Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks?

On the Talk:Donald Trump page, an IP user said this: My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourselves. In my mind, this is simply a thinly-veiled personal attack, disguised as an indictment on a larger group. But I'm not sure.

1. Would the same exact phrase, referring to one person instead of a wider group, be considered a personal attack, or even a borderline personal attack?
2. In general, does referring to a group as a method to personally attack an individual constitute a personal attack?
3. Is this codified in policy somewhere that I am unaware of?

Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Who cares if it's documented somewhere? When it comes down it, we have to rely on some commonsense and the comment above is not a personal attack. If commentary like that was frequent without compensating positive contributions, the author might be sanctioned. But a couple of statements like that are just part of a robust exchange. Either ignore or briefly explain whatever the issue is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

My question was just a general question about policy, more than an actual want to sanction the IP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the user makes comments like these frequently.

Why don't you consider this a personal attack? Also, I don't get what positive contributions have to do with it; can you explain? Cessaune [talk] 02:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because it isn't exactly a personal attack doesn't mean it doesn't have a kind of hostile vibe. Maybe WP:CIVILITY in general would be more appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It's been almost two years Cessaune [talk] 02:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics

@Remsense I have attempted to add "language" to the list of protected characteristics, which you have reverted. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? NicolausPrime (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

NicolausPrime, if I say to another editor: "Your English language skills are too weak to edit the English Wikipedia, and I recommend that you edit the Wikipedia in the language you speak best", is that a personal attack? Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If there was evidence that this has been resulting in unintentional disruptive editing, then my understanding would be that your example would be governed by WP:DISRUPTIVE and not by this policy. And I don't think this example would constitute Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases by the cultural standards present on Wikipedia.

Now, one may claim that neither of these arguments is very strong. But I don't think this policy is interpreted with this level of literalness either. For example, if someone was detected inserting content whitewashing Holocaust or increasing visibility of neo-Nazi activists, then citing the WP:NONAZIS essay to call for a rightful ban could run afoul of a literal and scrupulous reading of the following prohibitions: 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 and Comparing editors to Nazis. NicolausPrime (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I can't beyond that it seems unnecessary. Your justification was "completeness", which is not sufficient in my mind. To me, you would need to articulate an actual concrete reason for the addition. Remsense ‥ 论 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the list is explicitly non-exhaustive (etc.), so there really has to be a positive argument for explicit mention of any given item. To be blunt, this seems potentially like a preoccupation that is wholly hypothetical on your part. Does this happen? Moreover, if there is a linguistic discrimination problem in the discourse on here, surely it should be profiled and discussed first? Remsense ‥ 论 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Establishing a no personal attacks noticeboard

There are noticeboards for original research, NPOV, COI, dispute resolution, spam, vandalism etc. but there is no noticeboard for personal attacks, although this topic is very important and cannot be ignored. A noticeboard for personal attacks should be established. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Usually, personal attacks are reported at ANI, but many other things could be reported here, so I would suggest establishing a noticeboard for NPA. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a noticeboard is needed; it could be supported by an anti-abuse unit (like the counter-vandalism unit). I have been contributing to wikipedia for some two decades now and focus almost entirely on content writing (I have had some 130 articles assessed at "B" or above) always ensuring there is "significant coverage" for the topic available. I am particularly concerned about Articles for Deletion (AfD). I have only been to AfD a couple of times in the last five or six years (here and here) and in both cases the atmosphere was extremely hostile. Comments tend to be personal and offensive. My experience from the real world suggests that editors should not walk by: they should call this out. Real culture change is needed. Dormskirk (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@RaschenTechner and Dormskirk: I agree that our current systems are intolerable and unacceptable for managing personal attacks. I would support the idea to develop a noticeboard, but as of a few days ago, Wikimedia Foundation staff are introducing a pilot of Wikipedia:Incident Reporting System in English Wikipedia. This has already been tested in other language versions of Wikipedia for a couple of years. If this tool works, then it should enable users to flag personal attacks in the system so that the report gets converted into trackable data. The outcome could be that if a repeat offender gets reported by multiple people, then we should have evidence of this, whereas right now the status quo is that there is no good way for users to report repeat offenders privately or in a way that does not expose them to further harassment. Also, I am hoping that with this system we can better automate when where and how harassment occurs.

