Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 6

In the face of evidence to the contrary
I think violations of civil should be added to this, especially in the instance that someone is warned and continues to behave in a uncivil manner. I don't think there is any reason to assume good faith when someone is insulting your lineage and making wild accusations.--Crossmr (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea that, just because someone is uncivil, we can conclude that they're acting in bad faith, is utterly ludicrous. You seem to be assuming that someone acting in good faith would be incapable of rudeness, and that's just untrue. Looking for cases where you're "allowed" to drop assumption of good faith is a fool's errand, because there is no situation in which it's remotely useful to drop assumption of good faith. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

End the policy
I would like to see this policy come to an end. What procedure is there for calling it to a vote? A show of hands here? :)

No, seriously--if anything, we ought to be making the opposite assumption.Dawud (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you're always paranoid then no one can *get* you.  I'd better order another 100 pounds of coffee because I can't sleep ever. Wjhonson (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When Wikipedia began, most of my edits corrected obvious mistakes. As the content here has matured, my edits have gone from fixing mistakes, grammar and writing style to fixing edits that increasingly use Wikipedia in bad faith. It gets worse by the month. Any thoughts about edits that are clearly not vandalism, but also clearly in bad faith. The worst situations are when there are a handful of people committed to one side of an issue all working together. I would also like to see some of the worst-offending WP articles. I am certain that I have not seen it all.90.134.47.38 (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

Unfortunately, the most practical way to do things on Wikipedia often involves climbing the steep side of the mountain, to use James Baldwin's metaphor. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you're talking about is people introducing content that is not NPOV (which certainly is an act of bad faith when it's done willfully or intentionally.) I'm personally all for pointing out demonstrable bad faith in situations like that, and I don't think WP:AGF prohibits such a thing, but I think in that specific case it might be more productive and more valuable to the project to work on articulately demonstrating why the edits are not NPOV.  Any successful articulation you come up with is useful not only in that current situation but can serve as precedent against future POV-pushing within the article.
 * I think what you're talking about is people introducing content that is not NPOV (which certainly is an act of bad faith when it's done willfully or intentionally.) I'm personally all for pointing out demonstrable bad faith in situations like that, and I don't think WP:AGF prohibits such a thing, but I think in that specific case it might be more productive and more valuable to the project to work on articulately demonstrating why the edits are not NPOV.  Any successful articulation you come up with is useful not only in that current situation but can serve as precedent against future POV-pushing within the article.
 * }
 * Even willfull POV pushing is not bad faith. Bad faith is edits that are intended to compromise the encyclopedia.  Willfull POV pushing would only be bad faith if it was willfull and made with the realization that the pushing will make the encyclopedia worse.  Said in another way, when confronting POV pushing all AGF tells us is that we should assume that the POV pusher belives that his view would make for a better encyclopedia.  Taemyr (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct them

 * Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do.

Hi, what does "them" refer to? Persons or mistakes? I assumed mistakes, but I thought I'd check. --Kjoonlee 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you a mistake? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you'd have to ask my parents... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mistakes comes from many reasons, sometimes they are accidents. People not writing quite what they intentend to write.  If this is obviously the case then correcting the error is best.  Other times they stem from a mistaken belief about guidelines or syntax.  If you have reason to assume the latter then you might want to point the mistake out to the editor, together with the reasons why it was a mistake.  So you should correct the person, and it is best if the person corrects the mistake.  Taemyr (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of Assume
I am thinking we should get rid of the word assume (ex: assume good faith). It has a sick joke to it: 'ass' 'u' 'me' I believe some people may be offended by this word, so thats why we should get rid of it. Versus22 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you know anyone who is offended by it? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but maybe some people just don't like this word because it contains the word ass, u (you), me. Sorry for the language, I was just explaining this. I wonder if there is a better word to use for proper & better use for this kind of encyclopedia? Versus22 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the word "assume" is entirely proper, and that any childish joke that can be made out of the letters in it is nothing to worry about. No professional publication avoids the word "assume". That word doesn't contain a sick joke; some might make it into one. However, those people don't own the word, and the fact of their juvenile tittering is not going to dictate our word usage. See, I just said "titter" and then "dictate". Shall we avoid those, because they might remind someone of naughty words? I think not. In general, it's not very productive to try to eliminate things that "might" offend someone, "maybe". In this case, it's extremely unlikely, so we won't worry about it. Thanks for understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Joke of Wikipedia
Yes one should assume good faith, but once one has been off-put for the 50th time or more by a PoV warrior, what then? Is it time then to assume there is no good faith intended?

I'm not asking for a debate of the subject. The answer is obvious: a person driven to repress something they see in themselves by repressing others is not subject to reason, thus we have our colorful "edit war" situations.

I know the conservative wing of this site thinks it can ignore readily apparent phenomena in favor of a forced inner compulsion to act X way against Y internal compulsion. (this is its folly) So there will probably not be change in the near term. However, there is a left wing (centrist) element that I don't think is quite as intimidated by the possible implications of the phenomenon itself, and reaching out to them for purposes of discussion about what to do in light of it is worth the effort expended. Perhaps the right centrists, seeking a more civil discourse, can reach out to the left in mututal understanding and evolving consensus.

I'm not saying these people (the PoV warriors) should be denied their voice, but Wikipedia is unique among modern largescale collaborative projects in that it gives these people actual power, which as I have already noted, is the substance of edit warring on the wiki. (I know this from experience, having entertained months of the same against select individuals even when there was a solid community consensus against them. These people are determined and if it means they must stop just about everything in their lives to prove a point -- or more problematically, to impress their judgment on community process, they will). Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What does acting to stop disruption have to do with assuming good faith? Does assuming good faith mean letting people run roughshod over you? Is it impossible to disagree strongly while assuming good faith? I've personally blocked people, and supported community bans against people, all the while assuming good faith. I fail to see how dropping the assumption of good faith factors into one's actions at all. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a presumption that editing will continue, that there is something abstractly gained -- a form of psychological gratification, like solving a problem -- from continuing to edit the article. Agreeing to disagree only works if either party can go its own way on the issue without entangling the other. On Wikipedia this is clearly impossible because the issue is the immediately accessible form of the article. If even one side is committed to action on the disagreed point, conflict (by edit war) is inevitable. If the side committed to action reaches out to the other side in a guesture to surpass the disagreement, then if the other side will not commit to finding common ground (again, good faith) then the other side is the bad faith side, because it may be presumed that the other side has no intention of resolving the disagreement. If there is no common ground... well I'm not one to surrender hope for greater harmony of action. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But the point here is the assumption of good faith tells us to assume that both sides feel that the way forward that they are pushing for is what is best for the encyclopedia. If one side is trying to engage in dialog to get an acceptable compromise while the other is making stale reverts we do not need to say that the later is acting in a way that demonstrates bad faith.  Rather what we see is that the first side is attempting to resolve the conflict with a minimum of disruption, while the other side is acting in a way that is generally considered to be disruptive.  This then should be sufficient grounds to take action.  AGF only tells us that we should believe that both sides believe that what they are doing is what is best for the encyclopedia.  Taemyr (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is the "best interest of the encyclopedia"? Who makes that arguement? What authority have they for such? I guess Jimbo Wales maybe, and we're just little worker bees for him to make a competitor to Brittanica. But in that case you'd might as well drop a lot of the "boldness" talk and just ask for volunteers to help you make an opensource Brittanica. (or program an AI if you think you've got the techology!)
 * If the days of wiki-boldness are fading (along with the wiki dragons, alas!) then Wikipedia should let the public know this is no longer the bold experiment it was earlier in the decade, but rather exactly what Jimbo Wales originally envisioned it being. Then the 500 or so regular editors can keep with their little community, and the experimenters can move on to say, Everything^2. As it is, you've got a little of both right now, and a lot of confusion over what this project is supposed to be.
 * In any case, I don't think "acting in the best interest of a project", any project, will withstand the will of consensus for long. I apparently had misread it as "acting in the best interest of the presumed project goal of making as much (relevant) knowledge available to humankind as possibel", but maybe they aren't the same thing after all. If so, then that's a problem, because I think consensus cares more about its own goals -- of which increasing the availability of knowledge is definitely one -- than the project itself.

Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AGF calls for us to assume that each editor acts in a way that he feels is best. Ie. this is a judgment that each editor makes.  Please note the difference between this and the assumption that no one is calling on you to make, namely that each editor acts in a way that in fact is the best for wikipedia.  Precisely because there is no authority stating what in fact is best for the encyclopedia AGF has a place.  It tells us to remember that we should consider the reasons behind an other editors actions.  Taemyr (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:DGF
I think the changes you have made to the WP:AGF guideline are largely unnecessary or inappropriate. I don't think an editor is required to explain any motives to anyone if he wishes not to. I must grant that I agree with much of what is said about being careful about actions taken after an accusation of bad faith, but there are obviously certain serious concerns that must override. I'd submit that copyright violation and enforcement of the WP:BLP policy are two very obvious things that every editor must take extremely seriously and must act on when that editor detects them. I think the bulk of what is written is already covered by this policy. Erechtheus (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't think an editor is required to explain any motives to anyone if he wishes not to." No editor is required to be a helpful collaborator, if he wishes not to, but I think it would be very strange for someone to choose not to be a helpful collaborator, or not to explain themselves when asked, considering that we're working on a collaborative project. What's the sense in not explaining one's actions to an honest questioner? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My response is going to stray into the topic I didn't want to get into. I opened a WP:WQA due to the conduct of the person who opened this RFC earlier in the week, and he felt my WQA didn't get far enough into my concerns about him. I declined to get into it there as the guidelines for WQA specifically request not to essentially turn the WQA into another manifestation of the dispute. That's not the only context in which I think explanation is not necessarily appropriate, but it's one major context. I also don't think lack of collaboration equates to bad faith. Any editor is welcome to choose to collaborate or not collaborate with anyone they choose. Erechtheus (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely did not assert that lack of collaboration equates to bad faith, and I would never say that. I asked the question, why not collaborate? Is there a positive reason to choose lack of communication over communication, in an environment such as Wikipedia? I'm not suggesting that someone who doesn't do it is bad or wrong; I'm just trying to understand why that might be chosen over the alternative. As for WQA... that page seems rather misguided to me. The response to incivility is not to "report" it. Are we trying to play cops and robbers here? Imagine you're stranded on a desert island with someone, and they're rude to you. You can't report them to anyone, because there is no one. You have to actually communicate with them and work it out, or else you'll probably both die, to which you're welcome, but it seems an odd choice. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say that I don't think WQA did much to win me over in my one and likely only use of it. At the same time, life is not always like a desert island. There are occasions when moving on make the most sense. Did you take a look at the volume of stuff that was generated during the dispute with Struthious_Bandersnatch? There becomes a time when you just can't go doing the same thing. I think it's obvious that direct response by me to him is absolutely pointless. CobaltBlueTony told me as much, though it seems a inadvertently dragged him right back into things. It's such an easy thing to do sometimes, though. When somebody says something outrageous to you and you notice it, it's difficult to be quiet. I wasn't attempting to suggest you were saying lack of collaboration equals bad faith, and I'm glad you would never say it. If you have better ideas about civility, I would appreciate hearing them. Feel free to write any time. Erechtheus (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * Erechtheus, in the edit comment you cited lack of community consensus as the reason to remove the new section I added to the article. At this point I would ask you to honestly attempt to determine whether there is community consensus that the section in question accurately describes the principle of assuming good faith or whether a modified version of it would accurately describe the principle - it seems to me to be very much be in harmony with many comments expressed here in the talk page and in the talk page archives.
 * Erechtheus, in the edit comment you cited lack of community consensus as the reason to remove the new section I added to the article. At this point I would ask you to honestly attempt to determine whether there is community consensus that the section in question accurately describes the principle of assuming good faith or whether a modified version of it would accurately describe the principle - it seems to me to be very much be in harmony with many comments expressed here in the talk page and in the talk page archives.

If you do not feel that you could carry out such an examination with fairness and impartiality I think that it is your responsibility to select a user who you believe can carry out such an examination with fairness and impartiality. At this point I am willing to forgo any influence on the selection of that individual and I endorse anyone you might choose, even if for example you were to say that you thought CobaltBlueTony would be a fair and impartial arbiter of this.

To anyone else reading this I would like to point out that although the template above does not make it visible, in the RFC, at WQA, and at the Village Pump I placed comments acknowledging that the dispute between Erechtheus and I was the inspiration for this new section and specifically asking third parties to examine the text and modify or delete it. I also requested the input of Erechtheus on this and I thank him for what he's said above (though I don't thank him for deleting the content personally instead of editing it or taking other more constructive actions) and I certainly urge that what he has said be considered by everyone. I don't think he's a bad person, on the contrary he has shown that he can be articulate, is quite intelligent, and is willing to work towards the good of Wikipedia, he's just a person who has taken some actions in bad faith in a particular situation with me.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * I think going with a RfC makes it clear that there is not obviously community consensus. This is a very important expression of a policy-like guideline for the entire project, so that means we shouldn't be going live with such a sweeping change until there is consensus. I have had my say about how I feel regarding the proposed text, and that's all I plan on doing. I hope other editors of all viewpoints will see the RfC and that consensus will form one way or another. Erechtheus (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * Okay, that sounds fine. In that case I will resume the other steps I was taking to invite various people here to look at it, but I'll of course point them to the copy now down below.  And after some more discussion has occurred I'll see if I can find someone else willing to do the actual edit to place a "demonstrate good faith" section in the text.  Despite your avowal of concerns over consensus, I think this has to do with distrust of me rather than what that text says - I wanted to give you the opportunity to have some control of this if that was what you were going for.
 * Okay, that sounds fine. In that case I will resume the other steps I was taking to invite various people here to look at it, but I'll of course point them to the copy now down below.  And after some more discussion has occurred I'll see if I can find someone else willing to do the actual edit to place a "demonstrate good faith" section in the text.  Despite your avowal of concerns over consensus, I think this has to do with distrust of me rather than what that text says - I wanted to give you the opportunity to have some control of this if that was what you were going for.

In general, here are more notes on the reasoning behind this:

The way some people talk about good faith and the way they attempt to employ WP:AGF they seem to believe that it means "I have the right to assume that others will regard any action of mine as originating in good faith", which obviously is not what's meant nor what's literally said in this page. I think that we rather need to convey that you should assume others will regard your actions to be in bad faith (particularly if someone already suspects bad faith on your part) and hence you may be able to avoid being inflammatory by making articulations and taking actions to demonstrate that you are acting in good faith. Even if those actions are as simple as making sure you've explicitly laid out the evidence for your claims or the principles that back up your actions and even if the honest motivation is accompanied by harsh criticism, anger, or other upset feelings.

Another thing that I think a recommendation like "demonstrate good faith" would help with is that I believe many people frequently do not consciously examine their own intentions and hence frequently act in bad faith without being entirely conscious that they're doing so. I think that saying "before you say something harsh or make even a well-founded accusation, do your due diligence and make sure you're indicating the honest motivation behind your words" will simply get people to think about their own motivations in the first place.

Many of the guidelines, essays, and even parts of the policies seem to convey an attitude along the lines of "everyone should pretend that everything is joyful and hunky dory all the time, and all users must be treated as if their every act derives from the most pure and innocent of motivations." This not only is contradictory to any policy or guideline recommending acting against bad-faith actions, but I think it has created an atmosphere where many people both consciously and unconsciously try to justify their actions or cover up bad faith using WP:AGF.

To get right down to it, though I wasn't trying to express this in the text I wrote, I do not think that anyone who has been accused of a bad faith motivation should ever respond by saying "assume good faith!!!" - especially if extensive reasoning and citations can be presented that are consistent with the accusation made - that doesn't even make sense given what this guideline says. On the other hand a response of "I have demonstrated good faith via statement X and action Y, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis I had a bad faith motivation, and here's my articulation of my actual honest motive Z." would seem to me like a reasonable response. (Though simply making a statement formulated that way wouldn't disprove bad faith by itself, of course.)

I will also note that I disagree with the claim made in the nutshell section "it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives" because I think the qualifier "never" directly contradicts things said in a number of policies and other guidelines. But that's not what I'm trying to change here and now and I don't think the text I added reflects any belief like that; I simply think this guideline should recommend demonstrating good faith and recommend not demonstrating bad faith. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * With this explanation, I have even stronger concern over this proposed revision. I think it's fine to encourage people to act in good faith and to consider that their actions may be confusing or frustrating to some. I don't think suggesting that people have to demonstrate that they were acting in good faith is at all appropriate. I also think that when you say, "Despite your avowal of concerns over consensus, I think this has to do with distrust of me rather than what that text says," you illustrate an at best incomplete understanding of what WP:AGF is all about. What is so hard about taking somebody at face value unless you can make a very strong case that their actions are not in good faith? Don't even get started citing any history between us because you have admitted that you had trouble taking me at face value during our very first encounter because you felt I was misapplying policy. With that said, you being a flawed messenger isn't what makes this wrong -- what makes it wrong is that it subverts this very appropriate guideline in a manner that will inevitably result in more disputes. Erechtheus (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * If people genuinely believe that a suggestion to demonstrate good faith is subversive to the main tenet of "assume good faith" then fine - as I've said in several places, the entire section should be deleted if it isn't expressing any community consensus whatsoever. But I remain suspicious that community opinion was genuinely considered before this entire section was deleted, especially given the way Erechtheus has paraphrased adding a suggestion that users demonstrate good faith to a guideline article as users being "required to explain any motives to anyone if he wishes not to".  Even the tone that the text is written in below does not talk about anyone being required to do anything; I'm simply talking about a responsibility to say "I am acting in good faith" when you know others have been urged to assume you're acting in good faith, just confirming what everyone is supposed to assume.  And the idea isn't to try to force people to do things (which a guideline doesn't do anyways), it's suggesting that you can help other people to assume good faith on your part if you say "I am acting in good faith".
 * If people genuinely believe that a suggestion to demonstrate good faith is subversive to the main tenet of "assume good faith" then fine - as I've said in several places, the entire section should be deleted if it isn't expressing any community consensus whatsoever. But I remain suspicious that community opinion was genuinely considered before this entire section was deleted, especially given the way Erechtheus has paraphrased adding a suggestion that users demonstrate good faith to a guideline article as users being "required to explain any motives to anyone if he wishes not to".  Even the tone that the text is written in below does not talk about anyone being required to do anything; I'm simply talking about a responsibility to say "I am acting in good faith" when you know others have been urged to assume you're acting in good faith, just confirming what everyone is supposed to assume.  And the idea isn't to try to force people to do things (which a guideline doesn't do anyways), it's suggesting that you can help other people to assume good faith on your part if you say "I am acting in good faith".

