Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 1

Voting

Moved to Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Vote

Why I am against this policy

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)

"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)

Nor, one hopes, does it mean "assume you're a troll" either. Dr Zen 02:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a margin of reasonable doubt. Remember that we're all communicating with plain-text, and even bold and italics don't quite help convey what you're trying to say or do. Therefore you have to choose the "wrong" side with any misunderstanding. If the user was not intending it like that after all you won't feel badly for accusing them, and if their wrongdoing escalates you can stop being so forgiving and sort out a block or ban. Either way, the truth soon surfaces. And I'd say many cases of "questionable good faith" are just a user being overly bold or overlooking a rule or two, a case of recklessness rather than malevolence. Master Thief Garrett 15:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 13:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

12.73.201.107's recent edits

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 Garrett^Talk 02:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on Stalking

I would like to propose that a section be added to this guideline to resolve a recurring problem on Wikipedia and in light of recent precedents on the subject. This section should address the issue of editor "stalking" on wikipedia, applying to cases where a particular editor chooses to intentionally follow another editor around wikipedia in a harassing manner. Behavior of this type was initiated the infamous User:The Recycling Troll case in March 2005 [1] and was ultimately stated as the reason to hardban this user by Jimbo Wales, who resolved the case.[2] According to Wales "the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK," [3] who he was following around Wikipedia with the purpose of making edits - including mostly minor ones - to work completed by RickK. During the course of this dispute it was concluded that stalking of this type constituted "disruptive behavior" even when most of the stalker's edits were minor and inconsequential, and that it breached the good faith assumption by singling out an editor and subjecting his edits to harassment. Given this notable precedent, a guideline discouraging stalking seems to be appropriate. I am further suggesting this guideline from personal experience, having been the target of another editor's stalking behavior myself during the past few months. I believe that the drafting of a guideline would help to resolve this and other cases of stalking on wikipedia that have the adverse effects of disrupting the encyclopedia, subjecting victimized editors to undue harassment, and fostering an unfriendly and hostile environment. Thank you for your consideration. - Rangerdude 5 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

ADDED: Please note that this proposal is for an additional Wikipedia guideline - not a Wikipedia policy. Sorry if there was any confusion, & thanks for your consideration. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Rough Draft Proposal

Wiki-Stalking - Due to the nature of wikipedia's collaborative process, it is not uncommon that editors will repeatedly encounter other editors who share similar editing interests. Furthermore, wikipedia's editing tools permit users to view a history contributions made to the encyclopedia by fellow editors. This feature is often a valuable and useful tool for wikipedians to interact with their colleague editors, but like any other editing feature it should not be abused. While using this tool within reason is permitted, stalking other editors is generally frowned upon. Wiki-stalking entails an evidenced distinctive editing pattern in which one user intentionally follows another editor around wikipedia for purposes that are not constructive to the encyclopedia's content or conducive to its collaborative environment. Wiki-stalking is problematic as it typically violates the good faith assumption mandate by subjecting the targetted editor to harassment and unmerited scrutiny. It is considered disruptive to wikipedia even when the wiki-stalker's edits are minor, and often has the undesired effect of fostering undue hostility between editors within wikipedia's collaborative framework.

What Wiki-Stalking is -

• A distinctive editing pattern in which one editor continuously and repeatedly follows another editor between multiple articles over an extended period of time and a wide variety of unrelated subjects for the purpose of making excessive "followup" changes to the original editor's work.
• Stalking behavior can occur when the "followup" edits are both major and minor. Stalkers often make visibly disruptive changes to the edits of their subject, including vandalism, deletion of legitimate content, and reversions without reason. Minor edits, however, can also be construed as stalking when excessive and exhibited in a distinctive editing pattern that indicates their author is following another editor. This can include even minor wikilinking, grammatical changes, and unnecessary rewordings if the pattern is consistently aimed at the stalker's subject, and thus harassing to that editor.

Some editing patterns that may suggest stalking -

• Repetitive and recurring non-chance encounters with the same editor over multiple different articles
• Repetitive and recurring non-chance encounters with the same editor on multiple articles of unrelated subject matter
• Repetitive and recurring "followup" changes to an editor's work that are made within a few moments, hours, or days of the original edits over multiple articles.

What Wiki-Stalking is NOT -

• Chance repeat encounters between two or more editors on articles of common interest between them. Many wikipedians share in a wide range of interests and thus will likely encounter each other more than once on a common subject.
• Repeat encounters between editors on articles of an unrelated subject where the encounter is a chance event, or where a "followup" edit is not a recurring and repetitive pattern of behavior covering multiple articles over the course of several weeks or even months.
• Following an editor engaged in a pattern of disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor.
• Viewing another editor's contributions page for informational purposes and to assist in good faith collaborative contributions to wikipedia.
• Ordinary periodic article "cleanup" activities conducted within reason and in a civil manner that is conducive to collaborative relationships with the followed editor.

Wikipedians who feel that they are being "stalked" by another editor are encouraged to politely address their concern with that editor. Sometimes an editor may be unaware that his or her edits are being perceived as stalking, or create an uncomfortable editing environment for another, and simply addressing this concern can resolve the issue.

Precedents

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/David_Gerard,_Neutrality,_Cyrius
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling Troll

Comments

Please post and sign editor comments here

• Sometimes good cases make bad precedent. There's nothing inherently wrong with checking up on a particular editor's contributions. Many RC patrollers do so often because behind a bad edit one often finds many more. And many editors, once they become aware of a novel POV promulgated by a particular user will check to see if the same POV is present in related articles. There are certain editors that I watch very closely and I doubt if I am alone in this regard. The "Recycling Troll" never made any substantive contributions to the project, and so there was nothing to lose by banning him; I believe that the ban was motivated by the overall pattern of participation not merely the "stalking" aspect of it, and I doubt if Jimbo intended to create any sort of broader policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

• TRT actually did make many useful edits. Minor corrections mostly, but positive. What freaked RickK and others out was simply that TRT followed Rick's edits almost article-by-article. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and a clear example of why you shouldn't feed trolls. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

• The key here is that TRT's edits, though useful in some cases, weren't substantive. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. As for "you shouldn't feed trolls," I personally have found that to be a highly ineffective strategy, and the available sociological analysis agrees. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

• UninvitedCompany - Thank you for your comments. Part of my intent here is to separate and distinguish between legitimate simple cross-checkings not unlike those you likely reference and the abusive cases of stalking in which an editor is singled out for following not because of anything wrong or problematic with the edits he or she makes but rather due to who they are. You are certainly correct that there's a time and place for a certain degree of cross checking and that should be reflected in the guideline. Stalking, however, is still a problem that should be dealt with in some fashion as it occurs when editors take things above and beyond simple legitimate cross checking edits. "Recycling Troll" did that and indeed his main pattern of participation that got him banned seems to have been stalking RickK. Sadly there are plenty of others like him on wikipedia who do the same thing, and as a result end up driving away decent editors and disrupting good faith attempts to develop and expand the encyclopedia. Also note that this proposal is intended to create a guideline that discourages the abusive forms of following editors around that constitute stalking, not a policy that prohibits following other editors in general. This was done intentionally and I invite any suggestions you or others may have to make this distinction better represented in the proposal. Thanks again. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

• While I understand your intent and can sympathize with your concern and with the case of TRT and RickK in particular, I believe that the problem is one of proper management of problem users rather than a problem of "stalking" in particular. TRT was an obvious sock, because by their editing pattern it was clear that they had been here before. TRT was also smart enough to game the system and avoid any bright-line rules violations. My view is that when an obvious sock shows up and starts harrassing a long-time user, we should respond quickly and decisively regardless of the means of harrassment. As written, your proposal is wide open to abuse by ruleslawyering users whose weak edits are being checked and reverted by seasoned Wikipedians with similar areas of interest. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Would you mind proposing revisions, or an alternative, then that you believe would avoid ruleslawyering abuse? I would not be opposed to adding a section stating to the effect that sourced and legitimate checks of weak edits are not stalking when done within reason (and I qualify that "within reason" as like everything else, even seasoned editors can become abusive if they take things above and beyond a reasonable level - e.g. biting the newbies and chasing otherwise potential editors away from wikipedia). Also, the fact that this is a guideline on etiquette etc. that editors should follow rather than a policy should substantially limit ruleslawyering. The problem is, and TRT's case illustrates this, that often simply managing problem users as they emerge isn't enough and it's a pain to have to go through arbitration etc. for each and every similar case just to get a simple, common sense result of stopping them. IOW, the strongest means to problem user management is to clearly define what's acceptable and what's not. It's a simple matter of being able to differentiate between the good and the bad. Right now there's very little in terms of guidelines that sufficiently do that in stalker cases, and as a result problem users slip through and do far more damage than should've ever been the case - especially when they are skilled at drawing the entire thing out through arbitration etc. By defining the issue more clearly we can avoid future situations of this sort. Thanks again. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

• The alternative that I would suggest would be to (a) strengthen the sock puppet policy, and (b) make it clearer that we will be less indulgent of doubtful behavior among those whose contribution history is weak. I see these as the core issue. A "no socks" policy coupled with effective technical tools for enforcement is not something subject to ruleslawyering. In like fashion, a "your contributions must always exceed the trouble you make" policy, while a matter of judgement, is difficult to ruleslawyer. Stalking is but one manifestation of ill behavior and, at WP as IRL, is hard to define. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

• I concur that those are fair and needed actions. An issue still remains as even the most established wikipedians are capable of mischief, the abusive form of stalking among them. There are even a couple long time administrators who have been relieved for various types of abuses on wikipedia, thus while the guideline should be primarily directed at trolls like TRT it should also serve an advisory role to all wikipedians in general. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

A problem with this proposal is that it assumes bad faith on the part of the accused stalker. That seems entirely at odds with the overarching policy. It goes to the intent of the user, which is unknowable, rather than the value of the edits themselves. We already have a policy about personal attacks that covers incivility. If being simply being corrected is harassment then everybody on Wikipedia is continually harassed. If an editor is making substantive contributions in a civil manner it should not matter what articles are being edited. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:00 (UTC)

• Comment on the above. Please note that the drafted proposal is in no way intended to assume bad faith on the part of the accused stalker, but as with any other guideline on behavior simply sets forth specific guideline boundaries on behavior to distinguish between what types of use of the user contributions page are acceptable and what kinds constitute harassment. Indeed, in order to assume bad faith on the part of the stalker the guideline would (1) have to be an enforced policy, which it is not, (2) include an enforcement mechanism, which it does not have, (3) assert a burden of proof against the accused stalker, which it does not do, and (4) profess to know the intent of a specifically accused stalker's behavior, which it does not do. Much to the contrary, the proposal simply characterizes a certain type of stalking behavior as inappropriate for and disruptive to wikipedia's editing environment and does so based on a major precedent of the strongest authority. In the interest of full disclosure, it should also be noted that the above user, Willmcw, is currently the subject of a dispute resolution I requested against him for his stalking, personal harassment, and all around disruptive behavior towards myself and my edits on wikipedia[4] that is presently undergoing mediation. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

This proposal characterizes a common Wikipedia behavior, following the edits of problem editors, as "stalking." That is judging the intent of the editor - to stalk rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Calling someone a "stalker" is using an epithet just like calling them a liar or a hypocrite and is therefore a personal attack, which we already have a policy against. Curiously, maintaining a special list of another editor's edits is not on the list of wikistalking behaviors. ;) -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Comment - Contrary to the claim above, following the edits of problem editors is not characterized as "stalking" in the proposed guideline. Per the proposal: What Wiki-Stalking is NOT - Following an editor engaged in a pattern of disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor. The author of the above is also reminded of the "no personal attacks" policy in regards to his final sentence, the aforementioned list being a draft of an evidence page regarding his own behavior in a pending mediation against him over the allegation of stalking. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this page. Assume good faith is a guideline telling people not to assume that others are out to get them, or out to ruin the project. How does "wiki-stalking" have anything to do with this? Perhaps you should create a proposal page somewhere. Isomorphic 6 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

Isomorphic - Greetings and thank you for your comment. Please take a moment to examine the precedent articles I linked to at the beginning of the proposal. I believe these will help clarify and answer some of your questions. In that earlier stalking case, as with others, the practice of stalking was deemed to be inappropriate harassment as it was done in bad faith (thus violating the good faith mandate that is the subject of this guideline) and was disruptive to wikipedia. I proposed it here as this seemed to be the most directly relevant existing guideline, but if you or any others think it should be offered as a stand alone proposal I'm open to that as well. Thanks! Rangerdude 6 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Revisions

Please post and sign revisions, changes, or alternate versions to the draft above here

What Wiki-Stalking is NOT - Following an editor engaged in a pattern of POV pushing, disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor.

added by Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Comment - The term "POV pushing" is itself a bad faith assumption and a contentious charge that, unlike vandalism and disruption which are defined in detail by wikipedia policies and guidelines, is difficult to identify and often controversial when alleged. This addition could accordingly provide undue cover to persons engaged in acts of harassment and disruption by allowing them to claim an undefined justification, thereby circumventing the spirit of the guideline. The addition is also redundant as the Wikipedia policy of NPOV, governing genuine and defined POV problems, is already included among "other violations of Wikipedia policy." It is therefore considered an unfriendly amendment by the guideline proposal's author. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Other comments

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)

Deletion?

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)

A major issue related to Good Faith

I agree whole-heartedly with AGF. It is a fabulous policy, and it is easy for anyone, myself included, to forget how important it is.

However, there is a major issue related to Good Faith that we need to not only talk about, but document in some sort of FAQ in the main article, to warn others about its abuse -- in other words, what AGF is "NOT."

The Issue: Where does it end? Is it a bottomless pit? At what point must we stop assuming good faith, and realize that a user is taking blatant advantage of and abusing it?

(If this has been addressed, please point me to a page so I don't rehash it here.)

I bring this up because I think AGF can be abused. We need to learn how to recognize when it is being abused. Some examples:

• An editor is offered an alternative view to a story or a problem -- one that they don't agree with -- and simply refuses to see the other editor's side, even as a mental exercise. They're not being asked to agree with it, just to admit the editor has a reasonable argument, and they continue to be deliberately obtuse in this regard, repeating, "I just don't see it. I just don't see it," possiby lying about whether they actually see the point or not.
• An editor contiuously complains and complains about others' "violation" of AGF, but the same editor continuously makes bad faith assumptions of their own, over and over. (I personally think that editors who do this are extremely suspicious.)
• An editor simply refuses to go along with any changes to an article, demanding and demanding that others "prove" to their satisfaction, but, again, remains deliberately obtuse about giving those arguments any validity or "good faith" consideration at all.

I hope this discussion makes sense to you, and I welcome discussion. Thanks.

paul klenk 23:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

I think the above covers that ground sufficiently. After all, this is supposed to be a page about why one should assume good faith in others, not a page about all the ways that this could be abused. There is one sentence I have considered adding, though: If you find yourself trying to use this guideling to win arguments, you have probably missed the point. Isomorphic 03:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole idea is not to think the worst of people. That's all. You don't need the policy. Just put the best spin on what people say. Yes, sometimes there's no positive way of looking at it, or it's blindingly obvious that they are not working in good faith. That's okay. The policy is "assume good faith" not "bend over". Grace Note 03:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The point of "assume good faith" here is that we put the best possible construction on everything contributors do. Sometimes contributors edit in such a way that it is clear they are being unhelpful, but even then we assume immaturity rather than genuine malice. We assume good faith until a contributor's actions can't be explained by any other motive than an intent to disrupt. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As a guideline, AGF works as encouragement to behave in constructive manner. As policy, it would be problematic: abusable and not possible to properly enforce. Since AGF is not policy, I don't think we need to map out all of the tricky nuances of its application. --- Charles Stewart 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that's right, Charles. It's just a way of saying "don't think the worst of people", which is good advice in any sphere, I reckon. Grace Note 01:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't need to make it into a legal document. As a side note, I have noticed that when someone points to "Assume Good Faith" in their own defense, it's usually a sign that they aren't acting in very good faith. People savvy enough to know about this page ought to be savvy enough not to cause problems. Isomorphic 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There is also a distressing tendency of late for those peripheral to a discussion to jump in accusing one side or another of not Assuming Good Faith: "distressing" because often as not it's the same bunch of people harassing a good editor—often an admin—who is trying to restrain a bad one. —Phil | Talk 15:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith as to notability

