Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules
Are there any exceptions to this policy? change
It seems to me that if one ignores specific rules, they can sometimes be stopped from changing Simple English Wikipedia. If one is in an edit war with a vandal, it makes sense that the vandal is blocked from changing Wikipedia, and the non-vandal is ignoring the three-revert-rule to keep the article un-vandalized. If one has had a history of making unhelpful changes, and has been blocked forever from changing Wikipedia, they may reconsider what they have done and make a new account so he can make helpful edits. The creation of a new account is against the no socking rule, but he is wishing to improve Wikipedia, but the no socking rule is preventing him from doing that. So he ignores the no socking rule, but if someone finds out that he is a sockpuppet of the blocked user, he is in trouble, and the ignore all rules rule doesn't seem to work or apply in this case. --67.162.203.107 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Another thing; IAR can be used as an excuse to add copyrighted works on Wikipedia and disobey the copyright policy. So there must be exceptions to the IAR policy. --67.162.203.107 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The key to the policy is that it says if a rule prevents you from improving the wiki then ignore it. Doing things like breaking copyright are not improving the wiki, they are harming them. Socking also would not be considered improving the wiki as you would actively be doing something that people consider to be harming the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Copyright policy is a legal policy. Wikipedia roughly has following policy hierarchy: Legal > Organization-imposed > Codes of conduct > Procedural > Behavioral > Editing. IAR is something between behavioral policy and editing policy. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)