Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks/Temp

re: Answers to concerns

I am ambivalent about this section. I copied it from the old version and did some reorganization and rewrite but I'm not sure how much value it really adds to the page. The only purpose I could see anymore was to summarize the disputes which were raised over prior versions. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it in, it makes it clear that the policy isn't necessarily all roses. Some users will have concerns and if we present replies to common ones on the page it should hopefully reduce acrimonious discussion about it elsewhere. Thryduulf 15:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout?

Considering that some people really don't like RPA, it may be an option to list "~~strikeout~~ personal attacks" as an alternative. R adiant _* 08:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I consider the strikeout solution to be ineffective. The purpose of the rule is to remove the inflammatory comment and restore the discussion to a fact-based and rational discussion focused on building a better encyclopedia. Even when struck out, the comment remains visible and can inflame the debate. With that caveat, I will attempt to add the suggestion as an allowable option. See if it flows... Rossami (talk) 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel entirely the opposite. Unless the personal attack is blatant and extraordinarily foul, a strikeout is more than enough to show that particular comments are unwelcome, and then the refactoring becomes a clear demonstration of "good" comment versus ~~"bad" comment~~. I don't think you'll get nearly as many revert wars over whether something was in fact a personal attack, because the struck out comments remain there for everyone following to judge whether they were actually personal attacks or not. --Un focused 14:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)