Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Suicide

I wonder if there's a way to express this concept that doesn't reference (and wikilink) suicide? The use of 'rope' and 'hanging' is direct and graphic, complete with diagram and reference to a hangman at the switch (actually not consistent with the proverb on self-hanging). What seems to make it more distasteful is the mutual wikilinking with the essay Wikipedia Is Not Therapy, thus collaterally linking in real psychological disturbance and suicidality. It is surprising to see that the primary creator of this is a senior Wikipedian with admin, oversight and arbitration roles. It is clear there has been a need to assert boundaries under pressure. But it seems strange this essay makes it into Wikipedia space in this form, yet User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables does not even though it seems to address an important reality (which perhaps does not want to be more widely admitted). Sighola2 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On a different note, I mentioned WP:ROPE recently, and I had the unintended response that I was implying an editor would hang themselves, as oppose to being a net asset if they were unblocked. I've added to the article that the title and the WP:ROPE shortcut can be be taken as uncivil. Perhaps this essay should be renamed, or merged with Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If they are that incompentent they shouldn't be here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just noting for the record that:
  • If someone thinks we are actually trying to compel them to kill themselves, they clearly haven't actually read this and are probably too emotionally unstable to be editing in a collaborative environment like this
  • I kept the unblockables essay in my userspce because I wanted to keep it saying what I wanted it to say, and not be watered down by fake civility crusaders making up silly objections. Until now that hadn't been a problem with this essay, but if a consensus should emerge to transform this into a piece of cuddly, everybody-gets-a-gold-star nonsense I will recreate it in my userspace, and I imagine it will kepp getting cited by others in discussions as it has been for five years now.

