[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|The rules]], as they are written, are so done with the intent to guide editors of this vast community in making proper decisions based on reasonable guidance. However, a rule is rarely meant to be absolute. If a you feel better decisions can be made, but they go against the rules or otherwise do not follow their stance, it is better to think of alternatives. These guidlelines are not meant to invoke [[Laziness|slothfulness]], or to otherwise override consensus.

If what you are doing is improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and the rules state otherwise, '''ignore them'''.

== Controversy ==

Although "Ignore all rules" is a legitimate and essential policy, controversy does exist.

'''Laziness:''' Generally speaking, you are never improving Wikipedia in the aspect of being lazy. Always follow up your edits with a summary and explaination (if such is appropriate).

'''Consensus:''' Consensus is a major element of Wikipedia that cannot be ignored for long before a long discussion ensues. If you feel it is absolutely necessary to act against consensus, then be prepared to be reverted, and to explain yourself in detail, repeatedly. Remember that revert warring against consensus doesn't work, and in the end, if you can't convince people that your action was correct, be prepared to accept that you've been overruled by the community.

'''Being a dick:''' (see [[meta:Don't be a dick]]) Let us put it this way: don't be a dick. You may invoke ''Ignore all rules'' all you want, but that doesn't make it courteous or acceptable to ignore good faith request for explanation. "I did it because of IAR" is not a complete answer; if you ignore a rule, and are challenged, then civility requires that you explain yourself.

== Varying Viewpoints ==

Some people look at ''ignore all rules'' as the central policy; as the ''rule of all rules''. Others however, may feel that ignore all rules is subjective, or that it only applies to small criteria and simple dilemas such as deleting a CSD that doesn't meet any criteria, but is obviously not improving Wikipedia in any shape or form.

'''What is the proper interpretation of this guideline?:''' Ignore all rules is exactly what is stated: "If the rules prevent you from ''improving'' or ''maintaining'' Wikipedia, '''ignore them'''. The problem that many people run into is consensus. If a majority of people agreed that something was good. The edit or change made was determined to be improvement, but the rules applied a level of controversy, then this majority is free to make the edit without worrying about these rules.

== Statements by the Arbitration Committee ==

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] has made the following statements regarding Ignore All Rules:

* [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Ignoring_all_rules|Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war]]

<blockquote>

Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.

</blockquote>