SmashWiki talk:Bad faith

The policy on the project page is a proposed replacement to the current SW:VANDAL policy. As I explained previously on the policy's talk page, vandalism is not the only form of bad faith editing, and no formal policy exists for the other items in this proposal, I believe it would make for a suitable replacement to said policy, by providing a broader explanation of what bad faith is, and why it is unacceptable behaviour on the wiki. This proposal was co-authored by myself and Serpent King.

Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:59, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Support

1. After reading the text, people spam and ingore warnings. I even seen a warned user refusing to comply, getting blocked indefinitely by refusing to comply with the warnings. I'm tired of the spam and warning ignoring. And while I assume good faith with edits, I think we need this policy. Corrin Fan 16:29, 30 October 2018 (EDT)
2. Full support. This policy has been necessary from a long time, even if it was not there to remind us we can't keep assuming Good faith all the time. Good faith is to still be assumed most of the time, though. -- Beep (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

   SmashWiki:Assume_good_faith#Exceptions covers this point already. AGF was never to be assumed absolutely 100% of the time. – Emmett 14:40, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

3. This is the rare policy that needs little to no adjustment before passing. Everything here is clearly worded (with a minor exception in the spam section comparing good faith to bad faith), it's easily applicable to common scenarios, and I have absolutely no issue with the content. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:36, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
4. I'll go with everyone on this case. Dragonfirebreath25 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
5. This is a very mild support. I think the intent is good, but I'm not sure whether this needs to be a full policy as opposed to a guideline; I am wary that people will treat this as a club rather than as the set of guiding principles I think it is intended/ought to be. I also feel that some of it could possibly be better summarised as wikietiquette. In particular:
   • "If it is unclear whether or not malicious intent is involved, the first course of action should always be to clearly and politely issue a warning to the user in question on their talk page. If the behaviour in question continues, a more stern warning should be given, and finally should the behaviour show no sign of stopping, an administrator may issue a block for the user, although this can be done at an earlier stage if deemed appropriate." I think this section is problematic. In the last few weeks since I've returned, I've seen several users issue highly questionable warnings, either inappropriate in tone, in defiance of the spirit of policy, or regarding edits that were not problematic to begin with. I think the language used here is wrong-- the first action shouldn't be to warn someone if the edit is genuinely ambiguous; it should be to start a discussion, and warnings in unclear cases are probably better generally left to admins. This is close to conflicting with SW:BTALK's guidelines about users not threatening others with bans when they aren't empowered to make those decisions, and I think that logic to an extent applies here. I would be wary of encouraging that type of behaviour further, and I think this section does that. – Emmett 18:13, 13 November 2018 (EST)
6. After sleeping on it, I've decided to change my stance here. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 18:23, 2 December 2018 (EST)
7. Gave some thought on it, and I'll give my support, although I feel like this is implied or outlined in other pages regarding "faith" edits and vandalism. SugarCookie 420 21:22, 1 March 2019 (EST)
8. Considering how thhere are multiple edits that are completely false and highly disruptive that do not technically fit the mold of vandalism (Memoryman3 being the best example), I support this. Lou Cena (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. I'm well and truly on the fence about this. While I recognise the need for more transparent policy covering the actions of bad faith users, this also seems a little contradictory to AGF. I'm probably not going to make that my final word though, so check back later to see if I change my mind. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:48, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

   Regarding AGF, that policy applies only when it is conceivable that the editor did not realize they were violating policy. If it has been made clear to them that what they are doing is wrong, and they knowingly ignore said warnings, then their activity is no longer considered good faith. This is essentially already in practice, it just isn't specifically stated in any policy, which is the purpose of this one. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:51, 29 October 2018 (EDT);

   this should be in part of the AGF policy, not it's own thing. maybe have this in AGF, with the headings downgraded by 1 level. Thomasgamer4000 18:57, 1 February 2019 (EST)

Comments

Well this is still going on, the consensus is support of this as a new policy. So I think this needs to be closed. Corrin Fan 13:27, 13 November 2018 (EST)

I do not believe that 4 support comments is really enough to reflect the feelings of the community. I would be reluctant to close this discussion without more comments, or at least more time and attempts to reach out and garner that support. – Emmett 18:13, 13 November 2018 (EST)

I would like to see a part that says that users with a good faith history that then perform bad faith edits (vandalism) should be (initially) treated as ambiguous bad faith. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:50, 13 November 2018 (EST)

I feel like this is covered under SmashWiki:Bad_faith#For_ambiguous_cases. Why do you feel it's not? – Emmett 18:13, 13 November 2018 (EST)

I'm bumping this proposal. Frankly it's ridiculous how long this has been up for... Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 15:05, 1 February 2019 (EST)

Bumping this again... Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 18:11, 17 February 2019 (EST)

I want it on the record that I refuse to close this as I had a part in writing it. Serpent  King 18:15, 17 February 2019 (EST)

It's unanimous support right now, I believe this proposal can close now. SugarCookie 420 12:11, 2 March 2019 (EST)

What would make you want to close this discussion? The support is 8-0, and a majority of the points supporting it were plausible and were not parroted. Lou Cena (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Bump yet again...also does it have to be a crat who passes this or could an admin do it too? Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 13:14, March 20, 2019 (EDT)

Bump a third time. There’s unanimous support, and this has been here for a good couple of months. I think it’s reasonable to pass this one. Lou Cena (talk) 21:53, May 1, 2019 (EDT)

Admins have passed policies before so why not this one? - EndGenuity (talk) 15:30, May 5, 2019 (EDT)