Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it's an unnecessarily restrictive measure better addressed by Wikipedia's harrassment policies. BoldGnome (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
9t5 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: I am the proposer of the policy. 9t5 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Feel like this is way too similar to WP:HOUND. 48JCL 19:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Skynxnex Thank you for the valuable input. 9t5 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex I hope you don’t mind me jumping back in for second to add that the aggressive nature of the imagery (being that of a scope on a weapon) is purposeful. As I feel the action of selective scoping an editor to be aggressive and callous. 9t5 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@9t5 we can acknowledge things are aggressive without using unrelated violent language or imagery for them. Skynxnex (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex I’m so sorry! My apologies. That’s my fault. You see.. I don’t believe in censoring references to things that are potentially related to something that could potentially be related to violence. Seems a bit 1984 to me :) I’ll try better next time. 9t5 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnexyou should really check out WP:WITCHHUNT ! They’re making fun of the burning of innocent civilians at the stake over at that one :’( 9t5 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. 48JCL 13:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL My sincerest apologies, but I am not sure what personal attack you are referring to. I clearly was saying that I appreciated Skynxnex’s invaluable input! :) 9t5 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very obvious you were being sarcastic. 48JCL 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, I should've linked WP:CIR instead. 48JCL 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL, please refrain from personal attacks (see WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS). It is not appropriate to call an editor incompetent in a manner meant to insult them rather than a technical one in which the editor truly is not able to read or write. Thank you! 9t5 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? What is this about? 48JCL 17:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply, briefly I hope, to both comments. It is misusing the term "censorship" to say that I think it'd be best for our policies to not use a niche term that invokes the imagery of a violent act. And as above, it was just one thing that I thought would make likely unsuitable for a policy. Not that I would always be opposed to something that does it nor that I wish to censor any particular ideas. But we have to pick and choose what becomes policy.
As for WP:WITCHHUNT, I'd probably oppose that essay as named and constructed from becoming policy as well. Using witch hunts as a metaphor for other activities is more common and understandable for the English speaking world, I'd say. But I also didn't mean for this to be the main subject of my opposition. Skynxnex (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Skynxnex, you might be surprised to know that you have just stumbled upon the very definition of censorship. See, if you were to say that your opinion is for the imagery used to not be in reference to something you deem violent.. that would not be censorship. However, to advocate for policies to be put in place to ban the use of such imagery.. would be censorship. Hope that helps! :) 9t5 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we have much else to discuss about this but I would suggest for the future, and perhaps retract now, that you don't accuse fellow editors who engage with your proposals in good faith of "censorship" and of engaging in "a bit 1984" behavior. Nothing I have advocated for or proposed (notably, I've proposed no additional policies in this discussion) meets any meaningful definition of censorship. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm just coming back to this after I've been gone for a bit. I agree with the others above that this could need some work. However, I'd be open to supporting it after it went through at least some peer editing. Neutral for now. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not under that name. "Scoping" has too many meanings and overlaps with questions of how we scope articles. Beyond that it overlaps with WP:HOUND (and our WP:HARASSMENT policy.) If there are actual proposals for policy changes here and not just personal opinions and musings, they should be applied to those pages instead, and only spun off from them if they turn out to be too long (unlikely.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Selective_scoping&oldid=1232999245"