Can anyone propose a one sentence version of the idea I'm expressing here? Let's evaluate something like that instead of talking as if I'm insisting the entire text below is exactly what should be in the policy. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * My concern is an "as written" one. As for one sentence, how about something along the lines of, "If a dispute arises, it is always a good idea to tell others involved that you are attempting in good faith to contribute to Wikipedia and that you are aware that they are trying to do the same thing." Erechtheus (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add that even if that sentiment isn't what you're trying to get at, I think it would have served as a good lesson for the both of us. I think something along those lines probably needs to go in even if it's not exactly what DGF was supposed to be about. Imagine how things would have probably worked out if we each commented in that way instead of the way we actually did. Erechtheus (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * I really don't think that the guideline should in any way imply that you should wait until a dispute arises to demonstrate good faith. I don't think you were necessarily implying that but I think it should encourage that everyone put thought into demonstrating the good faith behind every action and articulating the honest motives they have, all the time.
 * I really don't think that the guideline should in any way imply that you should wait until a dispute arises to demonstrate good faith. I don't think you were necessarily implying that but I think it should encourage that everyone put thought into demonstrating the good faith behind every action and articulating the honest motives they have, all the time.

As far as that particular sentence, the concern I have is that absent the context it seems to say that you should ignore evidence of bad faith (which contradicts the current text "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.") or that it might seem to be recommending that people overlook what they think is evidence of bad faith and disingenuously tell others that they think their actions are in good faith (and I want to decrease disingenuousness, and besides I think many people would just absolutely refuse to follow a guideline that already tells them to put controls on their genuine opinions if it also told them they should display false opinions.)

Do you think there's any way, acceptable to you, to address those concerns with changes? The underlying thrust of that sentence does seem reasonable to me apart from the objections above.

In an unrelated note that isn't meant to comment on the DGF issue, I just noticed the essay WP:AAGF which appears to agree with me that AGF should never be offered as a defense of one's actions or a response to an accusation of bad faith.

Oh, that just gave me a great thought: I did not envision that this DGF principle ought to ever be used to demand that someone demonstrate good faith, like as in saying to someone "per WP:DGF you must immediately state that you are doing X in good faith!!!" And in fact although if I was in a dispute with someone whom I believed had acted in bad faith I would as part of my evidence lay out patterns of omission where the person in question had opportunities to demonstrate good faith and chose not to, I don't really think anyone needs the support of a policy or guideline document to do that. We're all pretty good with evidence and something which is circumstantial or direct proof of bad faith is probably going to be mentioned and evaluated basically the same way regardless of what this document says, I should think. I guess we could try to tune up people's skills on analyzing what constitutes a demonstration of good faith but that isn't what I was thinking of; I just want to encourage the behavior.

My thought of how this would work is that it would end up being of benefit to the people who are accused of bad faith; I believe that if someone starts thinking more seriously about the appearance of each action to others and how they might show good faith to the suspicious, and they start doing that then next time they get accused of bad faith they can respond "Okay, but like I said my real motives were A, B, and C and if you look back you can see that I said X to show you A, I took action Y to show you B, and I did Z to show you C."

I don't know if that last bit made sense, I'm a bit woozy. So I'll see you all tomorrow. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * Remember, AAGF is an essay. Perhaps that's what DGF would best be. Maybe what I propose above should say that they're aware the other person is probably acting in good faith. I think the sentence I was proposing should not be seen as a requirement as much as solid advice for how to behave if there is a dispute and you want to make sure it is handled constructively. That is more in line with AGF. I wonder if what you're getting at should be an AGF subject at all, though. It might come off more positively and effectively if written as an essay on integrity or disingenuousness that could eventually become a separate guideline if there is consensus about it. I think I have to propose that disputes on Wikipedia shouldn't be about the evidence, and I'm aware that's contrary to some of my own actions. Leave weighing evidence to third parties. Erechtheus (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * All right, this discussion has wandered pretty far afield from what the text I added actually said, it had nothing to do with weighing evidence.
 * All right, this discussion has wandered pretty far afield from what the text I added actually said, it had nothing to do with weighing evidence.

I created the sort of shortened and rewritten version of this principle that I've been talking about and added it to the article along with a note that the section does not require anyone to do anything. I expect that it's quite possible that you will revert this shorter version, Erechtheus, and I think that would be just fine: I want it to be clear exactly what we're talking about and exactly what you are opposing here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrate good faith

In addition to assuming good faith on the part of others, it can improve community spirit to assist others in assuming good faith on your part by demonstrating your own good faith. You can demonstrate good faith by articulating the honest motives behind actions and by making statements and taking actions that show willingness to compromise, sincere interest in improving Wikipedia, and other good faith motives. Demonstrating good faith is not required by this guideline, simply recommended as an aid to smooth and successful interaction with other editors.
 * }

I think the section runs against the current meaning of AGF. Some of the things it states is things that should be said, but the tone is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort with a consensus model for decision making. This means that failing to communicate your reasons for an action that other editors disagree with is a problem. This because it makes it harder to create a starting ground for building consensus. But this is a general feature of our dispute resolution process and not directly tied with AGF. WP:AGF should state that it is a guideline governing the actions an editor should take when confronted with apparent bad faith, and as such in no way absolves editors from actually acting in good faith. It would perhaps be helpful to include a section about what to do when someone accuses you of acting in bad faith, but saying that such an accusation creates a requirement for you to demonstrate that you where acting in good faith is not it. Taemyr (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * The tone of that text certainly has a tinge of outrage in it because of the circumstances in which it was written (though I would note that it does not, as you suggest, talk about requiring someone to demonstrate good faith - it seems my mention of responsibilities is easily misconstrued and that certainly shouldn't be in the article, then). That is why I urged every person I've spoken with about this to rewrite the whole thing if they want to.  Please, unless you really think adding a suggestion like this would subvert AGF the way that Erechtheus claims it does, try writing another version - even, as I say above, if it's just one sentence. (And I'm not saying put it straight into the article, just mention it here.  I really want to build up a community version of this idea, the text below is just for reference because the entire concept has been completely removed from the article.)  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

The removed WP:DGF text
For those I invited here to look at the content I added, here it is:


 * {| style="background:#efefef; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

Demonstrate good faith

The principle that you should assume good faith on the part of other users, and that other users should assume good faith on your part, does not absolve you of the responsibility to explain the honest motives behind your statements and actions, nor does it absolve you of the responsibility to strive to only make statements in good faith and take actions in good faith. In accordance with the principle of honesty you must make every effort possible to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with good faith.

You should not wait until your behavior is challenged to demonstrate good faith. But if another user does accuse you of acting in bad faith, telling them "you must assume good faith" is not a response that in and of itself demonstrates good faith. You should make further articulation of the motives for your actions and perhaps take other actions that further demonstrate good faith.

Don't demonstrate bad faith

If you have been accused of bad faith, or any motive that could be construed of bad faith, it would behoove you to be scrupulously careful in avoiding any other actions or statements that might confirm the accusation or demonstrate additional bad faith motives. Doing so may arouse legitimate suspicion of bad faith in the eyes of otherwise disinterested third parties.

This principle does not mean that if another accuses you of bad faith that you must cease the activity in question. Rather, articulate your honest motives, conduct yourself in an honorable fashion, and trust that the community process can vindicate you.
 * }

WP:AGF vs Wikipedia:Vandalism
The exception that we should only assume bad faith if there is strong evidence was removed with the edit summary indicating that we block for bad edits not bad motives. However WP:Vandalism is still clear on the subject that judging an edit to be vandalism is a judgment of motive. Ie. vandalism is edits made with the deliberate intention of harming the project. Bad edits made for good faith reasons is explicitly not covered by the policy. Taemyr (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get the impression that "Assume good faith" is a talking style that is so designed so as to by itself not being inflamable, while "Vandalism" is a real life judgement. "Assume good faith" could also be interpreted to be some kind of reluctance to cock the bazooka immediatelly, but instead use lighter weapons in a well-ordered escalation sequence, politely telling: "now I'm using my hand gun, stop or I'm going to shoot!" Immediate-bazookism would of course have a funny shock effect, but elaborate escalation is considered more polite, kind of. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias against IPs
Due to an as-yet unresolved issue in which cookies from Wikipedia are not being saved on my computer (which otherwise accepts cookies) I find myself often getting logged out without realizing it. I continue editing and of course the edits come up as IPs. This has given me an interesting scenario in which I have been able to view first-hand the bias that exists with anonymous IPs. I'll grant you that I also look at IP edits with a closer eye because 99% of all vandalism comes from IPs. However on more than a few occasions I've had IP edits reverted that, frankly, I don't feel would have been reverted if I had made them while logged in. Only as an IP have I ever, for example, received notification that an edit I've made was unconstructive, or vandalism even though virtually identical edits I've made while logged in have passed without comment. I wonder if this guideline should address the issue of IP bias and stress that IPs are not necessarily all bad faith editors. Some are individuals who wish to remain anonymous (which is why we allow IPs to edit in the first place), while others are folks like me who are experienced WP editors but, for whatever reason, happened to be logged out. The issue becomes even more complex when you encounter shared IPs where some users post in Good Faith while others don't. Thoughts? 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. In those cases, it might be helpful to address, anonymously or while logged in, the person who reverted your IP edits. Editing this page won't do much to change the behavior of established editors, because they're not reading this page. Talking to individuals might seem fatuous given the number of editors here, but it's by "chipping away" that problems such as this are best addressed. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole page has a patronising tone
Hmmm, reading through this page is like a dull lecture from a pseudo-intellectual (i.e. someone who thinks they are more intelligent than they in fact are). I would personally recommend re-writing it entirely, removing phrases such as "You can demonstrate good faith by articulating the honest motives behind actions and by making statements and taking actions that show willingness to compromise, sincere interest in improving Wikipedia, and other good faith motives." that frankly insult the intelligence of the reader. If I had to sum this page up in one word, I would pick 'pompous', which is not how the rest of the site reads.

Another disaster of a sentence for you: "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute." Does the writer of this sentence realise that this could logically be rewritten as: "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is sometimes helpful in a dispute."??????? Well???? SoxSexSax (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course! It's a policy! It shall have a patronizing tone. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

I'll disclose that I'm the author of the first sentence you cite. That sentence serves to articulate what is meant by "demonstrating good faith". You may find what it's saying insulting to the intelligence but one way or another - through thoughtlessness or intention - it has been my experience that Wikipedians very, very frequently neglect doing the things mentioned in that sentence when they're working with others. If that were to be removed it would have to be replaced with another sentence explaining what is meant by "demonstrating good faith" otherwise that entire section would become pointless - we'd be telling people they should DGF without saying what DGF is, which would probably lead to all sorts of needless arguments about what DGF basically is and WP:GAMEers interpreting it to manipulative purposes. As far as your second example of a sentence, your reasoning looks to me to be ∴ The occasional event X→¬Y→Z can be expressed as "X is helpful doing Z", so X is sometimes ¬Y(helpful) doing Z If I've got your reasoning right there, the misstep you're making is in number 2, that ¬Y / "not unhelpful" is the same thing as "helpful". But that clearly isn't true; someone can easily be not unhelpful to me while I'm painting my deck - my brother might sit under a tree in a hammock drinking beer while staring at me, not hindering the effort - but he being not unhelpful is not the same thing as him being helpful to me. So the above syllogism is fallacious due to the breakdown of step #2, so I don't agree with you that the latter sentence you quote is a disaster, at least not with regards to being logically mutable in the way you suggest. But anyways, your overall criticisms could be valid - this document is by no means perfect and it may be possible to communicate the same behavioral guidelines with equal clarity and specificity without the writing styles you're seeing as pseudo-intellectual and pompous. So feel free to take a crack at it - the entire document, or a section at a time. For major rewrites, though, I'd recommend you make a gesture of trying to establish consensus beforehand by providing a version of your changes here and offering discussion of them before actually changing the document. You must expect to be opposed by people who could see your edits as altering the meaning of the document and not just its writing style. Also, if you ended up looking at this page because you were in a dispute with another user it would be orthodox to disclose that before making changes to the page. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a guidelines page and specifically one about interacting with others this page has a very different purpose from most of the others on the site. For example, as far as it sounding like a dull lecture - this is unsurprising, since the purpose of the page is not to entertain.  Guidelines, policies, rules, regulations, etc. aren't usually entertaining documents to read; their virtue is in clarity and specificity.  It's possibly this writing style that you find pretentious is a consequence of that purpose - this document isn't going to pull back from clearly articulating simple things that everybody knows, because making those kind of articulations is its job.
 * As a guidelines page and specifically one about interacting with others this page has a very different purpose from most of the others on the site. For example, as far as it sounding like a dull lecture - this is unsurprising, since the purpose of the page is not to entertain.  Guidelines, policies, rules, regulations, etc. aren't usually entertaining documents to read; their virtue is in clarity and specificity.  It's possibly this writing style that you find pretentious is a consequence of that purpose - this document isn't going to pull back from clearly articulating simple things that everybody knows, because making those kind of articulations is its job.
 * 1) if X is often / sometimes Y(unhelpful) doing Z, then there are occasions of both X→Y→Z and X→¬Y→Z
 * 2) ¬Y can be expressed as "helpful"
 * }

good faith
how can good faith be applied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.218.194 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment about actions, not intentions. I will frequently revert edits with the summary "revert unexplained removal of text", even though it seems prety clear that the edit was vandalism, because anyone who checks can easily see that text was removed with no explanation, while no one, except the editor him/herself, can say what the intentions were, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I use to go one step further and avoid everything but the facts presented: are they correct or not. I criticise edits seldomly, and then only to vandals and newbies. In the latter case I try to tell the newbies how they should behave, much more than tell how much wrong they've made. OK, sometimes I fail, and treat the facts sarcastically by long elaboration of the illogics of those facts. That might be inflamababble, while formally still keeping the policy "Assume good faith". (Funny how many loopholes there are!) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Faith and faith and faith
English dictionaries agree that the word faith has multiple meanings. That ambiguity can be a weakness of our WP:AGF guideline. Faith is a devout girl. When she hears of faith she recalls Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. " which would please her faithful father who, though himself an atheist, had faith that it was best for his daughter to be raised in what, he was told, was a respectable faith; though unable to confirm this information directly he nevertheless had faith in the advice because he had faith that his informant spoke in good faith, while that one spoke convinced that his own was the only True Faith.

As though to exacerbate the issue, the faith page is almost exclusively about religious meanings, and even includes a section for propositions that faith is irrationality or ignorance.

There are several "hot button" subjects where some editors feel their belief system is challenged. Debates about who is right then become heated. Where religion is involved, calling on disputants to WP:AGF can be like throwing fuel on a fire.

One may deconstruct AGF further by noting that "Assume!" is equivalent to "Have faith in...".

How about adopting a new guideline: WP:RHE - Respect Honest Effort ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that, after reading the page, an editor would be confused as to what we mean by "assume good faith"? Does the problem only arise when the three words are taken in a vacuum? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus no. A word has no meaning in a vacuum because words are only keys to other associations, directed by their actual and historical context. When an editor reads and is persuaded by this page he understands a kind of definition of GF (good faith) as being innocent of any wish to harm. However the intention of the guideline creator is not to define GF existentially but instead to use GF in a reproval formula AGF that I paraphrase as "You may say that editor X is deluded but you must not say why X is deluded!". There is weakness in this aproach where WP:AGF exists in two forms 1) a background concept that is hopefully a self-evident ethic that hardly needs to be enunciated, and 2) a criticism of someone's disrespectful posting made after it has occurred. I don't know whether that kind of finger pointing is any more effective than the simple admonition "Please be nice!".


 * I think the failure of WP:RPA to survive as a real policy shows what is not working here. An editor has been blocked because he removed personal abuse directed towards him, while leaving unchanged the rest of the other editor's post. He was condemned for using RPA as a proxy method for refactoring.


 * I believe that persisting failures to Assume GF that infest Wikipedia article discussion pages are due to weakness of the WP:AGF concept. It is vague and is applied too little and too late. I would like to see active moderators on discussion pages. I don't know whether the fiercely anarchic Wikipedia community could countenance having that, but I contend that it is better to have a ruling at the source such as "As Moderator I deleted what you tried to post. Please discuss improving the article." than to wait for someone to use WP:DR procedures to call in administrators who probably have better things to do than getting up to speed on someone's heated arguments.


 * If the idea of having DMs (Discussion Moderators) is palatable, I suggest further that volunteers for DM should not be administrators, they must have contributed significantly to Wikipedia but not significantly to the page to be moderated, and hold DM power on one given page for no longer than 3 months or shorter if dismissed from it by unanimous vote. BTW it will be a thankless job but someone needs to do it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds.... difficult to implement. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the sequence "Assume good faith" is just a phrase denoting the policy. First expansion of the phrase is "Assume [that the coeditor makes his edits in] good faith". All words and phrases are just approximations of real life. I think "Assume good faith" is established in the WP:community, and that it should be changed just in very exceptional cases (not defined by me). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote of the Week
I wish I had thought of these

"I don't assume bad faith. I think that you mean to do good; I just don't think you are." - Drilnoth 15:52, 19 November 2008

"I don't believe he's acting in bad faith. However, his good-faith contributions are starting to cross the line into disruptive, and his general unresponsiveness to criticism isn't helping to defuse the situation." -Jéské Couriano 20:39, 1 December 2008 Has anyone come accross any similar examples of Doublethink? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gavin.collins you are involved at AN/I concerning a dispute. It is inappropriate of you to attempt to label disparagingly as Doublethink a post by an editor to that thread on this page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)