 | This page is intended ashumor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipediapolicy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generallynot accepted bythe Wikipedia community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor... even if the contributor is yourself. |
Do not make self-directed attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment oncontent, not on thecontributor—even if the contributor is yourself. Self-directed attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia 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 toan intervention.
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 this creates a better, moreneutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are allWikipedians. 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 isright out.
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. Wikipedia encourages apositive online community: 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.
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 aboutcontent, 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 aboutX is wrong because of information atY", or "The paragraph that I inserted into the article looks likeoriginal research", isnot a personal attack, merely weird. Or sometimes you could say instead: "The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks likeoriginal research", which also isnot a personal attack, and avoids referring to yourself in thefirst person; providing the DIFF supposedly cuts down confusion, if that is desirable. Similarly, discussion of yourconduct is not in itself a self attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. your talk page,WP:WQA,WP:ANI).
Editors should becivil and adhere to goodwiki etiquette 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 making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also:Insanity.)
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 absolutelynever acceptable:
These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging yourself is a self attackregardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to yourself at all.
See also:Wikipedia:The twilight zone
Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated self-directed attack is not to respond at all... yeah, wrap your head aroundthat one. Wikipedia and its debates can becomestressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia 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 attacksare not excused 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.
If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message to yourself; apost-it 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 atalk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational with yourself,even in the face of self-abuse. 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!
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.
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 theadministrators' noticeboard.
Recurring, non-disruptive self attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should not be resolved through thedispute resolution process; instead, see a therapist about your self-esteem issues. Especially when self attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content,informal mediation andthird-party opinions are equally useless in resolving the conflict; seriously, you need to get help. Similarly,Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion, in case you want total strangers to agree that, yes, you are completelyloco.
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 attackersand nutballs) because they want and expect strong discourse.
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 you're tripping on. On other talk pages, especially where your own textis directed against yourself, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true self attack.
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 of the community's sanity. In certain cases involving sensitive information, arequest for oversight may also be appropriate, and lets the people that deal with loads of crap have a good laugh.
Not a damn thing we can do about you swearing at yourself. Seriously, that's just all kinds of messed up.
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.Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite self attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate self-critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.
The interpretation of this rule is complex, due to the fact that justwriting this essay has made my brain hurt, so I can barely imagine whatreading it does. SeeWikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.
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 insist on a confrontational style marked by self attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences througharbitration, such as being subjected toinvoluntary commitment.
In extreme cases, even isolated self attacks may lead to ablock for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a blockwithout warning, 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.
And everyone will think you are crazy.
Everyone.
Seriously.