User:Brendon111/Experience/Biting in good-faith?

This essay is incomplete and it contains my advice or opinions. This essay may not represent widespread norms. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.

Biting in good-faith?

← Back to contents

by Brendon

17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Recently I've come across a concise user essay titled "BITECLUB" written by an editor named SheffieldSteel. The name seemed interesting so I checked it out. The article indeed has "more than a kernel of truth to it" (as claimed by an editor in its talk-page). That essay basically asks the vital question

“

if the newcomer is so ignorant that they need to be protected by WP:BITE, how exactly did they know to link to that guideline?

”

I will try to answer this question in this essay.

What does not biting entail?

Yes, there are pesky editors who need to be blocked, socks who are virtually asking to be blocked. There are all sorts of stupid people, and in all fairness, stupid essays too.

I think “not biting” essentially entails amicability, kindness and graciousness in stead of a constant focus on terrifying your opponent who, you are fairly sure, is either incompetent as a bucket of rocks or an extremely smart sock feigning incompetence for hiding behind WP:AGF (and not to mention, a pain in the ass).

See, we can either continue to discuss the issue whether to call him a sock basing on nothing more than your intuition^{[note 1]} back and forth, and ask questions similar to the one I quoted above, or we may assume good-faith^{[note 2]} and do what we should do, attempt to turn him into a collaborator.

While it's okay to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. This means that the accusation being thrown by the accuser must be proven with clear and convincing evidence to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" about the validity and veracity of that accusation. If we can minimize the doubt to a level where it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty, then it's okay.

What does not biting not entail?

It doesn't say, "if an editor has knowledge of WP:BITE, others may bite him as they will." or
"if an editor is well aware of WP:BITE then he is definitely a sock and not protected by WP:BITE."

These are just few examples of what "not biting" doesn't entail, because then it will defy its own purpose.

sometimes it isn't actually what it *clearly* seems to be.

It's easy to come across WP:BITE

Trust me, it's not that difficult, or improbable, for a new editor to get au fait with WP:BITE. The link to WP:BITE is pretty eye-catching in {{guideline list}} and also in WP:Civility page, especially to a newbie. Hence, what I'm trying to say is, just as an editor may be well acquainted with Wikipedia:Assume good faith but not so familiar with other interior guidelines^{[note 3]}, one editor may know how to link to WP:BITE but not be a "sock" or a "veteran duck".

Assume good

When I see an editor claiming to be Newcomer but also citing WP:BITE, I don't jump to conclusions rightaway. I know what it feels to be accused that way^{[note 4]}.

I am a quick learner but by no means an exception, I used to loiter around discussions and RfCs which I never got involved into.

In one discussion an editor succinctly wrote,

I don't know much about this, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that at least a moderate number of people wander into many Wikipedia namespace pages and lurk around; I know that there are quite a few arbitration cases that I have read in full (the case, the evidence, the workship, and the proposed decisions), even though I have never been involved in arbitration. Also, Wikipedia policy is easy to pick up since it is frequently cited everywhere; with enough lurking, it is quite easy to pick up on what kinds of policies are practiced.
— User:New questions

End-result of assuming bad

Unprovable bad-faith assumptions lead us into the path of denigration, ridicule and incivility. Every time we assume bad-faith we end up debasing ourselves in the eyes of others. Yes, we're all humans and it's in the nature of some among us to assume bad-faith. Many are just more inclined to be pessimistic while others are not.

Sometimes it harms not only ourselves but the ones we accuse also. This is not in the interest of the project.

This cycle of bad-faith is not conducive to anybody.

Note

^ if you're 100% sure or have solid evidence to back your claim, even then, ridiculing someone is unnecessary and a wastage of time because you can just file a case in WP:SPI and get it over with.
^ It's harder than denigrating someone predicating on bad-faith presumptions, but more effective
^ especially those which have not yet made it to the {{guideline list}}
^ Yes, I've been accused of being a WP:DUCK, a sock, a troll, a filibuster, etc several times. It doesn't feel good, let me tell you . I could only cite WP:AGF and WP:BITE and repeat that I'm hurt, because I didn't have any other way to prove to the opinionated, inconsiderate accusers that I'm not a "veteran duck".

Discuss this story

To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

No comments yet. Yours could be the first!