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 Funny 2 How has IAR been used in actual practice on Wikipedia? 3 concesus 4 This policy

[edit] Funny

I like how the nutshell says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". So that means that we should normally ignore all rules? Somehow, I don't think that's the intent. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we could always ignore the ignore all rules policy. ;) -- œ^™ 23:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait...if I were to ignore the ignore all rules policy, I would be following the rule. But if I were to follow this rule I would no longer be ignoring all rules! ?!? Attinio (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if you only read the title it may seem contrary, but if you read the whole thing there is no contradiction. How can a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Chillum 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors should normally ignore all rules, absolutely. That is the intent. Each decision should be made based on value added to the encyclopedia, and not on harmonizing with written rules. If you don't even worry about what the rules say, except insofar as they're records of previous agreements, and if you're sufficiently respectful and careful with previous agreements, then you're editing right. I discourage policy-reading. It causes cancer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you are now my bestest friend. Thank you for saying that! I hate "rules"-quoters who go around and say things like "please state what policy says that" and refuse to accept your opinion unless your opinion is backed verbatim by a policy. Too many strict constructionists here in Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can read this as saying that we should "normally ignore all rules", yet at least two have done so above. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should not ignore rules willy nilly, only when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. That is all this policy states. It seems some only read the title of this policy and not the actual contents. Chillum 16:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we do normally ignore all rules. in the sense that I don't think I feel the need to check up in a rulebook before making this comment. Ignore all rules applies in that sense, and also in the sense where we do knowingly ignore a rule that stands in the way of improving Wikipedia. --TS 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if not having time to know the rules prevents your from improving and maintaining Wikipedia then you don't have to read them. I have never had that problem myself. The rules should only be ignored if they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, any other reason goes beyond the scope of this policy. Chillum 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You shouldn't need to read a rule book to edit Wikipedia, even if you have time to do so. The idea is that anybody can edit, and that makes rule books anathema. A clue: this was the first rule on Wikipedia. Its intent cannot reasonably read as "if the rule book is too big and you're unaware of a specific rule, it's okay if you accidentally ignored it."

The meaning of this policy can be expressed pretty succinctly: Ignore all rules. --TS 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I take offense at the fact that the title is "ignore all rules", as if these are rules in the first place. Wikipedia does not have a rulebook or any rules at all. These are policies and guidelines. There is a difference. They are accepted norms that have come about through consensus and they are here to guide us with their wisdom concerning previous agreements on similar subjects. They are not in any sense ever to be considered strict rules handed down from on high by the Wikigods. If a policy or guideline suggests something should be done, or not done, in a certain way, and it doesnt seem to apply in a certain specific instance then go ahead and ignore it without any worry that some rules-quoter will throw it in your face (but of course they will, and then they will say "ignore all rules" is crap and will ask you to quote a "rule" that says you can do what you want or else they will revert whatever you do). That paragraph I wrote is what "Ignore all rules" should say to make it clearer what we are talking about and shut up the rule-quoters.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact rules Camel. There is the requirement of open licensing of our text, and writing from a neutral point of view for instance(both strict rules handed down from on high by the Wikigods), we also have community crafted rules like No personal attacks and Edit warring. Wikipedia is not an experiment in freedom. We do have rules and their purpose is to facilitate our goal of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. We allow people to ignore them only for the same goal, improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. You can call a rule whatever you want, but people get blocked for violating them so saying they are not rules is really just wishful thinking. This policy is about having the good sense not to let the rules prevent their own intended purpose(improving and maintaining the encyclopedia), it is not a philosophy of absolute freedom. Once again, one has to read the contents of the page and not just the title. Chillum 01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A few times I and perhaps others have suggested that Ignore all rules is more in the nature of a koan, and the best thing we could do to present its nature was to make a blank page. Once I even tried that, and perhaps others have also done that, too.

And sometimes I wonder if perhaps, Ignore all rules is just the Trout Fishing in America of Wikipedia. --Ignore all rules 01:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How can it be a koan when it is rational? Don't koans need aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding? I know some have claimed it has some level of paradox but I disagree. I have not yet had an answer to my question "How can a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia?" Until this can be answered I see no paradox. Chillum 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a rule that tells you to ignore rules. I am no lover of Zen but I appreciate the humor. --TS 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no that is the conclusion you come to if you only read the title. If you read the content you will see it is a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. If the rule really was "Ignore all rules" then I would agree there is a paradox, but that is not what the rule is, that is only the title. Chillum 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on the rational understanding of why TS unlinked the related essay WP:UIAR a few weeks ago. I missed it then and now attempts to relink it seem to be met with "per agreement on the talk page". WTF? I always thought it was just as relevant as WIARM. Franamax (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By WP:UIAR you refer to an essay called Wikipedia:Understanding Ignore all rules. In my recent edit I removed most of the opinionated stuff, but retained the only reference to established policy--and one which I consider to be related to this one: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|] (WP:NOT).

