Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 7

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 7

When to cite AGF?

For reasons addressed by Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, I think something should be added to this guideline about when to invoke and when not to invoke AGF. I have seen how counterproductive constant reminders to AGF are. My feeling is that in general, it should only be cited in response to a clear, unmistakable, and as far as is apparent, unwarranted assumption of bad faith. Short of that, other applicable guidelines could be noted which mention AGF, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and I'm sure there are others. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another relevant question is How to cite AGF. One should want to encourage collaboration rather than signal that someone is already guilty of disruption. The following formulation is proposed in Norway for children to use when reminding adults of the consequences for the environment of their behaviour: "I'm not angry, just very very disapointed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that. I think however there does come a point when someone may need to be told, preferably by a third-party, "Practice around here is to generally assume good faith. If you continue to show no hint of doing so, you will soon find yourself blocked". PSWG1920 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PSWG1920 has provided a possible way to threaten someone with a block. Such a threat should be given, if at all, only by an Administrator i.e. a person who is actually able to apply a block. It should use the active voice, and give a more specific reason than "not showing a hint of GF". Example: I warn you that I shall block you if you repeat the (name calling / inflammatory language / accusation /.... whatever) that I see in your last post (specify diff). (Signed by NAME - Administrator). The last is needed because it is not obvious who is an Administrator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that warning verbatim (I guess it was misleading to use quotes), just the general idea. My main point was that AGF should only be cited when it is very clearly violated. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this revert will not be accepted. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That revert also removed an entire section, which up to that point seemed to have silent consensus. To let you know what is going on, Ronz is the one who motivated me to create that section in the first place. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that citing AGF is generally a bad idea if you're involved in a dispute. Coming is as an outside, neutral party, and mentioning it in a non-accusatory way is probably the safest way. Otherwise, the trick is not to cite it, but to live it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 7

"Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded"

From this article on newscientist.com:

Amichai-Hamburger speculates that rather than contributing altruistically, Wikipedians take part because they struggle to express themselves in real-world social situations. "They are compensating," he suggests. "It is their way to have a voice in this world."
This is consistent with previous research on online communication, says Scott Caplan of the University of Delaware in Newark, who suspects that heavy users of sites such as Digg and Twitter may have similar characteristics. "People who prefer online social behaviour tend to have higher levels of social anxiety and lower social skills," he says.
A recent study of YouTube users also suggested that contributors - people that upload videos - have egocentric rather than altruistic motives. Users whose postings received more hits were more likely to continue uploading videos.

- Face 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Face for posting a Hamburger's speculation about 69 Israeli students. Oi vay! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlyable3 (talk o contribs) at 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamburger is stating something obvious, but nevertheless, I think it was worth mentioning. When you are interested in feeling powerful and obtaining social status instead of contributing content and helping others, you will more likely fail to assume good faith. I think it's something to keep in mind. - Face 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Face I understand the connection you observed to the subject of assuming good faith but I don't see how it relates to improving the main page. Also Hamburger in Israel sounded suspiciously un-kosher is a real person [1]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (updated)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

AGF and newcomers

I think the version reverted here made more sense than the current version and did a better job of actually Assuming Good Faith on the part of newcomers. I don't understand the revert. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit removed information, changing the meaning. This was done multiple times without relaying this in either the edit summaries or discussion.

I think it's important to prepare editors for the fact that though such behavior from newcomers should be treated with good faith, the same behavior from established editors is often considered disruptive, hence "sometimes inappropriate behavior." While we can expect newcomers to "expect immediate respect," we certainly do not respect the same behavior from established editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PSWG1920 that the 2nd sentence of that paragraph ought not assume bad faith (a demand for respect) on the part of newcomers per the discussion above, but as far as the final sentence I agree with Ronz that the bit about inappropriate behavior ought to be retained as well as the wording of the 3rd sentence. --??truthious Bandersnatch? 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the 2nd sentence is that it is an example of the type of behavior that we can expect from newcomers and is something that we shouldn't bite them over - similar to the examples in Wikipedia:Bite#Common_newcomer_errors. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the section again, the train of thought is less than clear. Perhaps the section needs a whole-sale rewrite. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz, for not simply reverting. I don't really have a problem with these deletions. In regards to discussing it further, I think this rewrite was needed because the only specific behavior which was mentioned before was the suggestion to change policy, which, even when misguided, is not in itself inappropriate. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NP. I'm concerned that the examples may not be very good, that it's becoming too long and complicated when it should be just a summary of WP:BITE, and that the new elaboration and advise at the end are getting beyond both AGF and BITE. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it will help to look at how this was stated originally. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the tone and the way much of the section is phrased at this point but I think some of the changes have gone too far; "don't question their motives", for example, is something not in the original text and seems to me to go beyond what is characterized in the rest of the guideline and in other WP policies and guidelines. So I think that the meaning expressed in the section needs to be nudged back in line with what it said previously, whether that's done by rewriting or reversion.

