Wikipedia:What should I do when an editor cannot distinguish between a controversial subject and those who edit it?

Note: This essay has been forked from Wikipedia:In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil as it is more a practical guide than the rumination that is the original page.

With reference to; Wikipedia:No personal attacks "nutshell" states "Comment on content, not the contributor". This applies even, or perhaps especially, to subject matter which you dislike.
Wikipedia:Assume good faith "nutshell" (second point) states "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives." This is because their motives are not harmful, simpy different to yours.

It is understood that the majority of editors participate in editing articles in respect of subjects they are familiar with, there being a far greater likelihood that they have access to reference material and other forms of knowledge. There is also an assumption that the editor will have an opinion relating to the subject matter, and that that opinion is likely to be supportive but sometimes antagonistic (a neutral opinion is rarely expected). Providing that any edit to an article is well sourced and/or does not create a bias or imbalance then it is of no consequence what personal opinion a person holds on the subject.

There are, however, instances when another editor will take issue with a contributors edits to an article owing to a perceived stance, viewpoint or opinion on the subject. Where the subject is considered controversial the perceived opinion can be held as being as "offensive" as the subject matter is deemed to be, especially if it is believed that the editor supports (or is not anti) the subject. It should be clarified that such considerations should not effect either the perception of a contributors edits, nor of the person themselves.

The preferred method of dealing with such misunderstandings is to ignore the comments relating to the reasons why an editor may choose to contribute, and in what fashion, to the article and only respond to comments about the content if necessary. It is sometimes the case that not responding to the personal comments serves to de-escalate the potential problem. Sometimes it is not successful and other methods of resolving the matter need to be considered.

Engage the editor in a discussion about their comments

Firstly, assume good faith and respond on the basis that the other editor is not aware that they are violating Wikipedia policy. On the article talkpage note that you believe the comments to be contrary to that which is allowed, and suggest taking it to their talkpage. Move the conversation away from the article, since it is not about the subject but the conduct of the debate. Request that they respond to your talkpage, where you have already copied your comments – this will allow you to keep a record of the discussion which the other party should not be able to erase. Politely and civilly explain that, while you welcome criticism of the content of your edits, comment upon other editors is not permitted. Point them toward the relevant policy pages (plus In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil and this essay) to reinforce your comments. Suggest that they reframe their earlier comments so that they address the content only, and not the editor. At all times be civil and respectful, at this point assume that they are unaware of the rules and are also attempting to improve Wikipedia.

Continue this approach until resolution is reached, the other editor breaks off/ignores discussion and/or resumes improper commenting, or debate becomes stale with no likely progress being made.

Request the other party qualify their comments, in relation to WP Policies and Guidelines

More firmly, but still civilly, request that the other editor provides the context of their comments with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Be prepared to discuss their interpretation of any policy or guideline (or essay, if appropriate) that they provide (and be prepared to admit that they are right, if they are!) Do not dismiss their arguments out of hand, but indicate that you have considered their points.

If resolution is not reached, your request is ignored, or the responses are found to be inadequate then you should consider placing the following questionsheet on the other editors talkpage.

"

re (subject/article/etc.)

Further to your comments, and subsequent discussion (provide diffs) please could you answer the following?

Q.1: What part of my editing violates Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines? Please provide examples, citing the relevant rule, etc.

Q.2: Regarding your previous comments, Wikipedia:No personal attacks states (in the "nutshell"), "Comment on content, not on the contributor." As per this diff(provide full diff) you write "(example quoted from diff)." *Also, as per this diff (add further examples)* Do you believe that this does not violate 'Comment on content, not on the contributor' as per WP:NPA ?

Q.3: Further, regarding your comments, WP:NPA states (second example of "some types of comment are never acceptable:")"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views – regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." As per this diff – *provide diff(s)/example(s) per above* . In what way do you believe that this is not contrary to "Using someones affiliation..."?

Q.4. With regard to "affiliation"*, I have stated that I am not connected with (subject matter).* Wikipedia:Assume good faith states (second point in the "nutshell"), "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives." yet your comment per this diff (per above) appears to indicate that you believe that I am connected with (subject matter), other than editing that and related articles and that this makes my editing suspect. How do you believe that this is not in violation of "...accuse others of harmful motives"?

Q.5. Are you willing to have an administrator, or other third party, review and comment upon your answers?

Thank you (sign)

"

(nb. text within asterisks* is optional. Remove any question that is not relevant, but try to have 3 including Q.5 above.)

This hopefully will result in the other party realising that they are the ones violating Wikipedia principles. They may continue to discuss the matter, but in a more civil manner, or concede your "right" to edit such articles, providing you comply with the rules, policies and guidelines laid out above.

In the event that this does not have the desired effect (or if the other editor still does not consider themselves as having broken the rules, have answered your questions, and confirmed they are willing to have their responses reviewed) then you should take the entire matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Seeking advice and support from third parties

If you have attempted all of the above, and you believe the problem still exists, then you should refer the situation to the Administrators noticeboard (incidents). Note in the header that you are concerned by receiving "personal attacks by [[User:''username'']] regarding [[''Article name'']]". Give a very brief outline of the matter, with diffs for the original comment(s) and a link to your and their talkpages where you have attempted resolution per above. Request that the situation is reviewed and commented upon, and that appropriate action is taken with regard to the other editor (do not ask for a block, but suggest that the other party is warned regarding whatever violations they have been found to have been making). Allow the admins – and other interested parties – to make up their own minds whether you have been attacked. Be prepared to answer their questions in good faith. Be aware that some responses may indicate the same mindset/uninformed views as the editor who made the attacks. Be polite and calm, and be firm in your insistence that you are seeking remedy for comments that are contrary to Wikipedia rules.

Accept any findings, and suggested actions. Only if what are agreed to be attacks continue or resume should you return to WP:ANI. If you do, a link to the new attack(s) and the previous referral will suffice. Request a (longer) block, or suggest the matter is placed at Requests for comment or Arbitration.

• "*Other Third Party Comment*"

It is possible that you will receive comments from editors other than the original commentator. If possible ignore them, or answer legitimate queries within your discussion with the other editor. If you consider the new comments to be attacks in the same vein then apply the same responses as above (assume that the new commenter has read the previous comments, and take it from that point – if taking it to WP:ANI link the two or more usernames to enable admins to only review the context once).