Jump to content

Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheGrimReaper NS (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 26 January 2010 (I, the undersigned, herbeby declare my dissatisfaction and wish of condemnation of abuse of WP:IAR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Petition against IAR abuse
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:
Shortcut

Support

  • 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.
  1. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. Ucucha 20:28, 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]
  4. A sensible and logical statement. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. What Skomorokh said. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Because Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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]
  9. Fundamental wp:point problems here. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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]
  11. 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. -- Cyclopiatalk 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I totally agree. Moral panic run amok. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Invoking IAR to justify large numbers of actions is always a bad idea. This is especially true of administrative actions. Hut 8.5 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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&Windows 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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. Algebraist 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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 SoWhy 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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]
  18. 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. Resolute 01:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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]
  20. Admins are subject to policy, too. At least I keep hoping that's the case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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 Kalmar 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per Apoc2400. --Falcorian (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
  25. 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. Orderinchaos 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Well-said. Nsk92 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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]
  28. • The Giant Puffin • 08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Rami R 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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 · talk 10:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. Agree. IAR is intended for situations not foreseen by the rules. When rules then get invoked, the IAR becomes improperly used. Festina lente is wise. Collect (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Per Apoc and DuncanHill. --GRuban (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sole Soul (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I think it's a bad and poorly written policy, contributing to all manner of problems, from BLP to copyright violations. Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Chubbles (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. ThemFromSpace 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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. GJC 08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. TotientDragooned (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Blurpeace 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Agree, with particular reference to the current debacle, and the disgraceful behavior of certain administrators, and the cheerleading done for them by certain arbitrators. RayTalk 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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]
  49. 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. Ikip 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Simply south (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. I'm totally appalled with what has been going on here. Ignore all rules does not mean ignore consensus. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Rpyle731talk 01:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Per DGG and Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Agreeing with Hut 8.5 and DGG – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Milowent (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. We have enough problems without admins abusing the tools they were entrusted with. -- Banjeboi 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. "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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. 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]
  61. Absolutely. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. --KrebMarkt 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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. Amalthea 14:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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]
  66. Pleased to add my name to a resolution which supports a long-held belief I hold. Leaky Caldron 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. The abuse of IAR has been taken not only by admins, but by many editors in general. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 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]
  69. 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]
  70. Democracy rules. Let's end the Wiki-Fascism.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Writegeist (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Wikipedia is founded upon building by consensus. IAR is not grounds to ignore that. oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73.  rdunnalbatross  10:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 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]
  76. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. This makes perfect sense. Swarm(Talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --TheGrimReaper 08:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose WP:IAR is one of the WP:Five pillars; WP:CONSENSUS obviously is not. -- Kendrick7talk 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Petition_against_IAR_abuse&oldid=340095167"