Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Faith and verification

I have seen, on more than one occasion, an editor citing "assume good faith" when another reader asks for help verifying a citation. This is to say that AGF—the behavioral guideline for assuming that others mean well and are not acting maliciously—is confused with simple "trust but verify" verification requests. So while we assume that editors add citations to the best of their ability (and mean well), AGF doesn't mean that we abdicate verifiability, especially when the editor has the source material... I think it would be worth clarifying this in the guideline, if only in a sentence. czar 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I agree: I would say that AGF should not extend to assuming any form of content is accurate without evidence. I'm not sure where this could be added, though. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of AGF in AfDs

Related to the above: several times now, I have seen arguments in AfD discussions that go like this: "There's a source of this article, but it's print/behind a paywall, so we have to AGF that it demonstrates the notability of the subject". I would like to add a statement to this guideline making it clear that this an incorrect application of AGF. The only good-faith assumption one can make about an inaccessible source is that it supports some statement in the article, not that it demonstrates notability (i.e., by being independent and offering significant coverage), unless the editor who added that source explicitly stated such. I propose to add a subsection to "About good faith", as follows:

@Czar and Rubbish computer

Good faith and inaccessible sources

When an editor has added a source to an article, they are implicitly asserting that the source supports one or more statements in the article, which may be indicated with inline citations. Unless explicitly stated, the act of adding a source does not imply an assertion that the source meets criteria of the general notability guideline; i.e., that it is independent of the subject and offers significant coverage of the subject. Assuming good faith in this case means assuming that sources support the statements they are claimed to support (though that is still subject to requests for verification). It does not entail assuming that sources meet criteria which the editor adding the source has not asserted they meet.

—swpb^T 18:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

After nine days without comment; I'm adding this to the page under WP:BOLD. —swpb^T 17:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry,you have to seek a broader consensus on that, not just ping one or two colleagues, who may be busy in real life or don't care. This is your interpretation which I disagree in many respects. For starters, I fail to see which kind of serious problem it tries to resolve which would deserve a separate section. Also I disagree with your interpretation of you AfD case. In AfD we cannot AGF nothing like that. It is a burden of the person who adds information to make sure it satisfies all wikipedia rules. We assume GF up to the point when something is contested. From that point on, the contested issue must be resolved by arguments, not by trust in wikipedians we do not. Yes, we AGF even up to the point of innocent mistake, which may include misinterpretation of notability, reliability, and what's not. This guideline is a generic polite way to resolve conflicts by not turning natural human error-prone nature into a drama. We don't have to write a separate rule for each and every possible accidental misinterpretation of our guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Nine days is more than long enough when no one says anything: we'll obviously have to have a discussion now that you've objected, but I completely and vehemently reject the implication that I did anything wrong by BOLDing after more than a week of silence; that is exactly what WP:BOLD and WP:BRD would have me do. Now, to your actual, valid content concern: This really does come up in AfDs all the time; enough, IMO, to warrant mentioning here (unlike "each and every possible accidental misinterpretation"). To your other concern: I'm totally fine with saying don't AGF that a source supports article content; the important point is, really don't AGF that a source meets GNG. If you want to counter-propose some text that would make that clearer, it would be appreciated. —swpb^T 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that you did something wrong. I say you could have done a bit better.

I dispute with equal vehemence that I could have done anything better. I handled the proposal exactly as it should have been handled. —swpb^T 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

re "does come up at AfDs" - May be I am stupid, but I fail to see how this may influence validity arguments in deletion besides poisoning the discussion. Please give a sample scenario to show why this is special. People accuse each other of bad faith all the time. If anything of really-really frequent AGF failure is accusations in vandalism, but we don't have a separate section about this, do we? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Staszek Lem. Also, I've seen people fake sources on this site. If I have even the slightest reason to believe that the source does not support the content in part or in full, I am going to make that suspicion known. And I don't think that doing so should be considered a violation of the assume good faith guideline. I'm not sure what you mean by the source meeting the "criteria of the general notability guideline"; sources and their authors don't have to be notable. The notability guideline is about creating articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand: I'm not saying sources or authors need to be notable, or anything remotely like that. I'm saying that people use AGF to claim that, because a source is present, it contributes to establishing that the article meets GNG, which is a misuse of AGF. Like I told Lem, I'm not asking for any statement about how AGF applies to whether a source supports content, I'm only interested in stating that AGF does not support the leap from "a source is present" to "the source, by its mere presence, supports the case that the article meets GNG". Please take a look at this revised, shortened text and see if it makes more sense to you:

The act of adding a source does not imply an assertion that the source supports a case that the article meets the general notability guideline; i.e., that the source is reliable, independent of the subject, and offers significant coverage of the subject. Assuming good faith does not entail assuming that sources meet criteria which the editor adding the source has not explicitly asserted they meet.

—swpb^T 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To editor Flyer22 Reborn: If you have a chance, I'd appreciate you considering the above revision. —swpb^T 21:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you've clarified, I guess I don't object. One editor above does, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

AGF and Copyrights

A fail to see why this section is necessary. The whole text is applicable to each and every rule. For example, about citing your sources:

"When dealing with possible WP:RS violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have an obligation to provide adequate references, and material may be deleted if the references are inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices."

