Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

Eleanor Roosevelt Quote

Right, enough of armwrestling, state your reasons for keeping or removing below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a very good quote, and a relevant one. I am sure that we could find other relevant quotes, and I am unsure that we need an opening quote. In its favor, Eleanor Roosevelt is a widely respected figure, and the quote is on point. On the other hand, she is closely associated with political liberalism, and the quote could be perceived as "U.S. centric". Sorry to take a moderate stance, that's how I roll on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although she was a Yankee, I think ER has worldwide recognition, like Gandhi or Churchill. Also, it's an apropos quote, especially with current discussions about civility. BTW: Here is the quote's origin in this article: [1]. Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although this is a conservative source, it appears that the poster has done her/his homework. There appears to be doubt that this quotation originated with Eleanor Roosevelt. The analysis. If someone can provide better provenance for the quote, I will not object. However, I have seen far too many quotes falsely attributed to Abe Lincoln and Mark Twain to take these things at face value. Citation needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Eleanor Roosevelt, and I am a huge fan. She was one of my role models as a child. However the quote in this context implies strongly that simply talking about someone is a personal attack. This is a very important article and we need to be extremely careful about what is in it. A new editor will get the wrong idea by reading that quote and we don't want to do that. The article should be dry and boring, not interesting in any way, that's what it is to be encyclopedic. We need to stick to the facts in a very pure way. It is a very good quote, but I do not think there should be any quotes in the article at all. Quotes are personal opinions, and there should be no personal opinions in the article at all, no matter how lofty the source. Let's keep all opinion out of the article and stick to facts. We are talking about one of the five pillars after all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Sue's comments and analysis wholeheartedly! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The debunk of the quote is rather interesting. It appears to predate ER's fame by quite a bit. [2] In the absence of a real source tying it to ER (with some level of proof) I think we should remove the attribution. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it sounds good if you don't think about it too much, I don't see that this quote ("Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people") really serves any useful purpose here. In fact, it sounds like an attack on the members of WikiProject History and especially WikiProject Biography.--Boson (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "what?", but historians discuss events and biographers discuss people. The quotation seems to be saying that these are the activities of lesser minds". Discussing people and events has nothing to do with personal attacks per se, though, of course, negative discussion of people can be used in relational aggression, as can and many other forms of human interaction. [I have only now noticed that there was already a section on this quote, so I have moved this there. Hope that is OK.] PS: I didn't understand the comment about armwrestling. Did I miss something?--Boson (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Even though it isn't technically and RfC, I have asked an admin to close this, so I can make a new proposal, with current and proposed text side by side. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose adding the bolded paragraph to the end of the "Avoiding personal attacks" section. Note that the current revision of the section (copied below without bolding) is about talk-page discussions, where personalized comments are discouraged, but are sometimes acceptable; also, where editors can change or retract their comments if, during the discussion, they realize they misspoke. However, once you post a personalized edit summary, that appears everywhere - even if you realize that you were wrong.

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

Because they appear in many places and cannot be changed, never post personalized, critical edit summaries. Make critical comments, when necessary, on talk pages or other appropriate forums for content and conduct disputes.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The same question/s seem to be asked in the comments, so I am creating this discussion section to address those here. I will take an hour or two to do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q1. Not sure what you mean by "personalized" ... Do you mean "personal attacks using someone's name"?

Answer to Q1: I mean by using "you" or "your"; also, using a username, part of a username, or abbreviations of a username. For example, if there were a username PatDoe50, you wouldn't use PatDoe50, Pat, PD50, etc.

Exception: When reverting/undoing an edit, the edit summary is pre-populated with "Undid revision 123456789 by PatDoe50 (talk)." That is not a personal attack. Nor is adding an appropriately critical reason like "vandalism," in cases of obvious vandalism. Nor is a simple "Please see talk page" - where it would be appropriate to suggest that a source is not reliable, or that a POV is being pushed, or whatever reason is behind the revert/undo.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q2. What is the point of the first sentence?

Answer to Q2: Your question seems to be about the text that's already in the section, that would precede the proposed addition. I agree that it could be simplified, some of it's components could maybe be bulleted as examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of personalized, critical commentary, like this (examples from current revision of section, but they're buried in the text of a paragraph, making the reader work to tease out the simple advice):

N Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

Y The statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

N The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research.

Y The paragraph inserted into the article looks like original research.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q3. [Why] should we harm Wikipedia by trying to prevent unreasonable people from putting their foot in it?

The argument presented before the question is this:

I think omitting this change will tend to improve Wikipedia in the long run, basically by leaving unreasonable people enough rope to hang themselves. Reasonable people tend to avoid making unnecessary personal attacks (PAs for short). So most of these PAs will be edits by unreasonable people, and the fact that they have made a PA which they can't erase will put them at a grave disadvantage in any ensuing dispute (something that I have occasionally found useful in winning a content dispute with an unreasonable opponent). Common sense suggests that Wikipedia will tend to benefit in the long run if unreasonable people tend to find themselves at a disadvantage in content disputes...

Answer to Q3: I might misunderstand the argument, but here goes... The section in question has not had the proposed text in it for all this time (months, probably years), and yet if giving unreasonable people enough rope to hang themselves on this issue should have resulted in fewer PA edit summaries - then by now there should be fewer PA edit summaries. The fact is, there is in effect already a policy that addresses this problem, but the problem is largely going unaddressed. Therefore, to briefly reiterate the related policy here gives the community better footing from which to enforce the policy.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q4. What does the proposal mean? How would it help?

After reading the comments that follow the original questions, I assume they are rhetorical, because the comments end with "a policy change will not help." However, my proposal is not for a policy change, but to clarify here, via a brief summary, what is already policy per WP:ESDONTS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q5a. I think those who want to raise the bar re civility need to explain better to the rest of us what currently permitted behaviour do they wish to disallow?

Answer to Q5a: I can only speak for myself, but in this case, I want to make it clear in this section of this policy that personalized, critical edit summaries are unacceptable. This isn't really a change in policy, as far as I can tell, but an explicit explanation about something that falls under an existing policy: WP:Civility#Edit summary dos and don'ts.

In fact, can someone make a shortcut for that? Maybe WP:ES-DOS? Never mind. I figured out how to do it; created WP:ESDOS and WP:ESDONTS. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q5b. When I correct typos of "public" [as "pubic"] by adding the missing "l" I usually use an edit summary of "not curly". Is that acceptable sarcasm or too snarky for some?

Answer to Q5b: It's not personalized, so it's acceptable. However, personalizing it - "PatDoe50 you idiot. Why don't you get a dictionary?" or "You idiot. Why don't you get a dictionary?" - would be unacceptable.

I honestly trust the Admins and the better (as in larger) part of the community to get this. I imagine a majority of editors have experienced PAs in edit summaries and many, whether they know better or not, have made them. I am convinced that if the hammer came down hard on this problem, there would be a significant drop in its occurence and that would cut down on conflict.

What do I mean by come down hard on the problem? First offense = warning. Second = 24 hour block. Third = 72 hour block. Fourth = 7 day, and so on.

But the main thing is to not just keep letting it slide likes it's acceptable. It's one part of the hostile work environment on WP that could be easily addressed. Again, I trust the larger community to get this.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q6. Is this proposal an example of policy creep?

Added by yours truly here because there are references to it in the Vote comments. I have read that essay, and I don't see how it applies here. In fact, considering that it's a brief but explicit summary of a closely related civility policy point, I think it is WP:NOTCREEP. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Vote

