The project page associated with this talk page is an officialpolicy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please reviewpolicy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember tokeep cool when editing, anddon't panic.
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that arespoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
TheIgnore All Rules page is frequentlyreverted ingood faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
This page was nominated fordeletion on 26 March 2008. The result ofthe discussion wasSpeedy keep.
believe me, you don't wanna provide examples, especially if it has anything to do with redirects or procedure. those discussions willnever end, and the best solution will likely be to leave iar as isconsarn(grave)(obituary)21:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unrelated to the "discussing this" part of discussing this, did you have any trouble sending this reply? because this page randomly decided to give me like every error for a good whileconsarn(grave)(obituary)22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to figure out how best to summarize all of the nuance with the{{nutshell}} template despite the policy being super duper short. I mean, we don't need to have a nutshell template, but almost every other policy page has a nutshell. The title of the policy is also self explanatory when referencing this policy.Aasim (話す)17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the suggestions is to repeal IAR. There seems to be a consensus for it over at the talk page of the theses. But (as pointed out there with every other issue as well), that is not the correct place to discuss changes (or alterations) of policy. So...
As per my response in a previous thread over there yes it should be overturned it would be better and less confusing and complicated to not have this rule.GothicGolem29 (talk)11:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, as it seems to be open to subjective interpretation (in fact it is wholly subjective, as many people think their edits "improve the encyclopedia").Slatersteven (talk)11:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. IAR is not (and should not be) invoked often, but when it is invoked it is necessary. Every “rule” has occasional exceptions that we never thought of when we wrote the “rule”, and without IAR we would spend countless hours arguing as we codify these rare exceptions into p&g. By having a blanket statement that says “it’s OK to make occasional exceptions” we can avoid such rule CREEP.Blueboar (talk)14:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already spend countless hours arguing exceptions into p&g even with IAR.
Not every rule would need to be modified plenty would work without IAR. Some might need to be adjusted but I would argue the benefit of not having IAR outweighs that.GothicGolem29 (talk)16:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, exceptional situations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A blanket "IgnoreALL Rules", cannot possibly address the exceptional situation you are referring to.Kvinnen (talk)10:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's essential per the arguments inWP:NOTBURO. Furthermore, all our existing rules and policies were written with the understanding that they could be ignored when necessary to maintain our basic principles; without that we would have to revise them all, mostly in ways that would be undesirable and make them less readable by adding countless special clauses and exceptions. --Aquillion (talk)13:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The premise of IAR is to ignore the rules when doing so will improve the encyclopedia. If the community does not agree that the encyclopedia was improved, then the action will and should be reverted. -Donald Albury14:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus for the general case ≠ community consensus for the specific case. The rules are based on the general case, and sometimes the community agrees that the intention behind the rule is not relevant in the specific case, and therefore something else should be done in the specific case.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ SuperPianoMan9167, Your "therefore" is in error precisely because applying IAR to improve Wikipedia has community consensus. Your mistake was in not allowing for the fact, as a massively complex system written by fallible humans, there will be times when the proper application of the rules, even if we are one hundred percent confident they have community consensus (as opposed to local consensus), can either be a detriment to improvement, or indeed see an editor caught in the exact kind of process loop/lock that a simple mechanism like IAR is perfectly suited to use as an escape hatch.Gordon Maximo (talk)13:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)( Blockedsockpuppet ofAttackTheMoonNow, seeinvestigation)[reply]
Yes It should be repealed. While there are theoretically other rules that are supposed to counteract the weaponization of this rule, the reality is that the rule is too broad and subjective and tends to be wielded against editors without power by editors with power. It also stands out from the rest of the policy in a negative way. While all of the rest of Wikipedia's policies have a considerable amount of detail about when they can be applied and the circumstances governing its use,WP:IAR is only one sentence long. As I indicated on Sanger's page, I also believe that a formal RFC should be initiated for the repealing of this policy perWP:BEFORERFC. The discussion on this page and on Sanger's page demonstrates that there does seem to be a split between whether the policy should be removed or at least amended. I suggest the following format but I am obviously open to suggestions on how an RFC on this issue can be formatted so we can get wider community participation on this topic. The options for the RFC could potentially be Option 1: Repeal WP:IAR entirely. Option 2:Keep WP:IAR but clarify its scope/intent. Option 3:Keep WP:IAR unchanged.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)16:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...this is all stuffwp:notiar already covers, along with other guidelines and essays regarding them.brd is a good example
doesn't really make it any more or less valid.wp:snow is an essay, and it's cited all the time, for example. the entire point of iar and everything surrounding it is that rules aren't absolute, and acting like they are or trying to force them to be usually just makes unnecessary headaches for what amounts to no reason. it's also why policies and guidelines themselves don't word themselves as immutable or omnipotent, which is what they'd need to be if iar didn't exist
...is what i would say, but iar mostly boils down to common sense, so it can't really not exist in the first place. sometimes people will just agree that doing something in a certain way will be more beneficial than following policies and stuff to a t (that sometimes doesn't even exist, like when someone votes to restore ablar in rfd as "contested" per guidelines that don't actually say that that's what should happen)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An essay as it states in the notice is explanatory. It is not enforceable in the same way as policies is it's function is to explain(and people may cite snow but there are others examples you likeWikipedia:TNT etc where editors have said it is not the same as a policy.)
tnt is also cited as a reason to delete stuff, even with the knowledge that it's not actually a policy or guideline, so there's no inherent problem there. same goes for other essays, which are cited because they act as ways to employ (or not employ) certain policies or guidelines
yes, tnt is different from a policy. that doesn't automatically make it less valid than a policy when use of it is appropriate, because it'll workwith certain policies. surprisingly, this applies to literally every policy as well, even including iar itself
also, the second paragraph only actually needed a comma lmao. what i meant, if clarification is needed, is that plain ol' common sense will just be used in iar's stead for the exact same reasons as it, because that's what iar already is. something is clearly out of whack and a solution has already been agreed on, but policy says a discussion should go on for at least a week to do it if it doesn't meet a speedy close criterion? nah, just toss some iar i mean common sense juice into it for a snow close and move on with your dayconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between is that one is valid for enforcement one is just explanatory and that is important.
Apologies for missing the comma. Thanks for clarifying. Common sense would be used but ot would probably be used by putting stuff into policies which is better than this rule.GothicGolem29 (talk)19:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't seem to understand how messy, vague, or fuzzy our system is. "Enforcement" is not what differentiates a policy from an essay.Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policy – how would you "enforce" it?
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments to my above comment, but this exchange shows why a formal RFC on this topic is desperately needed. Essays and various interpretations aside, there is clear division on IAR's purpose, scope, and actual practical effects. I believe the community deserves a venue to decide whether to repeal, clarify, or retain IAR.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)15:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that "Ignore all rules" is a matter of common sense is particularly rich, considering the humorous origin of the "rule." No, just because Wikipedians are so set in their ways (or use of weird rules) that they seem to be matters of common sense does not make those rules any more coherent and rational. "Ignore all rules" never was a matter of common sense, of course.Larry Sanger (talk)02:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No per Aquillion and Donald Albury. However, this should be made into a formal RfC and advertised more widely, as well as comply withWP:RFCNEUTRAL – beginning the question with "there seems to be a consensus" is the exact opposite of that.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YESIAR should be fully repealed. As Larry Sanger himself created this rule, and then later realized that it was a stupid error on his part, and one that has left a legacy of lasting empowerment for the powerful, the time has come to do away with this nonsensical (and potentially harmful) "rule" or "policy". I think it is long past time that IAR be abolished once and for all time, relegated to the rubbish bin of history from whence it came.Iljhgtn (talk)17:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's... completely off. the problems larry cites in his essay aren't with iar, but with people. editorsbiting newcomers is nothing new, and far from the only problem that comes from just whipping out the iar card as a defense for doing whatever someone wants. however, that's when other policies come in, as iar doesn't just automatically deny everything else. action can then be taken for stuff like incivility, disruption, or whatever other issue you can name. this is the equivalent of seeing a forest fire and blaming the forest for being so flammable, as opposed to the gender reveal party that caused it. or at least that's how it is in theory, anyway. in practice, the malfunctioning pyrotechnics only really get to burn a branch or two
...that's not the point either, but close enough. the point is that some people are just kinda gatekeepy. it's as much a problem with iar as as it is with the continued existence ofxfd venues andcsds, for example. ideally, action will be taken against this behavior, from a heads-up to an administrative slap in the wrist. hell, some people have even been indeffed for constant biting, if that's anything to go byconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I introduced this tongue-in-cheek “rule” 24 years ago to encourage shy/mild personalities to be bolder and not worry about the rules too much. It was later repurposed, most typically and ironically by some of the most powerful accounts here, to shut down newbies. It does not have subtle depths. It’s a joke that went wrong. I established this rule—I now say to scrap it.Larry Sanger (talk)18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such terrible irony that "a joke that went wrong" is now defended by a bunch of people. The irony is sad, funny, and painful all at the same time.Iljhgtn (talk)20:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a personal attack, it’s advice and that’s the terminology. I know if I was doing the same I’d want someone to be blunt and say that.Kowal2701 (talk)18:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven, from your opening comment it sounds like you intend this to be a discussion about changing policy? If so, you should probably close this thread and restart it as a formal RFC. --asilvering (talk)18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear,Slatersteven, that means that this discussion is a non-bindingRFCBEFORE and cannot come to a decision to abolish IAR, instead only determining if there is enough support for abolishing to warrant opening an RFC, correct?QuicoleJR (talk)13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. If this discussion is closed with "There is an overwhelming consensus to abolish IAR", and then there are no successful closing challenges or whatever, that is sufficient consensus, no formal rfc needed. Whether this discussion will be closed as such is another question.