Unless there is a solid evidence of AGF-based civility conflicts due to copyrights, I move to delete this section as pointless instruction creep. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC: A common abuse of AGF in AfDs

The consensus is against including the proposed text in the guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Czar and Rubbish computer (see #Faith and verification above)

There is a fairly frequent argument in AfD discussions that goes like this: "There's a source of this article, but it's print/behind a paywall, so we have to AGF that it demonstrates the notability of the subject". I would like to add the following statement to this guideline, at the bottom of the section "About good faith", making it clear that this an incorrect application of AGF. —swpb^T 16:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Good faith and inaccessible sources

The act of adding a source does not imply an assertion that the source supports a case that the article meets the general notability guideline; i.e., that the source is reliable, independent of the subject, and offers significant coverage of the subject. Assuming good faith does not entail assuming that sources meet criteria which the editor adding the source has not explicitly asserted they meet.

Comments

• To elaborate on what I said above, yes, there is a confusion that AGF means "take claimants at their word" instead of "assume good intentions". As part of the fallible editing process, editors (including myself) have interpreted and paraphrased sources incorrectly. We're closer to trust-but-verify in this way—in the spirit of verifiability, I try to make scans of offline sources available for verification purposes when requested by fellow editors. Imagine the implications otherwise. For example, I quote an offline source and no one checks the ref or feels that they can ask → no one catches my error in interpretation. Another example: I cite a pull quote from an Amazon page as proof that the item was reviewed in some specific journal → if no one checks the actual source, we're believing an unreliable source rather than the actual material. We have a good precedent in giving other editors good faith and the benefit of the doubt in at least not assuming malice on their behalf. But we would be quite lost if we "assumed on faith" that other editors are beyond reproach and that their due diligence is the final word, or something that should go unchecked.  czar 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So that's a support? This is a different issue from "trust-but-verify that a source supports given content". In this case, there is no claim, even an implicit one, for AGF to adhere to; this isn't about whether a source supports adjacent content (which would be expected), but whether it counts toward GNG, which individual sources are not required or expected to do. We could add language about the relationship between inaccessible sources and content, but I'm primarily interested in the first point: that the mere presence of a source does not imply notability under AGF. This is an "it shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it does." —swpb^T 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support This seems reasonable. This policy is about the intentions of editors, not the veracity of their claims. While I don't really like the need to insert this, it clearly exists, so... Tamwin (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I have come across fake reference hundreds of times. Some article creators, especially those who have a COI (paid advocates, other spammers, rappers) assume no one is ever going to check up on the veracity of the sources. Particularly barrel-scraping source-bombers who think it will take too much time and trouble for anyone to check them all.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• strong oppose - instruction creep. If the source is inaccessible and there is a doubt about anything the source is claimed to say, WP:V requires that the person who added it (or whoever else) provide a quotation to prove it says whatever it says. We can assume AGF on anything up until the moment something is challenged. The editor acting in good faith may mess up almost everything. AGF is a behavioral guideline to prevent bitter fights upon honest accidental mistakes, but it is not the content guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose instruction creep, because it's unrelated to this guideline, and because the rationale for adding this language seems to be a support for deleting articles at AfD when the available sources are paywalled, which runs against WP:V (there's no requirements that all readers can access a source, only than some can; it's no different from an offline reference). As Staszek Lem stated, the proper procedure in AfDs would be to request someone to quote the most relevant portions of the article (which should be clear fair use). If there is no one who can access the source at that particular time, the AfD should be paused until someone can do it later; we are not in a rush. Diego (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose  I don't see any examples of the problem, so it is not possible to review the underlying issue.  The fact that sources don't in and of themselves speak to WP:GNG doesn't change any evidence that they do speak to WP:GNG.  So this text would only be used to note that we don't assume that all sources contribute to WP:GNG, which is irrelevant in a context in which there is evidence that a source does contribute to WP:GNG, and is unhelpful anyway because we already know that not all sources in an article contribute to WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with other editors that this becomes instruction creep. And it really just seems to me to be a case of imprecise choice of words. If someone disagrees with the paywall argument in a particular discussion, it's not like they are going to be taken to ANI for an AGF violation (at least not successfully). As noted, just ask someone with source access to provide a quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree with the sentiment AGF can get misued in this instance (that's for editor actions, not sources), there isn't a concise why to codify against it, and it does appear to be unneeded instruction creep. If someone asks for a quote from someone who does have access, and they simply respond by saying please AGF, that isn't valid in any AfD discussion. We already have WP:PAYWALL, which is policy. If there is a reasonable suspicion that the source does not support the content (or a question of notability for AfD), then a quote should be provided from the source for talk page discussions. If someone really wants to curtail misuse of AGF here, paywalled/inaccessible sources would be better addressed at WP:V or WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Clear instruction creep. While I can understand the reasoning, I think it is misplaced. Assuming good faith is a criteria found in the fundamental principles of Wikipedia under Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received "significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". If there is only one source, behind a paywall or not, there is a good chance notability is in question. If content related then such content may not conform to a neutral point of view, or other policies and guidelines. Even some community supported essays might carry weight. An error in judgement can certainly be made in good faith, and we can all make errors without malice, so questioning notability, or article content, does not in any way breach good faith as long as there is civility. Wikipedia has many dispute resolution procedures already in place. Concerning GNG; remember, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". This, as well as article content, is governed by consensus and BLP's are scrutinized more carefully. Otr500 (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While we can all (mostly) agree that this is something that should not be done, i.e. using AGF to defend inclusion of an article with inaccessible sources by GNG—it's also important not to bloat the AGF page with every possible case to which it does and does not apply. I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception for this specific case. I believe the proper procedure would be to inform users that this argument is a misapplication of AGF. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment from 101ramsumer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Sir,