• Support as proposer. Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. A "personalized, critical edit summary" is not necessarily a WP:Personal attack, and we don't need editors feeling that they can't criticize an editor in a WP:Edit summary. There is no way that we should tell people not to criticize someone in a WP:Edit summary. Often, explaining why we are objecting to someone's edit when we revert them is a matter of criticizing that person/that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Of course when you reverse another's edit, you leave a summary like "Undid revision 123456789 by Joe/Jane (talk): Source given not reliable" or something like that. That is NOT personal, and is acceptable, per WP:ES#How to summarize. Unacceptable are things like, "That idiot Joe/Jane is up to his/her usual POV pushing," or "You are POV pushing." Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see why "personalized, critical" commentary should be okay for the talk page but not for a WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is OK when it is presented appropriately and in the appropriate place. Note that it says, "Make critical comments, when necessary, on talk pages or other appropriate forums..." not "Make personalized, critical comments." All of the information necessary to understand this proposal is given, I believe, in the links provided in the proposed addition: edit summaries, WP:DR#Resolving content disputes, and WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure what you mean by "personalized", you mean using their name? I know in the past it was considered tacky but people seem to do it a lot last couple years. Do you mean "personal attacks using someone's name"? That is pretty much implicit in the rest. I think what you need to do is just propose making it explicit that personal attacks in edit summaries also are forbidden. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read the beginning of the "Avoiding personal attacks" section (link above), you will see what it means. Lightbreather (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The point, as I'd initially considered stating, is that what is or is not personalized can be misinterpreted and interpreted as a good or a bad thing. That's why I stated above, "'A personalized, critical edit summary' is not necessarily a WP:Personal attack." And we don't need editors WP:Wikilawyering regarding what is and is not personalized. Also, things often become personalized on Wikipedia due to editors' passions about the topic or otherwise. So even with your additions to your proposal above, I still object. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The proposed sentences are a worthy addition. The fact a comment in an edit summary is permanent (not even the editor who wrote it can revise or delete it) is the salient point. Memills (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Edit summaries should not be personalized at all, regardless of whether they are critical. Moreover "critical" can be in the eye of the beholder, whereas edit summaries should always be descriptive and explanatory. I suggest the word "critical" be stricken from the proposed text. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The motivation here is probably good, but it feels to me like policy creep, and I do fear for how the WP:Wikilawyering would work out. Many edit commentaries, particularly on user talk pages, are inevitably personal, and some quite fair ones can sometimes be negative or critical. I can foresee arguments over whether reverts with comments such as "I've asked you before not to post on my talk page", "you just don't get it", or "please stop your vandalism of this page", constitute a personalized, critical edit summary. I would potentially support a simpler statement, perhaps which urged users to be particular careful of avoiding language which might appear to be a "personal attack" in an edit summary, noting that edit summaries are more permanent and - being terser than a talk page - are more likely to be misinterpreted. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Hchc2009, and that is why this proposal should involve the community on a wider scale; I'll start a WP:RfC on it, which is what I did with the four-paragraph lead dispute, before I am at ease with letting this addition be added to the policy. That Lightbreather continues to want the wording as vague as possible despite the concerns expressed regarding that is reason enough for me to continue to object to the proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, "continues to want the wording as vague as possible"? Considering the text that precedes the proposed addition, I don't think it's vague, but more than that... I only made the proposal yesterday, and only a handful of editors have replied, so it's a little early to say that I "continue" to want as if the proposal/want is ridiculous. Let's give it a week or two. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, you continue to want the wording as vague as possible. Look at the comments about the wording; it clearly is not the best, at least to different people (including me), in this discussion. Instead of changing it to make it clearer, you have kept it vague. I'm simply stating now that if that vague wording comes close to being added to the policy page, I will start a wide-scale WP:RfC on this matter. I will not be WP:Wikilawyered on what I can and cannot state in an edit summary. Unless it's a clear-cut personal attack, don't bother me about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I won't see a need to start a WP:RfC on this matter, since you have alerted various related pages, and relevant venues, to this discussion, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here. I don't know what alerting Wikipedia:Writing better articles, as you did here, has to do with this discussion, however. And it might not be a good idea for you to go around alerting individual editors to it, as you did here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Vicious edit summaries are a common tactic of certain disruptive editors. They are worse than personal attacks on talk pages, because they cannot be deleted except by the draconian technique of redaction. I think that a few editors use personalized edit summaries (e.g., "Remove biased material inserted by neo-Nazi") precisely because they are permament. However, it is probably even more important to include this in the guidelines about edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support with a caveat, I'm in favor of "better wording" of anything, especially comments that Users make to one another. I feel that LB's recommendation for neutral language when making reference to an edit or series of edits is a FANTASTIC recommendation. But one of the problems that we are trying to combat is that we editors are an impassioned bunch and quite often we don't stop to think or even review what we are saying let alone how we are saying it. After hitting the "Save page" button, we get a reminder to put in an Edit Summary, but nothing as "Civility" or "Common sense" reminder. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – attack by edit summary seems to be quite popular these days and it is especially problematic due to its permanence. I'm not sure if the proposed wording is the best, but it's a move in the right direction. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this is trying to solve a software problem (that problematic edit notes can only be handled by 'crats) with policy - it is WP:CREEP. There is already advice on this Help:Edit summary: "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack." Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: 1) It conveys the message to the typical clever bully who is the bane of Wikipedia that he (or she, though it seemingly almost always is a he) can probably get away with saying "Removing moronically POV statement", and s/he can also try to get somebody else hauled before Arbcom for saying "Removing your POV statement", or "Removing X's POV statement".

2) It will also convey to others the message that they are now even more at the mercy of such clever bullies than they were before.

3) It seems very reasonable in theory, but in practice it seems liable to be yet more of what seems so insane and off-putting about Wikipedia in general and this section in particular. Thinking of a person of whom you disapprove as a "Dick" or "Asshole" is directly encouraged by our Civility guidelines (and thinking of them as "Fuckheads" is indirectly encouraged), and there is in practice no possibility of changing this (I know, I've tried, here,here, and here, though, perhaps thankfully, the link to the evil "Fuckhead" article (which openly encourages bullying and cyberbullying by mobs, and worse) is at least temporarily dead (live link here)). But saying "you" or "your" can get you banned for incivility (for more on "you" and "your", see here and here). And this kind of thing will go on for as long as Wikipedia rules cannot be changed except by consensus - in this case, as with others, once the dubious rule is adopted, it is liable to prove impossible to get rid of if it turns out to be a disaster, as long as it is a disaster that suits some people (such as clever bullies).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support in principle, though not sure whether the wording is ideal, on the grounds that personal attacks anywhere are incivil, and edit summaries are more permanent than ordinary talk page comments. It's also worth pointing out that the originator of an attack can refactor or delete wikitext themselves to withdraw the attack, but cannot do that to an edit summary. Deltahedron (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. An editor who regrets having posted impolite text in an edit summary can choose to make a subsequent dummy edit with an apology in the edit summary.—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The spirit of the proposal is good, but I would suggest that "no personal attacks" means no personal attacks anywhere, and those prone to making them are the ones who are going to game the system, wikilawyer, or ignore the rules anyway. Edit summaries are used for so many varying purposes depending on context that specializing the rules for them would be hard to do and enforce. When someone makes an authentic personal attack in an edit summary, my personal opinion is that you should attack them back with such ferocity that it becomes absurd almost immediately. Declare yourself on a hunger strike until someone is blocked/unblocked; call them pizza cheese jihadists. Write long poems defending lamenting what's occured. On the gender side, you could simply declare every Neanderthal wikipedia editor the Unintentional He-man women haters club president. However, I must share, this has not always served me well. So I think just laying off personal attacks everywhere period should be the rule. People usually know when they are being uncivil; some need some teachin.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this particular wording, though a differently worded statement advising particular care in edit summaries might be appropriate. We should be especially careful to formulate recommendations in ways that are not likely to exacerbate conflict. --Boson (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle with a caveat on the wording. I see far too many edit summaries that go for the one-two zinger. You revert somebody, you don't need to call them a moron in the ES. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:Actually, the more I look at this section, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite. Removing it completely might even be better than leaving it in its current form. Policy pages should clearly say what behaviour is unacceptable and may lead to sanctions. The introduction does this. But the following sections may make things less clear and thus be part of the problem. The introduction states:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

The justification for the following sections is presuably that they clarify how that is to be interpreted or implemented. However, what seemed perfectly clear becomes less clear as we read on:

• The heading is Avoiding personal attacks but the policy shortcut is WP:AVOIDYOU, and much of the text deals with avoiding the second person. There may be some vague correlation between use of the second person and the likelihood of the addressee being offended but we should not conflate syntactic forms and offensiveness. Having given the impression that use of the second person is necessarily "bad" ("the word "you" should be avoided when possible"), we then try to correct that false impression and make things even more confusing.
• We start off the section with "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized." but then, fearing that the reader will not understand this, we explain it: " That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." What is the point of the first sentence? The second sentence is OK but merely repeats the introduction.

And so it goes on. Sometimes less is more (and vice versa).--Boson (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• way, way too broad. I get that people tend to snipe in edit summaries but there's no need to expand the current policy to specifically forbid personal attacks there, as they're (nominally) forbidden everywhere. The proposed text invites too much lawyering about what is sufficiently "personal" and "critical" and doesn't seem like it would resolve any common disputes faster or more cleanly than current policy. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The very first sentence of No personal attacks is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." This clearly covers edit summaries. Even if the wording of the proposal were improved, it's still redundant at best. I don't think we should complicate things by special-casing edit summaries. Alsee (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment (actually an "Oppose", but please don't count this as a "vote", as I've already "voted" above): Besides the aspects I've already mentioned above about banning "you", etc, I think omitting this change will tend to improve Wikipedia in the long run, basically by leaving unreasonable people enough rope to hang themselves. Reasonable people tend to avoid making unnecessary personal attacks (PAs for short). So most of these PAs will be edits by unreasonable people, and the fact that they have made a PA which they can't erase will put them at a grave disadvantage in any ensuing dispute (something that I have occasionally found useful in winning a content dispute with an unreasonable opponent). Common sense suggests that Wikipedia will tend to benefit in the long run if unreasonable people tend to find themselves at a disadvantage in content disputes, so why should we harm Wikipedia by trying to prevent unreasonable people from putting their foot in it? Also the less unreasonable people among them may learn from their experience that PAs don't pay, thus making them more reasonable people, thereby making Wikipedia a better place (again I have also noticed something like this happening on at least one occasion). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I will answer this question (Q3) in the Discussion subsection above. Lightbreather (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 'Revert vandalism' (for example) is a perfectly legitimate edit summary - and it is intended to be critical of the vandal. Legitimate criticism isn't a personal attack, and conflating the two when personal attacks are already covered in the general policy is likely to achieve nothing significant beyond giving Wikilawyers another excuse to nitpick. A warning to take care with edit summaries may well be appropriate, but the proposed text isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What does the proposal mean? How would it help? A totally inappropriate edit that is not vandalism might be reverted with edit summary "misguided". In an ideal world, a detailed explanation of the problem would have been given, but we're not living in an ideal world as more and more misguided people are finding their way to Wikipedia. Now someone could drop a template on the reverter's talk saying they used a critical edit summary in contravention of a policy, and we could argue about that rather than the edit—not helpful. If an editor uses too many critical summaries, or if the language is over the top, assistance will be needed, but a policy change will not help. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support because that seems like a minor change that's informative. Not sure I follow all the details about rverting templates, to be fair. ReginaldTQ (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Redundant at the beginning, overreaching at the end. (Look, a critical comment!) There is nothing wrong with using critical thinking and writing skills to construct an edit summary. The section already explains that comments should not be personalized, so repeating an admonition about personalized comments is redundant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose—criticism directed at an editor (example: Baffle gab1978, your edit is POV and highly inappropriate) doesn't equate to a personal attack. A direct insult (Baffle gab1978 is an asshat who can't spell for toffee) does. NPA already applies to edit summaries; perhaps the page is deficient and doesn't make that obvious when it should be stated explicitly—in which case it needs rewriting. We don't need to be treated like children, thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I mean, I am supportive of text suggesting not to put attacks in edit summaries, but the word criticism on its own does not constitute attack. NPA is about insulting people for the sake of injuring them, which people do out of hand without noticing, particularly in text based interaction. ~ R.T.G 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. edit summaries are optional and they can be blanked by admins. The only time I can think of where you would want to amend rather than blank an unacceptable edit summary would be if it contained both an attribution link to show where something had been imported from and an unacceptable personal comment, and even then there are workarounds. I can see an argument for a policy change to give admins a greater discretion to blank inappropriate edit summaries on the grounds that edit summaries are more expendible than edits. But first I think those who want to raise the bar re civility need to explain better to the rest of us what currently permitted behaviour do they wish to disallow? When I correct typos of public by adding the missing l I usually use an edit summary of "not curly". Is that acceptable sarcasm or too snarky for some? ϢereSpielChequers 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per policy creep, Flyer22 and others. Dennis 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What's "policy creep"? Seriously. I understand what "instruction creep" is but we do have policy....and the page is, in fact...policy. But we don't instruct editors. Sorry...but the "policy creep" argument is simply not viable here.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I get the idea here...but it needs a great deal of refinement. I also think it is too wordy.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify please, Mark. Is the whole section too wordy, or the two sentences (bolded) that I'm proposing to add? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose criticism in edit summaries is not incivility, particularly if the criticism is of an edit and not an editor. Saying you cant put anything critical in an edit summary makes edit summaries useless. Every summary would be "I made a change". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though it isn't technically and RfC, I have asked an admin to close this, so I can make a new proposal, with current and proposed text side by side. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section title issue

I was looking at the section title "Avoiding personal attacks" and realized it seems to put the onus on the person attacked to prove they didn't deserve it. I think a better title, that reflects the actual content, is "Use impersonal language." And perhaps it might help dramatize the with the main issue in this thread. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I (respectfully) disagree: As far as I'm concerned what's wrong with the section (and is symptomatic of what's wrong with Wikipedia) is the attempt to outlaw normal civil speech ("you" and "your") instead of concentrating on outlawing genuine personal attacks. The above suggestion would merely make that worse. Note that I haven't said 'your suggestion' - but you presumably understand perfectly well that's what I mean by 'the above suggestion'. Had I said 'Your suggestion' that would not have made it a personal attack. In other cases it might have helped make it clearer what I was saying (indeed in this case it would make it clear that I'm not talking about Lightbreather's suggestion). In still other cases the outlawing of 'you' and 'your' may make all of us wonder whether we are being criticized when in fact no criticism of us is being made. (And I could list plenty of other problems with banning 'you' and 'your', but life is too short for that, but for more on "you" and "your", see here and here).

Meanwhile it would be easy for me to try to gratuitously hurt your feelings without ever using 'you' or 'your' by saying something like 'the above idiotic suggestion' (by the way, I in no way regard your suggestion as idiotic, I merely (respectfully) disagree with it). And if I had said 'the above idiotic suggestion', I could then have claimed it wasn't a personal attack (when it seems to me that in reality it usually or always would have been), as it was 'content-oriented' on grounds that I would be supposedly criticizing the suggestion and not attacking you. And, though I've never counted them, I suspect that most of the worst personal attacks in Wikipedia (the ones by 'clever bullies') are of that nature. And I expect that most of the time they get away with it.

(And, incidentally, even when they don't get away with it, they may actually gain anyway, because having a nasty block log record serves as useful 'warpaint' that intimidates others into giving them a wide berth for fear of finding themselves in an unpleasant dispute, though such 'warpaint' is perhaps a bit of a digression here). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• How about changing it to, "How to avoid making personal attacks", or "How to avoid attacking others"? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:RTG/General attacks ~ R.T.G 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits of 17 September 2014

I now intend to undo today's changes per BRD, as lacking consensus+making things worse: However this may take a little time as there are 6 or 7 changes, and I only know how to undo them one at a time. There is no consensus for change - there are self-evidently a large number of objects in the above. Meanwhile the changes make things worse in many respects, especially as they remove the explicit statement that "Your statement ...", although not encouraged, is NOT a personal attack, which gives useful protection to normal people trying to speak normally and unambiguously.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that my above comment refers to objects which were immediately above it when it was created, before it got moved to the current new section)Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you assume good faith and discuss this? I don't believe any of the edits changed the meaning of the policy. Mostly copy-editing, clarifying, adding shortcuts, etc. I will be happy to explain each. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be able to build consensus for most of your changes (perhaps with tweaks), and I personally think you have made them in good faith. However, changes to policy do not follow normal WP:BRD. Generally, consensus should be affirmatively gained first. WP:CONLIMITED Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And your edit summaries, Tlhslobus, are perfect examples of what the previous discussion is about.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. All but one reverts good-faith edits made by me. One is a GF edit made by another. They all say: Undid revision 625979403 by Lightbreather (talk) Undoing today's changes 1 by 1, as lacking consensus per BRD,+making things worse - details in Talk. (Except the one reverting the other editor has his username in it.) It was completely uncivil to add "+making things worse". Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Tlhslobus, I would not have taken personally this edit summary: Undid revision 625979403 by Lightbreather (talk) Undoing today's changes 1 by 1, as lacking consensus per BRD - details in Talk. The first part is auto-generated and the second part adheres to Avoid inappropriate summaries. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither stated nor intended to imply any lack of good faith, and my apologies if you got such an impression. The 'by Lightbreaker" is NOT by me - it is the standard text that our software puts in with every 'undo' - as such it is NOT an example of anything discussed here. And nor did I intend to be uncivil - "making things worse" is simply a summary of what I said in the explanation in Talk, and it refers to my view that the content has been made worse - it is not a personal attack on you, and it is not uncivil. I apologize if it offended you, but it is simply an honest good faith content-oriented edit description. I merely point out that the changes collectively make things worse in ways that I have already explained above. But I'm happy to hear which changes you think don't change the policy - in particular by removing the immensely precious protection of the clear and unambiguous explicit statement that " Saying 'Your statement ... ' is NOT a personal attack". So I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter (although not enthusiastic, as I fear it may turn into an exhausting argument). I would however appreciate it if you could please withdrew some of the seemingly unwarranted criticisms you have made of me in your previous comments. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sidetracked. I've listed what you reverted below. Would you please reply there with your arguments about how the edits you reverted "made things worse," starting with 1. - which is the simplest of the four. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally watered down definition of uncivil. If he thinks your the changes made the policy worse (ie, more confusing/ambiguous/wrong) that is an entirely legitimate position. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The position MAY be legitimate, but it doesn't belong in an edit summary. The position may ALSO be wrong. The talk page is the place to speculate on whether or not an edit "made things worse" - not edit summaries. But I'm not going to get off topic and argue about that here. This discussion is about the content of these edits, starting with the simplest:

1. Made things worse?[10][11] Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Made things worse?[12] Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

3. Made things worse?[13] Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"made things worse" It may be right, it may be wrong, but either way it is not incivil or inappropriate for the talk page or the edit summary. We are supposed to keep it on the edits not the editor, but apparently keeping it on the edits is also offlimits. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

When such an opinion is made on a talk page, if it turns out to be wrong, the editor who made the claim can apologize. When it's made in an edit summary, it floats around forever as an unsubstantiated criticism of the edit and the editor who made it. For example, if I were to say here that you may be baiting me, and then you replied that you are not, I could simply say, "I'm sorry" and maybe even withdraw my comment. If I add it to my edit summary, it'll float around forever. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the edit that sits around forever is not a problem, even if that criticism turns out to be incorrect. Since you just accused me of baiting you in your edit summary though, which is specifically directed towards an editor, and you think such a thing is uncivil and likely a personal attack if it was done towards you, then you are breaking your own rules to make a WP:POINT. Like many rules I guess they are only applied for me and not for thee. You have a view of incivility that is fundamentally incompatible with criticizing anything for any purpose - that makes edit summaries pretty useless, and very un-wiki imo. In any case, us going around in circles is not productive. Get consensus for your policy changes, if you can, but if rules like "dont say anything negatitve about an edit in an edit summary" are what you are hoping for, I sincerely hope you fail. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your above help, Gaijin42. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, Gaijin42, I responded in the way that I think you wanted me to so that you could make your WP:POINTs. Now I would like to drop this and get back to the questions above and below. Lightbreather (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(This statement was meant to be put here in response to the above comments; somehow it managed to end up elsewhere). As I indicated originally I was undoing the edits 1 by 1 because for some reason I am physically unable to undo them all in one go (perhaps somebody can let me know how to do that); as such the edit description necessarily refers to the collection of edits, and not to any individual edit. As for not belonging in an edit summary, part of the purpose of an edit summary is to give a summary of the reasons why a change is being made, and as such what I wrote, being such a summary, does belong in the edit summary.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that my above comment does not refer to the comments immediately above it, as these were added by others at a later time).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

4. (ec) Made things worse?[14] The following is a before and after for comparison. (Note that the "after" did not incorporate the proposed text re edit summaries from the above, still-open discussion.)

Before 17 SEP 2014

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

After

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the second person words "you" and "your" may be taken as a personal attack by some, regardless of your intention. For example, the statements:

N The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research.

N Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

Would be preferable like this:

Y The paragraph inserted into the article looks like original research.

Y The statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement (which I regard as immensely important) had disappeared in the changes:

A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, ...

There may well be other problems with the changes which will come to light once discussed by others. Meanwhile the procedure for making such large changes has to be followed - a consensus has to be reached (and not just by you and me). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have problems with edits 1 through 3, or just this one, please? Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's after midnight so I'm going to bed. But if you could please clarify which edits are '1 to 3' and which one is 'this one' , I'll try to find time to think about your question and answer it in the next few days, but with luck possibly sometime tomorrow (golf and Scottish Referendum permitting). Though as already pointed out, such changes should normally need a larger concensus than just you and me (after all, any mistake we make potentially affects thousands or maybe even millions of Wikipedians) - but presumably you don't need to wait for my opinons before initiating whatever is the recommended concensus-seeking process. As Gajin42 has already stated above, "Generally, consensus should be affirmatively gained first. WP:CONLIMITED." Anyway, have a good night's sleep. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They're numbered above, in this very discussion. If you scroll up you will see items 1, 2, 3, and 4, each followed by the question "Made things worse?" and a diff or diffs. Goodnight and I look forward to your reply. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• At least as far as I can see, no problem with 1 and 2. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not so sure about 2 anymore - the change replaces an instruction to be "civil" which is only wikilinked to our civility guidelines, to an explicit order to adhere to those guidelines, while (if I remember right) removing the explicit requirement to be civil. This seems trivial, except that our civility guidelines are now linked to 'Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead' stuff that many of us see as dangerously uncivil (or worse) - so even this may not be quite as simple and harmless as I first thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now checked whether I remembered right - I did, the change did indeed remove the explicit requirement to be civil. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm now beginning to have my doubts even about 1, which adds an anchor called "Removal of text" to the start of "Removal of personal attacks". The purpose of an anchor is to enable people to link to a place to which one could not otherwise link. But here it's being used to provide an invisible link to a place to which we can already link, while making it harder for people, bots, etc, to realize that it's linking to "Removal of personal attacks", because it appears to be linking to something called "Removal of text" which doesn't have any obvious relation to Personal Attacks. This may well be harmless, but that's not self-evident, since on the face of it, it seems to somehow unintentionally make it easier for somebody in future to deliberately deceive or accidentally mislead some bot, while it's quite unclear what its benefits, if any, might be, given that one doesn't need it to link there (actually there is a benefit in that the link still works if the section name changes, whereas linking to the section name eventually gets fixed by a bot, but that can take some time, during which the link doesn't work). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

However the above concerns with 1 are probably excessive (they probably would apply to most anchors) and can in any case be met by choosing an anchor name such as "Removal of personal attacks" (or maybe "Removal-of-personal-attacks" if something like that is needed to avoid name duplication). And many thanks for teaching me about anchors, as I've been wanting something like that for ages (for example to link to a name without its own article in a disambiguation list, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Better not fall-back on me, Tlhslobus, as an authority on anchors. I know very little about them myself, and I think what you want to do could be done better through other means. If you start a discussion about that on my talk page, I will try to help.Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words as far as I'm concerned please feel free to make change 1" Tlhslobus (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note sure about 3. It is changing "justification" to "convincing evidence" and wikilinking that to "diffs". There will often be no need for diffs because the attack is nearby, or because wikilinking to a section or quoting it does the job adequately and more quickly and simply. I can also imagine other problems and abuses arising out of it (perhaps especially when inexperienced and/or not-very-smart editors are being bullied by experienced and/or smart ones, as the change seems to make it harder for them to try to defend themselves). And others may find more problems (as may I, if and when I give it more thought), particularly as the entire section seems to be the result of one or more compromises between an Anti-You camp (that wants to ban or restrict "you" and "your") and a Pro-You camp (that sees this as a very bad idea). There may have been other camps involved in the compromises as well, such as opponents of instruction creep, and who knows what else. As such changing individual elements of a compromise package may not work, because the compromise only works as a whole, and can perhaps only be replaced by a new whole reached by consensus (if such a replacement is seen as desirable and if a consensus on it can be reached).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• As for 4, there are parts of it which are essentially cosmetic, and I don't object to those parts - indeed I quite like them (but I might then want similar pretty highlighting for the "safeguard" bit too). But the major wording change that I've already mentioned will never be acceptable to me (nor, I suspect, to the people of the "Pro-You" camp who presumably put that safeguard in there in the first place, though they may well not even be aware that it's under discussion). And there may be problems with other parts of the wording changes which others may spot (or which I may spot later, if and when I give it more thought).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the RFC above is currently opposing at 15:8. Changes to policy require consensus, and there is clearly not consensus for the more important changes being discussed at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually his current changes seem very different from the one discussed in the above RFC, so they would probably require a completely new RFC. Also, for all I know, making changes to the section (even minor cosmetic ones , and wording 'clarifications') while the existing RFC is still ongoing may well be confusing by reducing the clarity of the discussions in that RFC.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that since the WP:No personal attacks page is a policy page, significant, non-cosmetic changes to it should have WP:Consensus. The policy page has a tag on it that is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks"

Backing it up, this is not a proposal to add anything new, but to copyedit the existing Avoiding personal attacks section.

CURRENT

PROPOSED

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct). Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.) |

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. In disputes, the second person words "you" and "your" may be taken as a personal attack by some, regardless of your intention. For example, the statements: N The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research. N Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y. Although not personal attacks, would be preferable like this: Y The paragraph inserted into the article looks like original research. Y The statement about X is wrong because of information at Y. Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct). Editors should adhere to Wikipedia's civility policy and wiki etiquette guidelines when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing convincing evidence is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Vote 2

• Support - as proposer. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• support with modifications In general, I can support the concept of this change, but I do have some issues.The text in the middle between the two sets of examples sounds awkward. Perhaps it would flow better to do something like "Although these are not personal attacks (1) (2) it is preferable to use (3) (4)" I also think one of the sentences dropped is important "However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. " The previous examples also had the nice benefit of being acceptable->better->best with the final version including the diff and policy links, which is lost in the proposed version. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per arguments that I and others made in the #Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" section above. It is perfectly fine to focus on an editor in an edit summary, clearly criticizing that person's edit, as long as the comment is WP:Civil/is not a WP:Personal attack. If an editor inserted WP:Original research into an article, I should be able to point out that it was that editor who did so, not be vague about it. Doing so also alerts others to who added the WP:Original research without others having to check through the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AVOIDYOU already covers this topic anyway; I also disagree with its wording that avoiding the word you is preferable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal isn't a variation on the last one, which was about adding material to "Avoiding personal attacks" (shortcut WP:AVOIDYOU). This proposal is just about copyediting/re-presenting the existing AVOIDYOU/Avoiding-personal-attacks section so that it's clearer and easier to read. The current section (in its entirety on the left) says nothing about edit summaries, and neither does the proposed, copyedited section (in its entirety on the right). Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my considered opinion, focussing on the use of you/your etc. misses the point completely and doesn't really belong here at all, so a lot more more than copyediting is required. I might support a (different) provisional change in the form of a copyedit (a pig with lipstick), but I don't think the change from

• "without providing a justification for your accusation" to
• "without providing convincing [my emphasis] evidence"

is helpful. As the example shows, someone might erroneously, but in good faith, believe that they have been attacked and raise the issue, but any evidence they provided would not be convincing. Though their claim should be rejected, it would not necessarily be appropriate to regard their good-faith claim as an attack (and possibly block them, rather than replying "I think you may be misinterpreting policy"). Perhaps something like "frivolous accusations . . ." would be better. --Boson (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How about simply striking "convincing" and just leaving "evidence", unqualified. Lightbreather (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Questions? Comments?

As an aside, I perhaps would not have gone straight to the straw poll/RFC with this. RFCs are much more difficult to analyze/close when they are something other than a straight up/down, or when changes come in the middle (since prior !votes didn't know about the changes). Asking for feedback first to get the early suggestions (such as mine below) and avoid having to write things like your FAQ above - which can turn the closing into a simple vote count rather than trying to have the closer trying to decide what the common ground is between more complex opinions. This is especially true for a policy, where the specific wording can be controversial, and we can't easily just clean it up with a BRD afterwards. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)