Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 10 March 2010 (→What it is Not?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-08-11 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : *Coverage of user pages (and user talk pages) and maintenance of articles needed. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : The section focused on page ownership explains the meaning of the bronze star icon (which signifies a well-researched peer-reviewed article with sufficient bibliography) and the green cross icon, but it does not explain the padlock icon that is also used in the same upper-right corner of certain pages and seems to mean that a page so marked can be edited only by some unnamed group of editors with higher privileges. Could we please consider mentioning and explaining this category of pages in this section? Marcin Żmudzki (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Archives

2004 – 2007

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 "Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages:Article maintenance or Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages policies that makes sense given those interests. But this is a guideline for habitual Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages project. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion

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/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...

No single editor owns this article, so feel free to criticise, comment or edit - from a neutral point of view with verifiable sources, or discuss below. From the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Does anyone know where that discussion is taking place? Shii (tock) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, I found it. Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages:Adminitis

The last edit of substance was adding a See-also link: Misplaced Pages: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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Avraham#Evidence of disputed behavior, and Misplaced Pages: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)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists