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.  70.109.183.229