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)16:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IAR should be overturned. consarn says that "iar mostly boils down to common sense," but my experience of invoking common sense over an express policy resulted in a powerful editor threatening to have me site banned. It may be that people are people and common sense can't be legislated, but getting rid of some policy that Larry has watched spoil over the years would be salubrious. I would welcome an RFC.Tioaeu8943 (talk)20:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - Larry is correct in pointing out that the meaning of IAR has changed. It is absolutely no longer "hey newbies if you're overwhelmed by rules, don't worry about them". But the suggestion that it is a tool for the powerful to act contrary to the rules is so off the mark as to be nearly the opposite of how it's actually used. Larry cites a study, then disagrees with it without providing any evidence. Instead are anecdotal feelings:I have heard from several people that entrenched editors and Administrators tend to cite the rule when they want to give a veneer of regularity to arbitrary decisions, as if to say, To hell with it, I’m going to do what I want: Ignore all rules!. Feelings are important from a community perspective -- clearly we could've done better by whomever said that. And I don't doubt some frustrated editor has said that, just as aggrieved editors have claimed every policy/guideline is used for abuse. We've probably all seen cases where we disagree with how the rules were (or were not) applied. But I worry that Larry seems to be starting from a narrative about bad faith, conspiracies, and powerful biased Wikipedians run amok, then working backwards to look not at whether the evidence supports the hypothesis, but rather only for what evidence is available tosupport the hypothesis. The only thing approaching evidence isn't from any IAR-based finding of consensus, not from any article, and not from any noticeboard where a decision was made; it's an individual user's thoughts about IAR and COVID-19 from a user page. Here's the thing about Wikipedia: if you're willing to cherry-pick individual diffs or quotes from individual people, you can piece together evidence to support absolutely any narrative you want. Visit the talk page for any ongoing political topic, or browse the history of any of the related articles, and you can find quotes to assemble which makes Wikipedia look however you want it to look. What actually matters are outcomes of discussion, consensus statements, and persistent article content, not fleeting hot-takes or edit wars. Looking at what matters, the reasons for things tend to be pretty, well, boring. There's still plenty to debate about, say, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, but at least then we're evaluatingreal evidence and not "someone told me X" or "look at what inconsequential thing this one person said". So much journalism about Wikipedia these days seems to exploit the Backwards Diff-Based Narrative Construction approach, sadly. All IAR means in 2025 is this: the spirit of the rules and the purpose of the project matter more than the letter of the law. And in 2025, cases where IAR are invoked successfully arevery rare (again, interested in outcomes, not what one rando said along the way). The rules are well-developed, broadly endorsed, and, well, expansive to a fault. To the extent IAR supports newbies it's in protecting good faith newbies fromwikilawyers who try to get what they want through legalistic argumentation rather than what's best for the project. I'd argue that going too hard in referencing policy instead of explaining policy is one of our real weaknesses, even with IAR, but repealing this would just be a step backwards. IAR merely provides a modicum of protection at the edges (alongsideWP:GAME/WP:WIKILAWYERING pages). The idea that IAR is some tool used by the powerful to suppress dissent is bizarro world stuff that bears no resemblance to how I've seen it implemented in the time I've been around here. Sorry to write so much. I appreciate this discussion. —Rhododendritestalk \\20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not aware of the original idea behind IAR but, as Rhododendrites explains above, IAR now means simply that edits to improve the encyclopedia are good. That is subject to consensus and IAR edits are easily reverted. An example where I used "IAR" in an edit summary is indiff concerning whether a certain category belonged in an article. I haven't seen any examples where IAR was given as the reason for a bad decision.Johnuniq (talk)02:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Policy could not be modified to contain all the possible exceptions that should apply, and if they did contain such a huge list of exceptions then those exceptions would be misused far more often than IAR. IAR is also not used by the 'powerful' to suppress dissent, basing such an idea on scuttlebutt just shows how poorly the comment was thought out. IAR isn't there so as to ignore consensus or policy, it's there to go against them whenyou can show that it's the right decision toimprove or maintain Wikipedia. If everyone thinks you're damaging the encyclopedia, that is a failing ofyour arguments not others for not allowing you to invoke IAR. IAR doesn't mean you can do something and never have it undone, it means you can do something you know to be against policy or consensus and when someone questions that you get a chance to explain why it should be an exception. It also acts as a reminder that over literal readings of policy and consensusare harmful to the encyclopedia. In the same way that once an artist has created a piece of art they can no longer control how it is interpreted, that Sangar did a thing 20 years ago has no bearing on Wikipedia today. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardno. IAR is aprinciple of cooperative wiki editing and improvement. You can fine-tune principles with more detailed policy guidelines, but overturning an essentialidea is nonsense. The idea is that above all else, editors care about making the wiki good and better. To block people from making good faith "improvement or maintenance" of Wikipedia isby definition worse than allowing it.2600:1012:A025:691D:29C2:76F5:D892:A063 (talk)02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. It is sometimes over used and/or used wrongly (c.f.WP:IARUNCOMMON) but the same is true of just about every other policy on Wikipedia and is not a rationale for abolishing something so fundamental.Thryduulf (talk)03:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it might help if we:
introduced this concept to editors when they're newer, so they can develop a habit of doing the right thing by the article (Yes, there is a rule that says articles should bebased upon secondary sources, but that doesn't mean you can't start an article over anobviously notable subject with the best sources you can findat the moment) as well as working together (Yes, there might be a rule that says to format things this way, but if you can't figure out how to do that, you can ignore that and do your best, because someone else will fix the formatting for you later), and
1 is already handled by welcome templates (though if you want it to be made a little clearer, i don't think it would be hard to make suggestions in their talk pages), and 2 haswp:iar?. you could argue that the parts intended for readers who go a little too by the book could be pushed a couple paragraphs up. but ehconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST POSSIBLY HELL NO IAR is, by design, a safety mechanism from Wikilawyering nonsense, putting the good of Wikipedia ahead of strict adherence toPAGs or other unforeseen nonsense that may arise from the chaos.For example,WP:STUB says you can create a new stub type if you meetWP:STUB#Guidelines, propose the new stub type atWP:WSS/P, wait 5 days, and only then create the stubif there are no objections. Well, what if there were 20 people in support, and one person that objects, saying "My dad hates this topic, so I object to{{topic-stub}} being created." Now if you go ahead, and create{{topic-stub}}, you've violated the guidelines. Should we now ban you? What about me, whoWP:BOLDLY created{{mathematics-journal-stub}} or{{astronomy-journal-stub}} without even proposing anything to anyone? Should I be banned too? What if a bot functions perfectly, but its ownerdisappears. Bot policy says a bot can only be approved if a bot has an owner willing to answer questions about it and take responsability for its edit. But what if the bot is so uncontroversial? Should we block this perfectly functioning bot that causes no issues anywhere, with no complaints anywhere,just to satisfy policy, in turncreating a problem where none existed before?IAR exists for a reason, and it's a good one. It must be kept and defended vigourously as a core principle of Wikipedia. Hell, you could even call it apillar.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}04:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(These are "the theses," for anyone here who does not know what they are. Should have been linked from the get-go so people know where the apparent consensus was.) At any rate,no. This is a solution in search of a problem. The only examples that were given for IAR supposedly being a problem in 2025 are a study from 2012 (13 years ago), a Slate article from 2014 (11 years ago), a random 2020 COVID comment from someone's (very erratic) userpage that no one seems to have engaged with, and some trolls who are probably older by now than several current editors.Gnomingstuff (talk)04:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Ignore all rules" as it's currently applied is just a recognition that in practice, the specifics of a given situation may benefit from an exception to the usual guidance. It would be probably helpful, though, if this page made this clear.isaacl (talk)05:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note whether or not this page exists, it won't change how, in practice, exceptions will be made, because guidance on a web site isn't law. This page essentially serves to remind editors of this.isaacl (talk)23:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes unless one hell of a lot of clarification is added. The current magnificently ambiguous one-sentence blurb does more harm than good. I know we need something to the effect that Wikipedia is not about rules, but we have that elsewhere such asWP:5P5. We need policies, not slogans. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.06:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...what does p5 have that iar doesn't? it's literally iar but with a couple more wordsand a link to iar
No. The application of IAR is subject toconsensus and is, in fact, the purest and most direct implementation of consensus. Our policies and guidelines are written to explain the current consensus on content and conduct based on existing editing patterns, and we are not going to discard common sense to rigidly adhere to the letter of a policy when it is vexatiously invoked to undermine community consensus. — Newslingertalk07:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've used IAR as a non-admin against admins, it is not just a tool to be used by the powerful against the powerless. It should be the exception, but it's a safety valve we need.Fram (talk)08:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. IAR is about making obvious necessary improvements that the rules don't normally allow for. Revoking it as a tool changes accepted practice to "If it's broke, don't fix it unless it's explicitly allowed. Leave it broken until consensus emerges to change policies and guidelines to allow the edit." If something is in desperate need of fixing, fix it.207.11.240.2 (talk)11:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Reword I think we should consider renaming this thing. The title is too easily misinterpreted at face value when quoted, without the needed context. Additionally, it specifically says "prevents you", giving a lot of leeway to a single person's interpretation and experience. Instead we should probably require a more collective interpretation of ignoring the rules. Think more of 'discretionary power'. It if makes the encyclopedia better AND you think that the majority of contributors would not object to the change when reviewing your action, then ignore the rule. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)11:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at the very least, renaming it is a decent middle ground proposal. At face value, the title alone makes it seem like the rules that we are constantly citing do not matter because of this rule. I think that if/when there is an RFC conducted on this issue, this should be one of the options, 1. Repeal IAR, 2. Keep IAR but amend/clarify/rename it. 3. Keep IAR in current form.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with whatWP:5P5 says. The five pillars have been gone over thoroughly and the basis that pillar is important enough to be included as a major policy. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free reliable encyclopaedia and it needs emphasis via a policy like IAR - but IAR doesn't say it well enough. Editors are not paid workers who should blindly follow some management rules.NadVolum (talk)12:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No PerWP:NOTLAW, Wikipedia's rules are mostly not legislation or decrees but instead are customs and traditions. As such, they have plenty of wiggle room and scope for adjustment and interpretation. IAR is one of these traditions too and seems needed because the whole huge ruleset has not been drafted carefully and consistently and so there are often corner cases and clashes with common sense.Andrew🐉(talk)13:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, and another one for the history books. IAR has been, is, and will be ruthlessly discussed. This is a fact of Wikipedia. No pushes from any sizable organization throughout the over-two-decades of IAR's existence have yet changed the letter or spirit of the law. I disagree with dislodging it on principle, as I find it helps newbies and vets alike cut through a lot of WP's red tape (if you're wondering how I know all this, I read ANI in my spare time); however, I also disagree with this proposal on principle simply to uphold a good ol' WP tradition.12.32.37.18 (talk)13:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardno. Not every exception to every rule can be expected to be written into the rules, andwe are not a bureaucracy. If applying a specific rule in a specific situation would have a result that would be obviously bad to everyone involved, we should ignore that rule in that situation. I believe that consensus is the one exempt rule and consensus can overturn any IAR revocation, as it should be. Overall, though, IAR is still needed.QuicoleJR (talk)13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Mark your calendars, I agree with Headbomb. IAR has a long precedent of not being taken absolutely literally. At most, and because I was classically trained in the fine art of multiple-choice tests and can't help looking for exceptions, admins using IAR to place a sanciton on someone should have to say something like "I acknowledge that this goes against our usual rules so I am citing IAR," but even then.Darkfrog24 (talk)13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'll defer to Wikipedia's co-founder on this one, since he's more of an expert, but this makes sense. The rule seems to have been well-intentioned, bringing new editors to the platform, but it feels outdated now. IAR shouldn't be exploited to shut down discussions and debates hereDoctorstrange617 (talk)14:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable question on its face, but an editor who has been on the receiving end of IAR abuse is not going to want to invite more scrutiny from more powerful editors. Sanger is in a better position to speak for such editors than they are themselves. There is also a survivor bias at work here, that anyone subjected to abuse (IAR or otherwise) is more likely to have given up editing. We ought to make room for believing the victims here.Tioaeu8943 (talk)20:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning No on this because I think we'd ignore the rules anyway regardless of whether IAR was there or not, but absolutely 100% opposed to the idea discussed byNadVolum and others above thatWP:5P is a solid basis for anything.WP:5P an essay-level set of platitudes that no-one pays any real attention to, the consequences of which haven't been thought out at all because it was never taken seriously enough for its actual wording to matter.FOARP (talk)14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No The idea that we can ignore rules if they're in the way of improving the encyclopedia, instead of having to first change the rules (and keeping in mind that making rules based on edge cases is often not a good idea), is a valuable one. Could we explain it a bit better? Probably. But let's not throw out the whole thing just because someone who had a connection with the beginning of Wikipedia (and then left for 20 years to start a succession of failed projects) has come back with a polemic and roused a bit of a rabble.Anomie⚔14:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you cite some evidence that itis usually used in a manipulative manner to make pages more biased and ideologically slanted.Thryduulf (talk)16:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have found a thread from 2010 titled:Petition against IAR abuse here:
I have found more links but the 2010 petitions indicate that the WP:IAR rule has been a systemic and widespread issue on this platform for over a decade.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the deletion discussions show is that there has been over a decade of consensus not keep IAR. Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree, and that there are some who never agree doesn't make something contentious. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any actual evidence presented in all of that. It is nothing more than a hand-waving petition against [unnamed, potential] abuse of IAR by administrators. [addition] and the other 'examples' don't really show much in the way of bing manipulative. Merely some editors making a suggestion.older ≠wiser18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible No – IAR states that if an edit would improve the encyclopedia but a rule gets in the way, thenWP:BOLDly ignore the rule and improve the encyclopedia. If the edit is reverted, then BRD and explain your reasoning. I have reviewed many edits that vastly improve an article but violate some rule, so I leave those edits alone or rework it to be in compliance with the rules. If we have to lock-step with every rule, then we turn this project into aWP:BUREAUCRACY. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)16:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not Besides the obvious (the invoker has to establish that it improves Wikipedia) it's more common use is to influence against wiki-lawyering and gaming. I have a lot of respect for and encourage wiki's co-founder, but he's wrong on this one.North8000 (talk)16:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No IAR should not be overturned. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are far from perfect, and it is not worth the effort to change their wording every time we discover yet another one of their many defects. At the end ofThesis 5 Larry Sanger says "nobody is above the law". I am tempted to point him to thegolden rule of statutory interpretation. Even judges don't necessarily blindly follow theletter of law.James500 (talk)16:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. IAR has been a core part of the Wikipedian ethos for decades, it's one of our strongest bulwarks againstinstruction creep, and I think its underlying thesis is something we can widely agree on: our number-one goal is improving Wikipedia, above complying with our labyrinth of behind-the-scenes policy pages. It's not impossible to misuse IAR, of course, but that's not a reason to repeal the policy any more thanWP:FALSEBALANCE is a reason to repeal NPOV.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)19:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason WP:IAR is a core part of Wikipedia in the first place is because Larry Sanger created it, now he is calling for it to be repealed. As he said in his essay,WP:THESIS5, "'Ignore all rules' was never meant as serious policy" and that the purpose for the rule was as a tool for encouragement but that the tool was left in "long past its due date." I think that at the very least, if the rule is to be retained, it requires extensive clarification on the policy page, not on separate essay pages because that further adds to the ambiguity. Regardless, I think all of this discussion shows that an RFC is desperately needed on this topic to ensure wider community discussion here.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)19:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
let's just get the important part of the way: the fact that larry created it gives him no inherent rights over it (especially considering how inactive he is here) andis not relevant. in fact, the iar wrote created is long behind us. that version appealed to editors who felt that the rules were bumming them out. this one appeals to any instance of common sense being neededconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a horrible idea for blatantly obvious reasons, and the fact that come of the comments above seem to be implying that LSowns it due to having originally created the page is seriously concerning. -The BushrangerOne ping only20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Sanger's opinion on IAR carries no additional weight perWP:OWN. If you really want to propose this, make a formal RFC atWP:VPP instead of spending editor time on this non-binding discussion.mdm.bla20:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify if my point was unclear. I am not assertingWP:OWN, I am asserting that since he was the one that created it, it might be wise for us to listen to some of his points, that doesnot imply ownership. He has a lot of historical insight on the purpose of the rule and others have offered insight on what the rule has become in the present day. Also, if he did own the page, our discussion about whether or not to keep it would be pretty pointless. That being said, I agree that an RFC proposal at this point would be appropriate.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RfC is for when you can't reach a consensus without it. It is not for expanding participation until you get the result you want. Of course,WP:IAR currently says you don't have to care about that. You can open an RfC if you think it will improve the encyclopedia. This requires no interpretation; the "policy" literally says that. Be prepared for multiple flamethrowers for acting per Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.21:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wales-worshippers were bad enough, but I see that the Sanger-worshippers are much worse. If you must worship someone, then make it a deity or a truly great person, not just someone who was trying to make a few dollars and struck it lucky.Phil Bridger (talk)21:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...what? that title implies it only applies to one rule. maybe only one at a time, maybe only one rule period. it's just confusing and misleading, as it's rare (or even potentially impossible) for a use of iar to ignore exactly one ruleconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Ive never not seen IAR overused or abused. Repealing IAR doesnt mean you cant ignore all rules, it means therule that youcan ignore all rules is repealed, which is rather ironic: ignore all rules has become a rule.Metallurgist (talk)00:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - This is policy that Larry, self-admittedly says is a piece of tongue-in cheek humor. To have this enforced as an actual policy or give it the same weight is not conducive to the platform.Kvinnen (talk)04:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am lost by the argument that seems to go like this, "Without IAR, everything would collapse into chaos and there would be no way of doing anything that isn't explicitly outlined by a rule!"... uh. Have any of you people ever seen any Democracy anywhere on Earth? If there is a problem, you convene and solve it. This might be why Mr. Sanger's "Thesis 9" is an important first step before we could fully abolish IAR or make any other necessary changes.50.243.252.86 (talk)17:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)—50.243.252.86 (talk) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
No. Take a moment to read theFive pillars. Don't skim them because you already know what they say - stop and read them. They're relics of a pre-Wikipedia world, written for and by people who were trying to figure out what they were doing here, and why. They're proto-rules. NPOV is there, but WP:V is not. That only came along later when people started posting hoaxes and delusions. And even as the community began to recognise that claims needed to be verifiable,how we chose to verify things was still undefined. Concepts like reliable sources, like the idea that we shouldn't give equal weight to cranks and experts, that we actually need to cite sources...all of that came later. And even as people started to cite their sources, it was still a while before you could expectothers to cite sources.The practices that made Wikipedia such an excellent source all start with people ignoring the rules as they stood. Everything from notability to reliable sources, to GEVAL came because people ignored the rules and demanded "absurdly" higher standards. I'm not quite sure how I ended up there, but this afternoon I found myself reading Tamzin's collection of essays.Wikipedia:When sources are wrong is an excellent set of guidelines to consider what to do when the rules don't help you make a better encyclopaedia. In essence, the essay is about productive ways to ignore the rules and by so doing, make a better encyclopaedia.And let's not forget the most productive rules-ignoring we do: breaking news. We do it amazingly well. And it's so against "the rules".No matter how many rules we make, how many exceptions we try to address, an active editor will still run into instances which the "rule makers" haven't anticipated. But that gets us to an important point - our policies and guidelines exist to describe how we do things, our best practices. They aren't supposed to be written in stone. And the ones that are almost written in stone (likeWP:5P) soon fade into irrelevance.Guettarda (talk)04:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are not policy or even a guideline. The current version covers what you say was missing quite well and there's no need for them to be summaries of all the policies and guidelines or to be split up the same. They're more of a statement of principle and basic introduction for editors coming to Wikipedia. What they were for or like twenty years ago is pretty immaterial. They are not irrelevant - they fulfill an extremely important function. It would not surprise me if there are PhD theses written on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - they are not the sort of thing new editors need to be presented with unless necessary andWP:NOTBURO does not make it otherwise. As toWP:IAR the language is just wrong, it is an extreme point of the common terms and phrases in Wikipedia that have become confusing jargon as far as anyone who hasn't been involved with Wikipedia for some time is concerned. It's hard to avoid the jargon and new editors need to be gradually introduced to it unfotunately, but I thinkWP:5P does quite a good of that.NadVolum (talk)10:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No! IAR is to guard against weird edge cases where the rules might not make sense. It goes hand in hand with us not being a bureaucracy. Good day—RetroCosmostalk05:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No My logic is very similar to isaacl and RetroCosmos's. IAR is for those situations where a rule doesn't quite fit and either something can be done, or we have to spend 3 months carving out a tiny exception in the rule for every given situation. IAR acknowledges that no set of rules will work with a project of this size. It should be used sparingly, but it's useful.Red Fiona (talk)11:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Its framing does more harm than help to the view it tries to promote. It presents a vision of cutting through a bureaucratic tangle of rules to improve the encyclopedia. But this misrepresents what PAGs fundamentally are and how they are meant to be applied in all cases: with common sense and contextual judgment, to achieve their spirit over their letter.--Trystan (talk)11:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no! - We are not a bureaucracy, and this feels like just trying to force a strict adherence to the word and not the spirit of norms and proccesses. IAR hasn't been causing real significant problems and there is not a good reason to repeal it.Sophisticatedevening(talk)12:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many of the people who are advocating a repeal of IAR are also against Wikipedia being a bureaucracy. The main critique of IAR, as it currently stands, is that many of the processes on Wikipedia are bureaucratic (adhering to strict citing of policy), but when it is expedient, IAR is invoked by those with power against those with less power. This can be even if those without power on here are making better policy arguments. The idea that we are encouraged to strictly adhere to policy but there are times when policy can be tossed aside makes the site confusing to newcomers (and sometimes long time editors) and embraces the worst parts of cumbersome bureaucracy and unpredictable anarchy.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)16:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, how about some actual abuse or even something close to that. To be clear, I'm not saying abuse never happens. But it is relatively uncommon to be done in a systematic manner, and in most cases those who are using IAR to perform actions contrary to consensus are at the very leastWP:TROUTed or more severe sanctions where there is a clear pattern of abuse. The 2012 study mentioned by Larry indicated that invocations of IAR in AfDs more often resulted in keeping the article. What precisely is the abuse there? There are some rules around deletion and at times there are cases where the community decides on a case-by-case basis that the rules as formulated are less than ideal for that particular situation. He also leans heavily on a 2014 Slate article, which is really more of a half-baked opinion piece making sensational claims in search of eyeballs than serious journalism. And in this discussion, several editors have said things likeIAR is invoked by those with power against those with less power and that itis usually used in a manipulative manner to make pages more biased and ideologically slanted without provides any evidence whatsoever.older ≠wiser11:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no, and why are people trying so hard to put Sanger's attention-seeking and rather pathetic essay into effect?EF515:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they're unhappy with the status quo for various reasons, and hope that elevating Sanger will, as with the rise of Trump in the US, break down existing structures in a way that they can turn to their favor.Anomie⚔16:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean, itwill break down the existing structures. i'm just not sure there will be much left to turn to their favor. or much left to bury for that matter, since a lot of the people who would be in for this will instead want out as fast as possible for the sake of their personal safety. this isn't an indirect jab at the annoying orange, it's very directconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)16:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Although avery small minority of people are trying to take advantage of it, (1) - the decisions can be challenged/repealed through the RfC process, and (2) - we should not let a few people ruin a perfectly good rule. In my opinion, the benefit of this rule's existencegreatly outweighs the harm done.WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk)16:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Is there a proper RFC about this? I respect the hell out of Sanger, but he's just another person here. If there is serious consideration about changing a policy that's damn near a pillar...we need to do it the right way. --Onorem (talk)19:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may not be a formal RFC, but it has enough participation that we can be pretty confident that the answer would be "no" if it were one.Anomie⚔20:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't have a bureucratic RfC about ignoring all rules, even if @Matrix thinks so. Especially not when the discussion is at this state. —Kusma (talk)20:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we should because there have been good arguments on both sides, and this is an issue that requires community attention - I would argue this should even be onT:CENT due to the magnitude. I personally am not invested in this debate anyway. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)20:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1@Kusma: since you're involved, please don't revert my addition of the RfC tag. Any uninvolved editor, feel free if you think I'm an idiot. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)20:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I do respect your invocation of IAR here, but this is not a properly formed RfC, and declaring that an informal discussion full of jokes (you removed one in violation of theWP:TPG) is a formal discussion after it has run for two days is pretty bold. I don't have time or energy to fight you over this, but now I suggest a speedyWP:SNOW close. —Kusma (talk)20:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up the state of the discussion - I don't mind cleaning this discussion up by collapsing irrelevant material. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)20:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have !voted with the expectation that this was some sort of RFCBEFORE, which means that turning it into a full-blown RfC mid-discussion is less than ideal.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)20:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turning this into an RfC mid-discussion certainly isn't following the rules, and I don't see how it improves Wikipedia. But I won't revert this again if others prefer this discussion to be extra messy. —Kusma (talk)20:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, what you did wasn't disruptive, this is just the kind of messy situation where there is sadly no "good" answer. Some people !voted thinking it was an RFCBEFORE and would've wanted a separate RFC, others probably !voted thinking it was a one and done thing, and it wouldn't really have been possible to get everyone on the same page here.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)21:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it honestly should be one and done, considering how clear the consensus is. if someone wants to make a formal rfc or advertise this further, i guess they can, but it'll only really delay the inevitable and annoy people who have already votedconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)21:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell no You can't have rules to cover every possible situation, and IAR frees you from having to try to, therefore making it impossible to edit without making sure you are absolutely compliant with everything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, and in fact I'd prefer if explicit invocations ofWP:IAR were more common. IMO most editors are a bit too timid about invokingWP:IAR even in appropriate situations.Loki (talk)20:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a sensible and useful principle. I don't experience the alleged rampant abuse of IAR. Maybe I'm in the wrong venues. When IAR is invoked, more often in spirit than explicitly cited, it is used as intended: As part of a well-reasoned argument for an exception where narrowly applying other P&G produces a bad outcome. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)23:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very much no. Repealing IAR would have no practical difference; people would just citeWP:5P5 orWP:BURO instead. There are suggestions to "clarify" the scope of IAR, but I believe the current IAR is one of the clearest policies we have. If people mean they want toreduce the scope, they should be clear and say that, although I note that nobody has yet provided a scenario where it shouldn't apply (i.e. where an action would improve the encyclopedia, but shouldn't be performed because it contradicts a policy or guideline). The fact that Sanger wrote the policy is immaterial: Einstein considered thecosmological constant his greatest mistake, but history does not agree. IAR has changed significantly since 2002, as the result of substantial community vetting. Deleting IAR would be a pointless step towards the obfuscation of all policies, and if it had any impact it would be by confusing people, especially since the policy would in effect still apply after deleting it. Honestly, if IAR were deleted, I'd consider making an essay of the same name with identical wording but a banner saying "this is an explanatory essay explainingWP:5P5 andWP:BURO" and Wikipedia could move on with no actual changes to how anything works.lp0 on fire()07:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Larry's explanation of its origin actually shows the genius of what IAR became. It's very useful for something specifically not made as a bureaucracy, to have a one line rule you can point to as a justification for ignoring any other rule. All that is needed is another line that clarifies what surely everyone can agree on (perhaps even Larry?) - if you're intending to use IAR to do something you probably know you shouldn't, because what you're doing isn't going to be seen as a benefit for Wikipedia in the eyes of a non-trivial number of other experienced editors, then you probably haven't understood the purpose of IAR. Its original intent, as a reminder that newcomers should be bold and for experienced editors not to be too harsh on people making genuine mistakes in that spirit of boldness, is now thankfully already well covered in other rules and norms. I have made a hopefully better proposal thet encapsulates what IAR became post-Larry, and how useful it is to Wikipedia now, below.Gordon Maximo (talk)09:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)( Blockedsockpuppet ofAttackTheMoonNow, seeinvestigation)[reply]
Amen. Whatever it is, don’t let the essay talk page comments fool you - his “proposal” is highly unpopular and most experienced editors here realize how dumb it is. Anyways.EF518:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it probably wouldn't help much. He has enough hangers-on running around making and supporting proposals like this one, and at least some would probably just consider him a "martyr" and redouble their efforts if he gets blocked now.Anomie⚔18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or strong yes. IAR has been and will continue to be abused. The original justification for IAR was to help improve the encyclopedia, but it's not necessary anymore,as the rule's creator (Larry Sanger) has explained.
It does not make any sense to include a rule which contradicts other rules. If there are cases where the rules don't make sense, then it would be more reasonable to fix the rules so that theydo make sense. Some of the intent for IAR is also already covered byWP:BEBOLD.
IAR should be re-named so that it doesn't contradict the other rules. As a possible rename, I will suggest "Do what you can" (DWYC). That seems to convey the prime intent of IAR. If IAR cannot be renamed, then it should be overturned.Zero Contradictions (talk)22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR has been and will continue to be abused.[citation needed]
The original justification for IAR was to help improve the encyclopedia, but it's not necessary anymore,as the rule's creator (Larry Sanger) has explained. Larry's opinion is as relevant as anyone else's. He doesn'town what has since become a core community pillar.
It does not make any sense to include a rule which contradicts other rules. If there are cases where the rules don't make sense, then it would be more reasonable to fix the rules so that theydo make sense. IAR doesn't "contradict" other rules. It provides anexception to them in cases where actively adhering to a rule would "prevent [editors] from improving or maintainingWikipedia". No rule can be comprehensive. And, forcing editors to amend a ruleevery single time there's an issue with its application would lead to: (1) PAGs constantly changing; (2) editors constantly being in discussions, some of which will inevitably result in contradictory outcomes across different project pages; and (3) the rules becoming more complicated than a U.S. congressionalappropriations bill. We should be focused on simplifying PAGs, not expanding them with caveats, exceptions, carveouts, and addenda.
Some of the intent for IAR is also already covered byWP:BEBOLD. Some, but not all.
How would changing the name solve any of the problems you've identified above?
to be a little more specific: wp:bold is more a side dish to iar, detailing how best to just do something if you feel it's an improvement, regardless of whether or not you know of a rule that covers it, or that rule even existsconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Sanger gave an example in his Nine Theses essay of how IAR was abused to exclude some perspectives "at the apex of the COVID-19 hype". I'm sure there's many others.
I agree.
There is agreement that IAR shouldn't or isn't supposed to contradict other rules. However, if we take the rule's name at face value, then itdoes contradict the other rules. People are supposed to follow the rules, but they can also cite (and abuse) a rule which can be interpreted to say that people do not have to follow the rules. If this isn't the intended meaning, then the current IAR policy page is too brief to reflect the actual meaning.
True, that's why I think it would be better to rename IAR and clarify the intent. What I was trying to convey was that even if IAR is removed in order to enhance logical consistency, users could also fall back on BB if they need to.
Do What You Can (DWYC) is a better name because it's harder to abuse and misinterpret it. For example, it'd be harder to (deliberately) misinterpret DWYC in order to justify excluding other perspectives, like in the example that Sanger gave. Changing the name would also entail revising the policy page as well. The idea is that people can't simply ignore whichever rules that they want to ignore. The idea is that people shoulddo what they can to improve Wikipedia. It might not be feasible to learnevery rule and guideline and figure out which rules trump others in edge cases. But when this and other policies are unclear, people should exercise their best judgment and make their best efforts to improve the encyclopedia.
The COVID-19 example is the opinion of a single editor on their talk page that we should avoid repeating disinformation, even if repeated by reliable sources. Do you have evidence that other editors actually invoked this IAR rationale successfully? And, if they did, did they invoke it to exclude actual perspectives rooted in science, or did they use it to exclude bullshit like the idea that horse medicine is an effective treatment for COVID?
if we take the rule's name at face value, then itdoes contradict the other rules. If somebody can't be bothered to reada single sentence policy and solely relies on the title, that is on them, not us. No reasonable person who reads IAR would be confused that it is a general exception that should only be invoked when a rule gets in the way of "improving or maintaining" the encyclopedia. We don't draft our PAGs for the lowest common denominator.
What I described for DWYC is far less vague than IAR, which is only a single sentence policy, as you said. I and others could elaborate it if needed. It would be far more descriptive and convey the proper intent, compared to the current IAR policy. I think Do What You Can (DWYC) would be a better and more explicit policy and name than Ignore All Rules (IAR). However, it's now clear to me that the Wikipedia Community has no interest in renaming or removing the rule, so I will end my part in the discussion here.Zero Contradictions (talk)00:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I think wikipedia needs an instrument to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and stay flexible. In this respect WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are not that different, as in one is boldly going against policy, so for me IAR is the (more restricted) WP:BOLD of navigating policies. I would though be open to limit the scope of IAR, e.g certain policies could say "This policy/whatever is exempt from IAR", this could especially apply in the admin context (RfA, etc.) This would give us an opportunity to set things that might have cases we did not expect when drafting the policy and others that we explicitly want to only apply as the letter is written. But my horror scenario with the abolishment of IAR would be that all of the sudden simple changes could get dragged to the very top by a single editor who finds some sentence prohibiting a change, and then requiring humongous amounts of global RFC's just to change simple things.Squawk7700 (talk)00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No It’s imperfect yes and that’s actually the point: it encourages discussion over blunt rule application. And if you don’t like IAR, just ignore it ;)Kingsif (talk)14:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The rule in question is not "ignore all rules", it is "If arule prevents you from improving or maintainingWikipedia,ignore it." This is consistent withWP:NOTBURO. We don't need to follow guidelines to the letter to improve Wikipedia; they are, after all, just guidelines. If we did require that people follow rules to the letter, suddenly you make it harder for newer editors to get acclimated when they genuinely do want to help improve the wiki in good faith - not to mention everyone who gets sanctioned for forgetting some minor guideline or even policy.Epicgenius (talk)19:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Demote to guideline I would not support a complete repeal, as it does have some use in terms of centralization. However, it is inaccurate to pretend it is on the level of other policies. This overstates its significance in editing to new users, and thus causes more confusion than necessary. It can de facto never be used as weight against an argument based on a different policy. Therefore, I feel like changing its status from policy to guideline would be a corrective, which at the same time does not change anything about the substantial practice. The Pillars are something that's been previously mentioned, and I also see them cited in discussion. Do they have much less weight than IAR, as some have implied? No.I understand the aesthetic-traditional concern, but I feel like it's inappropriate, and misleading to still pretend IAR is a "real" policy. What kind of policy has a dozen pages that have to say that they're actually completely different than what's stated in their text? Let's be realistic, even if IAR was deleted, practically nothing would change. Precisely because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is why we do not need a policy to say something along those lines! Does anyone seriously think IAR is some lone, last stand against abuse? Some have also proposed replacing the IAR text with the fifth Pillar's text. I support such alternatives in principle, but I am also aware that the overwhelming consensus is to keep the current wording. Thus, I consider a demotion the middle ground. Ironically, IAR is making us, in a small way, more bureaucratic.Dege31 (talk)19:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR we are told that a policy has "wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow". This maybe applies to some vague spirit of IAR, but, ironically, absolutely not to the actual IAR.Dege31 (talk)19:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oops i fell head-first into a rabbit hole but haven't been able to find the rabbit
this is gonna be a strange one, and i really hope the answer just ends up being a straightforward "yes", because otherwise, the blue screen i got while writing this and a comparison i've made totommy tallarico off-wiki won't age like they drank from the wrong grail
larry sanger, who co-founded wikipedia (despite what some press claims would imply) and left over ideological differences, is stated to have proposed iar as a half-joke. this much is easy to accept, if probably a little hard to verify, and doesn't conflict with what iar currently is
however, this is where things get a little strange, because... uh...
did larry actually write iar!? everything i could find either mentions that he did so in passing and without a source, as if it found the info elsewhere and is just thoughtlessly saying it like it's uncontroversial info everyone knows, states that he only proposed it, or doesn't mention it at all. that, and the history points to the creator actually having beenlee daniel crocker. i thought i could find conclusive info in this talk page's archives, but... well, here's the list of everything i found
archive 1: an off-handed mention of larry having created it (by larry, in what seems to have beennovember 2002), two mentions of larry being unreliable, three mentions of lee having done it
archive 6: an off-handed mention of lee having written it
archive 7: an off-handed mention of larry having formulated it (whatever that means)
archive 9: an off-handed mention of larry having written it, as opposed to jimbo wales (isn't that the guy frombalatro?)
archive 15: two off-handed mentions of larry having written it, one of lee having written it
archive 18: a mention of larry having formulated it, as opposed tokoyaanis qatsi, but of the history conveniently being gone (which doesn't seem to be the case anymore)
archive 19: mentions of larry having written it, with sources!! but i can't get one to load, and the other (theslash dot memoir) doesn't seem to directly support the fact that larry wrote iar or created the page, only that he supported and(/or?) proposed it
archive 21: nothing because archive 21 doesn't exist at the time of me writing this
ignore all rules (as in the mainspace article on it): sources suggesting that larry proposed it
from this mess, the most reasonable ideas seem to be that larry had a part in supporting its creation, but then either lee wrote or created it, or it was done by committee back during thenupedia days, both of which would make it really weird that larry takes credit for the specific act of writing (and/or creating) it. i haven't been able to get archives like wp-nostalgia to work properly, or let me see their history and logs, so that also tosses a wrench into properly finding out what actually happenedconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)13:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth "internet points", I suppose. But it really is worth nothing as far as discussion here goes, despite the opinion of you and Sanger's other supporters.Anomie⚔17:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you wanna be pedantic, it gives larry more of a right over iar than an ip or a brand new editor... but only because he has 10 or more edits on an account at least 4 days old, so left guide has just as much right over itconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who came up with it matters as much as who invented shoes. If,Grog the Caveman, the inventor of shoes, suddenly came back to life and decided that shoes shoes were evil and walking barefoot was better, the rest of the world would move on and ignore that person.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}20:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is more like anWP:RFCBEFORE discussion, and I thought it would be a good idea to start a properly formatted RfC, but apparently not. Sorry!
People are leaving bolded !votes and dozens of editors have participated. Contrary to your views that IAR and related policies shouldn't exist, Wikipedia is not abureaucracy andcommon sense says that we don't need a formal RfC to be opened to determineconsensus (another thing that Larry wants to eliminate).voorts (talk/contributions)21:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bolded votes can happen outside RFCs. It isn't always needed sometimes it can be useful and several no votes did argue for one. And my point above anyway was saying above is not an RFC rather than saying we need one(though it could be useful.) Also, IAR not existing doesn't mean it will become a bureaucracy or that common sense won't exist it just means there isn't this rule that causes confusion about ignoring rules.GothicGolem29 (talk)22:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring tothis comment above, two AfD discussions is not sufficient evidence that IAR is causingserious confusion. Some people get confused between their right and their left; we're not going to abolish directions now, are we?voorts (talk/contributions)23:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say what happened in the afd I linked below is serious confusion as one side os saying you van keep an article because its helpful to people and another is saying that isn't how it works that is confusion and in my view something like that is quite serious(and indeed the result ended with no consensus.) Abolishing directions is not possible so it is not the same as abolishing iar.GothicGolem29 (talk)00:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serious, as in widespread, not serious as in "in this individual case, a person misunderstood a policy page". If we abolished policies every time we had asingle example of somebody making bad arguments based on one of them, we wouldn't have any policies.voorts (talk/contributions)01:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A case like that with serious confusion in my view is enough. This isn't just a single person making a mistake it is multiple people disagreeing on if IAR applies in this case and no consensus was achieved. That is different than if just one person misunderstands a rule(and presumably no one would agree if it is one person.)GothicGolem29 (talk)13:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a policy causes that level of confusion in a discussion(which ended with no consensus) I don't think it is dumb to want to correct that confusion.GothicGolem29 (talk)18:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The way to solve it is to revoke the policy so it doesn't confuse people anymore(and I will not several people in the afd explained in the afd already.)GothicGolem29 (talk)18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen those situations so cannot comment on them. What I have seen is real confusion caused by IAR and that is why it should be repealed.GothicGolem29 (talk)23:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've seen plenty of confusion regarding the specifics ofwp:xfd andwp:blar, that means they gotta go!!
Wikipedia:XFD is different to what I am supporting as Wiki can't really just not have a deletion process in my view as that would cause all kinds of issues whereas it can remove certain policies and that includes IAR. What specifics aboutWikipedia:BLAR(could not tell from reading the redirect links.)GothicGolem29 (talk)01:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the point is that, even if a bunch of examples can be named, that's not necessarily a problem with the rules, so much as it is constant confusion and misinterpretation of them. it at best means some stuff could be clarified in both of those guidelines under the assumption that the average reader would be extremely not smart, but definitely not that they should be done away with. it is, as the younger folk would say, a skill issue
here's the difference, though: iar is a one-sentence policy that makes its scope, intent, and method of use extremely clear. to misinterpret it would require active and deliberate misinterpretation or a refusal to actually read itconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a clarification of IAR to make it less confusing (as per the below rfc) if repeal does not happen but given the level of confusion I do still think repealing is the right choice. It is not extremely clear the afd made that clear given one side was saying that is not how this works works and the other was basing it on the exact words to say an article should be kept because it is helpful. That situation in my view shows how confusing this rule is and why it needs to be repealed not that this is a "skill issue".GothicGolem29 (talk)17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
really, the only idea i'd have to make it clearer without making iar itself less clear by tacking more words would add about six characters to it. that is, three apostrophes before the first i, and three more directly after the first fconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure why you think that would make it clearer? Personally I think it would make it more clearer to do the proposal in the RFC below or some other solution clarifying the rule more.GothicGolem29 (talk)23:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it is over the afd of that petition, the votes were about whether or not the petition should exist and why, not directly about iar itself, and the agreement was that, even if someone disagreed with it, it should be kept, and the nom was just being a bit of a stinkyhead. same for this essay's mfd
also, that afd happened 15 years ago, so it's ultimately not worth much for establishing anything recent. you know,consensus can change and all that, and even if would've resulted in a keep for the exact same reason if nommed now, that would be better for validating current opinions
if it's the others... whoopie, stuff gets misrepresented and misused, maybe we'll have actual news someday. hell, one of them wasn't even really about iar. they're also really old, and thus not really all that useful now for the same reasons i mentioned 41 words and an acronym ago. if someone has issues with something and the consensus seems outdated, they can try discussing it, and in this case, the consensus is more clearly that doing the thing would be a very not good ideaconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion abovequacks like a duck and as such many reasonable editors might call it an RFC.But even if it's not, the discussion is still very active. Launching a second discussion in the middle of it is counterproductive. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that itQuacks like a duck it quacks like a large participation discussion not a formal RFC that is sent out beyond the page. Not sure I agree as several participants in that wanted an RFC but the decision has been made by the editor who closed the RFC.GothicGolem29 (talk)22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to add the following to the IAR policy:
The purpose of this policy is improvement of Wikipedia, so if an editor planning to invoke it has reasonable grounds to believe their action will be controversial, they should establish a priorconsensus.
To be clear, I propose this as an addition to the policy wording, rather than a footnote or guidance. If deemed necessary, a footnote or guidance can clarify that "improvement" and "controversial" are meant in the way that established and experienced Wikipedians would understand them, not their plain meaning.Gordon Maximo (talk)09:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)—Gordon Maximo (talk ·contribs) is a confirmedsock puppet ofAttackTheMoonNow (talk ·contribs).[reply]
For context, I retired my original Wikipedia account (scrambled password, good standing) a long time ago precisely because it seemed like the common sense of the early years (pre-2007) had departed these halls forever. Not only did it seem impossible to make the case to Administrators that by definition, a policy compliant IAR action should be uncontroversial, they were regularly seen defending patently controversial acts as if it were the proper use of IAR (e.g., it's perfectly fine to have a higher tolerance of incivility for highly productive editors, for the "mission"). I'm pleased to say, especially with the advent ofWP:RECALL, those day might be over. So people like me can perhaps get back to editing, if this proposal is well received. If not, I'll go back to being an interested lurker.
Oppose. Situations of an urgent nature need to be handled first, and then discussed afterward, which the text"should establish a priorconsensus" would preclude. There is no benefit to overcomplicating a policy that simply reminds editors to use common sense. — Newslingertalk10:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe you have just misunderstood my proposal? IAR is surely not a tool for enabling controversial acts simply because they're urgent in the eyes of the actioner. And if it's a non-controversial but urgent act in the eyes of the actioner, then quite obviously my proposal doesn't delay them in any way, because prior consensus would not be required. And to be really clear, as per the proposal, we are not defining controversial to mean the mere act of ignoring a Wikipedia rule.Gordon Maximo (talk)10:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing prior consensus for any potentially controversial action is fundamentally anti-wiki. We have to beWP:BOLD or we never get anything done. Asking people to "establish consensus first" isharmful. —Kusma (talk)13:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using IAR to excuse a BOLD action you knew beforehad was potentially controversial, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. A pattern of such behaviour would see you get blocked for disruptive exiting. Perhaps you're confusing the basic concept of a wiki with the rules based order of Wikipedia (of which IAR is one such rule)?Gordon Maximo (talk)13:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is literally a Wikipedia rule. In your interpretation of Wikipedia, are you aLlowed to BOLDLly mark IAR as historical, citing IAR? If not, why not? I say it's because my proposal accurately describes what IAR is, on a fundamental level.Gordon Maximo (talk)19:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not, why not? Because that would be an improper reliance on IAR and your proposal does notaccurately describe what IAR is, on a fundamental level. Since you've omitted the actual language of IAR from your proposal, I'll provide it here: "If arule prevents you from improving or maintainingWikipedia,ignore it." Boldly marking IAR as historical – against very longstanding consensus and without any discussion – would not be "improving or maintaining Wikipedia".voorts (talk/contributions)19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That was the point, to counter Kusma's incorrect beleif that IAR is essential because it encapsulates Wikipedia's rules free BOLD ethos.Gordon Maximo (talk)07:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that IAR was"a tool for enabling controversial acts simply because they're urgent in the eyes of the actioner". Your proposed addition of the text"should establish a priorconsensus" would delay editors from "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" with an IAR-based action that is declared to be "controversial", which is an inappropriate limitation in time-sensitive situations in which the IAR-based action needs to be taken immediately. Additionally, you have not identified any recent examples of alleged IAR abuse that would have resulted in a different outcome had your proposal been implemented, which makes this proposal unnecessary. — Newslingertalk13:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that there are things which are so urgent, but which the person invoking IAR couldn't possibly foresee their action would generate (legitimate) controversy, and there was no other applicable rule specifically covering urgent situations, seems faulty. Fanciful even. Are you aware of any such incidents where IAR was necessary? I've seen several unblocks where the Administrator claimed it was an urgent IAR action and it blew up into a major controversy, something they absolutely would have known would be the result. Do you support IAR being used in that scenario? Do you support Administrators offering implausible claims of not knowing their supposedly uncontroversial act was anything but? Those are the scenarios I think people have in mind when they say IAR is being abused so it should be removed. I want it retained precisely because it has a use for even urgent but clearly uncontroversial actions.Gordon Maximo (talk)13:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one proposing the policy change, so the onus is on you to show that your proposal would make a difference. Your comment provides no specific examples. According to your "personal note", you have been retired for a while, so do you have any links to recent examples of alleged IAR abuse that would have resulted in a different outcome with your proposal? — Newslingertalk14:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a general case that everyone here has surely seen happen several times. I am not so sure anyone has ever seen the scenario you propose. What could possibly be so urgent, and yet also controversial? If it's genuinely urgent and isn't already covered by an existing rule, or worse, prevented by one, the benefit to Wikipedia should be blindingly obvious, no?Gordon Maximo (talk)19:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem that"everyone here has surely seen happen several times", then you would surely be able to provide links to some recent examples. Content and conduct standards are much higher in 2025 than they were in Wikipedia's"pre-2007" era, and it is a waste of time to ask the community to consider a proposal based on your experiences on Wikipedia 18 years ago. — Newslingertalk19:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat, what are the supposedly urgent issues requiring IAR invocation that my proposal would prevent? My proposal is as relevant now as it was in 2007. Conduct/content standards being higher now is exactly why there is a need to remind people that IAR is not for the CLUEless anymore. Claiming something was urgent and creating a storm of criticism in the aftermath, is surely about as CLUEless as it gets on Wikipedia in 2025.Gordon Maximo (talk)16:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The onus to show your proposal is necessary or an improvement (by demonstrating recent abuses of the policy that your proposal would have prevented) is still on you, as you are the one arguing for a policy change. Otherwise, all you are doing is strengthening the impression that your proposal is at best a solution looking for a problem. —Kusma (talk)16:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess reasonable people can disagree on whether I have done that. But it's hardly a shock to see the most vocal opponents of the proposal making that argument that I haven't. Maybe if it had been their very first point, rather than coming after a back and forth where we have examined the logic of their actual opposition as framed (e.g. "Establishing prior consensus for any potentially controversial action is fundamentally anti-wiki"), it would come across as a more reasonable point.Gordon Maximo (talk)18:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not rehash my argument, I replied to your specifc post. What is disruptive is to suggest you are interested in hearing an argument that my proposal is even more necessary in 2025 than 2007, when apparently all you were doing was enjoying the sound of your own voice and expecting silence in response.Gordon Maximo (talk)17:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more correctly viewed as a rule being internally consistent with itself. Since quite obviously taking "ignore all rules" literally is the actual non-starter, the thing which has led to the imho totally misguided calls to get rid of it.Gordon Maximo (talk)10:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sort of What we have withWP:IAR is jargon and jargon tends to support rule following nitpicking. I would prefer it renamed and made more user friendly and the IAR shortcut just kept as a historical link to it. I think the text inWP:5P5 illustrates the sort of thing needed. The 'sort of' is that yes we do need a change - but it needs to be thought out more. There needs to nbe more proposal and then we can a choice for a proper RfC.NadVolum (talk)12:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree withNadVolum that having a few more options proposed before am RfC might be a good idea. I also don't believe scoping IAR is the way to go since the whole point is that its scope is all of Wikipedia. The accusation should never be "IAR doesn't apply here for technical reasons, but rather, "IAR doesn't apply here because that doesn't improve the encyclopedia." If something doesn't improve the encyclopedia then IAR already doesn't apply, and if it does then there isn't an issue. This would be like having a constitution that said "do the right thing, except in the following circumstances". Self-evident imperatives should not have limited scope. For example, with this change, someone might argue that IAR doesn't apply to closure challenges since such a situation would be explicitly acting against consensus. Also, in response to@GothicGolem29:, I'd like to ask that people stop conflating clarity with limits to scope and/or extra words. A longer policy isn't necessarily clearer, nor is one with a reduced scope. IAR in its current form is the clearest policy English Wikipedia has (it's unique in its lack of reliance on Wikipedia jargon), and attempting to frame a substsntial change as a "clarification" iwn't doing the discussiin justice.lp0 on fire()12:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my proposal reads as a Wikipedia way of saying "IAR [probably] doesn't apply here because [you probably already know] that [your intended use of it] doesn't improve the encyclopedia [because it would be controversial in the eyes of the community]." It certainly wouldn't bind people from acting against consensus, since by definition, any application of IAR is literally an act agaisnt consensus (except the clear consensus that non-controversial use of IAR, is perfectly acceptable).Gordon Maximo (talk)12:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is not, at least to me, how the proposal reads. If that was the goal I would recommend rewording it, but do also consider thatWP:NOTIAR already does that, so it might be simpler just to propose turning that essay into policy.lp0 on fire()15:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the length being increased is adding to the policy about the purpose and about controversial decisions I would argue yes that is clearer. I disagree it is the clearest with very little clarity in the rule it can be interpreted in different ways(as an example in a afd someone argued to keep a article regardless of notabiliy rules because it is useful and someone agreed while others stated that is not how this works.)GothicGolem29 (talk)13:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion apparently involves the clause already being misinterpreted according to the nom, so even if you disagree that IAR is clear as is, the proposed addition certainly isn't making making it clearer; that's the role of essays likeWP:IAR?. This proposal is to change the policy substantially, which is not the same thing as clarifying it.lp0 on fire()15:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed new clause does make it clear as it states that a consensus should be sought for controversial iar uses. Essays have their role but sometimes the enforceable policies need to be changed for clarification. It would change the policy but in doing so would provide clarity.GothicGolem29 (talk)16:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring a consensus discussion prior to any IAR edit is overly bureaucratic. Requiring oneshould another editor object to the IAR edit is reasonable.Blueboar (talk)21:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not for any IAR edit it is for any controversial IAR edit. If an editor is applying IAR and they believe it is not controversial they can just do it.GothicGolem29 (talk)22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you objecting to the policy text being updated to reflect the actual practice, as opposed to the non-existent practice it currently claims, or at least implies?Dege31 (talk)20:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particularly in light of the above discussion, this probably isn't the right time. It also could have benefited from some workshopping: we already havea lot of essays on the topic that go into much more detail and come at it from more than just a single viewpoint.Anomie⚔13:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we already have dozens of essays such asWP:IAR? that clarify ignore all rules. Despite this policy's conciseness it carries a lot of meaning.Aasim (話す)14:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – IAR specifically exists because we can't have rules and processes to encompass every situation, so I don't believe that specifying a process for it would be helpful, especially since the specific framing of requiring prior consensus might be unnecessarily binding. For example, if we're dealing with potentially harmful material (e.g. problematic BLP material or borderline oversightable content), it can be reasonable to act first, then evaluate consensus and revert if needed. Or, in a much more mundane case:WP:BOLD, revert, discuss. Of course, I do agree that IAR shouldn't be an excuse to justify absolutely everything, and I agree with the proposal's spirit of not using it to push decisions against consensus, but this is better suited for explanatory essays such asWP:IAR? rather than a restriction of the policy itself.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)15:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Hey, I'm not really an editor these days. I'm not going to reveal my previous accounts and I don't have any personal investment whatsoever on Wikipedia anymore, but you should really neuter this core policy by making folks ask for permission first."Nope.BusterD (talk)15:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"you should really neuter this core policy by making folks ask for permission first." is of course not what this proposal does. Unless you came here to say IAR is exclusively for controversial actions? Is that what being an active editor has taught you, that ignoring a rule here in 2025 is inherently controversial?Gordon Maximo (talk)08:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don’t oppose adding clarification, but it goes the other way - If an editor believes that ignoring a rule improves Wikipedia, they are free to boldly make the edit. However… if another editor subsequently disagrees and reverts, THEN the first editor needs to start a discussion and establish consensus.Blueboar (talk)16:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what IAR is for. Why not try participating instead of coming back solely to start an RfC based on Larry's poorly researched and reasoned essay?voorts (talk/contributions)17:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the fundamental misunderstanding I am guilty of? It's been claimed above, without evidence, that IAR is what allows people to be BOLD or make urgent edits. Is that what you mean, or something else?Gordon Maximo (talk)19:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some uses of IAR already rely on consensus. For example, at AfD, an IAR rationale would require significant support to override GNG. Other uses of IAR do not rely on consensus, such as aBartender's closing at RfD. We should not uniformly impose a consensus requirement on invoking IAR. If you had edited here recently instead of coming back solely to start an RfC, you might have known those things. Regarding the evidence, nobody in the discussion above or this RfC has presented any solid evidence that IAR is somehow being routinely misapplied or used for devious purposes. The only evidence I've seen cited is a similar petition from 2010 where editors complained about IAR without providing any evidence and a few AfD discussions, some of which don't even include any discussion of IAR.voorts (talk/contributions)19:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We should not uniformly impose a consensus requirement on invoking IAR". No we should not. My proposal doesn't do that. My proposal would stop an Administrator unilaterally closing an AfD in a way that overrides GNG and relying on IAR as their defence. If there is a consensus to close it that way, you don't need to cite IAR, because Wikipedia already has rules that say what has consensus support is an improvement to Wikipedia (WP:CON+WP:AfD). Whether that consensus is solid enough if it only happened in an AfD, is another question - but if you're answering it by cit8ng IAR, it's probably a sign you haven't understood IAR.Gordon Maximo (talk)07:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal would stop an Administrator unilaterally closing an AfD in a way that overrides GNG and relying on IAR as their defence. Do you have any examples of this occurring?voorts (talk/contributions)16:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing a potential scenario laid out in the seemingly confused policy logic of your comment at 19:46. If Administrators are in the habit of believing that an AfD consensus that goes against GNG is an example of IAR in action, and they are also of the opinion that Wikipedia "should not uniformly impose a consensus requirement on invoking IAR", then it stands to reason one day they might come across an AfD where they think it is appropriate to cut out the middle man and not even wait to see if there is a consensus to ignore GNG. It being quite absurd to then say there is a rule out there somewhere (AFD, ADMIN?) that would prevent IAR being used this way. The logical place to prevent it, is within the very rule they're about to missapply. Since clearly they're not big on reading essays.Gordon Maximo (talk)17:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "obviously nonsensical", then you should be able to explain how. What is the "whole poknt of IAR" in your opinion? And how does my proposal prevent it? Specifically, what IAR actions would my addition prevent?Gordon Maximo (talk)19:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All of them" includes, for example, WP:COPYRIGHT. This rule should not be taken literally, it should be used with WP:CLUE. My proposal makes that crystal clear as part of the policy, rather than just hoping editors have read the various essays that make the (pretty obvious) point that IAR doesn't apply to "all of them".Gordon Maximo (talk)07:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Its simplicity is one of IAR's great strengths. This addition is not an improvement. Any addition is likely to change, obscure, or complicate the meaning. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Are you suggesting we add rules telling people when they're allowed to ignore all rules? This is a solution looking for a problem; no one has presented any serious evidence that there any problems with IAR. You talk aboutrecent talk of lAR's potential for abuse can be assuaged, but no credible issues have been raised; we don't update policy just to "assuage" baseless grumbling - the purpose of our policy isnot to grandstand in efforts to "assuage" longtime critics, but to keep Wikipedia functioning. And right now, IAR is functioning perfectly. --Aquillion (talk)21:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you suggesting we add rules telling people when they're allowed to ignore all rules?". No. As I have already clarified, this is about making IAR internally consistent. My proposal would be part of the rule. There are significant numbers of established and active editors proposing to get rid of IAR, so I am curious if you think that is a sign it is "functioning perfectly"? I'm pretty sure nobody presented any actual evidence that Wikipedia being biased was a problem, but that "longtime critic" you're now so dismissive of, had the good sense to ensure Wikipedia had an NPOV policy from the very start. Credible issues have been exposed by the opposers here, with people apparently thinking IAR is for making urgent but controversial actions (wrong), is necessary to ensure people can be BOLD (wrong), or justifying other pretty routine actions (apparently because they didn't even know there already was a relevant rule) (lack of CLUE), plus the rather absurd sight of people claiming IAR literally means what it says (so you can "improve" Wikipedia by breaking copyright law?).Gordon Maximo (talk)07:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided any actual evidence that there are problems. You're not even correct that significant numbers of editors are proposing doing away with IAR; both this discussion and the one above are at the threshold where aWP:SNOW closure would be expected, and show strong support for it as it currently exists. We are not obliged toWP:SATISFY the feelings of a tiny but vocal minority unhappy with Wikipedia's current direction. But even if you were correct and your concerns were something other than that tiny but loud minority,we don't decide things by votes; you must provide actual rationales for your concerns by saying in detail what problem your proposed change would fix and actually establishing that that problem is genuine, which you have failed to do. Beyond that, you areWP:BLUDGEONing this discussion; repeating the same bad arguments over and over again only serves to underline their flaws. What you need to do isWP:DROPTHESTICK, accept that your position has failed to convince the community, and move on to something more productive than wasting further editorial time and energy on this. --Aquillion (talk)15:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initiator of an RfC is expected and required to ensure it stays on track and actually discusses the proposal at hand. You asked a question, you got your answer, from exactly the right person to answer it. If my arguments are bad, address them, not what you (wrongly) perceive as my motive. I am not obliged to meet any other standards of proof/argument than that which is required by WP:RFC. There is evidence of a problem, I offered a solution. If consensus is against me, so be it. If that consensus is built on a mistaken belief, such as "Are you suggesting we add rules telling people when they're allowed to ignore all rules?", so be it. I can only correct such errors. I cannot force you to admit the error, or reflect on your !vote as a result. Sadly it is often necessary to repeat the same points to different people, given how often !voters fail to read what's come before. In the spirit of not wasting people's time on matters not meant to be discussed here, I invite you to take all the other issues you've raised to a more appropriate venue.Gordon Maximo (talk)17:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First this appears some weirdly motivated appeal to right some past wrong rather than something that the sponsor believes is widely supported on wiki and is looking to establish a formal consensus. Too much consensus seeking is actually harmful to the project and an important part of the spirit of IAR is a dedication to the betterment of the project. I am a very data motivated person. If someone showed that many uses of IAR were later overturned then maybe it would make sense to press the breaks on this policy. However, at this time I do not see what actual problem this change to the rules is trying to solve. Yes there have been some bad applications of IAR in the past, yes there will continue to be many in the future. However, the thing I see much more commonly on the project is dead end conversations where no consensus is made and obivous problems are not solved. Indecision is often worse than wrong decision.Czarking0 (talk)22:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem this solves is people thinking they can hide behind IAR if they choose to make an action they know would be controversial, but they couldn't (or wouldn't) take the time to establish a prior consensus. It's as simple as that. People assuming it would stop people being BOLD or mire us all in endless indecision, or nullifies the entire point of IAR, are ironically showing what the problem with it likely is. IAR is pretty pointless if the vast majority of editors genuinely have no clue what it is for. If they genuinely didn't know that as of 2025, if everything is working as intended, it shouldn't need to he used very often at all. But if the handful of times it is used, a controvery blows up, then there's obviously a problem that needs to be solved.Gordon Maximo (talk)08:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I've written above, for me in a way IAR is the BOLD of policy navigation and if someone disagrees after an IAR invocation, that can be discussed on a case by case basis, but I would rather not restrict it from the beginning for all cases. Added to that I think IAR can sometimes also just provides a basis for experienced editors to do something they believe makes the encyclopedia better but is against some policy without having to fear revers and user warnings for policy violations of someone opposed themSquawk7700 (talk)00:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the above, this does not add clarity but another level of subjectiveness, as no one thinks their edits are "controversial" as any reasonable person would agree with them.Slatersteven (talk)11:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see Larry Sanger even !voted to oppose this, and while I agree with him that a full repeal would be better, I don't think we should oppose improvements to IAR if it must stay.Iljhgtn (talk)14:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've perhaps confused the act of ignoring/defying a consensus (IAR) and acting in the absence of consensus (BOLD). The latter can be reversed with a consensus. It's a total waste of everyone's time to seek a consensus to defy a consensus after you have defied the consensus. Borderline Kafkaesque.Gordon Maximo (talk)17:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, both kinds of action can be reversed by consensus. BOLD is "i think it should be this way, and there's no particular reason not to do it". IAR is "i think it should be this way, and there are reasons not to do it, but I'm pretty darned sure I can defend the action if anyone complains". Either way, consensus can speak after the fact.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, IAR is very clearly "i thinkMy knowledge and experience tells me it should be this way,andbut there arereasonsrules telling me not to do it,butso because Wikipedia isn't a mindless bureaucracy I'm pretty darned sureI can defend the action if anyone complainsI won't even need to defend myself because the benefit to Wikipedia is just obvious. People who view it your way, albeit I note you said "if" not "when", are the problem the proposal fixes. IAR is a grease gun, not a legal defence. Anyone smart enough to know whether "if" is more correctly phrased as "when" in your interpretation, should also be smart enough to know getting consensus prior to acting is already the way they should be approaching such issues. For everyone else, there's a simple way to make sure they have the necessary CLUE (my addition), in a way that doesn't remotely stop them being a very useful grease gun applicator. By contrast, BOLD is something anyone who has made a non-trivial number of edits here, should be able to grasp. It's not a legal defence or a grease gun, it's a general Licence To Edit, something Wikipedia gives out pretty freely. With all due respect to Larry's original intent, the Wikipedia of 2025 doesn’t want new drivers to even be aware of IAR until driving around these parts has become second nature to them. Misuse of BOLD by novice editors is expected, perhaps even beneficial. The exact opposite is true of IAR. That's the difference that I'm truly shocked to see is apparently lost on so many experienced editors.Gordon Maximo (talk)18:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bizarre proposal. Not only has there not been a shred of actual need presented for such a solution in search of a problem, the very proposal itself is even more confusing, convoluted, and illogical than the current text.older ≠wiser17:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Goodness me, if you think IAR should go, just say that, but how are you going to impose a rule on IAR and prevent people from ignoring it?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many are saying that this is contradictory to IAR. In reality, this is just being honest about how IAR actually operates. We shouldn't prioritise our jargon which means the exact opposite of the plain English, over lightening the learning curve for new editors.Dege31 (talk)20:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How often is IAR invoked these days, and how do such events go? I can't remember the last time I saw it invoked. A few examples from the last couple of years would be helpful - especially if they went well. If we don't have many such examples then perhaps we should just leave this policy to sit around for the sort of unexpected emergencies that I understood it to be intended for.ϢereSpielChequers15:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True IAR cowboy/cowgirl admin actions (classic example: the unilateral deletion of all potentially partisan userboxes that sparked the userbox wars) seem vanishingly rare these days.
The magic words "IAR" themselves, on the other hand, are fairly commonly invoked when the wording of a rule, but not its spirit, is broken by some action. For example over atWP:DYK, there is nominally a seven day limit for new articles to be nominated, but newbies and people who ask nicely often get an "IAR" exemption from this. (You could say that there is a non-codified rule that says the seven days are not a hard limit, and it is less hassle to say "IAR" than to codify when exceptions are made). —Kusma (talk)16:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that makes sense, and I suppose a recent posting of mine at the crats noticeboard could be interpreted as me checking if anyone objects to a bit of flexibility.ϢereSpielChequers17:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say uses of IAR I've seen fall into two camps:
Explicit invocations of IAR. These are rare but they're super necessary when they happen. E.g. I edit trans BLPs a lot, and you occasionally see some right-wing troll assert that they're trans in a way that is obviously not serious. By the letter ofMOS:GENDERID we'd have to take this seriously and change their pronouns in their article. However every time I've seen this situation actually happen, instead IAR is immediately invoked and no change is made.
Implicit invocations of IAR. Or in other words, a rule is ignored without explicitly saying that it's being ignored. So for instance, by a literal reading ofMOS:LABEL it wouldn't be allowed to call Hitler a Nazi in Wikivoice, since "Nazi" is a contentious label, no matter the level of sourcing... but we do anyway. IAR essentially adds an implicit extra clause toMOS:LABEL (and some other policies and guidelines) saying "but if it would be absurd not to, you can".
It’s not that the other rules are not clearly written… most are quite clear. It’s that there are very rare situations where we need to make an exception to a rule or when that rule simply doesn’t apply… situations that we likely didn’t even realizedexisted when we wrote those rules.
Now, when those rare situations crop up, wecould amend the rules to allow them… but… that leads to bloated policies and guidelines that simply confuse readers with exceptions that are rare.
Or we can have a blanket rule (IAR) that allows us to make the occasional exception when necessary, but keeps the other rules simple and applicable tomost situations.Blueboar (talk)15:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why has nobody updated MOS:GENDERID to say that it doesn't apply to obvious right wing trolls? Hopefully that's not because such a change would be controversial, but I can certainly see how some people might be abusing IAR to avoid having to get that apparent consensus documented.
2. The fact Wikipedia doesn't actually call Hitler a Nazi in Wikivoice in the pejorative sense, rather than a simple factual statement (he was literally the Leader of the Nazi Party), is the canonical example of WP:NPOV working as intended. Anyone who tried to make Hitler look worse than the cold hard facts already do by adding nasty labels in Wikivoice and citing IAR, implicitly or explicitly, is clearly not the kind of editor Wikipedia wants or needs.Gordon Maximo (talk)08:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sort of implicit IAR invocations Loki describes inWP:RM discussions from time to time. Sometimes the article title that would result from applying a particular set of P&G skinks and we opt for something that violates the rules. Editors who simply exclaimIAR! in support of their favored title are almost never successful. More often, a good case is articulated for why the best title doesn't fit the mold and this gains support. In such cases, the IAR result reflects consensus. voorts gave a good example with thebartender's close, which I encounter at RM and RFD. Here the particular outcome may not reflect explicit consensus but it does reflect consensusagainst a set of alternatives. I most often encounter IAR implicitly and as part of the consensus model. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, nothing that happens as a result of a prior consensus, even if that is as weak as a Wikipedia space essay, is an IAR action. It's common misunderstandings like that which really need to be made clear in this rule. A bartender's close is not an IAR action. How could it be? What "rule" does it ignore? RM's PAGs categorically do not say you MUST have a plurality. What actual controversy arises from a bartender's close? If the essay has been used correctly, nobody has any just cause to complain, since no complainant is in the numercial majority or had the strongest argument. If IAR is being used correctly, there is both no cause to complain, but also not even a Wikipedia space essay you can point to to justify your action. Your only support is IAR. That's the whole point. It's for ignoring rules that would prevent your action, not adding a layer of authority to scenarios people have already considered and documented using Wikipedia space essays.Gordon Maximo (talk)08:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "top contributor" is the person who made the proposal. Me. On what planet does WP:RfC recommend the proposer just sitting back and letting people completely mischaracterise the proposal (or the proposer's motives) just so they can offer strawman arguments in opposition? It's utterly absurd for people to be suggesting I am so thick that somehow I have made a proposed addition to IAR that completely nullifies IAR, without even realising it (or as my super clever ulterior motive?!?!?!). It's seeing crap like that which persuades smart people that Wikipedia is a giant waste of their time. And the smart people can already see the complaints of currently active editors that they're already being overloaded due to the influx of AI driven editing by total incompetents. Many of whom probably look at this one line rule and believe it supports their "bold" act of using AI to assist them in improving Wikipedia.Gordon Maximo (talk)18:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blockedsockpuppet ofAttackTheMoonNow, seeinvestigation)[reply]