I also agree with Ronz that it shouldn't become a duplicate of WP:BITE and should be relatively brief. The bulleted list seems too much to me; I think all it needs to say is something approximately like "Newcomers may behave in the sorts of ways described in WP:BITE and as it states in that guideline these behaviors are unlikely to be malicious." --??truthious Bandersnatch? 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you both felt the new version was excessive, I restored the earliest version of the section and took it from there. I see now that at some point, two distinct ideas became garbled together into a sentence which made little sense, by itself or in context. That sentence was a large part of what I had been trying to fix. Looking through much earlier versions of pages can be very helpful when you notice something incoherent. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

src: www.psy.gla.ac.uk

Incorporating the idea of WP:AAGF

I'd like to get opinions on the section which was deleted here. I will point out first that that did not go nearly as far as the essay itself, which advises that AGF never be mentioned in discussion. The reality, however, is that constant reminders to "assume good faith" are generally unhelpful and insulting, and violate at least the spirit of that very tenant. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with WP:AAGF and Carbonite's Law as referenced by it. But I think that incorporating it into this page might make the guideline kind of confusing, particularly for first-time readers. I also think that including stipulations within a guideline for when the guideline itself should be mentioned or discussed starts to get kind of weird, so if any such directives were going to be specified I think it would be better for them to go in a separate guideline or policy like WP:ETIQ. (Though perhaps, alas, they're the sort of things that will need to remain in essays because of their very nature.)

I also think the important thing is to remember that this is only a guideline. It's recommending that you assume good faith, not requiring you to. When I have evidence that someone is not acting in good faith, or that some aspect of their behavior is not consistent with good faith motivations, I do not hesitate to mention that evidence and describe how it's incompatible with good faith.

As I said above, it's not like you can get banned for not assuming good faith when another editor wants you to. This guideline is not about mindcrimes or controlling people's thoughts or anything like that; it isn't prescriptive (or proscriptive, for that matter.) It's simply affirming that most of the time, people are acting in good faith, and observing that it's best for the community and for each of us as individual editors if we assume that and try not to get too suspicious of one another.--??truthious Bandersnatch? 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

src: wololo.net

Demote?

I see that in the past, AGF was demoted from policy to guideline. I would now suggest that it be further demoted to information page. I submit that "Assume good faith" is very similar to "use common sense"; while its essential meaning is clear, its application is anything but. Moreover, while it is good to do your best to follow those tenants yourself, it is rarely if ever helpful in Wikipedia to tell someone else to do either one of those things. I see a similar relationship between WP:AGF and WP:AAGF as I do between WP:COMMON and WP:NOCOMMON. There have been some attempts to promote WP:COMMON to a guideline or policy, but so far that has not happened, mainly because of the aforementioned issues. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF is a bedrock principle. It allows there to be a Wikipedian community. Demoting it from something there has community consensus to something that a lot of people buy into would be denying -- and undermining -- the existence of the community. Pi zero (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Use common sense" is also essential to the functioning of the community, yet that is currently classed as only an information page. Note that said template indicates that the page "describes communal consensus" even though it is not a policy or guideline. Now ask yourself why something which has clear community consensus is not classed as a guideline or policy. The answer, I believe, is that citing it is a problem. In one instance, telling someone to "just use common sense" is insulting because it assumes that they are not doing so. Telling someone to "assume good faith" is similarly problematic. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Pi zero, AGF is indeed a bedrock principle. Telling someone to AGF may be problematic, but that doesn't mean that AGF should be demoted. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is not "Use common sense" also a bedrock principle? Why isn't that a guideline? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that there are some major issues with this guideline, so I definitely hear what you're saying. But I think that the essential problem is that this is a poorly-crafted articulation of the principle: the guideline's spirit is a real and important part of Wikipedia but the letter of the guideline as written is IMO anemic and ineffectual in describing the actual community consensus which drives it. (Probably because it's a difficult principle to articulate.)

So I would oppose a demotion but I think it needs to be significantly changed, so I think the best thing to do is try to kick off a process of in-depth analysis to accurately describe what the problems with the policy are. The problems with it are themselves complex and difficult to articulate and hence I think cataloging and accurately describing them is an important first step before we try to achieve any remedies.

Here's some brainstorming to try to get us started:

• Literally assuming good faith is just manifestly not the way Wikipedia operates: it's quite clear that good faith is only the assumption sometimes and it's by no means the default right out of the gate. If the assumption of good faith was really where we started in respect to an editor with a clean slate, then editors would start off with admin accounts and only ever get to the point of having an account with limited capabilities after they displayed a pattern of bad faith usage of admin capabilities. But we know that if new accounts started off with the ability to, say, delete other users, that would probably be used in bad faith quite frequently. So the Project itself is not assuming good faith in this instance and in others.

This is a problem because it creates cognitive dissonance if you genuinely try to assume good faith - you know that there are at least some things you shouldn't assume good faith on. If, for example, an admin receives a request from another editor to delete an account the admin can't just assume good faith, he or she must demand concrete evidence of good faith.

• When you genuinely believe that someone is acting in bad faith this guideline immediately and directly conflicts with WP:IAR - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's the entirety of the text of the WP:IAR policy, and this is just a guideline. So it seems like it's going to be a non-starter in many of the situations where the principle is most needed.
• The guideline enjoins editors to assume that others are being responsible - but it doesn't actually enjoin anyone to be responsible. In the five pillars it does actually say "Act in good faith" but this is unlinked and it does not seem to be a topic that is really developed anywhere. It just seems obvious to me that if you know that other people are enjoined to assume you're acting in good faith, you have a responsibility to merit that assumption.

Particularly it seems obvious to me that any Wikipedian who would instruct another editor to assume good faith has an especial responsibility to actually act in good faith and I would say there's a responsibility to show good faith if you're going to demand that another assume it. (I should note that I don't actually think the guideline even as written now sanctions one editor making that demand of another, but it seems to happen all the time.)