Why have you stated that pasi caste occupation is pig rearing. In India whereas different states has different types of pasi caste. As I am kayasth pasi caste, it means I have also in occupation in pig rearing. What have modified in my pasi caste page is correct and hence delete the humiliating word of pig rearing with immediate effect. Who has given you evidence that all pasi caste is untouchable. How many proof you want about pasi caste. Pasi caste were of royal clone in old age and were emperor of a particular region. Maharaja Bijalee pasi KILA is exist just can see as evidence. Maharaj Lakhan pasi had established which is now capital of UP. and many more like this. At old age because of Muslim assailant on Hindu caste they safe life to rear the untouchable pets at home. Now these habits have been stopped. So I request you delete the unwanted word that humiliate the my pasi caste.

Regards 101ramsumer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101ramsumer (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deformed

In the section Accusing others of bad faith, what is the meaning of the last part of the sentence, "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit", i.e. the part that refers to "the deformed, resultant edit". The use of the word "deformed" here is especially unclear to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This came from this edit in 2013. I agree that this addition serves no purpose and clearly was not discussed. Reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "adding original research" usually or even frequently a "mistake"?

I know that the "such as" means we are not saying everyone occasionally adds original research, but wouldn't some other example that is more likely to be a good-faith mistake, like "misreading a source" be better? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Idk Savageboii4774 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: make AGF a policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should "assume good faith" be made a policy? ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 01:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Rationale

Assumining good faith is a central tenet of the encyclopedia. Without it, none of the project could really function. A view expressed when this page was demoted to a guideline was that editors can't force good faith on people, but we do this every day. We remind editors to AGF when (as the original 2004 revision puts it) the edit war gets hot.

Similar to WP:IAR, this guideline tells editors to AGF within reason. Replacing the picture in Donald Trump's infobox with a picture of Hitler is a funny joke, but because the editor was (according to any reasonable person) acting in bad faith, we don't AGF.

Some editors claim that AGF is fine as a guideline, but by upgrading to a policy it would remove any doubts about its applicability.

To conclude, by making AGF a policy, I believe that it would help editor interactions without causing harm. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 01:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support

1. As proposer. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Certain aspects related to dealing with people who cuss out making accusations when there's barely a significant issue, such as over minor qualms, should be disciplined by an Admin. Those aren't things that involve "mind reading" or other unenforceable things. Such as my case over here [1]. Despite my attempt to cite WP:UNCIVIL and WP:IUC, which recommends requesting the person who swear to strikeout his comment, or to resort to an Admin to take action; nothing was done about it. DA1 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. AGF is important, but its largely a question of good judgement. Trying to enforce AGF as a policy strikes me as more likely to cause drama then reduce it. Making it a policy would disregard the very good advice from WP:PACT. Monty₈₄₅ 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Unenforceable. For a third person to decide whether someone is acting under AGF requires either reading one's mind or having AGF themselves. Either way this is straight into a battleground. I.e., AGF is valuable basically as a self-discipline, and every person may have a different view on a particular case: e.g., a "drive-by" wiki-peace officer may see is as bad AGF, but a person who sits deep into it may see a slow-churning trolling. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
3. It's nice as a general goal, but terrible as a prescriptive policy. For example, It would make illegal most of the activities of arbcon and many of admins, plus most of those of the noticeboards, which basically involve assessing a situation rather than a requirement to "assume" something which is contrary to the evidence. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

   The requirement is not to assume. The requirement is that assumptions, when made, give the benefit of the doubt. The presence of evidence makes assumptions (and, therefore, AGF) unnecessary. Essays like WP:PACT underscore the profound misunderstanding of what assuming good faith actually is and isn't. But I agree that its promotion to policy won't happen, and even if it did, WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars but its sporadic and often misapplied enforcement makes WP look sophomoric enough. The last thing we need is another "principle" that is mostly ignored. Primergrey (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   In Wikipedia, wp:civil and wp:agf are used as weapons of warfare.North8000 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

   Well put, North8000, I agree completely. Compare also the essay Don't link to WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC).

   @Bishonen: Thanks for telling be about that one. It points out the specifics of common misuses. Including that linking to wp:agf is a common violation of wp:agf. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

4. WP:POLICIES says that policies are "standards" while guidelines are "best practices." I'm not sure which category AGF falls into, but I'd say it's a "best practice" rather than a "standard". Bright☀ 12:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Fine as a guideline, but it would be impossible to work as a policy. It isn't possible to block someone for failing to assume good faith, and breaches of policy should be blockable. Aiken D 12:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose I simply can't see how whether or not a editor acted in good faith can be objectively determined. While good in theory, this proposal would be nearly impossible to enforce in practice. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose - AGF is not a death pact, it is a matter of common sense that should be employed in general. That's the definition of a guideline, not a policy. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose as something that would be impossible to enforce as a policy. Its a behavioral guideline that is important in Wikipedia and in real life, but I don't see it at policy level. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Oposse: AGF is a important guideline when interacting with newbies, but it shouldn't be enforced anyway. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose - There's already a tendency to use WP:AGF as a righteous sledgehammer in any situation where an editor has what is to them sufficient reason to be suspicious of another editor's status, purpose, or commitment to improving the encyclopedia. Upgrading it to a policy would only increase this tendency, to the general detriment of the project, which benefits when these suspicions are talked out and not suppressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose As others have mentioned, making this policy is a bad idea because enforcing it would be impossible. The AN and ANI noticeboards and other areas already get enough charges of "AGF violation". If this was policy, there wouldn't be room for anything else. Also, it is naive at best and enabling at worse to AGF in certain situations. Experienced admins and editors tend to figure out when those situations occur, but encoding the limits of that into policy would be onerous. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose I don't AGF. I don't think most editors should. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose An AGF policy would be unenforceable, it is more of a best practice. — Music1201 ^talk 02:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I don't see how it could be enforced as a policy; it seems more of something behavioral. —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 18:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
15. Oppose. It is an important guideline/practice and usually comes up as part of a pattern of issues with an editor, but it would be hard to objectively enforce as a stand alone policy. Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose. makes no sense when interacting with "civil" POV pushing for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
17. At this point, there isn't much that I can add about how it would be unenforceable. But I'll just put in my personal opinion that it's unfortunate (albeit apparently inevitable) that, short of sort-of enforcing unambiguous NPA violations, there is not a better way for all of us to be civil to one another (and to keep a sense of humor at the same time). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose Well we should often give people the benefit of the doubt, when someone is obviously here to disrupt the projects we should not assume good faith. Now that WP is "famous" / "popular" a lot of companies are trying to take advantage of our good will and readership. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose. AGF makes sense until the editor demonstrates that they're not acting in good faith. Elevating AGF to policy will put editors in the Orwellian position of assuming, even more than is currently expected, that obvious bad faith actions are motivated by good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Calling out someone for not AGFing can sometimes be construed as a lack of AGF in itself. While making AGF a policy could make typical users take it more seriously, any attempt at enforcement would be bound to create endless drama. Daß Wölf 02:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure. It is true that links to WP:AGF are often misused: telling an editor who disagrees with you to "assume good faith" gives the impression that you are assuming that they did not assume good faith, which could be construed as a lack of AGF on your part – see WP:AAGF. In most discussions, we didn't need to mention AGF at all. This practice is unfortunately so common on Wikipedia that I understand why others are leery about elevating this to policy. With that being said, it is difficult to understate the importance of assuming good faith as a fundamental principle throughout all of Wikipedia. I also see it as core to the functioning of Wikipedia. It's true that AGF isn't a death pact, and the page expressly clarifies that assuming good faith is not required in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. In cases where there is doubt, I do see AGF as a "standard that all editors should normally follow". Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC), modified 21:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

ProgrammingGeek, looks like the whole majority opposes the upgrading proposal. May you please withdraw this and close it? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably time for early closure. Mz7 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

2001:56A:72AE:5100:E141:D0CC:8837:B047 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What y'all said

[[2]]--Brogo13 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

When everybody knows, and it puts us at risk, can we still assume good faith?

I've encountered recently at WP:AFD several SPAs creating their own autobiography, or PR professionals who try to cover up their spamming, or "entrepreneurs" posting their resume, or real estate sale persons posting about their great new development. They disclaim any knowledge that Wikipedia is project of a charity, or that they have no "right" to post their autobiography/company spam, or that we have our own rules. They claim that they're famous because of their 3,000 YouTube followers, or that all Little Pink Housing projects are notable and thus "deserve a page". If this were 20007, or 20012, or even last year, I could assume good faith, but it's 2020, and everybody, especially Millennials, have grown up with Wikipedia and know we have rules about notability. Without posting to specific examples (to protect the possibly innocent), I've seen a musician post his autobiography with zero coverage and claims that he has "alot" of YouTube followers; a real estate salesperson create two articles about real estate developments she's trying to sell in Texas who erased her talk page twice in a stupid attempt to cover up her COI; and a graduate student who created a fork to his professor's article.

I really don't mind when a fan creates a page about some local up-and-coming band they love, since no profit motive is involved, or even a student assigned to create a stub about their high school band for credit, or Professor Sum-such at Columbia University who edits his own article. Popular culture and social media are filled with jokes and comments about people owning their own "wiki". Again, I'm not talking about the silly teenager who creates an article about the cul-de-sac they live on, or a campaign volunteer who starts an article about the very, very important city council election coming up this November in New Bern, North Carolina.

Actually, I don't even mind autobiographies and paid editing, as long as the subject is actually notable. I do mind the insincerity that they didn't know we have rules about notability.

