Wikipedia talk:Assume bad faith

Drag
This could be funny, but it just drags. Melchoir 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you go about improving it, then? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A flamethrower? Brevity, soul of wit, etc.... Melchoir 03:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Brevity: wit". Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Number these things
This page should use "#" instead of "*" so that the entries are numbered and we could refer to them more precisely when pointting people here. ;) --Abu Badali 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments on this issue makes sense here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * About the items in the list... the set should have a section, but... "strawman with an agenda" is a mixed-metaphor or malapropism.Sadsaque (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Assume what faith?
I love how nearly all of the examples (except what, two of the first five?) are of members holding ABF against other members or especially against admins. No single example of admins, meds, or arbs holding ABF against a member is listed. Whee. Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it never happens.--Vidkun (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Brill. Next ban target is "sarcasm". First, move to project namespace, then delete. Subject should not exist, ∴ article will not exist. I honestly think it was a bad idea to delete the ABF article. Sadsaque (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Objections to Uncyclopedia link?
This edit (which is admittedly many months old) removed a link to uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Assume bad faith, which is virtually a clone of this page. This raises a couple of questions:

The edit summary seems to imply an unneutral point of view about Uncyclopedia. How much does that POV agree with consensus?

The problem is that the Uncyclopedia page is a poorly maintained verbatim fork of this page; does this duplication of content need to be fixed somehow? As an active Uncyclopedia contributor, it would be possible for me to ask for the Uncyclopedia page to be deleted or rewritten. Does anyone feel that that is necessary? 131.215.159.216 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What a disgrace
I don't know who made this article on Wikipedia but it is a fraud. Even if it humor it nasty humor. This article is disgraceful. That is why I put the db template! It's time to say good bye to this bogus joke!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 15:12, 19 August, 2007 (User Talker Contributor)


 * Did you read the intro? This page is a collection of warning signs that, if you think them, it may be time to take a long vacation from editing Wikipedia. The intent is to edify when a user might have gone over the edge from "productive" to "disruptive" by providing examples of what kinds of thinking lead to disruptive behavior, provided in such a way that the flaw or flaws in the logic are obvious. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionably useful in that regard, since the list is not concise (too long for most people to read thoroughly, which is bad for a list which is intended to show the reader how they're exactly the same way), and there are so many extreme examples that people would find it hard to relate to the comments and think, "Oh, I'm not like that," more than, "Oh no, that's exactly what I'm doing." --Raijinili (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the list is ridiculously long (with many unrealistic examples) and needs drastic shortening. Equinox ◑ 07:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate
Some of these make sense, others are just insults ('he's gay'?) and do not fit in with the theme. Anyone want to vote on what to keep and omit? Tyciol (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Library
Maybe only one editor goes to the library, but I've been known to buy books... Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Inverse Wikipedia
So how would 'MirrorWP' - in which ABF, and the various WB:Don'ts etc were the normal defaults? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph seems to be contrary to the title, story, and image caption. -- User J Dalek  03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Racist aspersion on Indian ethics?
We all know that Indians are supposed to be prone to corruption and thievery - at least that is the slander. Accordingly isn't it racist to illustrate this article with a quote from the Indian Amartya Sen?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there are train stations only in India? You're quite sure he wasn't speaking of his visit to the UK? [citation needed]Sadsaque (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey,
This makes sense, considering most of the time your not meant to assume good faith--Glaxp (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Something Ironic
Page Information shows that CheeseDreams, the creator of the article, is formally banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry

Ironic considering that the final section of the article foreshadows this very event ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

third last example
Ummm... it's not really needed and pretty profane, so can we delete that one?

Just tryna reach consensus hear... better to be safe than sorry :P Pingy / Pongy  🍉 01:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)