When I added the WP:DGF section I had to use extremely watered-down language and there seemed to be opposition to anything actually stating that editors have a responsibility to act in good faith. I never figured out what the nature of the opposition was, and because I was adding it in the course of a conflict with another editor I have felt it would be improper for me to further develop that concept myself within the guideline. (Though considering that even the editor with whom I was having the dispute conceded that the final form of the text I added was valid, in that sense it seemed like a bit of an achievement.)

• As a corollary I think that there ought to be a distinction made between newbies who have never heard of or read this rule and editors who have - especially editors who are familiar enough with it that they'd demand that someone else follow it. Once one is aware that acting in good faith is expected within the WP community and how central a principle it is, I think there's an increased responsibility to act in good faith oneself, avoid acting in bad faith, and to help others to assume good faith by explicitly demonstrating it. To do anything else is adhering to the letter while ignoring the spirit.
• I think it's telling that WP:AAGF is not incorporated into the guideline and is labeled as an essay. That in and of itself indicates to me that someone familiar with WP:AGF does not have the right to assume the assumption of good faith. I think that editors need to act toward and work with others in a manner that earns a belief in their good faith. The point of this guideline is not to make it easier for anyone to intentionally act in a manner that looks like bad faith or make it so that when someone questions your motives you don't have to explain them. Nor is the idea to make it so that editors don't need to try to persuade others that they're acting in good faith.

It's endorsing an attitude that you ought to have towards others to successfully understand their motives and work with them - it's not saying anything at all about how others should treat you or saying that you deserve an unearned assumption of good faith. It's not a quid pro quo, not an exchange of favors or something: it's not proposing that other people are going to be required to assume good faith on your part because the community wants you to assume good faith on the part of others. But the guideline doesn't explain this well, it seems to me, because people often do appear to believe that some sort of quid pro quo is involved in it.

That's all I've got for now. --??truthious Bandersnatch? 13:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the numerous difficulties in laying this out are themselves a good reason to demote this to an information page. Again, this is very similar to WP:COMMON. It's essential to the functioning of the community, and the basic meaning is clear, but the application is decidedly not. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're saying, "forget a comprehensive analysis of the problems, just demote it"?

Is there any source for this "WP values whose applications are complex should be information pages rather than guidelines or policies" principle besides its extrapolation from the single example of WP:COMMON among all of the different pages labeled as information pages? It seems somewhat manufactured for this proposal, rather out of thin air I must say.

It also doesn't appear to me that your proposal has anything to do with actually addressing the lack of clarity in its application. It ought to be clarified whether it's categorized as an information page or a guideline. It seems like you aren't advancing a solution to the clarity issue but rather a way to try to avoid dealing with it.

And in fact, come to think of it, I'm not so sure that its basic meaning is very clear as you say there, at least not without a major rewrite of the page - particularly if, as it seems to me, some people interpret it as a quid pro quo or think that there's no responsibility to act with good faith yourself when it says so right in the Five Pillars.

On the whole it seems to me like it would be punting to deal with these problems by sweeping it under a procedural carpet to reduce its level of significance within the Wikipedia code of conduct. You also aren't dealing with the many fundamental differences between WP:AGF and WP:COMMON. I think AGF is mentioned in many more places in other policies than COMMON is. AGF is mentioned in the Five Pillars and COMMON is not, for example; in the Simplified ruleset the phrase "common sense" is used but not as a link to WP:COMMON - what it actually says is that all of the core guidelines and policies are essentially common sense, which would actually mean that we have quite alot of clarity and specificity in regards to what common sense is and how to apply it.

How about we try to clarify the rule and its application first, which I think is entirely possible if we go about it in a patient and methodical way, and then re-examine whether it looks like a behavioral guideline or a merely informational description? --??truthious Bandersnatch? 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

src: www.wikihow.com

Wikipedia:Assume clue

Added new essay to the links. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova your new essay "Wikipedia:Assume clue" contains only an anecdote from which the reader is expected to draw this conclusion: "Assume that maybe other people have clue, and check whether you do too." I think one could draw various conclusions about the anectdotal discussion between 2 editors but without the prompt "This page in a nutshell..." I would not have thought of that one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

src: interferencearchive.org

Diplomacy (especially Admins)

Telling people to "Assume good faith" is hardly diplomatic, something I feel that is lacking sometimes. People accused of this can react by admitting it, and are then blocked. In reality, they have never even though about peoples' motives before they get that message. The thing is that people "see red" when this sort of accusation is made. Could the person issuing such a message actually be the real culprit! Wallie (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow (and I would like to). What accusation are you referring to? An accusation of not assuming good faith? (It souns to me like an instruction, not an accusation; granted, people don't like to be told what to do.) Or, perhaps, did you mean an accusation of assuming bad faith (which is not actually implied by telling someone to assume good faith)? Pi zero (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone could not be blocked for not assuming good faith. AGF is not some sort of mental hygiene regimen that controls your thoughts, it's just a guideline for what to do when you initially encounter someone. If you look at the criteria for blocking I don't even think anyone can be blocked for not following guidelines in general, much less for not agreeing with them if you have a different interpretation of AGF from the admin in question.

People shouldn't see red when an accusation like this is made, they should probably regard it as silly and ignore it.

Another thing to note is that lots of people appear to think that bad faith can't be proven: that you can't demonstrate with diffs that someone has been deceptive or disingenuous. Well, you certainly can, and you certainly cannot be blocked for doing so.

(I mean, you can't be blocked for doing that alone, for saying such things on the basis of proof and citing others' words and actions. But if you make extremely negative or critical statements you can't back up with diffs, that could constitute a WP:Personal attack that isn't tolerated. But don't let people try to scare you into thinking they can't be criticized, if they vaguely use the word "personal" again and again without actually accusing you of making a "personal attack".) --??truthious Bandersnatch? 11:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"People shouldn't see red when an accusation like this is made, they should probably regard it as silly and ignore it." - Are you sure you are describing what people in general should do rather than your personal practice?

"[L]ots of people appear to think that bad faith can't be proven [...] Well, you certainly can [...]" - And lots of people think they are proving it when they are not doing any such thing. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing we do, including RFC, RFAR, Topic Ban, Community Ban... there is nothing we do that requires us to ever drop AGF. People are not blocked for being disingenuous; they're blocked for disruption. In order to show that someone is disruptive, no mention of their motives need ever be made. If you claim that someone is disruptive, and then go on to talk about their motives, then you make your case weaker. There is simply no good reason to ever talk about another editor's motives. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Q: Could the person issuing such a message actually be the real culprit!. A: yes sometimes it can. But I think the essay as it is catches it well: "be careful about citing this principle too aggressively". Someone mentioned above that WP:GOODFAITHing doesn't work for one part in a conflict, but is more relevant from a neutral third part. I agree 100%. Every neutral third part referring to WP:GOODFAITH should also be careful to criticise as diplomatically as possible. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the encyclopedia improved by someone accusing someone else of acting in bad faith. Therefore, I have a hard time seeing the point of such accusations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Wallie didn't imply that. And else, sometimes refering to WP:GOODFAITH doesn't work. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

src: theintercept.imgix.net

Copyright and AGF

Added a brief section based upon a confusion that arises periodically. AGF means we assume people want to comply with copyright, not that they actually have done so. Some people don't know how and make mistakes; AGF is not a substitute for proper documentation. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Nullifying statement should be removed - no such thing as evidence of lack of good faith

I propose that this part in the current revision be changed:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

The first sentence effectively nullifies this entire guideline. Anyone who feels justified in suspending AGF about someone believes that evidence of lack of good faith in the other is present. This is license to ignore this guideline in practically every situation, including when it is probably needed the most.

There is no need to ever suspend the assumption of good faith about anyone. It's much more effective and productive to always assume others are acting in good faith, but (when there is conflict) are simply mistaken, uninformed, wrong about something, or just have a different POV, and to always leave open the possibility that you might be the one missing something. This is the essence of WP:AGF, is it not? There is no need to suspend AGF even to deal with the most egregious behavior in Wikipedia. That sentence completely misses the most fundamental aspect of AGF, renders AGF to be effectively useless, and needs to go.

The second sentence makes a similar error, but is salvageable. I suggest:

Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but editors should never attribute the actions being criticised to malice, regardless of how strong the evidence may appear to be.

That is, behavior needs to be judged objectively based on how consistent it is with policy and guidelines. The true motivations of any editor can never be known, and it is always best to assume they are not malicious. That's what AGF is all about. In practice, WP:AGF means that if someone needs to be sanctioned, blocked, banned, etc., it should be entirely because of their actions, and should have nothing to do with what anyone's perceptions of their unknowable motives are.

There is simply no justification to ever assume anyone else is not acting in good faith. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead with the change and a few other related edits. For posterity, a link to this completed revision is here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored the old version. A good idea up to a point, but not really credible. If an IP address posts a death threat to the article about a high school, we do not assume it was a good faith joke. We report it to law enforcement. That's an extreme example, but there certainly are instances where good faith need not be assumed. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider in the strongest terms possible. Allow me to explain.

Show me a situation in which you believe someone has good cause to conclude someone else is not acting in good faith, and I'll show you a situation that could only improve, and certainly couldn't get worse, if good faith was assumed nonetheless.

Heck, sometimes identifying one's own motivations is challenging enough. Speculating on the motivations of others, including whether they are acting in good faith or not, especially about essentially anonymous people communicating exclusively through computers across the internet, is simply untenable.

Even in your extreme hypothetical example, there is no need to not assume good faith, and there might very well be value in assuming good faith. Assuming good faith does not mean assuming it was a good faith joke (even if they claim it was a joke). It might be a disturbed schizophrenic acting in good faith (from his perspective). In any case, assuming good faith or not, notifying law enforcement would be the right thing to do, based on the action taken without regard to the motivation, about which we can only pointlessly speculate. Death threats are not tolerated, period, regardless of motivation. There is simply no justification to ever assume anyone else is not acting in good faith.

So there is simply no upside to allowing the caveat. And the downside is immense, as it essentially renders the guideline to be useless, especially for situations in which it is probably most needed.

When we say, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" (or provide any similar caveat), we render the guideline useless, for the guideline has no practical utility in the absence of contrary evidence. That is, it's trivial to assume good faith when there is no contrary evidence. It's only when there is contrary evidence that continuing to assume good faith becomes a challenge, but that's exactly when this guideline is needed! (been there, done that)

In its present form, the guideline has little if any value, and the caveat is probably why it is often neglected so quickly in so many disputes. One side or the other comes to believe that they see evidence of lack of good faith in the other, and all hell breaks loose. I urge you to restore to the version I last edited. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In considering whether I've fully addressed Durova's concerns, I reviewed my changes and noticed that in the version I last edited, I missed something, in the following paragraph:

Violation of some policies, such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on, may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. Since there are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved, there is never a need or justification to suspend the assumption of good faith. It is much more effective and productive to always assume others are acting in good faith, but (when there is conflict) are simply mistaken, uninformed, wrong about something, or just have a different POV.

