Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Nutshell

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

Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph and am placing it here for further discussion if necessary. All of what this paragraph says is already stated in several other places in the introductory section of the page. ... Kenosis 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith. ... 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell

I removed the nutshellism deliberately since the full article fits on one page for many browsers and display sizes. I dislike the nutshellisms overall and see them as a band-aid for policy bloat; they contribute to that by adding another distraction to the page and a summary that rarely captures the essence of the policy any better than the opening paragraph. Since I believe the policy bloat has been largely removed from this page, the nutshellism is no longer really required even if one is willing to admit (for the sake of discourse) that it actually helps. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though the tradition has become to provide a capsulation called a nutshell. I'm not hellbent on the issue here. Appreciate the comments. Good regards to you ... Kenosis 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) ... Oh, and thanks for cleaning house there. ... Kenosis 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

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

Guideline/policy

I'm astonished to see this having a policy tag. It was a guideline for a long time. Apologies if I might have overlooked something or being lazy, but could someone of the regulars here point me to the discussion that shows consensus for having this policy? ComSpex did put a policy tag on this on May 7: [1]. But that edit laks a reference to where this was decided. --Ligulem 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know when it picked up the "policy" tag. At one point I argued against it, since this "policy" isn't something you could actually enforce, nor would it be a good idea to try. It's an underlying principle. Isomorphic 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentally buried evidence

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

Removed section on "Quotations"

I've removed the section on "Quotations" for further analysis and discussion. Personally it seems to me to be nothing but a POV magnet. Here's the removed text:

• ==Quotations==

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (unattributed aphorism from the XVI Century)

"The Master said", "Is a man not superior who, without anticipating attempts at deception or presuming acts of bad faith, is, :evertheless, the first to be aware of such behaviour?" (Analects XIV.31)

"Wise men don't need to prove their point; men who need to prove their point aren't wise." Laozi

...Kenosis 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Right move. Williamborg (Bill) 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sentance

I am wondering if this policy really needs to state the same thing twice.

". . . Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith. . . . Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."

I am thinking this only needs to be said once. Does anyone disagree?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you for calling attention to it. ... Kenosis 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find any article of "how to stop pollution"

Sockpuppet wikilink

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

Proposal to consider the removal of this paragraph from Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