Our noticeboard system relies on human labor infrastructure and has not changed with technology too much in the past 20 years. Noticeboards are proven to work if they are matched with a group of volunteers who can collaborate to run them. If we were not right now at the cusp of a likely new technology designed to address this specific problem, then I do feel like now would be a good time to discuss establishing this noticeboard. As things are, if this technology works, there seems to be US$hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars tied into developing this with further financial commitments there. It might be a better use of time and attention to critique this system now while the money is there and they are calling for community review, to see if the system can deliver some of what is wanted of a "no personal attack noticeboard".

Perhaps try to use that tool and see how you feel about it? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What you are proposing sounds like a great step forward. I would like to be involved. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I would be against such a system of incident reporting, as this system could easily be mass abused by vandals, trolls and people who have disputes with other editors to report editors who have done nothing wrong and this could lead to mass reporting of innocent editors simply because one editor doesn't like the other editor. I would still prefer the traditional method of reporting at noticeboards, because of the abuse potential of the incident report system. By the way, there actually used to be a personal attacks noticeboard: Wikipedia:PAIN, which is now defunct. RaschenTechner (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@RaschenTechner: I encourage you to go comment because this might be the climax of all the Wikimedia Foundation's research and investment to date. It is a complex system that follows years of development, hundreds of people giving feedback, and depending how one calculates, millions of dollars. Like all systems, it fixes some problems and brings others.

Please, I encourage you, take your fears and feedback - regardless of whether you do any or no research on the tool - to the talk page. Just say how you wish a system would work, any reactions are useful.

I have no part in developing or promoting this tool, I am just a stakeholder in community safety. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Given how common it is to get complaints about personal attacks from users who, in fact, have not really been personally attacked, I'd be reluctant to set up a new noticeboard. It could become a magnet for drama, with demands for inappropriate sanctions as well as for boomerangs, and more heat than light. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this was tried in the (distant) past, - the "Personal attack intervention noticeboard" (WP:PAIN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks) ran from October 2005 to January 2007 when it was shut down following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. This isn't to say it, or something like it, couldn't work today but we (collectively) should understand why it didn't work last time before trying again. I don't remember what those issues were and haven't read the MfD yet. Even though I was around at the time, I have no memories of it at all. I happened to stumble across it a few days ago while looking for something else. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of decreasing the amount of WP:PAIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think the key challenge is that there are many different views on what constitutes a personal attack, and that makes it hard to find consensus support that a corrective action needs to happen. I'm dubious that a new noticeboard would help, as I suspect it would garner a lot of attention from the same editors that weigh in today on the incidents' noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Another closed civility noticeboard was Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (WP:WQA). I thought it was a good process because it often involved telling those reporting "personal attacks" that clear language directed at the topic was not a personal attack, and that they shouldn't expect fake civility from those disagreeing with you. That saved time on ANI. However, discussing etiquette seldom resulted in action so the noticeboard was closed. Disputes rarely involve just an attack on another editor (and if they do, the offender is usually quickly blocked). Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there enough confusion or disagreement over what counts as a personal attack to merit one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a great idea. Sometimes, people say something that might be rude, but straddles the line between personal attack and merely just rude. The noticeboards we have right now are plenty. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks should immediately be called out. We may have plenty of noticeboards on which to report such attacks but the current noticeboards are not working. Only 17.9% of personal attacks lead to a warning or ban. Dormskirk (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18 § Wikipedia namespace shortcuts with spaces until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Are religious disputes put under this?

I would tend to think that religion is more of a universal thing. You know, there is only one church, the Catholic church, its not really a personal choice. ~2026-43959-4 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

“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 [are never acceptable].” (WP:NPA)

Wikipedia as a project takes no position on the truth of any religion, and editors should attempt to do the same, instead using reliable sources to report and describe relevant facts and statements made by organisations relevant to the context of an article.

You are free to disagree reasonably with editors on the content of the encyclopedia, but you should refrain from giving your personal opinion, and you must refrain from attacking any editor or any other person for their religion. — HTGS (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)