Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 7

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 personally don't think that anyone should ever say "you have to assume good faith!" to someone else in the course of a discussion. If an individual is genuinely acting in good faith it ought to be fairly easy for them to WP:DGF demonstrate their good faith. Telling someone that they must assume good faith (remember that this article is a guideline anyways, not a policy - it's simply a recommendation) seems to me in the least to be a punt, a cop-out to avoid having to actually demonstrate and articulate one's good faith, and at worst saying that is an attempt to conceal bad faith.

Even a third party to a dispute ought to be able to point out good-faith behavior, or at the very least hypothesize about good faith motives behind behavior, rather than simply telling either party "you must assume good faith!!!11"--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:17, 2 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)

For my part, it doesn't seem at all kosher to block someone for not assuming good faith. That seems like blocking someone for holding the wrong opinion, which seems completely antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia.

I'm not familiar with the process of blocking nor have I been involved in previous discussions of blocking, but looking at WP:BLOCK the only context in which violating guidelines or even policies is described as justification for blocking appears to be when disruption of Wikipedia is occurring. That says to me that there would need to be something other than simply expressing a belief in or making an argument for bad faith having occurred; I should think that there would need to be some sort of harassing or vandalizing or other behavior going on to justify blocking.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To give another example of what I'm saying, in the guideline WP:ETIQ the reader is urged repeatedly to "Forgive and forget." But you wouldn't block someone for failing to forgive, would you? That's kind of like what it would seem like to me, if a user was to be blocked exclusively for failing to AGF.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:14, 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)

Yes, I think Ronz ought to better explain why he or she decided that PSWG1920 was simply making a point rather than a good-faith edit. That revert appears to be in danger of being substantially ironic, since per the edit comment it appears to explicitly assume bad faith.

On the other hand, I do see that PSWG1920's edit did change the meaning of that sentence. But what he did changed verbiage that was assuming bad faith - that a newcomer's vehemence is due to a demand for respect from others - into verbiage that assumes good faith. I don't know if that should be the final form of the sentence but I'd endorse it because it's a move in the right direction - this guideline certainly ought to adhere to its own advice!--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:10, 10 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)

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 • 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)

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. --❨Ṩtruthious 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." --❨Ṩtruthious 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)

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.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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. --❨Ṩtruthious 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? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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".) --❨Ṩtruthious 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)

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)

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)

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)

Moved to Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Vote

There are swaths of political teams such as China's "50 Cent Party" whose pernicious and cloaked foray into Wikipedia articles under the auspices of "good faith" and "freedom of expression" undermine the entire philosophy of Wikipedia. What are some solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.90.55.44 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a feeling here that if you're not assuming good faith, you're assuming bad faith. Is there no gray faith? If an editor continues to make bad edits in the face of all attempts at communication should we just smile and skip along our merry way claiming "This editor is doing what they feel best for the project?". I don' think so. I may not assume they're doing something because of malice, but we have to be practical and realize in certain situations after certain concessions and attempts have been made by users to rectify a situation that if an editor is continuing to make problem edits, we shouldn't be trying to excuse their behaviour with "AGF". We need to apply a "reasonable person" test to these kinds of situations. Think about the following situation: Editor A comes to an article and creates some kind of problem with their edit, (not vandalism, just a problem, poor sourcing, bad grammar, something like that) Editor B reverts/fixes it and leaves editor A a note about the problem they've caused (possibly a template if one applies) Editor A comes back the next day and either reverts that article or introduces similar problems in another article Editor B reverts/fixes makes another attempt to communicate Editor A comes back on the third day and repeats the same scenario Editor B reverts/fixes makes another attempt to communicate

Throughout this time Editor A never responded to a message nor left an edit summary. Should we blindly excuse the behaviour of editor A indefinitely? or if this cycle is maintained does there come a point where we say "Something is not right with this editor. He might not be violating any rules, but he refuses to communicate and is creating more work for others than the amount of content he's actually adding". Nowhere in that thinking is any of his actions attributed to malice, but some people would see that as a violation of AGF. There has to be a time limit in some scenarios where we stop saying "Its okay, AGF"--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In that particular scenario, I believe that AGF certainly applies. Editor A is clearly trying to improve the project, not making any malicious edits at all. If all of his/her edits are intended to be positive, and add even a little bit of new information to the article, Editor A is certainly being constructive, helpful, and positive. Policies like the one you propose are part of the reason why many new users don't stick with Wikipedia; they are afraid of making the so-called "bad edits" that you refer to in your example, and being punished somehow (as you propose). Most new users don't understand edit logs, messages, etc..., and they may not be as skilled as more experienced users. Does that mean that they should be excluded from and restricted from participating in Wikipedia? ABarnes94 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Crossmr is probably correct, but think about what'd happen if you tell people it's sometimes OK to assume bad faith. All editors are always biased to seeing people they disagree with as worse than people others disagree with. If someone is assumed to have bad faith, other people similar will be assumed to have bad faith, but because the accusers who disagree with them are biased, they don't necessarily need to be as bad as the first person assumed to have bad faith to be assumed bad faith. Then, people similar to the new group of people assumed to have bad faith will also be assumed to have bad faith, and they also don't necessarily need to be as bad because people who accuse them are also biased. Eventually, as more and more good faith editors are assumed to have bad faith, Wikipedia would become a trust-no-one role playing game. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Read below this bitch just won the internet. Somehow through use of fancy words he can still pull off a solid troll on wiki laced in with general hubble bubble blah blah. I'm on your nuts for life person who wrote this bullshit.

I may be killing any political capital by posting this, but dammit it seemed like such a good idea.

It was dark and I was horizontal. I tend to come up with the best ideas in this situation. And then I fall asleep. I had the strategy all mapped out... contingencies, strategies, etc.

But I woke up and forgot what they were. So I'll just get to the crux of my thoughts: let's bump AGF back up to policy. There are good reasons for this, though I'm not entirely clear what they were... only that there are.

I know some of it had to do with IAR, albeit not in an immediately tangible way. IAR oldies might want to consider this proposal. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and while I wasn't horizontal (or even strictly vertical, figure that out!) I think I've got it worked out... And I say... No. I'm not sure why exactly, but I'm pretty sure no is the right answer.

On a serious note, though - there is no point in having a policy that can't possibly be enforced. No one can enforce good faith, nor the assumption of good faith, and when anyone has tried its just been trouble. Best to leave it as good advice. Nathan ^T 01:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, some of it's coming back to me! One of the elements: we have a horrible time enforcing CIVIL and NPA. Both of these are largely a result of assuming good faith only after civility has been established. If a poor communicator says something that is both A) good, and B) nasty... it's much too easy -- particularly as this remains a guideline -- to cling onto the nasty bit and ignore the good. What say you? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I'd argue that Civility and NPA is actually only enforced 50% of the time, at best.

I think if the primary use of AGF as a policy is to moderate the enforcement of other policies, then the concept should be integrated into those policies instead. Policies should really govern actions specifically; AGF strays into legislating a philosophy. It's great as advice, but not so great as law. I think we've found that laws that primarily regulate thought are unevenly, even haphazardly, applied - and vulnerable to manipulation and a great deal of subjective interpretation. Wikipedia policies aren't law, but the idea of regulating a society is essentially the same - why repeat errors here that modern societies have learned from already? Nathan ^T 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound arguments. Would you repeat that when someone tries to demote WP:CIVIL from policy to the "gamed-up" essay it really is? Or would you be afraid of the wrath of Wikipedia's most CIVIL editors? --78.34.98.119 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(@Nathan)In what ways would it be subjectively applied moreso than it is already as a guideline? I'm going to be straight out: this is purely rebranding. A policy has more weight. This is a largely dysfunctional community, one that will ignore AGF because it's merely a guideline. Being that our options are limited, could this help? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent idea: AGF should be policy again. Durova³⁴⁷ 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you'd be so kind as to expand on why? I'm still connecting my neurons :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Because it's all to easy to thwart serious discussions with rumormongering nonsense that cloaks itself in the guise of wisdom. We've all seen it: User:Sensible writes "I disagree with this proposal because of...(pertinent diffs and reasons)", then User:Gossip follows with "The real reason Sensible opposes is because because I didn't support his FAC last month." A bump back up to policy would help short-circuit that kind of thing. Adds weight when third parties respond that last month's FAC is irrelevant. Durova³⁴⁷ 01:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. If AGF were promoted to policy, then WP:AAGF should be promoted to a guideline to help prevent abuse. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Increasingly, WP:AGF seems to me to used by some naughty wikilaywerers as a virtual license to misbehave but be beyond censure by other editors. The policy would be more realistic if it had some examples of what is likely to be recognisable and taken by the community as Bad Faith. As it stands, it just reminds me of the attitude of school kids these days who know that corporal punishment has been outlawed, and so not only will they misbehave but they will taunt their teachers or other adults with cries of "you can't hit me! you can't touch me! that's assault! I'm gonna report you!" --feline1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead started very awkwardly - both these versions;

• When others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can.
• When others cast doubt on their own good faith or yours, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can.

This describes someone, weirdly, saying, "I have doubts about my own good faith", or, "I have doubts about both my own good faith and yours."

I've changed it to one of these;

• When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can.
• When you see doubt cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can.

I would suggest that the whole of the lead needs re-written. It uses a mixture of first, second & third person narrative (is "Just as one can incorrectly judge ..." third person?). I would recommend second person narrative throughout - this is an instructional piece. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above.

At present the first sentence;

• Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is assumed that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith.

This reads as telling you what the effects of the principle are, not what the principle is.

So in an attempt to stop the slight jarring with the rest of the lead's second person narrative I'm changing this to;

• Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith.

Which simply states the principle.

I think the simple statement of the principle is better anyway, and would justify this change on it's own. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence.

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

I find the above, all that I can find in the guidelines on the subject, to be highly unsatisfactory. First of all, the record is quite clear that administrators are highly resistant to seeing bad faith behavior when it happens, and prefer to label reports of it as "uncivil," "a personal attack," anything but consider it possible that someone would willfully be obstructive, lie, etc., and deal with it. Perhaps the worst example was a situation relevant to The Green Hornet. In discussing the title character's relationship to The Lone Ranger, an unregistered and therefore anonymous IP continuously changed the character name Dan Reid to Andy Reid, and made a Wikilink of it. That led to an article on a football player and coach born in 1958, by which time the two titular radio series were both defunct, as was the TV series version of the Western character. As it continued after the clearest possible descriptions of the problem were made by various editors in various edit summaries, it quite clearly and quickly became obvious (to us rank-&-file editors working sincerely on the article, anyway) that it was willful. At one point, when I was the only one still dealing with it, the IP started calling me a vandal, and eventually placed a "Final vandalism" warning—with neither of the two preliminary ones having been made—on my talk page, with an appropriate administrator's signature forged to it! I checked the guidelines for ways of dealing with this, and found nothing but "open a discussion on the other editor's talk page." There were two problems with this: As an anonymous and unregistered IP whose number changes every few weeks, he had no genuine talk page, and obviously the jerk was not open to discussing anything with me. I put up a help request post, describing the situation in detail and asking for alternatives, but the response I received was to open a discussion on his talk page! Subsequently, some (other?) administrator just happened to correct the same vandalic edit, received similar response/treatment from the vandal, and after going back and forth several times blocked him. Whether the jerk failed to realize that the block would last only until his IP number changed or decided he had pushed that one far enough, I don't know, obviously, but that particular edit has not been tried again. As I said, this is more extreme but the fact is that clear evidence of willful misconduct to the detriment of the encyclopedia has been dismissed by administrators regularly, and attempts to report have been criticized as personal attacks and refused on the grounds of having taken it to the wrong place. The latter has been done only when their denials of the situation constituting bad faith behavior had been utterly refuted, but that should—and if true would—have been said at the outset. This resistance is obvious to many, and encourages those of less than completely ethical minds to commit such acts, as they know full well that nothing will be done to them for it. This is why Wikipedia has a widespread reputation of being completely unreliable and untrustworthy. Until this attitude (which is in fact common to most administrators and moderators on the internet, and consequently bad faith behavior is common on most sites and discussion forums) changes, and editing is restricted to registered, etc., editors, the bad reputation will endure.

Bottom line: I have a clear instance of bad behavior to report, and as the above does not flatly prohibit doing so, I want to know where said report should be filed. Thank you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More than ten days and no response whatsoever. Is it because my straight to the point request left you people no room to evade the point? You had to either point me to the place to file such a report or flatly admit that you want no such behavior reported, and while the latter is the truth something (probably legal counsel) prohibits saying so, right? --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. You can report misconduct by another user at WP:WQA. Please see the instructions on that page. You are more likely to get consideration if you provide a short neutral summary of the situation showing diffs for any claims you make. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I started out by pointing to passages that I found "highly unsatisfactory" and explained why. As for WP:QA, by its stated rules it is totally not what I asked for, would be of no help whatsoever. I have an editor who cares about nothing but keeping the edits he committed himself to in place and will twist and distort or ignore anything I say as to the reality of the situation. I need something that will be binding, that will force him to leave the correct edit in place no matter how much it offends his ego. And no venue for settling disputes will acknowledge anything but both sides being willing to genuinely discuss the problem, or be forcibly binding. Hence, Wikipedia has a major credibility problem outside. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It has now been twenty days, and the only response was patently inappropriate. My tenth-day post seems to stand. Not good. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Even though you were dealing with an unregistered IP user — and someone who most likely would not have paid any attention to anything you might have tried to say to him — it would still have been advisable to post a comment about his misbehaviour on the IP address's talk page anyway. This would have provided a useful record of the ongoing incident for other people to see, in case there were a continuing pattern of abuse. Further, with such a warning in place, the offender could not possibly say later that he had been ignorant of proper procedure and would gladly have acted differently if only someone had explained the situation to him. Being able to say "you (the IP-anon) were responsible for seeing the warnings that were posted on the talk page of the IP address you were using, and we won't allow you to claim ignorance" — or even "we tried to contact you in the only possible way, and yet you kept on doing your bad stuff despite having been warned" — is considered a better approach here than "we didn't bother trying to warn you because there was no reliable way to contact you and we figured you probably wouldn't have listened anyway". And the amount of effort required to post that warning to the IP address's talk page — even if ultimately futile — would probably have been less than the effort you've expended since then, trying (in vain) to argue that it's not reasonable to expect people to warn IP-anons about their misdeeds. The next time something like this happens, please take a couple of minutes to post that warning. Richwales (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are under-describing the situation. First, as an anonymous IP—a number that by definition changes every few weeks—this person did not genuinely have a talk page of his/her own (which I said previously here), a post from me would not have been a usable, let alone "useful record," and there was no "probably" about his/her ignoring it. Second, his/her having forged an administrator's signature to an improper and unjustified "final vandalism warning" on my talk page (the irrefutable proof that a talk page post from me would have been at best futile, if not a provocation of further abusive behavior) was enough of a useful record against any defense of any kind. However, I see that you are not an administrator (but would like to be one), so will leave it at this, as it is my desire to get administration to deal with reality as it actually exists, for the good of the encyclopedia. --Tbrittreid (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, there's nothing you can do. At least, nothing that you're going to find emotionally satisfying. I think you have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is, the way you're counting off the days since you posted your message. There isn't any general "administration" - people who are called admins simply have user accounts with extra abilities that others don't have. They don't have any authority or responsibilities, just power.

Wikipedia is the Wild West and the people with admin accounts are essentially the ones who have guns. Fortunately many of the people with guns consider themselves to be sheriffs and try to do right in the world and settle quarrels and administer frontier justice when something happens right in front of their face, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it isn't a cohesive system where anybody tries to police and control all the behaviors of others. If your neighbor lets his dog bark all night and spits in your eye when you ask him to quiet it down there's no one to "register a noise complaint" with, you aren't going to get anywhere. If someone is sneaky enough they can do all sorts of bad things and they're going to get away with it. All you can do is revert them when you see them doing it and correct errors in the encyclopedia when you come across them and they can keep kicking over your sandcastles if they want to.

If you want to change Wikipedia fundamentally because you think you can make it work better or produce a better encyclopedia with the same resources you probably wouldn't get anywhere strictly through persuasion. You would probably have to set up a completely different encyclopedia project and web site as a test run and prove that your new system works better. But so far no one has done that convincingly. (And whatever your ideas are, realistically they have probably already been tried on one of the many Wikipedia-clones and Wikipedia-alternatives out there.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All of which boils down to: Wikipedia is an untrustworthy pile of **** and always will be, with anybody serious about making a good encyclopedia here just wasting their time. I hope that's not true at all. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you definitely should never believe something just because you read it on Wikipedia. You should always check the sources. I think that the major distinguishing thing about Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia where you actually can check the sources; if you want to call that a "pile of ****" be my guest. But I don't see why you want to contribute to it at all in the first place if you've found it to be of such poor quality or why you're so worked up about it.

Just use another encyclopedia, there are tons of them out there - even like I said, tons of Wikipedia alternatives that you can edit yourself, including ones based on the same software where it's much easier to become an admin if having those sorts of abilities would make you feel better. You can even copy anything you want from Wikipedia right on to another web site and change it to suit your preferences as long as you follow the Terms of Use - so none of the work you've been doing is lost, you can move what you've been working on straight into another encyclopedia or web site and keep working on it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My last word on this is here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least he got the last word. ☺ --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

= Violator! Desecrater!!! turn around and meet the hater!

How does "If you get a warning and then you get another one, it goes to the next level, even if it was for something different." violate the spirit of the project and WP:AGF? Keyboard mouse (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Who says it does? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see something along the following lines added to this guideline:

• Improvement of an article can take place at any time. An editor's failure to offer new sources or other material for an article at some earlier time is not, by itself, indicative of an intention to damage the article by withholding material which might have been useful. In particular, if an editor nominates an article for deletion and later (after the AFD has failed and the article is kept) offers new sources or other material to improve the article which he had originally proposed to have deleted, it is generally not appropriate to suggest that the editor's failure to find or offer the new material earlier was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the article and increase its chances of being deleted.

I've seen this line of argument made a few times, and I don't believe it's proper, and I'd like to see something explicitly discouraging it in the future. Comments? Richwales (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying seems too specific to me, particularly because I have observed a number of situations in which, taken along with the editor's other behaviors, an attempted deletion does appear to have been somewhat malicious. This project page should not be seen as papering over or denying that possibility, I think. And of course there are people who are inclined towards deletion and are often simply mistaken or didn't really read the article too carefully before they made a nomination and are, shall we say, a bit reluctant to admit that and admit that they came close to effectively destroying a big chunk of another editor's or editors' invested time; which isn't bad faith in and of itself of course but we shouldn't be using policy to shield them from criticism or save face for them, I don't think. Better maybe to just say something simpler like

• Remember that deletion of some articles at some times is an important part of improving Wikipedia. In general it should be assumed that an editor's nomination of an article for deletion was made in good faith. In some cases it may simply be the case that the editor's initial impression of the article or the article's subject was incorrect or incomplete and she may acknowledge this by later helping in providing material and citations. Past disagreements of this sort are best put aside to focus on the improvement of the encyclopedia.

And we could put a link directly to that paragraph so that it can be easily cited when a disagreement gets to the point where accusations of the sort you mention are made. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I like your version better than my original idea — especially the last sentence. Richwales (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary:Veto of updates by any person removes good faith additions, as well as vandalism. Wikipedia needs tools to show who is "controlling the message". Harness required webforms, counts of links and words deleted, and use Community voting to keep UNDOers Honest. VETO particularly when combined with vague policy violation labels, and stonewalling, does not assume good faith in the very structure of Wikipedia. Asking the users to "assume good faith" is not going to fix this design flaw in Wikipedia.

Every user has veto power to remove anything recently added they don't like. If the newer editor disagrees three times in 24 hours, they get banned for edit warring. Fighting flagrant vandalism such as out of context grafitti, profanity, and "Hi Mom!"'s and other defacing actions probably requires a swift mechanism. We have UNDO (and synonyms like REVERT) under the article's "Page History". (Each time I use the word undo, I mean all similar reversion verbs as well.)

