Wikipedia talk:Ignore personal attacks

Rejected

This was marked briefly as "rejected", which I don't think is right at all. It started as an essay- it was never up for any consideration as a policy. I personally think it would be OK to mark is as a "guideline" but I can see where this might be controversial. Anyway, for anyone who disagrees with ignoring personal attacks, I have a simple question for you: Are you more interested in fighting, or in doing productive work? Friday (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At no time does any editor have to tolerate a personal attack. Going to ANI or other forums is perfectly reasonable and allowable. Urging editors to ignore personal attacks sends the wrong message. Bstone (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to write Wikipedia:Harbor grudges if they want. I'll still be encouraging people not to do that, but your mileage may vary. Friday (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Going to ANI may be reasonable and allowable, but is it the most productive response? Is it more likely to lead to resolution and progress than some other response? That's the question, and not whether it's "allowable". Everything is "allowable"; it's a free world. That doesn't make everything a good idea. Let's try to do things that are good ideas, not just things that are allowable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An essay can't be rejected, it is opinion. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some...

... personal attacks can't be ignored. But I suspect those are few and far between. No one's perfect, sometimes you lash back but starting from a default position of ignoring them seems like a good personal approach to me. Yes, there is nothing in policy that says you can't go report it if you wish. But in the spirit of meatball:ForgiveAndForget (which I suggest as a "see also") this seems an exceedingly sound idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't tend to think ignoring them is necessarily the best. I try to react to personal attacks by being civil and focused in response. We don't want to ignore them, in the sense of being oblivious to them, but rather to learn from them about our interlocutor's mental state, and what de-escalatory steps we should be taking. However, I like this essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance

While this essay, to which I was myself recently referred, makes some excellent points, it's not IMO as helpful as it could be.

As several have commented, it's not always a good thing to ignore personal attacks. It's even hinted on this talk page that it's never a good idea. Be that as it may, this essay is currently giving an unbalanced and extreme view.

I'm going to have a go at improving it in the fullness of time. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See also

I'm not sure, but those links on "See also" are external links and shouldn't be on "See also" section as they are not from this project.--TeleS ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 10:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that a possible solution is to put those links as {{external links}}... Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to MeatballWiki are treated as WikiMedia links by the syntax and software, so it's perhaps a line call. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)