Ignore all rules (IAR) is one of Wikipedia's core policies. It states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The community's use of consensus to form opinions however, is not just a rule, it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's administrators are essential functionaries, but they are not above the wider community, and are expected to abide by its norms or policies in the use of their tools. They are free to hold opinions like anybody else, but any administrator who invokes IAR to justify the improper use of their tools in a way that intentionally ignores or improperly side-steps the community's wider opinion in favour of their own, is not improving or maintaining Wikipedia in the true spirit of IAR. They are instead undermining its most fundamental aspect, the community itself. Therefore:
We the undersigned, condemn in the strongest possible terms, any administrator that invokes IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia.
Today, I am ashamed to be an administrator. To so thoroughly abuse the power granted to implement the consensus of the editors of this project by violating our trust is disgraceful, and if those administrators responsible had a shred of integrity they would resign forthwith. Skomorokh 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Administrators have their position because of the community's consensus in their RFA; if they no longer respect the community's consensus, they should consider whether they're doing the right thing by retaining their adminship.[reply]
I have never been fond of IAR anyway. i don't think In have ever seen an action taken where IAR was the sole or primary reason given that I supported. But in this case IAR is cited, not be the actors (who cited BLP, against its written terms) but by the ArbCom, to not only pardon but encourage disruptive use of admin tools. I am greatly saddened. DES(talk)21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No non-admin would ever get away with such disruptive attempts to "Ignore all rules", nor would they get away with the blatantly statements of contempt for the community made by some of the deleting admins. I do not see the point of having any policies or procedures at all if this kind of "wikiarnichism" is allowed to continue. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR was never supposed to mean "Screw you suckers. I'm the one with the big stick!" I would prefer a more through RFC/petition than this, but support of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today WP essentially ruled that admins can ignore not only rules, but community consensus. These people explictly contempt the community who gave them the tools, who built the project that they should protect. What a shame. -- Cyclopiatalk22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking IAR to justify large numbers of actions is always a bad idea. This is especially true of administrative actions. Hut 8.522:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom are sanctioning admins to delete 50,000 articles with no checks for sources or notability, and that's supposed to improve Wikipedia? Admins and ArbCom are supposed to be answerable to the community, not rule by diktat (that's the job of Mr Wales and the WMF...) Fences&Windows22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely block users who continue to do what they've decided is best for the encyclopedia even in the face of the consensus of the community against them. If only we did the same for admins. Algebraist22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is by definition something that should only be used rarely, not to justify just anything someone thinks should be done this way. It's a way to avoid rules to prevent improvement, not to do anything despite opposition. If someone opposes you, it's most likely because they don't feel you are improving the encyclopedia with your IAR action and if you continue despite this, you have misunderstood the reason why IAR was created: To avoid those few cases in which the rules are actually harming the project. It was never meant as a way to simply ignore policy because you don't think it's correct. To cite WP:ADMIN: Admins are "expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities [...] Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. The actions that a number of admins performed in the last few days in the name of BLP and IAR have radically altered the idea of adminship and IAR - and left the impression that administrators on this project can just go around using their tools as they see fit, ignoring community consensus and good faith objections. Ignoring a rule when improvement can be gained from doing so is the very spirit of Wikipedia. But doing so on a large-, semiautomated-scale despite objections and despite knowing that the community does not support this course of action (since the very policy cited to support it, WP:BLP, never allowed such deletions) takes the matter from good-faith ignoring to improve to almost WP:POINTy behavior. It's actions such as these that give IAR, which is a great policy to have, a very bad name. Regards SoWhy23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in. For a long time as a new user I thought IAR just stood for WP:I am right, because all too often that's all the person claiming it can say. Now it seems Arbcom wants to make that misperception a reality. Jheald (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per DuncanHill especially, and because if IAR is justifiable on more than one side of a debate, it becomes justifiable on no side. That is exactly the case in the unreferenced BLP fiasco. Resolute01:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the recent BLP-related events violated IAR. I can't really make up my mind on whether the recent events were a very good thing, a very bad thing, or some mix. However, saying that administrators should not abuse or misuse "Ignore all rules" is something I can stand behind. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would generally prefer replacing[...to justify the improper use of their tools in a way that intentionally ignores or improperly side-steps the community's wider opinion in favour of their own...] with [...to justify intentionally using their tools in a manner that ignores or side-steps the community's expressed consensus...] , but am glad to support the petition as written. Additionally, I would call attention to the difference between Ignore all rules and ignorance of community consensus - a difference we expect administrators to understand. — James Kalmar03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:IAR a bad policy? No. But should admins use it to circumvent consensus and community processes, violate other policies in taking unilateral actions, and use it to perform controversial administrative actions? Absolutely not. IAR is best left to uncontroversial actions – and summarily deleting unreferenced BLPs that don't contain contentious material is not uncontroversial. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to write a comment but Apoc2400 and the comment immediately above sums up my thoughts rather well. I am supportive of IAR as it was intended. Orderinchaos04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point of this petition is - to whom is it addressed? (Presumably not the abusive admins or the tame arbitrators who applauded them - these have already indicated that they don't care what the community thinks.) But certainly I support the sentiments.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I support IAR but overuse of it by an administrator or editor will cause more heat than light. Even if the intention was to improve Wikipedia, with the damage such actions do to the stability of the community which helps keep Wikipedia in one piece and productive, it can cause the opposite to happen. Camaron · Christopher ·talk10:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, without reference to the current debacle. The 3 proper uses of IAR are. responding to emergencies, dealing with a situation that the rules do not provide for, and preventing a rule from being applied in an absurd, inequitable, or counter-productive fashion. Everything else should be addressed by other means. I've been an admin here almost three years, and I've never needed or wanted anything else. DGG ( talk ) 10:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of IAR. I'll often argue that a policy or guideline is mistaken as applied to a given thing. I don't expect my opinion to be implemented unless it has consensus. Nor should admins act in a way they know, or should know, is contrary to consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is great to have, and I use it at times as rationale for plain common sense where no one specific policy exists. That doesn't mean I agree with a high percentage of IAR edits but will give them fair weight. My view here would be that it should never be claimed as rationale for administrator-exclusive action (re: article deletion). Uncontroversial page protections or users attempting to escape 3RR or warring on technicalities might be a few exceptions, but just never for article deletion. Admins using tools under an IAR clause also (accidentally?) classifies them as "super-editors" as they can accomplish far far more while operating under it. Has to stop. ♪daTheisen(talk)22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I prodded 50,000 articles that I and my close friends did not like, I'm pretty sure I would not be able to edit today. Nevermind unilaterally deleting them. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree very much with the principle of Ignoring All Rules when used appropriately: however, when it is used by those with special tools to bypass consensus for obviously controversial changes which cannot be reverted by ordinary editors, that is an unacceptable abuse of power and a desecration of the constructive spirit of IAR. Its purpose is not to discard community consensus in favour of hierarchy. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using IAR as an end-run around consensus, or using it when no consensus exists as to a proper course of action, is unacceptable. Invoking it with the rationale that the community is somehow "incapable" of holding a reasonable discussion on what to do with the BLP issue should be grounds for instant desysop. There is enough concern among non-admins that admins get special consideration, are above the law, can do things no regular editor would be allowed to do; well, a small group of admins has just guaranteed that we will be living with that perception for the foreseeable future. Pronouncing the community "incapable" of rational discourse re: what to do with unsourced BLPs (or re: anything else, actually), then invoking IAR as justification for taking drastic actions without consensus, shows an astonishing degree of arrogance and contempt for all non-admins--the people who are unquestionably the backbone of this entire enterprise. The actions recently taken under the veil of IAR have, in the space of 48 hours, transformed en:Wiki from a collaborative encyclopedia project into a microcosmic class struggle--a great big "us vs. them" with an encyclopedia somewhere in the mix. If this site is to become all about the powerful (admins and ArbCom) versus the powerless (everybody else), then I want no part of adminship anymore and will turn in my mop. And the hell of it is, I actually agree philosophically with those who've done the deleting--it's just their methods and their condescension which I find abhorrent. GJC08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with particular reference to the current debacle, and the disgraceful behavior of certain administrators, and the cheerleading done for them by certain arbitrators. RayTalk21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you push against anything it will push back, this is not very conducive to a colloquial atmosphere. If its your way or the highway then the highway starts to look very inviting, I was slowly working on some unreferenced BLPs when I had time but under these conditions I refuse to be pushed and pressured into volunteer work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
three cheers for creating this. I created: {{tl|Subst:User:Ikip/iar}}, as editors just did in the flagged petition. Also changing your signature to link to this petition is acceptable based on former arbcom members and several admins doing this for years, including during the flagged petition. Ikip00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent further wheel-warring over the PROD page makes this all the more clear that it needs to be said and said loudly. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a fan of IAR, but there is a point to where it can be misused. If users are disagreeing with an edit one has made, and IAR is used as reasoning behind those edits, well, it just won't cut it, especially in something as large as admins doing something that goes against community consensus, which is, IMO, an abuse of tools. IAR should be used in an event that it actually improves the encyclopedia, which does not include an outcry from other editors. In other words, IAR should be used when it basically is an uncontroversial edit where most other editors will see it as improving the encyclopedia. ~SuperHamsterTalk Contribs 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Ignore all rules" unequivocally does not mean "ignore other editors". IAR is for: cases where there is not yet a "rule" but action is necessary, edge cases in which applying a rule exactly as written would lead to an absurd or counterproductive outcome, and emergencies where immediate action is needed. None of these are true here. This "issue" has existed for many years, it did not become an emergency over one night. Nor is the fact that so many of these actions are done by a few of the same people and "support" is manufactured by offsite canvassing and coordination acceptable. It is one thing to invoke IAR in good faith, be wrong, and stop when objections are raised. That's an honest mistake, and those happen. It is quite another to continue over repeated and clear objections, and to display open contempt for the principles of collaboration and consensus while doing so. It is unfortunate that ArbCom did not see fit to impose consequences for the second type of behavior, or even to start a full case to see evidence of it. I will not under any circumstances vote for any arbitrator next year who voted in support of the ill-considered motion in that case, and I urge everyone else here to hold them accountable in a similar manner. Admins are here to use their tools on behalf of the community, not against it or on personal whim. That may mean making tough decisions sometimes. It also means to stop and consider what you're doing when a chorus of howls ensues behind what you just did, not just to go ahead and do the text equivalent of making obscene gestures at those who object. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a no-brainer to me the way it's stated. I've seen people use IAR as an excuse to not AGF, or even perhaps to go so far as to have sockpuppets. I'm not sure what the impact of signing this is though? Luminifer (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in internal WP politics or otherwise involved or knowlegdable beyond the basic "tries to understand and learn the rules" editor level. That said, it doesn't seem inappropriate for me to voice a strong opinion. My understanding of IAR has been voiced above by others that it is for special situations and to be applied with common sense. I think I have done this once or twice as an editor and then discussed my action and reason on the talk page. If not, I've advised a user of this computer (when asking for interpretive aid) that was a proper thing to do in some specific instance. This is open use with notice to other editors who have full ability to revert or otherwise edit the changes in normal manner. Allowing people to use IAR behind the scenes and on a mass scale which precludes application of common sense is an invitation to abuse, error and other problems. I favor "open meeting", ant-SLAPP, "sunshine acts", "accountability",FOIA and the actual implementation of the current buzzword "transparency" in political government and I favor these policies on Wikipedia where I thought were established policies. I note that in government these policies are directly primarily towards those in positions of power as those are the people most able to commit abuses. I hope this statement is not going to draw harrassing attention to my edits or other abuse. Moss&Fern (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. IAR is important, but it asks for "improving or maintaining" Wikipedia. Whether a change is an improvement or not is of course defined by community consensus. If you find yourself using IAR as an out, or have to assume that an IAR action is against consensus, you're abusing it. Amalthea14:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is an important policy to have, and I support it, but I think it ought to be reserved for special cases where, for specific reasons, the rules should not be applied, rather than used on a large scale to circumvent consensus.--Opus 113 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, there are enough "rules" in place (I put the word in quotation marks because making rules was not the original intent of this site) that an abusive Administrator can find an excuse to look like their actions are justifiable. And deeper still, Administrators will support their own kind. Everybody thinks their opinion is right, but someone with power is more right. Remember the Cold War. "Might is right."Trackinfo (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's time. There's a reason for rules. I understand that rules can be overwhelming; the number op WP policies is astounding. -- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, personally, can't say I've ever seen IAR being used to accomplish anything constructive, at least not long term, nice idea, but that's about all it is. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, naturally. Any "improper use of their tools" should be condemned, as should using them merely for the purpose of "militancy or activism". That’s right. IAR should only be used to enforce the spirit of core policy (including WP:BLP) over the letter of process (remembering that core policy also says Wikipedia is not a democracy or a bureaucracy). I trust arbcom will continue to uphold this important principle.--Scott Mac (Doc)12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is important but cannot be used to repeatedly justify the actions of an admin who should be using tools per consensus. If it becomes necessary to systematically invoke IAR then this should go through the usual channels of consensus. Consensus overrides IAR everytime. Polargeo (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Scott MacDonald, who I suspect gets the point of IAR a lot better than most of the other psupporters do. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Lar and Scott MacDonald, with reference to the fact that half of the people signing this aren't getting the gist of IAR. I and the other admins that have been in drama recently weren't using IAR as an excuse anyway, IIRC WP:BOLD was more of the idea. However that being said I think that admins should not abuse IAR, as there are only certain circumstances in which you should and will use it; but that goes without saying as ArbCom handles matters on IAR abuse rather well already, from what I've seen. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitley. Admins are given the tools merely because the community believes that can be trusted with a few extra buttons to maintain the encyclopedia. That's it. Admins have no more authority whatsoever, only access to a few extra buttons that the community trusts them to use properly, not abusively as admins have done on countless occasions.--TrustMeTHROW! 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (sock of banned user. Pcapping00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Per Coffee et al. The unruly militant rabble needs to watch their ignorance of rule abidance. Bold action in pursuit of core project goals is admirable. This is entirely different than disruptive efforts to keep everything at all costs. Happy editing, Jack Merridew23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not exactly sure about "strongest possible terms", I'd maybe prefer to use that wording for other things that sometimes happen on Wikipedia, but I agree fully with the gist of the statement. Cs32enTalk to me06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adminstrators are empowered (given tools) by the community so that they will enforce the collective will of the community, Adminship is a popular mandate, to become an admin is to volunteer to be the extension of the communities will. In other words, administrators are appointed so they can be the desk-jockeys and paper-pushers of the executive branch. While the recent breaking of rules has yielded productive results in the form of a long-overdue community discussion, ideally if there is a legislation or policy needed, we must strive to reform our problem-solving system "from the inside." Here we required "leadership" and that is no model for a democratic community to run on. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Administrators should be the second to last people, and Arbitrators the last, to IAR. Their tools are there to enforce the rules, and if they delete stuff out of process, they are rendering it invisible to all but themselves. This project exists for those who are not admins and cannot see deleted material.Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not really come across the same this type of admin behaviour in other language versions. I find it extremely divisive, and if you clearly demonstrate an attitude as admin that you're above the rules that apply to other editors, my opinion is that you have shown yourself undeserving of admin status rather than having deserved three cheers and a pat on the back from other admins. Tomas e (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly - In 1.5 years of editing Wikipedia, the recent abuse of IAR - and Arbcom endorsement of it - is by far the most upsetting thing I've witnessed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been here four years, Thaddeus, and I can only remember one other occasion in which I was so disgusted by the behavior of so many. And that, too, was within the past year, come to think of it... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.06:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally agree with Mr. Zhang and others; attitude of these IAR admins seems counter to community/cooperative ethos. --Mdukas (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'm not here in response to any particular incident, and I don't know what (if anything) prompted this petition. I do certainly feel that IAR isn't a license to crush, kill, maim, and destroy. Frank | talk 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qpalxm27 (talk) commented added 19:04, 2 February 2010
Support Like every other policy/rule/guideline IAR should be subject to common sense. I don't know what prompted this petition, but many of the basic processes of Wikipedia are compromised, so I am hardly surprised to see this. --Kleinzach06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny that some individuals who are threatening to remove editing privileges from others would sign this petition. If that stands, the new rules should be "Ignore all rules if you are admin, but if regular editors doesnt abide by MY edits, then they will get banned.".--Bud (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like any human organization, Wikipedia is in constant danger of becoming ruled by those editors who enjoy ruling more than editing. Administrators need to be reminded that their powers are not earned rights or badges of superiority, but merely tools that will be lended only as long as they are properly used. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to improve the encyclopedia. I don't think we need to tell admins that they can no longer use WP:IAR, since that would be too restrictive. Indeed, someone shouldn't get admin privileges unless they've shown the good judgement to know when the rules need to be followed versus when they conflict and prevent achieving the goal of writing an encyclopedia. That said, IAR doesn't mean admins can create new policies of the moment, or use their tools to block users and to enforce one side of a dispute. Adminship is not one ring to rule them all. --Elkman(Elkspeak)23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what the whole drama is specifically. But I do get the gist of what's going on, and I have to agree with the spirit of the petition. I just hope it does some good.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The IAR rule ought not to be allowed to override other valid rules, only to encourage a little experimentation by editors. Having it applied by administrators only has undesirable effects.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible support - IAR is abused on the rarest of occasions, but, this whole petition seems a bit POINTy and bureaucratic to me, so strongly oppose this petition. As long as people (not just admins...) follow the "improve or maintain Wikipedia" part, then we're good.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support ever Wikipedia should be a place where all are welcome to edit and improve to their hearts desires. There is so such as perfection. Canadian (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -"Ignore All Rules" exists for when someone is faced with a wall of red tape to the point where they don't know anymore. It exists saying that if you aren't sure whether or not to do something, do it. If it's no good, it can be reverted. It does NOT exist for the sysops to abuse their powers. Sysops are no better than regular editors, and I've learned this over the years, and when I became one myself (on another wiki,) I understood this. How these people live with themselves is unfathomable. It really is. This is supposed to be an environment of cooperation and brotherly love (excuse the cheesiness) where we can build up the world's largest encyclopedia, not a place where people can play around with some power over other people on the internet. Get real or get a life.Neo(T)02:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - IAR is not about power or control of policy. It's about the spirit of Wikipedia and not letting legalism and wikiklawyering ruin the outset of the community as a whole. ~AH1(discuss!)04:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are rules for a reason, and everyone involved should make it their business to learn and follow them, without using IAR as justification for their actions. This is especially true of those with a greater responsibility to the community (admins). Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support a rewrite of WP:IAR. It has the potential to be abused because every individual will have their own interpretation of it. Carification is needed Guywan (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support Whether or not administrators specifically invoke IAR is irrelevant when, e.g. in a deletion debate, they ignore facts repeatedly pointed out to counter obvious lies repeated over and over about a user's conduct. An atmosphere - nay, a culture - is too often prevalent of do as you please, administrator, it's your right to ignore rules. Administrators who clearly see a lie being told over and over ("For days SW refused to admit ... [etc.]") with the intent of swaying any discussion should not have the right to ignore that, whether or not the deletion proposed (e.g. of an extensively sourced B-class BLP that existed for 9 years!) is correct per se. If one administrator, who has tried to be fair, gives up sadly, however still never dealing with those obvious lies, that doesn't help a closing administrator pass fair judgement on an article deletion. Thank you all! The very fact that this discussion is taking place, and that I was advised of it by e-mail, has kept me from quitting. I've returned after months of disinterest to support this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this petition is to condemn "any administrator that invokes IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia". As the closing admin in the deletion discussion that you refer to here