Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping
Proposing as a policy[edit]
This is a basic protection that all Wikipedians would benefit from. There is no reason to use it as a general guideline when the criteria for identifying this behavior is so straight forward AND it constitutes harassment. I urge my community of fellow Wikipedians to welcome this as a new policy on the project. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC: WP:SCOPING - Policy Proposal[edit]
 |
|
Do you support the enactment of WP:SCOPING as an official policy on Wikipedia? 9t5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's an unnecessarily restrictive measure better addressed by Wikipedia's harrassment policies. BoldGnome (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: How is it restrictive? It just prevents a nominator from nominating multiple, unrelated articles by the same editor until the previous one closes. It doesn’t prevent other editors from nominating other articles by the nominee for deletion. It just prevents all of the things outlined in WP:WITCHHUNT that are, as of current, not enforced and can be easily passed off as good faith edits — when in actuality they’re just targeted and harassing nominations in quick succession.. clearly disrupting the peace of the community & retention of new editors. This is a common ground policy that absolutely doesn’t do anything other than slow down how fast one single user can nominate pages created by a specific user. The only argument against this is enjoyment of tyranny & lack of desire to address the decline of Wikipedia.
So.. if you nominate someone’s article and see another article they created that you want to nominate, either wait a week and come back to it.. or, if the article is really that bad and in need of deletion, this policy outlines exceptions for speedy deletion, copyright violations, vandalism, etc. If it doesn’t meet the criteria for speedy deletion and it’s really still that in need of nomination.. someone else will either come along and do it… or just wait ONE WEEK. That’s it. The ONLY person hurt by this is someone who wants to harass an editor in a manner laid out in WP:WITCHHUNT.
- Comment: How is it restrictive? It just prevents a nominator from nominating multiple, unrelated articles by the same editor until the previous one closes. It doesn’t prevent other editors from nominating other articles by the nominee for deletion. It just prevents all of the things outlined in WP:WITCHHUNT that are, as of current, not enforced and can be easily passed off as good faith edits — when in actuality they’re just targeted and harassing nominations in quick succession.. clearly disrupting the peace of the community & retention of new editors. This is a common ground policy that absolutely doesn’t do anything other than slow down how fast one single user can nominate pages created by a specific user. The only argument against this is enjoyment of tyranny & lack of desire to address the decline of Wikipedia.
- 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes: I am the proposer of the policy. 9t5 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. Feel like this is way too similar to WP:HOUND. 48JCL 19:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- No (maybe too soon?) a proposal created less than two weeks ago by a single editor has not been vetted enough by the community to become policy. It'd be interesting to see if there could be some consensus about additions to existing policies such as Wikipedia:Harassment; or perhaps to be reworked as a guideline supplement to our policies. I also think the term (and logo as it exists on the proposed policy), "scoping", is overly niche and overly associated with violent actions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- No Maybe some of the content from this page could be added to the existing WP:Harassment policy if there's consensus to do so, but otherwise, I don't see why this page can't just exist as an essay that further expands on the current Harassment policy/WP:HOUND. Some1 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is needless policy creep; it's adequately covered by WP:5P4 ("respect") and WP:HOUND. Also, I deeply object to § Definitions, which uselessly defines terms that are eminently understandable or could be glossed with brackets the first time they occur in the text. It makes it look like a legal document or a piece of bureaucratic jargon. I am sorely tempted to remove it for these reasons. Cremastra (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)