Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:30, 22 January 2010

Petition against IAR abuse

Ignore all rules (IAR) is one of Wikipedia's core policies. It states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The community's use of consensus to form opinions however, is not just a rule, it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's administrators are essential functionaries, but they are not above the wider community, and are expected to abide by its norms or policies in the use of their tools. They are free to hold opinions like anybody else, but any administrator who invokes IAR to justify the improper use of their tools in a way that intentionally ignores or improperly side-steps the community's wider opinion in favour of their own, is not improving or maintaining Wikipedia in the true spirit of IAR. They are instead undermining its most fundamental aspect, the community itself. Therefore:

We the undersigned, condemn in the strongest possible terms, any administrator that invokes IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia.

MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I am ashamed to be an administrator. To so thoroughly abuse the power granted to implement the consensus of the editors of this project by violating our trust is disgraceful, and if those administrators responsible had a shred of integrity they would resign forthwith. Skomorokh 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Administrators have their position because of the community's consensus in their RFA; if they no longer respect the community's consensus, they should consider whether they're doing the right thing by retaining their adminship.[reply]
A sensible and logical statement. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been fond of IAR anyway. i don't think In have ever seen an action taken where IAR was the sole or primary reason given that I supported. But in this case IAR is cited, not be the actors (who cited BLP, against its written terms) but by the ArbCom, to not only pardon but encourage disruptive use of admin tools. I am greatly saddened. DES ^(talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Skomorokh said. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No non-admin would ever get away with such disruptive attempts to "Ignore all rules", nor would they get away with the blatantly statements of contempt for the community made by some of the deleting admins. I do not see the point of having any policies or procedures at all if this kind of "wikiarnichism" is allowed to continue. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental wp:point problems here. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR was never supposed to mean "Screw you suckers. I'm the one with the big stick!" I would prefer a more through RFC/petition than this, but support of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today WP essentially ruled that admins can ignore not only rules, but community consensus. These people explictly contempt the community who gave them the tools, who built the project that they should protect. What a shame. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Moral panic run amok. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking IAR to justify large numbers of actions is always a bad idea. This is especially true of administrative actions. Hut 8.5 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom are sanctioning admins to delete 50,000 articles with no checks for sources or notability, and that's supposed to improve Wikipedia? Admins and ArbCom are supposed to be answerable to the community, not rule by diktat (that's the job of Mr Wales and the WMF...) Fences&Windows 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely block users who continue to do what they've decided is best for the encyclopedia even in the face of the consensus of the community against them. If only we did the same for admins. Algebraist 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is by definition something that should only be used rarely, not to justify just anything someone thinks should be done this way. It's a way to avoid rules to prevent improvement, not to do anything despite opposition. If someone opposes you, it's most likely because they don't feel you are improving the encyclopedia with your IAR action and if you continue despite this, you have misunderstood the reason why IAR was created: To avoid those few cases in which the rules are actually harming the project. It was never meant as a way to simply ignore policy because you don't think it's correct. To cite WP:ADMIN: Admins are "expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities [...] Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. The actions that a number of admins performed in the last few days in the name of BLP and IAR have radically altered the idea of adminship and IAR - and left the impression that administrators on this project can just go around using their tools as they see fit, ignoring community consensus and good faith objections. Ignoring a rule when improvement can be gained from doing so is the very spirit of Wikipedia. But doing so on a large-, semiautomated-scale despite objections and despite knowing that the community does not support this course of action (since the very policy cited to support it, WP:BLP, never allowed such deletions) takes the matter from good-faith ignoring to improve to almost WP:POINTy behavior. It's actions such as these that give IAR, which is a great policy to have, a very bad name. Regards So Why 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in. For a long time as a new user I thought IAR just stood for WP:I am right, because all too often that's all the person claiming it can say. Now it seems Arbcom wants to make that misperception a reality. Jheald (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per DuncanHill especially, and because if IAR is justifiable on more than one side of a debate, it becomes justifiable on no side. That is exactly the case in the unreferenced BLP fiasco. Reso lute 01:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the recent BLP-related events violated IAR. I can't really make up my mind on whether the recent events were a very good thing, a very bad thing, or some mix. However, saying that administrators should not abuse or misuse "Ignore all rules" is something I can stand behind. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are subject to policy, too. At least I keep hoping that's the case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would generally prefer replacing [...to justify the improper use of their tools in a way that intentionally ignores or improperly side-steps the community's wider opinion in favour of their own...] with [...to justify intentionally using their tools in a manner that ignores or side-steps the community's expressed consensus...] , but am glad to support the petition as written. Additionally, I would call attention to the difference between Ignore all rules and ignorance of community consensus - a difference we expect administrators to understand. — James Kalmar 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Apoc2400. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:IAR a bad policy? No. But should admins use it to circumvent consensus and community processes, violate other policies in taking unilateral actions, and use it to perform controversial administrative actions? Absolutely not. IAR is best left to uncontroversial actions – and summarily deleting unreferenced BLPs that don't contain contentious material is not uncontroversial. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to write a comment but Apoc2400 and the comment immediately above sums up my thoughts rather well. I am supportive of IAR as it was intended. Orderinchaos 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well-said. Nsk92 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point of this petition is - to whom is it addressed? (Presumably not the abusive admins or the tame arbitrators who applauded them - these have already indicated that they don't care what the community thinks.) But certainly I support the sentiments.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Giant Puffin • 08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rami R 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I support IAR but overuse of it by an administrator or editor will cause more heat than light. Even if the intention was to improve Wikipedia, with the damage such actions do to the stability of the community which helps keep Wikipedia in one piece and productive, it can cause the opposite to happen. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, without reference to the current debacle. The 3 proper uses of IAR are. responding to emergencies, dealing with a situation that the rules do not provide for, and preventing a rule from being applied in an absurd, inequitable, or counter-productive fashion. Everything else should be addressed by other means. I've been an admin here almost three years, and I've never needed or wanted anything else. DGG ( talk ) 10:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. IAR is intended for situations not foreseen by the rules. When rules then get invoked, the IAR becomes improperly used. Festina lente is wise. Collect (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Apoc and DuncanHill. --GRuban (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sole Soul (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad and poorly written policy, contributing to all manner of problems, from BLP to copyright violations. Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of IAR. I'll often argue that a policy or guideline is mistaken as applied to a given thing. I don't expect my opinion to be implemented unless it has consensus. Nor should admins act in a way they know, or should know, is contrary to consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is great to have, and I use it at times as rationale for plain common sense where no one specific policy exists. That doesn't mean I agree with a high percentage of IAR edits but will give them fair weight. My view here would be that it should never be claimed as rationale for administrator-exclusive action (re: article deletion). Uncontroversial page protections or users attempting to escape 3RR or warring on technicalities might be a few exceptions, but just never for article deletion. Admins using tools under an IAR clause also (accidentally?) classifies them as "super-editors" as they can accomplish far far more while operating under it. Has to stop. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 # [[User:Chubbles|Chubbles]] ([[User talk:Chubbles|talk]]) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 # I'm a big fan of IAR.  I'll often argue that a policy or guideline is mistaken as applied to a given thing.  I don't expect my opinion to be implemented unless it has consensus. Nor should admins act in a way they know, or should know, is contrary to consensus. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
+# IAR is great to have, and I use it at times as rationale for plain common sense where no one specific policy exists. That doesn't mean I agree with a high percentage of IAR edits but will give them fair weight. My view here would be that it should ''never'' be claimed as rationale for administrator-exclusive action (re: article deletion). Uncontroversial page protections or users attempting to escape 3RR or warring on technicalities might be a few exceptions, but just '''never''' for article deletion. Admins using tools under an IAR clause also (accidentally?) classifies them as "super-editors" as they can accomplish far far more while operating under it. Has to stop. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)