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)

• This is not an issue of good faith. Good faith just means assuming that an editor is trying to help rather than deliberately sabotaging. It doesn't mean assuming that they are competant or intelligent, or that they understand the rules of Wikipedia. Good faith and notability would come in contact only in cases of suspected advertising or self-promotion. In such cases you can delete the article on notability grounds, but you should (at least initially) assume that the author was merely ignorant of Wikipedia standards, not deliberately ignoring them. Isomorphic 03:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Furthermore, on the contrary: Editors should perform research in questions of notability. In AFD discussions, a bare contribution of "non-notable", with no accompanying reason or evidence that the editor has done any research at all to make that determination, is next to useless; whereas a contribution of "I searched Amazon for books written by this supposed author, and didn't find any. Xe therefore doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criterion for published authors." is useful, provides a basis for decision that other editors can double-check, and demonstrates an informed decision being made. Uncle G 12:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking

I have added a new section on stalking, taken from the final decision in Cool Cat et al. Please review and comment. Alter if appropriate. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:harassment has an more extensive section on stalking already. -Willmcw 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith is just the idea that you shouldn't believe the worst about peoples' behavior. Stalking is an unrelated topic, better addressed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette and/or Wikipedia:Harassment. In fact, as pointed out above it already exists at one of those, and I am about to add it to the other. Isomorphic 05:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As I feel stalking and AGF are closely related (assuming bad faith can lead to an appearance of stalking), I propose the following adjustment to address concerns raised by Tony Sidaway, and because I feel it's a useful addition. However, I guess I'm not quite bold enough, b/c I've put it here for discussion instead of just inserting it directly. :)

Stalking and AGF

Sometimes, when we see a series of edits that seem ill-advised or perhaps blatantly in bad faith, it's tempting to use the 'User Contributions' link to "follow" them, investigating other edits by that same user. This process, by itself, is an important part of Wikipedia; it's one reason simple vandalism has such a short lifetime here. On the other hand, careless use of this procedure can sometimes lead to charges of Wikistalking, and can seriously undermine others' presumption of your good faith.

Assume good faith, in this instance, means that you must evaluate each individual edit (or series of edits) by a particular user on its own merits, and not based on a presumption of bad faith. Even the most troublesome editors have been known to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. Reverting edits by a particular user without examining the specifics of the edit is an a priori presumption of bad faith; don't do it.

Comments?Eaglizard 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the point you're making. It makes perfect sense to look at edits in light of a users other contributions. For example, if a user has previously added original research to articles, it's only logical to scrutinize their other contributions for similar additions. Ditto for copyright violations and all kinds of other problems. Assuming good faith does not mean ignoring past behavior. Isomorphic 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons that Isomorphic and also because we already have a much longer description of wikistalking elsewhere. -Willmcw 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I guess my writing isn't as lucid as intended; Isomorphic, your statements seem to agree with my text. I'm specifically trying to say ' scrutinize their other contributions' -- as opposed to reverting edits based only on past behavior of the editor. If you could cite a particular phrase or sentence(s) you disagree with, I would appreciate it.
• Willmcw, this is not a description of Wikistalking, it's an attempt to enhance a guideline. Even if it were such a description, why would its presence elsewhere preclude it being mentioned here? Among the many things WP is not: a minimum bit-length encoding. Redundancy is allowed, I believe, if its useful. Eaglizard 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for the addition of your two paragraphs; only a trigger-happy fool would revert edits he hadn't looked at (aside from cases where ArbCom has banned a user from any contribution to Wikipedia). I also worry that trollish wiki-lawyers would start citing these paragraphs to argue that people shouldn't keep an eye on them.--Scimitar ^parley 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Guideline status

Why does this project page have guideline status, when it has resoundingly failed the only vote test it has been set? I propose to change this to a proposal. --- Charles Stewart 18:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the vote was whether or not to make it policy. (Never mind my leanings toward m:polls are evil.) Nearly all the arguments against were that it was unenforceable and thus unsuited to be policy. I saw very few that did not agree that it should remain a guideline, unenforced and unenforceable, with deviations accepted as determined by common sense, but nonetheless something to continually keep in mind. This is what "guideline" status is for. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are claiming that the vote is consistent with there being a consensus for it being a guideline, but observe that most people who voted against did not comment, and several commments directed against it as a policy make equal sense as objections against it being a guideline. If it were a proposal being considered for guideline status, my guess is it would not succeed. I'd rather it was demoted to proposal status whilst a more reality-friendly realisation of the idea was worked out. I would like a decent guideline that gives useful guidance on how to avoid jumping to inappropriate conclusions. --- Charles Stewart 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm claiming that the vote is consistent with there being no consensus to remove it as a guideline. Which comments do you believe make equal sense as objections against guideline status as well? It seems like your aim is to improve this page until it merits guideline status in your view rather than to scrap this altogether as a guideline; why not propose changes to this instead? Which aspects do you believe must be changed?

And no, I'm not so far gone that I don't believe we have editors who do not act in good faith. But I don't believe this guideline is inconsistent with treating them as they ought to be treated: unacceptable behavior must be dealt with whether it was done in good faith or bad. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no vote to remove it as a guideline, you are right, but guidelines should reflect consensus, not lack of evidence of a consensus against. For starters, I count three comments which draw attention to the phenomenon of how some problem users cite WP:FAITH to undermine criticisms of their bad editing: this criticism applies to the guideline as it stands, and the lack of consciousness of how the guideline is abused in this way is one element of its remoteness from the realities of editor conflict. Furthermore, I find the policy talks about what I should make about the evidence, rather than suggesting how one should handle cases where one suspects other edits of being made in bad faith: hence I find the policy prescriptive in a bad sort of way, at the same time as not being constructive. The kernel of a better guideline would revolve around recommending that one's response to suspect action should not needlessly depend upons one's suspicions be true. --- Charles Stewart 21:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, But what evidence do you have that there is no concensus? That this is one of the most widely cited guidelines and that no one else is suggesting that we depromote it would imply that it is widely supported. Yes, people sometimes cite this guideline incorrectly, just as they incorrectly cite WP:POINT and WP:IAR, that doesn't mean the guideline isn't good. The people who incorrectly cite them don't get anywhere: Ultimately *no* policy is binding if the community does not agree, it doesn't matter if someone follows the letter of the law, if community decides they are hurting the project we can still do whatever is needed. If you run into someone using WP:FAITH to claim that no one can criticize their actions, feel free to ping me and I'll come point out their mistake. :) --Gmaxwell 22:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

(darn edit conflicts) It might be more productive if you'd begin by citing how you believe this guideline is not reality friendly. I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that the guideline is claiming that people do not act in ill faith... that isn't the case: The guideline states that we do not need to know what a users intent was in order to take the action needed to prevent harm to our community, so we should take the less risky and usually more accurate course of assuming that someones intentions are good while we treat their behavior objectively. What would you like to see changed? .. in any case, the 'vote' wasn't about guideline status, so I fail to see how you can take the results and use them to support the notion that this shouldn't be a guideline... I would have opposed making it policy as well, but I can't imagine a justification for removing guideline status. Are you aware that WP:AGF is one of the most (actually I think it's the most but I'm not absolutly positive) widely cited guidelines on Wikipedia today? --Gmaxwell 20:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's good to have a friendly disposition that tends to expect the best of people whilst being unafraid of necessary conflict. I don't think that "be a good person" is much of a guideline, though, so yes, I would rather not have a guideline that explicitly asks of people some of the thiungs this guideline does. WP is not a centre for moral improvement. I've traced out a direction to a guideline I would find more satisfactory in my answer to Mindspillage. Most of the the citations of WP:AGF are excellent exhortations to better approaches to handling edit conflicts, some are reprehensible attempts to evade just criticism. I'd rather the guideline was not so well suited to the latter class of use. --- Charles Stewart 21:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where morality comes into it, it's a purely practical concern: Online we do not have the indirect communication channels which people usually use to determine intent. People often have a very difficult time figuring out peoples emotional state and it is a well studied phenomena that people tend to assume aggressive attitudes and ill intent from people they do not know when communicating online. As such is it critical to the survival of our community that we inform our users of these traps and find ways to avoid them. We have found that one way to improve the situation is to keep our focus on an editors actions which can be measured objectively rather than their intentions, which can not. If someone cites this guideline to escape criticism you should politely point out that you were criticizing their actions (helpful to provide difflinks) and not their intentions or their character. If your criticism was indeed about their intentions and character and can't be supported purely on the basis of actions, then your position probably needs to be re-thought. If you're concerned that someone will actually get away with using this policy to get away with bad behavior, you can rest easily: In many arbcom cases and in many RFCs users have been told that WP:FAITH does not excuse bad actions. I think that it is clear that the bulk of the community here understands that, so there is no risk that bad editors will get a free pass. --Gmaxwell 22:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

While I stand by my claim that the negative outcome of the vote does reflect some concerns about the contents of the page not only as a possible policy, but also as it stands as a guideline, I'm now persuaded that some sort of WP:FAITH plays a role in the accepted constellation of WP guidelines, and hence demoting it to a proposal would not be a good thing. I think I can put together a list of proposed changes to the guidelines that would make it more constructive and eliminate the faintly patronising tone I find in the current text. So watch this space... --- Charles Stewart 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Accusing you of accusing me of accusing you of accusing me of accusing you of not assuming good faith

I have made this title ridiculously long so as to emphasise this problem that I have been encountering a few times on Wikipedia, especially in relation to AFD votes. I will just use a typical example here:

1. User A creates an article that is well referenced, asserts notoriety, and in other ways looks like a legitimate article.
2. User B nominates the article for deletion (which in itself is not assuming good faith - unless there is an exception?) and questions the validity of the article.
3. User C, D and E vote on the article - all to "keep" the article.
4. User B writes a comment in the Vfd stating that "User C, D and E are sock puppets of User A"
5. User A asserts that they are not sock puppets.
6. User F, G, H, I, J, K and L all vote "delete" on the basis that there are sock puppets manipulating the vote.
7. User A, C, D and E prove that they are not sock puppets.
8. User M goes over the evidence, and states that "User B is making a false accusation of sock puppetry"
9. User N writes to say that User M is not assuming good faith that User B's comments about sock puppetry were made in good faith.
10. User M asserts that there is evidence that they are not sock puppets.
11. User B accepts that they are not sock puppets, but that they didn't know that at the time, and "just wasn't sure".
12. User O, P, Q, R all vote "delete" on the basis that they believe that the vote was influenced by sock puppetry.
13. User S asserts that the article is valid and votes "keep"
14. User B again asserts that User S is a sock puppet of User A (with no evidence)
15. User M again asks User B to prove this, and asserts that it is a false accusation made.
16. User T, the closing admin, resolves the case as "delete"

Now, I could keep going on with that one ad infinitum, but the point here is - at what point does "Assume Good Faith" come in to play?

If a user makes a false accusation of sock puppetry, then this should be pointed out, in my opinion. If a user is trying to steamroll votes and corrupt the process, then I think that an argument should be put forward to try to stop this.

Now, in my opinion, accusing someone of sock puppetry is a serious charge, and should only be made publicly with absolute evidence - for example they are using the same IP. Otherwise, I think that it should be whispered to an administrator who can then analyse the case. Such accusations are commonly used to manipulate votes.

So is accusing someone of making a false accusation of sock puppetry not assuming good faith? If it was done without evidence, I would probably agree. But when the people are all from different IPs and/or are not new users, then I suggest that it has sufficient evidence.

I could then go on and say that accusing someone of making false accusations of someone else making false accusations of sock puppetry is not assuming good faith.

Indeed, we could go on forever.

When does it stop?

Oh, and this kind of thing is obviously related to such things as the whole Wikipedia:sock puppet debate. But it also has general merit.

I was recently accused of this, by the way. I was accused of "falsely accusing another editor of falsely accusing someone else of sock puppetry". Or, to actually make it specific, I was accused of "falsely accusing another editor of falsely accusing someone else of falsely making a vote". LOL. And my response? Well, obviously, I told them that they were "falsely accusing me of falsely accusing another editor of falsely accusing someone else of falsely making a vote". I am yet to hear their response yet. I mean, there was pretty hard evidence that they were not sock puppets.

Or should I have assumed that they *woops!* accidentally made a false accusation of sock puppetry?

Or is that an exception? i.e. are people allowed to make false accusations of sock puppetry with no evidence? They asserted that they were allowed to make such false accusations, and that it is permissable for it to influence voting, and indeed that it is their God-given right to make such false accusations.

To me, the whole thing seems ridiculous. Any comments? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My God, man. Take a deep breath. This page is just laying down the notion that you shouldn't assume people are acting maliciously. Getting legalistic about it is completely missing the point.

User behavior shouldn't be the focus anyway. Rather than go back and forth about sockpuppetry, you all should have been trying to verify the article. If that's not possible, the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it should be deleted regardless of anything else. Isomorphic 04:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. The article was verifiable. It had a photo of him at a public rally attended by 10s of thousands of people, and linked to news stories about him. The debate should have been about how notable is notable enough. But it wasn't about that. The debate was instead about sock puppets. IMO that's not the right thing to be talking about. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical validation for WP:FAITH ?

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 (ISBN 0521499623)

--causa sui ^talk 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a new version?

I propose that we replace the current guideline with a new, shorter and clearer version. Zocky 01:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

Editors of Wikipedia should assume good faith from other editors. This doesn't require that they always actually believe that the other editor is acting in good faith, but rather that when dealing with other editors, they at least use the assumption of good faith as a rhetorical device, in order to avoid escalation of conflicts.

Most often, the other editor really is acting in good faith and the assumption of good faith turns out to be correct. Most disagreements are the result of misunderstanding or inexperience, rather than malice. Malicious people do exist, however. When dealing with a person who you believe to be acting in bad faith:

• Discuss their actions, not their intentions or character. Rather than explaining in detail why what they're doing is wrong, correct their mistakes and provide links to appropriate guidelines and conventions. If necessary, pretend that they are a well meaning or misguided colleague.
• Remember to write for the readership of the page, which for article talk pages is likely to include random visitors. Avoid using the word you.
• Avoid sarcasm and irony. These are hard to express in writing. Also, many editors are not native speakers of English and are likely to misunderstand you.
• Consider that replying to somebody who is not acting in good faith is unlikely to be productive. Your opinion does not count more if you repeat it more times than the other editor. You are not required to answer every comment.
• Try to get more input from other editors. If the discussion moves beyond the scope of the talk page, move it to the talk page of the appropriate article or another appropriate page. If all else fails, use conflict resolution.
• Most importantly, consider the possibility that you may be wrong about the other editor's intentions and/or about the issue under discussion.

Rationale

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)
• The shorter version is nice, but the second sentence is a little confusing. I would say that assuming good faith would mean that when you first approach any user's actions on WP you must first assume they had good intentions and not assume they didn't until you can prove otherwise. Therefore, even though you might suspect that those edits were vandalism, without evidence to the contrary, you ought to assume they were in good faith. Once you know otherwise, I don't see any reason to "pretend" you think they were in good faith, especially for long-term vandals and the like. Peyna 14:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... maybe it's not clear enough. This has nothing to do with vandalism, which is covered elsewhere. But you should pretend that POV pushers and trolls are well meaning users and you should remain civil to them, even when you don't believe they are acting in good faith. Coherent and sourced answers to concerns of POV readers are much more benefitial to the project than flamewars, which only serve to repel other editors who might want to work on an article. Zocky 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps it should be called something other than "Assume good faith" if we're just pretending to assume good faith? I guess I'm just confused by the policy. I always assumed the assumption was that without proof to the contrary you should assume that a user's edits were done in good faith. Peyna 17:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm... maybe the word "assume" is a problem. What I'm talking about is something like the presumption of innocence, where even obvious mass murderers are officially treated as presumably innocent well-meaning citizens, which both stops court proceedings from turning into shouting matches and fistfights, and helps avoid bad consequences in case of errors. Maybe we should "presume good faith"? Zocky 19:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the bullets, but I can't decide whether they really belong here. The key point of this page is that most editors really are trying to help Wikipedia, and that you should try to remember this when dealing with them. For example, writing for the readership of the page may be a good idea, but isn't it more of a general guideline for the use of talk pages? Maybe some of this should be integrated into Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, or other pages. The one sentence I don't like is "You are not required to answer stupid questions." That would be opening up an awful can of worms. Isomorphic 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I thought it made it clear enough that most people are indeed acting in good faith. Any ideas how we could make that clearer without getting long-winded? My general idea is that when people are pointed to this page (which is usually when they failed to assume good faith, because they don't believe it's there), they should be told to by default act as if they do believe it's there, both because doing otherwise is detrimental to the writing of articles, and because they may be wrong. I didn't like that sentence very much myself, so I went and toned it down. Zocky 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good. That first sentence has been bothering me, and I think you hit the nail on the head. -- gxti 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you did this because you want to shorten the article, but I would like to add something about the reasons that we assume good faith: namely:

• Most people actually are acting in good faith, even when they may appear rude or abrasive. This just means that they feel strongly about their point of view and have temporarily forgotten their manners. We should try to understand what has created this hostile evironment, rather than respond in kind.
• Even though some people are not acting in good faith, we should not assume so until absolutely certain, because assuming bad faith on the part of a well-meaning but confused editor is tremendously alienating to them and damaging to the spirit of mutual cooperation that makes Wikipedia work. In other words, sometimes we have to make a judgment against a user, but the price of being wrong is very high.
• We may have an objective obligation to treat the reasoning of other people with respect (see above). That point probably doesn't belong in the article, though. :-)

--causa sui ^talk 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image

Assume good faith/Archive 1

I introduced the wing image, hope no one minds. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is that, and what does it have to do with assuming good faith? -Willmcw 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Its two wings with 3 rings sybolising "assume good faith". I simply think the page was too empty. If you look at the WP:Bite page you will see an image based on french propoganda (German soldier biting the world) which has nothing to do with wikipedia. Symbols give the message across better.

It should not suggest wikipedians start wearing wings when walking in the streets. ;)

White wings represent everything "good" in many cultures (Western, Eastern, and even Middle-Eastern alike).

1. Angels representing all thats "good" have "pure white wings"
2. White Pigeons symbolising Peace also have white wings. Even for russians [5].

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being so dense, but how do three rings represent "assume good faith"? Is it because there are three words in that phrase? Why not three hearts? Anyway, I see five rings, including the two purple ones, along with some kind of bullseye. It's a neat logo, but it does not read "assume good faith". The image at WP:Bite, regardless of its derivation, is immediately obvious. Further, the winged logo appears to be your personal emblem rather than something designed for this purpose. -Willmcw

Can you please assume good faith? :). The page has no pictures and I find that to be a problem. Assume good failth is something hard to visualise as its more about a "concept" rather than "action".

Alright I'll "assign" values to the rings, please realise I am being creative. If you have a better way to do this feel free to suggest.

1. Let "Wings" represent Assume good faith concept and rings represent sister policies users should follow to be able to Assume good faith
2. Golden Rings (what to do):
   1. (left) Welcome newbies
   2. (center) Be bold
   3. (right) Stick to Neutral point of view
3. Purple rings (what not to do):
   1. (left) Do not assume bad faith
   2. (right) Do not commit personal attacks
4. The central Bullseye could be replaced with the circular wikipedia logo however I do not have the tools (or tallent) to do this myself. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Or... (for rings)

1. Welcome newbies
2. Be civil (core of assuming good faith and hence the center ring)
3. Stick to Neutral point of view

1. Do not commit personal attacks
2. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's the fun of an ambiguous symbol - you can pick your own meaning. Well, thanks for the contribution. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, so which one do you prefer or can you come up with something that reflects the Assume good faith/Archive 1's spirit better? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a picture of a Chevy Nova '69, since we must have something? Seriously though, this image has nothing obvious to do with assuming good faith. It should go, whether we can or can't find a better one. Zocky 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do we see this as a villan? It is symbolism.

Of course the image has nothing to do with "assumin good faith" which is a philosophical concept and philosophical concepts cannot be "pictured". But that has never stoped people from developing symbolism. It is an ambiguous symbol. It is not a symbol of a spesific religion, culture, goverment hence is not "promoting" anything else.

I already gave an elaboration how a random stranger from basicaly any part of the world would interprete the "white wings", I'll elaborate further.