Hope that clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Move protected for 6 months Mike Cline (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Give them enough rope → Wikipedia:Give second chances – This essay should be moved to Wikipedia:Give second chances (a recent good-faith move by User:Alakzi to that name was reverted). The page already caries the notice "Using the rope analogy directly can be regarded as uncivil and a lack of good faith", and the current title is not conducive to aiding misguided editors to become more amenable and productive. See also the section preceding this one. There is nothing to lose, and much to be gained, by a rename. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - Common guys, let's not squeeze all the juice out of the place in our attempt to be PC. It's a colorful metaphor, not an invitation to a hanging. (And, BTW, in the history of the world there have been far more legal hangings then there have been illegal lychings. For centuries hanging was the normal way of carrying out a legal death sentence.) BMK (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move and rewrite. The essay and article name are easily misunderstood, and wording in suicide metaphers is hardly civil, not even funny. On top of moving, it should also been used less. (I have seen one editor made unhappy by the usage, which is one too many.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move for the same reason as I opposed the deletion, just because you don't like it doesn't means it must change. I'd also like to point out that [civility] only counts when the person wants it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I said you were. What i did say was that you seem intent on changing an essay to say something else other than what it says. That would be better done by creating a new essay that expresses your point of view, instead of watering down this essay so it doesn't scare people. None of which has anything to do with why you saw fit to resort to personal attacks in a move discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, you've got that right; my only objection is that it "scares" people. Indeed, it's got absolutely nothing to do with it being a bad-faith assumption used against good-faith editors. And I have responded justly to a show of complete lack of empathy. Furthermore, to equate a cry of exasperation to the contempt with which the establishment treat folk is beyond ludicrous; "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is only a workable model in an equitable community. Why are you so intent on causing offence? Alakzi (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move: My comment at the MfD are still mostly relevant. If this essay is being used to advocate for suicide, that's disgusting. But it also isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This essay is a colorful adage with a good teaching behind it. If the essay is being misused, that's a reflection of the user who misuses it, not necessarily on the essay itself. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move And all other attempts to turn this into a histrionic, handwringing, wishy-washy essay. I had taken this off my watchlist because it had been stable for so long and was widely cited in discussions, I figured it was off on its own now and would remain stable, but apparently we have to now re-write so that people who don't understand what a metaphor is won't be scared by it and think we are actually going to cause them to be hanged. I'd rather see it deleted than see any of that happen. If you want an essay that says soemthing other than what this one is says, write it already. Add it to the "see also" section on this essay if you like, but don't destroy this oft-cited essay just because you don't persoanlyl happen to like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the opposes it's not like I'm the lone person in disagreeing with your interp. You appear to be in a very small minority. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The concern with the suicide analogy has been outstanding since 2014. I don't think the new title needs to be the final one, but it's a start towards finding a better one. Let's all be frank: that this is a political correctness debate. Much like the modern display of the Confederate flag, it needs to be decided if negative reactions need to be balanced with historical usage. I'm OK with the content having some references to rope, but the title having rope as the main theme goes against WP:AGF, which is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's five pillars. Yes, some editors will ultimately be indefinitely blocked, but the positive is that others go on to be (more) productive.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal would change the scope of the essay. Since there's nothing to stop any editor from writing a "give second chances" essay afresh. moving this page to form the basis of an essay with a different scope would be effectively deleting the present essay. There has just now been a closed MfD in which the idea of deleting this essay was opposed almost universally. Therefore, there should not now be a proposal to effect the same deletion by a different means. Also: fuck the use of "triggering" for bullshit censorship. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move We have been linking to this with a context for years now, changing it now would remove that context and make countless comments make no sense at all. The essay is trying to get something very specific across and the current title does a good job doing that. Chillum 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Title aside, I don't think anyone has a problem with retaining the essay's theme of giving a last chance, and the editor will either stay out of trouble of just get reblocked. So there should be little concern of making "countless comments make no sense at all". Redirects from old titles are standard procedure in any page move, and there is no problem with there being multiple shortcuts to a page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The article contains a theme that is slightly morbid and unsettling, notably with the shortcuts of "rope" and "hang" having morbid connotations especially in the heat of the moment. I am not pro-"PCing" this article but the tone needs to change to be more neutral with less morbid connotations due to its usages. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems like another example of the many recent pointy PC campaigns. The phrase is well known in the English-speaking world and its common usage is certainly not related to suicide. Far better to use a well established, well recognised vernacular than to introduce yet another bureaucratic title just for the sake of it. If the PC brigade want to do something useful, how about trying to encourage more people to subtitle videos when they use them as sources? - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I got to toying with the potential title WP:Last Chance Saloon and even got as far as doing the Ngrams. According to Last Chance Saloon it stands for the last chance of a "civil" drink before heading out into the yonder. Just a thought.
  • My first reaction to the proposal was What the Fuck is this sanctimonious wet apologetic compromise but gradually came to consider that the proposal made a good point. With whatever title is used, a focus should be on the hope of change not the the expectation that someone will mess up. I like the present expression but also like the sentiment in the proposal. I need a drink. GregKaye 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well put, and thank you for your frankness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Technical oppose does the essay remain relevant if it is a third or fourth chance? Some editors will experience many interventions by other editors over the course of time which will represent many chances to reform. GregKaye 02:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, the essay is still relevant as the essay's spirit is actually aimed at editors that have had previous run-ins with bans, hence the line "it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough"emphasis added as well as the tag WP:LASTCHANCE. Hope that helps, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, this describes actual practice, you'd need to change practice before you could really justify removing this essay. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per Ceradon,Chillum ,Sitush and 209.211.131.181.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Incredibly morbid and messed up metaphor. I can't imagine it being that enjoyable for someone to see the phrase tossed around a lot in their block/ban appeal. Brustopher (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "Give 'em enough rope" may be an "Americanism", but it's a well understood Americanism. When they're trying to stop you from using a historical saying like this, it's gone too far. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Ahem, here's a historical American saying, titled "Nigger in the Woodpile". Historical sayings should stay in the historical linguistic reference books. Just saying, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Hey, thanks for the implicit smear. I really appreciate that. Now, why don't you go run along now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There was no intention of "smear", implicit or otherwise, but maybe if you had a look at the article instead of "getting your nickers in a twist", you would see that I was using it for its historical purposes of no longer being socially acceptable in a modern context. Perhaps I was drawing a parallel between this and a certain article that we may be discussing. Have a fantabulous day and remember WP:AGF, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Drcrazy102, but it sounds like you are living up to your username. There is a massive disparity in your analogy. Don't forget, the core issue here seems to be that - shock - the thing is linked to Suicide. I may be wrong but it is my understanding that the term actually means and always has meant that if you allow an apparent miscreant to perpetuate their seemingly unacceptable behaviour then at some point they will incriminate themselves to the extent that an extreme outcome ("death sentence") might reasonably result. The phrase has nothing to do with suicide in the strict sense of the term, and is a world away from your example. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          • So now we allude to me being "crazy", whatever, you can look here if you desire a response. I am failing to see a disparity except for the fact that one "americanism" is apparently still in use and one has been "killed" because of social contexts deciding it was inappropriate, as I have already stated above. Also, I would to state that I have not said that the article nor the "americanism" are related to suicide, merely "slightly morbid and unsettling" and that "the tone needs to change to be more neutral with less morbid connotations", since this is apparently being used in the same manner as a policy or guideline during disputes. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Too often cited historically, and accurate and on point. Some idioms may be PG rated, sometimes this may be a reason to not use them and in these cases write a new essay. Don't overwrite history if it makes the archives not make sense. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. You know, even if you don't think the current title/metaphor is offensive, when someone in good faith says "Hey, I actually find that kind of offensive" and people respond with "Well, I don't, so too bad", it doesn't make them look too good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm sure that some people, in good faith, are offended that wikipedia covers suicide, or child pornography, or the Holocaust. They may even argue that we are advocating those topics by covering them, and that such topics should get as little coverage as possible, to prevent people from getting any ideas. Our coverage, or mentioning, of those topics may offend people in good faith, but it would not nearly be enough to get those articles deleted. There is a reason "I don't like it"-type arguments aren't acceptable. You can't build an expansive, comprehensive and neutral encyclopedia on "I don't like it". I'm sorry if that came off as blunt or mean, but it's true. --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Ceradon, why are you comparing this essay to article content? It sounds like your argument is "because this volunteer community tries to write neutral articles, even about topics that may offend some of the readers, it follows that it's fine for personal essays about project management to offend some of the volunteers". That doesn't make sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • A preponderance of different people get offended by a preponderance of different things. The world doesn't work off of what a few people get offended by, and neither can an encyclopaedia. Not in the main space, not in the project space, not in any area of this project. If you don't like something, but the majority are fine with it, you don't go around changing it. That's selfish, and creates a sentiment that the world revolves around you; it doesn't. More than that though, it's bound to be temporal, and likely to be reverted. And when it is reverted, you have no standing, because the majority agree with the revert, not the change. That's a perfect description of what happened a few hours ago. I'm not advocating insensitivity to volunteers' opinions, but minority opinions shouldn't rule a community. They so often do, but that's a story for a different day. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 11:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Selfish! It is selfish to not want to cause offence to other people. Unbelievable. Do you even listen to yourself speak? Alakzi (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
            • You're like a television news reporter, aren't you; pick out the juiciest soundbite, never mind the context, and apply whatever meaning you want to it. Awesome. You know, I was just working on a rewrite of Kurt Vonnegut with Wehwalt. A theme in Vonnegut's works is when people mistake subjective opinions for objective truth, and apply those "truths" onto other people, rejecting how others feel about said "truths". Sounds familiar, honestly. Now, for your comment. Much of my comment above concerned the fact that people get offended by a lot of things, and that if only a small minority of people are offended by something, you shouldn't get to upset the situation for everybody else. For a minority to impose their will on the majority is selfish and inconsiderate. Understand? --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Oh well in that case, why don't we go back to calling black people niggers? Alakzi (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
                • You've equated a pithy adage with an ethnic slur. Did that really make sense when you wrote it? I think we both agree that the majority of people, at least in the States, think nigger is offensive. On the other hand, and as has been demonstrated here today, the majority of people do not believe "give 'em enough rope and let them hang themselves" is offensive. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • I have not equated the two; I was illustrating a point. If people say that they're offended, you stop trying to offend them; it's not a very difficult concept to grasp. I wonder, how did "nigger" come to be considered offensive? I truly do wonder. Alakzi (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • It seems you have a utopian, quixotic, "and they all live happily ever after"- type view of the world. While I do not want to discourage your optimism, things don't work quite like that. A great many people are offended by a great many things. Some people take issue with our coverage of things like child pornography or the Holocaust. Not how we cover it, but that we cover such topics at all. They want to put such things as far away from them as possible, and we bring them a few clicks away. People are disgusted and offended by just that. But what those people need to understand is that the world doesn't revolve around them. What does and doesn't offend them can't define what happened in history, and certainly can't define how an expansive, comprehensive encyclopaedia designed to carry every notable topic is run. If people say that they're offended, you stop trying to offend them; it's not a very difficult concept to grasp. You're right. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But it's easier said than done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
                      • Again, this isn't about the content that we choose to cover; it's about not unnecessarily causing offence to other collaborators. And it is quite easy to see why people might be offended by the adage - both for the fact that it references suicide by hanging, and for suggesting that the person who's on the receiving end is an untrustworthy miscreant. Why, why, would you insist on using it? Alakzi (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Is there record or testimonial of any person not already considered a troublemaker (a difficult person on the edge of being reprimanded but protests innocence) claiming offence? Sometimes honesty is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • +1 --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Good question Joe.Most of the times I have linked to this, it has been in the context of a discussion with the blocking admin and not the user themselves. Something like "you blocked this person, and I'm thinking of handing them the ROPE and seeing what they do with it, what do you think?" As it is advice for administrators, not blocked users, I am unclear on how it has been used "offensively" at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • So, you can say something upsetting about someone as long as you do it in the third person and have already decided they're a troublemaker? Isn't the point of this essay to give supposed 'troublemakers' a chance to not make trouble - which is probably more likely to be successful if you don't unnecessarily upset them?
          I really don't have a strong opinion about this essay and have probably made reference to it at some point, but the comments in this thread suggest a surprising unwillingness to accommodate differing perspectives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          • "When someone in good faith says "Hey, I actually find that kind of offensive""> Has that every happened. Differing perspectives are very important, but the hypothetical good faith editor being offended is suspected of not existing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment On the view that WP:AT still applies here, Naturalness specifies that: "The title is one that ... editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." There are currently 812 redirected links via WP:ROPE 8 redirected links via WP:LASTCHANCE and 19 redirected links via WP:Give second chances. I was unable to confirm use of WP:Give second chances as a link. GregKaye 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it's necessary. On the other hand, I created Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes which I think is based off the same principle (but may offend tiger lovers) so any opinions on that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. In response to all the editors stating no-one exists who this would offend: My uncle hung himself. Tell me with a straight face that I should be expected to make references to giving people rope to hang themselves when I talk about second chances. The offensive content here serves no purpose. And it is offensive. ~ RobTalk 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry for your uncle but can I ask if the manner of death had been different say using a car would we not be able to use analogies for cars? I understand your pain I have had a dear dear family friend commit suicide by hanging because the hail on a metal shed sounded like bullets hitting a chopper (medic in Vietnam and shot down). It's sad but sometimes we have to realize that this was their choices made in duress but references to "Give em enough rope" certainly isn't encouraging suicide. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • If my uncle drove himself off a cliff, then yes, I would think it a reasonable expectation that we wouldn't name this essay "Give the blocked user the keys to your car so they can drive themselves off a cliff". This isn't just a reference to the object "rope". It specifically references someone hanging themselves. And we have editors citing it by saying "I'm going to give you some WP:ROPE", which is an analogy that includes handing someone the tool to kill themselves. ~ RobTalk 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- ridiculous. Wikipedia is not censored and sometimes a forceful metaphor is called for. There is no need to let the PC folks suck the spirit out of everything. Especially not at the urging of a troublemaker who goes around constantly calling people names and got blocked for it, but complains of hurt fweewings because this essay was mentioned in the unblocking statement. Reyk YO! 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move and rewrite. The ideas that are important to convey are two: "give this person another chance, because a person's overall character eventually becomes evident over time." Metaphors that are pleasant set a pleasant tone, metaphors that are mean, morbid, violent and threatening set a mean and threatening tone. Here's an example of a different way to construct a metaphor on this topic: Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes. Or, Wikipedia:Don't lower the boom just yet. Also, there is unfortunately a very sad history with hangings by mobs in the southern US. Although not sufficiently explicit to constitute outright racial discrimination, this sort of metaphor could certainly be viewed as harassment, and as an attempt to signal that African Americans are not welcome. --Djembayz (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The race card, excellent. Now if someone could just compare me to Hitler, we'd be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Beeblebrox Not implying that people here are racists, and there's little indication from the open discussion that this is consciously at play here. The discussion here does makes it clear that most editors here aren't from the southern US, or working directly with the African American community. Most likely, people here are just clueless about the fact that this sort of thing is even a problem someplace, much less considered an overt attempt at intimidation directed at specific groups of people. This is a rather morbid metaphor, and it's one that has some sad associations for people who have been around situations like racism, mob violence, or suicide. Can't we come up with something better than telling other people we want to set somebody up to fail, that we don't care if you know someone who died this way, that we aren't particularly familiar with the history of racism in the US, and that and we wish that people working on this website would commit suicide? This isn't a kind thing to tell anybody. Wouldn't it be better to get out ahead of the situation, instead of turning it into one more public controversy about social values? If people are serious about making this a happier and friendlier place, it isn't making much sense to keep holding on to mean and violent language in dealing with others. --Djembayz (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - We are not saying that we are giving them the rope to 'kill' themselves, we are saying we are trusting them with the rope. We are not unblocking them with the expectation that we will have to block them, but with the expectation that they will change, live up to their promise, and become constructive editors. Would you prefer having a chance, knowing that it is your last chance, and being able to realise that you have made all that has happened to yourself possible, or not have one at all. And anyways, if you don't like the analogy, just reference another one. I think everyone is overcomplicating the message here. As I said, this is not a message to 'kill' yourself, it is a message to let you know that you must clean up your act, because you are already 'killing' yourself. -- Orduin Discuss 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At some point, one can read anything they want into anything. So at some point, a line has to be drawn. I feel I may hurt somebody's feelings simply by being opposed to them, but WP isn't here for validation by any other means besides consensus, which appeared to have already been met, if I'm reading correctly. Nor is it here to coddle. In my experience, by the way, if an editor is "bad", they stay that way. To use another phrase, there's a reason a leopard doesn't change its spots, and people do not act contrary to their nature. MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, this thread has gotten even lamer since I saw it last. It should hardly be surprising that a person who finds something offensive might act, well, offended. Failing to engage with the substance of the issue here, and heading off to ANI because their expressions of offense are uncivil, is not a very kind way to treat a fellow community member who has been unintentionally hurt by some part of the community infrastructure. If you step on someone's toes, and they yell at you, and you have an issue with their tone, you could at least move your foot first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't like this essay. I think it is, in places, in violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and citations of it may be even more so. However, a move to a more neutral title would leave the title seriously at odds with the content, and a rewrite to match such a title would change this into a very different essay, probably leading to a recreation of the original or something like it. Essays are expressions of opinion, and need not have consensus. So I reluctantly oppose the suggested move. I think the proper step is to write a rather different essay on a similar topic, and hope that the new essay will be cited more often than this one. I do think that the hangman image should go, however. DES (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. It is impossible to please everyone all the time. The saying is not offensive, and is in widespread use. AlbinoFerret 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A rename would change the meaning, intent, focus, and scope of the essay. People are free to write/create another, completely different essay on that new subject, but there's no need to change this very easily understood essay and title which is a matter of common parlance and has been since before Wikipedia began. And there is every reason not to change it -- in other words, to keep it as it is and always has been. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This title change wouldn't describe the essay accurately. Those suggesting a title change and rewrite, are basically suggesting deletion (which was recently proposed and struck down). What I'd suggest to those who don't care for the current title and content of the essay: write one to your preference and title it how you like.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - people expressing sincere offense to this should be enough for us to consider correcting the problem, and this is a reasonable step in that direction. It's not "all in good fun" - keeping stuff like this around and telling editors to "chill" when they express rational offense makes Wikipedia seem like an evil and insane place. Aren't we all trying to improve the encyclopedia? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Support move Some find it offensive, they have good reason to, and it will be used in that way in the future.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And if we were talking about an article, or a policy, or a guideline, or our help pages, I would agree with yoyu. This is an essay. It's purpose is to express opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
As this is an essay in Wikipedia namespace, it's subject to consensus what level of "professionalism" is sufficient. Essays in user space would be given more free reign.—Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "professionalism" the essays of Wikipedia have embraced an intentional level of informality going back to when I started here in 2006. I seriously doubt it is the desire of the community to make essays "professional". Chillum 20:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but WP:CCC. We can leave it to the closer to decide if it has or not.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec with Bagumba) Hey, I'm all for a certain level of informality. This one just crosses a line for me - it gets linked a lot, essay or no. The Interior (Talk) 22:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DGAF - Honestly I'm not a fan of the current title and it's suicide content. But I don't like the "second chance" thing either... this essay isn't about CLEANSTART, it's about letting users act long enough to show their asses fully to the crowd before giving them the boot. So I really don't like either option and dgaf enough for either outcome. The Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes is honestly much better. I'll be referring to it in the future instead of this one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am not sure the "Second Chances" is the right call, "Last Chance" would be better. Besides being morbid, the idiom "Give them enough rope" is being using incorrectly. The expression has always been to used assert a positive hope that the person will fail, and/or relishing that failure. It is a wish for ill to befall. The article seems to actually hope they will behave correctly. It is about second chances - or last chances - not hoping to deal with problems by ignoring them. Moreover, the expression refers to self-inflicted failure. I don't see anything about self-inflicting anything in the article - every one of these examples is about action taken by others. The idiom is simply being misused here.Walrasiad (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that "last chance" would be better too. This isn't really about users who have committed a first offense. I was also thinking that this could just be redirected to Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes which expresses the sentiment in a much less abusive way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the !vote here should be whether the current title is acceptable, and not quibble about whether the proposed new title has to be the final title. As I stated in my !vote, I am supporting this as "a start towards finding a better [title]". We can always change it later. However, my guess is that no consensus here would have the effect of telling editors to write their own essay instead of working to improve an existing one. —Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that with moving without agreement on a destination is a good idea. The frequent renaming of pages is difficult to follow, WP:TITLECHANGES speaks directly against it. A closer, or any reader of this discussion, *may* see a consensus that the current title is disliked, and that should provoke a discussion on alternatives. In specific criticism, "Give a second chance" implies that it focuses on first time transgressions, which is not true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • TITLECHANGES discourages changes "without a discussion" and when "there is no good reason to change it". This is the discussion, and I trust the closer can gauge if there is "good reason" here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I respect your opinion to say there is a good reason. What I mean to discourage is the notion that it doesn't matter if the new name is not good because it can be changed again, and again. I think there should be an onus on proponents to be agreeing to an alternative that is better than the current. It is OK if there are multiple better titles, and the closer has to choose one, but it is not OK to just agree that we don't like the current without without naming any better alternatives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is a commonly used idiom; it is not uncivil. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to start their own essay. This one does not have to be gutted. Calidum 03:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Counter proposal

There are mixed views here with, I think, valid points on both sides. The current content has a strong and relevant cultural reference but with an arguably very negative spin which expects the worst of editors both in title of the essay and in its initial text.

Counter proposal:

Wikipedia:Give them enough rope → Wikipedia:Giving them: a last chance–enough rope

The current text of this remarkably short but much argued over essay begins:

  • As the old saying goes "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." Sometimes this is the best approach when dealing with blocked users. If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough.

Here is my suggested text (within which I have also imagined that the essay might (continue to) be used as a reference in a range of situations that don't only pertain to already blocked editors). I am open to other editors producing better content.

  • Following cases in which an editor has been confronted, corrected, chastised (or whatever) and in which the editor concerned gives assurances with promise that the offending behaviour will not be repeated, a legitimate response can be to give the editor a last chance. In many cases an editor may come through admirably.
In other cases the saying can ring true: "give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."
In some situations, rather than arguing the finer points of previously referenced issues or demanding further explanation, it may be better to simply make it clear that this is the editor's last chance and to see what happens. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine. If they don't, then soon enough they'll be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.

Its just a rough draft. Others may do better.

GregKaye 16:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent start to addressing the perceived disparity between Wikipedia's existing use of ROPE and its meaning in the English language. According to the book An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions, the rope metaphor is the "argument that some individuals given sufficient opportunity will bring harm on themselves".[1]. The English saying implies that the person given "rope" will eventually hang themselves. Period. Wikipedia's essay, however, implies that a person given "rope" will hopefully save their editing privileges on Wikipedia; if all else fails, they will commit an egregious act and will be indefinitely blocked again. I had added this background to the essay on July 26,[2] but it was removed on August 12 as part of the recent spike in the page's activity.[3] While we can preach that one needs to read the fine print of the full essay and not jump to conclusions upon seeing the shortcut WP:ROPE, it seems we can avoid misinterpretations by merely finding a more neutral title. I have no interest in censoring the page's content. I find that to be a fair compromise to give leeway to an essay, while respecting that it is in the Wikipedia namespace as opposed to being a user page.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible re-write

  • Comment: I am asking for people to review my rewrite of this article(though still quite rough and in need of improvement), as mostly new content using similar ideas though the title will be changed since I am no longer working with the original context that I used. I have copied some text and provided the appropriate template. Please do not delete out-of-hand because you may disagree with a re-write. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you just write a new essay? We can have more than one. Chillum 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This is essentially a new essay but based on the same idea. Different language, but similar examples and idea. So I'm not sure if you actually read the essay or if you wrote your comment "out of hand", so to speak? Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You needn't worry about deletion as it's in your userspace and you can write nearly any essay you want there. I would obviously object to just replacing this essay with that one. On the other hand, if you continue to develop this, maybe move it to WP-space when you think it is ready, create shortcuts, get input from others, etc, it is possible that it would eventually become more preeminent than ROPE in being cited by admins and others in discussions, affecting the same change without contention or controversy. I would encourage you to pursue that path instead of just trying to outright replace this essay with that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not thinking of replacing this essay (though I think it needs a bit of a re-write, but is overall a good essay), though it would act in a similar role minus "hang/rope" metaphor. I'd appreciate any further feedback you have, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