The reason for removing the essays should be obvious: they are essays. This is the policy. Policy should not normally refer to personal opinion. It is policy. --TS 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of policies have supporting essays in the links.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, you're right and I'm wrong. What actually happened was that you removed 'em all and one got put back (and you acceded). My previous experience with the relatively stable consensus was that WIARM and UIAR were the acceptable essays related to this policy. We've been through the wringer here with editors wanting to expand the policy wording itself and many of us have adamantly maintained that the canonical 12 words are the policy and must stand on their own. However, we've also had those two explanatory essays to point to for people wishing further explanations which don't actually offer examples of how IAR works. They both just offer better ways of thinking about the subject. I lean more toward the koan side of things, but I've always felt that both should be linked, since they offer valuable perspective to help people actually think about what those twelve words mean. Franamax (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and part undent to the thread fork where I think and hope this belongs. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, yes, if by these cryptic sets of letters "WIARM and UIAR" you mean What "Ignore all rules" means and Understanding Ignore all rules. To which I will add the one inexorable rule of this policy: "Ignore all rules will become fat and then somebody will have to ignore all rules and trim it down." This has happened many times during the lifetime of the policy. --TS 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony if you're confused by the shortforms commonly used by the participants here in discussing the page content. For unfamiliar editors, of course I would wikilink the relevant essay/policy/pillar/guideline. I just assumed you had a clue about discussions here over the last year or two. I'll be more careful in future.

I do agree with you that any page can get a little bulgy around the link-belly as time goes on. I prefer constant vigilance but I see the value in drastic weight-loss too. However, I'm going to restore the UIAR link now. This indenting is interfering with Camelbinky's comments, so I don't know how it will end up once I (try to) save my edit. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between obeying the laws of the country that Wikipedia is in (and yes Wikipedia is in the United States, incorporated in Delaware, servers are I believe in Florida) and "rules" which can be ignored. How about you read your precious "rules" and realize Wikipedia does not have rules. As in this snippet-

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.

So tell me how that supports your idea, Chillum, that Wikipedia is full of rules and has a rulebook? You are a strict constructionist and that type of viewpoint regarding Wikipedia's guidelines and policies is not an accepted view by this community. Take your ideology to a different arena, such as politics, it is not wanted here.Camelbinky (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is not a law. People are allowed to be as biased as they want. But neutrality is not optional here because it is part of our goal. If we came to a consensus to not be neutral, we still have to be neutral. WP:NOT is overridden by foundation policy, not a popular fact, but a fact none the less. Thankfully the foundation only wants us to make a good encyclopedia.

Just because a rule is not blindly enforced without regard to common sense does not mean it is not a rule. The wording WP:NOT does not indicate that we have no rules, but rather that the rules are there for a purpose and that the purpose is more important than the rules. Chillum 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Camel, you are welcome and wanted here even though you disagree with me, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me? Chillum 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont care if I'm wanted or welcomed here or not, that doesnt matter to me nor is it your decision to make me welcome or not welcomed, even though by putting "even though you disagree with me" as if you are extending me some sort of courtesy by allowing me to stay even though I disagree with you. I'm here and will continue to be whether you like it or not. I simply told you to take your political views to a more appropriate forum, your political conservative leanings that lend to a strict constructionist view on our policies' and guidelines (THEY ARE NOT RULES) are not proper for Wikipedia. The foundation does not get involved with our policies and guidelines, despite your implying that they have a policy that intrudes on us. Consensus does rule and overide everything else.Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Camel, I think you may be missing a few points here. Chillum is not attempting to grant or withhold your leave to edit, he's simply asking that you treat him in a calm and collegial fashion. The foundation certainly does get involved, they own the private property on which we are all guests. We have WP:BLP, WP:OFFICE, a full-time lawyer. Yes, the foundation stays out of the way as much as possible, but if consensus shifted to the view that we should he hosting porn videos and gossip pages, that wouldn't stop the WMF board chairman from walking down to the server room and switching everything to the "off" position. Wikipedia is indeed full of all sorts of rules, there's even a rule for how to put in a dash character. That's the whole point of this policy, to make sure that people don't get scared off by that immense catalogue of rules and instead feel confident to just go edit. But at some point, the rules do indeed come into play - that's how we get content into articles (be WP:BOLD and put it in) and how we get to more perfect content (someone else reformats it). And finally, based on my experience of Chillum's participation here, they aren't pitching any "political conservative leanings", where are you getting that from? Chillum has always been a defender and explicator of this policy (as I've tried to be also). Reasonable people are allowed to have reasonable disagreements. Franamax (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there may have been too much read into the fact that I must have missed some ' marks that ended up making alot more bold and italicized than I intended thereby making the post seem "angry". For that I apologize. If it is that much of a problem, I can go and change it, but I prefer not to go back and change grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes in my posts after-the-fact, but will if annoys some. I wish this discussion could have stayed on topic about realistic consensus changes and realistic opportunities about ignoring the "rules" instead of, as happens everytime here or on the village pump, editors bringing in ridiculous examples of copyrights, legal rules, the Foundation, etc etc that really editors arent going to use ignore all rules on. If we had agreed to keep this to the real world realm of possibilities and what IAR was intended to cover perhaps this discussion could have continued. Let me know when this discussion will only cover IAR and not red herrings that are thrown to distract and confuse.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry about refactoring your postings, I don't mind a bit of passion in a debate as long as one is also listening. While I did not appreciate the comment "Take your ideology to a different arena, such as politics, it is not wanted here" I am really not hung up on such things and can just let it go. I don't think the comment was fair, but I am not going to dwell on it, neither should you. Consider it forgotten.