I would reword it and expand it as follows:

Violation of any policies and guidelines, including engaging in personal attacks, not assuming good faith, sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on, may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. Violation of guidelines or policy never necessarily implies bad faith, about which only pointless speculation is possible. Since there are processes for dealing with all violations, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved, there is never a need or justification to suspend the assumption of good faith. It is much more effective and productive to always assume others are acting in good faith, and, when there is a dispute or conflict, to assume the other is simply honestly mistaken, uninformed, or just has a different POV. If there isn't enough evidence in what someone has done to justify taking some action without suspending the assumption of good faith, then there simply isn't enough evidence to justify taking that action. The impossible-to-determine factor of whether someone was acting in good or bad faith should never be a consideration, as acting in good faith should always be assumed.

I believe this should address Durova's concerns, and am almost certain that this rewording, applied to the version I last edited, would go a very long way towards helping reduce the incidence of escalating conflict in disputes throughout Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Any examples of where suspending AGF is beneficial, much less needed?

I'm curious as to whether User:Durova or anyone else who oppose my proposal above to remove the guideline caveats has any (preferably) real or hypothetical examples in which suspending the assumption of good faith was somehow beneficial, or necessary, to accomplish something good for Wikipedia? Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been around for a while, and involved in a fair number of disputes, and I just can't think of any good reason to not assume everyone is always acting in good faith, no matter what they're doing. I just don't see how assuming that the reason someone is doing something is bad faith (even if it's true, which can never be known for sure unless they admit it) could ever improve any situation, but I know it will almost certainly always make it worse. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you assume bad faith at any point in time, you are obviously acting in bad faith. Assuming that people act in good faith 90% of the time, this means that if you assume bad faith at any point, you have a 90% chance of becoming the agressor/initiator in any particular negative situation. If your actions are subsequently reviewed, you will likely be sanctioned, and rightly so. This alone should be sufficient reason to never be the first to assume bad faith.

Assuming bad faith also starts a vicious circle, where both sides get nastier and nastier. Don't start the circle.

A more positive reason to assume good faith is that people tend to act the way you treat them. If you AGF towards people even if they don't deserve it, they often end up changing their behaviour, to ensure that they keep getting treated in good faith.

In the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma with unknown number of moves (a fair approximation of the agf/abf choice) the best first move is to cooperate - assume good faith. If you think of yourself as Superrational, you will also (almost) always assume good faith.

I cannot recall a single situation where suspending the (initial) assumption of good faith was ever a good idea. I know of several situations where it ended in disaster. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree that even "in the presence of contrary evidence" (evidence indicating the other appears to not be acting in good faith) the assumption of good faith should not be suspended, right? Can I take that to be an endorsement of my suggestion above to remove the "in the presence of contrary evidence" caveat language from the guideline? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you warn or try to discuss with someone several times, and they simply ignore you, that's about the time when you can start to assume bad faith, I guess. "in the presence of contrary evidence" is rather broader than that though.

I looked at your edits, I think they're fairly good. By contrast the "contrary evidence" language seems somewhat new, if you look back in page history.

Finally, I think I recall one or more people being desysopped over too-broad reading of the "contrary evidence" exception... ;-)

I think the death threat example given by Durova is a case for WP:COMMON; most edits are not like that at all. Durova (or others): are there any more common situations that I'm forgetting? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if someone continues to ignore you after you warn or discuss several times, is there any benefit or purpose to assuming bad faith? The point of my proposed changes is that suspending AGF can never do anything of benefit for Wikipedia, and will almost always only make matters worse. But I too am interested in knowing if anyone knows of situation where good came from suspending AGF. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Even if someone continues to ignore you after you warn or discuss several times, is there any benefit or purpose to assuming bad faith?"I would say at that point assumptions are a non-issue. By definition you only assume when you don't have a whole lot of actual evidence one way or the other. Also see Wikipedia:Don't go out of your way to be diplomatic. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You think you can really determine, without making assumptions, that the reason some anonymous stranger on WP you've never met continues to ignore you (or whatever) is bad faith? We're talking about judging the motivations of another human based on what they post via edits in Wikipedia. No amount of evidence is ever going to be definitive in such an endeavor, and so assumption is always required, and WP:AGF should always apply. The righteous indignation (etc.) that naturally arises when one comes to believe that he "knows" the other is not acting out of good faith -- and acts accordingly -- is exactly what WP:AGF seeks to eliminate. It is always an assumption, and I really don't think there is ever a need or a benefit to suspend it.

Wikipedia:Don't go out of your way to be diplomatic has more to do with WP:NPA than WP:AGF, and it makes a good point. But, one can easily avoid "strained politeness" without suspending AGF (in case you were saying it required ceasing to assume good faith). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific case is where for instance someone has been vandalizing or POVizing, or what have you, and has ignored any and all communications from their peers voicing their concerns (eg. at least 3 warnings). While theoretically you are still quite correct, in the end wikipedia must be pragmatic, and you do need to draw a line somewhere. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason or benefit to treating someone who has been vandalizing or POVizing as if they are doing so in bad faith. There could be a multitude of reasons for someone to do what he or she is doing, and why they are doing it (and why is what assuming good or bad faith addresses) is irrelevant. Garbage added to articles needs to be reverted. There are rules against POVizing. Users who do so repeatedly are sanctioned. Whether they are doing this stuff in good or bad faith is irrelevant and ultimately unknowable anyway. I see nothing pragmatic about drawing the line anywhere -- I just don't see how ever suspending the assumption of good faith can bring any benefit to Wikipedia. Can you? Why draw a line at all? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the "sanction"s you mention. Sooner or later you do need to stop people from doing things that apparently harm the wiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be great if there weren't "trolls", but some folks make a joke out of seeing how far they can get people to assume good faith while they're up to no good. While assuming good faith is an effective operating principle, the main goal is creating an encylopedia so if bad faith is shown then it should be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, of course we need to stop people from doing things that harm Wikipedia. I just don't see any reason to ever assume they are doing those harmful things in bad faith. Do you?

Will, are trolls necessarily acting in bad faith? Are they really trolls? How do you know in any given instance? Is there any purpose to suspending the assumption of good faith (even about suspected trolls) other than to justify taking action that otherwise would not be justified? If it's justified without suspending AGF, then there is no reason to suspend it. If a given action is not justified without suspending AGF, then don't you think that has to be a situation where more evidence is required before that action should be taken? Suspending AGF can never be beneficial, might be neutral, but is almost always harmful.

What is the effect of leaving the caveat in WP:AGF to remain other than to create a loophole-excuse for anyone and everyone to suspend AGF in their particular "special" circumstance? --20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to spend a long time to find it, but some time back Jimbo Wales said that Wikipedia's policies are not a "suicide pact". At the time, there was a plan by members of a White nationalist website to take over Wikipedia. Wales said that if our policies were too lenient then we'd change them to cope with the threat. That's consistent with the idea that we assume good faith until that assumption no longer makes sense. Frankly, this discussion seems philosophical rather than practical. How would your proposed changes affect outcomes?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I don't see how "if our policies were too lenient then we'd change them [to be less lenient] to cope with the threat" is consistent with "assume good faith until that assumption no longer makes sense". My problem is with the very idea of "that assumption no longer makes sense". Even Hitler and the 9/11 terrorists were acting in good faith (from their perspective). Whether someone is acting in good faith or not hardly matters in the real world, I don't see why it should matter in the WP world at all.

I have no interest in a purely philosophical suggestion. I honestly believe that removing the WP:AGF loophoole (which renders it pointless in the very situations where it is probably needed the most) will have a very good chance of transforming Wikipedia interactions for the better. Currently, things go south all too often, because, IMHO, people come to believe that it "no longer makes sense" to assume good faith. That's why I believe if the guideline clearly means: no matter what, yes, it does make sense, and it always make sense, to assume good faith, it will help. If another editor is doing something inappropriate, continue assuming good faith, and focus on what they are doing, and why that is inappropriate, not why they are doing it (which is unknowable), and take action accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard we've traditionally known on Wikipedia is to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It's true that some people are quick to abandon good faith on the basis of slender evidence, and that's a problem. Classic example. Editor A tells Editor B something. B checks the facts and discovers that A was incorrect, so B accuses A of lying. Well, actually there are plenty of ways to get a fact wrong without deliberately lying. A could have made a typographical error, or misremembered, etc. An assumption is the default position when there's room for doubt; rational people abandon assumptions and change their minds when they see conclusive evidence. AGF is like keeping a checklist where 'lying' is the final choice among reasonable possibilities. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Durova, yes! "Rational people abandon assumptions and change their minds when they see conclusive evidence". But the guideline does not call for conclusive evidence before abandoning AGF, and, frankly, I don't think conclusive evidence is possible to obtain with respect to determining whether some anonymous stranger you've never met in person is acting in good faith or not with respect to WP edits. So the only effect of leaving the caveat in the guideline, as far as I can tell, is to serve as an excuse/loophole for someone to prematurely (which is always since conclusive evidence is not possible) suspend AGF. I ask again, how does that caveat/loophole provide any benefit to Wikipedia? Let's remove it and see what happens, shall we? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but doesn't WP:SPI reach conclusions all the time? BLP gets violated by POV pusher, POV pusher gets blocked for 3RR, new account appears and edit wars the same POV, checkuser confirms. The first time that happens we maybe cut slack if the editor apologizes and says he doesn't know. The third time around, after promises have been broken and he's switched to AOL in a failed effort to foil the checkuser, people do reach conclusions about negative intent. "You can't stop me [expletives]; I'll just go to Starbucks! [more expletives]" Durova^Charge! 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI nor anyone else (certainly no individual editor) needs to conclude anything about whether intent in someone is negative or not. If someone has been legitimately banned, and they are getting in via a sockpuppet, then they've broken the rules. The same appropriate action can be taken, based solely on an individual's actions, without assuming bad faith. The title of this section is, Any examples of where suspending AGF is beneficial, much less needed?, and the discussion is long... do we have any such examples yet? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yet admins weigh evidence of intent when making discretionary decisions. X files a noticeboard complaint accusing Y of personal attacks. Y responds and accuses X of personal attacks. X links to a thread full of personal attacks on both sides, but X's are borderline and Y's are extreme. Then someone reads the edit history and discovers diffs where X had altered Y's posts to make them worse. Both editors have committed personal attacks. Do they both get the same block? Or does X get a longer block for deception? Durova^Charge! 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

