User page Talk page Good and Featured articles Barnstars The DYK Corral Toolbox Advice About Magic unicorns

About Pink Ponies and Magic Unicorns[edit]

Mythical creatures that appear in the wrong Wikipedia places
Magic unicorns
Pink unicorns
A llama unicorn? And PINK to boot!
With magic and rainbow, oh my!
Jackalope
Cow-tipping is an urban myth

Pink Ponies and Magic Unicorns are imaginary. Sometimes people like to think they are real. It is one thing to wish or pretend they were real; it's another altogether to promote their reality on wikipedia. We can all have fun and enjoy lighthearted moments, but when someone is not here to build the encyclopedia, that can be a problem. I find the Dunning–Kruger effect interesting—that the knowledgeable have self-doubt, knowing the limits of their expertise, while those who who are free of self-doubt often are those who may think they are experts—but aren't.

So, present a good faith viewpoint with respect; in turn know that I do consider if you are right and I am wrong. If people want to discuss something on my talk page, I am open to posts that open a useful discussion. However, accusing me or another editor of being an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet is a personal attack and best avoided. Best policy is to Assume good faith. l personally am open to being trouted if I overstep.

The Snarkives sampler - all real edits!

These edits drew my attention for various reasons and are a "what not to do" list.

Pink ponies and magic rainbow unicorns division

Horse articles attract their own unique form of inappropriate edits. Pink ponies, magic unicorns and the like, they're EVERYWHERE!

And other mythical creatures

Jacklopes (So why do I have jackalope on my watchlist, anyway? Oh, right, I'm from Montana) More on jackalopes

Godlike—or not—Thoroughbreds division

Edit wars erupt over the topic of who is or is not the greatest race horse of all time. **Headdesk** samples:

On "proven scientific facts" and Peer-Reviewed literature

Advice[edit]

I believe in stewardship of articles and quality control. This is not the same as ownership. To avoid edits that wind up in the "snarkives," I recommend the following
  1. Assume good faith.
  2. Don't vandalize.
  3. Reasoned argument has its place. Tendentious argument does not.
  4. Disagreement with you is not POV, nor does it mean I dislike you. It's just disagreement.
  5. The best work is done with a collaborative team. (See Yogo sapphire for a good example.)
  6. If you don't like my work or my revert of your work, then explain why you think your edit is a good idea, not why you think I'm ignorant, arrogant, a POV-pusher, or being mean to you.
  7. Yes, I am trying to improve the encyclopedia and hope you are too.
  8. If I am actually wrong, I'll come around once the weight of the evidence and scholarship convinces me. (Examples: Horses in warfare, White (horse), History of horse domestication theories).
  9. The above does not include your fringe theory, original research and/or synthesis. Seriously: go get published!
  10. But see also WP:SELFPUB and WP:COPYVIO.
  11. Remember, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. For every one expert who claims expertise, on WP there are ten people arguing WP:CHEESE. I'm not going to be swayed by your credentials. Just make your case.

Special advice for equine articles

  1. Please, no pink ponies and magic unicorns. Or Rhinos. Or purple dragons.
  2. Your pony (you know, Doc Skippy GasoLenaPocoChexDunBarDeckPeppy aka "Dobbin"), probably isn't going to meet the notability criteria for his/her own article. Just give him or her a carrot and a kiss on the nose. And a spot on your user page, perhaps. Or write a biography about one of his/her famous ancestors.
  3. That probably also goes for you. See WP:NOADS and WP:NOTABILITY.
  4. See User:Montanabw/List of horse breeds promoters claim "truly primitive bred pure since Adam and Eve" before editing horse breed articles. No horse breeds with magic powers, OK?
  5. Wikipedia will not decide if Sunday Silence or Easy Goer was the better horse.
  6. That goes double for Man o' War versus Secretariat.
  7. Triple for Secretariat versus Phar Lap.
  8. And we now might have to add American Pharoah. [2]

A more serious issue[edit]

A not-so-magic wiki-creature is the variant of the internet troll, an individual who makes edits that are disruptive and mean-spirited. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Some trolling is simple disruption, expressing general hostility or lack of clue about appropriate ways to express frustration or disagreement. Usually this is temporary and can be remedied by application of some form of education or disciplinary action. But other behavior goes beyond mere vandalism or immaturity. Some edits create a toxic atmosphere on wikipedia, both in terms of increasing systemic bias and by outright harassment of other users. Other forms of trolling reflects an underlying philosophy or bias that treats some human beings with disrespect based on their membership in a group. A third type is a personal vendetta against another editor or group of editors who the troll views as a target for revenge or "punishment."

Although there is much wisdom in not feeding the trolls and to deny recognition, other times, an individual who is attention-seeking will only up the ante if ignored, so prompt action is best. Other forms of trolling, particularly involving personal attacks or BLP violations can cause a great deal of harm if not stopped.

Some trolls can be reformed as they develop an understanding that their behavior has real-world impact on the feelings and lives of the people they target. Simple maturation sometimes reforms a troll into a useful editor. Other trolls cannot be reformed because the impact of their actions on others is what motivates them; knowing they are doing harm is their inspiration. At first glance, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two; only over time does a pattern emerge. On Wikipedia, the best approach is usually to simply address the behavior as it happens; do not attribute motive. As behavior issues are addressed, the individual who realizes they need to reform will, over time, alter their behavior. The individual who does not choose to change their behavior will use any tactic they can think of to continue their disruption or repeat their actions until they are blocked.

There are situations where bad behavior is temporary or superficial, but it does not reflect a long-term problem. Anyone can be temporarily frustrated or brought to the boiling point by circumstances on- or off-wiki and have a momentary lapse in judgement. A person who is generally well-meaning might behave badly due to health, personal circumstances, or even WP:Editing under the influence. Some individuals also have a cyclical problem that ebbs and flows, but the individual is still not a troll; they may be more stressed at certain times of year due to seasonal affective disorder, the "anniversary" date of a sad memory, or even just dealing with cyclical life circumstances (such as a change in a work schedule from days to graveyard shifts). This does not give someone a free pass to violate the rules and norms of wikipedia, but it is a case for a proportional response — a 24-hour block, not an indefinite one.

It has been said by some retired users that "wikipedia never forgets or forgives." This is a legitimate criticism of Wikipedia; some people can and should be forgiven for mistakes made 10 years ago. In addition, some people edit in areas or have a personal passion for a topic which will periodically bring them into conflict and this is not going to change. The difference between the true "troll" and the merely difficult personality is, ultimately, if the person is here to improve the encyclopedia or if they are here to harm others. No one is exempt from appropriate consequences for a specific wrong action, but there is a very clear line between the person who makes a human mistake and the troll who feeds off of the pain of others.

More