Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:IAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png
This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy.

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
v e

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

This Is an Actual Policy Of Wikipedia?![edit]

Is this an actual policy of Wikipedia? It seems like a loop hole for people to vandalize this fine website. JustAGuyOnWikipedia: Is ONLINE. (Merry Christmas!!!) (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is not an improvement, so it is not permitted by this rule. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
We assume good faith and that most people (even if they make a bad edit) are not intentionally trying to make a bad edit. That said, if some editors abuse this policy, they can be dealt with with blocks, article and topic bans, and other restrictions. For the most part, I have not encountered this policy being abused. If anything, it's under-used A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll add to the above editors' views and recommend you also read WP:SENSE. Lourdes 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Reinsert "Alternatives to ignoring all rules"?[edit]

I addressed one of poor advices I made. I changed the advice from using IAR as a "last resort" to using IAR at discretion. Shall I reinsert the essay? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I also eliminated poorly-worded advices I made and substituted newer ones, including an advice to write another advice. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

use of IAR in AfDs[edit]

hi all, I am a long time editor and probably participated in over 1000 AfD discussions. I've noticed some editors have tried to invoke WP:IAR into AfDs saying it gives a free pass to ignore any established notability guidelines such as WP:BIO. This has been used in the case of saying a certain occupation is inherently notable when it has not been granted such in any such guideline (and we have numerous occupations and sports people who are granted this). I don't think that's the intent of WP:IAR, to invent inherent notability that isn't in a guideline. ... unless in the case of the AfD this is backed by community consensus. any thoughts? LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts to expand or "clarify" this policy, however all these were rejected in favor of the current laconic catchphrase. And for a reason, which is fairly simple: you can IAR, but you are not a spherical wikipadian in vacuum: once your edit is objected, per WP:BRD you have to work hard to convince people in the merits of your edit or reasoning. I.e., IAR does not mean "on a whim". As applied to AfD: yes you may declare IAR with respect to WP:NOTABILITY, but you have to be extremely convincing. AfD is not a vote and IAR is not an argument per se: it is a "preamble" to a solid argument that in this special case rules do not really apply. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Staszek has it exactly right, but let me gild his lily. This rule simply says that our policies and guidelines are not writ in stone and exceptions can be made, but everything here is done by consensus and IAR doesn't give you the right to make an edit contrary to policy and then to insist on it "because IAR". Policies and guidelines are the recorded consensus of the community and to make an exception to them you have to come to the consensus that there is some good reason, other than just "I don't like it", that the existing rule should not apply in that particular case and that reason should, ideally, acknowledge the reasoning behind the existing rule and explain why the current case is different. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thanks people. it's what I was thinking, I know of an editor who consistently uses WP:IAR in AfDs to try to get a free pass for notability. This argument is not backed with consensus, in fact everytime he invokes WP:IAR, I can substitute WP:ILIKEIT and it sounds the same. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
IAR itself has a requirement to utilize it "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and seeing whether or not that is the case is itself is a decision to be discussed. BTW, I think that IAR's most common use is against misuse of rules...with their complexity and imperfections, such is common. North8000 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
From What "Ignore all rules" means: "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged"; and "'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule". BTW, I think IAR's most common use is to reassure people that they can just get on with improving the encyclopedia – when it is an improvement – without fretting about the zillion labyrinthine rules first. IAR is used best when it is acted upon without being invoked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like --NeilN talk to me 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. The meaningless words spilled by editors above in defense of this tripe haven't considered what LibStar is saying, at all. IAR is regularly abused to the point that I don't think it should exist, or that it ought to be downgraded to a guideline. The writers above spout their own legalistic claims of nuance while aware that the "laconic" version does not say anything like what they read into it. Meanwhile, editors at AfDs have to deal with a certain audience of inclusionists that invoke IAR. This isn't a BRD situation with an article where a talk page discussion results in consensus. This is about the use of IAR as a logic for keeping articles and deciding admins might be accused of SUPERVOTE if they discount IAR as a rationale. Where are North8000, TransporterMan, or Staszek Lem when that happens? Wikipedia is a bureaucracy; a procedural environment. When we have editors using IAR to allow whatever the hell they want, we leave well-meaning editors in the lurch. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Convert to a procedural policy[edit]

As title says. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The title just says you want to convert this to a procedural policy. You don't explain why. You don't explain the benefit to Wikipedia by making the change. You don't saying anything about this policy having no procedures. The title does not say it all. - GB fan 12:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As a procedural policy, this would take precedence to all non-legal non-procedural policies. I mean to resolve ambiguity in priority. This change will make IAR having precedence to regular policies. GB fan, as you said, rejecting procedures is also a policy of Wikipedia. See WP:BURO. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No thank you. Different policies have different weightings for different situations. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)