Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

One of the suggestions is to repeal IAR. There seems to be a consensus for it over at the talk page of the theses. But (as pointed out there with every other issue as well), that is not the correct place to discuss changes (or alterations) of policy. So...

Should IAR be overturned? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: "One of the suggestions . . . at the talk page of the theses" - please provide a link. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#Some_of_my_thoughts Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• to quote myself totally quoting previous discussions from here there...
  "lol no" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• As per my response in a previous thread over there yes it should be overturned it would be better and less confusing and complicated to not have this rule. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• I would say yes, as it seems to be open to subjective interpretation (in fact it is wholly subjective, as many people think their edits "improve the encyclopedia"). Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. IAR is not (and should not be) invoked often, but when it is invoked it is necessary. Every “rule” has occasional exceptions that we never thought of when we wrote the “rule”, and without IAR we would spend countless hours arguing as we codify these rare exceptions into p&g. By having a blanket statement that says “it’s OK to make occasional exceptions” we can avoid such rule CREEP. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  We already spend countless hours arguing exceptions into p&g even with IAR.

  I support the idea of IAR though—exceptions are sometimes warranted. In practice, though, IAR is often misused. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  ALL of our policies are misused. Doesn’t mean they are bad policies. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not every rule would need to be modified plenty would work without IAR. Some might need to be adjusted but I would argue the benefit of not having IAR outweighs that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, exceptional situations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A blanket "Ignore ALL Rules", cannot possibly address the exceptional situation you are referring to. Kvinnen (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. It's essential per the arguments in WP:NOTBURO. Furthermore, all our existing rules and policies were written with the understanding that they could be ignored when necessary to maintain our basic principles; without that we would have to revise them all, mostly in ways that would be undesirable and make them less readable by adding countless special clauses and exceptions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. The premise of IAR is to ignore the rules when doing so will improve the encyclopedia. If the community does not agree that the encyclopedia was improved, then the action will and should be reverted. - Donald Albury 14:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• I submit the following syllogism:
  • Rules are based on community consensus.
  • IAR should not be used to ignore community consensus.
• Therefore:
  • You cannot ignore all rules because ignoring any rule would be ignoring community consensus.
• Q.E.D.
  SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  You make a edit you know to be against consensus.

  Another editor points out that your edit is against consensus.

  You invoke IAR and explain why it should be an exception.

  Consensus determines whether it should be allowed as an exception.

  Editing happens over time, so a static logic statement doesn't work.

  The fact is community consensus doesn't invalidates IAR, it validates the use of IAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Community consensus for the general case ≠ community consensus for the specific case. The rules are based on the general case, and sometimes the community agrees that the intention behind the rule is not relevant in the specific case, and therefore something else should be done in the specific case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I concede logical defeat. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @ SuperPianoMan9167, Your "therefore" is in error precisely because applying IAR to improve Wikipedia has community consensus. Your mistake was in not allowing for the fact, as a massively complex system written by fallible humans, there will be times when the proper application of the rules, even if we are one hundred percent confident they have community consensus (as opposed to local consensus), can either be a detriment to improvement, or indeed see an editor caught in the exact kind of process loop/lock that a simple mechanism like IAR is perfectly suited to use as an escape hatch. Gordon Maximo (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of AttackTheMoonNow, see investigation)

  I see that now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• No per Aquillion. It's not just "rules" but also procedure. As for it being weaponised, that's useful in the Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you sense. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes It should be repealed. While there are theoretically other rules that are supposed to counteract the weaponization of this rule, the reality is that the rule is too broad and subjective and tends to be wielded against editors without power by editors with power. It also stands out from the rest of the policy in a negative way. While all of the rest of Wikipedia's policies have a considerable amount of detail about when they can be applied and the circumstances governing its use, WP:IAR is only one sentence long. As I indicated on Sanger's page, I also believe that a formal RFC should be initiated for the repealing of this policy per WP:BEFORERFC. The discussion on this page and on Sanger's page demonstrates that there does seem to be a split between whether the policy should be removed or at least amended. I suggest the following format but I am obviously open to suggestions on how an RFC on this issue can be formatted so we can get wider community participation on this topic. The options for the RFC could potentially be Option 1: Repeal WP:IAR entirely. Option 2:Keep WP:IAR but clarify its scope/intent. Option 3:Keep WP:IAR unchanged. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...this is all stuff wp:notiar already covers, along with other guidelines and essays regarding them. brd is a good example

  this also conflates word count with quality, but that's besides the point consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  I will note that is an essay. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  doesn't really make it any more or less valid. wp:snow is an essay, and it's cited all the time, for example. the entire point of iar and everything surrounding it is that rules aren't absolute, and acting like they are or trying to force them to be usually just makes unnecessary headaches for what amounts to no reason. it's also why policies and guidelines themselves don't word themselves as immutable or omnipotent, which is what they'd need to be if iar didn't exist

  ...is what i would say, but iar mostly boils down to common sense, so it can't really not exist in the first place. sometimes people will just agree that doing something in a certain way will be more beneficial than following policies and stuff to a t (that sometimes doesn't even exist, like when someone votes to restore a blar in rfd as "contested" per guidelines that don't actually say that that's what should happen) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  An essay as it states in the notice is explanatory. It is not enforceable in the same way as policies is it's function is to explain(and people may cite snow but there are others examples you like Wikipedia:TNT etc where editors have said it is not the same as a policy.)

  Iar can not exist common sense can be used in other ways(like amending policies if needed.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  tnt is also cited as a reason to delete stuff, even with the knowledge that it's not actually a policy or guideline, so there's no inherent problem there. same goes for other essays, which are cited because they act as ways to employ (or not employ) certain policies or guidelines

  the second paragraph... uh... didn't make much sense? i have no actual idea what you mean with it lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have seen tnt be described as different from a policy in response to its usage.

  You said IAR can't really not exist. I am saying that it is possible for it not to exist. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  yes, tnt is different from a policy. that doesn't automatically make it less valid than a policy when use of it is appropriate, because it'll work with certain policies. surprisingly, this applies to literally every policy as well, even including iar itself

  also, the second paragraph only actually needed a comma lmao. what i meant, if clarification is needed, is that plain ol' common sense will just be used in iar's stead for the exact same reasons as it, because that's what iar already is. something is clearly out of whack and a solution has already been agreed on, but policy says a discussion should go on for at least a week to do it if it doesn't meet a speedy close criterion? nah, just toss some iar i mean common sense juice into it for a snow close and move on with your day consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  The difference between is that one is valid for enforcement one is just explanatory and that is important.

  Apologies for missing the comma. Thanks for clarifying. Common sense would be used but ot would probably be used by putting stuff into policies which is better than this rule. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, you don't seem to understand how messy, vague, or fuzzy our system is. "Enforcement" is not what differentiates a policy from an essay. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policy – how would you "enforce" it?

  I suggest reading Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Read especially the footnote at the bottom that says why this information is on a separate page instead of being in WP:POLICY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate all the thoughtful comments to my above comment, but this exchange shows why a formal RFC on this topic is desperately needed. Essays and various interpretations aside, there is clear division on IAR's purpose, scope, and actual practical effects. I believe the community deserves a venue to decide whether to repeal, clarify, or retain IAR. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  The notion that "Ignore all rules" is a matter of common sense is particularly rich, considering the humorous origin of the "rule." No, just because Wikipedians are so set in their ways (or use of weird rules) that they seem to be matters of common sense does not make those rules any more coherent and rational. "Ignore all rules" never was a matter of common sense, of course. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• No per Aquillion and Donald Albury. However, this should be made into a formal RfC and advertised more widely, as well as comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL – beginning the question with "there seems to be a consensus" is the exact opposite of that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  opening like that would also violate thesis 1 consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• YES IAR should be fully repealed. As Larry Sanger himself created this rule, and then later realized that it was a stupid error on his part, and one that has left a legacy of lasting empowerment for the powerful, the time has come to do away with this nonsensical (and potentially harmful) "rule" or "policy". I think it is long past time that IAR be abolished once and for all time, relegated to the rubbish bin of history from whence it came. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a rule, it's a general idea. To get rid of this idea is to leave the wiki a soulless husk containing nothing but rules that people came up with. 2600:1012:A025:691D:29C2:76F5:D892:A063 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  that's... completely off. the problems larry cites in his essay aren't with iar, but with people. editors biting newcomers is nothing new, and far from the only problem that comes from just whipping out the iar card as a defense for doing whatever someone wants. however, that's when other policies come in, as iar doesn't just automatically deny everything else. action can then be taken for stuff like incivility, disruption, or whatever other issue you can name. this is the equivalent of seeing a forest fire and blaming the forest for being so flammable, as opposed to the gender reveal party that caused it. or at least that's how it is in theory, anyway. in practice, the malfunctioning pyrotechnics only really get to burn a branch or two

  also, is that an attack against past larry? that's ballsy lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good point. IAR in principle (don't worry so much about the rules!) is not bad, but the way in which it is used is profoundly unfair to newcomers. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...that's not the point either, but close enough. the point is that some people are just kinda gatekeepy. it's as much a problem with iar as as it is with the continued existence of xfd venues and csds, for example. ideally, action will be taken against this behavior, from a heads-up to an administrative slap in the wrist. hell, some people have even been indeffed for constant biting, if that's anything to go by consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Speaking of CSDs, there's currently a proposal to replace the often-misused criterion U5. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. I introduced this tongue-in-cheek “rule” 24 years ago to encourage shy/mild personalities to be bolder and not worry about the rules too much. It was later repurposed, most typically and ironically by some of the most powerful accounts here, to shut down newbies. It does not have subtle depths. It’s a joke that went wrong. I established this rule—I now say to scrap it. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Such terrible irony that "a joke that went wrong" is now defended by a bunch of people. The irony is sad, funny, and painful all at the same time. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Iljhgtn, don't be Larry's useful idiot Kowal2701 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would consider striking that. —Rutebega (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not a personal attack, it’s advice and that’s the terminology. I know if I was doing the same I’d want someone to be blunt and say that. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am now the fourth person strongly suggesting that you strike it down. So please, drop the stick, even if you think you're right. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  you were just two or three days under a month late for this lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh LOL, sorry, I completely didn't notice it was the wrong month! 😂 Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Although in my defense Bluethricecreamman also commented this yesterday, so it might still be relevant to ask them to strike it down. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I second that @Rutebega. Strike the comment @Kowal2701. 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — 12.228.48.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I too second. All of my supporters are brilliant, regardless of how useful. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Per Rutebega, same, consider striking. see also WP:DONTFEED User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven, from your opening comment it sounds like you intend this to be a discussion about changing policy? If so, you should probably close this thread and restart it as a formal RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Before we havce an RFC, we need to have a discusion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, Slatersteven, that means that this discussion is a non-binding RFCBEFORE and cannot come to a decision to abolish IAR, instead only determining if there is enough support for abolishing to warrant opening an RFC, correct? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sure it can. If this discussion is closed with "There is an overwhelming consensus to abolish IAR", and then there are no successful closing challenges or whatever, that is sufficient consensus, no formal rfc needed. Whether this discussion will be closed as such is another question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, IAR should be overturned. consarn says that "iar mostly boils down to common sense," but my experience of invoking common sense over an express policy resulted in a powerful editor threatening to have me site banned. It may be that people are people and common sense can't be legislated, but getting rid of some policy that Larry has watched spoil over the years would be salubrious. I would welcome an RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• No - Larry is correct in pointing out that the meaning of IAR has changed. It is absolutely no longer "hey newbies if you're overwhelmed by rules, don't worry about them". But the suggestion that it is a tool for the powerful to act contrary to the rules is so off the mark as to be nearly the opposite of how it's actually used.
  Larry cites a study, then disagrees with it without providing any evidence. Instead are anecdotal feelings: I have heard from several people that entrenched editors and Administrators tend to cite the rule when they want to give a veneer of regularity to arbitrary decisions, as if to say, To hell with it, I’m going to do what I want: Ignore all rules!. Feelings are important from a community perspective -- clearly we could've done better by whomever said that. And I don't doubt some frustrated editor has said that, just as aggrieved editors have claimed every policy/guideline is used for abuse. We've probably all seen cases where we disagree with how the rules were (or were not) applied. But I worry that Larry seems to be starting from a narrative about bad faith, conspiracies, and powerful biased Wikipedians run amok, then working backwards to look not at whether the evidence supports the hypothesis, but rather only for what evidence is available to support the hypothesis.
  The only thing approaching evidence isn't from any IAR-based finding of consensus, not from any article, and not from any noticeboard where a decision was made; it's an individual user's thoughts about IAR and COVID-19 from a user page.
  Here's the thing about Wikipedia: if you're willing to cherry-pick individual diffs or quotes from individual people, you can piece together evidence to support absolutely any narrative you want. Visit the talk page for any ongoing political topic, or browse the history of any of the related articles, and you can find quotes to assemble which makes Wikipedia look however you want it to look. What actually matters are outcomes of discussion, consensus statements, and persistent article content, not fleeting hot-takes or edit wars. Looking at what matters, the reasons for things tend to be pretty, well, boring. There's still plenty to debate about, say, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, but at least then we're evaluating real evidence and not "someone told me X" or "look at what inconsequential thing this one person said". So much journalism about Wikipedia these days seems to exploit the Backwards Diff-Based Narrative Construction approach, sadly.
  All IAR means in 2025 is this: the spirit of the rules and the purpose of the project matter more than the letter of the law.
  And in 2025, cases where IAR are invoked successfully are very rare (again, interested in outcomes, not what one rando said along the way). The rules are well-developed, broadly endorsed, and, well, expansive to a fault. To the extent IAR supports newbies it's in protecting good faith newbies from wikilawyers who try to get what they want through legalistic argumentation rather than what's best for the project. I'd argue that going too hard in referencing policy instead of explaining policy is one of our real weaknesses, even with IAR, but repealing this would just be a step backwards. IAR merely provides a modicum of protection at the edges (alongside WP:GAME/WP:WIKILAWYERING pages). The idea that IAR is some tool used by the powerful to suppress dissent is bizarro world stuff that bears no resemblance to how I've seen it implemented in the time I've been around here.
  Sorry to write so much. I appreciate this discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Excellent summary. And I agree with others that No, IAR should not be removed. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• No I am not aware of the original idea behind IAR but, as Rhododendrites explains above, IAR now means simply that edits to improve the encyclopedia are good. That is subject to consensus and IAR edits are easily reverted. An example where I used "IAR" in an edit summary is in diff concerning whether a certain category belonged in an article. I haven't seen any examples where IAR was given as the reason for a bad decision. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. Policy could not be modified to contain all the possible exceptions that should apply, and if they did contain such a huge list of exceptions then those exceptions would be misused far more often than IAR. IAR is also not used by the 'powerful' to suppress dissent, basing such an idea on scuttlebutt just shows how poorly the comment was thought out.
  IAR isn't there so as to ignore consensus or policy, it's there to go against them when you can show that it's the right decision to improve or maintain Wikipedia. If everyone thinks you're damaging the encyclopedia, that is a failing of your arguments not others for not allowing you to invoke IAR. IAR doesn't mean you can do something and never have it undone, it means you can do something you know to be against policy or consensus and when someone questions that you get a chance to explain why it should be an exception. It also acts as a reminder that over literal readings of policy and consensus are harmful to the encyclopedia.
  In the same way that once an artist has created a piece of art they can no longer control how it is interpreted, that Sangar did a thing 20 years ago has no bearing on Wikipedia today. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Hard no. IAR is a principle of cooperative wiki editing and improvement. You can fine-tune principles with more detailed policy guidelines, but overturning an essential idea is nonsense. The idea is that above all else, editors care about making the wiki good and better. To block people from making good faith "improvement or maintenance" of Wikipedia is by definition worse than allowing it. 2600:1012:A025:691D:29C2:76F5:D892:A063 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes IAR might have been a good idea once upon a time, but it is not a good idea now and rules help to ensure a community can be held accountable to itself. 50.150.21.162 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC) — 50.150.21.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Absolutely not. It is sometimes over used and/or used wrongly (c.f. WP:IARUNCOMMON) but the same is true of just about every other policy on Wikipedia and is not a rationale for abolishing something so fundamental. Thryduulf (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No, but it might help if we:
  1. introduced this concept to editors when they're newer, so they can develop a habit of doing the right thing by the article (Yes, there is a rule that says articles should be based upon secondary sources, but that doesn't mean you can't start an article over an obviously notable subject with the best sources you can find at the moment) as well as working together (Yes, there might be a rule that says to format things this way, but if you can't figure out how to do that, you can ignore that and do your best, because someone else will fix the formatting for you later), and
  2. made a help page that explains this concept specifically to people who have Rigid thinking styles or who tend to follow rules mindlessly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  1 is already handled by welcome templates (though if you want it to be made a little clearer, i don't think it would be hard to make suggestions in their talk pages), and 2 has wp:iar?. you could argue that the parts intended for readers who go a little too by the book could be pushed a couple paragraphs up. but eh consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLY HELL NO IAR is, by design, a safety mechanism from Wikilawyering nonsense, putting the good of Wikipedia ahead of strict adherence to PAGs or other unforeseen nonsense that may arise from the chaos. For example, WP:STUB says you can create a new stub type if you meet WP:STUB#Guidelines, propose the new stub type at WP:WSS/P, wait 5 days, and only then create the stub if there are no objections. Well, what if there were 20 people in support, and one person that objects, saying "My dad hates this topic, so I object to {{topic-stub}} being created." Now if you go ahead, and create {{topic-stub}}, you've violated the guidelines. Should we now ban you? What about me, who WP:BOLDLY created {{mathematics-journal-stub}} or {{astronomy-journal-stub}} without even proposing anything to anyone? Should I be banned too? What if a bot functions perfectly, but its owner disappears. Bot policy says a bot can only be approved if a bot has an owner willing to answer questions about it and take responsability for its edit. But what if the bot is so uncontroversial? Should we block this perfectly functioning bot that causes no issues anywhere, with no complaints anywhere, just to satisfy policy, in turn creating a problem where none existed before?
  IAR exists for a reason, and it's a good one. It must be kept and defended vigourously as a core principle of Wikipedia. Hell, you could even call it a pillar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• This discussion and the underlying proposal are a tendentious waste of community time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree I think this is a valid proposal and is an important discussion to have and so is not a waste of time. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with @GothicGolem29 and frankly it is a bit of a dick thing to say that it's just a waste of time to even talk about something. 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — 12.228.48.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Perhaps, but it also reaffirms IAR rather strongly User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would not say strongly I would say its either a small consensus to keep or no consensus but we shall see if this is closed at some point what the consensus is. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Could also be a medium sized consensus too as well as small or no consensus but I still think its not rather strong but we shall see. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  ...well, no, the votes for keeping outnumber the votes for repealing by over three times, even accounting for the possibility of me having miscounted them consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  yes, i know, i'm just too lazy to add that exclamation mark since everyone gets it. even then, 67-19 really isn't a "medium-sized consensus" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  First of all the discussion is not yet closed so the Raw numbers could change. Secondly not sure I would agree that isn't a medium sized consensus on numbers alone(maybe could stretch to medium large.) But thirdly and most importantly imo The fact it is not a vote means the raw numbers don't tell us the consensus. Several !votes may be discarded just for saying no or yes without a reason some of the spa votes which you put into their own category could be considered(not the struck ones most likely) and arguments weighed. I still stand by what I said that it is not a strong consensus against. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  they could, but the discussion could also close within the hour and have closed a good while ago if someone had the mental strength, at which point... raw numbers do just end up meaning consensus, and banking on no less than 49 votes for yes coming in at the eleventh hour won't do much unless canvassing is at play and no one gets caught. even if votes with under 6 words or "per x" were disregarded, i don't think the ones leaning on no would go under 40 consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Assuming your scenario is what happens then even then the Raw numbers do not necessarily equal consensus. I have seen consensus going against the raw numbers before and it could go against it this time with the consensus being weaker than the raw numbers after the !votes arguments are weighed. Plus 49 would be needed to make up the raw numbers gap fully but even five or ten !votes could change the strength of the consensus depending on strength of arguments. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  in such a case, if a closer said "okay, so the raw numbers clearly lean towards one side, but i think the other has the better argument, so i'll close as that instead", in a case where the arguments for the former side can't be procedurally disregarded or proven as objectively wrong, that'd be a supervote, which would almost definitely be discussed, if not immediately reverted or overturned consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Closers weigh arguments all the time with no objection it's not a supervote to do so if its being weighed against policy or based on the !votes just saying no or yes(hence why not a vote exists because it's not just about raw numbers.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  that would require that at least 49 of the people against repealing have arguments that either unambiguously go against policy or just completely fail to hold up in any way, which you'd think would've been argued for. arguments against a difference of 48 votes not from spas or spas that somehow don't veer into supervote territory would be all but impossible here unless a whole lot of people are outed as being full of shit or as socks. as is, i can only really argue that that wonk from rfd (cogsan?) would fall under the former category consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed it would(depending on how the spa !votes are considered) and I am not saying that is likely it will become consensus for the change all I am saying is that the strength of the consensus could differ from the raw numbers. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  for the spa and spa votes, assuming weak arguments aren't considered (however that would even work), we'd only actually have two, so that's kind of irrelevant

  for the strength, this is a case where that wouldn't even apply if there wasn't a difference of over 10 votes, as there would first need to be arguments that the arguments against repealing (which have been made) are weak, so it's a hypothetical that will stay a hypothetical until (translation: unless) said arguments pop up and are widely agreed with. i'm not seeing a lot of those at the moment, so i really don't get your argument unless an extremely wide assumption of bad faith and/or incompetence is at play, or "larrie iz awsum" is promoted as a genuinely good argument consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  As to the strength of their arguments we shall have to see at the close.

  I am fairly sure a closer can discount such !votes (like just a vote) without a discussion from editors though even if they could not I have mentioned here I have seen weak !votes throughout this discussion so it has been discussed. It doesn't need to be based on bad faith it can be looking at policies and !votes that just say no or yes. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  by my admittedly not too well-formed estimate, that would at the absolute worst dock 9 votes off of the "no" side, which would make it just over exactly 3 times as much as "yes" assuming no votes there are discounted, so no. please either make a more concrete argument besides "maybe this could happen", or don't waste more time on this consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is not a waste for me to state my view that there is no strong consensus and that its not based on raw numbers but on consensus which will be decided at the close and weigh !votes but if you consider this a waste we can end this here I have made my points and I stand by them have a good day. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  apologies for the self-enjoyment here

  a 5 to 1 count clearly means a tie or a weak consensus ^[sarcasm]
  and everyone knows that RFCs get their second win 30 days after they started, so i definitely expect the vote to change entirely ^[sarcasm]
  and its always WP:NOTAVOTE anyways when the odds are against what we want ^[sarcasm]
  besides, we regularly throw away dozens of votes when closing an rfc anyways ^[sarcasm] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with the first two for the reasons I set out above but I will not repeat myself. I make these sorts of arguments about not a vote regardless of my position on the outcome. Even less than two dozen discarded could change the strength of the consensus and if there is good reason like no rationale given I have seen votes discarded like that so it could change the strength of the consensus. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Everyone, please stop bludgeoning, thanks. The entire discussion above is an indication that this discussion has ended, and well about time. Strong arguments in favor of keeping the policy have been made and trying to claim that they haven't could be read as an attempt to mislead as a close nears. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am not misleading I am stating my view on the strength of the consensus and saying that we need to wait for the close as its not a vote that is not misleading (and as for bludgeoning I have left many comments not responded too but I am going to stop responding after this comment.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I believe 5:1 count is exaggerated. Consarn did a count, and it's around 3:1 if you exclude things such as single purpose accounts, and 2:1 if you don't. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  if the single purpose ones were counted and assumed to be 4 different people, it would be 23, which, considering my minor math mistake with the no votes (it was actually 68), would avoid being 3:1 by exactly one vote consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 03:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• (These are "the theses," for anyone here who does not know what they are. Should have been linked from the get-go so people know where the apparent consensus was.)
  At any rate, no. This is a solution in search of a problem. The only examples that were given for IAR supposedly being a problem in 2025 are a study from 2012 (13 years ago), a Slate article from 2014 (11 years ago), a random 2020 COVID comment from someone's (very erratic) userpage that no one seems to have engaged with, and some trolls who are probably older by now than several current editors.
  Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• "Ignore all rules" as it's currently applied is just a recognition that in practice, the specifics of a given situation may benefit from an exception to the usual guidance. It would be probably helpful, though, if this page made this clear. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Note whether or not this page exists, it won't change how, in practice, exceptions will be made, because guidance on a web site isn't law. This page essentially serves to remind editors of this. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes unless one hell of a lot of clarification is added. The current magnificently ambiguous one-sentence blurb does more harm than good. I know we need something to the effect that Wikipedia is not about rules, but we have that elsewhere such as WP:5P5. We need policies, not slogans. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...what does p5 have that iar doesn't? it's literally iar but with a couple more words and a link to iar

  similarly, what would make this a "blurb" or "slogan" that wouldn't also apply to the pillars? they're both culminations of preexisting policies, guidelines, essays, and precedents consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• No thank you. Toadspike [Talk] 06:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. The application of IAR is subject to consensus and is, in fact, the purest and most direct implementation of consensus. Our policies and guidelines are written to explain the current consensus on content and conduct based on existing editing patterns, and we are not going to discard common sense to rigidly adhere to the letter of a policy when it is vexatiously invoked to undermine community consensus. — Newslinger talk 07:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. I think it is an effective counter against system creep and its potential for abuse is limited enough already. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. I've used IAR as a non-admin against admins, it is not just a tool to be used by the powerful against the powerless. It should be the exception, but it's a safety valve we need. Fram (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• no 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. It's one of our longest-standing principles and I see no justification to changing that. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. IAR is about making obvious necessary improvements that the rules don't normally allow for. Revoking it as a tool changes accepted practice to "If it's broke, don't fix it unless it's explicitly allowed. Leave it broken until consensus emerges to change policies and guidelines to allow the edit." If something is in desperate need of fixing, fix it. 207.11.240.2 (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Rename/Reword I think we should consider renaming this thing. The title is too easily misinterpreted at face value when quoted, without the needed context. Additionally, it specifically says "prevents you", giving a lot of leeway to a single person's interpretation and experience. Instead we should probably require a more collective interpretation of ignoring the rules. Think more of 'discretionary power'. It if makes the encyclopedia better AND you think that the majority of contributors would not object to the change when reviewing your action, then ignore the rule. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that at the very least, renaming it is a decent middle ground proposal. At face value, the title alone makes it seem like the rules that we are constantly citing do not matter because of this rule. I think that if/when there is an RFC conducted on this issue, this should be one of the options, 1. Repeal IAR, 2. Keep IAR but amend/clarify/rename it. 3. Keep IAR in current form. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  There are several useful redirects to this page that are useful when one wants to mention this principle but be clearer about its relevance, including Wikipedia:No firm rules, Wikipedia:Product over process, and Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have proposed "Do What You Can" (DWYC) as as a more robust alternative to "Ignore All Rules" (IAR). Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Replace with what WP:5P5 says. The five pillars have been gone over thoroughly and the basis that pillar is important enough to be included as a major policy. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free reliable encyclopaedia and it needs emphasis via a policy like IAR - but IAR doesn't say it well enough. Editors are not paid workers who should blindly follow some management rules. NadVolum (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No Per WP:NOTLAW, Wikipedia's rules are mostly not legislation or decrees but instead are customs and traditions. As such, they have plenty of wiggle room and scope for adjustment and interpretation. IAR is one of these traditions too and seems needed because the whole huge ruleset has not been drafted carefully and consistently and so there are often corner cases and clashes with common sense. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No, and another one for the history books. IAR has been, is, and will be ruthlessly discussed. This is a fact of Wikipedia. No pushes from any sizable organization throughout the over-two-decades of IAR's existence have yet changed the letter or spirit of the law. I disagree with dislodging it on principle, as I find it helps newbies and vets alike cut through a lot of WP's red tape (if you're wondering how I know all this, I read ANI in my spare time); however, I also disagree with this proposal on principle simply to uphold a good ol' WP tradition. 12.32.37.18 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No per all other people opposing the change. sapphaline (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Hard no. Not every exception to every rule can be expected to be written into the rules, and we are not a bureaucracy. If applying a specific rule in a specific situation would have a result that would be obviously bad to everyone involved, we should ignore that rule in that situation. I believe that consensus is the one exempt rule and consensus can overturn any IAR revocation, as it should be. Overall, though, IAR is still needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No Mark your calendars, I agree with Headbomb. IAR has a long precedent of not being taken absolutely literally. At most, and because I was classically trained in the fine art of multiple-choice tests and can't help looking for exceptions, admins using IAR to place a sanciton on someone should have to say something like "I acknowledge that this goes against our usual rules so I am citing IAR," but even then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  they took my sexy firefighter calendars in the divorce, can i mark my worms instead? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Only if they are sexy worms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. I'll defer to Wikipedia's co-founder on this one, since he's more of an expert, but this makes sense. The rule seems to have been well-intentioned, bringing new editors to the platform, but it feels outdated now. IAR shouldn't be exploited to shut down discussions and debates here Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any evidence that IAR is being exploited to shut down discussions and debates? Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is a reasonable question on its face, but an editor who has been on the receiving end of IAR abuse is not going to want to invite more scrutiny from more powerful editors. Sanger is in a better position to speak for such editors than they are themselves. There is also a survivor bias at work here, that anyone subjected to abuse (IAR or otherwise) is more likely to have given up editing. We ought to make room for believing the victims here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning No on this because I think we'd ignore the rules anyway regardless of whether IAR was there or not, but absolutely 100% opposed to the idea discussed by NadVolum and others above that WP:5P is a solid basis for anything. WP:5P an essay-level set of platitudes that no-one pays any real attention to, the consequences of which haven't been thought out at all because it was never taken seriously enough for its actual wording to matter. FOARP (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No The idea that we can ignore rules if they're in the way of improving the encyclopedia, instead of having to first change the rules (and keeping in mind that making rules based on edge cases is often not a good idea), is a valuable one. Could we explain it a bit better? Probably. But let's not throw out the whole thing just because someone who had a connection with the beginning of Wikipedia (and then left for 20 years to start a succession of failed projects) has come back with a polemic and roused a bit of a rabble. Anomie⚔ 14:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes It is an extremely open ended rule and is usually used in a manipulative manner to make pages more biased and ideologically slanted. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please could you cite some evidence that it is usually used in a manipulative manner to make pages more biased and ideologically slanted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. I have found a thread from 2010 titled: Petition against IAR abuse here:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Petition_against_IAR_abuse

  Also here: Wikipedia: Petition against IAR abuse (2nd nomination):

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Petition_against_IAR_abuse_(2nd_nomination)

  And here is a past AfD that attempted to invoke IAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paperity

  And one more where IAR was attempted poorly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachael_Todd

  I have found more links but the 2010 petitions indicate that the WP:IAR rule has been a systemic and widespread issue on this platform for over a decade. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  What the deletion discussions show is that there has been over a decade of consensus not keep IAR. Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree, and that there are some who never agree doesn't make something contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see any actual evidence presented in all of that. It is nothing more than a hand-waving petition against [unnamed, potential] abuse of IAR by administrators.

  [addition] and the other 'examples' don't really show much in the way of bing manipulative. Merely some editors making a suggestion. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible No – IAR states that if an edit would improve the encyclopedia but a rule gets in the way, then WP:BOLDly ignore the rule and improve the encyclopedia. If the edit is reverted, then BRD and explain your reasoning. I have reviewed many edits that vastly improve an article but violate some rule, so I leave those edits alone or rework it to be in compliance with the rules. If we have to lock-step with every rule, then we turn this project into a WP:BUREAUCRACY. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Absolutely not Besides the obvious (the invoker has to establish that it improves Wikipedia) it's more common use is to influence against wiki-lawyering and gaming. I have a lot of respect for and encourage wiki's co-founder, but he's wrong on this one. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No IAR should not be overturned. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are far from perfect, and it is not worth the effort to change their wording every time we discover yet another one of their many defects. At the end of Thesis 5 Larry Sanger says "nobody is above the law". I am tempted to point him to the golden rule of statutory interpretation. Even judges don't necessarily blindly follow the letter of law. James500 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Of course not. This is an encyclopaedia, not a game of following hundreds of rules. —Kusma (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. Bludgeoning, wikilawyering, and all other manner of disrupting discussions can only happen because Wikipedia has policies, rules and guidelines - when does WP:IAR do the same? -- Reconrabbit 19:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. Can we get back to building an encyclopedia now? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. IAR has been a core part of the Wikipedian ethos for decades, it's one of our strongest bulwarks against instruction creep, and I think its underlying thesis is something we can widely agree on: our number-one goal is improving Wikipedia, above complying with our labyrinth of behind-the-scenes policy pages. It's not impossible to misuse IAR, of course, but that's not a reason to repeal the policy any more than WP:FALSEBALANCE is a reason to repeal NPOV. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  The reason WP:IAR is a core part of Wikipedia in the first place is because Larry Sanger created it, now he is calling for it to be repealed. As he said in his essay, WP:THESIS5, "'Ignore all rules' was never meant as serious policy" and that the purpose for the rule was as a tool for encouragement but that the tool was left in "long past its due date." I think that at the very least, if the rule is to be retained, it requires extensive clarification on the policy page, not on separate essay pages because that further adds to the ambiguity. Regardless, I think all of this discussion shows that an RFC is desperately needed on this topic to ensure wider community discussion here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  let's just get the important part of the way: the fact that larry created it gives him no inherent rights over it (especially considering how inactive he is here) and is not relevant. in fact, the iar wrote created is long behind us. that version appealed to editors who felt that the rules were bumming them out. this one appeals to any instance of common sense being needed consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Projectspace and mainspace have a lot of differences, but one thing they share is that creating material in either space gives you no special authority over it. And even if it did... Sanger parted ways with Wikipedia 23 years ago, and IAR has continued to be significant to the project's governance for all that time. The policy has become bigger than the person who originally postulated it. ModernDayTrilobite (talk contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's one of the things Larry wants to change, at least in part, I quote: " The article creator determines who works on the article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. This is a horrible idea for blatantly obvious reasons, and the fact that come of the comments above seem to be implying that LS owns it due to having originally created the page is seriously concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• No Sanger's opinion on IAR carries no additional weight per WP:OWN. If you really want to propose this, make a formal RFC at WP:VPP instead of spending editor time on this non-binding discussion. mdm.bla 20:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Let me clarify if my point was unclear. I am not asserting WP:OWN, I am asserting that since he was the one that created it, it might be wise for us to listen to some of his points, that does not imply ownership. He has a lot of historical insight on the purpose of the rule and others have offered insight on what the rule has become in the present day. Also, if he did own the page, our discussion about whether or not to keep it would be pretty pointless. That being said, I agree that an RFC proposal at this point would be appropriate. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Why go to the bother of an RFC when this discussion makes it obvious what the result would be? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  RfC is for when you can't reach a consensus without it. It is not for expanding participation until you get the result you want. Of course, WP:IAR currently says you don't have to care about that. You can open an RfC if you think it will improve the encyclopedia. This requires no interpretation; the "policy" literally says that. Be prepared for multiple flamethrowers for acting per Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the whole point of IAR is to remind us and other editors that the ultimate goal is to build an encyclopedia. Removing IAR will signal that people should follow the rules to the letter, rather than necessarily using common sense. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• I thought Wales-worshippers were bad enough, but I see that the Sanger-worshippers are much worse. If you must worship someone, then make it a deity or a truly great person, not just someone who was trying to make a few dollars and struck it lucky. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Actually a good point, but doesnt mean he is wrong about his views. They are just getting more clout by virtue of who he is. Metallurgist (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Rename to Wikipedia:Ignore a rule, which is a correct representation of the policy – the present name misrepresents the policy. The shortcut name WP:IAR would then be kept. Nurg (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...what? that title implies it only applies to one rule. maybe only one at a time, maybe only one rule period. it's just confusing and misleading, as it's rare (or even potentially impossible) for a use of iar to ignore exactly one rule consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Alternatively, rename to Wikipedia:When to ignore a rule. Nurg (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Should be an essay, but the policy itself is good as is thanks. Loki (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support either Wikipedia:When to ignore a rule or Wikipedia:Ignore a rule. The status quo is intolerable, and I'd support nearly any improvement, no matter how slight. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  What do you think of "Do What You Can" (DWYC) as as a more robust alternative to "Ignore All Rules" (IAR)? Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't get it. Does it imply "Do what you can get away with"? Nurg (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  that's more of a call for vandalism than anything. "do what you can", interpreted a little less maliciously, says nothing about editing. it's just as much a call for iar as it is for finding sources, copyediting, and sleeping an entire day off consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, as I described DWYC to voorts, DWYC would be de facto the same thing as IAR. It just has a better name and description. If anything, "ignore all rules" sounds much more like "Do what you can get away with". The "can" in DWYC implies that there are limits to what editors can do, i.e. editors can't simply do whatever they feel like. That's the false impression that IAR gives.

  Also, we were talking about renames, not policy changes, so I have no idea how you came up with that idea. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  The "can" in DWYC implies that there are limits to what editors can do, i.e. editors can't simply do whatever they feel like. That's the false impression that IAR gives. I don't get that at all - to me "do what you can" is an invitation to do whatever you're capable of - including such obviously undesirable things as edit warring and spamming. While the title of "ignore all rules" might give a wrong impression to a few who haven't actually read the text on the page, "do what you can" is not an improvement on that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree, you're thinking about "Do what(ever) you want". "Can" suggests that there are limits to what people do. Even if that was a problem, there's still "Just Do What You Can" (JDWYC). "Just" strengthens the implication that there are limits to what a user can do.

  Perhaps even better, there's also "Improve What You Can" (IWYC) or "Just Improve What You Can" (JIWYC), which I hadn't thought of until now. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm not confusing "want" and "can" - I can edit war, I can bludgeon discussions, etc. Sure someone will stop me at some point, but until that point I can. There are obviously limits to what people can do, but that's completely irrelevant because no rule or guideline can influence what I can and cannot do (only what I may do).

  I can see two different interpretations of "Just". In the first it makes absolutely no practical difference at all - it changes the meaning from "do things you can do" to "only do the things that you can do"; I given that I already cannot do things I can't do, that doesn't change the set of actions at all. In the second, it makes it even worse because it changes "do what you can do" to "do what you can do, regardless of anything else" (cf "just effing do it"), implying that things like consensus are irrelevant - if you can do it, do it, regardless if it's a good idea to do it (I can edit the article about a politician I don't like to say that they're a corrupt racist kiddy fiddler, I can replace the lead image at Jimbo Wales with this one).

  "(Just) Improve What You Can" misses the point of this guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  As I said, I now think that "Improve What You Can" (IWYC) would be a much better name. No, the proposed name does not miss the point, certainly not on a policy page that elaborates what it means. It's just a proposed name change, not a change to the functionality of IAR. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. After reading through the comments here, it is clear that the benefits of IAR outweigh its drawbacks. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Ive never not seen IAR overused or abused. Repealing IAR doesnt mean you cant ignore all rules, it means the rule that you can ignore all rules is repealed, which is rather ironic: ignore all rules has become a rule. Metallurgist (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• No, and also:
  (1) Why are we giving the time of day to this person?
  (2) DiCaprio-in-OBAA-voice: "Viva la revolucion!!" jengod (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Why are we giving the time of day to this person?"

  Right. We should just silence all dissent instead. 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — 12.228.48.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes - This is policy that Larry, self-admittedly says is a piece of tongue-in cheek humor. To have this enforced as an actual policy or give it the same weight is not conducive to the platform. Kvinnen (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  that's not a reason, since basically the only thing that survived from the version larry allegedly created is the titl- HEY WAIT A MINUTE consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes I am lost by the argument that seems to go like this, "Without IAR, everything would collapse into chaos and there would be no way of doing anything that isn't explicitly outlined by a rule!"... uh. Have any of you people ever seen any Democracy anywhere on Earth? If there is a problem, you convene and solve it. This might be why Mr. Sanger's "Thesis 9" is an important first step before we could fully abolish IAR or make any other necessary changes. 50.243.252.86 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC) — 50.243.252.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No. Yeet the bureaucracy. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  What does "yeet" mean? Strengthen and infuse with a new energy? Because that is what IAR does in practice. So does "Yeet the bureaucracy" mean "Yay! Long live the bureaucracy"? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeet generally means throw so I believe they are saying throw away the bureaucracy. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  The question comes down to, is IAR is more successful among those who oppose the bureaucracy or by the bureaucracy itself? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm at exactly the age where I'm not sure if someone asking me "what does 'yeet' mean" is implying I'm too old or too young. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I believe I once heard "yeet" to mean travel? Can it mean to travel? As in "I yeeted to Paris"? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Linking wikt:yeet – I suspect this was meant in the spirit of the first meaning of its verb form. Perfect4th (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  The audio there is Australian, is "yeet" an Australian term? Iljhgtn (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  It essentially means to get rid of something, especially in this case Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  nope, more so a general internet term, as tied to crikeyland as it is to yeehawland or blimeyland

  that said, i've definitely seen "yeet" being used to refer to travel, but it was still following the second definition, thus being something like "i yeeted my ass to mexico" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Closing this. We already effectively have an RFC above. We don't need another. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is more like an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion, and I thought it would be a good idea to start a properly formatted RfC, but apparently not. Sorry!

(To be clear, I oppose repealing IAR but I still think this discussion needs to be advertised more.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not an rfc above its just a discussion GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

People are leaving bolded !votes and dozens of editors have participated. Contrary to your views that IAR and related policies shouldn't exist, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that we don't need a formal RfC to be opened to determine consensus (another thing that Larry wants to eliminate). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Bolded votes can happen outside RFCs. It isn't always needed sometimes it can be useful and several no votes did argue for one. And my point above anyway was saying above is not an RFC rather than saying we need one(though it could be useful.) Also, IAR not existing doesn't mean it will become a bureaucracy or that common sense won't exist it just means there isn't this rule that causes confusion about ignoring rules. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented in the above discussion or Larry's essay that IAR causes any serious confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I would argue the afd they provided is proof of confusion over it. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to this comment above, two AfD discussions is not sufficient evidence that IAR is causing serious confusion. Some people get confused between their right and their left; we're not going to abolish directions now, are we? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

yes, we should abolish the x axis!! consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say what happened in the afd I linked below is serious confusion as one side os saying you van keep an article because its helpful to people and another is saying that isn't how it works that is confusion and in my view something like that is quite serious(and indeed the result ended with no consensus.) Abolishing directions is not possible so it is not the same as abolishing iar.GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Serious, as in widespread, not serious as in "in this individual case, a person misunderstood a policy page". If we abolished policies every time we had a single example of somebody making bad arguments based on one of them, we wouldn't have any policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

A case like that with serious confusion in my view is enough. This isn't just a single person making a mistake it is multiple people disagreeing on if IAR applies in this case and no consensus was achieved. That is different than if just one person misunderstands a rule(and presumably no one would agree if it is one person.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Basing decisions off of one single AfD where you think people got things wrong is a really dumb way to create (or eliminate) policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

When a policy causes that level of confusion in a discussion(which ended with no consensus) I don't think it is dumb to want to correct that confusion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the way to do that is to talk to those two editors who got it wrong, not revoke the entire policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The way to solve it is to revoke the policy so it doesn't confuse people anymore(and I will not several people in the afd explained in the afd already.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Lots of people are confused about NPOV, N, V, BLP, MEDRS, etc. Should we revoke all of those? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen those situations so cannot comment on them. What I have seen is real confusion caused by IAR and that is why it should be repealed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

i've seen plenty of confusion regarding the specifics of wp:xfd and wp:blar, that means they gotta go!!

here's some unrelated links for no reason, by the way, five four three one two two twotwotwotwotwotwo fourthree five five five- ah dammit i don't have more links to questions about those squabbles that i was involved in atm to finish the reference consarn _{(giant pea-ness climbers)} 00:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:XFD is different to what I am supporting as Wiki can't really just not have a deletion process in my view as that would cause all kinds of issues whereas it can remove certain policies and that includes IAR. What specifics about Wikipedia:BLAR(could not tell from reading the redirect links.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

the point is that, even if a bunch of examples can be named, that's not necessarily a problem with the rules, so much as it is constant confusion and misinterpretation of them. it at best means some stuff could be clarified in both of those guidelines under the assumption that the average reader would be extremely not smart, but definitely not that they should be done away with. it is, as the younger folk would say, a skill issue

here's the difference, though: iar is a one-sentence policy that makes its scope, intent, and method of use extremely clear. to misinterpret it would require active and deliberate misinterpretation or a refusal to actually read it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support a clarification of IAR to make it less confusing (as per the below rfc) if repeal does not happen but given the level of confusion I do still think repealing is the right choice. It is not extremely clear the afd made that clear given one side was saying that is not how this works works and the other was basing it on the exact words to say an article should be kept because it is helpful. That situation in my view shows how confusing this rule is and why it needs to be repealed not that this is a "skill issue". GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

really, the only idea i'd have to make it clearer without making iar itself less clear by tacking more words would add about six characters to it. that is, three apostrophes before the first i, and three more directly after the first f consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really sure why you think that would make it clearer? Personally I think it would make it more clearer to do the proposal in the RFC below or some other solution clarifying the rule more. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

if it is over the afd of that petition, the votes were about whether or not the petition should exist and why, not directly about iar itself, and the agreement was that, even if someone disagreed with it, it should be kept, and the nom was just being a bit of a stinkyhead. same for this essay's mfd

also, that afd happened 15 years ago, so it's ultimately not worth much for establishing anything recent. you know, consensus can change and all that, and even if would've resulted in a keep for the exact same reason if nommed now, that would be better for validating current opinions

if it's the others... whoopie, stuff gets misrepresented and misused, maybe we'll have actual news someday. hell, one of them wasn't even really about iar. they're also really old, and thus not really all that useful now for the same reasons i mentioned 41 words and an acronym ago. if someone has issues with something and the consensus seems outdated, they can try discussing it, and in this case, the consensus is more clearly that doing the thing would be a very not good idea consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

In this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperity they are specifically talking about iar itself with some trying to invoke it to keep the article because it is "helpful" and that iar exists and some saying that is not how this works. The afd I am talking about was 5 years about. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

oops, thought this was sent before

that was iar being used "properly" as a way to ignore rules for the sake of improving or maintaining wikipedia, sure... but it's also pretty easy to see when cross-referencing with the article that it actually meant "keep as r with possibilities" for an article, which doesn't really work. it's not a problem with iar itself, more so a reason to tell buidhe and mark viking that the article as was was (and as still is still is) not actually good. it's also not a case where iar turns a discussion into a dead end or actually circumvents rules, but just one where the application warranted discussion consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it was used properly there but even if the people who invoked it were right the rule still caused confusion as multiple people said that is not how this works and that notability cannot be ignored. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

yes, my point is that it actually wasn't, despite what it would initially look like

notability policies can be ignored in afd in theory, but i sure can't name a case of that actually being a good idea consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok so we agree it was a bad use of IAR. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above quacks like a duck and as such many reasonable editors might call it an RFC. But even if it's not, the discussion is still very active. Launching a second discussion in the middle of it is counterproductive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it Quacks like a duck it quacks like a large participation discussion not a formal RFC that is sent out beyond the page. Not sure I agree as several participants in that wanted an RFC but the decision has been made by the editor who closed the RFC. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree it is not a formal RFC and care should be taken not to call it one. I also understand that (some) editors are prone to call a large participation discussion with bolded !votes "an RFC". All of this is beside the point. Starting a formal RFC with an identical question to an ongoing, high participation discussion is disruptive. The discussion above is likely sufficient to resolve the question. Whether a follow up RFC is necessary to resolve a different question or because there are real concerns about participation in the original discussion can only be determined after the current (original) discussion is formally closed or becomes inactive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The specific problem is RfCs are widely advertised in stuff like WP:Centralized discussion and random notifications, other discussions are not. They help gauge opinion while avoiding forum shopping. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand all that and again this is beside the point. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There's no particular reason a non-RFC couldn't be advertised in WP:CENT. Although in this case Voorts reverted two attempts. OTOH, it did already get advertised to a few of the Village pumps, which got plenty of people here anyway. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing magical about the letters "RFC". Some well-attended discussions arrive at a consensus that represents the view of the community, some don't. Some of the ones that do are RFCs, some aren't. Some of the ones that don't are RFCs, some aren't.

A well-formatted RFC (not all RFCs are well-formatted) provides a clear question and summary that together mean that everyone participating understands the same thing from the question and people can agree that everyone who answers in a particular way means the same thing. This is most beneficial when there is a topic about which there is significant disagreement and/or which is complex for those not involved to understand. Especially when it is clear that there isn't significant disagreement an RFC there is no benefit to holding multiple discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course there shouldn't be an identical new RfC when the other discussion acts just like an RfC. But perhaps we should just add an RfC tag to the other discussion? It pretty much acts like one anyway. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes because consensus for this proposal will obviously not develop and editors spent defending it (particularly newer ones) would better spend their time actually editing articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I would still disagree on the disruptive part per my above comments but let's leave it at that given the RFC is closed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)