original: assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism , but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice .
simplifications: editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of it . assuming a critic has good intentions does not end discussion and critique . editors should not think that criticism is an attack unless there is evidence of malice . assuming good faith does 'nt disallow talking and judging , but instead editors should not characterize the actions being judged as hostile unless there is clear proof of hostility . assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism , but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to cruelty and evilness unless there is specific evidence of cruelty and evilness . assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice . assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism , but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice . good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism : editors should not think that criticism is mean unless there is real proof of malice . assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism . instead editirs should not attribute the actions being critized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice .