Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge...

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Spurious legalisms Wikilegal Wikipedia:NOTLAW Wikipedia:Legal Bans Wikipedia:Legal vandalism Wikipedia:Legal warnings...

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACYWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:NOTBUREAUWP:NOTBUREAU WP:NOTLAWWP:NOTLAW WP:NOTSTATUTEWP:NOTSTATUTE Wikipedia is not a battleground. ~~~~ Disruptive...

makes it notable. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. Read WP:NOTLAW if you don't haven't already. Dream Focus 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Relisted...

(WP:NOTHOWTO) – Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook NOTLAW (WP:NOTLAW) – Wikipedia is not governed by statute NOTLINK (WP:NOTLINK) – Wikipedia...

to be followed. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) No, per WP:NOTLAW, we do not have prescriptive rules. WP:PLOT attempts to mandate a certain...

02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Keep per our anarchic policies WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. The nomination offers no evidence to support its assertions. Here's some...

not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Keep. WP:NOTLAW Obviously this person has played a significant enough part in notable series...

article should go. It seems that the best case to be made for a keep is WP:NOTLAW. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Press coverage is...

have a flood of half-baked, poorly-written laws – see WP:CREEP; WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW; WP:LAWYER; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

discussion, the notion of this kind of "precedent" is inapposite per WP:NOTLAW. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

July 2009 (UTC) WP:AIRCRASH is evidently not a stable guideline. Per WP:NOTLAW, it should reflect outcomes such as this discussion rather than being prescriptive...

based list page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." The MOS is in...

though only 3 people died in that transport accident. NOTNEWS is clearly NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Keep Referring to WP:NOT...

may apply". Even our policies are not strict – see WP:BURO; WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

as Radomno and they are lucky to get one reader per day. Per WP:BURO, WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR, we're not here to engage in pettifogging censorship. We're here...

the creeping bureaucracy which is the reverse of policy per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: I'm halfway between...

on talk page not here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW we rarely have cut and dried "rules" that apply to every situation. You...

hard rules and even our policies are not strict per WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. So, in discussions of this sort, it's the merits of the individual case...

deleted because bibliographies clearly are accepted on Wikipedia per WP:NOTLAW. I think the grey area in WP:NOTDIR would still exist after the redirect...

be any secondary sources here. AniMatetalk 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW The guidelines are suggestions, not policies. Everything is kept by consensus...

my sample of a dozen is representative) at AfD even if one considers WP:NOTLAW which seems to be being implied above. I see a problem in that these articles...

significant coverage of the street, required for notability? Please keep WP:NOTLAW in mind and the fact the Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)...

changes but this does not mean that they represent a true consensus. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policies and guidelines should follow from actual consensus...

stop any of this because they are quite vague and unenforceable. Per WP:NOTLAW, our guidelines should be based on what happens in practise. And in practise...

editors' throats — that's sad, and wrong. TTN is actually violating WP:NOTLAW. But with this kind of thing in TTN's contribution history, I guess he just...

anyone can make up policy as they please - but our overall policies - WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO and WP:IAR - indicate that all policies are contingent and secondary...

do it. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Anyone willing to follow WP:NOTLAW will, since our privacy policy is made to restrict the release of data about...

open to the addition of prescriptive rules contrary to our policies WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and we should not...

real-world legal standard to have someone banned from a WMF site or another. WP:NOTLAW. I don't think any WMF site has a policy saying than an editor cannot be...

they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate." And see WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOTBATTLE NE Ent 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) DePiep, any time you want to...

and well, but they should be applied with a grain of elasticity as per WP:NOTLAW, without forcing ourselves, as another editor said once, to be strict constructionists...

do it. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Anyone willing to follow WP:NOTLAW will, since our privacy policy is made to restrict the release of data about...

after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Noone is doing...

actions, are what got us into and perpetuate the WP:FRAM mess. Crying IAR or NOTLAW every single time a rule gets in your way is a slap in the face to everyone...

court and said yes your honour and no your worship. I know that this is WP:NOTLAW. It is not a kangaroo court either. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017...

though. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I am well aware of WP:NOTLAW, but the principle stands nonetheless. Crossroads -talk- 18:33, 3 August...

view held by many. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) See WP:NOTLAW and WP:COMMON. You may presume that in the normal course of events you would...

Aside from how near you are to the WP:NLT policy you will want to read WP:NOTLAW. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) At the end of the day I have...

to determine the validity of sources in a broad-brush way. See also WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Support, mostly. In general...

notice on top of MOS. It says to use COMMON SENSE. Also see WP:GUIDELINE, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, WP:PRINCIPLE. MOS is a guideline, not a law. No one can force anyone...

email) 13:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) We have a long-standing policy, WP:NOTLAW, which explains that these things are not prescriptive. The current wording...

instance. Snow let's rap 07:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTLAW and the opposes above. Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose...

and, of course, we also have explicit policies for this: WP:BURO and WP:NOTLAW. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC) I don't see the number...

exceptions such as Chitty (cricketer). The most relevant policy here is WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) SCHOOLOUTCOMES has not been...

making them. --Ckatzchatspy 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC) On the principle of WP:NOTLAW, a change is never actually made (unless it comes from the top, i.e. Jimbo...

it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. If we have ~90000 pages like this it's clearly our policy to do so. A handful...

September 2017 (UTC) Support WP:NOTNEWS should be removed per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. It is obviously our policy and practice to cover items in the news, including...

11:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Lx 121 should please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTLAW. He should then please remain silent in his own interest as his manner of...

seems to be some prescriptive time-wasting contrary to WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. Please eliminate it. Warden (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC) In general,...

laws that have to be followed, and everything else must be ignored. See WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR for just two of the written policies that say this. But: as an...

volunteers are the same as employees is a legal nonsense and contrary to WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOLEGAL, WP:AGF and so forth. Making editors declare their volunteer...

custom. What we need more urgently is some enforcement of WP:BURO and WP:NOTLAW to stifle the continual efforts by numerous editors to create rules which...

contrary to WP:CREEP. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." See also WP:NOTLAW. Warden (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) see WP:BDP for the recently deceased...

misusing WP:NOTNEWS. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is WP:NOTLAW and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent...

based list page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." The MOS is in...

makes it notable. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. Read WP:NOTLAW if you don't haven't already. Dream Focus 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Relisted...

diktat by whichever fanatics manage to control that policy page. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document...

encylopedic value. Although not a rule - as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTLAW - we generally follow the guidelines from WP:CORP. I can see no reasons...

as Radomno and they are lucky to get one reader per day. Per WP:BURO, WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR, we're not here to engage in pettifogging censorship. We're here...

and well, but they should be applied with a grain of elasticity as per WP:NOTLAW, without forcing ourselves, as another editor said once, to be strict constructionists...

my sample of a dozen is representative) at AfD even if one considers WP:NOTLAW which seems to be being implied above. I see a problem in that these articles...

02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Keep per our anarchic policies WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. The nomination offers no evidence to support its assertions. Here's some...

not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Keep. WP:NOTLAW Obviously this person has played a significant enough part in notable series...

(UTC) Per WP:NOTLAW and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we don't operate directly on precedent. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW says "Written...

article should go. It seems that the best case to be made for a keep is WP:NOTLAW. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Press coverage is...

July 2009 (UTC) WP:AIRCRASH is evidently not a stable guideline. Per WP:NOTLAW, it should reflect outcomes such as this discussion rather than being prescriptive...

misusing WP:NOTNEWS. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is WP:NOTLAW and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent...

be any secondary sources here. AniMatetalk 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW The guidelines are suggestions, not policies. Everything is kept by consensus...

to be followed. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) No, per WP:NOTLAW, we do not have prescriptive rules. WP:PLOT attempts to mandate a certain...

(UTC) Per WP:NOTLAW and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we don't operate directly on precedent. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW says "Written...

yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read WP:NOTLAW--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC) That's a nice little...

The topic is neither random nor a directory. The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which forbids a fussy insistence on following rules rather than considering...

have a flood of half-baked, poorly-written laws – see WP:CREEP; WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW; WP:LAWYER; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

may apply". Even our policies are not strict – see WP:BURO; WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

"sounds like a good way to clarify what's non-notable" and "no, per WP:NOTLAW and because nothing should modify/override WP:N", with more responses on...

on talk page not here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW we rarely have cut and dried "rules" that apply to every situation. You...

significant coverage of the street, required for notability? Please keep WP:NOTLAW in mind and the fact the Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)...

hard rules and even our policies are not strict per WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. So, in discussions of this sort, it's the merits of the individual case...

diktat by whichever fanatics manage to control that policy page. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document...

contrary to WP:CREEP. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." See also WP:NOTLAW. Warden (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) see WP:BDP for the recently deceased...

behavior: we're talking about content. It's completely different. See WP:NOTLAW. But more importantly, I wasn't saying "refer to each other" is an official...

the creeping bureaucracy which is the reverse of policy per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: I'm halfway between...

policies of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER. As for rules note, per WP:NOTLAW that "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." It is clearly...

— Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Oppose I see no need for this...

encylopedic value. Although not a rule - as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTLAW - we generally follow the guidelines from WP:CORP. I can see no reasons...

policies of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER. As for rules note, per WP:NOTLAW that "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." It is clearly...

discussion, the notion of this kind of "precedent" is inapposite per WP:NOTLAW. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

I have time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1) WP:NOTLAW says: "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive...

The topic is neither random nor a directory. The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which forbids a fussy insistence on following rules rather than considering...

tinkering with the rules. We have multiple policies discouraging this – WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO, WP:IAR, &c. Now we had a complex RfC about mass creation and it's...

though only 3 people died in that transport accident. NOTNEWS is clearly NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Keep Referring to WP:NOT...

policies and guidelines from case to case? Yes, the position is valid- WP:NOTLAW applies to Arbcom as it does everywhere else. In practice the "principles"...

to the question at hand. we specifically do not have any wikilaws and WP:NOTLAW is a policy. this AfD and DRV is another classic example where in face of...

question.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse Per WP:NOTLAW, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by...

Wikipedia myself. If their views go against previous practice then, per WP:NOTLAW, they are entitled to overturn this. The job of the closer to record their...

not a policy; just being a guideline with plenty of wiggle room. Per WP:NOTLAW, our outcomes are determined by discussions of this sort and the guidelines...

policy and so it explicitly says that exceptions may apply. And, per WP:NOTLAW, such guidelines are supposed to conform to the outcomes, not vice versa...

operate like a court of law or necessarily jurisprudence applies. Read WP:NOTLAW. trying to say you're like operating in a court doesn't work here. LibStar...

us to do so. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC) See WP:NOTLAW. Wikipedia is not a system of laws. This is a good example of misuse of...

so holding another discussion would be contrary to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Closer's comment: I've addressed...

to? —S Marshall T/C 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Endorse Per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW, the views of the participants in a discussion trump guidelines such as...

policy—and that is necessary; it can't be childishly waved away by citing WP:NOTLAW—then it is making clear that the Arbitration Policy is not binding, and...

so holding another discussion would be contrary to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Closer's comment: I've addressed...

article is fulfilled. Thue | talk 08:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Of course WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR are central Wikipedia principles, but as a general rule, we have...

comment but got edit conflicted, but it is important to remind you of WP:NOTLAW, Wikipedia "is not a quasi-judicial body" and "a procedural error made in...

policies and guidelines from case to case? Yes, the position is valid- WP:NOTLAW applies to Arbcom as it does everywhere else. In practice the "principles"...

to? —S Marshall T/C 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Endorse Per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW, the views of the participants in a discussion trump guidelines such as...

ITN's rules are not policy whereas we have actual policies like WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which tell us that formal rules are not as important as commonsense...

its removal. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC) WP:CCC, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW are policies and so trump a feeble guideline like ITNR. The Eurovision Song...

Wikipedia myself. If their views go against previous practice then, per WP:NOTLAW, they are entitled to overturn this. The job of the closer to record their...

to the question at hand. we specifically do not have any wikilaws and WP:NOTLAW is a policy. this AfD and DRV is another classic example where in face of...

question.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse Per WP:NOTLAW, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by...

policy and so it explicitly says that exceptions may apply. And, per WP:NOTLAW, such guidelines are supposed to conform to the outcomes, not vice versa...

us to do so. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC) See WP:NOTLAW. Wikipedia is not a system of laws. This is a good example of misuse of...

principle of Wikipedia that we use common sense rather than formal rules. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policy follows actual practice. The place to get changes made...

not a policy; just being a guideline with plenty of wiggle room. Per WP:NOTLAW, our outcomes are determined by discussions of this sort and the guidelines...

operate like a court of law or necessarily jurisprudence applies. Read WP:NOTLAW. trying to say you're like operating in a court doesn't work here. LibStar...

IAR can't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTLAW explains that "...it is not governed by statute ... the written rules themselves...

in venues like RFA, ANI, and AE are clear proof of it. The era where WP:NOTLAW is a response to any policymaking behavior is over. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46...

notice on top of MOS. It says to use COMMON SENSE. Also see WP:GUIDELINE, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, WP:PRINCIPLE. MOS is a guideline, not a law. No one can force anyone...

completely absent. If you need a "policy" reference, then I suggest this one: WP:NOTLAW says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies"...

that's what it actually does mean. The goal (as explained in WP:PG and WP:NOTLAW) is for the written policies to reflect the practiced policies. If the community...

of them. US law is like Wikipedia policy – fuzzy and political. See WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC) By "can" I clearly...

and they are all subject to our core policies which include WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW which mean that none of them are absolute and binding. See also KISS principle...