540:, followed by even more than usual noticeboard drama. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring self attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered either "disruption" or "hilarious". Blocking for self attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment (unless the editor likes that sort of thing). A block may be warranted if it seems likely that you will continue debasing yourself.
113:—even if the contributor is yourself. Self-directed attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Knowledge community in the sense that it deters users from helping to create a good encyclopedia due to excessive confusion. Derogatory comments about yourself may be removed by any self-important editor or admin looking for someplace to meddle. Repeated or egregious self-directed attacks may lead to
32:
88:
520:
Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated self attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of self-loathing reduces the likelihood of the community assuming you are stable, and can be considered mildly amusing. Users who
389:. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, you will often react better to a customized message relating to your specific situation. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground with yourself. Remember, since you are you, you have lots of common interests with yourself!
471:
Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of self attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about yourself, go beyond the level of mere invective and veer straight into the realm of the truly bizarre, and so can and should be excised for the benefit
211:
when describing disagreements with themselves. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement you have made about yourself is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse yourself of violating this policy, even if you believe you are right. Accusing yourself without justification of
125:
Contributors are often members of opposing communities, and wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Sometimes contributors find themselves members of both the opposing communities. Through reasoned debate with themselves, contributors can synthesize their views into a single article, and
298:
Threats or actions which deliberately expose yourself to political, religious or other persecution by your government, your employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery and
463:
There is no official policy regarding when or whether most self attacks should be removed, primarily because the whole idea makes people's heads hurt. Removing unquestionable self attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern, outside of the fact that people will wonder what
140:
The prohibition against self attacks applies equally to all
Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack yourself for your history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even your having been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Knowledge encourages a
158:, referring to yourself is not always a personal attack. In disputes, the word "I" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to yourself is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "My statement about
492:
Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against yourself for the purpose of attacking yourself is... never acceptable, I think. Attacking, harassing, or violating your own privacy sounds like the sort of thing that would not be permitted.
392:
Self attacks do not include civil language used to describe your own actions, and when made without involving your personal character, should not be construed as self attacks, for instance, stating "My statement is a self attack..." is not itself a self attack.
373:
because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of their own when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia and ignore the voices in their head.
368:
for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Knowledge discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding when talking to yourself. While self attacks
396:
Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported for ridicule on the
153:
As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at your content and your actions rather than yourself. However, when there are disagreements about
145:: you make mistakes, but you are encouraged to learn from them and change your ways. Self attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and disorienting to others.
432:
This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that you are willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack themselves (or they would have been defined as both attackers
224:
There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a self attack as opposed to being just a little strange, but some types of comments are absolutely
381:
note on your bathroom mirror is a good idea, though make sure to remove it before company comes over, otherwise they will promptly leave out of fear. Do not respond to yourself on a
340:
236:(such as against your disabilities) directed against yourself. Confusion over what your religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity happens to be is not a legitimate excuse.
243:
means of dismissing or discrediting your own views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. (Which seems unlikely, given the circumstances.) An example could be "
521:
insist on a confrontational style marked by self attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through
134:. Nevertheless each person is only one member of the larger community despite how many incompatible views they may hold simultaneously. So voting on both sides is
413:
process; instead, see a therapist about your self-esteem issues. Especially when self attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content,
495:
Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite self attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence.
268:
Accusations about your behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of
509:
497:
This is not to be confused with legitimate self-critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.
254:
and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a self attack, speculating on your real life identity may constitute
360:
Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated self-directed attack is not to respond at all... yeah, wrap your head around
269:
174:
a personal attack, merely weird. Or sometimes you could say instead: "The paragraph inserted here into the article looks like
409:
Recurring, non-disruptive self attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should not be resolved through the
255:
425:
offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion, in case you want total strangers to agree that, yes, you are completely
385:; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational with yourself,
299:
after the perplexed chattering dies down. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the
219:
184:
43:
258:, which is a serious offense. It also gives the impression that Knowledge editors are mentally unstable, which may
300:
273:
404:
334:
468:, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true self attack.
251:
479:
17:
440:
355:
192:
is not in itself a self attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. your talk page,
487:
484:
Not a damn thing we can do about you swearing at yourself. Seriously, that's just all kinds of messed up.
377:
If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message to yourself; a
188:; providing the DIFF supposedly cuts down confusion, if that is desirable. Similarly, discussion of your
130:
article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all
282:
418:
114:
536:
for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block
567:
515:
265:
Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking yourself.
213:
120:
526:
39:
414:
476:
may also be appropriate, and lets the people that deal with loads of crap have a good laugh.
131:
421:
are equally useless in resolving the conflict; seriously, you need to get help. Similarly,
8:
292:
142:
54:
331:. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to yourself at all.
454:
446:
70:
62:
327:
These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging yourself is a self attack
148:
386:
311:
96:
Comment on content, not on the contributor... even if the contributor is yourself.
533:
212:
making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also:
204:
472:
of the community's sanity. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a
127:
365:
561:
473:
422:
398:
350:
197:
193:
175:
167:
522:
410:
304:
232:
Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other
208:
464:
you're tripping on. On other talk pages, especially where your own text
288:
Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
240:
500:
The interpretation of this rule is complex, due to the fact that just
426:
303:
of what they have done and why, requesting referral to a competent
378:
233:
166:", or "The paragraph that I inserted into the article looks like
504:
this essay has made my brain hurt, so I can barely imagine what
343:
An editor insulting themselves and then proceeding to overreact!