If you take the charitable status of the Wikimedia Foundation seriously, and consider the legal risks these spammers pose to our status and liability, then you have to take these actions seriously and no longer continue to assume good faith with all new editors. Everybody in 2020 knows that we have rules, even if they are only vaguely aware of the details and can't be bothered to read WP:GNG. I'm talking about DJs, unlicensed realtors, and just plain scammers, who want to create an online presence that will lull people into thinking they and their stuff is good and important.

Do we really want to be party to a realty rip-off or the next Nigerian Prince scam? When and how do we challenge those obvious scammers, the ones trying to make a profit off us and American taxpayers (who, after all, pay by letting us not pay taxes) or are violating blue sky laws by not disclosing the details of an investment?

Rant over. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Hoaxes continue, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ernest_Barttelot_Huffington-Smyth. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What is meant by the edit summary, "revert good faith edit by X"?

I see many edit summaries that start with "revert good faith edit by (user)". Sometimes there is further explanation of the reason for reverting the edit, other times not. My impression from contexts where I see it, is that this edit summary phrase means something like "Revert edit by (user). Their edit was not an improvement, and I'm assuming their edit was in good faith only because WP:AGF requires me to make this assumption." Is my impression correct? If so, I would actually suggest that mentioning "good faith" in an edit summary is uncivil and should be added to WP:ESDONTS. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something? Krubo (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Krubo: Your understanding is perfectly correct. Adding "good faith" has no sense at all. Every time when my well explained edit is reverted with "good faith" as the only explanation, I feel completely ignored. But when there is a relevant and reasonable explanation of the revert, adding "good faith" makes the whole explanation rude. It's like saying "I have to assume that you are not a vandal, but I am not sure". So, it sounds like an insinuation that I may be a vandal.
Vikom ^talk 01:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it pretty obvious to tell when an edit, particularly one from a new editor, messes up an article through an innocent error or lack of knowledge of how things work here, but is definitely not vandalism. That's when I use the expression "good faith", always with an explanation of the problem. I mean it in good faith. I cannot see how that can be rude. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Hmm, I thought that my explanation was pretty clear. But I will make one more attempt.

Let's assume that I am an inexperienced editor who messes up an article through an innocent error, and then you revert my edit. It's obvious that you owe me a clear explanation what was wrong with my edit, not what you think about my motivation. I know very well that I made my edit in good faith. But if you add the expression "good faith", you distance yourself from someone you (hopefully) want to cooperate with. You sound like a top official or a member of an elite club, not like my colleague. This is very far from WikiLove. You may be an experienced editor but I may be a scientists with expertise in some area. So, we need effective cooperation, which is not easy when we use distancing language.
Vikom ^talk 02:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but in my activities here I revert an awful lot of blatant vandalism. I like to highlight when I know it's not vandalism. It's a positive. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Vikom, am I understanding you correctly: it is better to just say, for example, "edit broke infobox layout ⇒ Undo revision ..." without any mention of good faith? —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@andrybak: Yes, in my opinion, it is better, though I am not a guru. However, I see that my "clear" explanation requires further clarification. So, imagine that you reverted my disruptive edit, made in good faith, and you provided a very clear and exhaustive explanation. But why do you add the phrase "good faith"? I know that you do not have to assume good faith only in the presence of obvious evidence of bad faith, so you act under pressure and hence "good faith" sounds like an unreliable official slogan. On the other hand, if you are sincere and empathetic, you may want to make me feel better, right? But the mere mention about good faith means that bad faith is also possible. Therefore I perceive your gracious assumption as a warning, and I feel even worse. If you really want to soothe my disappointment, use conversational language and write something like "Sorry, but you edit was disruptive", or "Sorry, but you messed up the infobox", or something a bit humorous. In my opinion the word "sorry" is very important because it sounds like "I am sorry, I know that you feel bad, but I really had to revert your changes". Of course you can invent your own, maybe better, wording. Here is a general rule of thumb: Imagine that I am your colleague, and then pick the right wording. Such an approach pays off, also for you, because we can become good colleagues, and cooperate more effectively, without stress, which is a silent killer.
Vikom ^talk 02:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are visible to all. When I write them I'm not just thinking of the editor whose edits I am reverting. I am addressing anyone who reads my comments. That's where I find it useful to differentiate between vandalism and innocent, well intentioned, good faith edits. It is, in fact, a compliment to you, and perhaps a warning to anyone who is thing of doing bad stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you need to let other editors know that you assume god faith. However nobody needs to know it. I feel like there's no need for you to show "Hey uh, I reverted him, but uh don't worry, I AGF, bruh." As long as you use a good language and that the editor's work that you reverted is made in good faith, people will know that. Just the other day my edit was reverted, and they didn't mention something like good faith. And I'm okay with it. I think public relation comes to mind here. GeraldWL 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copley painting

Even as a victim of evident bad faith, this admirable editor patiently assumes good faith in the actions of fellow editors. This dispute required three attempts before reaching a compromise.

Perhaps I'm just missing something obvious, but I'm not sure why the Copley painting (at right) is used here. If there is a good connection, could we improve the caption to make it more clear? If not, could we remove it (and perhaps replace it with something else)? Sdkb (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak: since you just edited the page, do you have any idea about this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess wikipedia was doomed from the beginning..JK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can we delete it? I'm seeing no response from anyone here, which gives me the impression that it may be as confusing to others as it is to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I think the caption is kind of cute but that's balanced out by its depiction of what is probably a black enslaved guy, in Spanish colonial Cuba, and the way this kind of reinforces the unsavory impression left by the first image currently present in the article, which TBH looks like a couple of white guys cordially agreeing that their introduction of racial bias on Wikipedia and gender bias on Wikipedia is all in good faith.
  But I've been combing through lots of edits I think were made by white supremacists lately, so it could just be me. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Struthious Bandersnatch, do you understand what the caption is supposed to be saying? I'm not sure who in the painting is being depicted as assuming good faith or why. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb—I think maybe it's that an editor is supposed to be acting in a hostile fashion, like a shark, towards another editor who is represented by the drowning victim, and the "admirable" AGFing editor is the white guy in the boat fending off the shark, but while still assuming good faith on the part of the shark. Not quite sure how the last bit of the metaphor would be represented in the painting; perhaps just that it's in a shark's nature to try to eat things so in that way it's essentially following rules.

  Like I said, though, totally deletable. Also kind of implies that cranky editors can be harpooned and, while I'm not entirely adverse to the notion, I don't think it's entirely supported by policy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Alright, I swapped it out for The Death of Socrates, which is the only painting I can think of that depicts someone assuming good faith even when those around them are not. Open to other suggestions if anyone has ideas. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  ​Hmmm... I remember having gotten the impression in school that what lead to Socrates's imprisonment and execution was that he was constantly calling people tyrants in public, so I'm not totally sure this conceptually comports with AGF, but I am a believer in illustrating articles and there doesn't seem to be anything objectionable in the painting so it seems like a good addition. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editors who do not assume good faith from other users

WP:AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. What can we do about those self-taught master reverting artists such as this guy, who do not assume good faith from other users and have never stopped questioning the reliability of edits made by other people and virtually asked for sources to be included in every sentence other people wrote instead of trying to improve the articles themselves or stay away from editing those articles which themselves have limited or little knowledge? In my opinion, this type of users have done more disruptive edits than positive contributions. These users are probably the second worst type of users on Wikipedia, just better than those pure vandals. Is there a direct path we could report them if they are getting out of control? 120.16.155.104 (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• This page is for discussion of changes to the attached policy or guideline. Your question would be better probably at WP:TEAHOUSE. 174.212.223.19 (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 120.16.155.104 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Game Theory

It seems self-evident to me that the first person to assume bad faith (eg. defects) always loses in the end. The payoff matrix: If you defect correctly, you limit your total loss, but you're still going to suffer some amount of trouble. If you defect incorrectly, you lose for no good reason. If you don't defect when you shouldn't, obviously not a problem. If you don't defect when you should, it's not even obvious you're going to suffer too much of a loss (though beware bystander effect).

Therefore you should always err on the side of letting the right honorable counter-party defect first. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Just because you come in peace, doesn't mean you need to be tvtropes:StupidGood; because [3].

That just sounds like incentivising individuals to edit in bad faith, with extra steps! 69.158.88.78 (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

AGF Is Performative

Socrates was subsequently poisoned after being accused of both atheism AND worshipping false gods by prominent individuals he had criticised. Some would argue Wikipedians have a remarkably limited sense of awareness for using Socrates as an ideal example for users. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Forensic Look into the Book of Revelation

Hello Tgeorgescu,

Thankyou for bringing the COI to my notice. It is a fair policy of which I was not aware. My intention was not financial, but to bring to the attention of scholars the breakthroughs of significance. My sincere apologies for the honest mistake. Kind regards, S. A S.A. Shenoy (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC).Shenoy

"Wikipedia:YELL" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:YELL. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#Wikipedia:YELL until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My edit for "From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter" should be allowed to stay

My edit was a just small information correction one. The information I used for my edit came straight from the movie itself (I was watching the movie as I made my edit). In the movie (it's a wild west vampire horror movie) a group of survivors escape a bar full of vampires into a tunnel, the wiki article thinks that a random bar patron escaped with the group, later ends up becoming a vampire, attacking a fellow survivor (john, name taken from the movie) and then getting killed (by Madrid, name taken from movie). But that information is incorrect, that random "bar patron" was not a randon bar patron but an already established character from the movie, we saw that character as Madrid's gang was robbing a stagecoach (john, survivor named earlier was here in this scene), we also saw the character about to have a fight with John after he (john) killed someone he (the character) knew. My edit is backed up by the movie itself so I really don't see why my edit was reversed at all when all articles about a work of fiction get information to it straight from the source material. New update: i went and clarified on the page that the character that I am talking up above about is named Joaquin played by actor Kevin Smith (not the famous filmmaker/actor/comic book writer) https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0808964/ That is the link to the actor's imdb page where they are credited as playing Joaquin, the actor is also credited as playing Joaquin in the film's credits. 2601:443:47F:D7D0:80BB:4354:B40D:8B1D (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

no one cares. you don't have to write an essay about it Cranloa12n (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

How does AGF and V/OR and like interact?

I recently saw an editor respond to a challenge that much of an article is unreferenced (violates WP:V and WP:OR) with them calling on AGF and saying that we should effectively "assume good faith" that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Given that AGF is a policy and THEREMUSTBESOURCES an essay, what policy based argument can be made, if any, that we cannot AGF that sources exist? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

IP's

I'm a part time editor using IP's. I can testify that the WP:IGNORE is widely used to ignore the WP:AGF when it comes to established editors dealing with IP's. Could you add a 1.4, along the lines of:

IP
Think about the person behind the IP. One must assume the good faith of IP users as well as anyone else. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith needs a subsection on references good faith

Larger topics have many references. For many Wikipedians, they are used to block, or worse sealioning discussion of adding contrary information from other reliable sources.

- ten references say Xyz is true, editor says a preponderance of references say xyz is true, therefore a new reliable source saying xyz is not true is invalid - using multiple dictionary definitions for the same term, even when some of them are by the same author and word for word identical, and using that to exclude a new dictionary definition not entirely the same as the existing ones. - same dictionary idea as above but using only definitions from 20 years ago to exclude any definitions from last five years - claiming any conflicting academic reliable sources are outright fringe - letting a page get to be overly long with a laundry list of examples and then dismissing any new examples as not as important as the top ten in the page to exclude a new example.

This reporting and favoring only what the editors world view agrees with is not NPOV even if the topic has 100 percent reliable sources.

These are the same negative tactics and same language that racists use to exclude views, discussion and information.

Wikipedia can be better than that.

+1 on this!! 2605:8D80:525:2AF4:454D:4E57:F152:64A6 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

About concern trolls

Civility is important, obviously, and I generally have no issues with that. But I do wonder sometimes how to square with ”assume good faith” while also considering the existence of concern trolls. Because unlike standard trolls, concern trolls can navigate a lot more easily around guidelines and rules while still being trolls, and readily exploit the concept of “civility” to get away with things garden variety trolls generally don’t.

Nobody wants to assume bad faith in others, I certainly don’t. But plenty of bad faith people (just in general) engage in concern trolling, and I sometimes find it that frustrating if I think I see an example of concern trolling, but choose not to engage with it, to not violate Wikipedia policies about “good faith.” I dunno, It just doesn’t seem ideal. DJ (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case, in order to deal with concern trolls, then Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) must be updated also from time to time. Some of the MoS I've seen are quite outdated already, or sometimes it may overlap with different MoS and there are discrepancies. Chongkian (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

good faith?

The only way for anything that's not endorsed by USA to appear on wikipedia is through vandalism. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Why have you removed my edits

I know the figure was inaccurate but that’s what they provided as a source, here is the real figures https://www.oocities.org/~dagmawi/History/Ethiopia-Egypt-War.html And the causalities were unknown, no numbers were provided, there was no one captured or figures of wounded and Ethiopians didn’t keep written records of their causalities number and their army size was 80000 not 60000. Who is making those edits ? And why is no one checking the citations provided. They make up a figure and put a link that doesn’t have anything to do with the numbers 178.164.236.201 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are African or Ethiopian aren’t you? 178.164.236.201 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Title misinterpretation

From casual observation over the years, I don't think this guideline is phrased intuitively. "Assumption of good faith" is often interpreted, especially by those new to it, as similar to a "blind faith". Most importantly with something like, "I do not have access to the source so I 'assume good faith'", even though that's not how it's meant to be applied. Or, less often, when a bad actor insists that trust in their faith should be immutable even when there is evidence that doubts them.

More appropriate, I think, would be something like "presume good intent". The point of intent instead of faith is to not encourage the association with "blind faith", and the point of presumption instead of assumption allows for the fact that this is a starting place, and to make an effort to understand, request/clarify, understand, and incorporate the evidence rather than guessing when there is none. Both get closer to the heart of the principle than "assume good faith". czar 08:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Czar, I think you're right. For a smaller (and thus potentially more palatable) change, I think that Wikipedia:Assume good intentions might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Change administerial actions to actions by administrators. 92.30.146.64 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The term "administerial" is being used correctly, and so this appears to be an issue of taste. Nothing wrong with prefering a different wording, but for changing a section title of an official guideline of this project, I'm thinking it's best left to consensus or the standard bold, revert, discuss cycle. —Sirdog (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Empathy