My only point is that IAR does not mean we don't have rules, it simply means that the rules are there for the purpose of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia and that that purpose is more important than the rules themselves. I see nothing ridiculous about the examples I gave, in my time as an administrator here I have seen many such "real word" examples of these issues coming into play(copyright and neutrality are not hypothetical situations, they occur every day here). Even the passage from WP:NOT you quoted makes it clear that there are rules. It simply is making clear that they are not written in stone or enforced without regard to common sense and our primary goal. I am not engaging in politics or attempting to distract with red herrings, I certainly have not been attempting any sort of sophistry with you. Rather I am making a very relevant and important point. IAR is intended to allow you to ignore rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, any further reading into that is pure imagination. Wikipedia is not an exercise in freedom, we are not devoid of rules, we have simply put the rules in their place. Chillum 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I believer our two positions are closer than it seemed at first. The only difference is that I object to the word "rules" and prefer the term "policies and guidelines" since that is what they are officially labelled as on their pages, I do not recall any being labeled as a "rule", only as policy or guideline. We both agree that consensus and ignoring them is a good thing that allows our Wikipedia to grow and expand. I like the term policy as opposed to rule because rule implies a strict addherence to and consequences for failure to comply; policy implies it is our attempt to do something this way, but sometimes we dont always follow it (it is my policy not to lie, but I do sometimes when the situation calls for it, such as "were you using your work computer for Wikipedia?", "no of course not" is my reply) and guideline implies it guides you to the right conclusion by you dont have to comply with the letter of it. I know its all semantics, but Chillum do you see why it may be important that we use such terms as guidelines and policies instead of words like rules, especially around newbies? I know things like copyright and libel and other such legal matters do occur, I was not trying to say they dont exist, I was merely saying that individuals dont use IAR to justify violating copyright laws (which exist regardless of our policies). If someone was to use IAR to justify such actions then that person has bigger problems than we can deal with using our policies, obviously there is a screw loose. Do you agree or disagree with my two assumptions- that semantics may matter with regards to what we call our "rules", and that IAR being used on what I called the "red herring topics" probably doesnt exist and therefore doesnt merit inclusion on our discussion?Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it really does not matter what it is called. You can call it something other than a "rule", but it still is a rule. We do enforce these things(by whatever name). I agree our disagreement may be mostly about semantics. Chillum 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also I will point out that we have 3 policies that override consensus, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Contrary to common belief consensus does not rule and override everything here, rather it is simply one tool we use for our only real goal which is to create an encyclopedia. We are not here to create a consensus driven society but to create an encyclopedia. We use consensus to achieve this goal, and the goal is more important than consensus. This is not my idea or my opinion, but both Wikipedia and foundation policy. IAR is about putting that one goal of creating an encyclopedia before policies like Consensus. Chillum 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As a frequent contributor to the noticeboards for OR and for RS I can tell you that consensus is used very very very often on deciding what is or is not OR or a reliable source. The very fact that those noticeboards exist and use consensus decisions based on common sense shows that there is no overriding policy regarding verifiability and NOR that makes the decision for us that we can supersede. Some read policy and guidelines as saying that reading a map is OR, but consensus has time and time again decided on the noticeboard that reading a map and putting into prose is not OR, there are several sources that on face value reading a policy regarding RS would lead some people to say it is an RS and to some not an RS, consensus interprets the policy or disregards it and decides whether or not CNN, NY Times, or Fox News is a RS on the particular topic and statement in question (something a policy simply cant do without being overly specific and trying to cover every single type of possible situation that may arise). Fox News on face value would be a RS but we routinely state that its opinions are too far to one side on political issues and therefore can not be used as an RS except to state what Fox News itself thinks (you can replace Fox News with MSNBC if you wish, same thing different end of spectrum). If those three policies you stated couldnt be overriden by editor's consensus then we wouldnt have those noticeboards or if we did they'd be very short statements of "yes it is" or "no it isnt", but instead we have long debates and discussions deciding the merits of the issue and what side it falls on, rarely does someone need to quote a policy or guideline and usually if they do no one listens, common sense and consensus rules the day not the "rules quoters", our policies and guidelines are vague for a reason, we are supposed to come up with the solutions on our own. Perhaps since they are so vague some may say that we arent overriding the policies on the noticeboards, and some may say that we are simply interpreting them differently do to their vagueness and therefore consensus is simply being used to implement a consensus view of what the policy says instead of ignoring the policy. So I am curious about your views on that situation.Camelbinky (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally we use consensus to interpret those policies. What I am saying is that these policies are not open to be bypassed by consensus. A consensus to not be neutral must be ignored, and the reason for this is that neutrality is essential for the improvement and maintaining of our encyclopedia. In such a case IAR would apply to consensus itself. Once again the spirit of IAR is that improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is more important than our rules, and is in fact the reason we have rules to begin with. Chillum 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would hope there has never been a consensus to ignore neutrality, I would be quite sad to find out that it has happened. In any case IAR is clear it applies only to an editor improving Wikipedia and so could never be used in such a manner. A consensus to ignore NPOV is not a case of individuals or a group using IAR, it is a case of a group of idiots. I think Chillum and I believe are holding the same coin, just looking at different sides of it.Camelbinky (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How has IAR been used in actual practice on Wikipedia?

I'm curious to know if anyone has seen cases where IAR has been used without controversy on Wikipedia. If you know of such occasion(s), would you be willing to describe them?--Father Goose (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The first rule of Ignore all Rules is you do not talk about Fight Club Ignore all Rules. If you have to invoke a rule to justify your action that means it isn't obvious that your action was for the best. So for instance, when you put a speedy tag on some crappy article with an explanation (in English) of why it should be deleted, and it gets quietly deleted, both you and the deleting admin are ignoring all rules. --TS 05:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How does that example differ from the usual rules-based procedure for speedily deleting an article?--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both parties neglect to check whether the article falls under any of the categories for speedy deletion, or having made such a check they find that it doesn't qualify. Nevertheless they both agree that it should be deleted at once. --TS 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. To summarize, a snap assessment was made that "this page does not belong on Wikipedia, CSD be damned". Rule ignored, encyclopedia benefited. (Sound judgment on the part of the ignorers is presumed.)--Father Goose (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still full of accurate, unsourced information, and there are many contributions of unsourced information that improve articles. Of course, the days of the 'wild west' when major topic areas were still basically vacant and the foundation of a lot of articles were laid down as rough essays by people typing about stuff they knew about are long, long gone. The problem is that unsourced information 'doesnt scale' because without policy against it, BLP problems and POV pushing become even more intractable. However, a maximalist interpretation of the policies on citing sources, no original research, no synthesis, no POV could probably be used to eliminate 99.99% of everything every published in any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. All of those policies and criteria involve drawing lines and making distinctions that are to some extent subjective. The point of IAR is to focus on improving the encyclopedia, and to give editors who might be afraid of making errors encouragement to contribute. Ben Kidwell (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So your example here works on at least two levels: a) we must avoid rigidity in enforcing or interpreting the rules when doing so would produce a less complete or otherwise poorer encyclopedia; and b) a degree of laissez-faire is necessary to keep from driving off imperfect but worthwhile contributors. Is that a fair assessment?--Father Goose (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right in both cases, Father Goose. Rules here often illustrate good practice, but don't worry about them if you're sure you're doing good (since illustration of good practice would be unnecessary) or you're sure you're doing bad (since no rule, or interpretation of a rule, justifies hurting the 'pedia). --an odd name 07:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound judgement isn't necessary or presumed in the example I gave. All deletions can be reviewed. --TS 07:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just the fact that you don't actually have to know the rules to follow them; as long as you do something for the good of the 'pedia, it's fine under IAR.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I submit my entire edit history, which is mostly without controversy. It follows just 3 rules, including IAR. How those three rules combine in any particular situation is generally left as an exercise to the reader. (although I'm willing to explain any particular edit in detail, if so desired). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[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)

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)