Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12

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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

Note to other readers: This is being discussed in Discussion 2, below, and there seems to be agreement for a minor tweak. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Very minor and done.  Done Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 20 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, Flyer22, 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). Also, the current section already says "is preferred." Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The ping via WP:Echo did not work, but it's not needed since I already have this page on my WP:Watchlist. I already stated above, "WP:AVOIDYOU already covers this topic anyway; I also disagree with its wording that avoiding the word you is preferable." I don't want that bit highlighted. And it's pretty clear that some people will, or already do, extend it to edit summaries; I'm not one of those people. I will continue to state "you" in debates, and in edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 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)

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

Though that helps a bit, I think it's a matter of good faith rather than providing evidence. Think of the following situation:

• Editor A: "Clueless! Somebody needs to get their head out of their arse or piss off!"
• Editor B (B has read advice to come to the aid of others when they are attacked, and this is the 5th such remark by A): "You are attacking D again. Do you really want me to take this to ANI?"
• Admin C: "Making accusations without providing evidence is a personal attack, and you have used "you" again. You have been blocked.".

--Boson (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about, "without providing justification (preferably with evidence in the form of diffs)" That would:

1. Restore the original word - "justification" - from that sentence
2. Introduce the idea of using diffs (which is mentioned in the original, in the long, complicated your-stament-versus-the-statement sentence, but without a Wikilink)
3. Make it clear that a diff is preferable but not required.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Always bearing in mind that I think we are talking about the colour of the lipstick to put on the pig, I don't think that any of these are improvements on the original. All this about providing diffs,etc. has to do with rules of process at places like ANI, not with whether something constitutes an attack. I think the whole section probably needs removing, so any more detail and added "procedural" recommendations make it worse, not better. It just distracts from and weakens the main message: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Anyway, let's see what others think. --Boson (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

When copy-editing the project page, we should consider removing, rather than expanding, redundancies and note that the section "What is considered to be a personal attack?" already contains the following:

"... some types of comments are never acceptable: ...

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

That could also probably be improved on, but since "making personal attacks" falls under personal behaviour, it doesn't need repeating in a less appropriate section, I don't really see anything in the section "Avoiding personal attacks" that is not either inappropriate or redundant. --Boson (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think that the use of the large green "ticks" and red "crosses" are helpful here; certainly in the UK, ticks and crosses equate to communicating "right" and "wrong", rather than identifying a "preferable" way of communicating the same information. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to other readers: Alternative bullet icons are being discussed in Discussion 2, below, and there is some agreement for tweaking the red "X" (replacing with a yellow check mark). Lightbreather (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor and done.  Done

• Oppose Again, I'm with Flyer22 on this. The existing line "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. " thing seems silly to me and should probably be scrapped wholesale because it is misleading the reader into thinking that this is enough to avoid making personal attacks. If I say "the person that made this edit is a jerk" then I've still avoided "you" while making a personal attack. Most personal attacks aren't "accidental" and preaching about saying "you" seems like a grammar school lesson; ie: talking down to the reader. Dennis 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would actually probably agree with you if all Wikipedia editors had the same education and life experiences that made them see "you" language as absolutely non-confrontational. But many people are taught at an early age to avoid unnecessary "you" language. As for the direct stuff like "You are a jerk," or "The person who did this was a jerk," we can address that in other discussions, if necessary. My only objective right now is to take what is already in the policy and make it easier to read, to use that as a platform from which to discuss other additions or deletions. Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the statements are accurate. Some ways of using the second person when addressing others in a dispute are offensive to some participants but we shouldn't make a general claim about the English language that's simply not correct here. Putting everything in passive third person tense makes talk more formal, ritualized, and some would say, passive-aggressive. Incivility, generally, is not subject to rigid definitions of grammar and syntax. It really depends on what is being said, and how. Further, this is a policy page, but advice on how to get along with other editors more of a guideline / essay kind of thing. Elevating advice to the status of policy will encourage a lot of flopping and wikilawyering, which often happens in civility disputes, or one might say that incivility accusations are often used as a bludgeon in disputes. Best not give people another tool to bludgeon each other with. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't adding anything to the existing policy. What's on the left above is already in the (policy) article. What's on the right is just to make it easier to read. Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support—the proposed change is much clearer and easier to read, and is thus an improvement over the existing text. I agree with Hchc2009 above that the graphical ticks and crosses aren't necessary but that's a minor point really. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As explained in the discussion below, I am happy to use yellow check marks rather than red Xs. That will look more like a warning than a forbidden. Lightbreather (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; instead, nuke the whole paragraph - are "thank you" and "'you did a great job" personal attacks? Obviously not. You and your are just ways to express that you're one is addressing another human. (@Boson: I love your lipstick-on-a-pig analogy :) --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you carefully read the current and proposed texts? Perhaps you rushed? It says - in both versions - that "you" and "your" should be avoided in disputes. It is a misrepresention of the policy to say that it prohibits one from saying "Thank you." Further, it doesn't even forbid the second person; it simply advises us to consider the ramifications of using it thoughtlessly. Lightbreather (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Since you address me in the second person, may we assume you aren't disputing what I'm saying? Is it civil to call into question the carefulness of my reading and to call what I said misrepresentation? You may have overlooked the humour in what I wrote, but seriously and without banter, I consider the paragraph in question, whether copy edited or not, to be excessively parental and bossy, and we'd be better without it. By the way, do you think it appropriate to reply to everyone who posts here (except the most recent, as of this writing)? --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1. If you're implying that the policy says thank-yous are personal attacks, then I dispute that. 2. Is it civil to call into question the carefulness of your reading? It's borderline, and that's why the policy says that although it's not a PA, someone might think it is, so be prepared to defend yourself if they make an issue of it. (In other words, if you don't want the possibility of being bothered with that, take a moment to re-word your response.) That's all this policy says, in a nutshell. 3. As for the appropriateness of my responses, I see it done all the time, but if there is a policy against it, please share. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I'm sorry my attempt to put it humorously has failed to communicate. Here's my exact, literal opinion: what people say matters; telling people how to say it is bossy. Following your numbering: (1) Obviously I'm not implying that. My point is simply that to reply to an editor with "What a brilliant idea!" or with "I love your idea -- brilliant!" are the same, and to reply with "Only an idiot could suggest that!" or with "If you're suggesting that, you must be an idiot!" are the same. The only difference is that in both cases the 2nd person pronouns engage the other editor as a person rather than as an abstraction at the distal end of a keyboard. (2) OK. (3) As far as I know there's no policy against doing that, which is why I asked about appropriateness rather than Wikilegality. I agree that it's often done. What is also often done is people objecting that it looks like an attempt to dominate the discussion and a failure to listen. This effect is highlighted, of course, when points are answered not simply by making the counter-argument, but also by accusing the other editor of carelessness and misrepresentation. Ironic, really, considering what talk page we're on. That's all I want to say, really. I stand by my "nuke" suggestion. --Stfg (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is a belabored form of newspeak. I would agree with Stfg that excising the part that says 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; is preferable. There is no point in telling editors to avoid pronouns, except as a means to promote newspeak. Giving that silly advice (that somehow made it into the policy) even greater emphasis is the opposite of what we should be doing. JMP EAX (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an existing policy, not "newspeak." The current version is muddled, the proposed version is easy to read. Lightbreather (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current wording is ignored because it can't have practical effect. The proposal takes it into an Orwellian nightmare. Bad idea. DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Orwellian" implies that editors will have virtually no authority and some centralized power will wield absolute control over every aspect of the second person. Bullshit. It simply makes editors more responsible for their own behavior. Wikipedia is not anarchy. The current wording is ignored because it's gobbledygook. The proposal is simply WP:BETTER, in part by making appropriate use of lists. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bullshit". Is that civil? Orwellian also recalls the use of language to control the proles.DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it? Here's the link: Bullshit. (Compare to Cunt or Nigger, looking for words like "offense" and "offensive.") A good rule of thumb about coarse language in mixed company? If everyone is cool with it, OK. If someone says it's offensive, and it's generally considered offensive, then you say, "Oh, sorry," and move on. For instance, seeing how most are talking in this conversation, I took the chance that "bullshit" would not be taken as out of line. However, IF I'd said, "Listen, you ******cker, you're full of sh*t," that would obviously be meant to offend. If "bullshit" offended you, tell me, and I'll happily apologize and move on. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I hope the entire section will be scrapped as per the proposal below, though I expect our insane consensus system will ensure it gets kept. In that event, I think, partly on general conservative grounds ('at least it's the Devil we know'), that it may be best to stick with a less clear and thus hopefully less enforceable bad policy. I also asked various specific questions and wrote various comments about it which I originally placed here. Doubtless for very good reasons, these have now been moved here, where they presumably will get read by even fewer readers, thus making the proposed new policy even riskier and further strengthening the case against it on conservative grounds.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, I cannot support this, "...the second person words "you" and "your" may be taken as a personal attack..." Foreign language editors are going to read this and assume that calling them by the word you or your is a proper insult. Even a Royal Highness is refered to politely in such a sense, albeit with an added mark of respect. There is no emphasis on the word you as it appears on its own. If I have a duty not to be attacking with you, then you have a duty not to assume bad faith with me. I am surprised at myself, but writing this comment may lead me down to the other vote to say yes... ~ R.T.G 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - This is a clear improvement over the current text. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I agree that overall this is an improvement in formatting. However, by leaving out the word "you" should be avoided when possible it is less clear. Also convincing is too strong in the rewrite of "justification", "substantive" would be better than "convincing". --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe the original phrasing on the left more clearly conveys the intended message and meaning of the policy, even though is a bad policy to begin with and I wish this were a vote to strike down that existing policy. The graphical formatting may be more aesthetic, but muddies the content with the restructuring and rewording. --Yamakiri ^T_C 09-25-2014 • 21:59:49 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seen as you mention that you "wish this were a vote to strike down that existing policy", Yamakiri, there is a #Proposal to remove some of the advice against the second person pronoun also being voted on below, though I'm not sure that it necessarily does what you would like.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this; I've taken the liberty of participating in the poll and appreciate your informing me of it. It was very courteous of you, Tlhslobus! --Yamakiri ^T_C 09-26-2014 • 01:34:52 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamakiri. It was very kind of you to say so.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would include even casual criticism as personal attack. Noteswork (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both versions provide support for thin-skinned nonsensical claims of Personal Attacks based on nambypambiness instead of on logical textual analysis for content. Good writers often prefer writing text where humans engage in actions, even when writing about the writing process itself. But it looks like this decision has already been made, and it all is boiling down to phrasing now. If that's the case then this policy to discourage direct and effective communication with others should be buried in paragraphs of text instead of highlighted with checkmarked examples that only portray the ridiculousness of policy-makers in this place. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Issue is not the content, as several opposers seem to have missed, it's the the improvement of the style, which is clearly better. Chris Rodgers (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: the format of the proposal is clearly better than the original, and the content is pretty much the same. I didn't read most of the comments. Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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 above) 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)

