I disagree to some extent about 3).
> "Your conversation partner might hear an immediate accusation out of this. Your statement will never be objective. Rather talk about yourself as in "... this is how I perceive your behavior"."
Feedback should almost always be based on data. For example, you should never say stuff like "When you do code reviews, you are often rude". This is, as you say, a perception. What you should be saying is: "When you do code reviews, people often come to me and complain that they feel offended." This is not a perception, this is data. Then you can say: "Please try changing your behavior so that people don't feel offended." At this point you can also start a conversation about why other people feel offended, but it is optional.
> If you do this to me after 5 seconds of conversation, I will shut off and not take any advice from you. This is bossy.
Feedback is not an advice. Sometimes it can contain advice, but more often it doesn't. Feedback is about telling you that you should change some behavior or it is about reinforcing a behavior. Advice is different: that's thinking about how to change or keep the behavior. Managers should absolutely differentiate between the two.
Advice is also optional, while in a workplace, if the subordinate doesn't meet expectations, there will be bad consequences.
> You're not entitled to "change" people. Tell them how you would like to be treated.
True. The manager is not entitled to change people, but 1) he is entitled to tell her subordinates what the expectations are 2) the subordinates are actually entitled to know what the expectations are. The manager should never say stuff like 'you are X', she should always talk about behavior ('you are doing X').
> Tell your conversation partner what their behavior makes you feel like.
I think you're applying the rules of non-violent communication incorrectly. There will always be negative feelings during negative feedback -- what's happening is that someone is told that what she has been doing in the past was not up to expectations. This is necessarily difficult. If it is not difficult, the receiving party likely didn't understand it, most likely because the manager has wrapped the feedback in a 'shit sandwich' (saying many good things and wrapping the hard things in the middle of them), most likely because the manager is not able to have difficult conversations. Difficult conversations are fine though: that's how we all learn and develop.
----
Example: I want someone to stop breaking unit tests by submitting code without running them locally. I can say that "You are often submitting code without running the test locally, for example in the last month you did this 5 times. Can you please stop doing that and not clog the CI servers unnecessarily by not running the test before opening a pull request?"
How would you do this with positive reinforcement? One option is to always pat the person on the back when she's not breaking the build, but that's an ineffective workaround, and I'd even say it's dishonest with the person.