Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 8) (bot |
Concerns on possible WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR over certain articles and the impact on other editors. Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 35:
::::I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97#top|talk]]) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::You're countinuing your comments with a negative tone to me. I already know what a 3RR means in the past and I already stop the edit war this instant. If you can accept my apology we will move on. But if you refuse to apologize to me, I am not replyting to you ever again. [[Special:Contributions/24.80.117.27|24.80.117.27]] ([[User talk:24.80.117.27|talk]]) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
== Possible [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR|Ownership Behaviour]] on ''Star Trek'' Articles ==
{{quote|It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.|source=[[WP:OWNERSHIP|Wikipedia:Ownership of content]]}}
It is a grave concern of what I believe to be your potential style of [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR|ownership behaviour]] on, what appears to be mostly ''[[Star Trek]]'' articles (from what I can tell, having only checked a few pages). While a level of [[WP:STEWARDSHIP|stewardship]] is generally beneficial to the upkeep of pages, my awareness of your recent actions relating to edits on ''[[Star Trek: Discovery]]'' are what has concerned me; granted, the most notable example involves an edit from myself, so I am not going to disregard an interpretation of [[WP:BIAS|bias]], but I do firmly feel the examples below are objective and can be readily identified by other, perhaps more, neutral editors.
{{quote|In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article [...]|source=[[WP:OWNERSHIP#Single-editor ownership|Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Single-editor ownership]]}}
The [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Star_Trek:_Discovery page statistics] shows 81.9% of the page's content was added by you and 48.2% of edits (any size) were also by you. Individually, it may not be a sign of ownership, but in the context of the wider [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek|Star Trek Project on Wikipedia]], there is a clear trend, which is anomalous for one user to have such a major share over so many pages. For reference, comparable series main pages and statistics for the most authored and edited only, included below:
*[[Star Trek: The Original Series]]: 12.9% authorship, 26.2% edit count
*[[Star Trek: The Animated Series]]: 18.2%, 13.1%
*[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]: 24.4%, 25.8%
*[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]]: 18.1%, 37.6%
*[[Star Trek: Voyager]]: 25.0%, 24.2%
*[[Star Trek: Enterprise]]: 65.1%, 43.2%
*'''[[Star Trek: Discovery]]: 81.9%, 48.2%'''
*[[Star Trek: Picard]]: 84.0%, 48.2%
*[[Star Trek: Lower Decks]]: 85.9%, 42.9%
*[[Star Trek: Prodigy]]: 79.9%, 35.6%
*[[Star Trek: Strange New Worlds]]: 94.5%, 46.0%
All of the figures for series after, and including, ''Star Trek: Discovery'' are attributed to you. With the exception of ''Prodigy'' (by approximately 6%), the trend is that the newer the article, the fewer contributions remain from other editors. Furthermore, the unaffected individual pages are distributed over several authors.
For a comparison of other series, to highlight just how untypical it is for a single user to dominate, as the data suggests, there are other examples; none show a higher level of authorship, and only a handful a higher edit count, attributable to a single editor.
'''Linear TV and streaming series''':
*[[SpongeBob SquarePants]]: 29.9% authorship, 19.9% edit count
*[[Kamp Koral: SpongeBob's Under Years]]: 36.5%, 19.9%
*[[The Patrick Star Show]]: 19.8%, 50.9%
'''Multi-series TV franchise''':
*[[JAG (TV series)]]: 25% authorship, 24.8% edit count
*[[NCIS (TV series)]]: 15.9%, 38.7%
*[[NCIS: Los Angeles]]: 8.8%, 42.6%
*[[NCIS: New Orleans]]: 35.6%, 29.8%
*[[NCIS: Hawaiʻi]]: 24.6%, 30.5%
'''Sci-fi multi-series TV franchise''':
*[[Stargate SG-1]]: 59.3% authorship, 18.7% edit count
*[[Stargate Atlantis]]: 32.9%, 26.6%
*[[Stargate Universe]]: 43.8%, 21.0%
*[[Stargate Origins]]: 21.1%, 57.1%
'''Sci-fi (film) series with a comparable background, era and size''':
*[[Star Wars (film)]]: 23.3% authorship, 24.6% edit count
*[[The Empire Strikes Back]]: 79%, 18.3%
*[[Return of the Jedi]]: 11.7%, 16.1%
*[[Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace]]: 26.3%, 26.7%
*[[Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones]]: 10.5%, 26.4%
*[[Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith]]: 9.0%, 27.3
*[[Star Wars: The Force Awakens]]: 33.8%, 30.2%
*[[Star Wars: The Last Jedi]]: 31.5%, 33.5%
*[[Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker]]: 13.3%, 25.9%
''All quoted statistics can be accessed via the respective page histories, then following "Page statistics" near the top of the page. Alternatively, by going to [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org xtools.wmflabs.org] and typing/pasting the page title into the relevant box. Data directly quoted and accurate, as of time of posting.''
Although no individual set is necessarily an exact match on background, averaging the page size, time since creation and Wikipedia interest, there are no other examples, which show the same trend. I am also confident that if another potential example, or however many, is used, the trend will remain an exception. Even when considering minor edits, general upkeep and possible restructuring, it is substantially higher for ''Star Trek''.
{{quote|If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages [[WP:WAR|edit wars]], try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page.|source=[[WP:OWNERSHIP#Single-editor ownership|Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Single-editor ownership]]}}
Actions likely to be deemed hostile include your multiple reversions (2 in 24 hours; 1 after) on a [[WP:RELIABLE|reliably sourced/referenced]] single-sentence addition, attempt to misuse policy and unofficial policy pages ([[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:BRD]]) to justify the action, as well as aversion to the discussion on the [[Talk:Star Trek: Discovery|talk page]]. Other hostile actions, such as [[WP:PULLRANK|using your edit count]] to prioritise your opinion as an "experienced editor" and using [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Rerun_ratings_for_streaming_shows|another talk page]] to increase your aggression through phrases, such as "offending user" to a new style you authored.
{{quote|If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership.
*An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
*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.
*"Do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."
*"I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." (misapplying [[WP:AINTBROKE]])
|source=[[WP:OWNERSHIP#Examples of ownership behaviour|Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Examples of ownership behaviour]] (''Bulleted points have been transcluded and do not repeat every example stated in the linked section.'')}}
I won't repeat and explain them all, but those are the ones I feel have been met, and you can consider which, where, how and when. They can be highlighted, but it is less subjective to not do so gratuitously.
{{quote|Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith]].|source=[[WP:OWNERSHIP#Resolving ownership issues|Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Resolving ownership issues]]}}
I chose to bring this matter up because, in my own view, there is a consistent trend in behaviour, which may be detrimental to the overall development of editors and the articles you aim to improve. This is not intended to disparage further contributions, or a request to discard your interests; it is an important point, so that you do not continue to act with the traits of an [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR|article owner]], where there are other editors who may be more ''blunt'' or feel depreciated by your zeal.
While I am in no way asserting there are no other editors who may have taken similar individual actions, or may not have the same concern as I am expressing, I feel the issues I have identified on standards, not any individual edit, should be reflected on, rather than responded with a rushed defence. I have written this here because it isn't about any one page or edit. To put it another way: it's your style, rather than your substance, that has a problem.
I support [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on improvements/concerns, even if [[WP:NOTCLUELESS|I am not part of it]], but I do not support individuals asserting a dominance and resorting to hostile tactics. So, please, do reflect on your actions, because I am unlikely to be the only one to have noticed. -- [[w:en:User:Bacon Noodles|<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size:115%;">'''Bacon Noodles'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Bacon Noodles|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bacon_Noodles|contribs]] • [[c:Special:ListFiles/Bacon_Noodles|uploads]]) 22:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
| |||