The reason this should be removed is because it is a bad idea to have a core policy of "asssuming good faith" but sanction its violation based on ambiguous criteria which can be subjectively interpreted by editors according to their own POV. The policy should be to assume good faith always, no exceptions. Better to err on the side of always assuming good faith then err on the side of assuming bad faith based on ones interpretation of other peoples' edits.--CltFn 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Might this request have anything to do with User:Amenra? That is not at all practical if we had to assume good faith with everyone, including obvious vandals. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is perfectly practical, and not at all inconsistent with treating vandals appropriately. All anti-vandal actions can be undertaken with the assumption that the vandal is simply incredibly misguided, to the point that they cannot be allowed to edit the wiki. Bad faith needn't enter into it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No way. Problem users are problem users. This policy is about assuming good faith, not about being in denial about someone's motives. When someone rewords something in a biased way or changes a word from American spelling to British, we should assume that they are only trying to help and tell them what they did wrong. When they continue doing it after being told not to, we know they are doing it to be malicious. "Assume good faith always, no exceptions"?? So when someone inserts autofellatio pictures into articles I should just tell myself that they're only doing it to help and give them a gentle warning to read through our policies on vandalism? — Omegatron 01:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It's assume good faith, not assume good faith to the point of complete lunacy :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above two comments. It's never necessary to stop assuming good faith. No remedy for damaging edits involves concluding anything about another human's intentions. If someone is changing spellings, even after being warned, that does not remotely prove that they're being malicious - they might disagree with the reasons that were given to them, and they might have some incorrect ideas about how to handle disputes. Concluding malice is absolutely unnecessary. You can block someone for disruptive edits without ever deciding they meant to be disruptive. If someone is inserting autofellatio pictures into random articles, they should be warned once, maybe, and blocked quickly. We can do all of that while assuming good faith. Assuming good faith doesn't mean pussyfooting or being somehow soft. I don't know of a single instance, in any context in life, when dropping assumption of good faith is necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, how about the Willy on Wheels dude? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Willy on Wheels dude (or dudes, who knows?) is blocked on sight as a preventative measure without any reference to anybody's motivations. Whatever Willy's reasons for his activities, we can't allow them, so we block Willy. I'm pretty confident Willy believes that Willy is doing the right thing, from some perspective, but it really doesn't matter. Nobody needs to stop assuming good faith at any point. We don't need to prove malice to block someone quickly and repeatedly, we just have to establish that the project is being hurt and that we can't get them to stop otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you just shot down your own argument, whether you meant to or not :) AGF isn't about be civi or nice, it's about assuming that an editor's edits and behaviour are in good faith, unless proven otherwise (innocent until proven guilty). Such cases as Willy on Wheels are clear examples of editors who have been proven to act in bad faith. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No. If you think I shot down my own argument, read again, more carefully; I've been quite consistent. There is no need to suppose that Willy on Wheels in acting in anything but good faith. Everything we need to do to stop him vandalizing, we can do based on the assumption that he's simply misguided, or something. Concluding bad faith is never necessary, nor even helpful. You can't prove what someone's intentions were, in any situation, ever. I don't know why you think I said AGF is about being civil or nice. My argument isn't going to be "shot down", because it's the same argument Jesus, and Buddha and Confucious made, among others, and they were right too. It extends way beyond this website. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, in a way, and I don't think you're fully grasping the full implications of your words if you disagree. Allow me to elaborate: you say that assuming bad faith is bad thing - and I'd agree it is, if it's just an assumption, not backed up by evidence - because it is somehow destructive, by being uncivil or not nice. However, consider an analogy: if someone vandalizes a building IRL, they are picked up and put away by the police. If they're caught with a spray can near another building, they're very likely to be brought in again. The police officer isn't being destructive, uncivil, or mean, he or she is simply maintaining the integrity of the community. The same goes for Wikipedia and the editors who work against vandalism, and the administration who do so also. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who has vandalized in the past will vandalize again has nothing to do with concluding that they have bad intentions, simply that they're likely to vandalize again, for whatever reason. I'm not even sure what you think I'm saying, because your IRL analogy makes perfect sense to me, and is consistent with what I've been saying: it's never, ever necessary to conclude bad faith, online or IRL. We can assume good faith about convicted killers, while executing them. There is no such thing as sufficient evidence to prove that someone is acting in bad faith. I regularly block vandals, by the way, all the while assuming good faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find this difficult to understand:

“ We can assume good faith about convicted killers, while executing them. ”

Explain? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. If I'm executing a convicted killer, all I need to know is that it is necessary to remove that person from society in a permanent way, because of their past actions and likely future actions. The motivations behind those actions are utterly irrelevant. Perhaps the person believes they they are discharging God's orders by murdering others. The may firmly believe they're doing the right thing, and I don't have to believe that they're trying to do anything but the right thing, as they see it. I can assume they're simply very mistaken about what the "right thing" is, to the point that they're dangerous to have around. It's like removing a tumor - we don't have to assume malice on the part of those cancerous cells, we simply have to accept that they have to go, in a morally neutral way.

All I'm doing is attempting to take "judge not" seriously, and I see WP:AGF as an instance of that. I think it's great that we've got it as a policy here. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All of that said: let's return to the topic at hand - the paragraph in discussion. Why should it be removed, then? I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it. If we are to take your argument completely, even then all the article needs is a rewording. Thoughts? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the refocus. I've not actually said that paragraph should go, so far I've just been talking about AGF in the abstract. I realize I take the idea further than we can really require by policy. Let's see now, if we make it more descritive as opposed to prescriptive, and split the one paragraph into two...

Some Wikipedians attempt to assume good faith in all circumstances, noting that preventative measures can be taken without reference to any editor's intentions. Many Wikipedians will assume good faith only until they see behaviors such as vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying, which are taken to be evidence of bad faith. Editors are cautioned not to jump to a conclusion of another's bad faith without compelling evidence.

