Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 3

message: I have changed the "in a nutshell" text box because I think it missed the point.  Assuming good faith is not about rules or policies at all.  It's about believing that the other person legitimately wants to help, and actually believes that what they are doing is right.  It's about understanding that misbehavior and malicious behavior are not the same thing.  It's about understanding that there are few people (if any) on Wikipedia whose actual goal is to sabotage the project.
A person can knowingly break a policy and still be acting in good faith, if they believe that breaking the policy is the best course of action for Wikipedia.  In fact, that is the most possible situation in which one needs to assume good faith.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't enforce rules.  But we should remember that often, even someone knowingly breaking a rule is doing so in an attempt to make a better encyclopedia.  For example, this is true of edit warriors who typically believe that the truth (or what they believe to be the truth) is more important than Wikipedia policy. That's not malicious, just misguided.  We know that Wikipedia would simply cease to function without some rules, but users won't always understand this. Isomorphic 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell

message: I've removed the following paragraph and am placing it here for further discussion if necessary.  All of what this paragraph says is already stated in several other places in the introductory section of the page. ... Kenosis 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions.  If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it.  Don't put the burden on others.  Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith. ... 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: I removed the nutshellism deliberately since the full article fits on one page for many browsers and display sizes.  I dislike the nutshellisms overall and see them as a band-aid for policy bloat; they contribute to that by adding another distraction to the page and a summary that rarely captures the essence of the policy any better than the opening paragraph.  Since I believe the policy bloat has been largely removed from this page, the nutshellism is no longer really required even if one is willing to admit (for the sake of discourse) that it actually helps.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, though the tradition has become to provide a capsulation called a nutshell.  I'm not hellbent on the issue here.  Appreciate the comments.  Good regards to you ... Kenosis 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: I think it is very difficult when I see that very trusted editors fail to show this in letter and spirit vis-a-vis fellow editors. It is all right: the human civilization has shown that some are more equal than others! In virtual life, it also applies. I may sound weird and off the tangent, but please assume good faith. Regards!  --Bhadani 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assume good faith

message: I'm astonished to see this having a policy tag. It was a guideline for a long time. Apologies if I might have overlooked something or being lazy, but could someone of the regulars here point me to the discussion that shows consensus for having this policy? ComSpex did put a policy tag on this on May 7: . But that edit laks a reference to where this was decided. --Ligulem 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know when it picked up the "policy" tag.  At one point I argued against it, since this "policy" isn't something you could actually enforce, nor would it be a good idea to try. It's an underlying principle. Isomorphic 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline/policy 

message: Is it just me, or do the admins simply ignore evidence that someone is acting in bad faith? I have tried, over and over again, to get the admins to do something about the biased editors at the Ayn Rand related articles, yet instead they yell at me for assuming bad faith with editors who have records of vandalism, biased edits, and personal attacks and never stop doing any of them. Now, the admins will not even listen when I complain about obvious harassment made by these people; they simply use "blame the victim" excuses for ignoring my problems. I can't help but assume bad faith on the admins part now. -- LGagnon 11:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentally buried evidence

message: I've removed the section on "Quotations" for further analysis and discussion.  Personally it seems to me to be nothing but a POV magnet. Here's the removed text:
*==Quotations==
:"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (unattributed aphorism from the XVI Century)
:"The Master said", "Is a man not superior who, without anticipating attempts at deception or presuming acts of bad faith, is, :evertheless, the first to be aware of such behaviour?" (Analects XIV.31)
:"Wise men don't need to prove their point; men who need to prove their point aren't wise." Laozi
</div>
:...Kenosis 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right move. Williamborg (Bill) 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section on "Quotations"

message: I am wondering if this policy really needs to state the same thing twice.
". . . Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith. . . . Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."
I am thinking this only needs to be said once.  Does anyone disagree?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thank you for calling attention to it. ... Kenosis 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant sentance 

message: The word "sockpuppetry" in the article links to Sockpuppet (Internet).  Would it not be better to link to Wikipedia: Sock puppetry? 195.171.111.194 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet wikilink 

message: I think this policy is underused in regards to assuming bad faith. This policy should affect other policies in regards to bad faith editing nominating for deletion, reporting other users, etc. For instance, I feel an image that I uploaded was nominated under bad faith circumstances. I know there are many people think the photo technically should have been put up for deletion. But what should be done about the bad faith issue here? This is what other policies are lacking in Wikipedia. Kingjeff 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This policy is underused