let's do it empathetic style!!♥️🙏🏻💯😁💵💰 2600:6C40:1200:FAF:E274:398B:FD2B:BD3A (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Assume good faith → Wikipedia:Assume good intentions – As both @Czar and @WhatamIdoing have discussed above, the title (and some of the article's content) is phrased in a way which is unintuitive, leading users to apply it incorrectly or interpret it as meaning "assume blind faith". Some users mistakenly believe "good faith" means we should assume all users are performing due diligence in regard to reviewing sources when adding or removing information. As Czar has said, other users interpret it as "I do not have access to the source so I 'assume good faith'". I believe the title change and a correction in phrasing can go a long way in improving understanding. – Primium (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I also believe there should be a section that clearly explains what WP:GF is not, but I'm unsure what the process is for making content changes to these pages. – Primium (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• The title is not the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Agree. @Primium's suggestion of a "what WP:GF is not" section looks like something that would actually make a difference. I encourage them to be bold and start it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you perhaps have some insight on what the issue might be? I feel the article is clear, so I assume the misunderstandings come from reading only the title. – Primium (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the issue this stems from, is the opposite of what you believe it to be. Changing policy over a disagreement with an editor of the interpretation of that policy isn't a good starting point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I read - or, perhaps, misread - ActivelyDisinterested's post as saying "changing the title is not the solution." I think the issue is as you described, people misunderstanding what "assume good faith" means. If we change the title then people will misunderstand what "Assume good intent" means. Better to have a "GF is not" section that editors can link to when other editors stray from the True Meaning of GF. - 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I support this as potentially helpful. It may not solve all the confusion, but it should help a little bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been AGF for a long, long time, AGF this and AGF that, we've heard it a thousand times or more, and now it should be changed to AGI? AGF is an integral part of many WP discussions and is linked at the five pillars. Must agree that the improvements that may be needed in the content do not mean the title needs to be altered. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is this driven by pragmatic considerations, or is it more of an appeal to tradition? I don't have strong opinions on the matter, just curious about the underlying reasons and looking for ways to improve misunderstandings. – Primium (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes and yes. It's practical because thousands of editors know this by its long-standing name, plus the project pagename reflects precisely what is meant, which is that editors, when prone to think an editor might be acting in bad faith, should always "assume good faith" at least until bad faith is without a doubt purveyed. I believe I've already covered the tradition aspect, as well as how any page content needs do not require a title alteration. Thank you for asking! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose ....a long, long time, per Paine Ellsworth (who lost his 'aine' after the mod[admin] thing). But yes, this is Wikipedia's familiar and long-term name for the term which, like IAR, is known beyond Wikipedia as one of the basic rules of trust and civility. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To the Notorious Mr. Kryn: finally figured out the "aine" part. I don't know what "after the mod thing" means. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

My mistake Paine Ellsworth, I meant "admin", from the admin nom. Maybe it's just me, but I used to like seeing your full "Paine Ellsworth" autograph-reminiscent signature. I assume you changed it in good faith (and good intentions). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 18:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. 123957a (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. If we move it, that's gonna cause a lot of problems. Brennan Everette (🗣️ | ⏳) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Assume good faith" is one of Wikipedia's five main pillars, and it has also always been referred to as "Assume good faith". Instead of solving confusion, this will multiply it (exponentiate it even, if you will). Why would it be changed because of a minor misunderstanding, if trying to solve it would create far more of it? "Good faith" also does not even sound bad. People with a decent understanding of English will understand what it means by this. What is this username? (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe this move would solve any issues (since all policies get misapplied sometimes), but moving it certainly would create new issues. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

. Oppose "Assume good faith" is a widely recognized and established term within the Wikipedia community. Changing the title to "Wikipedia:Assume good intentions" may not fully address the underlying issue of misinterpretation. Users may still apply the concept incorrectly, regardless of the specific wording used. Also, "good faith" is a legal and ethical term that carries a specific connotation of trust and belief in the sincerity of others' actions, which may not be fully captured by the term "good intentions."

Instead of renaming the page, efforts be made to clarify the existing content and provide additional guidance on the correct application of the principle of assuming good faith. This could include updating the article's content to provide examples and explanations that help users understand the intended meaning behind "assume good faith."Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 01:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per User:What is this username?. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is not valid. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be civil. How is my argument invalid? I am agreeing with User:What is this username? above, who provided a solid argument as to why this page should not be moved. What's invalid about that? JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking for your opinion on why I deleted my edit

I just found out that 294 characters for Copyright in South Korea were deleted from Literature document. I think the content is reliable enough because the source was accurately indicated. Bunsik (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that the explanation for the revert is not "copyright" but "unsourced." Take a look at WP:YANARS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for input regarding assuming good faith in a talk page dispute

Improper venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome. I have to point out that I am not forum shopping. If I don't publicize the discussion in a few different relevant venues I don't get much general uninvolved community input, which is desirable to provide additional insights instead of only localized discussion which may not even properly clarify things. Per WP:SEEKHELP, If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) You've got three admins giving you advice and you have been told you'll be blocked if you continue enabling trolls. So that's really the end of it. If you think all the admins are wrong you probably need to go to WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @Bon courage The end of it will be determined by the community not you, an involved editor who was using uncivil language. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) The community has spoken (I now count three admins and four non-admins). It's just you are forum shopping rather than WP:HEARing the message. My advice is to drop this and do something more gainful, as the road you are on is unlikely to lead to a good place. Bon courage (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 1. The suggestion that a centralized discussion about project policy should take place on a user's talk page is just, bizarre. 2. This user has a history of waging pitched battles over the reversion of IP editors' troll-like comments, going back nearly 2 years, e.g. here. It may behoove the project to discuss an editing restriction once the current block expires. Zaathras (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Quite apart from anything else, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. So an editor raising a conduct grievance here is off-topic & disruptive. Suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)