Assuming good faith does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

How does that look? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Why not be bold and add it? :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go. Let's see what happens. There are other paragraphs I'd like to tidy up in there, but it's advisable to edit policy pages very slowly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but yes, let's see what happens. For my part, I added emphasis to "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions" as I felt that is a particularly important point. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I, for one, will continue to assume bad faith of vandals and sockpuppeteers. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you'll do so in the best of faith. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent)I think removing common-sense from the policy is a bad idea. There are times when continuing to assume someone is making mistakes would make us incredibly stupid - at these times, its possible to discard the kid gloves and call vandals what they are. We shouldn't need to say this, but the fact that people are here arguing that this paragraph contradicts the policy assures me that we do need it. Shell ^babelfish 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you're going to cast the issue as "keeping common sense in the policy" versus "removing common sense", then one would have to be pretty wrong to support the latter, huh? Is it necessary to say that some of us don't see it that way? I'll just repeat that I block vandals regularly, all the while assuming good faith, with no kid gloves involved. Does that make me "incredibly stupid"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down and try not to make sweeping assumptions about my comment. I didn't mean to imply that every person labelled a vandal automatically loses our assumption of good faith, but there are cases, for instance User:Bonaparte where continuing to assume good faith would defy logic. This doesn't mean that we should regularly be treating anyone we disagree with poorly, only that there are extreme cases which may have to be handled differently. Most of the time the ArbCom gets to be the bad guy for us, but I don't think, in the above example, it would make much sense to punish someone for a lack of good faith if they assumed Bonaparte's sockpuppets are up to no good.Shell ^babelfish 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was trying not to make sweeping assumptions about what you wrote; I'll try harder. Please try to be careful that you don't make assumptions about what I'm saying either. For example, you say it wouldn't make sense to punish someone for a lack of good faith regarding Bonaparte. I fully agree with you - where did I ever say anything about punishing anybody? I do, however, disagree that it's necessary in Bonaparte's case to assume anything but good faith. Bonaparte may have the best of intentions, but is so badly misguided that we can't have any of those accounts unblocked.

All I'm really saying is that there is a logically consistent and reasonable way to assume good faith in all circumstances. I'm not saying that everyone has to see it that way, or that people should be punished for not thinking the way I do. I just tend to react when someone suggests that the way I think about the world (assuming good faith in Bonaparte, and all the rest) is "incredibly stupid" or "removes common-sense" or "defies logic". I think my worldview is actually quite logical and consistent, if perhaps a bit idiosyncratic. (Don't worry, I'm not offended, and I don't suppose you meant what you said in a personal or malicious way.) Please note also above that while I suggest editing the paragraph in question, I do not support simple removal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are ways to assume good faith in any circumstance and it would be admirable for everyone to emulate that behavior, I think realistically though, not everyone will do so. I like the changes you made - I don't think its harmful to explain that there are some situations in which we may want to question the actions of others, but, as you mention, this doesn't prohibit us from discussing the behavior in a civil manner and not making assumptions about their intentions. For instance, one might assume a long time vandal will vandalize again and carefully check their edits, but its possible to do so without ever making a disparaging comment against the editor or the editor's intentions and without drawing attention to your actions.

I believe one of the historical reasons for the paragraph was because people were being persecuted for a lack of good faith in cases that were extreme. It would be optimal for this policy to say never make assumptions about a person's intentions and avoid disparaging remarks entirely, but that might take a change in consensus and the way we handle troublesome accounts. Shell ^babelfish 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to write a mini-rant the other day about how ridiculous it is to assume good faith in spite of evidence to the contrary, but I see the revised wording and it looks fine to me.

I just want it to be clearly stated in this policy that there's nothing wrong with assuming malice after someone demonstrates malice. This policy has been used by malicious editors to accuse others of wrongdoing for criticizing their actions. The new wording is actually better than the old, because of the last sentence. — Omegatron 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of reversion

If we're going to have a provision for exceptions to AGF, it needs to be crystal clear. And the long standing provision...

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

...is an affirmative statement that is clear and not ambiguous. Whereas the attempt to replace it...

Some Wikipedians attempt to assume good faith in all circumstances, noting that harm-reduction measures can be taken without reference to any editor's intentions. Many Wikipedians will assume good faith only until they see behaviors such as vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying, which are taken to be evidence of bad faith. Editors are cautioned not to jump to a conclusion of another's bad faith without compelling evidence.

...is not. There is no pressing need for replacing the long standing provision with something that is less clear and more ambiguous. We should only be editing policy when necessary and to make them more clear, not less. FeloniousMonk 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's ambiguous about it. It's two clear statements of fact about how Wikipedians approach AGF, and a caution not to conclude bad faith without compelling evidence. I was attempting to make the policy more descriptive and less prescriptive, like we keep saying it is. Can you point out what's "ambiguous" in the rewritten version? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if not, then I can't help you and probably should not be altering the policy. FeloniousMonk 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what's ambiguous about it? I'm willing to refrain from altering policy; are you willing to answer a polite question? Have I done something to offend you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The only argument I see for the rewrite is that some editors want to AGF past the point of reasonable doubt, or even sane behavior. Am I missing something here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are. Arguments for the edit are: (A) make the policy more descriptive vs prescriptive and (B) remove incorrect statement that it's possible to confirm malice, (C) suggest to readers that an interpretation of AGF exists whereby one would never suspend assumption of good faith, because that's a good thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, she's not. A) it's a policy, and policies are, in this context, prescriptive by nature; B) if it is impossible to confirm malice, then our Western judical system is screwed; and c) what, Martha, is a good thing? Suspending AGF or assuming good faith in the same way many victims of con artists and schemers and hoaxsters become victims?

Besides, you argued that there was no real chage in meaning re your edit, and now clearly confirm that there is. So, I suppose I'm expected to extend AGF in the face of duplicity? Bah. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A) I'm sorry. I've read hundreds of times in discussions here that our policies are "descriptive, not prescriptive". It's like a mantra; I've heard it so much. I have gone ahead and believed that's part of the "wiki way". Is that no longer true? Was that never true? B) If you have a way of proving what someone's intentions are, congratulations. C) No, that's not what I mean. You misunderstood me.

I certainly wasn't trying to change any meaning, nor to "confirm" that I was - what are you talking about? The meaning of the policy is and has always been, "assume good faith, as long as you can", and no edit you or I make can change that. As for "I suppose I'm expected to extend AGF in the face of duplicity," I certainly never said I expected anything from you; please don't read that into my words. All I suggest is that some people don't consider duplicity a failing of faith, but of something else. Don't worry about it; I'll leave the policy alone. I was wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Flies completely in the face of "Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact." Not everyone who comes to the project comes here in good faith. In fact, a sizable number don't, so 1) policy needs to have a clear provision for dealing with them, 2) never suspending assumption of good faith is not a good thing from the perspective of dealing with them. Your changes not only make the policy less clear, according to your own words they are a significant shift in the meaning of this policy. FeloniousMonk 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"According to my own words", no they aren't. My edit was not intended to take away any provision for dealing with trolls and vandals, and as far as I'm concerned, it didn't. I'm backing down on this because I'm clearly don't have consensus support, but I don't agree that you're correctly representing my suggested edits, or that you've understood what I said. I should find a way to be clearer before I speak again. I'm sorry for wasting your time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The new wording would force us to not be able to presume use of obvious sockpuppets, not ever conclude that an editor was making edits to deliberately push a specific POV and many other problems. JoshuaZ 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldn't; there was nothing of "force" about it. It was a description of how different people think about AGF. I seem to have been quite wrong to believe that Wikipedia policies are simply descriptions of good practices. Apparently, we want laws. I'm kind of disappointed; guess I should have known better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Time out - Come on people, we should know not to edit war, especially over policy pages. FeloniousMonk, if you're going to say the edit is ambiguous, please describe how, otherwise I respectfully ask you to retract that statement. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's edit warring? I don't see any edit warring here. FeloniousMonk 22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Wizardry Dragon, I'm duly chastised, without any edit "warring". I'm seeing that people don't want to think of our policies in a less legalistic manner, and will stubbornly refuse to understand any attempt to cast them is a less prescriptive tone. I've just been told that I was "forcing" people to do this, and "expecting" people to do that, and all kinds of stuff I never would say, so I'm concluding that my ideas about Wikipedia policy are way off from the norm in a way I hadn't previously realized. As Jim62sch pointed out on my talk page, Wikipedia isn't the wiki it used to be. People want to be told that they're right to make completely unnecessary judgements about each other. (Note that policy still says that no preventative measure requires any notion of bad faith, but taking that idea seriously doesn't fly, it turns out.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The new revision is bloated and wordy. The old version is much clearer. —Centrx→talk • 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It did have the (apparent) disadvantage of reinforcing the idea from the immediately previous sentence, that all measures we take to protect the encyclopedia are utterly independent of anybody's intentions. Evidently, this isn't enough, and we need it written into policy that, when we block people, we additionally may conclude something about their motives. I find that pathological, but I seem to be in a small minority. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I let it slide the first time, not this time: if it is impossible to determine motives or to confirm malice, then our Western judical system is screwed. Capisce? •Jim62sch• 20:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no promlem accepting that the Western Judicial system is screwed. Have you ever worked in a jail? I have. The system is screwed, largely because there's too much unnecessary and harmful element of moral judgement built into the system. I consider the screwed western judicial system a primo example of what I'm trying to say here. Thanks for reminding me to underline that point.

I should note that policy still says it's unnecessary to confirm malice, in order to carry out all counter-measures. Unnecessary is different from impossible, although I personally believe both are true. Unnecessary sould be uncontroversial; impossible less so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In a certain sense, you're correct, but you're also tilting at windmills (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but not likely to be productive in our lifetimes).

In any case I was referring to the concept of Mens rea, but I couldn't remember the bloody term at the time. In both criminal and civil jurisprudence, the intent of the person must be "established" and then deliberated upon. Can we really, truly know intent? Probably not 100% (absent admission of intent by the "accused"), but our society is built on the assumption that we the people know what other people are doing and why. Wiki is really no different now that it has attracted so many editors, some of whom appear to be unintrested in in acting in the best interests of the community. •Jim62sch• 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing we do at Wikipedia - no blocks, bans, or anything else - require establishing mens rea. We simply need to establish harm to the project, that seems not to be resolvable other ways. Therefore, it is never necessary to conjecture as to any editors intentions. That's all I've been saying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say the new version reads as though we are planning to AGF past the sanity checkpoint - as FM noted, the oft quoted "suicide pact". I think this is very much a step in the Wrong Direction. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently lots of puppies think I'm checking my common sense at the door when I point out that it's never necessary to conclude bad faith, in order to carry out all counter-vandalism measures. Oh wait, longstanding policy says that too, huh... I block people regularly, all the while assuming good faith. Apparently I'm a walking contradiction, or else I'm just failing to express myself very clearly. It seems simple enough to me that one can assume good faith to the end, and yet stand up to abuse, but I must be high, or something. Where did I ever say that AGF means "lie down and get walked on", or that it means "be an idiot"? You can AGF and still defend the wiki, people! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GTB, the only problem I had with the use of "even if they're jerks" is that it's personalizing the issue and bypassing analysis of what is the more specific and perhaps identifiable nature of problem(s) presented in the interpersonal discourse being conducted in any given instance. By bypassing specific issues of interpersonal discourse, one can jump too quickly into failing to assume good faith. And attempting to reduce an issue to who's "being a jerk" in a given discussion, or even in a long series of discussions, is a way of avoiding the time, effort and thought required to form descriptions that are adequately specific to be able to work through many issues to a resolution on the merits of the issues, rather than on some kind of decision of who's being "bad". ... Kenosis 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, thanks for commenting. I'm taking a break from editing any more policy pages for a while. Anyway, the whole point of "even if they're jerks" was that none of us ever has to make that call, because even if they are, we can still assume good faith. Your point that any attempt to identify "jerks" is fautous.... that was my point with that edit. I was trying to say that, even if you think someone's a complete jerk, you can still assume good faith. I utterly failed to come across as I intended, and apparently came across as saying some ridiculous shit. Oops. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Weighing in a little bit late here, but I agree that the older version was clearer, and that the new version allowed loopholes that went well past the point of sanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that you, too, consider me insane. I'll see you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This policy is underused

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

I just clicked it and I'm already feeling it. Just read my stuff and you see the daily fights/arguments for no reason I get into.70.185.125.101 09:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)