339:
49:
Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally
31:
532:
In extreme cases, even isolated self attacks may lead to a
182:
a personal attack, and avoids referring to yourself in the
42:. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Knowledge
276:
and made available to trusted (and presumably sane) users.
437:
nutballs) because they want and expect strong discourse.
318:
103:
Do not make self-directed attacks anywhere in
Knowledge.
245:
I'm a train spotter so what would I know about fashion?
559:
329:regardless of the manner in which it is done
262:reflect poorly on the project as a whole.
510:Knowledge:Linking to external harassment
364:. Knowledge and its debates can become
338:
279:Threats, including, but not limited to:
260:endanger Jimbo's lucrative speaking fees
543:And everyone will think you are crazy.
247:" Note that although pointing out your
220:What is considered to be a self attack?
14:
560:
82:
26:
335:Responding to self-directed attacks
321:and other similar self-accusations.
162:is wrong because of information at
24:
25:
579:
512:for guidance on interpretation.
317:References to yourself as being
295:your own user page or talk page.
86:
30:
387:even in the face of self-abuse
272:presented on wiki. Sometimes
239:Using your affiliations as an
13:
1:
525:, such as being subjected to
516:Consequences of self attacks
466:is directed against yourself
126:this creates a better, more
121:Why self attacks are harmful
7:
399:administrators' noticeboard
351:Knowledge:The twilight zone
10:
584:
444:
60:
143:positive online community
38:This page is intended as
274:evidence is kept private
94:This page in a nutshell:
383:talk page of an article
55:the Knowledge community
527:involuntary commitment
344:
474:request for oversight
342:
301:Arbitration Committee
149:Avoiding self attacks
419:third-party opinions
252:conflict of interest
207:and adhere to good
44:policy or guideline
415:informal mediation
411:dispute resolution
345:
203:Editors should be
423:Wikiquette alerts
405:Recurring attacks
178:", which also is
176:original research
168:original research
100:
99:
81:
80:
16:(Redirected from
575:
480:Off-wiki attacks
457:
319:"in rude health"
90:
89:
83:
73:
34:
27:
21:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
568:Knowledge humor
558:
557:
550:
538:without warning
518:
490:
482:
461:
460:
453:
449:
443:
441:Removal of text
407:
371:are not excused
358:
356:Initial options
337:
270:diffs and links
222:
151:
123:
115:an intervention
87:
77:
76:
69:
65:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
581:
571:
570:
548:
517:
514:
508:it does. See
489:
488:External links
486:
481:
478:
459:
458:
450:
445:
442:
439:
406:
403:
357:
354:
336:
333:
325:
324:
323:
322:
315:
308:
296:
289:
286:
283:Threats to sue
277:
266:
263:
237:
221:
218:
209:wiki etiquette
150:
147:
122:
119:
98:
97:
91:
79:
78:
75:
74:
66:
61:
58:
48:
35:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
569:
566:
565:
563:
556:
553:
552:
551:
544:
541:
539:
535:
530:
528:
524:
513:
511:
507:
503:
498:
496:
485:
477:
475:
469:
467:
456:
452:
451:
448:
438:
436:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
402:
400:
394:
390:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
367:
363:
353:
352:
349:
341:
332:
330:
320:
316:
313:
309:
306:
302:
297:
294:
290:
287:
284:
281:
280:
278:
275:
271:
267:
264:
261:
257:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
231:
230:
229:
227:
217:
215:
210:
206:
201:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
146:
144:
138:
137:
133:
129:
118:
116:
112:
109:, not on the
108:
104:
95:
92:
85:
84:
72:
68:
67:
64:
59:
56:
52:
47:
45:
41:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
18:Knowledge:NSA
554:
547:
546:
545:
542:
537:
531:
519:
505:
501:
499:
494:
491:
483:
470:
465:
462:
434:
431:
408:
395:
391:
382:
376:
370:
361:
359:
347:
346:
328:
326:
305:psychiatrist
259:
248:
244:
228:acceptable:
225:
223:
202:
189:
185:first person
183:
179:
171:
163:
159:
155:
152:
139:
135:
124:
110:
106:
102:
101:
93:
53:accepted by
50:
37:
555:Seriously.
523:arbitration
310:Threats to
291:Threats to
132:Wikipedians
111:contributor
105:Comment on
241:ad hominem
136:right out.
549:Everyone.
366:stressful
348:See also:
314:yourself.
293:vandalize
285:yourself.
562:Category
447:Shortcut
362:that one
249:relevant
234:epithets
214:Insanity
63:Shortcut
506:reading
502:writing
379:post-it
190:conduct
156:content
128:neutral
107:content
455:WP:RPA
256:outing
198:WP:ANI
194:WP:WQA
170:", is
71:WP:NSA
534:block
226:never
205:civil
40:humor
427:loco
417:and
435:and
312:out
216:.)
200:).
180:not
172:not
51:not
564::
529:.
429:.
401:.
196:,
117:.
307:.
164:Y
160:X
57:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
