Wikipedia talk:Petition against IAR abuse

Discussion
Classic. People condemn "in the strongest possible term" something that nobody would endorse in the first place, but they fail to provide any kind of evidence why they think this unprecedented show of civil courage should be necessary.

If this page is to serve any purpose, it might make sense to provide some context what this was actually about. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was about the BLP mass-deletion controversy in January 2010. See Wikipedia talk:Petition against IAR abuse/Archive 1
 * I think that origin should be noted at the top (or at least link that talkpage thread), and the page should be tagged as "historical". Otherwise, as dbachmann points out, this page is damned confusing. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since It Was Apparently Deleted From the Actual Page

 * 1) What's the Opposite of Support Again? Oh Yeah, Oppose Since when is Wikipedia just another United Nations? Honestly, at least the United States Congress actually names the humiliated party during their censure procedures, so maybe if the Petition actually listed at least one example of an administrator abusing IAR, I would give more than a decimal of a damn. Considering how much popularity this stupid, time-wasting and pompous petition has gotten, I'm thinking I'll start one that says: "We the undersigned, condemn in the strongest possible terms, any administrator that kills, violates and eats infants.", because the fact is that no rational person can be against the petition's proposition, just as no rational person can be in favour of killing, violating, and eating infants.
 * ―67.180.86.254 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A specific example of IAR abuse
An example of editors and an administrator deliberately violating the ignore all rules policy to suit themselves I recommend that your view my report where one of the editors actually gave a barnstar, which was probably a promised bribe to an administrator, and tried to hide the 'target' of the edit war in the edit code, so that it didn't appear in the edit text. See my full report here  See my report on their edit war tactics here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just spent 20 minutes researching this. I skimmed some of the linked commentary.  There is quite a lot of rhetoric, and some pretty severe claims, but I could find little independent supporting evidence.  There are a lot of links, but most of the links I tried didn't actually lead me to anything supporting, or indeed anything related at all.  I don't know if it's link rot or link syntax errors or what.  I did eventually find reference to user .  Looking at that user's edit history, it's pretty clear to me they came to Wikipedia to promote their site/theories, were rebuffed, became upset about it, and were eventually banned for resulting disruption.  That seems reasonable to me.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As a medical consumer I spent 30 years intermittently studying and researching medical topics (which I say with due respect is a lot more than 20 minutes). I spent about five years developing a medical theory, and two years doing formal research into the effects of exercise on chronic fatigue, and about ten years commenting on radio talk back shows, and had more than 100 letters published in local and interstate newspapers on a wide variety of social, medical and political topics, such as Agent Orange, Maralinga fallout, whiplash injuries, RSI and other controversies of the time. I joined Wikipedia with the intention of adding only a paragraph a week to such varied subjects (not to promote my own theory), but found an email correspondent who agreed to independently add a summary of my theory - which was deleted), and then a related topic which I had a lot of knowledge about called Da Costa's syndrome, with and invitation to improve it. However I was confronted by two editors  who were arrogantly offensive and tried to block me with "policy creep". They asked for "independent' sources, and then accused me of "synthesis"  and then insisted on  "reviews" not essays (OR), and modern, not old references. I kept on providing the reference types requested,  which they didn't think were available, until  finally, after a full year, they became frustrated and arranged for someone else to block me by 'ignoring all the rules". It may not be obvious to your 20 minute read, but it is obvious from my 12 months of dealing with them that they were abusing WP:IAR. I have read that policy, and I say this for constructive reasons to improve Wikipedia - In my opinion it is a magnet for cheats and should be permanently  deleted. As far as who was and was not getting upset, I can assure you that I am quite confident in disputes, and was remaining amused and calm throughout the time, but my two critics were telling others how they were "losing their patience", "on the verge of tearing their hair out", and resorting to "foul. language". While I was in Wikipedia my criticism was focussed on those two individuals because no-one else had any ongoing involvement in the topic. Those two, and those two alone, dictated what was deleted, and what was kept, and their version is a biased view of the history of the research. You can see my orderly comments on the arbitration page, and the hostile comments by my two critics here The administrator who banned me had only participated in one brief discussion a few months earlier and didn't know anything about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I spent a lot of time gathering evidence in the past, but it was ultimately ignored, so I don't wish to do so again unless someone actually considers it, but I can say that it appears to me that the reason the evidence isn't readily available now, and that many of the links don't lead anywhere is because somebody has been using admin tools to delete my Userpage where I wrote an essay about the tactics being used against me, and where I was being hounded, and they have deleted the Subpage and Talkpage where I was co-operating with a neutral editor to produce an article which complied with "ALL" policies. Furthermore, while I was involved two of the editors were trying to hide evidence in the "edit notes", and by archiving information, and by setting up discussion pages without telling me about them. Also, one of the young editors who criticised me has since admitted to being an impulsive hothead, and has changed his username, and the administrator who banned me appears to have "protected" or deleted his Userpage, or subpage and rewritten them. I was put on a watchlist by my two critics early in the disputes, so I put them on my own version of a watchlist. You can see how my main critic tried to hide the fact that he was giving an "Outlaw Halo Award" to the editor who banned me. It was for "ignoring all the rules", and my name "Posturewrite" is mentioned in the edit notes at the top of the page, but not in the edit text at the end which future editors will see (Note how that editor  derisively refers to me as a 'self-proclaimed expert". However, although that individual had previously asked for my personal opinion as an expert in the topic,  I have never called myself an expert.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comments which have not yet been acted upon I recommend that the only way of ensuring that WP:IAR is not abused is to delete that policy altogether. For example my main critic used "attitude readjustment tools" against me here, which is a clear case of completely ignoring the rules about courtesy, personal attacks, and edit warring. Another example of abusing that policy is where she gave a barnstar to an administrator who used WP:IAR as a last desperate tactic for banning me here. According to policy administrators are supposed to set a good example by complying with the rules, not by ignoring them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.141.67 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)