.9 (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...

I criticized this rule long before started CZ. Look on the first page or two of the archives of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Larry Sanger (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree this has no room here. It reads as partisan bickering rather than viable content.--Galia Offri —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Please ignore this section

I had been wondering how the oft-seen (frequently in electronic communications) directive was classified:

This is a test. Please ignore this message.

If I ignore the message, then I am acknowledging it. If I acknowledge it, I am ignoring it.

Does that fit the topic discussed here? WHPratt (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ignore all rules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020062131/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-6002018.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-6002018.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

bureaucratic misuse of

Recently, a project page for "long term abuse" listed an IP case being "active" rather than "suspect" without clearance, by invokation of IAR! Another admin picked it up and ran with it, referring to the IP as " (Abusing multiple accounts: likely sock of User:Hydro dot net". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.185.241 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

More sources

I found the following sources from Google Scholar. They are about Wikipedia and mention IAR but I cannot access them. They may be useful in adding to the article. [6] [7] — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

Erkinalp9035 has changed the opening text "Ignore all rules" is a policy on the English Wikipedia to "Ignore all rules" is a rule to set other rules aside. It originated in Wikipedia [...] I reverted this and they re-reverted it. I suppose the pertinent question is: what is the scope of the article? Is it an article about the English Wikipedia policy or an article about "ignore all rules" as a statement.

I argue that it should be the former, because all the secondary sources the article contains are about the English Wikipedia policy and its origin and invocation on enwiki. The closest we come to coverage of the rule as an idea rather than an enwiki policy is this part of the "Meaning" section: "It is a logical impossibility, or a paradox, as its inclusion in Wikipedia's set of rules "makes rule violation an expected behavior". It is a variation of the Barber's paradox." That's a sentence and a half about the idea, taken from two sources which otherwise discuss "ignore all rules" as an enwiki policy rather than an idea in its own right, in a section called "Meaning" which otherwise contains 4.5 paragraphs on its meaning on the English Wikipedia.

Hence the notable topic here is the English Wikipedia policy (or, if we can find sources about the policy on other WMF projects, the set of Wikimedia policies) and not the idea itself. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone else can fill about the remaining aspects of IAR unrelated to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia is not a primary source of its own, Wikipedia policy alone is not article-worthy on Wikipedia mainspace. General concept is, and Wikipedia policy can then be mentioned as the origin of the concept. Erkin Alp Güney 12:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What remaining aspects of IAR are these and what reliable secondary sources cover them? I think you misunderstand what primary source means—on Wikipedia, it's an article-specific term which refers to anything made by the subject of that article. It's unrelated to notability, the Wikipedia jargon for a property of a subject which means it should have a Wikipedia article. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate notability, and the journals and articles referenced in Ignore all rules show the notability of the topic of the Wikipedia policy. If you wish to say that the scope should instead be the concept in and of itself then you need to give examples of reliable secondary sources which discuss the concept and are not about Wikipedia. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, notability coverage using reliable non-primary source test is for creating the article itself. Once created, you need to find more sources (which can include less notable parts about subject matter), including ones you referred to create that article. Erkin Alp Güney 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you can't include sources that don't contribute to notability, but the sources have to be relevant to the notable topic at hand. For instance, I can't create the page Cheese and then fill it with a description about my non-notable rock band. If the notable topic is the Wikipedia policy then the page has to contain information pertaining to this topic, and the information needs to satisfy WP:DUE with regards to secondary source coverage. You've provided no secondary sources about non-English Wikipedia policy discussion of "ignore all rules". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedia projects cite English Wikipedia as origin of their own IAR policies, hence relevant by reference. Erkin Alp Güney 20:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've not removed the non-English Wikipedia project content and don't plan to, but in general "relevant by reference" is not a valid reason—maybe my non-notable rock band is called Ignore All Rules and named after Wikipedia policy but that still doesn't mean we should be covered in a Wikipedia article. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

After failing to find secondary sources for this content, I have in fact removed it. We certainly don't care what Age of Empires Wiki has to say unless a secondary source comments on its policies. This holds for all of the wikis as they are primary sources and there's no clear inclusion criterion for a wiki IAR policy to be listed in this article other than "discussed by reliable sources", which none of them have been shown to meet. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignore_all_rules&oldid=946829122

"revert removal of reference information" If a reference is dead and archived versions have been corrupted, the best thing to do is preserving the information; inaccessibility of a source does not mean formal retraction. Erkin Alp Güney 18:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. In this edit, you removed the code |url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/wikipediacompany0000ande from a reference. From my understanding, that code just notes that the source can be found at this link but requires registration to view. You should try to explain non-obvious edits in an edit summary at the time, but I'm afraid even with the explanation above it's unclear to me what your perspective is. Could you elaborate? — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware of the fact some of the Internet Archive content was only available to logged-in users. Erkin Alp Güney 20:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That is understandable, since the article on the Internet Archive does not have that information. Fxmastermind (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignore all wiki lawyering as well

Not just the rules, but the vile minds that would use the rules to rule you Fxmastermind (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)