did not invoke IAR but instead said "There is substantial consensus that the article subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion...," I think you may have missed the aim of this petition. That said if you are not happy with the decision taken by the closing admin you can ask for a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support BUT during six years here, I have personally never encountered ANY unfairness among our administrators here at English Wikipedia. Not even after different personal "feelings". Though I must agree with Dan Koehl, admnis who abuse their position was far too common at Swedish Wikipedia (2008-2011, and still, I have to presume). I don't wish anything similar to spill over here. But again, I think we have very decent administrators at English Wikipedia. That's my experience at least. Boeing720 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors and administrators alike should invoke IAR when necessary, but not in a way that disregards consensus or community practice. IAR was not designed to disregard the wider community by any stretch.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support abolishing it too. How can you say on one hand that there are guidelines and policies that should be followed and on the other that if the rules stop you from improving WP then you should ignore them. It looks like something that was tacked on as an afterthought because someone was worried that they didn't seem cool enough...(no names mentioned but follow my eyes). Dom from Paris (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the petition as worded, but Strongly Oppose some of the above suggestions that IAR should be abolished. This is partly personal experience as a non-admin editor (where, for instance, I find "justified per IAR if necessary" can sometimes be a useful defence against harmful wikilawyers, etc) and partly out of common-sense conservatism (if it ain't broke don't fix it, beware of the law of unintended consequences, etc) in defence of the long-established rule that gives effect to one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (WP:5P5). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I strongly condemn using IAR as a tool to abuse power and undermine community consensus. While I have not had firsthand experience with IAR abuse, I see the risks and am definitely conceptually opposed to it.PurpleTheory :^) (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to make it a nice, even number, dag nabbit! Not to argue that IAR ain't one of the more constructive things to seep out of Larry Sanger's brain, but it certainly should rarely if ever be invoked without its classic jerky supplement. AngryHarpytalk08:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood faith is still a fundamental part of Wikipedia as a whole. We shouldn't automatically assume that all users are abusing IAR. That said, there should be no mistakes that those that DO abuse IAR receive punishments accordingly. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience, quantity-wise, may not be the same as the contributors who started or support the petition: I have not witnessed any excessive use of the ignore-all-rulespolicy; certainly not by administrators. But I submit my support for the petition for two reasons: Firstly, the frustration from the times I have actually encountered that excuse to flaunt Wikipedia's rules has been significant, which means that, quality-wise, I've had my share of upsetting experiences. Secondly, the petition might help prevent any strengthening of the ignore-all-rules attitude already held dear by some contributors. And the fact that this is a policy and not just a guideline is upsetting by itself. -The Gnome (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abolish IAR, going further than this petition probably calls for. I personally would advocated for the abolition of the "Ignore All Rules" "policy." It was invented by Larry Sanger as documented in his book (Essays on Free Knowledge), but furthermore, he states that it was a mistake and never really meant to be permanent. Therefore, I would suggest that we actually do away with the policy, since I do not think abuse with it is entirely and wholly rare, but is actually to be expected from a "Ignore All Rules" policy by its very nature. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Admin privileges are called "the mop" for a reason; they shouldn't make you "cooler", and should definitely not be used to gain leeway in or win an argument. They simply just have extra tools, which should be used justly and fairly. Clyde (please @ me if replying) (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Abolish IAR: the consensus-building approach of the rules are sufficient, so we never need potentially-abusive "discretions". Altanner1991 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have rules for a reason, and IAR gives people an argument to ignore them. I've only really ran into it in situations where it has been disruptive and counterproductive. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why would administrators use IAR as an excuse to abuse their tools? It doesn't make any sense. Waterardwater?(talk | contribs) 21:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Professor Penguino. nuh uh. I don't even see how it's possible that admins could think to use IAR as a reason for taking an action! I recommend to anyone interested that you read the article on this, because it talks about the history of and Wikipedia co-founder's thoughts on the policy. Xan ✨talk08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FFS, will anyone do something about this already? Holy Goo (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Master of
Hedgehogs