Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 1

message: I left the following comment on the voting page:
:I'm echoing Ta bu shi da yu's criticism, except I am rather pessimistic about the abusability of this rather Panglossian rule.  For an example, if a series of POV edits appear on David Irving, eulogising his skills as a historian and putting down his court defeats as part of the global left-wing conspiracy, I am not going to assume good faith, and I will not appreciate well-meant Wikipedia rules directing me to do so, particularly if, say, the edits are from an IP address listed on various anti-fascist blacklists.  Be civil might be the name of a constructive policy, but policies telling me how to think are not constructive. ---- Charles Stewart 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trust, but verify."  (Old Russian saying, via Ronald Reagan.) "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."  "Treat people as you would wish to be treated." -Willmcw 00:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I find it helps to think of the policy as a nicer way of phrasing "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank.
Also, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "to the point of self-imposed idiocy" - David Gerard 22:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It is imperative not to be naive, just as is imperative not to "declare war" on a user you do not like. Road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Do not be obsessed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I am against this policy

message: This User seems to have edited with an agenda in mind. I suggest someone else rewrite their addition rather than simply reverting it. Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:12.73.201.107|12.73.201.107]]'s recent edits 

message: ::Do you see the process of resolving our differences as "mediation against" me? If so I don't think that you are participating in a helpful spirit. It is mediation "between" us, not against us. Please proceed with good faith. Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:39 (UTC)
:::Actually the process started as an arbitration request I initiated against you for harassment and stalking. Mediation was suggested in response, and then offered by another editor, which is now pending. Thus when I reference the mediation it is made in the context of the dispute settlement process I initiated against you for the acts of stalking and harassment. Given the contentious nature of that dispute, I would suggest to you that further discussions aimed at resolving it occur during the mediation rather than here and every other article or talk page you follow me to. Thanks Rangerdude 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
::::A) I am not the one who first mentioned the mediation in this discussion, B) I am not the one who keeps attacking another editor as a "wikistalker", c) I am not the one who is trying to create a new guideline to condemn the behavior that I am accused of, one which I wouldn't have been aware of if I hadn't had this page previously watchlisted (or had followed edits). Given that another editor did all of those things our ongoing dispute is already the main topic. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 00:42 (UTC)
:::::Once again please refrain from personal comments and keep this dispute in the mediation where it belongs. This section was created to address the development of a needed guideline on stalking based upon a standing precedent including, among others, Jimbo Wales. If you have good faith contributions to that discussion, please make them where appropriate. Further off-topic comments such as the above will be deleted from this section. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
What we do not need is more "guidelines". I disagree with Uninvited Co. too but I only have personal experience to go on, not sociological analysis, whatever that is. If someone is "stalking" you, just ignore them. If they're not doing anything damaging, what actually is the problem? It causes more strife fighting the troll than it would simply to move on. Editors do occasionally dog one another's edits. They sometimes do it to support one another as well as to piss each other off. But we don't need a guideline to tell us the latter is a bad thing to do. It's just not nice. All our interpersonal policies could pretty much be summed up with "Be kind". I don't see why you need to expend much energy on elaborating on that. You know when you're not being kind. Grace Note 02:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: A reference to deletion is unnecessary and distracting.  We should assume that any contributor to the project, whatever task they're engaged in, is here in good faith.
The only reason to single out deletion would be if there are people who nominate things for deletion, but don't edit articles or otherwise contribute.  Why would we want to encourage that behavior? Isomorphic 06:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: I find it problematic to assume good faith, in questions of notability.  I think an article must establish notability and if it doesn't I must assume that it is not notable.  Editors cannot be expected to google for a topic, in order to establish notability.--Carabinieri 10:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Faith as to notability 

message: I was just reading a book on the ethics of Immanuel Kant, by Christine Korsgaard. In it, she discusses a lot of aspects of Kant's moral philosophy, but there was an interesting interpretation she gives that seems to (accidentally) validate WP:FAITH on moral grounds. I thought some people might find it interesting:
:"...To treat another with respect is to treat him as if he were using his reason as far as possible as if he were using it well.  Even in a case where someone evidently is wrong or mistaken, we ought to suppose he must have what he takes to be good reasons for what he believes or what he does. This is not because, as a matter of fact, he probably does have good reasons. Rather, this attitude is something that we owe to him, something that is right.  And he cannot forfeit it...To treat others as ends in themselves is to always address and deal with them as rational beings.  Every rational being gets to reason out, for herself, what she is to think, choose, or do.  So if you need someone's contribution to your end, you must put the facts before her and ask for her contribution.  If you think she is doing something wrong you may try to convince her by argument but you may not resort to tricks or force..."
::--Christine M. Korsgaard, Creating the Kingdom of Ends ()
--causa sui talk 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical validation for WP:FAITH ? 

message: I propose that we replace the current guideline with a new, shorter and clearer version. Zocky 01:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of other editors, including future ones, talk pages should be informative, concise and free of abusive comments. Wikipedia is not a public forum.
----
;Comments
*I like this succinct redraft. —Theo  (Talk) 14:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a new version? 

message: How about we change the name of this policy to something that can't be interpreted as diminishing thought possibilities, something more like "give the benefit of the doubt"? I agree it is good to work positively but when you assume anything it can decrease comprehension and awareness. zen master T 02:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have any comments? The policy is good in that it encourages people to work positively, but the way this policy has been (ab)used it has had the effect of stifling critical thought. zen master T 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment is that the policy is fine with its existing name. -Willmcw 00:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want people to assume and you want to leave open the possibility of stifling critical thought? zen master T 02:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The more stifling the better, I say. While we're at it, I propose a new policy of discouraging unproductive pedantry. — Dan | talk 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia should encourage thought rather than stifle it. Giving the benefit of the doubt is a good way of ensuring a positive collaborative working environment, but that does not mean you must stop doubting or questioning. zen master T 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain what you mean, what you interpret as me "jumping to conclusions" is instead me asking you for further explanation and clarification of your position. Given the collaborative yet disparate nature of wikipedia most everything needs a pristine level of clarity. zen master T 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should never assume anything 

message: Should the image be on the page? —Ashley Y 06:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: votes are evil, dont vote for everything. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, might I ask -- who is there besides yourself who is in favour of the image? —Ashley Y 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Same here, I couldn't make any sense out of it either. It meets the criteria for Patent Nonsense, which is why I've nominated it for deletion. The image only causes confusion. Hexagonal 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That works for me. —Ashley Y 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I appologise from all for my evil attempt to add an image to AGF page. I must have been doing something close to vandalism to recieve such an opposition. Tens of people complained about it complaining about its meanig which has been explained twice so far, I guess people cant read. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image <S>poll</S> 

message: I would like to propose to add this statement:
"The principle of Assume Good Faith is not applicable when questioning whether or not someone else had Assumed Good Faith.  If you have good reason to believe that someone acted inappropriately, then you may question their decision without fear of breaching this guideline."
What do you think?
The example, by the way, is this one: User:Zordrac/Poetlister, when I stated that I believed that administrators who banned users for being suspected sock puppets without presenting any evidence at all and ignoring evidence that they were not sock puppets was inappropriate, and that in fact failing to check things out or ask the users in question why their IPs might be similar was a failure on the part of the administrators to Assume Good Faith.  They in turn threatened to ban me stating that I had failed to Assume Good Faith in that I had dared to question an administrator's decision.
I think that this should be included in this policy so that we avoid such accusations in the future.  You should be permitted to suggest that someone else might have failed to adhere to AGF without yourself being liable to accusations and threats associated with breaking AGF. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to say something to the effect that it is not inappropriate to ask a question.  There are few if any situations in which questions should be discouraged on Wikipedia. Isomorphic 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Willmcw's citation earlier of the adage Trust, but verify seems sharper to me.  It should probably go in the article. --- Charles Stewart 16:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume infallibility". Rd232 talk 15:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Assume Good Faith is not applicable 

message: Do not insult the works of others thank you. You are welcome to say you dont like it but do not insult it. WP:AGF and WP:NPA applise to this very article and I see no evidence of it. 
Contribution of some 3rd party should not result in me being accused of using sockpuppets. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's silly or not but there isn't a consensus to have it added so I've removed it. The  anon keeps adding it with little support. Rx StrangeLove 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The logo is not silly

message: I love this logo. Can't we even have a small thumbnail of it? DigitalNinja11 07:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Gmaxwell said in his removal of the logo earlier, it's not very professional (and IMO, clutters up a page that should be simple to read). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you love that logo...almost all of your edits jammed the AGF monster on a number of pages. I don't think any "logo" should be placed on WP:AGF at all. To anyone who still feels some sort of need for a logo for rewarding users or for use in userboxes, I have uploaded :Image:Wiki-halo.png as an alternative. — TheKMantalk 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue adding the logo until you decide to let it stay. When you ask for another wikipedian to create something for it, the least you can do is be respectful and use it. I'm not going to insult his work especially since I asked for it.Meepo4 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like "no" to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the logo doesn't belong. It doesn't add anything and there's no consensus at all for it's inclusion. It's not really fair for you to create all this extra work for everyone...the page has been semi'd twice now not to mention all the rollbacks and the blocks. It looks like this disruption is being caused by a single person, couldn't you just use it on your userpage? Rx StrangeLove 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be disruptive, I just want to see this image used. The creator put hard work into it, and I tried to make a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia when I first added it. Why do you have to insult the works of others? This is the person from earlier, but Curps keeps blocking every account I use. I'm not the only one who wants it included. JGW7 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you, a Cool Cat sock? Seriously, go away, get a life, the consensus is that the image is unencyclopedic and does not belong. Period. Hexagonal 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is incivil and could be interpreted as a personal attack, please avoid doing so. NSLE (T+C) 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a personal attack alright and Hexagonal is definately one. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I dont. Geez. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Helen Keller? Is she the person best known for assuming good faith? -Will Beback 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See here. (Helen Keller writing on faith.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:3RR.  It's never OK to use a parade of sleeper sockpuppets like you're doing. -- Curps 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo isn't hurting anyone. Why can't we just build on each others work instead of constantly marginalizing each other? I'm not here for vandalism, I'm just tired of everyone being so hostile to legitimate contributors while abusive sockpuppets and GNAA trolls are given respect and leniency. SmokeyTheBear 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hurt me. I've died a little bit inside. There, are you happy? Melchoir 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: From the page:
:So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.
How does one correct an error without reverting it? Isn't that exactly what correcting an error is - reverting it? - Andre Engels 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do?