Misplaced Pages

:No personal attacks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:23, 8 January 2007 view sourceLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 editsm →Remedies: typos← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 19 December 2024 view source Remsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors59,365 edits Undid revision 1263898042 by Uwappa (talk): perfectly redundantTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages policy}}
{{policy | ]<br/>]}}
{{pp-semi|small=yes}}
{{policy in a nutshell|<center>Comment on content, not on the contributor.</center>}}
{{redirect|WP:PA|text=You may be looking for ], ], ] or ]}}
{{editabuselinks}}<br>
{{policy|WP:PA|WP:NPA|WP:NOPA}}
{{Policylist}}
{{nutshell|'''Comment on content, not the contributors.''' Users that make '']'' attacks may face ] and ].}}
'''Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages.''' Comment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor'''. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
{{Policy list}}
]
'''Do not make personal attacks''' anywhere on Misplaced Pages. {{anchor|CONCON|reason=Target of WP:CONCON shortcut.}}Comment ], not ]. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including ] or even ].


== What is considered to be a personal attack? ==
== Don't do it ==
{{anchor|WHATIS}}
{{shortcut|WP:NPA#WHATIS|WP:WIAPA|WP:ADHOM|WP:ADHOMINEM}}
{{Conduct policy list}}
There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are {{em|never}} acceptable:
* Abusive, ], or derogatory phrases based on ], ], ], ], ], ] or political beliefs, ], ], ], etc.<!--Please keep this list synchronized with that at WP:Harassment#TYPES.--> directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
* Using someone's affiliations as an '']'' means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a ] so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible ] on a specific article or topic. However, be aware that speculation regarding the real-life identity of another editor may constitute ].
* Using someone's political affiliations as an ''ad hominem'' means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being ] or ], is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.
* Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
* Comparing editors to ], ], dictators, or other infamous people. {{crossref|printworthy=y|(See also ].)}}
* {{vanchor|Accusations|accusations|ACCUSATIONS}} about personal behavior ]. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of ].
* Threats, including, but not limited to:
** ]
** ]
** Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other ] by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any ] upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the ] of what they have done and why.
** Threats to ] (give out personal details about) an editor.


These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack ''regardless of the manner in which it is done''. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do '''not''' make them.


== Why personal attacks are harmful ==
== Consequences ==
Personal attacks are disruptive. On article ] they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.


Contributors often wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more ] article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all ].
Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Misplaced Pages reflects on Misplaced Pages and on you.


The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been ], ], or otherwise ], as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a ]: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
Many Wikipedians ] on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been ] for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.


== Avoiding personal attacks ==
Extreme attacks, in particular legal threats and death threats, can be dealt with by blocking the offending user without warning.
{{Policy shortcut|WP:AVOIDYOU}}
{{redirect|WP:AVOIDYOU|the guideline on avoiding second-person pronouns in articles|MOS:YOU}}
As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.


When there are disagreements about ''content'', referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about <var>X</var> is wrong because of information at <var>Y</var>", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like ]", is ''not'' a personal attack. However, "The statement..." or "The paragraph inserted..." is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack because it avoids referring to the other editor in the '']''. "The paragraph inserted here into the article looks like original research" is especially advantageous because the ] 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 ], or ]).
== Being reasonable ==
Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more ] article for everyone. Remember to accept that '''we are all part of the same community''' as we are all ].


Editors should be ] and adhere to good ] 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 ] is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: ].)
== Examples ==
===Examples of personal attacks ===
Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:


== Responding to personal attacks ==
* Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
=== First offenses and isolated incidents ===
* Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ]. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and ] debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Misplaced Pages discussions are in a ], nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding (see ]). While personal attacks ''are not excused'' because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.
* Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
* Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
* Profanity directed against another contributor.
* ].
* Threats of violence, including death threats.
* Threats of ] to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect.
* Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the ] and ] of what they have done and why.
* Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Misplaced Pages discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.


If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's ]. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to ], even in the face of abuse. Although ] may be used for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation may be ]. If possible, try to find a compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.
=== Examples that are not personal attacks ===


Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, ], or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at ].
Debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. Be ] and adhere to good ] when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:


Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.
* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about ''X'' is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
* Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a ''harmful'' statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user ''X''" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user ''X''.
* A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it ''is''. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See ] for what is and isn't vandalism.


===Be aware of WikiLawyering=== === Recurring attacks ===
Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through ]. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and ], and immediate administrator action is not required.


=== Removal of personal attacks ===
This policy can be a prime candidate for ], which can be defined as ''asserting a technical interpretation of the policy to override the principle it expresses.'' This page is frequently edited and examples and remedies that do or do not appear here may have been edited to suit one editor's perspective, but not be generally agreed to by the community. In the end, common sense is more important than the exact wording in this and other policy articles, including the examples included above.
{{Policy shortcut|WP:RPA}}
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Civility#Removing uncivil comments}}
Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text ''is directed against you'', removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{tl|RPA}} template can be used for this purpose.


Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors (]), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be removed for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a ] may also be appropriate.
== Alternatives ==


=== Off-wiki attacks ===
Instead:
Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the ], but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or ] off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.


=== External links ===
* Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does ''not'' mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just ].
{{For|policies related to attacks against living persons in general, whether or not they edit Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons}}
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, privacy violations, or threats of physical violence against any persons who edit Misplaced Pages, including those who edit for the purpose of attacking another editor, is never acceptable. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. The inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.
* Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
* Read ].


The interpretation of this rule is complex. See ] for guidance on interpretation.
== Remedies ==


== Consequences of personal attacks ==
If you are personally attacked, the first remedy should usually be to try to ignore it - if the attacks continue simply realise that it reflects badly on the attacker to continue in this vein. Where the attacks affect the editing of an article, be reaonable with the attacker and respond civilly to editing related comments, while ignoring the attacks.
Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community ], and can be considered ]. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the ] process, and may face serious consequences through ].


In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a ] for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block ''without warning''. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to ]. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.
If this proves too difficult or becomes too much to bear, you should ] ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider following the ] process. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks as discussed in the ''essay'' ]; however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently. From an ] finding-of-fact:


== See also ==
: ''The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.''
=== Misplaced Pages policies and information pages ===
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Misplaced Pages essays ===
If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

In extreme cases, an attacker may be ] under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks requiring urgent action can be reported at ]. Please note however, that personal attacks do not excuse reciprocal behaviour, and so in such cases described by the short essay ], ] may be the best solution, else if one party pushes hard enough for intervention, it may well be found that such intervention is warranted on both sides of the dispute.

== A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down" ==

'''Note:''' There are certain Misplaced Pages users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the ]. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.

== Community spirit ==

It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages. Personal attacks against ''any'' user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.

==Off-wiki personal attacks==

As with the attacks defined above, personal attacks on other editors in off-Misplaced Pages venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Misplaced Pages acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether your on-wiki actions are being conducted in ]. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the entire community, and to your relationship with it.

While you may not be directly penalised for off-wiki attacks, they may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, or as evidence in ArbCom cases.

== See also ==
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages | Wikipedia_No_personal_attacks.ogg | 2005-04-07}}


* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Related content ===
]
* ]


{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines|state=uncollapsed}}
<!-- interwiki -->
{{Misplaced Pages essays|civility}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:No personal attacks}}
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 07:29, 19 December 2024

Misplaced Pages policy

"WP:PA" redirects here. You may be looking for WikiProject Pennsylvania, WikiProject Protected areas, Misplaced Pages:Personal acquaintances or Misplaced Pages:Passive aggression.
This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not the contributors. Users that make ad hominem attacks may face blocking and banning.
Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Shortcuts
Conduct policies

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

  • Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
  • Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, be aware that speculation regarding the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.
  • Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.
  • Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
  • Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people. (See also Godwin's law.)
  • Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
  • Threats, including, but not limited to:

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Why personal attacks are harmful

Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.

Contributors often wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Avoiding personal attacks

Shortcut "WP:AVOIDYOU" redirects here. For the guideline on avoiding second-person pronouns in articles, see MOS:YOU.

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

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. However, "The statement..." or "The paragraph inserted..." is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack because it avoids referring to the other editor in the second person. "The paragraph inserted here into the article looks like original research" is especially advantageous because the diff 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, or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).

Editors should be civil and adhere to good 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.)

Responding to personal attacks

First offenses and isolated incidents

Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Misplaced Pages discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding (see Emotions in virtual communication). While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although warning templates may be used for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation may be better received. If possible, try to find a compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.

Recurring attacks

Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.

Removal of personal attacks

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Civility § Removing uncivil comments

Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors (outing), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be removed for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.

Off-wiki attacks

Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

External links

For policies related to attacks against living persons in general, whether or not they edit Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, privacy violations, or threats of physical violence against any persons who edit Misplaced Pages, including those who edit for the purpose of attacking another editor, is never acceptable. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. The inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.

The interpretation of this rule is complex. See Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

See also

Misplaced Pages policies and information pages

Misplaced Pages essays

Related content

Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
Misplaced Pages essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article construction
Writing article content
Removing or
deleting content
Essays on civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
WikiRelations
Essays on notability
Humorous essays
About essays
About essays
Policies and guidelines
Categories: