Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Where's the line?

But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it.

Where's the line? I'd like this page to include some guidance on specific "I own the article"-type behavior that should be avoided. (Particularly in the case this paragraph discusses, when an editor has uncommon expertise and/or interest in an article.) -- Rbellin 23:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But don't waste time trying to change someone's mind.

Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process. But don't waste time trying to change someone's mind.

I've removed that last sentence, I don't think we should ever be advising people not to talk to other editors and try to make them see your point of view. --fvw* 14:43, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Direct release to the Wikipedia Organization

Will it ever be likely that, instead of having to release it under the GFPL, Wikipedia would allow us to release our rights directly to the Wikimedia Foundation? I like to write for charity purposes, but I would much prefer not to release my works under a GNU-owned license. Almafeta 03:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dedicating copyright to another person or an organization requires that you have a signed written document authorizing the dedication. It's possible, but I doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation wants that responsibility. That said... you do realize that Wikipedia being available under the GFDL doesn't make it "owned" by the Free Software Foundation, right? --ESP 03:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard at all; just add a checkbox under 'This is a minor edit' stating 'I release the rights for this article to the Wikipedia Organization.' Other websites do it. Almafeta 16:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not technically hard to do, but the WMF would likely then be "personally" responsible for any copy-vios, or libel. -- user:zanimum

Do we own our user pages?

Shouldn't we be specific about whether or not Wikipedians own their user pages? I have seen some editors who tell people, "Feel free to edit my user page" (I think Jimbo is one of them), and others who do not want their user pages edited by anyone else, or who keep a count of how many times their user pages have been vandalized. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example is talk page vandalism where someone's words are rewritten to have a different meaning, sometimes in order to set them up for an accusation under WP:NPA. (This is usually only done by vandals who don't understand how to use page history.) This has happened to me at least once, and an admin considered the act a blockable offense (fraud) and blocked the vandal who rewrote my comment.

So that's my question: under what circumstances is it "okay" to remove a comment from a talk page? For your own talk page, can you remove any comment? Can you only remove personal attacks and attempts to reveal personal information (address, phone #, etc.)? Can you rewrite other people's comments about you and leave their signature attached to the new words, as was done to me? On someone else's talk page, do you have the right to retract or alter your words by removing some or all of what you've written? Do others have the right to revert you doing this? This seems to be a pretty large grey area in WP:OWN, unless I'm missing something. Kasreyn 23:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter, what about user subpages? I keep a list of my favorite quotes under my userpage. Do I have the right to remove or edit a quote someone added to it without my permission (if such a strange thing should ever happen)? Does anyone else have the right to remove or edit a quote they find offensive on my quotes file? Kasreyn 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems no one is willing to answer... (cricket sounds), dare we be bold and make make a revision to this page mentioning ownership of userspace (including subpages)? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 01:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't clear, the anwer is (and always has been) no. We cut people a lot of slack over user and Talk pages, but no they do not own them, they can be deleted if they are abused, locked if people insist on using them inappropriately, and are of course open to being edited mercilessly. Wikiquette says we allow people to say things in their own words on their User and Talk pages, but that's about it, and even that is trumped by WP:NLT, WP:CIV and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, no ownership of anything, including user pages, but I think you will be forgiven for reverting an edit to your userpage or sub-page, and I doubt that there are many cases where someone will be able to enforce an edit to another user's sub-page, unless there is an obvious and demonstrable reason. User:Pedant 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Inaptly named

I think this page should be renamed. I'm currently trying to tell a new user that he should be more flexible in allowing his own content to be edited mercilessly, but if I have to refer to this page it comes off really bad. He is not trying to "own" articles! He is just, like so many new editors, not very used to people commenting, changing and reverting his work within several minutes of making them! We could be more understanding of that by renaming this article to "Letting your contributions go" or something of the sort. It would show much more Tact^tm on the Wiki side.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Anyone else like it? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think The Minister is right that this title does not convey the appropriate message. I personally think "Ownership of contributions" would be a better title, as it confronts the real issue (people getting upset about changes to content they have added), and also includes Categories, Portals, Templates, etc. in one fell swoop. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Nscheffey, The porphet wizard, and The Minister: changing 'articles' to 'contributions' covers a lot more, and makes it clear that one doesn't own even one cherished sentence. User:Pedant 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it covers a lot more—because they are two different issues. We don't need that. Gene Nygaard 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Letting your contributions go" would be more tactful than "Ownership of contributions", and it's important to be tactful with new users. (It's mostly the newer users who need to read this, too.) This way it sounds more like guiding, helpful instructions rather than a rigid code. Also, it's important to make sure they understand why it's better to not be possessive. They aren't used to our policies and customs yet. Jobarts^-Talk 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Letting your (stuff) Go" is a cute title that could be misunderstood. I like it, but.... ;) As someone who just found this page (I was talking about this issue at the edit war talk page, calling offenders "page squatters"), I think it needs to be clear and concise, even to non-native EN speakers. How about Ownership of content since this applies to categories, pages, sections, sentences, images, etc....? — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to expend to all content namespaces

How about expanding this policy to the image:, template:, category: and portal: namespaces? It would merely require a few edits to replace "writing" with "material". Circeus 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. See my comment in the section above. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

changes

I made a couple of changes - hope that's ok - a couple of the points were quite misleading, especially the idea that, having released something under the gfdl you could also then release it under any other licence. I changed that to read 'some other licenses'. While I guess you could release it under any other license, you would open yourself up to some fairly predictable lawsuits if you did. Gravitor 17:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright ownership

I removed the text as part of a campaign to streamline policy and avoid duplicatation of material among policy pages.

This matter is more fully addressed at WP:C, which I believe is where it belongs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors citing their own webpages

Is this an appropriate place to discuss the issue of an individual creating, maintaining and controlling a personal website, and then coming here as an editor and using its content to provide information as secondary sources in Wikipedia articles? For example, in an article about apples, the editor archives a lot of newsgroup discussion about new apple varieties under development, and then goes to our Apple article and cites his personal website's newgroup archives as a secondary sources under a section which he might title, ==new apple varities==. Terryeo 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, this isn't really the appropriate place. Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources would be better if you haven't posted there already and the accompanying guideline (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) already seems to cover this. But the short answer is: a personal website usually isn't a reliable source, since anyone can start one and post whatever they like, and therefore as a rule shouldn't be used as a reference in an article. - Bobet 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• See also: WP:COI. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs

Actually a personal website would usually be okay, if belongs to someone noteable in their field (or if it belongs to the person who the article is about) as a source for views etc attributed to them. It's really not any different from a blog in this respect. However David is right that it would fall foul of COI requirements for someone to be adding their own website and obviously we don't add Joe Blow's website Nil Einne 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection

I have a strong objection to User:Viriditas' recent edits to this policy, the User is currently involved in a dispute which he is characterising as an ownership dispute, and editing the relevant policy at the same time. See Talk:Hippie. I would appreciate it if a neutral party would look over the edits to insure they are appropriate. Thanks User:Pedant 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted then since they were made in order to fit a dispute that he is having with other editors (Not me I'm neutral). The edits were made in semi-bad faith in order to make it appear that he is following policy. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very serious claim. Please provide evidence. How were the edits made to make it appear that I am or am not following policy, and how do my edits to the policy page deviate from the core policy? More importantly, how do my edits to this policy page give me an advantage? The edits were made as new content, as I have not edited the original or core policy in any way. I have in fact, expanded upon the policy, using examples and information that I have gleamed from the wiki. Awaiting your response... —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the worries expressed above, I think his additions are valid examples of the issues addressed by this policy. I would vote for their reinstatement. AndyJones 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again as a neutral party if consenus say to keep them then that is fine but for right now I don't think he should make changes to a policy while in a dispute that involves this policy (Makes it look like he is not neutral in my opinion, and only making them in order to make his side stronger (Again this is the way it looks to me)). So I would advise that he not make edits to this policy for now until his disupte is settled. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these allegations are being made by User:Pedant, an AMA advocate, who appears to be involved in a content dispute on Talk:Hippie, of which I am the receipient of his complaints. He is currently in the process of expanding his complaint against me on various talk pages, RFC pages, and policy pages. In the process, he has dragged in an innocent editor by the name of Aeon1006, who is also an AMA advocate. I want to apologize to Aeon1006 in advance, as I had no idea Pedant would do this. Pedant's behavior is starting to look like wikistalking. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

appears to be involved in a content dispute (quote Viriditas) User:Pedant: It is far more than a content dispute, just look at the page in question, I'm not expanding the complaint, Viriditas is expanding his offense! I have asked for help from one of the AMA coordinators in finding an advocate, because I'm not sure how advocates advocating for advocates should be handled:

"I think I might need an advocate soon. I'm not sure how we do that... any advice? My situation is an editor making wholesale bad changes to an article that I and 3 collaborators worked for the last month on. The 'other' editor has refused discusssion, has made comments that read as if he knows best, ignored other editor's comments, and requests for discussion, and now has created an RfC, in part citing WP:OWN, while at the same time editing the policy at WP:OWN, apparently with the intent of making our dispute 'clearly fit' the policy. It's going to be kinda grim, as there is about 20-30 feet of text to read to really understand what's happening. Any advice on this would be welcome, I prefer to read it here on your page though, if you don't mind. User:Pedant 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"

...and Aeon responded saying he would handle my advocacy himself. I'm not stalking Viriditas whatsoever (I've never even looked at Viriditas' User page, or contribs) I've been working with 3 other editors for weeks on Hippie and then Viriditas inserted himself into the group, and began barging around giving orders and generally chasing off anyone who disagreed with him. He has refused to discuss any of his edits in any substantial or collaborative manner. Basically either he or I is wrong because there is no possibility of us both being right. I'm losing the ability to even feign civility in this case and I'm going to rely on the rest of Wikipedia to fix the damage Viriditas has done. I'm not willing to work with Viriditas on anything at all any more. I've totally lost it. User:Pedant 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Just want to let you know, that I'm always willing to work with you, and my door is wide open. If you can comment on my expansion of the policy, I would appreciate it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again as a neutral Party I would like to advise both sides to seek mediation on this issue to prevent it from getting out of hand. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on the policy pump to get more community consensus. This is a policy, and needs the community to approve any edits. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the additions. I got into a series of minutia-related conflicts a few months ago with an editor who did these sorts of things (including the snide remarks in the edit summaries), and actually stopped working on articles in that subject area for a while because it became more a source of frustration than a source of good feelings about making good articles. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If the additions in question are represented by this edit, then I like them too. The first two examples ring true with me. Thankfully I haven't ever seen the third, but I can add my own experience. To those who are worried about changing policy, I don't think a list of examples is actually a big deal. Melchoir 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The new edits seem more appropriate to an essay than a policy. I don't think they're incorrect, so much as a little too focused on a specific type of ownership, potentially making the policy harder to use in other situations and as behaviors change. I'm also generally in favor of keeping policies as streamlined as possible. The longer and more specific they are, the harder they are for people to absorb and follow. Using an essay instead of adding to a guideline gives more flexiblity allowing users who just need the basics to get them fast, while others who want to explore the (or quote) the philosophy and impact in depth can read more. --Siobhan Hansa 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I've gone through this page's history more critically, and it does appear that previously, there wasn't any prescriptive material on identifying or dealing with Owners. I would support splitting the new material into an essay or even a guideline. Melchoir 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I added the new material. Addressing both Melchoir (who did a fantastic job copy editing) and Siobhan Hansa, I agree with keeping policy streamlined, but a page like WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:DEL and others, inform the readers with examples and suggestions. I could certainly see it being spun off as an extended essay if it was to grow twice as large, but at the very least, it helps readers and editors to see examples. —Viriditas | Talk 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If the examples were short and concise I might agree (although I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other policies cut a bit too :-) But to me these examples dominate the policy to an extent that they give unreasonable prominence to a couple of types of ownership, and in far too much detail. I think this makes the entire policy look like it's limited to the examples given, and the way those examples are wrtten makes it difficult to draw more general guidance that can be applied in a broader context. --Siobhan Hansa 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Would you mind taking a stab at shortening the examples and related items, and splitting the rest off to an essay page? As long as there are brief examples, and a pointer towards resolution, I support a split. —Viriditas | Talk 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I might agree. I would prefer the changes not be made. I thought the policy was excellent before. --Siobhan Hansa 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, but the policy did not give examples before; most policies provide examples. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Group ownership

I assume this includes articles about groups; this would preclude any 'ownership' by those in that group; eg. the article on Masons would not be restricted to editing by Masons only. I was just looking for something stating exactly that so that I could be reassured; I found this, which I assume it includes. Please let me know on my talk page. Scoutersig 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope so. An editor created an article about his daughter (who was murdered February, 2006), which was userfied and Afd'ed. He also created a page about the non-profit organization he formed to educate and also influence legislation, named after his daughter. That article still exists, but complaints about it usually result in a rebuttal from the editor that the complaints are personal attacks and in bad faith. Concerns about notability and conflict of interest don't seem to be penetrating the editor's consciousness. It would be humorous but for the tragic circumstances that instigated it all. ... Clear case IMHO of a person who is a member (or in this case, started) a group/organization, insisting on creating an article about it here, arguing with editors about notability (with only one newspaper article to cite), and also fending off comments with complaints of persecution. Almost makes me want to add Wikipedia is not ... therapy to the appropriate essay. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Page squatters

I asked something like this question on Wikipedia_talk:Edit War, but it seems that WP:OWN is the more appropriate policy forum.

• I've noticed on several articles that there are regular editors who chide newbies and revert edits with arguments like, "This has already been discussed endlessly, please read the Talk page archives." (And when you're ready for retirement and have finished reading endless kilobytes of old Talk pages, then you can edit, chum.)
• This isn't quite a case of having to ask an editor's permission to edit, or posting a request to come aboard topic on the Talk page, so much as just staying, "This our club, you have to read the rules before joining."

I'd like to add an example quote or brief description of the behavior, as it differs from those who've created a page or are even principle contributors. Anyone can make the assertion, and thereby discourage new users from being bold. I'll post a couple of suggested examples below. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Events

• New edits are reverted, with the reasoning that the edit is similar to one suggested previously, and deprecated by editors at that time.

Comments

• "This has already been argued and decided before. Please read the Talk page discussions before making new edits to this article. Thanks."

This isn't actually an ownership issue, unfortunately, it's a dispute resolution issue. Look at it from their point of view. They hammered out a painful compromise, probably not completely satisfying anyone, but leading to some kind of consensus version. Then someone who wasn't involved in the compromise comes in, and makes a change, probably strongly favoring one of the sides that was involved in the argument. Either they act as they did, asking the new contributor to participate in the discussion on the talk page - or the entire idea that people can reach an agreement on talk pages becomes invalid. So, unfortunately, without knowing what exact page you are referring to, I can well imagine the other side may be right. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While there are probably some constructive ways to handle it without biting, this type of activity is actually somewhat necessary. In articles about controversial topics consensus is necessary in order for there to be any progress, but it can't be required to try for a new consensus every time a new editor chimes in. Evolution was nearly paralyzed by repetitive arguments that recurred on a near-daily basis until regular contributors started being firm about "Read the archives" type comments, and the same was true of Abortion. In certain topics with extensive archives, most of the issues have been resolved through consensus over a long period of time. Unless some kind of new information is being provided, it shouldn't be necessary to revisit the same point of controversy day after day, just because a new editor hasn't had a chance to sound off yet. Of course, someone bringing new information to the topic should certainly be given a chance to discuss it. Doc Tropics 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Such article should probably have a section at the very top hammering issues that have been discussed at length and their resolution, with link to relevant archives and a warning that arguments brought without having actually read these will be outright ignored. I would explain that to a new contributor and then say that if he really wants to reopen the debate, he'd better have good new arguments, and thus he should read the archives. If explained in a level headed fashion, the user will either give up or actually be stubborn and read the archives. If a warning has been issued, he might be ignored later. Circeus 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could report these were controversial pages like "near-term abortion," "creationism," "Michael Jackson," or "was Liberace gay," but the examples I encountered were popular topics like Blade Runner, where the previous editors could be pretty much self-anointed experts. Please follow with me, I'm talking about page squatters, and example comments/warnings. I agree, that a new editor -- in a perfect world -- will be sensitive and aware of last year's debate about "did Deckard lose a tooth in his fight with Leon," but this shackles policies like "Be bold" and "don't bite the newbies." If new editors can't make an edit without being idoctrinated with a page's history, then ... we slow down churn of a page. Maybe I'm off-whack, but I don't think churn should generally slow down as an article gets older. The very real and beneficial risk here may be that WP articles are never really done. ... Oh boy, getting too philosophical, too late at night. I retire to pillow-mode. EOL. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject consensus

I'd like to alert editors here to an issue which has has come up along the lines of the above comments about pre-existing consensus, which has proceeded to Arbitration.

In a nutshell: The question is whether or not WikiProjects, or other groups of interested editors, are allowed to come up with guidelines for a set of articles, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence with other Wikipedia-wide guidelines. And further, whether or not any articles in conflict can be reverted without going through normal RM processes.

As a longer version: There are WikiProjects related to television episode articles, who have come up with recommended naming conventions for the articles within their sphere of influence. Some of these discussions, as mentioned by AnonEMouse above, involved long and painful consensus-building debates, which resulted in compromises which may not have been in strict accordance with Wikipedia-wide guidelines. For example, about a year ago the Star Trek editors came up with a naming system where all episode articles use a consistent suffix such as (<seriesname> episode) (see the subcategories at Category:Star Trek episodes), even if not specifically required for disambiguation purposes. A few editors on the other side of the debate claim that this practice is in violation of WP:DAB guidelines, and they have been sweeping through thousands of television episode articles, moving them without discussion or any attempt at WP:RM.

It's my own opinion that WikiProject consensus should be respected, but "ownership" issues are being raised.

In any case, it's moved on to ArbCom at this point. Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion and/or offer statements, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions and the related Evidence and Workshop pages. --Elonka 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the long and painful consensus-building debate the Star Trek editors had, that resulted in a naming convention? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• What're you, a glutton for punishment? Fighting insomnia? ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) (old school Trekkie)

Actually, I just want to confirm that that debate actually happened - in this particular case there have been a number of times when it was claimed that there was a consensus discussion and there turned out to be none. Until I see it, I'm skepticial. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I just had an experience like this. I noted that The Wicker Man was the "main topic" page for that term, with a link to the the 2006 remake and The Wicker Man (disambiguation). Seemed damned inconsistent to me. Over at the Wikiproject Film style page, was a clear guideline instructing that when two films of the same name were made, each would be titled TITLE (YEAR film). The older would be moved. I posted my intent to move and got some arguments in answer (I'm paraphrasing mercilessly):

• This is the original film, dammit, not the cruddy awful remake, and deserves to be the "main page" – IOW the version we all know and love takes precedence;
• There are many pages for films that have been remade where the original film's page is still the main topic (Night of the Living Dead, Cat People, The Italian Job, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) – are you going to "fix" all those?;
• Guidelines are only that, and not to be taken too literally.

I chaff at all those for the following: 1) WP is objective, and NPOV means not playing favorites. 2) Others' mistakes don't mean that we repeat the mistakes like lemmings. 3) Guidelines provide consistency and credibility to WP as a reference. Willy-nilly deviation from guidelines turns it into an acid party of information.

Fortunately, someone pointed me to WP:DAB#Primary topic which clearly asserts that if a certain title or usage is clearly predominant, make that the "main topic," link to a disambiguation page, make the disambig' page link to an unambiguous page which redirects to your beloved main topic page. _{Say that five times fast!} Clearly contradicting what the Film Wikiproject dictates. Another example might be if Freddie Footinmouth decides that Blade Runner needs to be the disambiguation page, and wants to move the current film article to Blade Runner (film) _{(currently a redirect page)}. Those who adore the film and squat upon teh page will administer the VK test to you without delay, and declare "time to die." Same with Wicker Man. Personal passion and bias overshadows as innocent an idea as "let's keep WP consistent." (sigh) I fear there is no answer, just a long road of compromise and flexibility ahead. (off the soapbox) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Leadership versus Ownership

I inserted the sentence "Ownership must not be confused with leadership. Leadership is accomodative, ownership is exclusionary." into the Project page. It was deleted by another editor (fair enough), but rather than reverting it, I present it here for discussion. What I mean is that leadership means being bold and taking charge, but working in a cooperative way so that nobody is arbitrarily ignored (of course trolls and PoV editors may become ignored after a while). Perhaps some places where the article uses ownership in a positive sense, what is really meant is leadership. Ownership is on the face of it not the Wikipedia way and is a negative, while leadership is fundamentally positive. When leadership becomes abused it becomes ownership. Leadership doesn't necessarily mean doing all the work or even taking credit. Some leaders work in the background without much fuss and hullabaloo. Anyway, I am interested in your thoughts. Hu 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that since no one is an official leader (as in we don't vote for people to lead projects/portals/articles (the only votes are for admins, and they aren't 'leaders' in that sense), it is not really in the scope of Wikipedia. (It makes sense—but I think that it doesn't quite apply.) —ScouterSig 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no official leadership, but there is no official ownership, either. Leadership doesn't require voting or appointing. You know the old saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Leadership is a natural outgrowth of Wikipedia's "Be Bold" policy. Leadership can just "happen", for example when an editor watches a page and manages discussions and works to gain consensus when needed. There are many ways to exercise leadership and most of them have nothing to do with politics. Hu 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that some editors are very confused when it comes to this issue. They may notice that a certain editor has assumed a leadership position so that the quality of an article can be maintained, and they immediately assume that editor has crossed the line into ownership--even though the editor may be very inclusive and accomodating in his approach. One experience I had recently involved such an editor staging a "hostile takeover" of an article--now he "owns" it (!) and chases away anyone who substantially modifies his edits. Apostle12 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording?

common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

--end paste--

Where the text says "as each edit box states", I do not see it in my edit box, so is this test still accurate? Navou ^talk 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it, it's at the bottom. --Howard the Duck 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Is there a template that I can use to warn a user who's become too possessive about an page, and who has serious ownership issues. [User:Perfectblue97|perfectblue]] 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the "owner" is reverting edits regularly and rapidly, three-revert rule warnings would be apropos. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hostile takeover?

Here are the removed sections:

Hostile takeover

Sometimes an editor who is very competetive will try to solve ownership issues by substituting himself as the primary editor. This is not unlike a hostile takeover in the business world, where an individual or a company possesses sufficient capital to buy a controlling share of stock in the company to be taken over. "Capital" in this context consists of the willingness to overpower an existing primary editor, or multiple editors, gradually forcing them out as they tire of incessant conflict. "Survival of the most obnoxious" is a term that has been used to describe this process. In any case, the new primary editor is no less in violation of Wikipedia ownership policies than the former primary editor or multiple editors, and the only solution is to withdraw voluntarily.

Collaboration

Most case of ownership conflict could be avoided if the parties in question were to remember that intense conflict is often indicative of the potential for intense collaboration that would be much more productive for all parties concerned. A related topic would be a concept promoted by Karl Jung called "The Shadow."

I added these sections because I believe they address a rather common problem. In their zeal to curtail ownership behaviors, some editors become guilty of same. Incidentally, I have seen other sections added to this policy without any discussion. Apostle12 08:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of this new section? Seems unnecessary to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unnecessary. I'm not a big fan of those who add sections to official policy without so much as a suggestion or request for feedback on the Talk page. I'd support you if you reverted it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. -Will Beback · † · 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostle12: I have to add that repeatedly restoring your removed text after a request to discuss here first is disruptive editing, and does not "sell" your addition. It also seems as if you were enacting a "hostile takeover" on this policy page. I hope you've decided to chill out a bit and let others comment on your idea. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the text once, not "repeatedly." It appears here for purposes of discussion. Apostle12 07:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but Policy pages are a special case where changes (especially rather large ones like this) are best discussed before a change. Circeus 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Also, I'd like to suggest that the "Ownership examples" section would be better put below the "Types of ownership" and "Resolving ownership issues" sections. Providing positive and constructive advice is better before providing negative examples. Jeff Carr 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No advice to try editing elsewhere?

In some ways, coping with edit conflicts may be similar to coping with loss. This may be particularly true when someone pours hours of effort into editing an article, only to find it speedily deleted, or altered in a way substantially destructive to the earlier author's work.

How about adding something to the guideline article about how to avoid this type of loss, or reduce its psychological impact? Currently the article advises: If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.

In addition to that, I would advise:

• Find another outlet. There are thousands of wikis. Probably there is one more hospitable to a particular non-neutral point of view. If not, start one. Wikipedia is not "the only game in town." Editing elsewhere need not be mutually exclusive with editing on Wikipedia. Having another outlet where one's edits are more likely to "stick" can help one relax when the same edits get clobbered on Wikipedia, because the consequence is no longer the total destruction of one's effort. Coping with a loss is easier if one finds an equally good replacement.

• Stick to small, constructive edits. If one finds oneself embroiled in Wikipedia debates, perhaps a scaling back of ambitions is in order. Rather than write vast new articles from scratch, stick to making small improvements to existing articles, without substantially changing their present content or tone. If an article has been around for a while, and had substantial edits, it may be somewhat stable, and any edits that obviously make the article better at what it already does are likely to "stick." Many articles need improvements. For example, many articles mention technical terms without clearly defining them in context, and without linking them to appropriate defining articles. Occasionally articles misspell such technical terms, or the names of famous (unlinked) people. Many articles on computing, for example, lack sufficient links, making their buzzword blizzards harder to decipher.

--Teratornis 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious Question about removing WikiProject tags

Curiosity ... Is there a recognized protocol about adding or removing WikiProject tags from city articles? There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

It would seem at first glance that all the cities in Southern California could appropriately remain as part of both WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California - it is after all one state! There are many articles across Wikipedia which have multiple WikiProject tags.

I don't know what the answer is if there is a recognized protocol about the following:

• Is there a consensus here about who can add and who can remove WikiProject tags from city articles?

• Is there a consensus here about when a city article can have more than one WikiProject tag?

Are there any observations that anyone in this group has about this situation? You may wish to leave your comments on those project's pages; however, any comments left here will also be posted on those pages. Spamreporter1 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, adding a WikiProject tag to an article, is as effective as trying to sell sand to an arab, or ice to an eskimo. It imparts nothing, and is to all intents, quite useless. Anyone can still edit the page to their hearts content, regardless of what the Project team may be trying to achieve. Until Wikipedia starts to recognise this, then anarchy (which is what it is) will remain the norm. You can tag and article to the "ends of the earth", but it really makes no difference.Sheepcot 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

It appears that this policy does not count when it comes to essays, and can be disregarded. Personally, I think that is a mistake but apparently a majority of editors disagree with me. Therefore, I propose that this policy be amended to clear up this issue. The amendment would be something like:

This policy does not apply to essays in the Wikipedia namespace. The scope of essays may not be increased, and addressing particular arguments may not be appropriate.

I think this is only fair to clarify this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are essays in WP-space that are intended to evolve the same way articles do however. I would think that the kind of essays you describe belong in Userspace rather than WP-space. Borisblue 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would this not apply to essays in WP space? Anything in WP space is fair game for any editor. If you have an essay you want to "own" do it in user space, and even then there's still the possibility it may be edited by others or even deleted. Nobody owns anything on WP, not even your own user page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just require a large banner reading "This essay is owned by User:EssayOwner. Do not edit it without permission" Which would convey the fact that an owned essay isn't going to be taken very seriously. --W.marsh 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound a bit stupid, but is this a serious proposal? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While some leniency is given to people in their userspace, they do not own it. And starting an essay in the WP namespace does not mean it is yours. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I added another common one I see a lot; feel free to revert, but I think it shows that we need to not bite the reviewers. — Deckiller 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Update/proposal

This policy needs to be updated to include some mention of this ruling. I thought I'd include it here before making any major changes. If no comments are made I'll include it in a week or two. Quadzilla99 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear what I'm saying is it's not an instance of ownership, by definition, when one editor quibbles with another over two different acceptable formats. For instance a new editor to an article decides that an article should have different section titles, different terminolgy, etc, the general editors are indifferent, and there is an edit war over the material between the new editor and the original editor or someone favoring the original layout. According to the ruling if both formats are acceptable, and there is no clear consensus or valid reason for this change, then the form of the original contributor would win out. Quadzilla99 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell: weak statement

If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.

The usage of the word "allow" imlicitely bears a smell of ownership: that you are asked to exercise your good will and allow others to edit. IMO the statement must be bold and strong: you may not prevent others from editing. If you agree with me, please make a good English from my suggestion. (Although I understand that this is nitpicking, but I really hate owners (probably because of being born in a communist state) :-) `'mikka 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A fair comment, I have changed the nutshell. Hmmm... that has a nice ring to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Link Error

• AuthorshipModel - a discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki

When I clicked on this link, it gave be a 500 internal server error. Is this a transient thing, is it just me, or is it a bad link? Does anyone have a replacement link or should it be removed all together?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of ownership outside

The similar collaborative encyclopedic project Everything2.com has a "write-up" system where a regular user can only add content as their own "writeup" and cannot edit another person's "writeup", does it count as a form of ownership of articles (I'm not saying the practice in Everything2.com is bad, just asking)? Wooyi 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, address misuse

Recently, an editor who I reverted once, and two other editors reverted subsequently, tried to push the idea that we were violating WP:OWN. He used as part of his justification for this claim the fact that the talk page featured a scope tag from a related Wikiproject, and suggested that we were all "[projectname] people who violate OWN." I'd like there to be a clear disclaimer in this article that points out the idea that this is talking about specific behaviors, and not project scope tags or other indications that groups of Wikipedians take an interest in the content of an article. -Harmil 06:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership by projects

I suggest that the section on "multiple editors" should be amended to refer specifically to WikiProjects; there are cases of such projects effectively claiming "ownership" of articles covered by the project. Andy Mabbett 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Those who know what they are talking about, to be a certain extent, write the articles on that subject. Over matters not related to policy, the consensus of those who write the articles is entirely reasonable as a guide as to what to do. Providing they don't do anything against policy, which naturally reflects a much more important consensus. Moreschi ^Talk 15:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why?": To emphasise current policy. Ownership is against policy. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing misleading information is not against policy. Making editorial stylistic choices when it comes to removing infoboxes is not against policy, either. Moreschi ^Talk 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid raising red herrings such as "Removing misleading information is not against policy.". Andy Mabbett 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem, however, that only [1] the opinions of established editors are valid and those of others are discarded, even if they're only trying to help. Gretab 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does "Do not sign what you do not own" apply to images and image filenames?

• In the interest of centralizing discussion, please follow this link if you'd be interested in participating in a thread on this topic. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is clear.

The article talks about owners but also says that nobody owns parts of articles. That sounds contradicotry to me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.225.32.222 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2007

I think article should comment on fine line between "Multiple Editor Ownership" and "Consensus"

I think it needs to be clarified that there will be times (particularly in the case of WP:BLP where the subject has been recently involved in a controversial event) where reaching a consensus may be so monumental that a sort of "Multiple Editor Ownership"-esque situation arises, but that's okay. My example is what happened with the Michael Richards article shortly after the Laugh Factory incident. It took nearly a week for the serious editors to reach a good consensus on how to reflect the incident in the intro text. At that point, a decision was made not to let anyone change the intro, because even changing a word or two could wreck the fragile consensus. I think that is acceptable, and is different from Multiple Editor Ownership.

Perhaps I'll be WP:BOLD and make the change myself... ---Jaysweet 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally got around to doing this. Any objections to what I wrote? --Jaysweet 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No real objections, but you might want to wait for someone to comment. Maybe announce at the policy section of WP:VP first? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests to slow down as ownership?

The article currently says that remark like "You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" is evidence of ownership, but I do not think that is the only possible interpretation of that. In fact, I think that just the opposite behavior of editing very extensively without considering the reaction time and absorption capability of other editors is the real sign of ownership. One of the principles of the Harmonious editing club is to slow down and give other editors plenty of opportunity to react to edits. Making many changes in an article makes it more difficult to deal with the issues, increasing the chances of triggering an edit war if people can't absorb multiple issues at once. Urging people to slow down may also be a helpful intervention to try to encourage Staying cool when the editing gets hot. So I think that requests to "slow down" should be removed from the list of ownership traits. What do others think? Buddhipriya 01:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I was indirectly responsible for the addition of this item, because I once asked an editor to please slow down in his extensive editing of the "Hippie" article. The editor in question responded by adding "requests to go more slowly" to the list of items indicating ownership traits.

Since then, the "Hippie" article has suffered several rapacious edits by rather aggressive editors. And those of us who might previously have felt justified in requesting such editors slow down, self censor because we don't want to be accused of "ownership."

I would submit that caring about the progressive evolution of an article is not evidence of an ownership problem. Quite the contrary; incremental changes are almost always a team effort and encourage active participation by many editors.

Once again, the "Hippie" article is a good example. Following the last rapacious edit, most editors left in discouragement. Had we felt legitimized in saying "Please slow down" that exodus might have been prevented. Apostle12 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In general this article needs to be tempered a bit. Almost all of the behaviors mentioned in the article are suggestive of ownership, but aren't necessarily proof that someone is owning an article. In the right context, many of these "bad" behaviors might be justified.

I wouldn't be worried about being labeled an "owner" by asking someone to slow down so you can talk about the changes on the talk page. As long as you are open to the new changes and just want to discuss them, I think it is fine. --Jaysweet 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to slow down my editing of most articles, though slowing down on articles where their is controversy would probably be a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The fine line between "ownership" and "upholding consensus" section

Just setting this for discussion. Something about this should probably be mentioned, but not without heavy discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, I think. For the time being, maybe Jaysweet can write it as an essay and link it in the "See also"? Circeus 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:) I tried to get a discussion going (see above) but nobody responded, so it seemed like the best way to get people's attention would be to boldly modify the article. I figured it would get reverted, but hey, now I have at least two people reading my comments! ;p

I'm sure anyone who has worked on a highly controversial article, particularly when WP:BLP intersects a scandalous current event (Mel Gibson DUI, Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, etc.). has experienced what I am talking about. I recall in particular with the Michael Richards article, the intro text had an inline comment saying that nobody was allowed to modify the sentence about the Laugh Factory or add anything to it without first discussing on the talk page, or else it would be considered vandalism. That sort of smells a bit like ownership, but I think in that case it was justified, since there had been a lot of strong feelings about what exactly to say, how to say it, etc.

It would be nice to have something in the policy (or perhaps in a linked essay, as Circeus suggested) to both a) help people understand that just because a group of editors may be reverting them, it might not be ownership if the topic is controversial or WP:BLP; and b) give advice to editors involved in protecting controversial or BLP articles on how to make sure they don't cross the line.

The most common problem I see coming from this is a good faith edit being reverted (legitimately, because of established consensus) but being called vandalism in the edit history by another well-intentioned editor. I've seen flame wars break out just over that. I think people need to keep in mind that a new editor to the page isn't necessarily going to read the talk page first (can anyone say they read 100% of the Talk page 100% of the time before making an edit? I don't think so) and that they may inadvertently make an edit that goes against consensus while still having the best of intentions. Calling that person a vandal serves no useful purpose, and yet I see it happen all the time.

I dunno, these are just my thoughts on it. --Jaysweet 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling people who make good faith edits vandals, or good faith edits vandalism, is never okay, certainly. And consensus should be open to new debate. But if someone comes into the article X every day and says "X is a Y", despite consensus that X is not a Y, there shouldn't have to be a new debate every day to establish that there's still a consensus. At some point, it's justifiable to tell people not to change it without a discussion first, thus avoiding a long time spent with no new result until someone has a good argument against the consensus. Calling it vandalism is not okay, but saying "don't do it" is. -Amarkov moo! 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If a considerable amount of discussion has been spent to arrive at am acceptable wording, comments are sometimes included to avoid re-igniting the issue. There are prominent comments warning about unannounced reverts in many Digimon articles and in the FA Mount Rushmore (people adding any random appearance of the thing, or turning the prose into a list. I revert to the original FA section on a regular basis). They are not considered "vandalism," but the revert is grounded into the quite obvious comment warning. Circeus 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is great stuff, that is exactly what I would like to see codified: That it is okay to put an inline comment forbidding editing a section without prior discussion on the talk page, but when reverting someone who violated that prohibition, it's not advisable to call it "vandalism" on the first offense (of course it would be completely different if someone ignored the warning repeatedly). When people start throwing around the word "vandal" because someone made a good-faith-but-still-inappropriate edit, that's when the line has been crossed from upholding consensus into ownership.

On a related note... It might make some sense to mention in the WP:Consensus policy the utility of using inline comments to warn people of fragile consensus. As I said, nobody reads 100% of the Talk Page 100% of the time before making an edit, but if someone goes to make an edit and sees an inline comment, they might be more likely to think twice. Encouraging people to make judicious use of inline comments to protect a fragile consensus could also be a positive thing. --Jaysweet 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just started trying to tackle a related problem at content forking. and discovered the situation is not covered under ownership policy. One contributor tries to insert WP:original research into an article, talk page discussion ensues where the material generally is seen as WP:original research by three contributors. The three contributors keep the material out of the article by continually reverting the one contributor. The one contributor runs off with the material (exhibiting ownership of that material) and starts a new article. I do not think this ownership situation is described in ownership policy. The proposed clarification to the content forking guideline is on the guideline talk page at Ownership forking revision proposal. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediators often take ownership of an article to resolve disputes about that article. I believe there is an article space template for this very purpose (e.g., don't make changes without first discussing them on the talk page). However, it generally does not seem appropriate for someone (or everyone) involved in an ongoing dispute to take ownership of an article and state not to change it without a discussion first. Amarkov and Circeus's points about resolved disputes are good. It would be too unwieldy to always have to run off to get a mediator to deal with the matter or an admin to protect the article. The vandal comment, of course, it out of line. However, there are other policy and guidelines that deal with inappropriately calling people vandals, so it might be instruction creep to add something in this policy about inappropriately calling other vandals. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The fine line between "ownership" and "upholding consensus"

In some cases it may be difficult to distinguish between a "tag team" of editors establishing illegitimate ownership over an article vs. a legitimate attempt to uphold a consensus established after much reasoned debate. In the case of highly controversial articles or current events, the consensus may be so fragile that even a slight change in wording could cause the agreement to fracture. Alternatively, in the case of biographies of living persons, the need to avoid legal complications may create an incentive to exercise very strict control over a particular article or section.

Editors involved in upholding an established consensus should exercise care not to cross the line into ownership. Always be courteous to those who attempt to edit an article in good faith, even if their changes need to be reverted in order to conform to the existing consensus (labelling a well-intentioned edit as vandalism in your edit summary is a great way to start an unnecessary fight). And remember, newcomers may always have something new to add. The main difference between consensus and ownership is that consensus is always open to new debate.

I copied your edit in so that it was obvious what was being discussed.

I'm interested as it joins with a few other related threads around policy, including one on libel where I was not happy with the implication that it is OK for Wikipedia to repeat potentially libellous comments as long as they were well-sourced. Fundamentally, it is not the role of an encyclopaedia to be a source on all possible information and there should not be any embarrassment about removing contentious information. Taking the Mel Gibson incident, at the time it was occurring there was a lot of disinformation being circulated about what actually happened, and it would be beyond Wiki to safely come to a view on what happens. I think sometimes you need time to pass to let the "facts" settle down.

I think it is helpful commentary, and if it linked in to some fundamental policies to remind readers that it is not the intent to be the perfect repository of all possible information nor is Wikipedia a newspaper then it has the makings of useful guidance.

The bit that gets lost with reversion (by implication, ownership) is the ability of a topic that is a pretty caterpillar to go through being an unattractive chrysalis on its way to being a butterfly. Sometimes it is necessary to have faith in the editing process.

Guardianship of articles is a good thing, ownership (as expressed in Wiki terms) is not. One can easily move from one to another. Spenny 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

user:smatprt violations

At least six editors maintain here [[2]] that smatprt is trying to own Shakespeare articles, being on a mission to replace any mention of the Stratford man with the Earl of Oxford. He refuses to stop doing this and edit wars to keep his material in articles. Unless an administrator helps out by banning him there is no way of stopping him ruin the Shakespeare project. (Felsommerfeld 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

It should be noted that this complaint appeared after I filed an administrative incident report [3] against Felsommerfeld for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the mainstream editors of the Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: [4] and here: [5]. Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: [6] and here: [7] and here: [8] Thanks for considering this info.Smatprt 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Inviting a Third Party to come in and make changes

I think I encountered a “tag team” once. I let go of the article and later found that six weeks later a third party had come in and, after some conflict, made the changes. I’m trying the idea of using the Talk page to post a link to the reverted version with my edit, inviting a third party to come in and make the changes Dhammapal 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What ownership is not

There has been a persistent tendency for people who don't get their way in consensus editing to accuse the other side of owning the article (often as a WP:CABAL) and then point to this policy to back themselves up. It might be a good idea to indicate here that just because you can't get other editors to agree with your proposed changes to an article doesn't mean that the other editors are guilty of "owning" the article. ScienceApologist 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that Ownership of Articles is a key Criticism of Wikipedia and should be mentioned in the Criticism of Wikipedia article as it is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

I’m sure there are dominant editors who spend more than 12 hours per day editing Wikipedia monitoring their watchlist for any changes to their favorite contributions. Dhammapal 11:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ownership examples

The section "Ownership examples" is not written like a policy; it is just a list (or two). The individual quotes leave a lot to interpretation and may even backfire.

One egregious example is the quote "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?". While the aggressiveness of this quote does convey an air of ownership, the meaning of the quote itself counters the whole idea of WP:DISENGAGE. In my experience in conflict resolution, there is a strong correlation between users who feel very possessive about material and users who rush into editing without slowing down. Politely asking the other to slow down, while doing the same, is a very effective way to reduce conflicts. Even if that request is worded more aggressively, it can be helpful, as long as the other person can see the message through the aggression.

At least this example should be removed, but all of them should be seriously examined for their potential to backfire. — Sebastian 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is one editor I repeatedly clash with who completely revises an article in a flurry of edits, usually during a very short period. When I once asked him to please slow down and work with me to incrementally improve the article, he added the above "Ownership examples" section to this page. I saw this as an attempt to bolster his position. Apostle12 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't important...

Okay, this probably isn't important, but I thought the sphinx was of Egyptian mythology... - ~VNinja~ 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In this context, it is the Greek sphinx who poses riddles. The sphinx comes from a multi-cultural background. GundamsRus (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolving ownership issues

Is there any way to buff up the "Resolving ownership issues" section with helpful hints of how such disputes can be resolved with minimal conflict? As it is, it seems rather ineffectual. GundamsRus (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

userpage

but do we own our userpage at least a little more than an article? even a little bit?Д narchistPig (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should at least own our userpage.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Do we own our user pages?. In the sense that is being used here, I think we do own our user pages. Obviously we don't legally own them, but we have a lot more control and authority over them than anything else. Still, we can't put anything we like on them, and there are other sorts of behaviour that are inappropriate too. I think a section on user pages is long overdue here. Richard001 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with you, but This conversation may or may not provide a different answer to the question. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment on comments

At the beginning of the section "Wikipedia:OWN#Comments" I'd like to insert the comment: "The following comments are examples of sentiments that this policy discourages".

Is that ok?Bless sins (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, especially with the last comment. Richard001 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:ExpertContributor

I have added a mention of this template to this policy page. It isn't that well known (even less so than {{maintained}}, which I have also added a link to), but I can only presume people are okay with it seeing that it hasn't been proposed for deletion. I quite like it myself.

I also think we need a page or section of a page on article maintenance (all we have is the template linked above). It could perhaps be included here, since it probably doesn't merit its own page (e.g. Wikipedia:Article maintenance or Wikipedia:Maintenance of articles; these could redirect to a section here). Again, because the template has survived several deletion proposals I assume the majority of editors don't mind it. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the use of this template should not be encouraged, especially since Wikipedia:Expert editors has been rejected as policy. The template is bad for the same reason that policy was bad: at best, it doesn't mean much, and at worst it promotes inappropriate page ownership. Experts (and I happen to be one myself) can justify their edits like everyone else. This being a policy page, which shouldn't contain items that are against consensus, I will remove that mention of it for now--obviously further discussion may reveal consensus runs the other way, and if so it can be added back. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of articles is not the same as conflict of interest

The "consequences of ignoring this policy" section needs to go; it appears to be based on a faulty understanding of what we mean by ownership and what we mean by conflict of interest on Wikipedia. There are two reasons, the first more important than the second:

1. Ownership of articles has does not necessarily have anything to do with conflict of interest. They may be related, or the may not. For example, people who know a lot about a subject, or who have edited an article heavily, may have a tendency to be over-protective of their work — but there's no conflict of interest present because they're not modifying a page they have an external interest in. Conflating the two can cause nothing but confusion.
2. There's no good reason to have a special "consequences" section — most of our policies don't. It makes good sense on WP:COI, where we are dealing with users who have external interests and need an incentive to follow Wikipedia policies that makes sense given those interests. But this is a guideline for habitual Wikipedia editors, who know they need to follow policy. Anyway, the consequences listed aren't particularly accurate or enlightening: it basically says that the consequences of maintaining control are.. well... losing control.

The section adds nothing—our policies don't have to be longer than they need to be—and is confusing. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asked to discuss this on the talk page, but after 24 hours no discussion is forthcoming. I truly don't understand the rationale for why the section makes sense, and I note that there has never been any discussion of the section since it was added in January. Thus I don't think there has been any deliberate consensus on this issue, only inattention. I am therefore removing the section once more. Of course, I may be missing something obvious — but in that case I am sure the section will be restored and the mystery will finally be explained to me! ;) SCZenz (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are different. and I think that stating each policy in one place is the way to prevent discrepancies and lack of coherence. Both can be involved, people with COI do tend to exhibit ownership, especially of articles about themselves, --but so do many without it. Just a reference is necessary. DGG (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary

I feel quite the contrary. I have started many articles where I have been the only, or mainly the only, contributor. I check the articles every couple of days to see if anyone has edited them, but most often the situation remains the same, I'm the only one who has ever edited them. It makes me very proud to have committed content to Wikipedia that other see fit to edit. Here I mean correcting mistakes in the content I supplied and adding new content - deletion of articles I started only annoys me. =) JIP | Talk 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy of the commons

So, I assume the same principles apply to other namespaces? I wrote Wikipedia:Tragedy of the commons about the perils of doing so. Essentially, the problem with our current situation is that because no form of homesteading is allowed, other users can gang up and arbitrary say, "We're deleting your userspace content." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course they can, if it doesn't facilitate the Wikipedia project. See Wikipedia:User pages for more information. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why WP:COMMUNISM?

The shortcut seems pejorative in nature. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a joke, no more, no less. But if you find it terribly upsetting, please go on ahead to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and ask to have it deleted. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't take that much offense to it. I just remember someone putting a dubious shortcut (WP:WHINE) on Jimbo Wales' talk page a while back that stirred a scant amount of controversy and eventually got removed. MuZemike (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, it has been proposed for deletion under redirects for discussion. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD is not for redirects but only for articles, see here, so it's been removed. If you want it deleted then you need Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – These redirects have since been deleted LeeVJ (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Ownership: Proposed template

I have, and will continue, heavy editing of an article, other editors have also, but over time the discussions and edits have my name regularly appearing, A recent talk page I encountered was from a good editor that didn't know me, but was concerned about 'treading on my toes' - I've encountered it myself it other articles - feeling I had something to add, but an editor/editors had such a stake in the article that I might offend them, although I am to be WP:BOLD. Except for vandalism, personal attacks, intentional npov and spam, every single edit is deeply appreciated, so I feel pride and dedication, but not ownership and I don't want any editors to 'hold back', so I was hoping there was a banner expressing my position aptly, but on reflection putting a banner on a page saying something like 'leevanjackson is a regular editor but does not claim ownership of this article' seems a bit self proclaiming?

In short: What is the answer, to successfully expressing 'there are regular editor/s who contribute heavily to this article, but they are adverse to ownership, and welcome any new edits,comments or criticism, no matter how bold or trivial' . LeeVJ (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a new template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Denial_of_ownership_advice_or_template.3F, would like to know what you think, also if it is ok to add it and the Template talk:Maintained with notes to the guidelines ? LeeVJ (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The avillage pump question has now been archived... I have created a couple of examples ... what do you think? LeeVJ (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "middle" version, e.g.

There are regular editors who contribute heavily to this article, but they do not own the article and they actively encourage any new edits, comments or criticism no matter how bold – please give verifiable references for any material you add or change.

You'll notice I've omitted "if possible" from the point about refs. Unreferenced edits to well-referenced articles are a pain, and stand a high risk of outright removal, especially if the article has reached GA/A/FA class. You might like to add an invitation to note in the article's Talk page any ideas that come without WP:RS. -- Philcha (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Like it, have an almagamation formed - not sure about the bold bit at the end.. LeeVJ (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not many responses from the pump discussion, and still haven't used it: but just in case here's the current best wording I've got too...

Looks good! -- Philcha (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Any Opposes to adding extra directions in guideline and this above as an initial template?

What is this supposed to be for? This goes without saying... for all articles. And could be interpreted as being an anti- version of template:maintained. Richard001 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rejigged (the previous section was a prelude and covers the purpose). I realise this is the basic premise, but a number of editors (newbies and regulars alike) are sometimes unaware of them, I thought it'd be nice to some them up in something simple before they encounter the multifarious and complicated world of policies and guidelines (we all lose our way in them sometimes). Third q, I sought this article for a way of addressing said problem, 'Maintained' template doesn't cover it, I edit in bursts and maintenance requires a more regular watchful eye so problems could slip through if the maintained template was added - other editors might omit from a watch list or leave it for the 'maintainers' to clear up - the article in question occasionally attracts a swathe of vandalism. Glad you answered, it has been hard to get other views ! LeeVJ (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see placing this on templates of articles that I think others are owning, and it would be useful to have something for the purpose, but I fear there will be disputes about its application and removal if used that way.DGG (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles on whose Talk pages the template's use is most disputed would be the ones that most need it.

Re "anti- version of template:maintained", template:maintained does not cover the same ground. It states at the end, after the list of editors, in small print "This in no way implies page "ownership"; all editors are encouraged to contribute." and says nothing about WP:RS or an invitation to discuss ideas on the Talk page. It might be good for the "not owned" template to have an optional list of active editors. In that case perhaps template:maintained should be changed so that its main message is "no ownership" and the list of editors is optional. -- Philcha (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think this template is a marvelous idea, and in my opinion it would be a good idea to merge it with template:maintained to make that template less potentially intimidating to good-faith contributors.
But I think it's a poor idea to put it on pages where people are WP:OWNing the article. When I first saw this I had the same idea, but I'm not comfortable with the likelihood that it would encourage naive/unenlightened editors to contribute only to have their contributions reverted. I can completely sympathize that challenging an OWNer can have chilling repercussions, and that experienced editors have reason to be hesitant to do so - but experienced editors are much better candidates than a newcomer to deal with an OWNer. Using this as a hint carries a risk of leading to newcomers quitting in discouragement, and a committed OWNer is highly unlikely to "get it" from indirect hints anyway. arimareiji (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that "challenging an OWNer can have chilling repercussions". The point of a template is to inform a would-be OWNerthat he /she is likely to face some serious opposition from editors who know their way around. Most wiki-bullies back down when confronted, especially if they're smart enough to realise that the pages in question will then be on a few watchlists. -- Philcha (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ownership example

Imho, the section Ownership examples serves no good purpose and makes the policy vulnerable to gaming by providing a limited definition. At the very least, it should prominently state that the list is not exhaustive by any means and that ownership can take on many other, especially much subtler forms than those examples. All of the items in the list are things that could be easily assessed and addressed. Therefore, they do not constitute a real problem. The kind of subtle ownership involving dirty tactics like calling in "neutral", "uninvolved" friends editors, that's what this policy should focus on -- and it should stop at saying that any kind of ownership pattern is discouraged on the strongest possible terms. Instead, it gives a free pass to the most worrysome forms of ownership. The most problematic cases are those where several people are controlling an article, working and lawyering their way around other guiidelines and policies, too, like WP:3RR or WP:Consensus or meatpuppetry. It's sad indeed that those really problematic cases are not even outlined in the policy, making wikilawyering easier particularly for the most problematic (i.e. determined) cabals of owners. A wikitypical shame. 78.34.140.100 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you consider the example section a massive beaning? How would adding more examples help this? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Beaning, yes, to an extent (to the extent I'd argue for removing the section altogether). However, in addition to that and even more importantly, I think it's "meta-beaning". I.e., it implicitly provides clues on what precise things to avoid to go under the radar of the policy and/or to wikilawyer one's way out of it. You see, someone doesn't stop behaving like s/he has any special rights simply by avoiding those things currently mentioned in the examples section. So it should either be removed entirely, or it should be implicitly (by stating that the list is not exhaustive) and/or explicitly expanded. If it was my call, I'd say let's remove the whole section. It serves no positive purpose, and indeed potentially serves negative purposes on several levels (beaning and meta-beaning). Also, most of what needs to be said about concrete situations is in the Types of ownership section. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, iyo, did I give the impression I was arguing for expanding the list with my inital posting? 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta-beaning, I like it ;-) (although I'd argue it's beaning one way or the other)

So, in one sentence or less: It's not a helpful section? ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as agreement :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:) rightly so. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

← OK, so just to get this jumpstarted, the argument is that the section A) is a beaning (WP:BEAN) because it tells you what not to do, and B) it's a beaning because it tells you how to avoid the more common ownership issues and come up with something more clever? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A) is what I'd say is the beaning aspect, B) is the meta-beaning aspect. Something cleverer, yeah that's always the hard part. If it were only for me, I'd be happy excising the section. I think the policy (like all policies) should emphasise its own spirit within its wording. To that end, how about replacing it with a section that basically says the issue of ownership is one of the spirit of collaborativeness, of properly building consensus among all interested editors? 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have come across two quite nasty kinds of ownership declaration:

• "I'm not going to allow you to destroy this article"; and
• "We don't accept this argument here" (notice the majestic "we" implying that the "owner" is some kind of official Wikipedia authority).

Can they be added to the examples? Ninguém (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think adding examples, definitions, rules etc. just invites wiki-lawyering - which would-be owners are often good at. See Wikipedia_talk:Ownership_of_articles#Proposal_for_additional_On_Revert_ownership_example_for_claim-staking. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for additional On Revert ownership example for claim-staking

Proposed addition for Ownership Examples / On Revert:

• "I'm going to add a better [or free-use] one when I have the time."

An editor is, by making such an assertion, staking a claim to a particular sub-section, text, image, or link and reverting something he or she considers to be claim-jumping, often justifying the reversion by Wikilawyering. If - Wikilawyering aside - the reverted material met Wikipedia standards for inclusion then it was by definition better than the void left by the reversion. The proper action by the would-be owner would be to leave the edit in place and to replace it with the better material when (and if) it comes to hand. Since only an owner would have the right to stake such a claim, the existence of such a claim is a clear indication that the user is attempting to own the article.TransporterMan (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that adding examples, special / notable cases, etc. only dilutes the message and creates opportunities for wiki-lawyering would-be owners. If I wanted to re-write WP:OWN I'd make it really simple:

• No-one owns any article, period.
• If an article has passed GA or FA, changes or additions that are not supported by adequate citations but are not obviously vandalism, frivolous or inaccurate may be reverted, but only after copying the reverted edit(s) to the Talk page (i.e. the text, not just a diff) and inviting editors to re-instate the changes with suitable citations.
• If those whose have done a lot of work on the article in the past are dissatisfied with a recent, well-referenced edit, they should not remove or revert the edit but improve the text and / or start a discussion on the article's Talk page.
• Changes or additions of media samples, including images, should be left in place provided they have no obvious copyright problems.
• If anyone has doubts about the relevance, quality or usefulness of an image or other media sample, they should start a discussion on the Talk page.

--Philcha (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, WP:LETGO perhaps per earlier subtopic above, or perhaps seek consensus via that subtopic? TransporterMan (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the earlier thread. --Philcha (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There having been no objections to the example raised in >24 hr, save one objection to the idea of examples, generally, I'm going to be bold and make the edit. TransporterMan (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Being WP:BOLD, I moved the overly long intro to a new Overview section, made a short and to-the-point lede, and moved the Signature bit to within the new Overview section. diff. Hurray! It's better. (IMO, obviously.) Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ownership creep

In the past six months I've noticed "lazy" reversion (without a proper edit summary) of articles I add to is dramatically increasing. In fact, I now keep a very close watch on my Special:Contributions page for 24 hours after I edit an article to make sure some "owner" hasn't reverted to his preferred version. I read in the New York Times that this is being discussed at the Wikimedia level as a challenge for Wikipedia. Does anyone know where that discussion is taking place? Shii (tock) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, I found it. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-10/In the news *sigh* Shii (tock)

Is that not itself a type of ownership? Maybe not of the article but a specific section or specific edit? Not that I'm criticizing the action, but just pointing out the train goes both ways. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Projects

Unresolved

I think that this policy should make specific reference to ownership by projects; as there can be a tendency for project members to assume that, on "their" articles, project-wide consensus trumps wider consensus. It can be difficult to challenge this, as discussion usually takes place on project talk pages, where the project members are obviously going to be in the majority. I'm not sure how to word such a section; would anyone care to make a start, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Is this with reference to some specific disputes, or just a hypothetical concern? Remember that we must avoid instruction creep. The section on multiple editors seems good enough in light of the purport of the rest of the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not merely hypothetical, being born of several years' experience. The section to which you reefer speaks of tag teams, but not projects, and does not address the specific and unique aspects of ownership by projects. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently saw a project page which said "The consensus among this project's members is that we don't want…" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other comments? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Project members can of course develop consensus; it's a good thing. That's not "ownership" by itself unless other editors are being prevented from changing an article. Are there many cases that cannot be handled by common sense and require the instruction creep you propose? Shreevatsa (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course consensus is a good thing; but what I'm talking about isn't consensus; it's a false appearance of consensus. I'm not proposing instruction creep: WP:CONEXCEPT (an English Wikipedia policy) says quite unambiguously "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". And yes, there are cases where this is an issue; but as I've already indicated, I don't want to make this about specific issues. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, so this particular issue is already covered by WP:CONEXCEPT. :-) What more do we need? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Specific reference to ownership by projects in this policy; as explained above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adminitis

The last edit of substance was adding a See-also link: Wikipedia:Adminitis. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't immediately see the connection. Those undergoing the "disease" are more likely to try to own an article? Doesn't click in my opinion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary editors (don't run away!)

I think this policy needs an addition of something like, "While primary editors are not to claim ownership, it is allowed to be the main editor of an article, as long as input from other editors is never ignored." (No, this phrasing is not anywhere close to perfect, but it gives the jist of my idea) I think this policy is important, but some articles only receive improvement from a select few editors who care about the subject. It would be a shame to scare off an editor from improving an article with multiple edits because of this policy. Angryapathy (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugggh!

Desperate Housewives article seems to be owned by User:AdamDeanHall. He is so damn annoying, and has had major problems with this in the past with heaps of other people. He is constantly changing the starring list to what he thinks it should be, refuses to talk about it on the discussion page, or his talk page. I've been added all characters that have starred at any point during the series, like shows like lost, which have had lengthy discussions on their articles, with the final verdict to add all: "The general convention, per the TV project guidelines, is that we list all roles that are deemed as main characters by the producers and network. That is to say, it is a function of their contract status, and not of our opinion as to who is important and who is not. As well, we don't differentiate based on seasons, former or current status, and so on. Again per the guidelines, if the infobox listing is considered to be too large, it can be replaced with a link to the "Characters" section." Can someone help me here? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent him an e-mail, "reminding" him of this policy. Dude1818 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Experiment

I'm going to try an experiment that I expect won't do any harm and might be helpful ... without fiddling with the policy status, I'm moving this page from the conduct policy subcat to the Category:Wikipedia basic information subcat, the one that WP:5P is in. Feel free to revert, and please see the discussion at WT:Policies_and_guidelines#Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User Namespsaces

Isn't Your user page "yours?"Parker1297 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the GDFL conditions are that the user forfeits ownership to Wikipedia. But users are considered the caretakers of their user page and user talk page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

The Examples section was discussed last spring, actually removed last August, and then restored last November, because the removal discussion was (apparently) overlooked. Do we want examples? If we're going to have them, could we at least indicate that comments like these don't always prove, e.g., that spam is wanted, or that editors can invoke OWN to dodge discussions about massive changes that someone objects to, and so forth? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The #3 example in the On revert section should be removed, in my view. It says: "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

I point out that plenty of experienced Wikipedians do that without feeling that they own the articles. It is always best to first present/discuss, on the talk page, huge changes one wants to make to an article...in case that article has already reached WP:Consensus about certain things. Unless the "huge changes" are improvements only (such as heading/style/reference formatting). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed #3, which IMO was one of the most easily misunderstood examples.

Would you object to a sentence at the top of the section like, "Editors who engage in ownership often show that through statements that suggest others are unwelcome. Here are some examples that may, in some circumstances, indicate a problem with ownership"? (I'm also open to deleting the whole thing, or removing easily misunderstood examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the former #3. And, no, I wouldn't object to those proposed sentences. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OWN vs BRD

Despite being policy, I've noticed several editors try to circumvent WP:OWN by using WP:BRD, even though that's merely an essay.

Short of deleting WP:BRD, is there any way to prevent this / prevent people thinking that its an appropriate thing to do?

Newman Luke (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. The user appears to be forum shopping (check his history). -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham#Evidence of disputed behavior, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser#Evidence of disputed behavior.

But the problem is a general one. Is there a way to stop users trying to circumvent WP:OWN (an official policy) by referring to WP:BRD (a mere essay), without deleting WP:BRD ? Newman Luke (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no way. The purpose of these pages is to institutionalize discussion.174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What it is Not?

I think it would also be useful to indicate what ownership is not. For example, something I've experienced more than once unfortunately, is an editor violating WP:HOUND by running around making minor edits to various articles the editor they are hounding has worked on. If the hounded editor then reverts, that is not ownership, but dealing with someone violating another policy. I've seen said hounders try to turn around and call it ownership, however, and I think it would be useful to address that here. Also, keeping articles at FL/FA level when they have achieved that status by reverting unsourced additions, or having to deal regularly with MoS issues because a lot of newer editors and IPs don't know that X is done because it is how we style things, is also not ownership, but proper article maintenance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also regard keeping articles at GA level as proper article maintenance, and therefore not WP:OWN. A-class may less clear, as that depends on the relevant Wikiproject(s). --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: If that is how you style things, this should be clear, weather you make it in hidden comments, or you make it clear on the talk page. Archiving does not count. Featured articles cannot have this special privilege of elitism because of that fact that information, and especially, consensus, can change. If this was implemented, this would easily squelch any future reform.174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, any article can not have this special feature of exclusionary stability.174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, archives do count, and it isn't a "privilege". And considering you are one of those wikhounders doing the exact thing noted above, your opposition is self-serving at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely there's an essay

Can anyone point me to an essay about ownership-type problems related to other editors' styles/process/editing activity, rather than the content of the page?

This turns up as telling editors to use {more|fewer}, {smaller|bigger}, {faster|slower} edits, which is classic ownership, but also as telling editors not to create a page unless they've met the arbitrary standards of a passing editor -- even if the editor is working continuously on expanding the article -- which is not exactly the classic case.

VPP has two editors today who are complaining about other editors "not even making the effort" to provide well-developed stubs before clicking 'save page' for the first time, because they want to patrol and tag articles within 60 seconds of their creation, despite repeated requests and advice to give editors a fair chance.

Surely this kind of thing has come up before; does anyone know of a good essay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OWN? Or not?

Is requiring "a consensus amongst the main contributors to a particular article (to permit a particular approach to organizing information)" [emphasis in the original] an OWNership problem? This is proposed as a formal, semi-binding (yes, I know, we need to have that WP:No binding decisions discussion) result for a long discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally depends on the circumstances, but I don't see that as being ownership. That is the general idea of WP:CONSENSUS. If a single editor has a suggestion and no one else agrees, it is still consensus and not ownership just because the one person disagrees. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but if several new (to the article) editors want X, and two old (to the specific article) want Y, should only the opinions of the old editors count? Would you be happy if you had an idea about, say, how to expand an article, and your contributions, and your arguments in favor of them, were rejected because you hadn't previously contributed enough to that article?

Let me give you an example: An editor once wanted Neoplasm to include a statement (visible, in the mainspace) to the effect that nobody should expand the stub, since the "real" article was at Cancer. If you had wanted to expand the stub, and you were told that the "main contributor" refused to let you, would this seem like ownership to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In a case like that, I'd say that yes, that was an example of ownership, as it runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines and if there are multiple people thinking the change should be made, then a discussion should be started to see if the new consensus should be upheld. Claims of "not contributing enouhg" as a reason for blocking edits, so long as such edits are within Wikipedia guidelines, are definitely ownership. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, as you indicate above, a single, "drive-by" editor should never be able to overrule a group of long-time editors solely because he's new to the article.

I'll have to think about a way of expressing the complexities. Perhaps simply eliminating any mention of who's involved ("Consensus at a particular article" instead of "Consensus amongst specially privileged editors at a particular article") would be the way to go about it.

Thanks for your reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and similar principles can help to distinguish between cases of WP:OWN and simply maintaining / improving articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Move?

Should we move this page to Wikipedia:Ownership? This would prevent future confusion with templates not being included:

Here are some points to consider:

• The first line says "All Wikipedia content" then it footnotes to "Wikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others.". The rest of this page just mentions "article". Should we instead switch the words of "article" to "page" and "articles" to "pages"? It is true that regardless on which namespace you are on, the same boilerplate appears at the bottom of the page saying that no wikipedia content can be owned.
• Example. This perfectly legitimate edit has caused confusion.
• When editing, regardless of the namespace, below the edit box "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." is stated. This means that Ownership does not apply to exclusively articles, and that categories and templates etc. have the same precedence that they are not owned and they cannot be owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.121.27 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you guys think?174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Maurreen (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Surprise surprise that you would appear here and point to one of my edits and claim it "caused confusion". It did not. The addition of an example was reverted because it was based on a current, on-going issue (someone added a quote from someone they were in an active dispute with), and templates are different from an article due to the usual higher complexity of code (telling someone they shouldn't edit a template if they have no clue what they are doing and end up breaking 100+ articles is not ownership). Meanwhile, please remember that as a sock puppet of a blocked editor, you are not allowed to edit policy pages, per policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  That would be wp:assuming bad faith and I don't use the register account because I don't want to use it.174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • No, you can't use the registered account because it is indef blocked. There is a difference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

    • And because I choose to edit in both IPs and the account, the account was judicated to be blocked.174.3.123.220 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

      • No, it was blocked because you refused to identify yourself when switching between them, making it appear 2-3 three people agreed with you when it was just you. It was also originally blocked because of your making death threats and other inappropriate actions, and was appropriately reblocked because you continued violating the polices noted above. Not that any of that has to do with this discussion. Of course, you are still continuing to violate them, but that is neither here nor there. Suffice to say, as an IP editor with a know, and blocked, registered account, you are not allowed to edit policy pages per policy. As for the proposed rename, I see no real reason to do it, as ownership is primarily about articles. It is very rarely an issue outside of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

        • Ownership is not primarily about articles. Anything editable on wikipedia is not owned by anyone.174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a point. Other pages should fall under this policy too, as they can easily be just as susceptible (especially essays and so forth). Users don't even 'own' their own user pages, even with the amount of leway given. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User is covered by WP:User and while they don't "own" it, most of WP:OWN does not apply to a user page (i.e. if someone goes an edits your user page just to edit it, you have the full right to tell them not to edit it and revert it). And if someone edits a template and breaks it, it is not ownership to revert it. Part of the issue is the IP making this proposal has, in the past, made claims that anyone reverting his edits is displaying "ownership", yet he himself threatened to kill another edit if they reverted his edits on a template (which is why is real account was indef blocked). It seems to me that proposals to change this should come from a more neutral party who has not made such an extreme violation of it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who made the proposal, it's a good proposal. No pages are owned. In my view, non-article space is just as susceptible as articles to "ownership"-type actions.

But I do hope more people weigh in. You never know what will surprise people after the fact. Maurreen (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)village p

Since part of the proposal is renaming, I'd suggest a notice at the appropriate village pump(s). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support move. It would be nice if this move took place so that the policy were extended to explicitly apply to templates, categories, etc. It often arises in more cases than just articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion: How about moving to WP:Ownership of content? The current title is inaccurate, ceratinly, but the one proposed by the IP seems a little too vague to me. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. A. di M. (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. I also think "ownership" is better than "ownership of content". It is shorter and we don't always have to specify everything in the title. For example, we have WP:Verifiability and not WP:Verifiability of content. Yaris678 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I have now modified my position. See below. Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but verifiability is the pillar and much less ambiguous than ownership. Ownership can be misinterpreted in so many ways.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much was I was thinking, although you've said it far better than I did. Ownership by itself could refer to, for example, who owns Wikipedia. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, verifiability is not a pillar (see wp:pillar). Verifiability can apply to content, whereas ownership can apply to user pages? Is that what you are thinking?174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support idea of move, but not to the proposed name. Ownership of content or similar is better. Although, this policy is mostly article centered. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's simple to remedy: we just change the instances of "articles" to "pages"...174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although "ownership of pages" would be better yet — "ownership of content" seems to be getting into copyright issues, since we all own the content that we contribute. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support: I like this renaming. Since we have 3 different proposed names, let's have a straw poll on them:

• "Ownership" alone doesn't say enough for me (ownership of what? Wikipedia? the database? Who knows). "Pages" and "content" are both better, and I could live with either, but pages are where the content resides. Content is what's being "owned". For me that fractionally tips it.

What about Wikipedia:Page ownership or Wikipedia:Content ownership as simpler versions? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Page ownership" does read better than "Ownership of pages". I can agree that using "content" may be misinterpreted. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like "page ownership" because it isn't like a prepositional phrase like "ownership of pages". Cf. Yaris's "I also think "ownership" is better than "ownership of content". It is shorter and we don't always have to specify everything in the title.". I think the shorter title makes sense and is better than the prepositional phrase, and without a preposition makes it more useful.174.3.121.27 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving the page to WP:Page ownership. This name seems to address all the issues raised. Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to WP:Page ownership per all similar comments. Marginally better than the name I proposed above. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, Wikipedia:Page ownership Simple, 'of' is a useless word. It would cover the talk pages too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the IP who started this RfC has now finally been community banned for his being a long-time block evading sockpuppet, wikihounding, etc.. As such edits are generally disregarded, should the RfC be restarted from a clean slate rather than being from someone who was trying to tweak this policy in a way that would have given him greater ability to WikiHound other editors? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• This would be time-consuming and wouldn't really benifit the discussion since there seems to be a consensus for a change, so I'm inclined to suggest that we should just let this discussion run and see what happens. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, IP sock drama aside, good faith editors have already contributed, so it would be preferable to continue instead of restarting.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Doesn't seem necessary. Ownership of the article namespace is most pressing issue and most working in other names spaces already understand that WP:OWN relates to all namespaces. "Ownership of articles" is the most effective title for the policy. --RA (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have seen many editors get called up on WP:OWN because they "hang out" at particular articles and are always there, tweaking away at other peoples contributions. I don't believe this is an infringement on WP:OWN. Being some of the most active and informed editors on a particular article, and having it watchlisted does not constitute WP:OWN, right? It constitutes WP:I've been editing this article for a long time and know the topic well enough to answer your talk page question/I have about 8-10 academic books right in front of me so were right under WP:RS/WP:VERIFY to tweak your edit which you made based on one JSTOR article.

Yet there doesn't appear to be a WP:OWN#What WPOWN is not section. I suspect this has been asked before, but I note that the request above is not being asked for the same reason, but for something to do with WP:HOUND. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree editors may wish to have a section like this to put them at ease regarding watchlisted articles they know a lot about and have serious reliable sources, but feel like stalking everyone who edits. Do you have any proposed wording for this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it works both ways - in some Zoology topics I'm the most active and usually the most knowledgeable, but in e.g. Medicine I'd go the relevant Talk page and ask advice. Perhaps what I just said might be a basis for the sort of wording to use in WP:OWN. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps adding to "Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors." to give:

Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors. Editors who, through familiarity with a topic or ownership of a large number of relevant reliable sources, track edits to such articles using their watchlists, and may discuss or tailor others edits. Provided this 'haunting' of an article does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often, these editors are in fact a useful source of assistance for editors unfamiliar with the pages, and should be approached.

Or something less verbose! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Being the primary editor does not equal ownership if the primary editor's contributions are justified. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor other's edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages. {{Maintained}} template may be used by such editors on the article talk pages.

Reworded a bit. "allow views" is too broad and first sentence need stricter introductory setup. Structured second sentence a bit less confusing. "familiarity with a topic or ownership"->"familiar"; "a large number of"->"broad". Removed "haunting" as washy term. Reduced passive voice in last. Added template info. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Despite good arguments to move the article (mainly to emphasise that it is not just articles which are within the scope of this policy, there is not the necessary consensus for this move. The main valid objection is that this is an encyclopedia and the main type of page we are dealing are "articles". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Wikipedia:Page ownership}}

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles → Wikipedia:Page ownership — Repeated request based on discussion above. Reason: Simpler (avoiding using "of") and "Article"->"Page" as much of the material applies to other namespaces as well. "Content" is ambiguous. (Side note: I have not further inquired into the sockpuppet issues concerning the previous nomination above, and this RfM is based on valid input of independent editors.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment removing a community banned person's edits is not "drama" so please assume good faith and avoid tainting the request/discussion with unnecessary invective. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, the comment was not directed at you and the removal of RfM, but about the the incident itself. I wanted to make it clear that this is a good faith nomination and not related to sockuppeting. I have rephrased my words now to avoid any further misunderstandings. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem, and thanks. I meant to put in my summary when I removed that it would be fine if another editor started it properly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support while I personally disagree with it, the consensus above is pretty clear. I do think the move discussion should probably be advertised a bit though, maybe at WP:CD, to avoid surprising folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The use of the term "article" is much more appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia than "page." Obviously, as this policy is meant to apply to all articles/pages/documents/whatevers on Wikipedia, not just those in article-space, the name "page" does make sense. But if we make a sweeping terminology change from "article" to "page" that may lead others, especially companies that try to self-promote themselves on Wikipedia, to justify their non-encyclopedic edits. ("It's just a web page, not an actual article!") Of course, we have WP:NOT et al... but still. In summary, I find the terms "article" and "encyclopedia" much more closely related than "page" and "encyclopedia." --Chris (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified 9 users from previous discussion about the repeated nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per discussion above. However it is phrased, it's clear that we need to expand the concept beyond articles—certainly to templates and categories at least, which are covered in "page". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would prefer WP:Ownership of content. WP:Page ownership is too broad (as many of the behaviours this policy forbids would be entirely unproblematic on one's own user page), and WP:Ownership of articles is too narrow, but I can live with either of them. Just WP:Ownership would be too vague. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Content" suggests encyclopedic content too easily where in fact this covers literally all pages. WP:OWN may need refactoring a little to better explain how userspace works (basically copy and summarize WP:UP#OWN) but that's more an editing issue more than anything else. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - in general when policies, guidelines and advice get revisited, it's good to tighten up wording. Generally a standard that works and is widely understood is that "articles" means specifically mainspace, "pages" means any page in any namespace. Same kind of issue on "what to call different pages" has come up before, notably at WP:UP a few months ago. Guideline covers a point of principle - on WMF wikis, all pages are communally owned, not just mainspace or selected pages. The concept/discussion of "ownership" applies in principle to everything from mainspace, all talk pages, all userspace pages, all help and template pages, all files and media... etc. Suggested and would support again a rename to "Page ownership" as an improvement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support As I said above. Hopefully this time the discussion will continue without stupidity of the above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support based on my earlier comments and those of others involved. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the policy should not be limited to articles. However, perhaps it should explain that you are allowed to assume some ownership of your userpage and refer users to Wikipedia:User pages guideline. This is equivalent to the current explanation that "when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it". Yaris678 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As above, WP:OWN may need refactoring a little to better explain how userspace works (copy and summarize WP:UP#OWN) but that's more an editing issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Yaris678 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, page ownership is a better fitting title. No reason against changing it. Blurpeace 05:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's a statement of good will, rather than a weapon of punishment. As A.di.M. said above, expansion of scope to all pages may be misleading: user pages are special, arbcom pages are special (are there any pages actually owned by the office?). But title is the least nuisance, so who cares? East of Borschov 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This policy has always been primarily concerned with articles, and it's much more important as applied to articles. A person is understood to have a (limited) level of control over editing of their user space and their own comments in discussions. By all means the policy should describe how it applies to other types of pages, but I think the title should focus on the most important part. Dcoetzee 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support WP:Ownership, WP:Page ownership, WP:Content ownership (in that order), and to making it clear that people do not WP:OWN userpages, though by tradition there is some limited latitude given to how people organise their personal userpages - as detailed on Wikipedia:User pages. Indeed, as WP:OWN is policy and WP:USER is a guideline, it might be useful to bring over some content from WP:USER to WP:OWN as much of it, especially WP:UP#OWN, is standard procedure. SilkTork *^YES! 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - A compromise of Wikipedia:Article ownership, Wikipedia:Content ownership, or Wikipedia:Ownership would likely alleviate much of the opposition's concerns.   — C M B J   23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just how many of the things listed in "Examples of ownership behavior" would be unacceptable on one's user page (provided they don't add illegal content)? ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain of whether your question is directed at me or SilkTork, but the policy was clearly not written with userpages in mind, and that's precisely why alternatives to the term 'page' are worth considering. Either way, the policy itself would certainly benefit from further clarification in this area.   — C M B J   06:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(It was intended to be to SilkTork, but apparently we edit-conflicted without the software blocking us for some reason. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

• Ownership seems the simplest and clearest title. The guideline can then explain how ownership varies depending upon the nature of the object - article, userpage, talk-page comment, RfA vote, fair-use image or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. WP:OWN is long-standing and this should remain at a page that begins with 'Own'. 'Page' is plain wrong. I'd not be concerned with shortening it to just WP:Ownership. Editors don't own template or WikiProjects, either, but the core idea here is that they don't own the articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, because no single editor can own templates, categories, etc., any more than s/he can own an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is simpler to understand. This policy relates primarily to articles. Ownership issues relate to other pages but that comes out in the page. Anybody who has been around long enough to work on other name spaces understands that. I've weak opposed a move to Wikipedia:Ownership above also. --RA (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak move to WP:Ownership. This is a policy, not an article, so naming conventions aren't as clear. Purplebackpack89 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose they are named articles, and that is the purpose of the page. We have pages all through the wiki, however, in the main namespace we have articles as per the name of tab. This is asking for a change with larger ramifications/implications, and that sort of decision should not be made in a backwater. billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose along with Jack Merridew; the ban is essentially on article ownership, surely. Page wouldn't be a helpful move. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ownership primarily relates to articles. It's just much more easier for anybody who's new to Wikipedia. warrior4321 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The policy deals primarily with articles, and the current title is easier for new editors to understand. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current wording is more descriptive of the problem being addressed than the proposed wording: the issue relates to encyclopedia articles in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disorganized

Much of this policy page seems disorganized; for example, much of the "Types of ownership" section actually discusses how to resolve ownership issues, and gives the same advice for both types of ownership. Much of this page can probably just go; it is fluff that does not add any ideas and merely makes the policy page look more daunting. Ucucha 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I had the same general impression when looking at the page recently. There's a lot of scope to tighten what's there. PL290 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured articles

I've added a note about featured articles. [9] While they're not exempt from WP:OWN, people writing FAs are in fact given a lot of leeway, because there's a need for one person, or a small group of people, to steer the article through the final writing process. The same person is then usually responsible for maintaining it once it's promoted. Without that maintenance FAs can deteriorate rapidly. I've been careful not to phrase this in terms of an exemption, but as leeway extended as a courtesy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I reverted the change. Maybe we can reach a compromise here on the talk page. I know that FA usually do have primary authors but I still do not think that should be included here. Much of my how I view the issue is summarized here: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. Is there a specific problem that you see and are trying to solve? meshach (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this addition seems to give too much leeway to FA maintainers. For example, "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article" suggests care should be taken because there is someone who maintains FA rather because content in FA has already been carefully reviewed and selected. I know and understand that the articles are brought up to and kept at FA level in large by single editors, and the community recognises this. But there needs to be a more careful wording on this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with discussing other wording. The wording I added was:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, some leeway is in fact given to writers seeking to nominate articles for featured-article status, or who are maintaining and updating featured articles they have written. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article, and to post suggestions for change on the talk page first. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

I added it in response to a discussion at the FAC talk page here, where FA writers were expressing concern about being accused of OWN when they try to improve or maintain articles to FA standard. Any suggestions for better wording most welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "This article has been through a careful and detailed review process, but please feel free to add whatever trivia you feel is missing from it"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget primary sources, images that don't meet image policy, and WP:OVERLINKing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's taking "descriptive, not prescriptive" too far. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My prose stinks, but I'll give it a try just to get the ball rolling:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ), review the {{articlehistory}} on the talk page to determine when the article was promoted to Featured status, and to post suggestions for changes on the talk page. The articlehistory template will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is clear enough, but I would suggest a couple of changes. First, I think it has to be specified that posting suggestions for changes on the talk page applies to significant changes, e.g. , rather than to minor corrections of grammar, punctuation, format etc (it's surprising how many of these live on in featured content). Also I think the wording needs to be as brief as possible, so I would cu some of the central wording from the above text. That could give us:-

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ). Suggestions for significant changes involving the addition, deletion or alteration of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the pointer to FA reviews is actually one of the most relevant links, as this is where the majority of content disputes were resolved/fixed. So omitting that is not a good idea. "Particular" is weasel word, "care" is enough. Also, I think "significant changes" imply text/images/links, etc., so we shouldn't iterate all those. So taking that into account and comment above:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ), review the {{articlehistory}} on the talk page to determine when the article was promoted to Featured status, and to post suggestions for significant changes on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Next:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; suggestions for significant changes of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

I hope this achieves the following:

1. Points (new) editors to Articlehistory, which lets them know when the article was reviewed and who the original nominators were;
2. Points them to WP:WIAFA and the notion of high quality sources;
3. Suggests FAR for older FAs;
4. Provide a rationale for this text, in that FAs are reviewed by the community, subject to FAR, and vetted for high quality sources and a thorough review of the literature;
5. Defines "significant" edits; and
6. Encourages talk page discussion for significant edits.

One problem I have with this text is that WP:OVERLINKing is not often "significant", but frequently damaging. We might solve that by adding mention that FAs are vetted for MOS and image compliance in the WIAFA link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, has your view changed on 3RR on main page day? I note your rather strong comments on that point here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, actually the wording troubles me. I am quite surprised to read here that there is leniancy on 3RR on TFA, but I carried that wording here as others say there is, and no one has objected to it. I suppose that's because we're focused more here on the FA issue, than the TFA issue. "Exempt" also seems to be a very strong word here; I would think the only exemptions for 3RR are BLP vios, copyright vios, blatant vandalism, etc but not good faith edits. Perhaps the wording here could be fixed to reflect that we encourage discussion on talk wrt TFA, rather than an exemption from 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite that straightforward. I've lost count of the number of "good faith editors" who are convinced that it's absolutely vital that the film V for Vendetta receives a mention in the article on Guy Fawkes, for instance, along with a demonstration against scientology in which the protesters wore a mask based on one worn by the hero in the film. There's an issue of editorial integrity that goes way beyond what's so far been discussed here, and certainly goes way beyond putative 3RR violations. There's generally not much time for discussion on TFA day, as the flood of good and bad faith edits can be quite a considerable effort to deal with. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Malleus. I am tolerant to those who come to a TFA wanting to make improvements, if they are anywhere near in the ballpark. I am less tolerant to others who come in with an agenda and start with the aggression. Brian and I recently had that latter experience with our joint project, Tosca, an aggressive editor who lost his argument and later tried sneaking in his desired changes, and also fought a side battle on a related DYK. Some leeway has to be given on TFA day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the key point is that due to the multiple layers of review, a FA, especially on TFA day, carries a strong presumption in any dispute in favor of the existing version. Someone coming in and engaging in a dispute with the maintaining editor should have to fight an uphill battle. All editors are equal, but this is one case where some need to be more equal than others.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Strongly agree with Malleus." I bet you never thought you'd see yourself saying that Wehwalt. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree; there are many poor FAs, particularly older ones, and FACs tht passed with a minumum of consensus or before standards tightened. If a four-year-old TFA goes up, passed at FAC before standards tightened, we can't restrict other editors at TFA or presume that version meets standards. Hence, my addition to the proposed text above to check articlehistory to find out how old the FA is, and a reference to FAR. TFA is precisely when we hope that article will improve, so it won't have to go to FAR. In spite of our proposed caution to discuss first, we all know wrongful ownership does exist on some FAs, and POV is defended by "collective blocs of editors". If this text goes too far in one direction, we'll see the opposite of its intent-- a backlash against FA writers. I don't think TFAs are exempt from 3RR or ever have been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think in many such cases, the editor will not stand alone against the "owners", except of course, if his claim is utterly misguided. There are many eyes on the upcoming TFA and TFA, and a major disagreement in which others do not join can be dismissed as a bit on the fringe.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence, discuss on talk (and exemption from 3RR accomplishes nothing in those cases anyway, as the owners can tag team to claim "fringe" and revert-- this 3RR exemption is not going to lead good places). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. Fortunately the articles in the category (came up before standards tightened, still with a number of maintaining editors, has not run TFA, has something in it worth arguing about) are few. Not worth eroding a general rule that TFA maintaining editors need to be cut a break.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I think it is going to have to be an awfully bold admin who will call a maintaining editor for 3RR on TFA day ... I'd certainly be open to an unblock request under those circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that saying that TFA is exempt from 3RR encourages editwarring on main page day !!! I just don't understand the notion that TFA is 3RR exempt at all-- certainly, there may have been past cases where admins didn't block because it became hard to sort vandalism from good faith edits, but I've seen legit blocks for 3RR on TFA, and by saying this, we're going to assure some innocent sucker ends up blocked. And by moving too far here, we encourage ownership on FAs, which in spite of the false claims of problems, is quite alive and kicking in some instances-- we don't serve anyone by moving too far here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You said that in the diff I posted, but I haven't seen it in the almost two years I've been an admin, and I follow AN/I reasonably closely. I would say that maintaining editors should be cut some slack, but TFA day is not a pretext for edit wars. How's that? But I'm not going to block some sap for clearing up an unsourced, an unneeded word, an overlink, and a howlingly stupid edit that doesn't rise to the level of vandalism, all within 24 pressure packed hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have to rely on your common-sense approach tomorrow, when this hits the main page. I make no bones about the fact that the feelings of the surviving relatives will be far more important to me than a possible 3RR block. I've been blocked before, it doesn't kill you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Featured articles are, by definition, our best work and so should exemplify cooperative and collaborative behaviour. We should not encourage the idea that there are vested editors who may trample upon other contributors, contrary to this policy. If FAs merit editing restrictions on their day of display, then this would be better stated elsewhere, such as Talk:Main Page or WP:FA. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm rather surprised that you apparently don't see the inconsistency in "our best work", and "so should exemplify cooperative and collaborative behaviour", not to say the non sequitor inherent in that position. That is unless you believe that it's the effort that's important, not the result. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The FA criteria require stability as evidence of consensus and so behaviour is already relevant to FAs. The OWN policy is explicitly concerned with editorial behaviour as this is its focus. It is directed at editors much like yourself and your efforts to construct a get-out-of-jail-free card are tainted by this evident conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Malleus_Fatuorum_reported_by_User:Tbhotch for a fresh example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have no "conflict of interest", and I suggest that you check what that actually means. With regard to yesterday's absurdity, no doubt you've noticed, but have chosen to ignore, the fact that User:PatGallacher was unable to provide any sources to support his objections, despite having been asked to do so several times. Further, I have absolutely no interest in a "get out of jail free card", and neither do I feel in need of one. I do however continue to be amazed at the drive for mediocrity encapsulated by the attitude of editors such as yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So, there we go. Because the controversial exemption from 3RR on TFA was added in here (one sentence), the rest of the (reasonable) text is opposed. As I said, if we go too far here, we get backlash. (Malleus, I share your concerns about the "feelings of surviving relatives", but not everyone does, and 3RR exemption may work against those relatives in other cases.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, Sandy, we lack the intuitive knowledge of what relatives think that others seem to have (presumably through some device we forgot to ask for when we came in) and in the absence of mind reading and Ouija boards, we try to bumble along with NPOV.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restart

Next (remove exemption):

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; suggestions for significant changes of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article.

I hope this achieves the following:

1. Points (new) editors to Articlehistory, which lets them know when the article was reviewed and who the original nominators were;
2. Points them to WP:WIAFA and the notion of high quality sources;
3. Suggests FAR for older FAs;
4. Provide a rationale for this text, in that FAs are reviewed by the community, subject to FAR, and vetted for high quality sources and a thorough review of the literature;
5. Defines "significant" edits; and
6. Encourages talk page discussion for significant edits.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Sandy's most recent version, I'm uncomfortable with the second-to-last sentence. It seems to say "although the first sentence says anyone can edit, the author of the FA has a sort-of right to own it". I'm totally sympathetic to the need for protecting TFA from garbage, and I would probably support just about any change to WP:Protection policy towards that end. I can empathize with how it must feel, after doing all the work it takes to get an FA, to have someone who doesn't know what they are talking about want to do something dumb to it. But I'm afraid that, barring a complete revision of what we consider to be consensus, the FA author needs to be able to explain to the upstart, "This edit would be a bad idea because the high quality sources say XYZ", and not "This edit would be a bad idea. I'm the person who made this an FA, and I know." OWN is, after all, a policy, not a guideline, not an essay. There's inherently a contradiction between saying "this is policy" and "this is something we hope you will do as a courtesy". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's eliminate mention of editors then, and just refer to WP:WIAFA (we don't have to defer to nominators-- we have to defer to Wiki standards):

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources and a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with image policy and Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended totoday's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I really would prefer to see more explicit protection for editors acting in good faith to maintain the quality of FA's/TFA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's the rub: without that, why put this in OWN at all? But with that, how is it not creating a new user-right: the FA nominator who is exempted from OWN? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trypto (that there is no reason to defer to individual editors; that is ownership-- we only need highlight the fact that article may meet criteria, depending on when it was featured). But the reason we're adding this is because editors become frustrated when MOS, image, undue or unsourced text are deleted from FAs, and then unfairly allege ownership-- this would help explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sympathetic to that explanation. Would a solution be, instead, to spell out some sort of conduct expectations for the FA author as well? Something like, explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of an FA does not constitute ownership. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So you would put more of an expectation on a TFA author to defend work rather then on the drive by editor who (in my experience) usually edits without edit summary, or with a minimal one?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heavens no, of course not. But I also would not make a policy change setting up the FA author as some kind of new user right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How many TFAs have you had Trypotofish? I'm just wondering whether or not you're speaking from a position of experience. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree again with Malleus, showing that a broken clock is right twice a day (dating myself pre-digital).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus: zero. But I've had plenty of experience with long-time editors who think that they should be entitled to some sort of special treatment. And I can easily see how such individuals would like to alter this policy so that they may OWN pages. Oh, and Malleus, I just took a look at Moors murders as well as its recent edit history. My congratulations to you and your fellow editors on the page for some very impressive work. And I think it's a pity that the TFA couldn't have been full-protected for the day. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen any ownership issues with any FAs; all I've seen is editors (not always or even mainly the primary authors) making an effort to halt a decline in an article's quality, especially during TFA. Speaking only for myself, I'm completely disinterested in 3RR threats and reports of the kind that happened yesterday, as I'll continue to do whatever I think is in the article's best interests, not mine. Some may call that ownership, but I think they're mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you—and the article!—got through yesterday without any lasting harm. I think the revision to this page strikes the right balance with respect to such mistaken accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: But I'm afraid that, barring a complete revision of what we consider to be consensus, the FA author needs to be able to explain to the upstart, "This edit would be a bad idea because the high quality sources say XYZ", and not "This edit would be a bad idea. I'm the person who made this an FA, and I know." OWN is, after all, a policy, not a guideline, not an essay. But the deal here is that TFA editors have already done the work, and it's fairly clearly laid out in the article, citations, and references section. What I hope these revisions do is expect readers to understand that they must also come to the proverbial table expecting to do some work. Come provide your sources. Come provide well-considered arguments. Offer alternatives and solutions. It's enormously frustrating to write an FA, which is essentially an argument about why the knowledge presented is valid, and then have to defend it with more work when editors either don't care, are too lazy, or just don't understand how to present their points in the Wikipedia way. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, as I've already said, I'm very sympathetic to that frustration. And I'd be happy to see full protection of TFA for 24 hours. And I've said that I am OK with Sandy's most recent version. But I'm not OK with saying that, after doing all that very real work for an FA, the author can claim some sort of new user right, exempting them from explaining the need for those sources, those well-considered arguments. It's not a get-out-of-consensus-free card issued into the indefinite future. This is an open Wiki, so anyone who is unwilling to deal with the great unwashed public is probably ill-advised to edit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment for the most part, and my point here isn't to avoid dealing with the filthy masses, but rather an exercise in introducing them to what Wikipedia is all about. It forces us to examine how knowledge is explored and created. Newcomers should jump in not only in doing that but in understanding that. I have no problem overturning edits to TFAs and explaining to newcomers why they were overturned, welcoming them here, and asking them to participate in the process as a whole: provide counter sources and discuss the nature of neutrality and reliability. I absolutely do not think FA writers should get a free pass to do anything, but when an editor who has been around since 2005 puts a neutrality or some other dispute tag on an article, or demands what content should be in the article without bothering to buck up and do the work to justify why, that just smacks of callous laziness. I have other issues with consensus too when it comes to content, but that I think is for another policy talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's very fair, and I think we really agree much more than we disagree. For the reasons you just described, I'm in favor of adding Sandy's last version, just as I'm opposed to going farther than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Next:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended to today's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that addresses my concerns, although I don't know whether it will satisfy others. I would be OK with that version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this represent a change? It seems entirely aspirational.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that it is mostly aspirational, but "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership." is substantive (and probably about as substantive as can justifiably be proposed). No objection from me if we bold "not". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the page isn't very concrete, anyway ... there's not much teeth to it, just examples, so this text may help lower accusations of owernship on FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It does represent a change, albeit only a small one. I will be glad of it, in future, I am sure. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Sandy's text. The only two things I'd to add are (a) that editors are asked to take "particular" care, rather than just care. And (2) from Hell Knowz's version, something like: "The editors who nominated the article may be still maintaining it, and are likely to be familiar with the relevant source material," because that goes to the heart of the issue, which is that the main writers are likely to know the sources inside out. But I could go with Sandy's version without those points too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the second of those two additions would be a deal-breaker for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree to a pretty large extent with Wehwalt, that it doesn't matter much, but I also believe strongly that a change large enough to matter a lot would represent a fundamental redefinition of OWN, and we do not have consensus for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I continue to oppose these drafts as I agree with Tryptofish that this policy is not the right place for advice about FAs. Special protection of FAs should be arranged elsewhere, at a page which covers the details of the FA process. If FAs are given a high level of automatic protection, such as that provided by the pending changes feature, then the issue of ownership becomes less important because edits will have to go through a consensual process involving multiple editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please don't bring up Pending changes here. That has nothing to do with this conversation, which is that some editors actually know something about a topic, and their well-explained reasons might just trump the random drive-by editor's. Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pending changes has plenty to do with this matter because it is a mechanism which serves to filter out poor quality drive-by edits. It is the presumed level of knowledge of editors which is irrelevant. The quality of edits should be evident from the edits themselves. Ad hominem considerations should be avoided and it is the purpose of this policy to emphasise this point. If you wish to overturn this policy, you will need far more support than we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, pending changes is irrelevant. WP:OWN does not address vandalism and PC predominates with keeping vandalism out. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PC's purpose is to keep out blatant vandalism while still allowing IPs to edit articles. A large proportion of FAs are not semi-protected currently (so IPs already edit) and/or are not magnets for blatant vandalism. Even if those articles were to fall under PC, reviewers do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to judge whether an edit is a "good" edit beyond whether it is blatant vandalism; if an FA is still being maintained, then those with the specialized knowledge would need to do another review of the "approved" edits to make sure they are appropriate. PC is a red herring. The actual issue is that editors with specialized knowledge who have spent a lot of time bringing an article through the FA process are often accused of ownership when we revert edits to those articles. I agree that these editors need to calmly and civilly explain why they are reverting the edits, and a discussion can ensue if the new-to-the-page editor disagrees. What I - and the others who have weighed in - would like to avoid is being constantly accused of ownership because we are vocal about upholding quality and the FA standards. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But full protection of TFA for 24 hours would be a good thing, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes is, as anyone involved with it is all too well aware (whatever their view of it), currently in the throes of trying to gain acceptance in the face of a lot of opposition. But I wonder how many would agree with the idea that Pending Changes can possibly "filter out poor quality drive-by edits". I find that an amazing idea. It has the opposite effect. Pending Changes is only about filtering out blatant vandalism. By introducing the new phenomenon of a vast team of willing "Reviewers" who will gladly condone any and all edits, Pending Changes reinforces poor quality drive-by edits. It gives them credence. It makes the job harder for the editors tending the page, by deeming such edits "Accepted" by a Wikipedia Reviewer. The editors who know better (which is not to say they OWN the page) now have two editors to disagree with by reverting the poor quality drive-by edit. So please, as beseeched above, don't bring Pending Changes into this. PL290 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the instigators of this discussion I agree that PC should not be brought up here. It is a very divisive issue and should be debated in its own forum. This is a discussion about the wording of WP:OWN. meshach (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, Tryptofish has in fact stated agreement with one of the above wordings to update this policy. As to your own concern over whether this policy is the right place for the proposed change, I suggest it most certainly is. In particular, it defines ownership in terms of a Primary editor, "one editor who appears to assume ownership of an article", and Multiple editors, "each defending the ownership of the other". This is inadequate unless placed in the context we are now discussing. Various wordings have now been suggested; it seems we are potentially close to agreeing a version. Would you care to suggest a variation that resolves any remaining issue you have? PL290 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need ways to encourage collaboration, not discourage it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break again

This seems like it has gone off from the "ownership of articles" part to more of the "FAs are high-quality, please don't mess them up" part. My opinion: FAs are not exempt from WP:OWN, but as there is generally one (or two) main contributor(s), some leeway is given in determining the content of the article in question. Why not word this proposed addition more about "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership" rather than "where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style"? I don't think the casual editor cares too much about checking all this stuff; the important part is saying, "Hi, you can edit this, but for major stuff, discuss it first because the primary editor of this article may have structured the article in a certain way that doesn't fit your change, and changing the whole structure might cause a loss of quality". Or am I just misunderstanding this whole proposal? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. In fact, I would be perfectly fine with making it simply:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the casual editor cares too much about checking all this stuff; Why not? This is a pretty big difference here. The people who write FAs care very much about checking all this. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, I meant, I don't think an average editor will care about having to read about all these special requirements and whatnot. Obviously, the FA criteria themselves are very important; it's just not something that needs to be listed out here as it's not extremely relevant to ownership of articles. Sorry for the misunderstanding. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, I kind of like the idea behind the original proposal. While FA is supposed to be a great example of collaboration, the reality is that often a single person does do most of the work. I agree that it is kind of an unwritten custom to give that person a little more leeway. That person, however, is particularly vulnerable to committing violations of this very policy. The word "vetted" in particular I see as a problem. I've seen editors that are blatantly violating this policy use that word all the time as a prima facie reason to revert good faith edits. Whatever comes of this, I'd definitely avoid the word "vetted". Gigs (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as proposed loses no meaning if the word "vetted" is simply left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are good points. Just tweaking (this is a community process, after all!), maybe change "have been vetted through" to "have gone through" (that is, "gone through" instead of "been through"). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended to Today's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the "where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style" necessary? Other than that, seems fine to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of new editors don't know where to find WP:WIAFA or what it is-- this is intended to help. If you can explain why you don't like that text, we can try to tweak it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't think it's that relevant to WP:OWN. Is there any way that it could just be shortened up, as many editors probably don't know the MOS or image policy either? Like, "they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, and are now considered Wikipedia's finest and highest-quality content"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to link new editors to that info so they will understand. They typically do things like add WP:OVERLINKing, unlicensed images, MOS breaches, and fail to understand that the original writer(s) usually have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough search of the literature. The idea is to explain that so they won't allege ownership when adding trivia, guideline violations, and the like. I'm trying to figure out which part of that to shorten, having seen all of these problems occur. It's also to help them understand how to disagree with a featured version, based on policy and guideline and WIAFA, when they may be right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, this makes more sense to me. Ignore my comments about shortening it, then. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, the version of the proposal as worded by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Very well-written. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• I support it too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Often the lead sentence or paragraphs of FAs are difficult to understand, incomplete, or worded poorly, and, if you're reading today's FA on a cheap cell phone, that's all you get, one mangled, unclear paragraph. I frequently comment, or make suggestions rather than changing the sentence or paragraph around to clear it up. And, yes, I sometimes try to make corrections before they become TFA. Most of the time my suggestion is taken or some version of it after a bit of discussion. But, oh, the times where the article is owned, and the reader is just up-the-creek-without-a-paddle! Owners don't need it codified. No matter how much the article is checked and what good sources the owner has, that doesn't mean it reads well when reduced to a paragraph. Doesn't mean it reads well at all. Some FAs are excellent. Most are worth reading. But many do wind up needing corrections. Don't make it harder to correct them, leaving the ridiculous or incomprehensible on the main page for any longer than it needs to be by supporting ownership. Yeah, sometimes it should be about the audience. Making it harder to correct errors doesn't support the audience. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Knee-jerk reaction is unhelpful; read what is being proposed. This is not about "correction of errors". If featured articles contain errors, grammatical or factual—and they sometimes do—these can be corrected in the normal way. Nor does the proposed clause prevent contributions to the article from any editor; every featured article is capable of further improvement. This is a "pause and reflect" clause, the objective of which is to maintain some community involvement in keeping featured articles as examples of its best work. A polite request for the use of the talkpage is a very small step forward, but still one worth taking.

Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for being so quick to dismiss my input. I hate it when my IP comments have to wait more than a few hours before someone dismisses them as not-thought-out worthless-breath in wiki space.
  • The statement adds nothing to the policy, nor does it change or clarify anything in the existing policy. It seems to just be a praise of those who write featured articles. What do you do with this paragraph in the policy? The article's on the main page, it's not necessary to add a statement of praise to clear up what WP:OWN is about. FAs are often owned, with bad consequences. It is difficult always as an IP to criticize or correct something that needs work (or to comment without being called a half-wit), without adding a statement in policy that appears to be nothing but puffery, but could be used by an ownerish editor as a responding slap in the face or knee-jerk to the audacious IP editor thinking that reading an article is important in creating an encyclopedia. Affectionately yours, the half wit --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, to add fuel to the downhill spiral of this part of the discussion, you could take it personally and amplify the negativity. I don't want puffery. I don't want praise. I would like to stop being accused of owning articles that I worked very hard to get to FA when I revert ridiculous additions or ungraceful prose changes. I acknowledge that some FAs are owned and this should not excuse that behavior. I've been careful to examine my own behavior to make sure that I engage other editors in discussion and fairness. But WP:OWN is often used as an accusation by editors who do not understand Wikipedia standards, let alone FA standards. What would you suggest to address this problem? Can you provide any possible solutions? --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I say leave it as it is. In spite of the toads, the most common response I get to posting a needed correction on the talk page of TFA is the suggestion that I be bold and correct it myself or someone does just that for me. This year I've been thanked a lot, also. Of course you're going to revert ridiculous corrections and bad prose, and you will need to do that more often with TFA than with most any other articles, and the exceptions are usually protected. There's no changing the juvenile jab behavior so prevalent on wikipedia where policies are used to slap others around rather than as guidelines and explanations for the best practice guidelines on wikipedia. Incivility is rabid and escalating on wikipedia, but that's another issue and another place (God help you should you trend there). If you're watching your behavior, making sure when you undo changes that you don't fan the flames in any way, then relax, and take it as part of the work of a FA: monitoring it when it's on the main page. But adding words and phrases to guidelines that have no meaning just means more people won't read them and more people will find something to slap someone else with in that one. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I see the proposed addition, it is not to reward FA writers by giving them special reign to behave badly, nor is it to praise or puff their work. I'll reiterate that I'm not interested in these rewards. However, it is quite draining to be punished for maintaining an article. I've written 19 FAs. Should a dozen editors decide to change the prose to something that is clearly clumsy or inaccurate in a dozen of the articles I wrote and I revert, that's a dozen accusations of owning articles. Trips to ANI. Admonitions and warnings from admins. Your solution is that as FA writers it's a part of the experience and we should tolerate it, perhaps allowing it to build character? This might work if more editors actually contributed significant content and could take over when one editor became exhausted, or perhaps there was a cohesive community of editors who were well-versed in FA standards. But it doesn't work this way. In my experience, this paragraph is a paltry response to the majority of Wikipedians who merely want their contributions to stick, despite what the standards are. If this paragraph introduces an editor to the idea that mediocrity should not be the status quo, that's a net benefit for Wikipedia as a whole. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why I agree with most of the text I don't understand why the last sentence needs to be be in there. The TFA is a FA, so it is logical the same statement applies to the TFA. Also, the way it is currently worded it seems to refer to the article history template instead of to the practice of discussing changes. Yoenit (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Very well crafted. I have one reservation, which—like Yoenit's—concerns the final sentence: (1) repositioning it as the penultimate sentence would make it clearer; (2) rewording it "The same courtesy should be extended to Today's featured article" rather than "is" would make it more accurate; (3) as Yoenit states, it is redundant and would remain so even if my suggested changes were applied.—DCGeist (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Long overdue. As others have said, the last sentence (The same courtesy is extended to Today's featured article.) seems incongruous and extraneous, and I'd be happy with its removal, though I'm open to hearing why it's considered necessary—having said which, it does no harm that I can see. PL290 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Per DCGeist:

1. While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The same courtesy should be extended to Today's featured article. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

   or

2. While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support version 2 as stated above I see no reason to include the sentence about TFA at all. If a decent reason for inclusion of the sentence is given I would support version 1 as well though. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either version; prefer version 2. PL290 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either, leaning 2. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either the first or second version. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. As written, I think it needs a stronger declarative statement that featured articles are 'not owned', not even by their creator/approver/maintainer. Then... "however.... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership." Also agree that version two is cleaner and keeps perennial proposals about FAs at bay; better to address that elsewhere. Ocaasi 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as per Moni3 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Better late than never Support. I think the version on the page now looks fine. A reasonable balance of preserving the essence of the policy, while also helping Wikipedia maintain the high article standards of a grown-up encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2 as already mentioned far above. Regarding "courtesy to TFA" — TFA is FA, so the whole sentence is redundant. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think collaboration is at the heart of Wikipedia, and we should be encouraging more collaboration to featured articles, rather than adding a statement that might discourage collaboration to this policy. Though I don't have much experience with editing featured articles, my expectation is that they would have more of a problem with ownership than other articles. For example, in a featured article I would worry that an unsourced but potentially good addition would just be reverted by one of the primary editors, when in fact it might have been better for that editor to leave it in and find a source for it. In other words, I think people are overly worried about keeping featured articles in a constant state of meeting the featured article criteria, and may drive away editors who could make good contributions just because their contributions aren't initially up to featured article quality. That being said, if one of the two above statements is added to the page, I think 2 is much better than 1 as the part about TFA in 1 is just redundant. Calathan (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

when in fact it might have been better for that editor to leave it in and find a source for it. That's not collaboration. That's forcing the primary author of the article to do someone else's legwork. I don't believe statements should be removed just because someone previously unaffiliated with the article added them, but everyone should be expected to add quality in writing and sourcing. There's nothing wrong with introducing anon IPs and general readers to the idea that when you edit Wikipedia you should know what you're talking about and can back it up. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the above statment, though perhaps you didn't fully understand what I meant. Basically, I'm saying that an editor might have added information to an article, that on reflection, would clearly improve the article (were it properly formatted, sourced, etc.). Yet that user wrote it in a sloppy way or didn't give a source for it, so it is just removed and forgotten about. If one of the primary editors just removes the text and ignores the new suggestion, the article won't reach its full potential. While it is true that the editor inserting the new statement should probably have said "I think this article should cover topic A" on the talk page rather than adding it to the article in a poor way, that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to cover topic A. Sure, you should let the user know that they should have a source before adding something to an article, but that doesn't mean the idea they were getting at was bad. Also, I want to stress that contributions from people who don't have a lot of time to work on the article can be good contributions. Just because someone spent many hours bringing an article up to featured status doesn't mean that someone else who only wants to spend 5 minutes on it should be ignored. I think the whole attitude that a contribution from someone who doesn't take the time to do all the work invloved is forcing the primary author to do the work is totally against the concept of a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Someone who wants a article to reach a high state of quality should be thankful that a useful suggestion was made, and not throw out the suggestion just because the person who made it didn't have time to do much work. If someone wants to work on an encyclopdia where only dedicated experts contribute, then they should get a job working on a print encyclopeida instead of working on Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with your statement Calathan. Everyone welcomes suggestions, of course, but it is up to the editor making the suggestion to provide sources; too often they cannot, because they don't exist, it's just their opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who has done a few FAs in my time, though not as many as some, I know that the best way to have an article degenerate is to ignore the often well meaning changes. A few "clarifications" that confuse things. A few sentences added to various paragraphs, without citations, of course. A little random vandalism that isn't caught. This is how the road to FAR is paved, or worse, the article is held up as an example, by an outsider, of why FAs are as unreliable as they say the rest of WP is. I don't hesitate to insist on standards being kept up on articles I've done. None has ever been taken to FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that when I was talking about people being too worried about keeping an article in a constant featured state, I didn't mean they should be willing to leave in a lot of unsourced statements. What I was talking about is a situation where a person reverts immediately without considering the statement added, but instead could have considered the statement, decided it would be good if reworded and sourced, and then reworded and sourced it (i.e. I was talking about leaving unsourced statements in for minutes or hours, not for days or longer). Calathan (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are also not fully understanding what I'm getting at. I'm only talking about suggestions that are actually good suggestions and could have helped improve the article. I do understand that people frequently add things to featured articles that are just their opinion or are some fringe view not deserving of coverage, but I'm not talking about those kinds of contributions. Removing things like that is obviously good, and there is no need to add a statement to WP:OWN to deal with those people. If this addition is really just so as to have something else to point to when people try to add odd fringe views to featured articles, then I think it is a waste of time, as those people generally aren't going to listen no matter what policy you show them. The kind of thing I'm talking about is a situation where the primary author would know the statement is true from their previous research, but hadn't included it in the article. Upon seeing that statement added by someone else, they might just delete it, when perhaps if they had thought more about it they would have realized that they should indeed have decided to include it. Having already done a lot of research, they could easily source the statement from the sources the've already found. I think that people who spend a lot of time working on featured articles may start to get the opinion that others who didn't spend that much time haven't done the effort to have their suggestions included, when instead the people who have done a lot of work should realize that they are in the best position to make sure other's suggestions are properly incorporated into the article and sourced to the highest quality sources available. Again, I'm not talking about leaving in odd statements that someone who has spent a lot of time researching the subject has never even heard of. Basically, I think adding this statement to WP:OWN will do nothing to prevent people from adding clearly bad content to articles, while it will give the primary authors of featured articles an excuse to ignore good suggestions. Calathan (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, the FA editors are not the people pointing to WP:OWN, it's the other way around. Editors reverting bad edits are accused of violating WP:OWN by the person who added the bad stuff. Yoenit (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Calathan, I think we agree. I would not toss out a statement just because someone else inserted it into an article I wrote. If I had never come across it in all the reading I've done while writing it, however, out it would go and it's not up to me to go find a source for a statement someone else inserts. If I had read something to directly oppose it, or it was made into a much bigger deal than sources gave weight to it, out it would go. It depends on the sources. If someone comes and inserts something into an article from a source I've never heard of, I want that source. I want to know what it says, where it's published, and how it can be incorporated into the rest of the article. For doing this, however, I don't like being accused of owning the article. What this addition to the WP:OWN page does, I hope, is alerts editors to the possibility that someone has spent time reading a lot and working on the article, not to control it, but to ensure it is taken seriously as Wikipedia's finest work. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do want to clarify that I'm not as strongly opposed to this addition as it may seem based on how much I've written here. I think I should have made it more clear at first that I just don't think this will work to fix the problem. I do realize that people wrongly accusing good editors of violating policy is annoying, and if I felt this would fix that problem then I would support it despite my concern that it could also wrongly be used to reject good contributions. Calathan (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'm never going to get accused of owning an article again. On that score I agree. At least this may give the casual accuser doing his thing in the heat of the moment something else to think about. Anything that expects everyone to think of quality of writing and sourcing is a benefit in my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do get that. Reading through my previous comment I can understand how you thought I misunderstood, and I probably should have been more clear. My point was that I think this won't solve that problem and will create a new problem. Unless perhaps these people who are wrongly pointing to WP:OWN are swaying reasonable editors into agreeing with them. If that's the case, then I would change to supporting the addition to WP:OWN. However, I don't think that is the case. Editors who make bad contributions aren't going to stop complaining when those bad contributions are removed, and they will always be able to find some policy to wrongly cite when complaining. I think this change is at best futile and at worst will give featured article editors an excuse to remove good contributions along with the bad. Calathan (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that editors who make bad contributions will try to find another policy to use when complaining, but this is generally the easiest to make. The FA maintainers are worried because most of us haven't been blocked, don't want to be blocked, and are pretty anal about following the rules (how else would we have gotten these articles through FAC?)...when you have a lot of drive-by editors screaming "ownership" because their pet theories that were unsupported by sources got reverted, or their sort-of-sourced text was reverted because of an undue weight issue, or their totally beautiful and awesome image gets reverted because it doesn't meet WP image policies, then reasonable editors who don't know the history may think "where there's smoke, there's fire". If this gets abused, then we discipline the abusers or drop the addition later. Karanacs (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Basically support 2, and per Moni ... although I'd remove "civilly" (I haven't noticed that it ever works to ask editors to be civil ... they either are or they aren't), and maybe it could be a little tighter. Calathan, this is just my take: if someone doesn't want something changed in an article they've worked on, that's not (necessarily) OWNership as Wikipedians have come to understand it ... OTOH, an IP's first edit to an article sometimes looks like ownership to me. It's one of those I-know-it-when-I-see-it things, which is of course frustrating, for everyone. The bottom line is: the editor who works hard and puts their article through review after review, giving a little and getting a little, is demonstrating a lack of OWNership. We always assume good faith, but after this much effort, we don't have to assume, we know. I don't hear this proposed wording as "FAs are great, don't screw with them", I hear it as "This is the result of a lot of people putting in a lot of time, directly and indirectly; make your contribution, but respect what came before." - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dank, I want to respond to your suggestion of deleting "civilly". I don't see it as asking editors to be civil, so much as indicating that when someone is not civil, they shouldn't try to hide behind this clause. Telling another editor in an incivil manner that their edit is unwelcome may very well be a violation of OWN, and we need to be careful not to change the policy to make such conduct acceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I struck. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2 with some reservation. Although this is a collaborative project and some of the concerns raised are valid, the wording looks fair and the good points appear to outweigh the bad. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2. Seems like a good compromise. meshach (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2 but I think you ought to link ownership for those who don't realise it's an insult. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm uncertain about the wording - "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." What should I be doing different when editing a Featured Article? What care should I be taking that I don't take when editing other articles? The implication here, while not intended, but readable, is that it is OK to be somewhat sloppy with non-FA articles. If there is an approach we should be taking with FA articles, why shouldn't we be taking the same approach with all articles? Should we be taking care to ensure the sources we add to FA articles are reliable, but we can add unsourced opinion elsewhere because it doesn't matter so much? My feeling is whatever care we take with Wikipedia we take with ALL the articles not a handful, and picking out a rule to be careful only HERE, encourages a sloppy attitude elsewhere. I am also uncertain about a blanket guidance to discuss before editing. Some articles/topics are controversial, FA or not, and major edits to such articles may cause conflict - but an FA article is not by definition a controversial article/topic. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of creating an aura around FA articles that people are tentative about editing them. Moves to imply any protectiveness of articles runs against the spirit and ethos of Wikipedia, and may lead us to the road of a limited group of editors deciding content, with the implications of a limited worldview that such a limitation implies. SilkTork *^YES! 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder whether simply deleting "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article" from version 2 would make the text better - both shorter (always good) and avoiding at least one aspect of SilkTork's objection? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Less restrictive / more encompassing wording?

• Editors are encouraged to take care when editing all articles, though the more complex and controversial a topic, and the more developed an article, the more care may be warranted. If uncertain about an edit, it can be helpful to discuss it on the talkpage. Objections to an edit may not constitute ownership when such objections, upon request, are supported by appropriate reference to previous discussions, peer reviews such as GAN or FAC, Wikipedia guidelines or reliable sources. On some particularly high profile articles, especially BLP articles, questionable or unclear edits may be quickly reverted and there may be a standing message about this on the talkpage. This is usually done to protect Wikipedia's reputation and/or the reputation of the article's subject. In such cases it is more productive to discuss on the talkpage the implications of the edit and possible ways forward, than to raise questions of ownership.

A new suggested wording, perhaps under a section heading of Objections or Protection. I think the principle that some people may be protecting an article rather than owning an article, and that such protection has wider implications, is worth making. And that such protection extends to more articles than just FA, is worth making. And that people are free to edit if they know what they are doing, but should be prepared to explain themselves if an edit is reverted on a particularly sensitive high profile article. SilkTork *^YES! 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This may have merit. I was accused recently of owning a Start class article. High standards should apply to all of them, regardless of how they've been assessed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes technically it applies to all articles but I always feel a greater sense of responsibility towards something carrying the bronze star because Wikipedia is putting it out there as an example of it's finest work. I don't know whether others feel the same but I always feel more anxious to protect them and correspondingly am more likely to be robust in keeping them clean. (Civilly of course).Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel protective toward high visibility and high traffic articles, as these are the ones that tend to get the most attention. I should think that WikiProjects will also be keen to protect articles within their scope, and editors who have worked long and hard on, say, a C class article will not want to see it dragged backwards by poorly considered edits. I think we each will have our own viewpoint, but I don't think that we need to argue our corner as long as we careful word this guideline to take into account all reasonable concerns. That somebody hasn't put an article forward for FA status doesn't mean that article should be excluded from this guideline. The intention of SlimVirgin's addition as far as I understand it, is for legitimate attempts to prevent poor quality edits not to be labelled as Ownership. This is a positive addition, and it should be extended to all legitimate attempts to prevent poor quality edits, while at the same time making an acknowledgement that there are certain articles, such as those which have been through some form of peer review such as FA, are high profile, and are complex or controversial, which may warrant a greater degree of careful editing. SilkTork *^YES! 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I also get the same protective feeling for my B-class articles (the ones in the queue for the loving polish to FAC status...) I would be satisfied with the wording previously proposed but don't mind the expansion in the new wording. I do, however, strongly suggest that if we include reference to GAN and FAC we amend it to "successful GAN and FAC reviews". I fear that the current proposal leaves us open to some of the shenanigans that were taking place at talk:Catholic Church (for more info). Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Fainites above. That to me is the heart of the matter - the community's responsibility to protect its best work. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Brian about protecting or maintaining FAs, I grow more concerned that the quality of FAs is far surpassing the quality of smaller articles that can't reach FA. I don't know what the answer is here, other than rewriting not only this policy but every other one to assert improving article quality should be everyone's highest priority. But Wikipedia doesn't seem to work that way. Most folks are happy just to insert a sentence here, shift something there and go on their way. So while I say the idea has merit, I have no idea how it may be practically applied. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not enamoured of this wording, as it seems to imply that everything other than "such objections are supported by appropriate reference to previous discussions, peer reviews such as GAN or FAC, Wikipedia guidelines or reliable sources." is article ownership. The FA writers are not the problem here, as has been noted we are fairly manic about adhering to WP policies.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Most folks are happy just to insert a sentence here, shift something there and go on their way. --- because it's nice and easy to do this. 'Most folks' aren't going to have the time and/or want to use the energy to do a lot more, especially if they are in the middle of READING whatever it is they are reading. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not sure why you pointed this out. Can you clarify how it's relevant to the discussion? --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Query The guideline on revert warring states "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." However this begs a number of questions. It's unusual for poor quality content to slip past the review procedures into the FA, but it can happen. Sometimes making an article today's FA can subject it to a higher level of legitimate scrutiny than it has previously undergone. It is possible that an edit war may arise between two people who may honestly believe that they are defending the quality of the FA. Are they both exempt from the 3RR? Should there be a strong presumption in favour of the status quo? If so, it would help if this version was clearly identified. Also, what if neither version which is being argued over is the status quo? It has been claimed that there is a "maintaining editor" who is entitled to a large degree of leeway. Is the role of this person clearly described anywhere? If not, we need a transparent description of who this person is, how they are appointed, and what their rights and responsibilities are. If we are just dealing with the FA of the day then at a pinch people might accept strict measures, and people with genuine concerns might hold their fire for 24 hours, but it would be a substantial step to extend unusual measures to past FAs. PatGallacher (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand with Moors murders on the main page was that you were reverting to a version that was changed without being justified and you added a NPOV tag without explaining what should be changed on the talk page. Apparently the issue is still unresolved because you feel you were slighted or your view not represented in the article. But this is the essence of the issue: the article was constructed with the listed sources. You did not seem to have a source to justify why you thought the article was not neutral, but you put the tag on anyway. Can you explain why you did? Did you hope the authors of the article might look into the issue and find a source themselves to bolster your view? The episode did not make any sense to me. This, however, may be better explained on the article talk page. Or mine. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to address some general issues, rather than the specifics of one dispute in relation to one article. Unless somebody comes back I may take it that these issues have not been satisfactorily addressed. However, to clarify one point: when I put the NPOV flag on the article, I did add an explanation to the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not. And you have still to provide a single source that backs up your reasoning for placing that tag in the first place. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

General comment. I appreciate the good intentions of the broader wording, but I'm worried about unintended consequences. With each of the changes under consideration, I ask myself whether an editor who is, in fact, guilty of OWNership as we generally understand it, might be able to hide behind the wording. The wording proposed here makes it possible for someone to put a note on the talk page, and then OWN at will, saying that the edits being reverted are, somehow, "questionable". That's a loophole you can drive a truck through. For that matter, how far might this go? Does there come a point where someone has a stub that they sincerely intend to bring to FA someday, but right from the stub stage, they say others can't make edits with which they disagree? I think that, in the legitimate interests of addressing implications wider than FA, this proposal becomes so broad as to be counter-productive. I'd prefer to keep this proposal within the context of FA, and leave the rest to WP:CONSENSUS, at least for now. I'd have no objection, though, to simply removing one sentence, as described at the end of the sub-thread just above (per SilkTork and hamiltonstone), especially since it isn't really expressing anything that can be enforced as policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely someone keeping a stub or start class article from being improved is a problematic issue. Unfortunately, what constitutes improvement for some violates guidelines like WP:TRIVIA and results in adding information that may not come from reliable sources. It's difficult to make a blanket statement that would cover everything for every article. On this score, because many FAs have gone through rigorous review processes, I agree that narrowing the scope to them is easier on this policy page, which serves as a blanket reminder of what not to do. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is drifting into something much more evil than the original intent. Articles are not required to be perfect. Editors are not required to discuss first. Giving FA contributors a little leeway is one thing... giving ammo to all the "rv: get consensus before editing" kind of people is a completely different thing. Gigs (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be careful not to extent this too far. Personally I'd extend it to articles that people are seriously preparing for FAC, which is what my original suggestion included, because as a matter of fact most editors do give leeway to others preparing an FAC submission. But adding that here (or failing to add it) won't change the reality of that, so I'd be fine with leaving the wording as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording too, though I also agree with the idea of a more inclusive principle about stewardship of all articles. In my view we must stress this as a general principle about all articles (stewardship does not necessarily constitute ownership), but without watering down the emphasis on FAs, which, by definition, have been subjected to the most rigorous of our review processes. I've therefore boldly added an introductory paragraph to this effect. PL290 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like it too. Thank you for thinking of it. I've made some further edits, so everyone please see whether or not my edits are acceptable. In what is now the first paragraph, I've tried to put the expectation of civility on both "sides", as opposed to only on the editor proposing a disputed change. In the FA paragraph, I deleted the sentence whose suggested deletion, above, prompted the creation of the new paragraph, because I think that it is now redundant with the new paragraph, and unnecessary. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good compromises. Thanks to both of you! Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added two words "upon request" to the paragraph. Sometimes articles are reverted in haste, believing that the edit was vandalism or truly unsourceful. The editor who made the edit should certainly ask for an explanation before shouting "ownership". I think it is reasonable to ask that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs. Wehwalt, if I understand correctly, I think you added those words to an earlier version that is in this talk, rather than to the most recent version on the page. I wonder whether the most recent version really needs those words, or whether it already adequately addresses the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought

• It should never be considered ownership of any article, whether featured or otherwise, if a good faith editor attempts to edit (or discuss edits of) the article with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in mind. And when in doubt: Discuss. (See also WP:BRD.)

To be clear, I'm not exactly proposing the wording above, but just in reading this whole talk page am wondering why (as one person put it) some editors should be more equal than others. I realise that the discussion concerning "experienced editors" is a perennial one, but I really think that this discussion is definitely in that territory. Just something that I thought the editors in this discussion perhaps may wish to keep in mind. - jc37 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of some animals being more equal than others as a state of being, but that some editors here, particularly in featured articles have done a vast amount of reading, writing, and editing for a specific article. They have been involved in discussions and consensus in the best way for the article to appear. I don't mind anyone editing in good faith any article I've written, but if someone's additions fall outside of what I know to be accurate in the sources I've added for an article, I'm going to revert the edit. Furthermore, after writing and reviewing many articles, I don't write the same way I did when I started on Wikipedia. Should someone edit to make language in an article I wrote clumsy, unclear, or mediocre, I will revert it. I'm going to get accused of ownership for doing it, too. So if someone unfamiliar with the article wishes to partake of the work involved in getting himself up to speed with the sources and constantly improve his language, then good for them...better for the article. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of that is simply policy and guidelines. For example, the text should obviously reflect the references. But reverting someone because you think the text is "clumsy", sounds kinda subjective - though all text, "clumsy" or otherwise may be "mercilessly edited" by anyone. So what's the concern? And yes, those who have been through the myriad consensus discussions should have a "feel" forvarious aspects of the page. And concerns about that can be explained on the talk page. (WP:BRD - as I noted above.) That's one of the things the talk page is for. But if you're looking for a free pass for "experienced editors", I personally would not support that, regardless of the amount of work the editor may have done on a page. I'm sorry if that sounds thankless. But as this is "an encyclopedia anyone can edit", isn't that how it needs to be? - jc37 07:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that people have the right to revert incorrect or clumsy edits. The issue here is whether under some circumstances there are exemptions from the 3RR. PatGallacher (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a de facto 3RR exemption, within reason, for editors reverting changes to today's featured article while it's on the main page. If a regular editor wants to make substantive changes to it, it can wait until the next day. Adding an NPOV tag to an FA while it's on the main page isn't acceptable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where it says any of this in the guidelines. See my attempt to clarify these issues above. Also, do some people consider that maintaining editors on the FA should be exempt from WP:COOL as well? PatGallacher (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR policy discusses this in terms of "considerable leeway," rather than an exemption, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an admin who would block editors keeping an article clean while it was on the main page. The thing is this: if an editor puts an NPOV notice on a TFA, he's saying that his judgment is better than all the editors who read it for peer review/GA if it went through those processes, all the editors who read it for FAC, and all the editors who briefly looked at it again when it was proposed for TFA. It's also better than the expert sources who may have been consulted during preparation for FAC, and who've been sent a link alerting them to the article appearing on the main page. And further, the editor's not only saying his judgment is better, but also that his opinion must be displayed to the 80,000 or so readers who click on the article while it's linked on the main page.

The point is not that the new editor is definitely wrong; he could be right. It's that the day it's on the main page is not the day to debate it. If you want to keep an eye on what's appearing on the main page, you can join in the FA review process, or the process that chooses articles for TFA, and that'll give you the chance to spot problems weeks in advance. Or you could wait until it's off the main page.

That's a separate issue from COOL. I agree that, even if you're being reverted, it should be done civilly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jc37, I'm not looking for a free pass to behave badly, act rudely, berate other editors, remove their edits summarily, or keep the version of the article I wrote. Clumsy text and brilliant prose are very subjective. Featured articles themselves are quite subjective. A sentence functions to convey information, but at its most functional does not pull a reader in to find out more, to go on to the next sentence.

There is no reason we can't ask editors and expect them to have high standards, recognize what the best source is, and if they don't write at a professional level, work to get there. I am not an expert in any of the topics I've written about. I don't teach the material in a college course nor have I been published. I just go to the library and I read the sources. I change my prose all the time. I read it out loud. I ask others to read it to see if it needs improvement. I take advice. So I'm the anyone. Actually, I'm a nobody. But the "anyone can edit" is not a pass to be lazy, to pull the first source you can find in a Google search, to spend 15 minutes reading on a topic, make a few tinkering edits here and there and move on to the next article without any concern for the article as a whole. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Moni3. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, that is a given. But if they edit one of my FA and don't cite a source for added information, odds are I'm reverting. If they make the language clumsy or out of place with the rest of the text, I'm reverting. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but they better be sure they improve the article. If a FA is left alone, it's going to deteriorate through uncorrected vandalism, poor edits, and the desire of Randy in Boise to show off what he thinks he once read in a comic book years ago. Not in my FA. If that is ownership, I suggest we send a few barrels of what I'm drinking to other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a wiki. We all make edits with the hope that someone else better and brighter will come along and "help" the article even more than we did.

Yes it would be wonderful to have articles that all are to a perfect standard of greatness, but that's just not how things are, work, or ever should, honestly. Because you see, just as has been said above, "perfection" is mightily subjective. So no, no free pass to repeatedly revert someone just because you think you're right. I may honestly agree with your opinion, so may several others, but then, WP:BRD and/or WP:CON comes into play. Why do you feel you need anything more than that?

And SlimVirgin, if this is "defacto" (I'll read that as "common practice"), then please show the many defs of where this happened and was found acceptable (by WP:BOLD, and/or WP:CON), and obviously one or two examples doesn't make something common practice. And further, I wonder at the idea that it's allowed to be common practice, if it is, since it would seem to violate our most core policies.

Look, I understand that we're trying to make patrolling/watching of what we all might call "the good stuff", to be easier. But "easier" when it goes down the slippery slope isn't better. Just consider the pov of the statement above: "But if they edit one of my FA and..." - Is that sense of ownership really acceptable? I understand having pride in our work, but the encyclopedia and the articles it consists of, isn't yours or mine. And the things is, if not for the lengthy discussions on this talk page, I would think that I was preaching to the choir here. - jc37 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! Look at the entirety of what I said, don't sieze on a phrase and go howling, that works well sometimes in political discourse but is unwelcome here. Also please look at my clean block log; I am careful about the proprieties. The articles are no more mine than anyone else's. I simply am familiar with the subject matter, often own the references, and am therefore in a good position to judge if an edit is unhelpful. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack whatsoever was meant. And please read the tone of my comments as discussion, not as hysterical. I'm not upset or pedantically frantic about this. Like I was saying, with little doubt, you all appear to be some of our high quality editors, and I know you know all of this (what I'm "going on about"), which is why I am surprised that we're even having this discussion. - jc37 01:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We all make edits with the hope that someone else better and brighter will come along and "help" the article even more than we did. So, what are you imagining here? Something like this?, or this, this, this, this, or this? These were presumably all good-faith edits made to articles I worked on, all which I reverted, all within the past week. Is your vision that these should stay? If so, I absolutely disagree with you and question if you truly understand the matter at hand. If not, please clarify. I do not agree that we should allow edits from the lowest common denominator. Or any denominator other than those of the highest standards. No one is expecting perfection here. Just care, competence, and for the articles to be improved. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me make certain that we're on the same page in this discussion.

My understanding is that this discussion is about whether "experienced editors" can violate the 3RR rule. I'm saying no, not more than any editor could and can.

You can of course revert a single edit. Everyone can. It's the second stage of WP:BRD. The newbie is bold, then you revert, then discussion is to happen. With maybe a sprinkling of consensus thrown in.

I still don't see why a denoted free pass to violate 3RR is necessary. Especially when one considers that WP:IAR is there for those case-by-case situations. But to codify this as a policy or guideline, just seems contrary to what Wikipedia is. - jc37 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the 3RR policy page. The above discussion is to address whether accusing editors who have experience writing about a topic in FAs of ownership is a valid complaint. The 3RR issue is for another policy talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the above discussion, Slim Virgin's comments in particular.

As for whether it's a valid complaint, it depends on the situation. Common practice that I've seen is that while we don't allow ownership of articles, we do look the other way for userpage lists of: Articles I have created or significantly edited; or My featured articles; etc. And as long as that remains that, it's apparently fine, but the moment it becomes true WP:OWN, then that should be dealt with as normal: Through discussion, WP:CON and WP:BRD. And if necessary, WP:DR.

All that aside, you have not answered the question: Why is WP:BRD not enough for you? - jc37 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because when we revert the bold edits (that either don't meet FA guidelines, are incorrect, or are correct but based on shoddy sources, or give undue weight to something, or just prove in general that the editor hasn't read the 15 books in the bibliography), invariably there are editors who scream "you're just doing that because you are owning the page!!!!" And if it's a high-profile enough article, invariably over time there's a line of different editors screaming that at different times. And, invariably, either some of these later editors start to disregard our reasoned arguments, because, "you're just trying to own the page and keep everyone else's input out" or at least once we'll get dragged to ANI, where people who's sole investigation was reading the talk page see all those complaints and say, "yep, this person is violating WP:OWN". Stewardship is not ownership, and we need to make that very clear. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think over time, most editors get called names, or are accused of doing something they aren't, or being something they aren't.

And a single reversion, pointing to the specific policy/guideline or FA discussion, should be enough. (bold, revert, discuss) If it isn't, There's discussion (WP:CON) and if that fails to resolve the issue, WP:DR is around the corner.

Why not see this as an opportunity to help new editors learn the ropes, as it were?

That aside, I'm not certain that "stewardship" is something we should be looking towards. (I'm understanding the term as you use it as someone editing an article for the betterment of that particular article.) "Anyone can edit" should therefore equal: "Anyone can "steward" an article". Anything other than that would be creating a sub-class of editors, which by loooong consensus, we don't do here. - jc37 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and it's even worse on TFA day, when those trying to push their version of events do so without discussion because they're so convinced of the justness of their position. I have to admit though that I'm still pissed for having been reported twice for 3RR during this article's day in the pillory, and it really does make me begin to wonder what is the point of even trying to write anything even half decent when it will inevitably be reduced to a uniform grey goo by the well-meaning but wrong-headed editors who continually scream "ownership!" Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, I feel for you. And there is something to be said for institutional memory. But while there may be a devoted group of editors who would never think in terms of WP:OWN, there are a thousand times those who do. and many of them are well-meaning.

So the "un-wiki" arguement aside, this loophole would create a mess for everyone. - jc37 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply see your position as another manifestation of wikipedia's contempt for experts. Someone who has taken the trouble to read, absorb, and present the relevant literature to a level that's considered to be amongst the best that wikipedia can offer is given no leeway at all when Randy from Boise comes along and insists that his pet theory, the one his teacher told him about yesterday, must be included, and that anyone who says otherwise is exhibiting ownership and needs to be sanctioned for the safety of the encyclopedia. No wonder there are fewer and fewer contributors to this stinking pile of ordure. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. As an aside, you may be interested in WP:EXPERT. - jc37 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Looks like it was written by a 10-year-old child. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally would not have said that of the editors of that page's talk page (for example, at the time, I personally held User:EngineerScotty in esteem), but you are of course, entitled to your opinion. - jc37 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your choice. I simply don't agree with you or your mate Scotty. Is that still allowed here in this most perfect of all possible worlds? Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt, in the time between edits, that you did more than a cursory glance over the page, else you might have seen that ES, and KvL, and others apparently actually having a similar opinions about editors who are experts in their field, and were trying to directly address why some were leaving. (They just came across to me a bit less hysterical about it.)

So it would seem to me that your focus is to be contrary to anyone who doesn't step lockstep with your opinion.

So anyway, since you didn't bother, neither shall I attempt to explain it further.

And sure, please feel free to disagree, that's a fundamental part of WP:CON. - jc37 23:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And I should care about your opinion and personal attack why? Go pick on someone your own size. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered that link "as an aside". You could have done whatever you wanted with it, but your choice was to respond belligerently, apparently without actually assessing anything.

And you will not find a single personal attack from me on this page.

But feel free to open a separate discussion regarding my edits here, if nothing else, it may serve to highlight yours.

Regardless, I hope you have a better day. - jc37 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin does not speak for me, I do not represent all FA writers, and neither does SlimVirgin. We have different perspectives on the same issues. I'm not addressing 3RR. If you and SlimVirgin are, this is obviously not the correct venue to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin most definitely doesn't speak for me either. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Then (since others do not speak for you) why is WP:BRD not good enough for either of you? - jc37 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that exasparation has set in. Perhaps an adult will be along soon to explain it to you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, another case in point.

And you're an editor that this discussion is looking to give rights to violate the 3RR, or at least to freely revert other well-meaning editors? Showing your ability to retain NPOV, your fundamental knowledge of policy and process, and calm discussion abilities and avoidance of biting the newbies?

Thank you for the clarification of what was wanted. - jc37 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me now say frankly what I've been wanting to say for some time now, even though it will undoubtedly result in a sanction from the civility police. You are a clot Jc37, but what's worse you don't know that you're a clot. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's intended to mean someone who prefers to adhere to Wikipedia's fundamental policies on editing, including this being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, adjuncting such policies as: WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:IAR, then I thank you for the compliment (ill-intended though it may seem to be.) - jc37 23:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you're a clot; can't even understand what you're being told. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That you feel that I'm blocking you from doing what you apparently want? Nah, I thought that was abundantly clear. I was merely attempting to be polite. Of course, you may now say that you intended the last example on this page, but then, as stated, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Rhetoric aside, I don't see a discussion between you and I productive at this point. So as I said above, I hope you have a good day. - jc37 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to make an effort not to be so condescending to your next victim. If you can that is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)