But any "good faith" addition or update that is disliked by any single attentive user can simply be "vetoed" and deleted through the UNDO. This greatly encourages "vetoers" to decry any "good faith" additions as "vandalism." The fall backs are apparently decrying "unsourced" or "not enough references or citations" in new content, even if the old content is unsourced or already has a specific bias or major holes in the article, such as a lack of definition of the topic. The most striking examples of serious political disputes are over what Neutral Point Of View is. Original Research excuse is also widely used. UNDOers sometimes use vague labels in the Page History to dispose of large or significant changes, and do not follow up this VETO with talk or more specific labeling of "problematic" portions of text added in good faith. Some articles are not neutral, but appear neutral. If an existing article has subtle wording to appear neutral, but serve a specific agenda, the VETO of "good faith updates" with UNDO, becomes too powerful.

UNDOers need to specify with with a forced web form (not a just a vague opt-in summary) what is wrong, and the community needs to be able to vote if this UNDOer is reporting accurately. We need to be able to quickly review which words and links are being deleted from an article, and which user is deleting, and how often. UNDOers need to specify "Nonsense Grafitti" or "Disagree with good faith edit".

UNDOing "Nonsense Graffiti" must be fast, easy, and reviewable by the community. If a "nonsense graffiti" edit has a link added, the UNDOer must be forced specify "All links supported graffiti, not spam and not good faith" or specify which links were commercial SPAM.

The "Disagree with Good Faith Edit" must have drop down labels for which policy the UNDOer is using to delete the good faith edit, and which portion of the text violates that Wikipedia 'policy'. The UNDOer must text edit (in the same transaction) the words of the recent text that they believe is contrary to a policy. This updated text markup must be saved to the article before the same user can UNDO to a previous update. The community can then remove the undo and use newly marked up text instead.

The community must be able to vote on several questions. If the UNDO was helpful. If "graffiti" vs "disagree" was accurately categorized. If the text markup and policy spotting was accurate. If the intensity of UNDOer was accurate. If the link really was Spam. Community votes should be agree and disagree with intensity. So a drop down box with plain English, "strongly disagree with undo", disagree, mildly disagree, mildly agree, agree, strongly agree, (-3,-2,-1,+1,+2,+3, on the backside). In a disagreement over policy, the community voter needs to specify in the text with their own policy.

We need sortable list of counts all words deleted in an article due to nonsense graffiti by each user in article. We need three sortable lists (Wikipedia links, external links, spam links) of counts of all links deleted due to nonsense graffiti by each user in an article. We need three lists "disagree with good faith edit", overwrites, and these combined, of sortable list of counts of all words deleted by each user in an article, and who most frequently added the word deleted by the deleter. We need concordances of words deleted, and links deleted, the counts of each deleted, compared with current version, and who deleted a word the most, and who added the word the most. We need to be able to detect for each user, the controversy level of that editor. Controversy is not bad, it just means that their is disagreement. Tabulating votes meaningfully is complex. The number of people voting is one number that matters. How polarized the voting is, is very important. We need to let users easily see a deleters history from the page history. How many times has a user undone claiming nonsense graffiti? How many times was that heavily voted on? How polarized was the voting? Even what the average was? The same is true of "Disagree with good faith edit" UNDO. We need to know how many words and how many links an individual user deleted. If a user is the most active deleter, it becomes much simpler to review their honesty and accuracy in deletion. We need to know who is adding the most citations (not yet deleted) in extant articles, because these people are adding the most value to Wikipedia. Perhaps we could also have tools to determine how quickly people are deleting "graffiti" and how quickly people are deleting "good faith edits". Perhaps in the future, we could learn how much time is being deleted by each user.

People who use the extraordinary power of UNDO, must be held accountable when they are poisoning the well of Wikipedia. Npendleton (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly told what it wrong with your edits. All you have to do is to cite reliable secondary sources. The edits as written are irredeemable, because they appear to be original research or personal interpretation of the US Constitution. If you are really editing in good faith, then you will find the necessary secondary sources and rewrite the material so that it conforms to and is supported by those sources. I note that you have been previously blocked for making additions to articles that did not conform to either our reliable sourcing or neutral point of view policies. You are now approaching the point at which you may be blocked for disruption. Is that what you want? Yworo (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)