Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content

Reverting and detriment

Giraffedata, in section "Examples of ownership behaviour", added: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version."

I believe this was a bad insertion which should be reverted.

It affects editors who've directly quoted a page, or have it on their watchlist. When they see non-improving editing they have to reconsider their quotes and waste their time analyzing whether their understanding of the page must change. In that context unnecessary change is detrimental according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:EDITING which takes it for granted that editing is to improve (it contains variants of the word three times), WP:AGF which suggests we're supposed to assume intent to improve, and WP:DISRUPTIVE which starts with "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."

The mention of an owner's version causes confusion, it can make one think that we're talking about editor X reverting to a version by editor X, but the first sentence is more general so it can make one think we're talking about editor X reverting to a version by editor Y.

In a talk page guidelines thread I got accused of ownership tendencies because I hadn't explicitly said that what I was reverting was bad. I can shrug it off but the mere fact that the wording makes such accusation possible shows the wording's too easy to misuse. In a 12 Monkeys thread WP:OWN behaviour accusations happened when a change supposedly was called "not needed". There was an RfC, I believe the closer remark on Point #3 supports the accused. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I was the editor who complained about Peter reverting me, and I support keeping this long-standing (2014) addition. The change Peter reverted at WP:TPG was simple copyediting, and it IMO shouldn't have been reverted without a reason other than a personal belief that edits such as this:

"The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete remove others' posts without their permission."

are "changing without improving". IMO this kind of reversion is exactly what WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary are meant to discourage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the scenarios you're identifying where an unnecessary change is detrimental.

I think one is where you're saying a person quoted a Wikipedia article and any time a change is made to the quoted text, that quote becomes unfaithful. Well, there's simply no way you can ever quote a Wikipedia article and expect the quote to remain faithful; this is fundamental to wikis. If you need a faithful quote, you quote a historical version of the article.

I think another of your scenarios is where someone is trying to maintain an understanding of an article, so watches it and every time it changes, the person has to read the change and think about it and how it affects the rest of the article. This is ownership behavior. Non-wiki web pages have owners for just this purpose, since it produces higher quality writing than that generated by a crowd; on Wikipedia, we sacrifice that for other benefits.

As for editor X reverting to editor Y's text, that can indeed be ownership behavior. You can assume ownership of something you didn't write. You find an article, fix up the parts you don't like, and then defend the perfected article against all comers.

Finally, let us not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about a change that the editor who made it believed in good faith is an improvement. When an editor makes a change he doesn't believe improves the encyclopedia, he is in fact abusing the Wikipedia editing privilege -- which is precisely why reverting a change that the reverter finds not to harm the article is an abuse. Unnecessary edits are a problem, but reverting them doesn't fix it.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You're saying that using a watchlist is ownership behaviour, and that I never said WhatamIdoing's change was detrimental? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no reply, I'll answer myself: no, using a watchlist is not ownership behaviour, and yes, I did say WhatamIdoing's change was detrimental. Next question: where is the consensus for giraffedata's policy? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, when you say now that you claimed that the change was detrimental, are you referring to your edit summary, which was:

"The word "delete" is okay, changing a guideline in multiple places, just because there's a deletion policy about something else, is changing without improving."

I don't understand that sentence as claiming that the change was detrimental, and on the talk page you said:

"WhatamIdoing is correct that I do not call the changes "worse""

which is the opposite of "say[ing] WhatamIdoing's change was detrimental". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

False. I said I didn't "call" it so, which doesn't mean I didn't think so. Later, after your accusation, I clearly said "I agree there's detriment to this page but I care re detriment more generally." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, when you told me earlier that you don't call the changes worse, I assumed that you were truthfully saying that you did not believe that it was 'worse' and not that you secretly thought it was worse but were trying (e.g.,) to spare my feelings.

Please say, now, clearly, directly, precisely, and concretely, what is detrimental about the change. For example, say something like "I think it is bad to write 'remove a comment' instead of 'delete a comment' because newcomers don't know what 'removing a comment' means". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Read the first post in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I have. You say "I hadn't explicitly said that what I was reverting was bad", when the actual source of confusion is that "You explicitly said that what you were reverting wasn't bad".

If you think of changes as falling into three general categories:

The edit makes the page worse (e.g., introduces an error)
The edit makes the page neither better nor worse (e.g., change one synonym for another, with no change in meaning)
The edit makes the page better (e.g., fix an error)

then I think my change is #3 (because it replaces an ambiguous word choice with a non-ambiguous word choice), and you seem to think it is #2 (changes one synonym for another, with no change in meaning).

Do I understand your view correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

False again. "You explicitly said that what you were reverting wasn't bad" is something I did not say. Now, rather than further false statements about me, what about the thread topic? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, please tell me whether I'm correct to believe that you think the change falls into #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yet again: I think such editing is detrimental for the reasons I stated in my first post. Now, rather than further false statements about me, what about the thread topic? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I see no reasons in your 15:30, 23 June 2025 (what I take to be your "first post") for thinking that the edit in question is bad.

I see a reason in that post for disliking:

all edits to all pages (all edits, whether good, bad, or indifferent, result in watching and patrolling editors spending "their time analyzing whether their understanding of the page must change"), and
more specifically, all edits to all rules-type pages (all edits, whether good, bad, or indifferent, will prompt some "editors who've directly quoted a page...to reconsider their quotes").

Both of those costs are imposed on editors regardless of the quality of the edit, since even the most obviously helpful edit "requires" editors to determine that they approve of it, or to think about whether they need to update another page that quotes it (a pretty rare circumstance, since most quotations are in discussions, and nobody updates – and nobody should update – their old comments to reflect new wording, or even new rules).

However, I see nothing at all in that post that:

says that the edit in question itself is good, bad or indifferent, or
addresses whether "remove" is better, worse, or the same as "delete" (or vice versa).

I am asking you to directly and specifically address the question of whether whether "remove" is better, worse, or the same as "delete", in the original edit. I am asking you something much closer to "If the original version of the page had always used the word remove, would you secretly wish that the original wording had always been delete instead?"

I am not asking any question that sounds even remotely like "Is changing the wording of a guideline generally burdensome to other editors?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The "edit in question" in this thread is Giraffedata's policy insertion. The talk page guidelines thread, where several editors objected to your edit, is elsewhere, and apparently over. However, you now allude to this thread's topic. I'll pick on this: you observe that an edit imposes cost to other editors regardless of its quality. Sure, but the cost is something to tolerate if an edit improves. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It is a cost to tolerate if an edit is "unnecessary", because the reversion of a non-harmful edit also imposes costs on other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I objected, Giraffedata + WhatamIdoing defended, there's no consensus. Are there no other editors with any opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

After waiting a week, I removed Giraffedata's addition. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted that. This has been in the policy for more than 10 years. As far as I can see, you are the only person who has ever disagreed with it, and your disagreement appears to have been prompted by being told that your reverts elsewhere were not consistent with the policy. This feels like an attempt to change a policy to give you an advantage in a different dispute, aka WP:GAMING.