1. Culturaly "white wings" have represented "good" in general. Angels for one have been pictured o have white wings paintings and church walls alike worldwide. Example: Image:Jacob-angel.jpg. I'd like to note I am not a religious person (I really dont like religion much) so as to evade confusion however one cannot deny the influence of religion on culture.
2. Religion aside white wings are also the symbol of peace even for the russians. Furthermore White flag is the only way to end the horror of brutal killing (war) adopted in international treaties.
3. In general, since white is opposite of black, it is often used with positive connotation. Many negative expressions with "black" have an equivalent positive expression with "white". For example, whitehat describes a person who is ethically opposed to the abuse of computer systems, in contrast with blackhat.
4. A Chevrolet Nova while being an awsome peice of machinary neither represents "peace" or anything "good".

The place of white wings/white in symbolism is obviosus in my view. Zocky what about the image do you not like? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite for a paragraph. You say Culturally the white wings represented "good" in general and even offer Russia as an example for how this goes beyond religion. Last time I read books, angels are spiritual beings in Abrahamic religions (and some New-Age flavours), and Russians are prevalently Christians i.e. belong to one of the Abrahamic religions. There are roughly 3.5 billion people in the world that do not profess any of these religions.

But all that aside, it is not necessary and probably even not good for all policy and guideline pages to be illustrated. People who work on an encyclopedia may almost always be assumed to be able to read. If there are specific pages that we want to illustrate, we should choose those images that add value to pages. This one doesn't, so I'll remove it. If you find a more appropriate illustration, that doesn't need 3 screens of text to describe, please feel free to add it. Zocky 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being blunt, but sounds like you are discussing your taste. I need a real concern on why not, you are welcome to disable images on your browser if you dont like images in general. This image does not need 3 screens to describe. I did not assign it a description. When propted I provided possible meanings. I can cite other policies. If you really like we can explain the image in 6 lines based on a concensus on which policies goes along with AGF closest. However in the spirit of Assuming good faith I do not believe in such an official declaration of image meaning. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Cool Cat, there doesn't seem to be a consensus in favor of this image. -Willmcw 01:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I suggested it thats good enough for people to oppose everything I suggest. They dont ever have to have a good reason. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe that I actually have to remind you here to please assume good faith. -Willmcw 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I assume good faith and place and place an image of the concept on the article, and there exists a person who removes it without bothering to give a valid excuse. Perhaps based on his taste and nothing more. That image does not pose a threat to wikipedia, hence I do not see a reason on why someone would want to oppose. I cannot assume any good faith when a large community around me doesnt. Anyways I am on a wikibreak as I will no longer put up with the nonese I am putting up with. The wikibreak will not fix anything since I lost track of the number of wikibreaks I had to take due to my stalkers as well as incidents such as snowspineer going wild. I am tired of the hostility I deal with. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to clarify some things:

1. There was no picture on the page until you added it.
2. Three people so far have expressed disagreement with the picture. Noone but you has offered it any support.
3. Wikipedia is not yours.

Zocky 07:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1. And that is a problem
2. None gave me a valid any excuse
3. Wikipedia is not yours either

   --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Nobody but you has seen this as a problem.
2. The reasons people gave you ("unnecessary", "confusing", "doesn't make sense", "utterly unillustrative") are more valid than the reason you provided ("I like it and I can come up with any number of explanations for its meaning").
3. No, Wikipedia is not mine, and that's why I'm not in the habit of reverting several other editors to get my way on pointless issues. Zocky 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont like you, I hope you dont mind. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for a picture to "symbolize" this article. If I did, that is not an image I would choose, as to me it does not symbolize anything other than perhaps an airborne military unit of some kind. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-23 T 00:02 Z

Should never assume anything

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)

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)

My comment is that the policy is fine with its existing name. -Willmcw 00:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I find it ironic that somebody who regularly jumps to conclusions all over the place suggests that other people should not make assumptions. Radiant_>|< 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Image poll

Should the image be on the page? —Ashley Y 06:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

votes are evil, dont vote for everything. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

We don't need a poll. They are evil. I have no idea what this image is supposed to be for or what relevance it has. I'm removing it. Demi ^T/_C 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

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 Cat^Talk|@ 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, and the revert war might be a good addition to WP:LAME. Rx StrangeLove 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When Assume Good Faith is not applicable

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume infallibility". Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I take exception with the opening paragraph of this article:

 As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people 
 who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this 
 weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

It is my opinion that in fact this is not true, and that Wikipedia is, in fact, "doomed from the beginning" for precisely this reason. See also: the problem with Wikipedia. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-23 T 00:12 Z

The logo is not silly

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 Cat^Talk|@ 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Does AGF extend to suspicious IP edits?

Now that there are some nice tools for scanning IP edits, does AGF extend to those edits? There's a type of vandalism associated with them: just inserting a word or two of nonsense in one or two places that can linger for months. Sometimes it's not easy to guage if such an edit is vandalism or just seemingly out of context jargon. Assume Good Faith on IP edits? —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 13:46Z

Logo

I love this logo. Can't we even have a small thumbnail of it? DigitalNinja11 07:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. — TheKMan^talk 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sounds like "no" to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is a personal attack alright and Hexagonal is definately one. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked my version better. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:42, Jan. 24, 2006

Well I dont. Geez. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Helen Keller? Is she the person best known for assuming good faith? -Will Beback 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See here. (Helen Keller writing on faith.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, does it hurt you that much to leave it there? Why can't we just agree to include it? SmokeyTheBear 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

It hurt me. I've died a little bit inside. There, are you happy? Melchoir 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

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)