X gets a longer block for the act of altering Y's posts, of course, but not for "bad faith". X almost certainly feels he was justified (for whatever perhaps twisted reason) in doing what he was doing. In other words, even deceptive acts are not conclusive evidence of bad faith, at least not to my understanding of bad faith. Bad faith means the person knowingly and intentionally did something harmful. To determine that, you really have to look inside that person's heart, something that is hard enough to do with oneself, much less with a stranger tethered to you only through electrons. Whether bad faith is involved in any given incident or series of incidents is never really known, and should never be relevant to how the situation is treated. Since whether another is truly acting in bad faith is never ultimately knowable and always irrelevant, how can it ever be appropriate to abandon AGF? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While it's usually unhelpful, editors often accuse others of having ulterior motives for their edits. Why just today, an editor wrote to me, BTW, you're not exactly an impartial person on this matter. Did that comment asume good faith? No, it assumed that I was acting in bad faith. Was it helpful? I don't think so, but maybe the editor in question can explain why assuming bad faith in some circumstances furthers the project.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I can assure you that the person writing that comment did not think that you were knowingly or intentionally doing something harmful (acting in bad faith), just reminding you that, because of the history involved, you're not impartial. I don't even think the person who made the derogatory comment was acting in bad faith. That is, he probably felt justified in making it, probably not even realizing how derogatory and therefore inappropriate (per WP:NPA) it was. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So saying that someone is biased or not impartial isn't an assumption of bad faith, and it isn't a personal attack either? Making negative remarks about people's views could certainly be viewed as a failure to assume good faith, because it looks at their motivations. Likewise, if we see someone committing sneaky vandalism, is it inappropriate to call it "vandalism", or should we continue to assume that it was a good faith introduction of false information? I think the current policy language is appropriately flexible to handle both situations.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that saying that someone is biased or not impartial might be an assumption of bad faith, but it's certainly not necessarily that. Even if the someone is correct, being biased or not impartial does not mean acting in bad faith.

Yes, making negative remarks about people's views could be viewed as a failure to assume good faith, but I wouldn't view it that way unless they indicated quite clearly that good faith was no longer being assumed. For example, if A writes to B, "You're intentionally doing X in order to disrupt our efforts to do Y" - that would clearly indicate that A was longer assuming good faith about B. In that case, by the way, I would encourage A to consider that perhaps B feels justified for doing X for some other reason, and regardless of the reason he's doing X, is there anything intrinsically wrong in A doing X? That's where the focus should be. This is what I believe would come much more naturally if we removed the caveat-loopholes from WP:AGF.

In the case of the redacted comment, whether the comment was made to intentionally insult is irrelevant. All that matters was whether it was derogatory. It was clearly not a complement. One might argue that it was neutral, but that's a stretch. It also puts the insulted editor in the position of having to defend himself against an inflammatory comment which completely misrepresented his position, which I assume is the reason anyone (including the insulted party) is allowed to remove derogatory comments by WP:NPA.

is it inappropriate to call it "vandalism", or should we continue to assume that it was a good faith introduction of false information?. This is something of a paradigm shift. Consider this carefully: Why even bother making the distinction? False information needs to be repaired. Anyone who repeatedly inserts false information is in violation of the rules. That's all true whether it's done in good faith or not, whether it's labeled as "vandalism" or not.

The current policy handles both, but so would the policy after incorporating the changes proposed above. If you disagree, what situation do you believe would not be handled if the proposal is adopted?. The only difference would be is that the current caveat-loophole that effectively allows anyone to suspend AGF at any time they feel justified (in other words, when WP:AGF is needed the most) would be removed. I see all upside, and no downside. How about you? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, you wrote above, "So saying that someone is biased or not impartial isn't an assumption of bad faith, and it isn't a personal attack either?". This is a quote from WP:NPA: "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". --Born2cycle (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In general, when one editor accuses another of bad faith it ought to be accompanied by evidence. And it's a very good thing for uninvolved/neutral parties to step forward and say "Could you substantiate that accusation, please, or else withdraw it?" Among perceptive Wikipedians, unsubstantiated bad faith accusations say more about the accuser than the accused. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just think it could work much better if we take it a step further. This section keeps getting longer, and there are still no examples "of where suspending AGF is beneficial". So it appears that even substantiated bad faith accusations serve no beneficial purpose to anyone, or to WP overall. The focus should be on whether the actions that comprise the substantiations are appropriate, or warrant reaction/sanction/etc. in and of themselves, never on whether they substantiate a bad faith accusation. That's ultimately unknowable, irrelevant, and serves no beneficial purpose anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Will try.

1. Threats of real world harm.
2. Blatant onsite harassment.
3. Specific declarations of malicious intent.
4. Verified offsite harassment.

The fact is, in certain instances it does serve beneficial purpose to abandon the assumption of good faith: when it protects people from actual harm. I write this as someone who actually opened an FBI case due to harassment that resulted from Wikipedia volunteer work. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've repeated myself on this same point too many times already, so this is the last time: there is no reason to abandon the assumption of good faith in order to properly deal with any of these situations. In fact, dropping the assumption of good faith will probably only make matters worse (it might not, but how on Earth can it improve anything?). For example, there is no reason to drop AGF in order to report threats to law enforcement authorities. The threat is the reason. Whether the threat was done in good faith or not is unknowable and irrelevant.

Do you believe that these matters could not be handled as effectively if the proposed changes to remove the caveat-loopholes from the guideline were adopted? If so, how and why? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is good reason: the let's AGF and assume it was just a prank shows up as a minority argument at noticeboards in situations where law enforcement actually needs to be notified. Your proposed changes would bolster those arguments, and could tip consensus into inaction in situations that have real world consequences. So of course that proposal is unacceptable. Would gladly strenghten the wording toward a more moderate compromise: there are editors who are too quick to abandon good faith, so would support strengthened wording that encourages people to ask questions and explore good faith options when doubt exist. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! A good example. Let's see if we can work towards a compromise. Perhaps the best approach is to treat such a reaction as a misapplication of WP:AGF, and something that might be handled with a notice like this:

NOTE: Assuming good faith does not mean assuming threats are necessarily harmless pranks. Threats should always be treated seriously.

The wording could be better, but you get the idea. The idea could be repeated once or twice, where appropriate, to make sure it's not missed.

Would such a modification to the proposal make it acceptable to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that Born2cycle thinks there is a need to improve the guideline because of its deficiencies as a rule (eg., talk of This is license to ignore this guideline in practically every situation). I think that, considered as a rule, AGF has no value at all, because if it is directly applied to criticise another editor's interactions, it will have very little chance of improving things. Instead, the value of the guideline is to help promote a shared understanding of what is considered to be constructive in interactions with other editors. In general, I am for being vague about the scope of the guideline, and instead saying more about why AGF is good for WP, and giving directions to guidance on how to handle difficult situations. Durova's point might suggest that the article would benefit from an "When you can't assume good faith" section. -- Charles Stewart (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles, you obviously have read my commentary. Thank you. Your comments inform me that I have not been clear about one important point. I agree that in any given instance directly applying AGF to another editor's interactions has very little chance of improving things. My concern is about its value to "promote shared understanding of what is considered to be constructive in interactions with other editors" (I love the way you worded that). It is precisely from within that "shared understanding" that I think the "[the perception of a] license to ignore this guideline in practically every situation" (especially where it is needed most) needs to be excised. Perhaps this was a poor use of the term license on my part, for I did not intend to imply at all that I was seeking for a way to apply AGF more effectively during disputes. For me, this is all about seeking a way to make AGF more influential in preventing disputes from starting in the first place.

I would like to see a proposed "When you can't assume good faith" section, and am particularly curious about what might be listed in there. I already have explained why I don't see why good faith cannot be assumed even in cases of blatant vandalism and physical threat. AGF should not in any way inhibit anyone from taking appropriate action in any situation (perhaps this should be stated explicitly in the guideline). But the basis for taking appropriate action should always be exclusively the nature of the activity at issue, not at all on one's perception of whether those actions were made "in good faith" or not. It seems to me that that gets to the essence of AGF.

The alternate interpretation, that is reflected in the current version, is that one should only assume AGF up to some vaguely defined "reasonable point" ("in the presence of contrary evidence"), and I sense that that point for most people is only slightly beyond wherever it would be for them personally in that particular (usually heated) situation if AGF were not here. That's the issue I'm trying to address. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"When you can't assume good faith" - I suggest three topics: first, when someone's out to get you beyond WP (ie., direct threats or legal action), where the point is that WP editing isn't likely to help, and could easily make things worse, and should indicate what avenues should be pursued to handle the attack; second, when your patience is exhausted, then should say something about how attacking someone's intentions isn't likely to transform the situation to one's advantage, and suggest avenues like WP:EAR; third, how to handle the aftermath when you didn't WP:AGF, eg. apologise & WP:EAR. I think this section would be more constructive (ie. more solution oriented) than the current "Dealing with bad faith" section.

Existence of "reasonable point" - a rule that says one must always AGF, regardless of circumstances, is a rule that prescribes saintliness. By not interpreting it as a rule, issues of the rule's scope ceases to be an issue.

The current guideline in places seems to reflect a fear that if we discussed frankly the nature of bad faith editing, then other editors would no longer be persuaded to follow the guideline. -- Charles Stewart (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate confuses me a bit. The policy name basically has as much clarity as can reasonably be achieved: assume good faith. Which is to say, start with the clean-slate assumption that everybody is actually striving for a neutral point of view about a particular issue. But assumptions are subject to disproof by evidence. In this case, the assumption should be maintained as long as possible, even as evidence accumulates that the assumption is false. Further, frequently even when it's reached the point that there is substantial doubt about the assumption, it's still better to act as if you believe it, because (a) you might be wrong and (b) even if you're right, it's generally not going to help to say anything. Basically, maintain the assumption unless you're willing to seek sanction for alleged misbehaviour. Disembrangler (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation about what WP:AGF should say, however I think it falls far short from discouraging abandoning good faith as compared to how you worded it here, and I have no reason to believe very many others interpret it that way. For example, the sentence, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence", seems to make it all too easy to stop assuming good faith (simply the (apparent) presence of contrary evidence is all that is required). As I said above, the effect of this guideline currently seems to merely encourage most folks to assume good faith a bit longer, but not much longer, than they would if WP:AGF did not exist. I think it can do much better, hence my proposal in the previous section. The purpose of this section is to illustrate that there really is no downside to continuing to assume good faith, even "in the (real or apparent) presence of contrary evidence". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's quite possible wording can be improved to better convey spirit and practice of the policy. Reference to "never" is I think a key Bridge Too Far, because it is so common that we do - with justification - assume Bad Faith, and act upon it (eg vandalism, topic bans, etc). I don't have time now, but I think wording based on my comment above might be more likely to gain agreement. Disembrangler (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone keeps bringing up vandalism, topic bans, etc., as if dealing with these issues requires suspending the assumption of good faith. It doesn't and I've explained why several times, though apparently not persuasively. But no one has explained why they think it is necessary to leave these loopholes in the guideline. I suspect everyone subconsciously wants to retain the right to suspend AGF when they feel it is justified - which is exactly what WP:AGF is supposed to inhibit.

You don't ever have to stop assuming anyone is acting in good faith if you focus appropriately on their behavior and edits, and address that, no matter how egregious their actions may be. That is the essence of AGF, as I see it, and what I would like to see it clearly say. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia