Wikipedia talk:Assume the assumption of good faith

message: I changed the template to proposed. It will not become a guideline unless and until there exists a consensus to make it so. 
Is this guideline needed? Couldn't th point be made by tweaking AGF? Avoid instruction creep. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change

message: This essay is a sophism. The only possible situation where you would cite AGF is because you have substantial evidence in the editor's behavior that he is not assuming GF. And the AGF rule is only an assumption that can be overcome by an evidence. So if someone says "you are in bad faith" and there is not evidence for that bad faith he's talking about, then you can say he is not respecting AGF, and you don't break the rule. Laguna117 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a sophism

message: This is overelaborate. There are far too many policies and guidelines already. Scranchuse 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a bad idea

message: I think this would be best converted to an essay; it discusses a common sense topic and seems as though it would be better suited to provoke thought rather than becoming a guideline or policy. -DanDanRevolution 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this article does not have the consensus to become policy. - Liberatore(T) 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an essay 

message: With this argument you get a recursive problem (i.e. AGF -> AAGF -> AAAGF -> AAAAGF -> etc.). ~ UBeR 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recursive problem

message: Hi Brian0918 - After a few months of editing Wilikepdia and occasionally citing WP:AGF as a friendly reminder of behavior standards, I came across the essay, Assume the assumption of good faith (AAGF) in about January 2007.  Until I read your statement "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith," I had not realized that my friendly citation of WP:AGF probably was not being received in a friendly manner and, in fact, may have antagonized the situation.  I gave your profound statement much thought and it really opened my eyes as to high standards towards which I can work.  As we all essentially are equally positioned in Wikipedia, the very act of supporting judgmental statements with a cited policy, guidance, or other process may not assume good faith in some circumstances.  I strive to guide my posts by the higher standard AAGF and wanted to thank you for posting the AAGF essay. -- Jreferee 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thought provoking

message: Per WP:AGF, I would suggest the following addition:
"This essay does not require that editors continue to assume the assumption of good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." ~ UBeR (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no.  That simply nullifies WP:AGF.  Anyone who feels justified in suspending AGF feels that evidence of lack of good faith in the other is present.  There is no need to ever suspend AGF.  It's much better to assume people are acting in good faith, but are simply mistaken, uninformed or wrong about something, and always leaving open the possibility that you might be the one missing something.  That is the essence of WP:AGF.  Even if someone is not acting in good faith and their goal is to subvert Wikipedia, you don't have to suspend AGF to deal with him or her fairly and properly.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal 

message: What a proof that people today would rather twiddle with the hairs in their nostrils than do what they ought to.  --VKokielov (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a proof 

message: It is true that "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith", but so what?  Carbonite's Law?  I totally disagree with, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith."
I've encountered countless editors in my years at Wikipedia who clearly had suspended good faith about me or someone else, but who were clearly acting in good faith themselves.  They just did not fully understand and appreciate WP:AGF, its purpose, and/or its value. 
There is no need to ever suspend the assumption of good faith about anyone, and there is nothing wrong about reminding others of that (including by citing WP:AGF), nor is reminding someone of WP:AGF evidence whatsoever that the reminder himself is not acting in good faith. 
Carbonite's Law is simply not true, and AAGF depends on it.  This essay should be deleted.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see your point, however, regarding Carbonite's law. I would suggest that it be changed (if that's possible) to "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the higher the probability that said user is actually the problem." One can essentially be acting in good faith and yet still be a problem editor. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Or how about this: "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user is him- or her-self assuming good faith." PSWG1920 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What is with WP:AAAGF? -- πϵρήλιο 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This essay should be deleted