Misplaced Pages talk:Assume good faith: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:14, 5 July 2005 editRangerdude (talk \| contribs)3,171 edits →Revisions ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:45, 11 November 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,762 edits Reverting edit(s) by 2605:8D80:5430:AD9E:F4F0:FA9:2BDD:65C1 (talk) to rev. 1256692257 by Win8x: Test edits (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|WT:AGF\|noarchive=yes\|search=no}}
	== Voting ==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	Moved to ]
			{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(180d)
			\| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Assume good faith/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter = 9
			\| maxarchivesize = 100K
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 4
			}}{{archives\|search=yes\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=180}}

			== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 ==
	==Why I am against this policy==
	I left the following comment on the voting page:
	:''I'm echoing ]'s criticism, except I am rather pessimistic about the abusability of this rather Panglossian rule. For an example, if a series of POV edits appear on ], eulogising his skills as a historian and putting down his court defeats as part of the global left-wing conspiracy, I am not going to assume good faith, and I will not appreciate well-meant Misplaced Pages rules directing me to do so, particularly if, say, the edits are from an IP address listed on various anti-fascist blacklists. '''Be civil''' might be the name of a constructive policy, but policies telling me how to think are not constructive.'' ---- ] 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith\|answered=yes}}
	::"Trust, but verify." (Old Russian saying, via Ronald Reagan.) "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." "Treat people as you would wish to be treated." -] 00:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
			remove ''"WP:AFG" redirects here. For the Afghanistan WikiProject, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Afghanistan.'' because ] no longer redirects to ]. ] (]) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			:{{Not done}} — ]'s target was erroneously changed and should still direct here. It's been fixed, now. Thank you for bringing it up. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">– <small>''']''' (])</small></span> 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

			==WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents many useful things from happening and causes some bad things to happen==
	I find it helps to think of the policy as a nicer way of phrasing "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated ] doesn't understand they're a crank.

			] is an oversimplification which prevents improvements in various areas. It presumes that there are only two possibilities:
	Also, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "to the point of self-imposed idiocy" - ] 22:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			#A ideal editor, where the only influence on their editing is the objectives of Misplaced Pages
			#A "bad faith" editor, who does "bad faith" editing. Not specific on what that is, but it's clearly really bad.
			In reality, most editors are somewhere in between. Their edits are somewhat influenced by biases, advocacies, politics and other things. Yet, whenever someone addresses this issue on policy in general, or in an individual cases where a preponderance of evidence says that they are exhibiting these (no big deal) "only human" traits, whoever brings it up is accused of violating WP:AGF and of making a severe accusation. They are supposed to assume the often-unrealistic incorrect ideal of #1 unless they are building an ANI type case (e.g. building a case with diffs) alleging a severe violation. And so contrary to it's ideals, wp:AGF is commonly weaponized or used contrary to it's goals. And useful discussions on the above "no big deal/only human" issues are prevented. IMO we should evolve this in a more realistic direction that acknowledges these realities. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

			:I'm wondering whether the pushback "whenever someone addresses this issue" arises because the addressing is framed as "'''you''' are biased " rather than "'''your edit''' does not provide a neutral point of view." - ] (]) 15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
	Nor, one hopes, does it mean "assume you're a troll" either. ] 02:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			::The gentle cases of expressing concern (e.g. about biased participation when such is evident) generally don't occur because of this guideline. Regarding when wp:AGF is actually invoked, IMO the most common reason is that there is already a tussle going on and WP:AGF is a handy weapon to gain advantage in that tussle. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
			::: A common version is accusations of left-wing bias. That particular version of assuming bad faith violates NPA by invoking an editor's political persuasion to undermine them and dismiss their editing. It is covered by some of the principles explained here: ] (which is linked in ] #61. It's a nasty application of ]. It's best kept away from article talk pages and reserved for user talk pages and, when justified, with diffs in reports on drama boards.
			::: It also reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable.
			::: It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "]" (]) and that "" (]). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.
			::: Proving another editor has political POV is nonsensical. We all have them, and honesty and openness, unlike sneakily hiding one's POV, should not be punished. On the contrary. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm not sure where this came from. My main point was common weaponization of wp:AGF, and my "only human" comments/examples were not focused on any particular area including the one that is the topic of your post. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::As you point out, we're all biased about almost everything to some extent. That bias becomes "evident" when an edit fails the NPOV test. Expressing gentle concern about another editor's bias is likely to be counterproductive - shifting the discussion from whether an ''edit'' presents a NPOV to whether another ''editor'' is excessively biased (compare ]). Precisely the sort of outcome AGF is designed to prevent.
			:::As AGF (slightly edited) says "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning <s>motives</s> <u>biases</u>, which might intensify resentments all around." - ] (]) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
			::In that case typically I wouldn't wouldn't call it "pushback", I'd call it an effective tactic (= weaponization of this guideline) in the tussle that is happening at the article. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

			I am that was . This text had been a part of this guideline page for years—since . It says: {{tq\|Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning.}} I actually think this is probably the most inspiring and convincing argument in the entire page. At least, when I was a new and younger editor, I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and ''the existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that''. I am quite strongly opposed to removing this wording. It is definitely not "]" (the rationale for removing it). ] (]) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	== ]'s recent edits ==
			:Courtesy ping {{u\|Butwhatdoiknow}}. ] (]) 20:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

			: Um, "{{tq\|Most people try to help the project, not hurt it}}" was '''not''' removed. And "{{tq\|Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning}}" is not synonymous with ''The existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that.'' Shall we should change the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence? Or will you argue that old text is, by virtue of its age, perfect in every way? - ] (]) 00:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
	This User seems to have edited with an agenda in mind. I suggest someone else rewrite their addition rather than simply reverting it. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			::The current wording is fine. There are plenty of ways to convey the same message, which is that Misplaced Pages would not exist if most people were trying to hurt the project (in fact, in the edit right before yours, someone had the wording). However, ''removing ''that second sentence ({{tq\|Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning}}) changes the meaning in a way that weakens the argument for this guideline. ] (]) 02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

			:::I am suggesting changing the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence. That would give the text the meaning you say it has. - ] (]) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

			::::I don't see what's wrong with the current form. The "doomed" phrasing is the one that's persisted for decades, and I see no compelling reason for us to rephrase it on a whim now. ] (]) 04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
	==Proposal on Stalking==
			: ], you say "I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and ''the existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that''" (italics in the original). The italicized text is your interpretation of "Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning." I do not share your interpretation.

			: If you want to include the "proof" thought because it is inspiring then let's state that thought plainly. Regardless, let's not keep the unclear "doomed" text just because it has moss growing on it. - ] (]) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
	I would like to propose that a section be added to this guideline to resolve a recurring problem on Misplaced Pages and in light of recent precedents on the subject. This section should address the issue of editor "stalking" on wikipedia, applying to cases where a particular editor chooses to intentionally follow another editor around wikipedia in a harassing manner. Behavior of this type was initiated the infamous ] case in March 2005 and was ultimately stated as the reason to hardban this user by ], who resolved the case. According to Wales "the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK," who he was following around Misplaced Pages with the purpose of making edits - including mostly minor ones - to work completed by RickK. During the course of this dispute it was concluded that stalking of this type constituted "disruptive behavior" even when most of the stalker's edits were minor and inconsequential, and that it breached the good faith assumption by singling out an editor and subjecting his edits to harassment. Given this notable precedent, a guideline discouraging stalking seems to be appropriate. I am further suggesting this guideline from personal experience, having been the target of another editor's stalking behavior myself during the past few months. I believe that the drafting of a guideline would help to resolve this and other cases of stalking on wikipedia that have the adverse effects of disrupting the encyclopedia, subjecting victimized editors to undue harassment, and fostering an unfriendly and hostile environment. Thank you for your consideration. - ] 5 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==

			]
	ADDED: '''Please note that this proposal is for an additional Misplaced Pages guideline - not a Misplaced Pages policy.''' Sorry if there was any confusion, & thanks for your consideration. ] 5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6#Presume good faith}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

	===Precedents===
	*]
	*]

	===Comments===

	Please post and sign editor comments here

	* Sometimes good cases make bad precedent. There's nothing inherently wrong with checking up on a particular editor's contributions. Many RC patrollers do so often because behind a bad edit one often finds many more. And many editors, once they become aware of a novel POV promulgated by a particular user will check to see if the same POV is present in related articles. There are certain editors that I watch very closely and I doubt if I am alone in this regard. The "Recycling Troll" never made any substantive contributions to the project, and so there was nothing to lose by banning him; I believe that the ban was motivated by the overall pattern of participation not merely the "stalking" aspect of it, and I doubt if Jimbo intended to create any sort of broader policy. ] Co., ] 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
	:* TRT actually did make many useful edits. Minor corrections mostly, but positive. What freaked RickK and others out was simply that TRT followed Rick's edits almost article-by-article. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and a clear example of why you shouldn't feed trolls. -- ] ] 5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
	::* The key here is that TRT's edits, though useful in some cases, weren't substantive. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. As for "you shouldn't feed trolls," I personally have found that to be a highly ineffective strategy, and the available sociological analysis agrees. ] Co., ] 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
	:* UninvitedCompany - Thank you for your comments. Part of my intent here is to separate and distinguish between legitimate simple cross-checkings not unlike those you likely reference and the abusive cases of stalking in which an editor is singled out for following not because of anything wrong or problematic with the edits he or she makes but rather due to who they are. You are certainly correct that there's a time and place for a certain degree of cross checking and that should be reflected in the guideline. Stalking, however, is still a problem that should be dealt with in some fashion as it occurs when editors take things above and beyond simple legitimate cross checking edits. "Recycling Troll" did that and indeed his main pattern of participation that got him banned seems to have been stalking RickK. Sadly there are plenty of others like him on wikipedia who do the same thing, and as a result end up driving away decent editors and disrupting good faith attempts to develop and expand the encyclopedia. Also note that this proposal is intended to create a guideline that discourages the abusive forms of following editors around that constitute stalking, not a policy that prohibits following other editors in general. This was done intentionally and I invite any suggestions you or others may have to make this distinction better represented in the proposal. Thanks again. ] 5 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
	::* While I understand your intent and can sympathize with your concern and with the case of TRT and RickK in particular, I believe that the problem is one of proper management of problem users rather than a problem of "stalking" in particular. TRT was an obvious sock, because by their editing pattern it was clear that they had been here before. TRT was also smart enough to game the system and avoid any bright-line rules violations. My view is that when an obvious sock shows up and starts harrassing a long-time user, we should respond quickly and decisively regardless of the means of harrassment. As written, your proposal is wide open to abuse by ruleslawyering users whose weak edits are being checked and reverted by seasoned Wikipedians with similar areas of interest. ] Co., ] 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
	:::Would you mind proposing revisions, or an alternative, then that you believe would avoid ruleslawyering abuse? I would not be opposed to adding a section stating to the effect that sourced and legitimate checks of weak edits are not stalking when done within reason (and I qualify that "within reason" as like everything else, even seasoned editors can become abusive if they take things above and beyond a reasonable level - e.g. biting the newbies and chasing otherwise potential editors away from wikipedia). Also, the fact that this is a guideline on etiquette etc. that editors should follow rather than a policy should substantially limit ruleslawyering. The problem is, and TRT's case illustrates this, that often simply managing problem users as they emerge isn't enough and it's a pain to have to go through arbitration etc. for each and every similar case just to get a simple, common sense result of stopping them. IOW, the strongest means to problem user management is to clearly define what's acceptable and what's not. It's a simple matter of being able to differentiate between the good and the bad. Right now there's very little in terms of guidelines that sufficiently do that in stalker cases, and as a result problem users slip through and do far more damage than should've ever been the case - especially when they are skilled at drawing the entire thing out through arbitration etc. By defining the issue more clearly we can avoid future situations of this sort. Thanks again. ] 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

	===Revisions===

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

	What Wiki-Stalking is NOT - Following an editor engaged in a pattern of <u>POV pushing</u>, disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Misplaced Pages policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor.
	:added by ] July 5, 2005 23:04 (UTC)

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

Latest revision as of 13:45, 11 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:AGF

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove "WP:AFG" redirects here. For the Afghanistan WikiProject, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Afghanistan. because WP:AFG no longer redirects to WP:AGF. 96.64.248.125 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done — WP:AFG's target was erroneously changed and should still direct here. It's been fixed, now. Thank you for bringing it up. – Primium (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents many useful things from happening and causes some bad things to happen

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents improvements in various areas. It presumes that there are only two possibilities:

A ideal editor, where the only influence on their editing is the objectives of Misplaced Pages
A "bad faith" editor, who does "bad faith" editing. Not specific on what that is, but it's clearly really bad.

In reality, most editors are somewhere in between. Their edits are somewhat influenced by biases, advocacies, politics and other things. Yet, whenever someone addresses this issue on policy in general, or in an individual cases where a preponderance of evidence says that they are exhibiting these (no big deal) "only human" traits, whoever brings it up is accused of violating WP:AGF and of making a severe accusation. They are supposed to assume the often-unrealistic incorrect ideal of #1 unless they are building an ANI type case (e.g. building a case with diffs) alleging a severe violation. And so contrary to it's ideals, wp:AGF is commonly weaponized or used contrary to it's goals. And useful discussions on the above "no big deal/only human" issues are prevented. IMO we should evolve this in a more realistic direction that acknowledges these realities. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the pushback "whenever someone addresses this issue" arises because the addressing is framed as "you are biased " rather than "your edit does not provide a neutral point of view." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The gentle cases of expressing concern (e.g. about biased participation when such is evident) generally don't occur because of this guideline. Regarding when wp:AGF is actually invoked, IMO the most common reason is that there is already a tussle going on and WP:AGF is a handy weapon to gain advantage in that tussle. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A common version is accusations of left-wing bias. That particular version of assuming bad faith violates NPA by invoking an editor's political persuasion to undermine them and dismiss their editing. It is covered by some of the principles explained here: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias (which is linked in Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #61. It's a nasty application of poisoning the well. It's best kept away from article talk pages and reserved for user talk pages and, when justified, with diffs in reports on drama boards.

It also reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

Proving another editor has political POV is nonsensical. We all have them, and honesty and openness, unlike sneakily hiding one's POV, should not be punished. On the contrary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this came from. My main point was common weaponization of wp:AGF, and my "only human" comments/examples were not focused on any particular area including the one that is the topic of your post. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, we're all biased about almost everything to some extent. That bias becomes "evident" when an edit fails the NPOV test. Expressing gentle concern about another editor's bias is likely to be counterproductive - shifting the discussion from whether an edit presents a NPOV to whether another editor is excessively biased (compare Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks). Precisely the sort of outcome AGF is designed to prevent.

As AGF (slightly edited) says "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning ~~motives~~ biases, which might intensify resentments all around." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case typically I wouldn't wouldn't call it "pushback", I'd call it an effective tactic (= weaponization of this guideline) in the tussle that is happening at the article. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Doomed from the beginning

I am restoring this text that was removed in June. This text had been a part of this guideline page for years—since May 2005. It says: Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning. I actually think this is probably the most inspiring and convincing argument in the entire page. At least, when I was a new and younger editor, I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and the existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that. I am quite strongly opposed to removing this wording. It is definitely not "WP:KUDZU" (the rationale for removing it). Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Butwhatdoiknow. Mz7 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it" was not removed. And "Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning" is not synonymous with The existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that. Shall we should change the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence? Or will you argue that old text is, by virtue of its age, perfect in every way? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. There are plenty of ways to convey the same message, which is that Misplaced Pages would not exist if most people were trying to hurt the project (in fact, in the edit right before yours, someone had just changed the wording). However, removing that second sentence (Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning) changes the meaning in a way that weakens the argument for this guideline. Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting changing the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence. That would give the text the meaning you say it has. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the current form. The "doomed" phrasing is the one that's persisted for decades, and I see no compelling reason for us to rephrase it on a whim now. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Mz7, you say "I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and the existence of Misplaced Pages is proof of that" (italics in the original). The italicized text is your interpretation of "Otherwise, a project like Misplaced Pages would have been doomed from the beginning." I do not share your interpretation.

If you want to include the "proof" thought because it is inspiring then let's state that thought plainly. Regardless, let's not keep the unclear "doomed" text just because it has moss growing on it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Presume good faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Presume good faith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6 § Presume good faith until a consensus is reached. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)