Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Ignore all rules

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Ignore all rules

Not in line with COM:L, etc. (E.g. copryrigt related restrictions can't be ignored, etc.) Not needed. See also:

• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/12#Common_sense_and_ignore_all_rules
• Commons:Village pump#ignore_all_rules?

--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom, not needed.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• (and the redir-page Commons:IAR) too.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete or Userfy, without prejudice against recreation including some reasonably thoughtful & nuanced treatment of the subject WRT this project’s mission & norms.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete This is extremely appropriate on a project like Wikipedia, where most of the rules are internal. It's not so much appropriate on a project like Commons, where most of the rules are external. GMG^talk 21:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• userfy but this attempt to shift responsibility of rules enforcement from commons onto the law is delusional. no lawyer would act as a commons admin does. you need to accept responsibility for the open flouting of rules when it suits you, based on who you know, not what the law is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Ignore all rules

This page should be re-deleted because it's absolute nonsense to say all rules could be ignored under any circumstances. We can't ignore copyright, for example, although ignoring copyright would improve Commons (until it got shut down). Moreover, this page was cited in support of the unilateral deletion of thousands of images by an admin who faced unanimous opposition in an ANU thread. If someone thinks they are justified in a gray area in which two or more criteria may be in conflict, they need to be prepared to defend how their actions are justified by a more important imperative, and this kind of call to anarchy, regardless of how tempered it is, is unhelpful. Also see previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Ignore all rules and linked pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Ɱ, User:Jmabel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also pinging User:Jeff G., User:Odysseus1479 and User:GreenMeansGo, who participated in the 2019 discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep There are plenty of explanations on the page describing how IAR should be used; if that section is not comprehensive enough, then it should be improved. The possibility of misuse is not a reason to delete the page. On enwiki, admins have been desysopped over misuse of IAR, but you don't see anyone calling for its deletion. ArbCom put it very well: "When users decide to ignore a rule, they must be able to show what they were prevented from doing and why being so prevented was detrimental to Wikipedia." The only difference between Commons and Wikipedia is the additional legal issues, but the page says very clearly that copyright laws are an exception to IAR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  We're not Wikipedia, nor will ever be. The scenarios are different, and nobody really ever suggests deleting policies. But for an essay to contradict policies here and be abused by someone who is supposed to set an example is egregious. And that user even cited this page's simple existence as the reason they felt comfortable defying all our procedures. I suggest User:King of Hearts/IAR exist, but COM:IAR as a linkable set of instructions must not be able to be cited again for justifying ignoring procedures. ɱ (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I'm pretty much with User:King of Hearts here. I'm going to make an edit to that page that may satisfy some of the issues originally raised. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment The title itself is inflammatory and thoroughly objectionable. I will never support having a page by this name, regardless of what content might contradict the name. Since we all agree that all rules cannot be ignored, the fact that some people want to keep the article boggles the mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Page was already deleted by consensus, and restored in an improper way (see G4). This page has already been abused by an administrator in order to justify ignoring our policies. If an administrator feels the very existence of this page and link allows them to do this, then this page must be moved or deleted. It has already happened before with significant damage, and will happen again. ɱ (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding that the title advocates the ability to break all rules, which can include breaking legal copyright laws and must be changed. Thank you for pointing that out Ikan Kekek. ɱ (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Delete this is a terrible idea all around, and demonstrably so. On Wikipedia IAR is a protection against bureaucracy, lawyering, and newbies being held liable for not knowing the rules. On Commons this idea has immediately been appropriated to protect admins from accountability. Commons has to have a stricter ruleset because it is the backbone of countless other projects. Dronebogus (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Keep as amended (I cited the source).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question Jeff G., I don't understand. You previously stated that this page was not needed. Why do you think it's needed now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment It might be relevant to note that User:Lojbanist, who created this page twice, is globally locked. So their violation of rules does not appear to have benefited this site or Wikimedia in general. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep. Like m:IAR, a bit of discretion is required before using this as reasoning for an action (though the m:IAR is a global policy while this is an essay). It does not mean "break the law", in which case includes copyright restrictions. For that specific case regarding Andre Carrotflower (ACF), it just so happened to be that Andre misused the essay, and like King of Hearts (KOH), I agree that admins need to explain what they couldn't do, and why they used IAR. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• I still lean toward  Delete. No animosity toward those who have tried to clarify the essay, but what we're left with is an essay about ignoring rules that's mostly about why you shouldn't. It's a bit like having an essay about why you should ignore speed limits, but the body is all about how dangerous it is to drive too fast and you'll probably get issued a fine.
  Anyway, if the only case where this applies is in accordance with community consensus, then we're not really ignoring rules at all. The consensus is just the new rule. And that's only in cases where consensus applies, since the majority of rules we follow here aren't negotiable. GMG^talk 10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Lean Keep, although swaying delete, as Commons has a different gameboard than Wikipedia, and has to be cautious to a fault. So ignore all rules wouldn't work here. But at Wikipedia it is policy, and this discussion is about an essay. Essays pretty much are allowed from the stands but are not part of the gameboard. So Keep doesn't give any power to the thing at all. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)