I believe the policy has been correct all these years: One sign of ownership is reverting changes that you believe are harmless because you'd rather have 'no change' than 'no indisputable improvement'. It's very easy for an WP:OWNER to say "Oh, well, you might have thought that was an improvement, but instead it was only a harmless neutral change without enough benefit for me to accept it. Now I'm reverting back to my version, and remember – no more editing my page unless I agree that your changes are undeniably significant improvements!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith and accusing me of bad conduct. I will consider my options, but slowly, since I don't want your behaviour to influence my attempts to discuss improvements to this page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the context provided by the introductory sentence is key: If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they may have issues with page ownership. (For purposes of discussion, I'll ignore "in a certain article talk page" for now, since the example in question is for article pages (or other non-talk pages), but will come back to it later.) I think a pattern of this behaviour can be indicative of someone trying to guard existing wording, and this can be uncollaborative. But I think "may" is being used in a conditional manner; the specific circumstances are going to matter. Because editors can easily get overly focused on the advantages of their own words, or the status quo, I think generally speaking it's good advice to try to be open to allowing other wording to stand if workable, or trying to futher refine new changes rather than revert them. I appreciate this can be hard advice to follow, but it can build a greater sense of co-operation. That being said, there are times where wording has been carefully crafted, and it's reasonable to try to have a discussion prior to changes.

Getting back to "in a certain article talk page": I think this clause should be dropped, since the examples cover more than edits to article talk pages. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you about "in a certain article talk page" and have removed it. I have also changed "may" to "might", since the ambiguous nature of may (is allowed to? could happen?) is IMO worth avoiding – even if some might declare that to be an "unnecessary" change that "doesn't significantly improve" the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

isaacl: To be clear: you approve Giraffedata's addition? (By the way I don't think the earlier clause should be dropped, but that's not the topic.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Within the context of the introductory sentence, personally I think it was a reasonable update to make. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I acknowledge that I'm outnumbered. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This is at odds with Wikimedia Foundation policy in the wake of Caesar DePaço and needs amending to reflect actual reality

No one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content.

This passage is now at odds with Wikimedia Foundation policy in the wake of Caesar DePaço and needs amending to reflect the actual reality. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Which words are at odds? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Well...

No one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it).

WMF and the DePaco fellow and the PT courts have contravened this passage.

Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.

The DePaco fellow and the PT courts have contravened this passage with the authorization of the WMF.

No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content.

This is also false as the WMF has released unknown personally identifying information about at least eight editors on that matter to the PT court system for (apparent) release to DePaco and his lawyers. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Only the very naive believe that a set of written rules can cover every situation. Discussing how to poke the WMF is a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not to 'poke' the WMF, but there's certainly never harm in the backbone of the entire everything (en.wiki) periodically flexing to remind the WMF that they are only a portion of the authority of what is. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Abolish FAOWN and possibly “stewardship” entirely?

I don’t see how these do anything except promote legitimized ownership, complete with thought-terminating shortcuts to fall back on. I think the gist of these sections boils down to “be bold, but not reckless” and said guideline actually covers FAs in a nearly identical but better way— one that doesn’t imply ownership is somehow okay if it’s FAs or major contributors to an article. The WP:BOLD example also makes a more convincing argument— it asks you to be considerate of other editors’ hard work, not to defer to them just because they wrote it. I think if the former was the go-to citation we wouldn’t have half the fights over “ownership”/“stewardship” and editing FAs we have now. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You're on a roll. How many times do you need told to keep your personal disputes under control? Wait for your opponent to be blocked before the gravedancing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not gravedancing. The order of events was ANI (not me) -> Village pump (not me) -> this talk page (suggested by another editor). In any case even if none of those things happened FAOWN/“stewardship” would still be bad practice better covered by WP:BOLD. Maybe this issue wouldn’t have come up, but is getting rid of the root cause of the chain of events a bad thing? Dronebogus (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

For anyone coming here without prior knowledge of recent events, I think Dronebogus has come here based on a comment I left on a thread at ANI that was closed yesterday (let me know if that isn't right). In my comment (see here) I suggest that part of the reason a small group of editors often find themselves embroiled in remarkably similar conflicts is because WP:FAOWN is overly vague. This means some editors exhibit WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour and sometimes tell less experienced editors to WP:FETCH by implicitly suggesting that FA peer reviewers need to approve edits, whether significant or not, to FAs, or else telling them to acquire consensus in a talk page they have been territorial over for some time. The fact that WP:FAOWN is worded as vaguely as it is offers experienced editors a justification for exhibiting this kind of behaviour, which often leads to conflict over both content and conduct.

Personally, I feel it is important to review the wording at WP:FAOWN to ensure that there is a clear policy for editors to point to that will dissuade this kind of ownership behaviour. That edits to FAs are often the cause of prolonged conflicts in article talk pages and at ANI is not constructive and often quickly derails into a complicated rehash of past conflicts sometimes spanning multiple years - I'm not trying to criticise or insult here, I'm just pointing out that this is what I've seen happen. More explicit wording at WP:FAOWN would help circumvent these issues, even if they seem generally limited to a select number of very experienced editors who have improved a wide range of articles; circumventing these issues frees up a lot of time and energy for the project that is otherwise spent less productively.

All of this said, I think it would be a better idea to hold off on this conversation for now. In the last few months since I became more aware of moderation and arbitration practices on Wikipedia I've seen how easy it is for conversations to be derailed. Someone has tagged this conversation at the Arbitration Request page, so the ArbCom is aware that this is something some may feel strongly about. In my view, that is enough for now; let us have a proper chat once things have cooled off. This will also give us the chance to really work out the extents of this issue and how we can find a solution. Becsh (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Before the now-closed AN/I thread is archived, I thought it'd be useful to just transfer my comment here in case my link is confused. Here it is:

I completely agree that WP:FAOWN is problematic and needs adjustments. All too frequently, a group of editors (of which SchroCat is a part) improve an article, bring it to FA status, then reject further constructive edits because they lack consensus - despite the lack of consensus stemming from the experienced editors' territorial behaviour over the pages they've collaborated on. I recently had such an experience in which I was told "if wishing to persist please seek the input of all the peer reviewers and the reviewers at FAC." When I pointed out that this is not Wikipedia policy and that it obstructed a perfectly constructive edit supported by two editors, the editor implicitly agreed that this is not policy but that they believe it to be "a matter of courtesy and common sense". But, of course, peer review and consensus are not the same thing, and it is hardly common sense to require the approval of peer reviewers to make changes to a FA. Most problematic is that, as I explain in the linked talk page discussion, this reasoning is selectively applied. Asking editors to seek approval from peer reviewers in order to edit FAs some but not all of the time, alongside the lack of a clear policy to cite in objection to what is clearly WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:FETCH without escalation to this page, is obstructive to the project. It deters less experienced contributors and sharply exceeds the vague constructive stewardship WP:FAOWN describes. I also believe that it is exactly this kind of vagueness with regards to WP:FAOWN that allows incivility to enter the conversation, which is what led to this current case being brought to AN/I.

In the interest of clarity, I had to bring this editor to AN/I a couple of months ago for incivility for a similar edit on another page, and in the talk page they ended up telling an editor to do the exact same thing. I'm sure many similar cases could be found in FAs on which this group of editors collaborated. This isn't how consensus works and FA status shouldn't be a justification for standing in the way of constructive edits. I appreciate this is a separate and greater issue, but I just wanted to explain from a much less experienced editor's perspective how this kind of behaviour forms a deterrent to contributing and how it countermands this project's core policies.}}

In short, I fully support adjustments to WP:FAOWN to provide greater clarity and a clear policy to point to to dissuade this kind of territorial behaviour and subsequent rhetorical justification.

Re: the idea that it is "a matter of courtesy and common sense" to get reviewer approval for edits to FAs, I would also gesture towards WP:NOCOMMON - the closest thing to a guideline or policy re: FA stewardship/ownership is WP:FAOWN, and if it is worded loose enough that it can be used in this way then the words need tightening. Becsh (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the text of FAOWN:

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 compliance with the featured article criteria.
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 necessarily constitute ownership.
The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the featured article candidacy and any subsequent featured article reviews.

Which, if any of these, do you think is wrong or unclear?

For example, I'm not sure that I'd choose the word considerate in #3, and I don't think that #5 belongs on this page. (It's true, but irrelevant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that considerate isn't right, but something to qualify significant would also be helpful since it could mean a wide range of things.

It might be that this part of the previous paragraph is actually more contentious:

In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.

The issue is saying editors are allowed to revert edits "they find detrimental" to the article. In practice, I think this basically allows any editor to cite the fact that an article has undergone peer review as evidence of the "previous reviews" mentioned. In other words, they can just reject changes by saying "well, we've already peer reviewed this and have a stable version". This is where WP:FAOWN is lacking: in cases where there has clearly been extensive peer review (which all FAs undergo), an editor who was involved in the process is able to justify all kinds of ownership behaviour on the basis that such a review has been conducted and that there is a "stable" version of the article/section/paragraph/sentence to revert to. Then editors are able to say "let us see if you can assemble a consensus for the alterations you want to make to the agreed FA text" or "after all those experienced FAC reviewers have read and accepted the text as is, new suggestions for improvement are, and should be, reviewed with caution, and changes should require a clear consensus". Both of these are things editors have said to me in a case where my edits were a matter of personal preference, but it is legitimately difficult to gain a consensus on a talk page that established editors are territorial over.

Aside from this, it would be useful to have a brief note in WP:FAOWN that an article achieving FA status does not mean it is perfect or correct, nor that the content ought to be "preserved" simply because it has passed a peer review. In the FA I cite above, errors such as incorrect links to people with the same name were not caught by peer reviewers. In my view, FA is a way of uplifting an article as an exemplar to which other articles should aspire. This does not mean that they are free from any faults, nor that they cannot be improved in any way. If articles can be promoted to FA with clear, objective errors like incorrect links, surely some also end up being promoted with other issues that peer reviewers do not, for whatever reason, notice or take issue with. If the section says "editors are asked to take care when editing a FA" I think it would be apt to also say "editors who have contributed extensively to FAs are asked to be mindful of subsequent edits and to avoid preserving a version of the article they worked on for the sake of preserving their work, which constitutes WP:OWN" ... or words to similar effect? Becsh (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like your complaint isn't actually about FAOWN at all. The paragraph you quote isn't in FAOWN and applies to all articles, not "reviewed" ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, this conversation is about the notion of stewardship with a focus on stewardship of FAs. It might be that the whole thing needs reworking in some way to avoid this unusual idea that peer reviewers should have to weigh in on edits to FAs. Becsh (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't ever remember seeing anyone claim that Wikipedia:Peer review has to weigh in on edits to FAs, or even that FAC reviewers have to do so. I expect that if someone actually did that (because people make up new "rules" all the time, sometimes without even realizing that what they're repeating isn't a rule), I'd send them off to find the so-called rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I cite such a case above. Almost certainly an attempt at WP:STONEWALLING, but the problem is that the current phrasing implicitly supports this idea. An editor who is happy to send others off on wild goose chases seeking consensus won't go off to find whatever rules they're following, whether they exist or not. In this case, the editor says it is common sense to seek approval from FAC reviewers, then implies the proposed edits aren't constructive anyway. See here: Becsh (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

At that point, there were nine editors in that discussion, so nothing's going to happen without consensus. But that's definitely not a requirement, and I can even imagine that some past reviewers would feel irritated by a request. PR and FAC reviews are supposed to be one-time gifts of time and attention, rather than ongoing commitments to referee disputes at the article forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. If some question comes up concerning something I reviewed, I will at least look at it to see if there is anything I can contribute. Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

For some subjects, I might track you down even if you hadn't reviewed it. But I don't think that pinging past reviewers (most of whom were supportive, because that's the only way to get the gold star) is necessarily appropriate per Wikipedia:Canvassing, and, of far more importance to me, it's not practical. For example, there were 14 reviewers (excluding the IP) at the FAC for Statue of Liberty. Only three of them are still editing regularly (and one of those has only edited on four days so far this year). Reviewers may be unavailable, unwilling, or uninterested. If we establish an expectation that a FAC review puts you on the hook for re-re-re-requests in the future, that will probably discourage people from participating in FAC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing asked upthread, Which, if any of these, do you think is wrong or unclear? The obvious answer is, of course, "none". But human language is a subtle and wonderful thing, with meaning implied (or at least, inferred) where none is explicitly written. To take an extreme example, if somebody says "This is a nice building you have here, it would be a shame if it burned down", most people would not think, "What a nice person; they complimented me on the aesthetic qualities of my property and expressed a desire that it should be safe from fires". That's the problem with FAOWN. On the surface, it's perfectly reasonable. But the implication is clear that those who wrote and/or reviewed the article at FAC have more say. Sometimes it's not even an implication. When somebody says please seek the input of all the peer reviewers and the reviewers at FAC it's pretty explicit, even if it's not delivered while wearing dark sunglasses and hefting a hunk of lead pipe. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

And it sounds a lot like "please seek the input of all the editors who have formally approved my preferred version". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it sounds like WP:VOTESTACKING specifically. Becsh (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Does FAOWN help maintain FA status? If it does, why abolish? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

FA status is overrated. I don’t know how it is determined, exactly, but it’s not determined well given I’ve seen at least two fairly low-quality articles get pushed to “today’s FA” status. What I do know is that anything that legitimizes content ownership in any way is more trouble than it’s worth. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I consider it ill-advised to start questioning the utility of FA status. It is better to work out what, exactly, the FAs are and aren't supposed to be/do. In my view 'featured' status is a way of holding an article up as an example for editors to strive towards for other articles, rather than an 'award' to an article for being great. Making it an award merely reinforces the idea that they are somehow fixed or that further edits are in some way unconstructive. As Paul Valéry suggested, ‘a work is never finished […] but abandoned’. Becsh (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Making it an award merely reinforces the idea that they are somehow fixed or that further edits are in some way unconstructive I think that attitude is kind of the whole reason this started. FAs aren’t just awards; they’re status symbols, often connected to the concept of certain editors as wp:VESTED. Writing FAs is treated like being the director in the Wikipedia movie; gnomes like me are faceless expendables down with the grips and best boys in the credits. Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Re I don’t know how it is determined, exactly, but it’s not determined well. It is determined by somebody nominating an article at FAC after which reviewers spend the next 2-3 months discussing it (hopefully, but not always, by evaluating how well it meets WP:FACR), and then one of the FAC coordinators comes along and closes the discussion, looking to see if the reviewers reached consensus to promote. I agree with you that the process is not perfect. But the best way to fix that is to roll up your sleeves and review articles. That's how everything on wikipedia works; when somebody sees something that's broken, they fix it. In the case of FAC, the best way to fix it is to put in the time to review articles. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we'd be losing very much if FAOWN was removed in its entirety. Honestly, it reads more like an essay opining on one perspective of best practice when approaching articles that have previously gone through extensive vetting, and the portions which describe brightline principles established under other PAGs mostly applies as good guidance whether editing on an FA article or not. Not all FA's are created equal and there is a vast pool of articles out there that are the product of much more robust collaboration and review than the average FA article, but which simply were not vetted through this one idiosyncratic process, because of whatever selection biases govern the articles which dedicated FA editors put forward.

Further, even if we could be entirely confident that FA status conferred a reasonable presumption that extra caution was due in updating or altering FA articles, there is a reasonable cost-benefit analysis that needs to be made: if the language causes more trouble on the back-end by encouraging and enabling particularly territorial editors, than it provides benefit in cautioning imprudent or hasty changes initially, then the overall effect on volunteer time is negative, and however much we think the principle makes sense, we should probably remove it as express policy.

And I do think we have seen that this might be the case. And it kind of makes sense, when you stop to think about it: the editors most likely to be aware of (and put stock in) FAOWN are those heavily invested in the FA process. Other users not enured to that microcosm are less likely to be aware of the language or give it high weight where it seems to conflict with more a priori editorial principles under pillar policies and such, so it is unlikely they will adhere to it. Now, once the contested edit has been made, FAOWN ceases to have any high degree of positive effect on any resulting dispute. The determination of whether the change in content is an improvement will be governed by more fundamental and on-point policies (WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLP, whathaveyou).

At that juncture, all FAOWN does is encourage some editors, typically those who have previously brought the article in question to FA status--and mind you, not nearly the majority of such editors, but some--to perceive that they are entering into any resulting discussion with a presumption of being in the right, and particularly justified in digging in against the change, contrary to literally every word of our actual dispute resolution policies. So yes, it's not that the idea behind this bit of language is entirely flawed. In fact, I tend to agree that it is at least partly well-reasoned. But in practice, it's pretty easy to see why it might be causing a poor benefit-to-community-headaches ratio.

However, all of that said, I do think there are middle ground solutions here. We could preserve some, maybe even the large majority, of the language here, but imo, adjustments should be made. And the simplest and most productive change would be alter the shortcut for the section, and possibly even move it into another policy altogether. Because having this section located where it is and cited as "WP:FAOWN" is, I think, driving a lot of the disruption here. The section barely even references WP:OWNERSHIP issues, and the one sentence that does is probably the most unnecessary, policy-backwards, and problematic language therein. Changing the shortcut to something like "WP:FACAUTION" or "WP:FACONCERN" would probably do wonders for keeping this section from being abused by those with content ownership propensities, while still preserving the idea that when you know an article to have been heavily vetted, you should be at least a little less WP:BOLD than normal.

Because, as is, the current shortcut and the ownership language send the very inaccurate and disruption-fostering message that "provided you or others have brought an article to FA status, then the community's normal concerns about WP:OWNERSHIP mentality are suspended or circumscribed. And that's just a terrible notion to be putting out there, even by implication. Once an addition/adjustment to content is disputed, all parties should be using precisely our normal dispute resolution processes, applying our standard content rules--and no one gets special prerogative. That's the entire point of having adopted WP:OWN as a community principle in the first place: no one gets privileged status in a content dispute based on their previous work on a topic, whatever metric they think justifies it.

So yeah, this section of the policy is meant to be (and should be) focused on encouraging an editor to contextualize the speed and manner with which they introduce a change to an FA article in light of the fact that said article will have already undergone a lot of scrutiny. It is not meant to encourage and facilitate entrenched perspectives, resistance to valid change, and a status of special guardianship for those favouring the status quo version. And yet it is exceptionally easy to see why the poorly considered shortcut does exactly that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The actual issue is what should happen when a gnome makes a change at an FA and is reverted. Should the gnome repeat their edit, perhaps rephrased, to push their point? What if the gnome is reverted twice? Who should raise the matter at talk? The issue on the couple of cases that I've seen is not so much ownership as supreme confidence on the part of the gnome that obviously their edits are terrific (that's why they made them!). The gnome might be correct but, particularly for a well-reviewed featured article with other editors actively working on it, the gnome should not push their point in edit summaries but should instead discuss their proposal without bluster. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The endless question of "Who should raise the matter at talk?" drives me nuts. It takes a few seconds, maybe a minute at the most to start the discussion. But many editors seem to think that starting the discussion is proof that they're wrong or guilty or maybe it's bad luck, like seeing a black cat when you're walking under a ladder with an open umbrella in doors while spilling salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the psychology of that (who has to demean themselves by taking the trouble to justify their edit at talk) is behind a lot of the friction I've seen. It's two competing forces, each confident in their own overarching talent. To me, FAOWN is saying that the drive-by editor is the one who should go to a bit more trouble and at least pretend to be seeking opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like "explaining" is seen as a threat to social status: If you recognized how powerful and important I am around here, you'd immediately submit to whatever I demanded, and since you didn't, now I'm mad, because you're bad, and I shouldn't have to explain myself to the likes of you. Does that sound like a (hopefully) extreme version of what you're seeing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, but a bit more subtle. Talented people usually encounter lesser talented people because there are more of them. When two talented people meet each other over a disagreement, each assumes situation-normal: this is yet another lesser talented person and naturally they should be the one to start a discussion. FAOWN should make it clear that BRD really applies to featured articles—if you want to continue after a reverted edit, start a discussion with an unemotional justification. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the animosity that arises in connection with the current fuss has the infobox wars at its core. There is a particular group who develop featured articles, and a member of that group led to opponents turning to this FAOWN discussion. The FA group opposes infoboxes in articles they work on, while many of the drive-by editors promote them. The two sides despise each other. They don't mention the infobox issue in a dispute like this, but I believe it is a factor for at least some of the participants on both sides. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That is completely consistent with my experience in another sphere: content dispute RfC's. Responding to FRS notices has long been one of my main forms of contribution on the project. I think I've participated in somewhere around 1,200 article-specific RfCs over the years. So I have some frame of reference when I say--and this will shock no one here, I think--that infoboxes continue to be one of the most recurrent and out-of-proportion issues leading to loggerheads that have to be resolved via RfC. Down from a peak around the time of the relevant ArbCom cases on this issue, but very much a continuing and pernicious battleground. And there is a strong overlap in the infobox partisans (on both sides of the divide) which you reference in relation to FA who are also near permanent fixtures in these pitched RfC disputes.

In fact, I exaggerate not in the least when I say that there are two names (one from each side) that will be there literally every single time a bot sends me a random summons to an infobox RfC, no matter how obscure the article topic. Every. Single. Time. And they are names of relevance to the dispute that just forwarded from ANI to ArbCom that indirectly gave rise to this discussion. But I think we need to put that factor to the side for the moment and decide the future of this piece of policy language on broader principles. I do think there are ways the community could expunge that ever-reigniting contest of wills once and for all (or at least significantly reduce the number of flare-ups), but I think that is outside the scope of the current moment and discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

And one of those two posts a boilerplate but slightly biased message at the top of every single infobox RFC.

This is off-topic here, but I've been chatting with a couple of editors recently about criteria for infobox debates (e.g., something more concrete than "Consider the specific article"). Anyone who's interested should check the talk page for MOS:INFOBOXUSE in a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the line of reasoning of the last few messages. In particular, I completely agree that FAOWN (or whatever we ultimately call it; I still think the first move should be to change that shortcut and probably relocate the section into the FA guidelines or WP:BOLD) should focus on the fact that editors should be wary of WP:BOLD edits on FAs, and that failure to abide by WP:BRD in these circumstances is likely to be perceived as particularly disruptive. That preserves the effect of slightly safeguarding content that is likely to be well-vetted from imprudently hasty changes, without sending a signal to WP:OWN-prone FA stalwarts that they can squat on FA content and make newcomers jump through hoops not authorized by community consensus in the form of relevant content and DR policies. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving a modified version of FAOWN to Wikipedia:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's something I value about warning some folks away from FAs: For a typical Wikipedia article, if you are mediocre editor, on a median Wikipedia article, your good-faith contribution, whatever it is, will probably be an improvement in some way. But in the best articles (as measured by any sensible metric), the odds are high that a new editor or an editor who unintentionally overestimates their skill will make it worse. In particular, I appreciate Wiki Edu warning their classes against trying to improve an FA. Student editors are better than the average newbie (e.g., dramatically lower chance of getting blocked) but they're still newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Student edits are generally not helpful IMO, statistics be damned. They don’t get blocked because they don’t stick around. Dronebogus (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

None of that is factually true. New student accounts participate substantially longer than other new accounts. They don't get blocked because they're not vandals, socks, extremely rude to other editors, inclined to edit-war, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I see FA as a process which builds a community consensus that an article is in great condition. And like any other form of consensus, it shouldn't be unilaterally overturned by individual editors, but by the creation of a new consensus (ie, through talk page discussion). Of course, uncontroversial gnoming like typo tweaks or rewordings that don't change the underlying meaning are a different story. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. The closing of a FAC by a coordinator who has been chosen by community consensus pursuant to the 2013 and other RFCs on the Featured Article processes says that an article is compliant with the Featured Article criteria. Accordingly, the state of the article as passed carries considerable consensus, and in case of any dispute thereafter, that should be considered. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I largely agree, but it is important to remember that FA candidacies are not fully comprehensive. If a sentence or other item was not discussed at the FAC nomination, we cannot rule that it bears the same weight of community consensus as a sentence which was picked over by five editors. Perhaps the five reviewers would consider the issue unproblematic; perhaps they all made an error and missed a genuine issue. You cannot know (unless you ask them). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least there is an inference that they did not find the sentence problematical enough to bring up in their reviews. Which is better than nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

So those bits are (to me) under WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS as with most non-reviewed articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't say that. You still have at least (usually) three editors saying the article meets standards. And the coordinator has read the discussion and the article and sometimes made changes. I'd say the consensus is stronger than the usual implicit consensus. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think the difference stems from the different areas we edit in. Medicine-related FAs basically have a built-in expiration date because of WP:MEDDATE. The fact that three people said the article met standards at the time of promotion tells me nothing at all about whether it meets standards today. I assume there are similar problems with mid-career BLPs: For example, Taylor Swift was promoted as an FA in 2016. The consensus of editors 10 years ago about what were the key moments in her career is basically irrelevant, because so much has changed since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that time is a factor for any articles to different degrees and the case for consensus is stronger for recent FAs and ones that by their own nature won't change very much over time. But we were discussing general principles, rather than specific cases. Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

We seem to agree on general principles: Past FA comments may be unimportant, depending on how long ago that was and what the subject matter is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this, some things will almost certainly still slip through the net (,) - reviewers definitely can and do miss genuine issues, which is only human. FA reviewing is not infallible, and editors should avoid making arguments that suggest getting an article to FA means it has no issues whatsoever. Becsh (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

No one says that is so. But if there is a dispute as to whether there is an issue, and the matter falls within the FA criteria, someone saying there is an issue may bear a heavier burden of persuasion. Which is why it is perfectly in order to ask those who have already reviewed the article for their views. Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem here is that in cases where FA reviewers have clearly missed something, the editors who contributed to the article to get it through FAC are unlikely to revert an edit or object to changes. That these 'stewards' only revert & advise contacting FA reviewers in some but not all cases is an implicit form of WP:GATEKEEPING: if the 'steward' consents to the change, there is no issue, but if they don't, less prolific editors have to go WP:BMR. Normal dispute resolution and WP:BRD processes still apply to FAs, and just because it is perfectly in order to ask those who have already reviewed the article for their views doesn't excuse the ownership behaviour exhibited by such 'stewards'. Becsh (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that there is a heavier burden of proof, at least at the point that a dispute arises as to a change to the status quo version that someone expressly objects too. But as for a prescriptive front-end requirement to engage on the talk page before considering making a change--if that is what is being suggested--such a heavily shifted procedure for editing would have to be authorized by some degree of broad community consensus, even if limited to FAs. That said, I am broadly in favour of language heavily militates against WP:BOLD editing on FA's in the broadstrokes.

But of even greater importance, as the recent disputes giving rise to this discussion demonstrate, is that that such guidance steer well clear of the current and problematic wording suggesting (however vaguely and indirectly) that FA editors stand as guardians of FA content, and a little bit of WP:OWN isn't such a bad thing for them. To be frank, I'm not sure who it was who proposed the current wording and shortcut, but they must have had a very pollyanna-ish outlook on content disputes to have not realized how this would inevitably encourage certain editors to set up camp on top of (and dig trenches around) their most cherished content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

SlimVirgin in 2010, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content/Archive 1#Featured articles with a link to the precipitating event. I wouldn't have described her as having a pollyanna-ish outlook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting link. I know SlimVirgin suffered a lot from drive-by editors. I miss Malleus Fatuorum who wrote in that discussion: 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"? That's not relevant for the current case but I have seen that problem as well. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No Indeed--I will not be putting that piece of speculation down on my CV. :/ Aw, Slim...you know, the intersection between MEDRS and humanistic topics has just never been the same after the losses of SV, Flyer, and DrChrissy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion over whether FAOWN/FA status is determinative or predictive. Rather, whether or not the fact that an article went through FA review merely suggests that edits are less likely to be constructive than otherwise, or whether the fact that the article went through FA review is a reason in and of itself to oppose a change. Some editors seem to be suggesting the latter as a valid interpretation of WP:FAOWN. I would suggest that the issues result from the latter interpretation, rather than the former. Katzrockso (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Given who wrote it, I suspect that the actual intention was to give FA noms an officially sanctioned way to exercise control over "their" FAs. She was one of the editors who got Female genital mutilation up to FA, and she did a lot of very good work on Holocaust-related articles. She was the go-to editor for disputes about animal rights. I suspect that she (not unreasonably) felt a need for a way to oppose dis-improvements without fighting an endless stream of WP:OWNERSHIP complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with WP:FAOWN. It's reasonable to expect editors to take some care when working on an article that has reached FA status. Removing it would not accomplish much. The issue seems to be that some editors need a reminder to engage in civil, collaborative editing. Not every change to a Featured Article is inherently problematic, and editors should adhere to WP:BNO. If concerns arise, they should be discussed in a civil manner. It's really that simple. Nemov (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
To start, I agree with the move and getting rid of that shortcut. (Also, no, Slim Virgin was not pollyanna in the least). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
How do people feel about Wikipedia:BOLD#Be cautious about WP:BOLD editing on Good Articles and Featured Articles, and WP:FALESSBOLD (or just WP:LESSBOLD) as the location and shortcut, respectively? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes. As for the policy vs guideline, that to my mind does not matter, here, the thing is written as guidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
This isn’t just discussing a move. It’s downgrading part of policy to a mere guideline. FAs need protecting and the stewardship of subject specialist is crucial to both that and our goal of creating a high-quality free-to-access encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't and can't qualify editors, we can only address their arguments., not their person.

All writers on the pedia need to know and keep in mind that they are writing in an open wiki---will that come with costs, certainly, but it is what is signed up for and reaffirmed every time the publish button is pushed. We all know, there will be writers who can't or won't handle that (and they have to choose to continue pushing submit or not), and some days will be better than others. But it does not change the basic place we choose to write in, with anyone and everyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
FAOWN allows for the protection of high quality articles. Without it we can welcome the downgrading of our best product. That is not a situation to be welcomed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Any article can be protected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

These articles are watched and changes go through the same cycle as any article. Why would it be downgraded? If an article changes and I don't agree with it, it doesn't necessarily mean it's been downgraded. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
If you're asking why would it be downgraded, I invite you to look at P. G. Wodehouse where a new editor has edit warred to put unsourced trivia into the article. I've reverted twice, but they've still put it back in. I've referred them to the talk page (where there's already a consensus against this) and opened a new thread, pinging them. They've edited since they were pinged, but just ignored the open thread. So we now have a degraded article because of an editor who won't use the talk page to discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
1. Editor inserts trivia

2. You revert it for being unsourced

3. Editor reinserts with source

4. You revert it for not having an appropriate source

5. Editor reinserts

6. You go to the talk page saying You have now inserted unsourced trivia into the article three times. This goes against several policies and guidelines. There is also a consensus against the inclusion of the information here. Could you please explain why you think this should be included?

The problem here in my opinion is that if a new editor is making changes and doesn't seem to grasp a certain policy or guideline, you should be citing that in the edit summary. You should also be immediately pointing out the policy or guideline it contravenes e.g. WP:TRIVIA rather than giving other excuses first. I'll also point out that as of your comment here the added content had already been removed , so the article has hardly downgraded... Becsh (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

1. It was reverted this time. There are other articles I've de-watchlisted which are in parlous states now because edits not dissimilar to this have not been reverted; 2. I try not to bundle too much in the first post to a newbie, which is why I did the step you missed out: dropped them a note on their talk page, one which contains all the necessary links about sourcing. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
As I say, if you're going to tell a new editor that they need to use better sources only to end up being against the inclusion because it is trivia, why tell them to WP:FETCH? Becsh (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
And if they had bothered to visit the talk page it would have been explained to them in more detail, rather than just part of a lecturette listing numerous different policies. I think we're done here: I'm really not in the mood to continue on something so ridiculous as to why I didn't include a link when I posted a message with several of them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, I've spent a bunch of time over the past few days obsessing over P. G. Wodehouse. Specifically, I've been looking at the edits since when it was promoted to FA. I'll be honest, my initial impression was "It sure looks like @Tim riley and @SchroCat have been tag-teaming to OWN the article". But as I started to dig deeper, I slowly changed my mind. I didn't examine every one of the 887 edits since then, but I did spot-check maybe 20%.

The majority were clearly edits that made the article worse and needed to be reverted. I didn't see any outright vandalism, just lots of good-faith edits that weren't high-quality. I did see a few that I thought fell into the "judgement call" bucket and could have reasonably been kept, but no big deal if they were reverted. There was one I saw where instead of outright reverting, the change was wrapped in a HTML comment with guidance for what needed to be improved to make the change acceptable; I thought that was a reasonable outcome. I didn't see a single one where I thought "That was clearly an improvement and you were being an ass for reverting it". In summary, over 10 years of article curation, I'm not seeing any big problem here. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I really appreciate both the time you took to check the article and also to report back here with your findings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am largely against the protection of articles by default. Most of the problems I’ve seen with articles are as Johnuniq outlines above: people convinced they’re right about something when they’re actually not. Article protection doesn’t stop people who ignore STATUSQUO or BRD until they’ve been disruptive. You don’t need to reply if you’re trying to convince me: this is a fundamentally a bad idea that will end up damaging our content. - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Your argument appears to be that FAOWN needs to be in a {{policy}}, because that will somehow many people pay attention to it more than if it were in a {{guideline}} like WP:MEDRS. But now you seem to be advocating for people to follow mere essays. Do you expect people to pay attention to WP:STATUSQUO (I suggest reading that again) and WP:BRD (whose very first sentence says that it's optional)? If so, then why wouldn't you expect people to pay attention to a guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Has linking to the exact shortcut WP:FAOWN in a dispute ever actually helped resolve a conflict? I can think of several times where I've seen somebody revert another edit, citing FAOWN, and had it blow back up in their faces -- but I can't offhand think of any disputes where it didn't inflame tensions. Does anybody have any examples? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I imagine it gets linked in situations where reverts are happening, and though I doubt it has never helped, I take your point. However, that's not the only reason to have such a page -- I have the FAs of some departed editors and some current editors on my watchlist, and try to help steward those when I can. The underlying point of FAOWN is that the article content has been more carefully reviewed than that of most articles, so casual edits need to be examined since they are more likely to unwittingly reduce quality. So I'm following FAOWN but not necessarily citing it; citing a policy is not the only impact it has. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
↑↑↑ Exactly this. I follow it (badly at times) but rarely cite it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian's I can't offhand think of any disputes where [linking to FAOWN] didn't inflame tensions got me curious, so I poked around. I see 321 pages that link to FAOWN. I spot checked about a dozen of those in Talk: space and didn't see any that "inflamed tensions". What I did see that surprised me was 90 instances where FAs had pre-emptive edit notices linking to FAOWN. RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
We're randomly picking different articles. I picked up four:

It sounds staggeringly creepy that you've looked into the edit history on this. Maybe your time would have been better spent on reading WP:AGF and applying it to his actions, or maybe reading WP:FAOWN, or maybe just thanking him for both bringing this article up to such a high level and keeping it there?

Rest of the conversation ended up being hatted, by, um, Schrocat -- also the editor citing FAOWN. (Which... sorry, Schrocat, I know you said you rarely cite it, so have to assume it's bad luck that first example I picked up was of you citing it in this way.)

Should revert WP:FAOWN - dont have time educate new editor

on , results in the other editor asking the first editor to elaborate. Conversation just ends there.

This RfC has zero merit. It's just an excuse to get a free pass from WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN.

on an RFC about citevar; I certainly wouldn't describe the resulting conversation as overly productive.

-- found an an example where the conversation actually continued being productive -- but the editor who linked the policy did a very good job at framing it in a "you can make changes, you just need to keep this in mind way". So I'm gonna credit it to that.

GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 15:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, not an exhaustive analysis by any means - but I think it's telling that 75% of editors, in my examples, and editors who we can accept at, most likely, better than the rest of the site at writing (given that's a main argument for having FAOWN), were unable to use that shortcut in a way which helped move the conversation forward. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 16:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I looked at your first link. That shows a discussion where nothing would have helped with the newly arrived editors. I don't know why people think that repeating an edit with no article talk discussion is ok. Well, actually I can guess—it's because they are talented and know they are right. The editor posted on the reverter's user talk(!) and someone else started an article talk with a complaint about the revert. Hello, you are supposed to use article talk to justify a proposed edit. Don't use article talk to snear about a reverter. If someone would like to write an essay explaining all that (and include the need to discuss contested edits on highly reviewed articles), that can be used instead of FAOWN. However, it's no more likely to help than FAOWN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
That sounds like an itneresting essay topic -- social interactions are really interesting to me. For example, I've learnt that when somebody asks me "why" I did something, then that's not a snear -- that's a genuine plea for information. Do you think the essay should also have a line about using edit summaries to communicate why you're making an edit, not just insult other editors or thier contributions? Because, otherwise, the other person will naturally follow WP:BRR, which has just as much status as BRD, and then everything ends up a right old mess! I admit, I'm far from a saint in that regard (... don't ask me my opinions on citation bot), but I'm an adult, I'm fluent in English, and my elementary school was fortunate enough to have a really attentive guidance counselor, who visited us weekly and taught us the importance of talking with others. And then, to counteract that, a mother who was very good at reminding me that if I called somebody weird, then I wasn't allowed to come crying to her when I discovered the consequences of my own actions. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 01:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't want to drag other editors into this so I'll just quote a bit of the first post: "Perhaps actually read what it was added". I think that justifies my use of sneer. Article talk is where you say why you think some change should occur. ANI is where you score points by asserting deficiencies in other people. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I considered an initiative to document sample conversations with new editors, to illustrate ways to communicate effectively with them on problems with their contributions. I didn't pursue it, as the (very small amount of) feedback I received from new page patrollers is that they didn't feel a need for it. If the editors interested in a certain area (such as featured articles) think it might be helpful, though, they could consider it. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The idea of stewardship was that pages would be watched, and vandalism and bad changes quickly remedied. As it is, a substantial number of pages are not watched. As it is, though, people watching the pages spend much of their time correcting not vandalism but poor quality edits from people who take the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit to mean that they can make whatever chnages they like, endowed with the hubris and arrogance that allows them to believe that they know better than every other editor before them. Too many changes are completely pointless; a substantial number are plain wrong. Some attempt to make grammatical changes without fluency in English. These are the people displaying WP:OWN, not the article stewards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I've seen suggestions above and elsewhere that it's up to the reverter to educate the newly arrived editor. Of course that would be ideal, and I've done a bit of that in my time. However, no matter how much time and energy you have, there will come a point where you can't go through it again. The people advocating for education are correct in spirit but the idea is impractical over a long period. That particularly applies for well reviewed articles—there are only a few ways a good article can be improved while there are an unlimited number of ways it can be degraded. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Um, no, that’s covered by WP:CIR. You don’t need this notion of “stewardship” to monitor a page for vandalism and obviously bad edits. The ones displaying “hubris and arrogance” are not good-faith newbies but those established users who act like their version of the page is perfect and untouchable. Assuming everyone who makes an edit you don’t like is either stupid and arrogant or actively malicious and arrogant is a violation of wp:AGF and instinctively treating them as such is a violation of WP:BITE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronebogus (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sign your comments. Virtually no-one that believes that 'their' version of an article is perfect and untouchable and there is a comical quality to invoking AGF after penning and posting that. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Monitoring a page for vandalism and obviously bad edits is stewardship. If it were abolished, we would be forbidden from watching pages and remedying vandalism and bad edits. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not the issue here, and this isn't my argument against FAOWN. Problems arise when prolific editors control what edits are allowed to pass into the article. There is a huge difference between "I know about this subject and MOS guidelines and therefore know that this edit isn't right for the article" and "that isn't how I phrased that sentence when writing it, so I'll revert it because I don't think it is an improvement". Suggesting that FAOWN being abolished would forbid anyone from watching pages and remedying vandalism and bad edits is a misinterpretation of everything that has been said in this thread in favour of revising or removing FAOWN. Becsh (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Becsh it would be useful for this discussion if you could link to a few specific diffs which you believe should not have been reverted. RoySmith (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The "Ownership of content" page distinguishes between ownership behaviour (being overly protective of the current page content to the degree of gatekeeping new contributions) and stewardship behaviour (trying to maintain the quality of writing in an article, in a way that allows for constructive collaboration). Unfortunately, there have been comments in this discussion thread that conflate the two (sometimes treating them as equivalent with a slash between the two words), starting with the section heading. I think it would be helpful to maintain this distinction, so it is clear that monitoring actions aren't part of the behaviour being decried. isaacl (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it is very difficult for reverted/disagreeing editors to distinguish between ownership and stewardship behavior during a dispute. What they see is: He won't let me put my thing in the article. The "because" part (because he's inappropriately owning vs because he's correctly stewarding) is not visible to them. If it were, then the dispute would be resolved already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The other problem (at least for some classes of edits, and adding an infobox to a biography of a famous person is certainly one of those classes) is that the interaction is asymmetric. To the reverted editor, this is the first time he's encountered this. He's read enough of WP:INFOBOX to have learned "infobox good". And enough of WP:BOLD to understand that adding one to an article where it's missing is encouraged.

To the article steward, however, this is the 34th time they've been through this. It is understandably difficult to be quite as warm and fuzzy about it as they were the first time. Even if you stick to vocabulary you would be comfortable using around your grandmother, it can be hard not to let the "Oh no, not again" feeling be palpable. RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. My patience ran thin with the young people changing sentences like "80% of women experience menstrual cramps" to "80% of people" after only seeing that two or three times. The tenth round of "but I want an infobox!" would drive many people mad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that editors get worn down over time, and this is a factor to consider when evaluating responses to an editor trying to make a change. The founder of Stack Overflow wrote about needing a pipeline of new community members advancing in experience so that the job of dealing with the same questions over and over could be transitioned to new editors. Unfortunately, the scale of Wikipedia makes this hard: most articles have few-to-none editors who weigh in on talk page discussions, and most WikiProjects aren't very active. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I think we should be merging up hundreds of inactive/semi-active/former/defunct WikiProjects. If you find a group's page, someone needs to reply to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

When someone edits an article to change factual statements, it is expected (under WP:AGF) that they have read and fully understood the cited sources. If they don't, then WP:CIR applies, although technically it is only an essay whereas WP:FAOWN is a policy. As Dronebogus pointed out, WP:CIR is a harsh mistress. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of the Wikipedia community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact. ie the bum's rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's realistic. When someone changes a factual statement, they might be looking at a different (and possibly better) source than the one that's cited. They might have read but misjudged their comprehension. It's even possible that the article was actually wrong! There's a big gap between "missed this one thing" and "is actually too incompetent to edit Wikipedia".

There's also a big gap between being gently eased out with their dignity intact, and being forcibly ejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If they had a better source they should cite it!!

My stock standard response is: "Take it to the talk page and present your sources there." Very few take up the offer! Changes like this upset me; completely contrary to the sources.

Or this guy, who makes a change despite the presence of a comment explicitly warning against making such a change! (Which of course is retained.)

Asking for sources won't work with this bunch of WP:FRINGE-dwellers, because they insist that they know better than all the mathematicians in the world despite not passing high school maths (for obvious reasons).