• I think the draft by lightbreather looks like it could be a an improvement. However tactically, I wish the proposal had been offered with a request for wordsmithing rather than a straight up-and-down vote.

For example while this statement is an improvement

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

I think it could be even better with the following:

Y The statement about X appears to be in conflict with information at Y.

While I agree that it is an improvement to move away from "you are wrong", the newer statement is a categorical claim of error. That invites a response of "no that's wrong" or worse "no you are wrong" while my wording, hopefully leads to "information Y isn't exactly applicable because of Z" or better yet "good point, but if X is changed to X' it is now consistent and an improvement".--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I also think there are some here would complain about the "appears to be" change you're suggesting. Actually, if you compare the side-by-side sections above (the left what is currently in the article, the right what I propose to replace it with) you'll see that it already says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y" and "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research." So I really didn't change (for better or worse) that.

My changes are mostly to simplify, clarify - make what the section already says easier to read, via copyediting and layout. As it is, in the current (left-hand) version, this is ONE sentence:

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.

That's an 80-word sentence! Even an experienced reader/writer has to go over that a few times to figure out what it means - you practically need to get a paper and pencil to work it out. It must be especially confusing to ESL and non-wordsmiths.

My plan is to first make the existing text more readable, and then, if anyone wants to propose additions or changes, it should be easier to work out a piece at a time. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I get that you were trying to improve layout. I like your structure. I'm now working on improving the wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you understand. All I'm asking is, can we get over this hurdle first - taking the existing and making it easier to read - and after that, make suggestions for additions and changes. (Because at that point, we'll encounter concerns about whether or not we're changing the meaning of the policy. Much as what happened when I proposed 12 days ago to add a two-sentence paragraph to the end of the section.) Will you agree to first focus on this first step? I am truly trying to work with those - like yourself - who are trying to improve this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I was struggling with one observation—namely, that the essay is about no personal attacks, and then gives an example of something that is specifically identified as not a personal attack, yet is marked by a red cross as if it is wrong.

I started to think about a continuum, which I would like to represent as a line or as Venn diagrams, but I'll settle for doing it as a list.

While admittedly oversimplified, we can think of comments as falling on a continuum something like the following:

1. Y Really good positive, supportive comment
2. Y Good, positive, supportive comment
3. Y Neutral
4. Y Neutral
5. Y Neutral
6. Y Neutral
7. Y Uncivil comment
8. Y Very uncivil comment
9. Y Personal attack
10. Y Egregious personal attack

When we say that we do not permit personal attacks, we mean that entries reaching a 9 or 10 on a scale can result in formal sanctions.

However, we should not send the message that a comment reaching 7.9 on this scale is fine. We should strive to be at the low end of the scale (perhaps I should reverse it?), ideally with 1s or 2s, but understandably often in the neutral zone. When someone is thinking of writing a comment that may be in the yellow, they should rethink, partly because what is yellow for one is red for another, and partly because, even if not rising to the level of a formal sanction, it is uncivil, and should be avoided.

The sense of this essay could be: we do not permit personal attacks, and one way to make sure not to do them is to stay well away. This might also help address the concern of {{ping|Hchc2009]] who is concerned about identifying a comment with a red cross, which is undesirable but not so wrong as to be sanctionable. We could rewrite, giving an example of a statement that is a personal attack, an improvement that is "merely" uncivil, a further improvement that makes it neutral, and ideally an example of a genuinely positive comment. The color coding of green, gray, yellow and red can be debated, but it strikes me as a good first step.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a scale, but I think its important to note that its possible to be at #1 while still being extremely critical. The way you have it written now, it reads like only "rah rah" is "good". If edit A violates policy, then edit B that reverts it and critically points out that it violates policy is "good" despite not being "positive and supportive". In reality, civility and criticality are on two different axes. while only coordinate 0,0 may make an editor feel good about themselves, feeling bad because someone pointed out an error or violation is not incivil, and conflating feelings with civility is a very scary road to go down. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To expand on the words of @Gaijin42:, rather than just the bifurcation into "not acceptable" and "acceptable", we should illustrate the range sanctionable->to eb avoided->neutral->better->best--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention that only "rah rah" would qualify.

For example, "The recently added claim X appears to be in conflict with reliable source Y, however, I looked further and I found reliable source Z, and I think a rewording of claim X to Claim W, which captures the same spirit, but is consistent with two reliable sources, might be even better, what do you think" might qualify as a non "rah rah" point, but one that leaves the other party feeling like they have contributed. Although their specific edit isn't acceptable, it lead to an investigation, and a third option, which is an improvement to the article came out of the discussion. I admit, this is a bit Pollyannish, but it is sometimes possible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42, Hchc2009, and Sphilbrick: how about this:

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

Y The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research;

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

Although they are not personal attacks, these statements would be preferable:Although the previous statements are not personal attacks, the following statements are preferable:

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

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

It rewords it somewhat (for you Gaijin42), and replaces the red "X" with a yellow "check" (for you Hchc2009 and Sphilbrick) that is less like "Forbidden" and more like, "Warning: some might take this personally." --Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the yellow checks are certainly better than the red X. There is a large ambiguity between "they " and "these" tho. If the sentence is going to be kept just in the middle it needs to be something like "Although the previous statements are not personal attacks, the following statements are preferable". I'm somewhat confused by the emphasis on the second person though (I realize its in the current policy). If we used the 3rd person and said "X's statement" doesn't that suffer the same problem? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposed, "Although the previous statements are not personal attacks, the following statements are preferable." As for the third person stuff, since it's not already in that section, I'd prefer to just clean-up the section as-is, not significantly adding or deleting anything... And then start another discussion about things that we might want to add or delete. (Such as third-person language.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: about my reply to Lightbreather's old query 4
  • 1 - Thanks, Lightbreather, I haven't yet looked at the secondary issues, so it's too soon for me to vote, but you've met my main concern by restoring what I described as a vital safeguard by adding back "Although not personal attacks,".
  • 2 - However in the original the 'not' is emphasized by putting it in italics (not), and I did mention I'd like some pretty cosmetics for the safeguard. So at the very least I'd like the 'not' back in italics (not), and not, NOT, or NOT are some possible improvements that might be considered (though if anybody thinks them over the top, I'm happy enough with not). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is unnecessary, per MOS:EMPHASIS:

Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast....

... but if enough people thinks it's absolutely critical, I would probably not fight it. Lightbreather (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then please leave the italics in - that was and is the consensus position, presumably reached after much debate, and some line in the MOS, even if correctly interpreted, does not override such a consensus (there are long established precedents and presumably also rules on that, as well as WP:IAR as a back-up). It is in any case not clear to me that it is being correctly interpreted, especially the bits about 'thrust', 'stress' and 'contrast', though I've no desire for a lengthy debate on such semantics when it seems pointless as the entire proposal seems to be going nowhere as it clearly lacks consensus. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Questions + Comments: about my reply to Lightbreather's old query 3
  • 1 - Lightbreather, are you trying to say that Diffs are an example of acceptable evidence or the only acceptable evidence?
  • 2 - Either way, I think the text would have to be modified to remove the ambiguity.
  • 3 - And either way, a wikilink to Linking to a diff might help with my previously expressed concerns about making it harder for the inexperienced and/or not-so-smart to defend themselves against bullying by the smart and/or experienced.
  • 4 - Also do you feel these concerns are not worth addressing?
  • 5 - I'm not quite sure how valid they are myself (I originally only raised them in answer to a question of yours).
  • 6 - (I note that the creation of this RFC addresses some of the other concerns I expressed in this area).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my answers to Boson above [3][4] probably cover your questions, too. Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Questions + Comments: about my reply to Lightbreather's old query 2
  • 1 - Lightbreather, is there any reason why the explicit instruction to be civil is being removed in favor of merely instructing them to follow our Civility policy (not necessarily all that civil even now, let alone in the future)?
  • 2 - Also do you know what the previously mentioned 'Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead' issue with that so-called Civility policy is? (My apologies for the bad (but allegedly not uncivil) language, but it comes directly or indirectly from our Civility policy)
  • 2b - And if you know, does it bother you? (It bothers me, but it has its supporters)
  • 2c - And if you don't know what it is, do you want to know?
  • 3 - Also do you feel these concerns are not worth addressing?
  • 4 - Once again, I'm not quite sure how valid they are myself (I originally only raised them in answer to a question of yours). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the first question interests me here. If you want to share something about the other items, I would suggest my talk page and if it interests me, I'll let you know.

As for the change from this:

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements.

To this:

Editors should adhere to Wikipedia's civility policy and wiki etiquette guidelines when describing disagreements.

First, one of the arguments we hear over and over again in these conversations is: "What is civility? There is no agreement on what it means, so it can't be enforced." My answer to that has been it may be impossible to agree on an all-encompassing definition for civility, but we can certainly agree on some basic rules and put those in policy. That at least cuts down on some of the problem. Not to attempt to enforce civility because we can't agree on every aspect of what it means is a poor argument.

Second, the current language does not clarify that WP:CIVIL is a policy and WP:EQ is a guideline. The proposed language does. So, rather than "be civil" (which people argue about the meaning of) and adhere to etiqutte (which is not identified as a guideline in the currrent form), say simply: adhere to both WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ, both of which are defined, and here, their relative importance (one as a policy, the other as a set of guidelines) is made clear. Lightbreather (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The part of this proposal to replace 'justification' is somewhat unsatisfactory, because the debate has been conducted with most of us (including me until this morning) ignorant of the fact that we already have an explicit policy on what that means in the next section. Now that I've found out about anchors (thanks again for that, Lightbreather) it is a simple matter to wikilink from 'justificaion' to the existing policy, so I'm going to do that now.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, T., I'm not sure that's a standard use for an anchor. Not to be critical - I just don't know. If anyone is reading this who understands WP:ANCHOR well, could you start a separate discussion here or on T's talk page? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. I see somebody had already put an anchor in place, so I'm a bit surprised it wasn't already linked long ago.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)