- Bit longer now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- This essay made me fell a lot better. Especially after what I've been going through at Sembawang Hot Spring. As for the shortcut, i like it. I think I'll do that. ~Meldshal42 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said, especially the part about sincerely offering apologies when they're warranted. We would all have a much better experience here if more editors were willing to admit their mistakes. ATren (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
When is Apology Required?
I rarely, as the article notes, expect an apology from someone, but it seems that sometimes it is needed. For one, when a user is way out of line and is on the verge of being kicked out, it seems that an apology is the least the person can do. Furthermore, when people make a personal attack on each other, that should be grounds for requiring an apology. I suppose it gets sticky from there, because there are times when people take personal offense to a difference of opinion.
Are there ever instances where an apology is required, or a common rule of engagement?
- I don't think requiring an apology is ever good. But some way to note the absence of an apology, after waiting for one, while still giving room for a graceful climbdown and belated apology, might be useful. What you want to avoid is "I demand an apology", followed by "Oh, OK, here you are", followed by "that's not good enough, it's too late and you should have offered the apology without being asked for it". That just makes things worse. It all depends on the particular incident and how high feelings are running. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I totally agree with that. That is also counterproductive, and just as wrong on the part of the person asking for the apology. However, what if there is a situation where an individual has called someone names - if there is no immediate meaningful apology, they would likely be banned. I see you are on the arbitration committee - how does this work?
- What if someone goes around on several wikipedia pages making false claims about someone, and then never takes back their comments after it is revealed that they were wrong? If someone's reputation is attacked like this, when should that require some sort of apology? NittyG (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a little concerned about this one. Of course a transparently insincere "non-apology" can be in itself quite rude, and certainly no substitute for a "real" apology - on the other hand expressing guilt or remorse when one remains quite sure that the offence the other person took was hyper-sensitive or even contrived can also be blatantly insincere, and in fact look more like sarcastic gloating than real regret. BUT what about "Although I did not mean to imply ... I realise that my remarks could have been taken that way, and I am sincerely sorry for the (unintended) offence they caused". Or even "I'm very sorry my remarks caused offence". An apology of this kind borders on the "non-apology" (in fact there is a grey area where it could be taken either way). On the other hand it can be seen as driven as much by aversion to hypocrisy as a disinclination to admit fault - I think in most circumstances a reasonable person would give such a "non-apology" the benefit of any doubt over its "good faith". Subject to comment - I think I will rewrite the section concerned to be a little more flexible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)