WP:CIR calls for these people to get the similar treatment to vandals: warn, and if they persist, block. But without hurting their dignity by telling them it is because they are incompetent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that first edit upsets you. Is there a meaningful difference between secular and non-observant? The ordinary dictionary definitions of these words ("not overtly or specifically religious" and "not careful in observing religious rites, laws, and customs") suggest no particular distinction, and the two are listed as synonyms in online thesauruses. Do we have sources saying something like "Oppenheimer was non-observant but not secular"? I quickly found sources saying Oppenheimer was "secular". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is a meaningful difference. In this context, "non-observant" refers to individuals who identify as Jewish but do not follow its traditional rules, such as eating kosher and strict meat and dairy separation, while "secular" means non-religious. The sentence in question refers to Oppenheimer's family, not Oppenheimer himself, and his father Julius Oppenheimer was deeply involved with the Ethical movement; Felix Adler had performed his wedding ceremony. Which the editor would have known from reading the sources. So why did they make this edit? This is the sort of change that requires a subject expert to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Do we have an article anywhere that explains the difference between "not following the religious rules" and "being non-religious"? Or a couple of reliable sources? I looked, but I only found self-published sources (e.g., Reddit posts or websites from individuals or small groups explaining why they prefer one term over the other). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Jewish secularism is the closest. Now I am not so sure... I fell back on "non-practicing" because I was unsure as to whether they saw the Ethical movement as a secular humanist movement or a religious but not theistic one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Jewish secularism doesn't mention non-observant, and therefore doesn't explain the difference, if any, between the two terms. I understand that you see a difference, but from where I'm sitting, I don't actually have any reason to believe that your revert was based on anything other than your own personal preference. Reverting to the FA nom's personal/individual/subjective understanding of a word isn't IMO exactly a shining example of "non-OWNing stewardship". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I think it’s a fair revert. The common meaning of the word “non-observant” in dictionaries supports it. I don’t think we need to refer to a secondary source beyond that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the common meaning of the word secular in dictionaries works equally well, and there are reliable sources using both words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure; I'm not sure though if you meant to reply to someone else, as this seems to be a separate issue than the one of response fatigue raised by RoySmith? Easing people out graciously is a slow, delicate process that gets tiring to repeat. I agree with WhatamIdoing that a practical problem is how figure out if an editor is truly uninterested in contributing collaboratively, or can learn to collaborate effectively. (And that can be a problem with editors of all levels of experience.) isaacl (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I think it's helpful on this guidance page to maintain the distinction, so we can keep it in mind when guiding editors on the best way to deal with situations when edits are reverted. Experienced editors can use common terminology to refer to the different modes of behaviour, and they can figure out the best way to explain to the editor trying to make a change why the revert was or wasn't appropriate. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't "obviously bad edits"; I think the problem is "subtly bad edits". FAOWN is sort of a "This really is a bad edit, even if you can't see it because the problem is non-obvious. I don't want to spend any more of my time explaining this, so just trust me when I tell you that this actually is worse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s what FAQs are for. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m seeing a conflation of obviously incompetent non-contributors who want to place factually incorrect information into an article and good-faith, competent users who naively made the mistake of disagreeing with FA owners/stewards on subjective issues like infoboxes. CIR is a defense against the former. FAOWN is a weapon against the latter. One is “we will never say the Earth is flat because there are no reliable sources saying it is, even if 500 people ask us”. The other is “I reserve the right to revert any edit on this page without explanation and dismiss any suggestions for edits I don’t like without explanation, no matter what they are, who makes them or how many people make them”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a characterization of how you perceive some editors' behaviour; it doesn't accurately reflect what FAOWN actually permits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but FAOWN is still unnecessary in the light of CIR and Wikipedia:Reckless. No policy should encourage or appear to endorse ownership behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

CIR is just an essay which the admins seldom enforce. Your characterisation of FAOWN is wrong. All it says is "consider when you are making an edit that many other editors have already looked at this, so your edit may be wrong and probably does not have consensus." FAOWN does not endorse edits being removed without explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

CIR isn’t just an essay. It condenses a general philosophy given very real weight by many, many policies and guidelines that admins definitely enforce. Basically it says ”good faith disruption is still disruption”. A similar case with wp:reckless, which is actually a better summary of what FAOWN is trying to say. The term FAOWN still sounds like it’s making an exception for to FAs for WP:OWN when it does no such thing. If FAOWN is kept it needs to be split from this page entirely and turned into a new guideline about exercising caution while editing FAs and discussing major changes on the talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Why not just rename it FARECKLESS? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Kind of long, and doing so would require moving it to a a subsection of a section of a different guideline. Splitting is the best choice. Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I would propose again that a moved and substantially reworked section at WP:BOLD, with the shortcuts WP:FA CAUTION and WP:LESSBOLD would be optimally calculated to reach the ideal audience with the ideal message. The editors who most need to hear the relevant guidance are newer editors just being familiarized with the concept of bold editing: the point at which we are onboarding them to this aspect of community philosophy that encourages them to dig in is the optimal time to also innocculate them with the understanding that some pages have gone through exceptional amounts of vetting and a consensus process balancing many different perspectives, and that the further up that scale of previous community input, the less confident they should be in quick exercises in individual decision making without first discussing it with others currently enagegd inw orking on the article.

That shift not only puts the emphasis on the right editors earlier in the process, it also us to do away with the existing wording/location which, yes, for certain editors, clearly does create some degree of messaging that WP:OWN is relaxed where FAs are concerned. Some editors will take the smallest indication that they get special prerogative for content they have contributed heavily to and run with it: that is both completely predictable and eminantly evident from past disruption in this area. Those editors may not be very numerous and they may in many cases be otherwise very industrious and valuable contributors, but that propensity to see license to be defensive of their previous work is beyond any reasonable doubt a rhetorical trap to which some veteran editors are prone--and which FAOWN currently does enable, whatever the original intent behind it. The relocation, reworking, and new shortcuts should therefor be an all-around net positive. It should in fact have a lot to like in it for those who want to create a presumption of value in existing versions of GAs and FAs, insofar as it creates a cite-able policy that can be held up in front of new volunteers, with a message that essentially boils down to "no running in these halls". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Whatever else happens, I agree this section needs some rewording. It makes logical sense when read in the context of the rest of WP:OWN. But most people won't read it that way; they will be clicking on some WP:FAOWN link that was left for them, probably after having some good-faith edit of their reverted. The first few sentences will make sense, but when they get to Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership they won't have a clue what that's about. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Returning to the concept of stewardship, nobody is obligated or expected to stick around forever. Most topics should be updated at some point. Industrial processes like 3D printing will change, people like Barack Obama will live their lives, and even historic sites receive new scholarship. Karahan Tepe, one of the oldest known human villages, had a major excavation in 2023. Any of those 3 topics could have been made into a Featured Article circa 2006, and all would need significant changes to offer an NPOV summary of the best available sources in 2026. A lot of Harvey Einbinder's 1964 criticism of Britannica came down to articles just not being updated. FAOWN seems out of sync with the few times I've seen it invoked. It cites "where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature" but we shouldn't discourage people from bringing in new sources, and the issues seem to be people adding fun facts and fiddling with the formatting. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content

See also essays

Reverting and detriment

This is at odds with Wikimedia Foundation policy in the wake of Caesar DePaço and needs amending to reflect actual reality

Abolish FAOWN and possibly “stewardship” entirely?