User talk:The dark lord trombonator/Bulbapedia:Assume Good Faith
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Constructive criticism from Jioruji Derako
A slight correction on this note: "Assuming Good Faith means always taking other peoples motives and actions into consideration."
The point of AGF is actually more along the lines of, "Assume every edit is intended as a positive contribution to this site, and assist the contributors accordingly."
Not that taking other people's motives and actions into consideration isn't also something we need to do. :D But most importantly is to always assume that a user is trying to help, not trying to disrupt; rather then threatening to punish for errors, explain how to fix them. Obviously, if someone blanks Ash Ketchum and repleaces the page with "PIKACHU IZ DUM", AGF wouldn't apply; it's easy to see it's vandalism. But for cases where it looks like the user could have been trying to add information, assume that they were. You also cut down on "OMG ppl r ganging up on me becaz i maek spellin eroor!!1" cases popping up, if other users are more polite about informing a user that he should use spell-check. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Feedback from DCM
Being the nice guy doesnt work. EVER--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Yes, DCM, I had noticed you take that philosophy. Perhaps you could help me, instead, to create Bulbapedia:Let's just yell at everyone and see if they stay? Or as my mother would say, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". — THE TROM — 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Trial by fire. If they cant stand the heat stay off the Pedia. In addition, in a perfect world your Good Faith would work, and i generally run by that with new users, its the ones who have been here for a while I yell at.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Meh, I hate all the yelling that goes on here, new or not. It's my only peeve about this place. — THE TROM — 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yelling is mandatory. Someone has to be the bad guy. And if youve been active for six months, you shouldnt be making the stupid mistakes.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- It's not so much the bad guy I see here as the devil guy. Active doesn't mean you pick up all the rules. Heck, I've been around here for six months; not only do I still make stupid mistakes, I'm sometimes too scared to edit because of the yelling that could ensue afterwards. — THE TROM — 01:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Active means actve, not on and off. If Ive seen you edit once a day for Six months, then your active.Stupid mistakes happen. If a user jumps down your throat because you made one stupid mistake, then ignore the idiot.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Hmm, good idea. I'll put that on the page. — THE TROM — 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- DCM, being a jerk makes people less likely to listen to you, just to spite you. Being nice is more effective, but it's also harder. --Raijinili 08:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- LIES! Being Nice is not more effective, people will never, ever ask you anything because you'll give wimpy answers, have no backbone and generally will ignore you.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Being nice is not the same thing as having no backbone. For instance, you can tell someone firmly to stop doing something in a kind and understanding way, or you can be offensive tell them to quit it and learn to use teh wiki noobz. People may be new and unaware of policy, or they may just make mistakes—it's others responsibility to inform them of their errors, but you don't need to be mean about it. — Laoris (Blah) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read the above conversation before commenting. If youve been here for more than six months and have been an ACTIVE user, then you should know this stuff, nor would i ever call most of them n00bs and tell themn to go to n00b wiki.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Being nice is not the same thing as having no backbone. For instance, you can tell someone firmly to stop doing something in a kind and understanding way, or you can be offensive tell them to quit it and learn to use teh wiki noobz. People may be new and unaware of policy, or they may just make mistakes—it's others responsibility to inform them of their errors, but you don't need to be mean about it. — Laoris (Blah) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- LIES! Being Nice is not more effective, people will never, ever ask you anything because you'll give wimpy answers, have no backbone and generally will ignore you.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- DCM, being a jerk makes people less likely to listen to you, just to spite you. Being nice is more effective, but it's also harder. --Raijinili 08:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, good idea. I'll put that on the page. — THE TROM — 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Active means actve, not on and off. If Ive seen you edit once a day for Six months, then your active.Stupid mistakes happen. If a user jumps down your throat because you made one stupid mistake, then ignore the idiot.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- It's not so much the bad guy I see here as the devil guy. Active doesn't mean you pick up all the rules. Heck, I've been around here for six months; not only do I still make stupid mistakes, I'm sometimes too scared to edit because of the yelling that could ensue afterwards. — THE TROM — 01:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yelling is mandatory. Someone has to be the bad guy. And if youve been active for six months, you shouldnt be making the stupid mistakes.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Meh, I hate all the yelling that goes on here, new or not. It's my only peeve about this place. — THE TROM — 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Trial by fire. If they cant stand the heat stay off the Pedia. In addition, in a perfect world your Good Faith would work, and i generally run by that with new users, its the ones who have been here for a while I yell at.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
←DCM, I disagree with you again over this. Laoris FTW! Being nice, and polite, is a perfect model of behaviour. Everyone stuffs up once in a while, so give them a break and lighten up. — THE TROM — 01:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- So give User:Johny Rebel and User:Ph34r a chance. Because they screwed up once.Or twice. Or theres an entire page devoted to their Vandalism.I can think of some more vandals if you want me to.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- No, they're actual vandals (as you are aware), not people that didn't use link templates or over-edited the userspace. They had intent to annoy us all. Different kettle of fish all together. — THE TROM — 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- What if they want to come back and be contribuotrs? you will welcome them back with open arms and assume good faith.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- No, 'Assume good faith' applies when there is no history of malicious intent. Since these vandals have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, they would have to prove themselves if they wanted to return. But in case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of new users are not vandals. We shouldn't treat them with malice just because they might end up being a vandal. One of the tenets of the American justice system is 'innocent until proven guilty'.
- But we're getting off the topic. This discussion started when you stated that "Being the nice guy doesnt work. EVER". Do you think yelling at a vandal will stop them from vandalizing? No. Some of them do it for the attention and the knowledge that they are annoying someone, and if you show your anger to them, they are getting what they wanted. On the other hand, yelling at an innocent yet misinformed user is more likely to drive them away from the site. A policy of "trial by fire" is unlikely to scare off any vandals, and will only discourage users who may become very positive contributors.
- Even established users who don't follow the rules don't deserve to be greeted with maliciousness. Everybody makes mistakes. But even if they show continued disregard for the rules, I don't believe that it requires such an expression of hostility. Hostility may be justified in that case, but it is also entirely possible to be friendly about the whole thing. Like, "hey, I'm sorry you've chosen to break the rules, but now you're blocked. Come back when you decide to follow the rules." Don't even need to curse them out or anything. Policy can be firmly enforced without being a jerk. — Laoris (Blah) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- So good faith to select users? not all, even those with bad records? Welcome to Amercia, baby. Do you really think asking a vandal to stop politely will make him( or her) stop vandalizing?
- "Please stop vandalizing, i liked that page"
- "<insert any combination of vulgar words, phrases, foreign language and your choice of the word Nerd or Feek Here>
- Thats basically what has happened. Ever heard of This user? People were nice to him, and he chose to swear, curse, and act like a big tough guy, so much he almost bullied someone off the site. Want to know what stopped him? An admins hard love.
- Everyone makes mistakes. Ill be the first to admit that. But the same mistake OVER and OVER again shouldnt be responded to with a "Please stop and fix it" because thats obviously not working if their continuing.
- In addition, the "hey, I'm sorry you've chosen to break the rules, but now you're blocked. Come back when you decide to follow the rules" seems jerkish to me. The first part is fine, but the "Come back when you decide to follow the rules" is a slap to the face.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Everyone makes mistakes. Ill be the first to admit that. But the same mistake OVER and OVER again shouldnt be responded to with a "Please stop and fix it" because thats obviously not working if their continuing.
- Thats basically what has happened. Ever heard of This user? People were nice to him, and he chose to swear, curse, and act like a big tough guy, so much he almost bullied someone off the site. Want to know what stopped him? An admins hard love.
- "<insert any combination of vulgar words, phrases, foreign language and your choice of the word Nerd or Feek Here>
- "Please stop vandalizing, i liked that page"
- So good faith to select users? not all, even those with bad records? Welcome to Amercia, baby. Do you really think asking a vandal to stop politely will make him( or her) stop vandalizing?
- What if they want to come back and be contribuotrs? you will welcome them back with open arms and assume good faith.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- No, they're actual vandals (as you are aware), not people that didn't use link templates or over-edited the userspace. They had intent to annoy us all. Different kettle of fish all together. — THE TROM — 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I never said good faith to select users. I was arguing the opposite. I specified the intent of assuming good faith. When you have seen bad faith is when you no longer assume good faith. Additionally, I didn't say that you should respond to vandalism by asking a vandal to stop nicely. Simply block them. Again, vandalism is not the issue here. Being nice is to the general user is.
- I looked at Ritchie's talk page, but I'm not sure of your point. The way he acted deserved a block. A block is not the same thing as maliciousness. As you called it, the block was "hard love", which I don't think qualifies as being a jerk.
- If someone makes the same mistake over and over, and friendly or at least neutral warnings aren't helping, then I don't see any problem with a temporary ban to show the user that we're serious. And I don't think that saying "Come back when you decide to follow the rules" is necessarily jerkish. Perhaps as I worded it there, but I meant it as an invitation to return when the person in question was ready to. — Laoris (Blah) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- too tired right now to think, but.... here are some quotes from his sockpuppet:
- you soft fucking computer geeks..blcok me i dont give a fucking shit....fucking nerds its not like u can do shit in real life u fucking pussiesmeteorandmeteor
- I can elaborate tomorrow if you wish.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- I took the liberty of removing the quotes you posted DCM. They are profane and offensive and have no place on any website, especially one like this prone to child visitors. As Laoris said, it was language like this that forced the block. Ritchie was clearly an outlier case. We were nice. He wasn't. Vandal plain and simple. He didn't turn aggro because we were "wimpy" or "had no backbone". He was an idiot before he got here, and intended to disrupt our workings. Please, DCM, give it a break. You're not convincing anyone here. In addition, do we have temporary blocks? In my experience on Wikipedia (don't yell at me for coming from the Wiki!) a "cool-down" block is effective in telling people their behaviour is inappropriate and after a predetermined time period their editing privileges are restored. This may work here as well. — THE TROM — 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course we have more choices than just infinite. We can pick any time possible. MaverickNate 04:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have these ever been implemented? — THE TROM — 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Im sorry, i was proving a point. Lets just say, that hurt. Im testing out his policy now.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- He edited your page, man! It's a blue link!--RexRacer -talk 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that. but he didint know not to..........--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- He edited your page, man! It's a blue link!--RexRacer -talk 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Im sorry, i was proving a point. Lets just say, that hurt. Im testing out his policy now.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- Have these ever been implemented? — THE TROM — 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course we have more choices than just infinite. We can pick any time possible. MaverickNate 04:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing the quotes you posted DCM. They are profane and offensive and have no place on any website, especially one like this prone to child visitors. As Laoris said, it was language like this that forced the block. Ritchie was clearly an outlier case. We were nice. He wasn't. Vandal plain and simple. He didn't turn aggro because we were "wimpy" or "had no backbone". He was an idiot before he got here, and intended to disrupt our workings. Please, DCM, give it a break. You're not convincing anyone here. In addition, do we have temporary blocks? In my experience on Wikipedia (don't yell at me for coming from the Wiki!) a "cool-down" block is effective in telling people their behaviour is inappropriate and after a predetermined time period their editing privileges are restored. This may work here as well. — THE TROM — 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can elaborate tomorrow if you wish.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))
- you soft fucking computer geeks..blcok me i dont give a fucking shit....fucking nerds its not like u can do shit in real life u fucking pussiesmeteorandmeteor
- too tired right now to think, but.... here are some quotes from his sockpuppet:
Meh
What Nate did didn't affect the text, it just removed something from the wanted pages. --Martonimos 04:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, cool, thanks, I didn't understand that. Another tip for the handbook! — THE TROM — 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lulz. While I think you take things a little too far, I agree with some of what you say; we need to be more welcoming to newbies. Care to help me fix the welcome? --Martonimos 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
