SmashWiki talk:Ownership

Support

• Support, as nom.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 01:48, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

• Full support this has been an issue for too long. A policy set in place will, if nothing else, give us something to point to when smashers get confused as to why their own page isn't up to their discretion. Serpent King 01:51, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support Parroting Serpent. This will definitely paint a clearer picture as to how people should treat their own smasher articles, especially a select few people...not pointing any fingers... Disaster Flare (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support, honestly I'm surprised it's taken this long for such a policy to be realized. Alex Parpotta (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support. No additional comment. MHStarCraft 10:37, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support. How was this not one of the first policies on this site? -- Her Majesty, Queen Junko, 13:49, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support. I think the Rauquaza07 situation sums up why this is a useful policy. BSTIK (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
• Support I don't see any issues. SmashWiki has long had conflict of interest issues and this will set in stone that such edits are unacceptable. RoyboyX Talk 16:57, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
• Total support. I've had my share of bouncing conflict of interest edits, and in fact, one of the examples provided were done by me. It would be great if we had a clear set of rules outlining what people can and can't do. We should also have rules against 'owners' pretending they are not, just so they can write what they want and nobody will take a second look! Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 20:42, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
• I support this, especially watching the whole Smash 4 Marth fiasco explode when it did. I added a bit to the page addressing my concerns with this edit summary from Brian, personally I see no excuse that a user can make demanding that no one can edit a page unless they talk to a specific person (his comments were directed at YoshiKong so he could have been referring specifically to him, but the point still stands. At least, I think it does lol). - EndGenuity (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Believe it or not, Brian was arguably the main impetus for me wanting to create this policy, but I ended up leaving out of disgust over how poorly adminship at the time handled the entire fiasco before I could even start drafting it. The entire Rayquaza07 incident happening when it did was just a happy accident.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 23:33, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Really now? Lmao, I don't blame you then, given his attitude towards the page I expected things to blow up sooner or later and was only mildly surprised that a three day long edit war on the page took place (miraculously I was the only person to edit it on the 12th of August in my timezone :D). I'll buy it, I want to be constructive for the wiki but I would never dedicate myself to spending that amount of time trying to prevent the use of nuclear weapons (hence why I only edited the page after things seemed to subside). Honestly, who would? (oh wait XD) Imo that and the recent Rayquaza07 incident (the only thing surprising me about that is the guy's complete and utter tenacity) demonstrates exactly what is wrong with letting a person or group dictate who edits a page and what goes on it. It's both annoying and stressful. - EndGenuity (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Neutral

• Neutral leaning towards support. I think some of the wording should be a little more firm before we pass this, especially for userpages. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:14, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Ownership based on having edited the most or created the article

I am not so hot on this point, but I'll leave it. Reason being that someone who does the most for an article is most likely one of the most knowledgeable on its topic (see me and Debug menu (SSBM)), so while it can't be the basis for an argument, it should at least be considered. Serpent King 23:49, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

If there was such an argument, then the reason should be that 'they are more knowledgeable', and as such should be expected to provide proof. The purpose of the clause here doesn't cover that. It instead is to say, in black and white, "You cannot say this article BELONGS to YOU, no matter how much you've done to it." Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 08:48, 16 July 2017 (EDT)