Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping

Proposing as a policy
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)


 * Hi 9t5. If this is going to become a policy, the discussion needs to be much more widely advertised. I would say listings at WP:VPP and T:CENT would be the minimum. However, the community at large generally dislikes having its time wasted, and to be very blunt there is a snowball's chance in hell that this proposal is adopted in its current form. As one egregious flaw in the current proposal, the definitions section is not something you see in any other Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's policies need to resemble other Wikipedia policies. This proposal is ready for workshopping, not for adoption. As it stands, there is currently clear consensus against the proposal in the RfC below, but even if the tide turns in the week remaining in the RfC there is not sufficient vetting to become a policy. Your options are as follows:
 * Withdraw the RfC and leave a note at WP:VPI to seek broader input regarding the proposal, and be prepared for opposition to the concept, not just the wording or the location of the policy. Bright-line rules are generally disfavored; there is a reason we only have a handful of hard limits on Wikipedia.
 * Let the RfC expire and then pursue broader input.
 * I would strongly recommend option 1, because it saves both your time and the time of people potentially reviewing the RfC. Again: even if the tide suddenly turns in favor of this proposal, there is not sufficient consensus demonstrated to promote to policy, so it is not like leaving the RfC running is going to magically turn this into one. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 03:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @HouseBlaster Thanks! I was a bit unsure what I was supposed to do. This was helpful. 9t5 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: WP:SCOPING - Policy Proposal
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.
 * 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 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)
 * @Skynxnex Thank you for the valuable input. 9t5 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * @9t5 we can acknowledge things are aggressive without using unrelated violent language or imagery for them. Skynxnex (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * Please read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. 48JCL 13:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's very obvious you were being sarcastic. 48JCL 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, I should've linked WP:CIR instead. 48JCL 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ? What is this about? <b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">48</b><b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">JCL</b> 17:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * While I appreciate the work the proposer has put into this, this is nowhere close to being an adequate proposal. Collaborative workshopping through WP:VPIL and pre-discussions at WP:VPP are generally the minimum I would like to see for any policy proposal. Curbon7 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 And I appreciate your feedback. Noted. 9t5 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Question. Does Barring concurrent nominations: The Nominator shall not initiate concurrent deletion discussions on more than one page created by the Contributor mean no one can mass-nominate mass-created articles? So that in order to process hundreds of mass-created stubs, some of which were created in seconds, in some cases hundreds of such creations in a single day using a template and sourcing to a database, they'd have to be done one by one over a period of literal years? I'm sure I must be misunderstanding, but that means a creator could create so much faster than we could process AfDs...it would be overwhelming to the AfD process. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

“Scope” Imagery
The imagery plays on the word "scope," which, in the context of this essay, refers to the range within which a nominator operates when making multiple, concurrent nominations (WP:MULTINOM) for articles contributed by the same editor.

If an editor were not motivated by a desire to target another editor, the sheer number of articles awaiting review via AfC would statistically indicate a very low likelihood that the nominations would coincidentally involve articles nominated by the same nominator and contributed by the same contributor.

In short, this behavior constitutes harassment and undermines the perceived integrity of all editors.

Wikipedia has moved past its "anyone can edit it, so it's not a reliable source" phase. The project is now seen as heavily vetted and fact-checked. So why tolerate such juvenile nominations?

When nominations come with a limited editorial scope and intent to target — I found the scope of a gun pointed at a hand writing felt like an accurate representation of the behavior. 9t5 (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Valereee question
 Valereee asked:  "Question. Does Barring concurrent nominations: The Nominator shall not initiate concurrent deletion discussions on more than one page created by the Contributor mean no one can mass-nominate mass-created articles?"

 The proposed policy states:  2. Barring concurrent nominations: The Nominator shall not initiate concurrent deletion discussions on more than one page created by the Contributor.</li> <li>This section does not apply when a nomination for deletion includes pages/subpages that are directly related to the Nominator's original nomination.</li> <li> This section does not apply when an editor is tagging articles for speedy deletion in response to vandalism, libel, or copyright concerns. </li> <li>This section does not bar other editors from nominating a page created by the Contributor. <li>Subsequent Nominator(s) are subject to the contents of the Policy.</li>

I studied policy. You won’t find holes in the language. You’ll just find editors unhappy that one person alone was capable of writing it without their permission.

You can read my views on the need for a formally written set of Wikipedia policies over at Hypocrites ! You can also read my views on herd mentality during consensus voting over at WP:HERD.

9t5 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That is the wrong takeaway from this. Nobody is unhappy you were able to write the proposal by yourself and without their permission. People are unhappy that the proposal reads nothing like a Wikipedia policy, which could be fixed if you collaborate with others. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also give you some context to Valereee's question. In the past, editors have created thousands of stubs in a very short amount of time, using semi-automated tools. This was the subject of much discussion, culminating in an ArbCom case. In that case, one editor had created over 93,000 articles on athletes which were essentially carbon-copies with some numbers changed (dates, year of participation, etc.), many of which are not notable. Cesare Toraldo is a example representative of the quality of those articles. That editor would regularly create 20–60 articles per day. These articles are not vandalism because they were created in good faith. There is no negative information, so they cannot be libelous. And they are so short there is no possibility of copyright concerns (see WP:LIMITED). Now, let's estimate that the editor in question created 10,000 articles which are not carbon-copies. That leaves 83,000 carbon copies. Let's say that 90% of those are notable. (And that is a very high estimate; I have not done the numbers myself, but I would not be surprised if the percentage of notable articles was substantially lower.) That leaves 8,300 which need to be deleted. Assuming none are relisted (and that is a very implausible assumption) it would take one editor 22 years to get through them all if limited to one nomination per week. How would you recommend that we deal with this? Over 22 years? If they are considered directly related to the Nominator's original nomination (emphasis in original) because they were created by the same person, that is a loophole large enough to render this policy toothless. Some other questions that I have:<ol><li>It is very unclear how this would work with WP:CSD. There is a limit of one deletion discussion per week, but CSD tags are not deletion discussions. There are an explicit carve-outs for copyright violations, libel, and vandalism, but there are plenty of CSDs which fall into none of these categories. Why is there a carve-out for some CSDs if this policy would not apply to CSD? Or, if it does apply to CSD, why does it say deletion discussion? </li><li>How does this interact with WP:PROD? PROD is not a deletion discussion, after all.</li><li>Are we sure having five separate editors nominate five articles within a week is less bitey than one editor nominating the same five articles within the same time period?</li></ol>Valereee and I are not asking these questions to be annoying, we are asking them because they are questions which need answers before people can support the proposal. Policy writing is hard, after all. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * HouseBlaster, I understand and I’m truly not annoyed by editors picking it apart. After all, that’s how any policy becomes airtight to prevent issues when it’s officially adopted. However, Valereee’s question had its answer directly below it. If a user were to mass create articles — that would be a form of vandalism would it not? This proposed policy clearly stated that it does not apply in the case of speedy deletion. Much like I am open to being challenged, so are those who challenge me. No?  I don’t mindlessly go against the grain just to make others angry. I do it because these are my genuine beliefs, and I do not intend to subdue my authentic thoughts on an issue simply because nobody in the discussion agrees with me. That’s not to say I expect special treatment. I am all for protocol. I closed the RfC like you suggested, did I not? 9t5 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @9t5: Mass creating articles is certainly not vandalism. Per WP:VAND: (emphasis in original). The editor was operating in good faith, so it is not vandalism. Sure, it might be disruptive, but it is not vandalism. The proposal says it does not apply to speedy deletion in response to vandalism, libel, or copyright concerns. Speedy deletion happens all the time for reasons other than vandalism, libel, or copyright concerns. See WP:CSD for the full list, but to pick one example: WP:C1 is for empty categories. That is hardly vandalism, libel, or a copyright concern. To be eligible for C1, a category needs to be empty for a full week. Would I have to wait a week to nominate two empty categories created by the same editor for deletion? House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * HouseBlaster Okay. Well then if there are mass articles being created that aren’t vandalism, aren’t copyright issues and don’t contain libel.. then YES, one editor should not be able to go and nominate all of them. If it is so pressing these articles be nominated,  wait one week until your current nomination discussion regarding that editor is completed and then go and nominate another. Any ACTUAL content that requires mass nomination, will attract the likes of other editors who as you can clearly see: "2. Barring concurrent nominations: The Nominator shall not initiate concurrent deletion discussions on more than one page created by the Contributor.</li>    <li>This section does not apply when a nomination for deletion includes pages/subpages that are directly related to the Nominator's original nomination.</li>   <li>This section does not apply when an editor is tagging articles for speedy deletion in response to vandalism, libel, or copyright concerns.</li>  <li> This section does not bar other editors from nominating a page created by the Contributor.      <li>Subsequent Nominator(s) are subject to the contents of the Policy.</li>" 9t5 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * HouseBlaster Your point is that you think that an editor should be able to nominate as many articles by a single contributor as possible at the same time. My point is that I think that they shouldn’t. We’ve hit a wall. 9t5 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @9t5, again, that would take literal years. 10,000 articles x one week = over 190 years. And that's just for the articles of a single editor who has done this kind of mass-creation? I'll have to !vote No on this. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Valereee You’re telling me that in this situation, where someone mass-creates 10,000 articles, the nominator is going to initiate 10,000 AfD discussions? Or are you just not willing to admit that they would absolutely be speedy deleted because you’re mad that I already included a section in the proposed policy that exempted speedy deletion cases? I also don’t know why you’re casting a vote, the RfC was withdrawn. You’re a little late. 9t5 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion often isn't possible, as in many cases of mass creation, the articles don't fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. There've been mass-deletion discussions (multiple mass-created articles handled in a single AfD) and there've been mass-draftification discussions that included ~1000 articles. And I didn't cast a vote, I saw that the RfC had been closed after I'd responded to your ping here yesterday. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee There have been many? Do you have a source? I’d love to check them out. 9t5 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @9t5: Village pump (proposals)/Archive 201 and Village pump (proposals)/Archive 205 are the two that I know of which ~1,000 articles were draftified. As for straight-up deletion discussions, you can peruse the archives of WP:AFD to find many bundled nominations. (I would still appreciate a response to my questions about how this would interact with PROD or CSD for reasons other than vandalism, libel, or copyright issues.) House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @HouseBlaster that’s absolutely wild. 1,000 draftified… have we not sought to create policy surrounding situations like this? I also honor truth and respect when someone comes and presents me a valid argument. The argument has become valid in my eyes. Whereas it already was to you, I was not aware of this type of occurrence and don’t take the word of another without citation. This is would imagine you can understand, given we edit for Wikipedia. I appreciate the source. Give me a moment to reply to your other comments. 9t5 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @9t5: Okay, but you have still not answered my other questions. How does this interact with WP:CSD for reasons that are not vandalism, libel, or copyright? How does this interact with PROD, which is not a deletion discussion? House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Status of this page
I do think tagging it as a failed proposal would be beneficial: it signals to people that the ideas expressed in the essay are contrary to consensus. Multiple concurrent nominations are not inherently harassment, and there is no carve-out to WP:AGF because of a WP:MULTINOM. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)