[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[David Gerard]

On 15/11/2007, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> So if you're saying we should assume that banned people will probably
> continue to misbehave, I'm all for that. Leopards rarely change their
> spots, and the same goes for WP:TIGERS. But a number of our banned
> contributors aren't banned because they actually mean ill. Some mean
> well, but define "well" differently. Some have trouble doing good when
> they mean well. And some are just troubled. None of that is bad faith.


Indeed not. "Assume good faith" can make a lot more sense when you
realise that other phrasings are "Don't assume malice when stupidity
will suffice" or "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because rogues
sometimes rest."


- d.