The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. Policy • Talk • Workshop • WIARM • UIAR • Versions	Shortcut: WT:IAR
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:Talk Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles v • d • e The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
v • e

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Straw poll (permanently active) This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived.

• Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.

---

Contents 1 concesus 2 This policy 3 Tweak to categories 4 Demoting this policy? 5 Suggested addition to this policy.

[edit] concesus

The language here is awfully wide in scope. Any issue with adding something about IAR being applied only where there is consensus to do so?--RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So every action on Wikipedia requires a preliminary discussion and some establishment of amorphous "consensus"? —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RadioFan, that would miss the point: you don't need to worry about the latest

consensus or rule if it would get in the way of building the encyclopedia. It's intentionally wide, so people like you and me can just join the site and edit and not have to care about rules (other editors can fix mistakes and issues, anyway). --an odd name 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR should be widely applied, therefore, its language is wide in scope. Feel free to offer a suggestion of wording here on the talk page, but attempting to define the situations in which this is appropriate is a recurring theme here which has not met with much success. kmccoy (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR is for individual editors to "ignore the rules", it is not intended to mean "ignore the rules only when the majority says so". Our rules arent rules, they are policies and guidelines for a reason, they guide us and give us broad suggestions on how to handle general problems and situations. If they dont apply or they hinder us in a specific situation then as an individual you have the right to ignore it and do whatever will benefit the encyclopedia. Instead of language saying "IAR being applied only where there is consensus to do so" it should read "apply IAR in every situation and use your common sense, rules are for chumps".Camelbinky (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR is a great tool to get editors to stand back and ask themselves, does this have the potential to improve WP overall if so, let's IAR. The problem is IAR is used far too often as a loophole to get around other guidelines and common sense is tossed aside. I've seen IAR cited in discussions of copyright violations, Bios of living persons, and lack of references. The brevity of WP:IAR and fact that it is policy makes it sound like something that trumps all other policy or guidelines which it doesn't. Even a brief mention of using common sense would improve this policy. And no, WP:COMMON doesn't cover this sufficiently. Its an essay, this is policy and the policy should include common sense.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, per WP:IAR, (ignoring the fact that it's only an essay), WP:COMMON does cover it.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What level of "consensus"? Unanimity isn't consensus, it's bullying. So you mean everyone but one dissenter, everyone but two, and that's assuming that a wide enough range of voices was involved, which in most cases it isn't.

[edit] This policy

Is there any chance of this getting more content? All that there is in the policy is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". The policy has two essays. Since only two essays describe this, why is this a policy? Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's policy per Jimbo: "IAR is policy, always has been"--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy that makes no sense. Do you know how often it is abused? Definitely not as often as the other policies where it's more than a sentence and doesn't have two essays to back it up. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia," part is crucial.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that it needs to have more than a sentence? Usually when WP:IAR is used, it gets other editors mad, doesn't do anything to help the discussion, and/or can cause editors to get uncivil comments thrown at them. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have 17 archived talk pages of discussion and debate (the first comment on archive page 1 is pretty classic), and the page itself has gone through a lot of changes, with the simple, minimal versions achieving the strongest consensus. If the IAR rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, feel free to ignore it. Ben Kidwell (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's surprising that a bunch of discussions only came out to one sentence. From how I've seen this used, the policy is almost worthless which isn't surprising with only a sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that if we start to place interpretations on the actual policy page, it's just as likely that the interpretations will be seized upon as being the actual policy. Editors will misinterpret IAR for whatever purposes suit them. I agree that the policy is worthless in that it doesn't tell you what to do in a specific situation. There is no "if X, then Y". But I don't think this policy is intended for such use, it's more a way of freeing your mind to focus on trying to make the encyclopedia better. It's an unfortunate fact that when people's minds are freed, they sometimes veer off into empty space. I think though that those minds would be veering with or without this policy. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From what you're saying, it seems like this should be labeled as an essay. Right now, I'm dealing with an editor that says that seven reliable sources with significant coverage, that the majority of editors think show notability, doesn't per this policy. Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I found and commented on the discussion you referred to just now. In that case, some users and rationales, like rules, are better ignored. --an odd name 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason you see some editors get so upset when IAR is used is because those types of editors who dont like IAR think that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are laws to be applied strictly by the letter. Well, for their information Wikipedia has no laws, and in fact the closest thing we have to a law IS IAR, it overrides ALL other policies as long as you are improving Wikipedia. If you arent improving the encyclopedia by ignoring the "rules" then you cant use IAR to justify your action, if you are improving the encyclopedia tell those who yell at you to shove it up their rectum and bring it to the relevant noticeboard (OR/N or RS/N or ANI or whereever is appropriate) where you are likely to find editors with similar respect about IAR. Ive worked very hard to strengthen IAR and fight against those who think our policies must be strictly interpreted much like Conservatives in the US think about the US Constitution (and in my opinion they are the same people who outside of Wikipedia think that). IAR is our cherished tradition and our right to do as editors of Wikipedia. It is minimal for a reason- it reflects the belief on Wikipedia that our policies and guidelines, much like IAR, are to be interpreted as needed and must be flexible to accomodate unseen circumstances that would be impossible to deal with by implementing policy strictly by the letter. Most importantly- Jimbo says IAR is and always will be, so it will be no matter what an editor says, this is his creation.Camelbinky (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. -- œ^™ 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IAR in the sense that if a person had a heart attack while in a car I was driving I'd go through the red lights to get to a hospital. For wikipedia it is good that IAR is an explicit policy because there are a lot of anal retentive types who would stick wheel clamps onto ambulances and argue they did the right thing till the cows came home. However, here just considering an analogue in law since you don't like it called law, I would not think it was a particularly good idea to write into all the laws something saying - except that this is not a law and you can ignore all laws. In law terms you only need that if the law has a specific term in saying there is no discretion. The policies do not say they are absolute with no discretion so just saying it with one policy IAR is right rather than diluting all policies to say just follow your nose. Dmcq (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To continue your example, take the law: "Stop at all red traffic lights." Assume the existence of a law (as a documentation of a moral imperative): "Obtain immediate medical attention for life-threatening medical emergencies." In your scenario, the two laws conflict. Therefore a third law has to mediate between the two and resolve the conflict, to wit: "A law to obtain prompt medical attention for medical emergencies takes precedence over a law implementing traffic control." In WP, we have policies and guidelines. We also have a policy to resolve conflicts between various policies, namely IAR: When a policy and the mission (to improve the encyclopedia) conflict, the mission wins. We also have a general understanding, that a policy takes precedence over a guideline. (Finding a real-world example or hypothetical realistic example of a law taking precedence over a guideline is left as an exercise for the interested editor.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I used IAR this afternoon. The point is, nobody noticed. That's a successful application of the policy. I didn't even have to cite it. --Deskana (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tweak to categories

There's a long discussion in several sections at WT:POLICY that's going to generate a discussion at VPP and an RFC soon, but there are a few loose ends to clear up first. The gist of it is: in order to help people understand better how most policy pages tend to improve over time, we'd like to take the policy pages that don't improve over time for one reason or another (and not all of the reasons are bad), and move most of them into Category:Wikipedia legal policy or a proposed Category:Wikipedia administrative policy.

This page is one of the loose ends: it hasn't changed recently and probably never will, but it's not "legal" or "administrative" in nature. Currently, this page is in "Wikipedia policy", "Wikipedia process discussions" and "Wikipedia conduct policy". Blueboar pointed out that it's used to balance content policies more than other types of policy, so if we have to pick one of the policy subcats, Category:Wikipedia content policy would probably be a better choice than conduct policy. I have a slight preference to add some category that gets across the idea that this page is more like an eternal principle, and less like the content policies, which are constantly changing. WP:5P, a similar page, is in Category:Wikipedia basic information; does that get the idea across? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not legal policy or administrative policy. Nor is it really content policy. Conduct policy, that it is, but occasional invocation of this rule to excuse inexcusable conduct makes me worried about including it in that category. Is there a category for "clueful conduct policy"? Wikipedia basic information seems like the best home. IAR is basic information and as discussed many many times here, it's not a prescription for any specific action, it's background information (imo). Franamax (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is now at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Demoting this policy?

I recently reverted a good-faith demotion of this policy.

Demoting this or any other policy to some other status needs to have a much bigger discussion than the one cited. This discussion should be clearly-titled and listed at {{cent}}.

The last mention of WP:AIR at the pump before the edit Dank cited was on November 28, where Dank (talk · contribs) summarised previous discussions.

IAR has been a policy for ages if I recall. Barring a good argument to demote it, I would leave it as-is.

Note that the "Project-wide principles" listed on {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} are all policies. These words make it even more important that demotion of this policy be widely open to discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Though editors who employ WP:IAR properly will also realize that arguing about the template at the top of the page is a bit ironic.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad call, I think, although this is how it generally works: people discuss changes to policy for weeks, everyone yawns, and then when you finally make the edit, people shout "no consensus" and revert. See the weeks-long discussion at WT:POLICY#list of pages, at the Village Pump, and in the section right above this one. In none of those 3 places was there any support for keeping this as a conduct policy, although Blueboar made a good point early on that this policy has more connection to the content policies than the conduct policies, so a dual role as a content policy and a principle might be best. But the discussion moved on from that point on all 3 pages, and Blueboar didn't object to the idea that this page is more principle than policy ... which is kind of obvious, isn't it? It's been the 5th pillar since 5P was invented, and this page doesn't change in the way that the other "Project-wide principles" are constantly changing ... because it can't, because it's not a policy, it's a principle. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I suggested all along that the proposed change should get an RfC, but no one agreed with me, on the theory that the changes were so uncontroversial that none was needed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. This reaction is exactly why we had the discussion about all policy cats at once rather than one policy page at a time ... when you do one, people wonder if what you're really doing is demoting the page. When you do them all, then it becomes clear that it's the definition of the policy subcats that are in the process of changing, not the meaning of any one particular page. See the linked discussions; "policy" used to be a very sloppy notion, which we're trying to clarify. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. I have no objection to an RfC, but I suggest we wait until several people want one, and have a particular question in mind to be decided by the RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were proposing to put it in the category basic information rather than conduct policy, not that you were going to remove the policy marker altogether. It is a principle I suppose but it has real direct effect so I think it is better marked as a policy, principles to me means something that guides policy and may be a bit too far from the coalface as it were. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping it in Category:Wikipedia policy and removing it from Category:Wikipedia conduct policy, if that's what people want to do ... I would prefer we have some kind of subcat, both for navigation and so people mentally group it with similar policy pages ... if we're going to keep it as policy, I would think Category:Wikipedia procedural policy would now be the closest fit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Had there been an infobox template at the top of WP:AIR pointing to each of these discussions as they occurred, I would likely have not reverted. As it is, now that I know where the discussions were, I will have to read them, see what links to them, and see if they were adequately advertised and discussed before withdrawing my objection to the change. The fact that this caught me by surprise is strong evidence that it was not advertised in all the right places. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good argument, and your reversion doesn't bother me; I'd much rather have reasoned discussion than the apathy that we usually get when discussing policy categorization :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As this is the earliest, simplest and most widely applicable policy on Wikipedia (we all use it every single day), any attempt to demote it would be unwise. As it's one of the core policies, if not the core policy, popping it into some obscure subcategory would be inappropriate. --TS 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As an early supporter of IAR, it never ceases to amaze me just how much controversy it continues to generate. It ain't going away, and on those occasions where someone has tried to "improve" it with rulecruft and/or explanations, it is inevitably reverted back to its original form. Ditto for attempts to demote it to something less than what it is. It is, quite literally, a rule that is honored in the breach, and it needs no rulecruft and/or explanations to make it easier to understand. For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, no explanation will suffice. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reagan famously said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me." No one has expressed any desire to demote IAR; people have been talking about what it means to be a policy page. The suggestion that it be considered a "principle" came out of the discussions on this talk page, at WT:POLICY and at WP:VPP. However, personally, I have no objection at all to leaving it in the policy cat, as long as it transitions from conduct policy to the new procedural policy subcat. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules in the real world: Generals who aide dictators and the like aside, in the real world nobody gets fired or prosecuted for obeying the law or company policy. Yet, we "ignore all rules" for the common good all the time. Police choose not to enforce speed limits to the letter, companies choose not to sue each other in the interests of good relationships, people choose not to raise parliamentary procedure issues at every opportunity in meetings, etc. This is the spirit behind WP:IAR and this is why even if technically it usually isn't a "policy that can get you blocked if you violate it repeatedly," it should have a weight at least as high as a stated policy. WP:IAR goes hand in hand with a part of WP:NOT, WP:BUREAUCRACY. Bottom line: You don't have to call it a policy, but whatever you call it should have the same moral weight as a policy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent was that "principles" are higher than "policy", which I agree with in an abstract/ideal sense. However, the wikilawyers won't respect that (unless we make it policy ;) so I suggest we mark it as both. (This is after arguing with someone who refused to recognize wording that was given in the 5Pillars as significant, "because it's not policy".) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked this question at the VPP pump thread as well: does anyone have any objection if we keep the "policy" cat, and change the policy subcat from "conduct" to "procedural"? Would anyone prefer that we do an RfC first? - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as this page keeps the {{policy}} box, everyone will be happy with any category-name-tweaks. No separate rfc needed just for that. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[copied from VPP]: Hmmm. It doesn't fit with procedural as I see it. It definitely needs to be a policy, but maybe it should reside in the main category rather than be sub-categorised. Hiding T 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about no subcat? - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I meant, yes. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Hiding T 10:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If principles are "higher" than policies, then the meta-policy pages such as Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines as well as meta-policy-templates should be retitled and edited to reflect this. Personally, I like the idea but it won't be trivial to implement. It will also require a consensus after a widely-advertised centralized discussion. By "widely advertised" I mean either a wiki-wide banner or a header on the top of every policy page, at a minimum. Of course, it should also be listed on {{cent}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would need a whole separate proposal. We definitely treat them as higher (ie see the current wording/layout in the {{Policy list}} and {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} templates), and we use the word "principles" a lot at WP:Policies and guidelines. But some folks dispute their significance. As I'm one of the people that has argued against adding any "policy" banner tags to the 5P, I find this painfully ironic... (See Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Label this as an infopage for the most recent iteration of this perennial discussion). -- Quiddity (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this page policy, it is our most important policy. ^Chillum 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is the absolute most important policy. Heck, it's a pretty important principle in my life (crap. Maybe I need to go on a longer wikibreak...)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not the most important policy. The various points in WP:5P are no more important than each other. It is silly to say that 'ignore all rules'is more important than notability when developing an encyclopaedia, or keeping the content free or that editors should treat each other with respect or even that one shouldn't slander people in their biographies. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition to this policy.

