` :Lesseee, is it     * Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. : ? : Or is it     * 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 train spotter so what would you know about fashion?`` Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. : ? : Or is it     * Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. : ? : Or is it     * Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) : ? : Or is it     * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. : ?  NB, I might invite people to look at the two diffs I referenced. : Or is it     * Threats, including, but not limited to... : I'll leave that list off. : Jim, what you and Steve (not Tigo) need to understand is that, just because you say something or think something doesn't mean that something is true or factual or ``truthiness`` or whatever is the Wikipedia term for real.  Steve nakedly held himself up as some kinda good editor that upholds Wikipedia standards.  He doesn't, and I'm calling him out on it.    `