I suggest adding the following text,

Users of this policy are expected to provide specific sound reasoning for why they acted that way, and should be prepared to be overturned and expect consequences should the community decide that the action was disruptive.

For two reasons... One, IAR as written often leads people to try and use it as a defence when the do something so stupid it ends up at AN/I or ArbCom. And I've never seen it accepted as a defence, so we should warn them that there might be consequences for abuse of IAR. For instance, you're not going to be able to use IAR to get out of a 3RR sanction unless you provide a really really good reason.

Second, some times IAR gets used without a clear explanation of why, leading to all kinds of trouble even if it was a correct use. We need people to know they're expected to explain their actions, and may be overturned. We don't want people using IAR without stopping to think good and hard about it first. --Barberio (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: In my opinion, if an editor takes an action with the intent of improving the project, they should be expected to explain why they thought that action would improve the project. Unomi (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per KISS. Garion96 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: although I might replace the "be overturned and expect consequences..." part with "be overturned if the consensus prefers observing the rule" or somesuch. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're actually having this discussion again, and we've gone straight to voting?
  Editors should be able to explain any action if questioned, but there is no obligation to formulate or announce a special rationale when applying this policy. In fact, a major element of the policy is that one needn't worry about learning every rule (and determining whether it's necessary to ignore it) before editing. The notion that "we don't want people using IAR without stopping to think good and hard about it first" directly contradicts this longstanding principle.
  The policy already plainly states that rules are to be ignored for the purpose of improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and anyone who believes that this describes the type of problematic behavior mentioned above requires far more education than we can provide on the page. Other users intentionally abuse the policy and will continue to do so (regardless of its wording). —David Levy 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose You don't even need to know the rules to edit here, much less provide a sound reasoning for ignoring them. There is only one reason to ignore the rules anyways, and that is that they "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Any reason other than that and you are better off seeking consensus at the policy talk page. ^Chillum 15:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - by invoking IAR intentionally, a user should (and most would) be prepared to provide reasoning, but not expected to do so, and it is assumed (since this is a wiki) that their actions can be overturned. Let's keep it simple please.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment directed to the Oppose votes above. I point out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disturbing_trend_in_Admins_to_rewrite_policy.2Fguidelines_by_fiat.3F where someone claims that IAR allows admin to change the rules arbitarly and without providing reasoning. Clearly, there are people who are long term editors who don't understand the limits to IAR. --Barberio (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Context is provided in the linked essays. KISS, Creep, Zen, Mu. etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - IAR is fine as it is. It does not need any explanation or exegesis. And under no circumstances does IAR give admins carte blanche. Rather, as admins are much more familiar with the Byzantine complexity of Wikipedia rulecruft, they are much more likely to engage in wikilawyering and much less likely to invoke IAR. // Internet Esquire (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any editor who invokes AIR should be prepared to respond when challenged. However, they need not justify their actions in advance. The best uses of AIR are the ones nobody notices because everyone thinks "good edit" and thinks nothing of it afterwards. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we PLEASE not have "suggested', "support" and öppose"on IAR, at least? :-P

Oh and by the way, this is already explicitly stated at WP:WIARM ;-) And it's not just "users of this policy". *ANYONE* can be questioned at ANY time, and they will need to provide a good rationale. If they quote a policy page verbatim, and the policy page just doesn't cut it at the time, they're toast anyway :-P . --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Boy, can I tell you stories!