At the same time as the move suggested above, my recent edits, taking into account the new name, and which were summarily reverted (with edit summaries of "undiscussed move" and "[revert to] pre-crusade version"), should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for consensus on the above page move. It involves the similar theme of whether the metaphor should remain the main theme of the essay.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it's basically different aspects of the same question. If the page stays here (or the "nearby" Give 'em title, most of the changes wouldn't make sense. If it's moved, then the text changes would depend mostly on what the new title is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Given the response to your other changes I would seek consensus first. Chillum 19:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You all seem to have missed the opening phrase of this section: "At the same time as the move suggested above...". I chose them deliberately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you said that, I am responding to your "same time" wording and your "should be restored" wording with "get consensus first" wording. Chillum 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds familiar in some way although I'm not sure how. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Removals and Additions

Editing the article to a POV status doesn't help the case, hyperbole that this advocates suicide with dubious references just makes it look flimsy and reaching. Also when removing long standing content merely on the basis you don't like it needs a consensus when challenged. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I found the silly "warning" particularly offensive. Just because some people are apparently incapable of understaning what a metaphor is we aren't allowed to use them anymore? I don't think so. And why was a link added to "wikibullying" which the exact opposite of what this essay is about? This sin't about pushing people around, it's about finding out if they are honest and competent or not. This is indeed a "crusade" and it is utterly ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I found the removal warning far from silly, and its removal offensive. And Hell in a Bucket's edit war to remove it (removing long standing content merely on the basis he didn't like it) PoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's an esay, not an article. Its explicit purpose is to express a point of view. If you have a differing point of view, feel free to write an essay about that and call it whatever you like, avoiding scary metaphors of course. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays, essays may be freely edited by others subject to the usual community policy on consensus. Essays on user pages, however, offer more protections if one doesn't want their viewpoint modified.—Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's called WP:BRD, I challenged the removal the next step was for a discussion to gain consensus but if you feel that strongly let me help you with the link WP:3RR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox:: The text you removed did not say we aren't allowed to use metaphors like ROPE anymore. I added the text based on my experience with it, and thought other editors would like the data point. I generally like the essay; I'll just use the more neutral WP:LASTCHANCE shortcut that you had created going forward.—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

pagemove cleanup

This is a purely technical problem, caused by the recent fracas and page moving. For five years this page was called "Give 'em enough rope" but now it has (unfortunately in my opinion) been moved to "give them enough rope". Perhaps this will need to wait until a concensus is clear on the current rename proposal, but assuming it fails, I think it should be move back to the original title it had for five years. But, failing that the talk page archives were apparently left behind in all the moving and are no longer linked from this page, as you can see from the redlink in the archive box up top. There is only one, now at Wikipedia Talk:Give 'em enough rope/Archive 1. If this name is to be kept it should be moved. I am just noting this for the record here and would ask everyone to please not act hastily, there's been quite enough of that already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the archive *temporarily* to here, so it's all together. i think there might be a benefit to being able to read the archive when discussing the RM. It might have been cleaner to move everything back to the original title, but at this stage it would cause more heartache than it's worth. When the RM is closed, the talk page archive can be moved wherever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. You've been being reasonable an awful lot lately, did you get hit on the head or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing the groundwork for a run for ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
What exactly does 'em imply? Southern US and their love for capital punishment? -- Mentifisto 11:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to move it back to the original title without reading this discussion, but botched the move; Timotheus Canens fixed it for me. I did it per what I thought was common sense, and I didn't imagine it could be in any way controversial. Graham87 07:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. As the person requesting the move currently under discussion, I have no problem with the page being moved to the precise version of its original title, while we discuss it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Move protection

Upon the failure of the RM Should the requested move not gain consensus, should the move protection stay indefinitely to prevent such a blowup from recurring? --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was a move war per se to warrant indef move protection. It does discourage productive editors from being bold. Here's what I see what happened:

  1. 15:27, 12 August 2015 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope closed as snow keep.
  2. 15:34 Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope moved to Wikipedia:Give second chances with edit summary "Move to a title that's not glaringly offensive for a start"[4]
  3. 15:51 ANI report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ROPE_renamed_without_discussion
  4. 15:53 Wikipedia:Give second chances moved to Wikipedia:Give them enough rope[5]
  5. 15:57 Indef move protection[6]
  6. 16:35 RM started at Wikipedia_talk:Give_them_enough_rope#Requested_move_12_August_2015 to move Wikipedia:Give them enough rope to Wikipedia:Give second chances

I'd unprotect after the RM is closed, and revisit only as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's fairly standard procedure that when a page has been moved without consensus, and that move is reversed, that move protection be applied indefinitely as a prophylactic measure against further controversial moves without prior consensus. This is already a mess, it seems eminently reasonable, regardless of the outcome of the move discussion, to prevent further undiscussed moves. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the uproar is that the nominator of the MfD, after a snow keep, is the one who made the bold move. Any further move without consensus of this page from that user could be dealt with directly with that user. Otherwise, I do not see the point in being so preemptive to prevent a potential good faith bold move in the future. I see no other history with this essay to warrant it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Your point 1 should be "...with a summary of 'Anybody who wants it "rewritten", just start editing'". This was clearly in response to my comment in the MfD " I suggest that the page be rewritten, and moved to a less aggressive title, with the current title kept as a redirect.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Mmhm -- not quite. I'm all for being bold, but it's obvious that the changes you and several other editors want to make are contentious, as they have been reverted. Therefore, you should seek consensus for those changes. Now, what was the consensus at the MfD? That no changes should be applied to the article; that it was an essay that makes a very valid point, and should be left as it was. Kraxler's suggestion was just that, a suggestion. In order to make any rewrite revert-proof, you would need consensus. The consensus to rewrite it is simply not there, as demonstrated by the SNOW closure. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in your comment refutes what I wrote in mine. Your claim that "consensus at the MfD [was that] no changes should be applied to the article" is utterly bogus, and is directly contradicted by the closing summary, as I point out. As for "you should seek consensus for those changes", you seem to have missed the two sections on this page, above, each of which which I started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You were the only person that suggested a rewrite (and if you weren't, you were in the minority). As you said above, Kraxler's suggestion was in response to your comment, not in response to consensus, as is obvious if you read the MfD. Two or three people making a suggestion against a bunch of other people who are fine with the status quo isn't consensus, unless one has a very warped view of consensus. Now, as I said above, to make any rewrite you or Alakzi undertake be revert-proof, you need to seek consensus. This is something you have already done. But unless a drastic change in the RM above occurs, it's clear that the RM won't happen, rendering a rewrite unnecessary. --ceradon (talk • edits) 11:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in your new comment refutes what I wrote in either of mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't. Bye. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Image

The essay currently includes File:Hangman-5.png, a version of a game of "Hangman" in progress. This does not really fit the metaphor of "Give 'em enough rope", and it is at least potentially offensive. I'm not sure what image, if any, would fit the metaphor, but I propose removing this one. Any objections? DES (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I did. It's a child's game..there is nothing about it that should be offensive. The point of the game and the point of the essay is the same thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm more offended by the title going against AGF and NPOV than I am of a stick figure illustrating one part of the essay.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Essay are not expected to be NPOV. They are explicitly statements of opinions. And yes, the image is of a children's game. Let's all think of the children and all the fun they have playing hangman. That can't be wrong, can it? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, if the part about "If they mean what they say, they'll be fine" was not in there, people might actually be less offended that it is an obviously biased essay. LOL—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Resolved

I understand that Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope may not technically classify as a policy or guideline, but this essay is apparently being used in such a role. (See above discussion)

Does the inclusion of the shortcut [[WP:HANG]] create either an aggressive or uncivil tone of writing when used in discussions?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. I support removing the WP:HANG from the linkbox. As recommended at WP:2SHORTCUTS, two is enough. ROPE refers directly to the idiom. LASTCHANCE more accurately reflects the meaning. The idiom is old and obscure, it is probably a portmanteau of different idioms. Taken literally, it doesn't make sense. Someone doesn't hang themself due to being given too much rope. Giving out rope, like giving more leeway, gives the tehtered thing more freedom. The meaning of the idiom is that the recipient has the freedom to more clearly implicate themself. Hang themself is synonymous with provide compelling evidence for conviction. "HANG" is not heart of the meaning.

    I do not support sending WP:HANG to WP:RfD for deletion. Existing uses of the shortcut should stay working, and future uses too, but there is no benefit (over either ROPE or LASTCHANCE) of its advertising at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC) I should have looked. This shortcut has had barely any uses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  2. Support. This is one step toward gradually shifting this essay towards something not overtly offensive. ~ RobTalk 05:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. No need for 3 shortcuts and it is not one I have seen used nearly as much as ROPE. Chillum 05:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. WP:HANG is the result we don't want to see. It already predicts the negative outcome.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support removal and anything else to make it look less close to death, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support - as proposer and to reduce potential misunderstandings and potential conflict arising from use of the shortcut. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support, without prejudice to a more complete rewrite and rename. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support: We have enough shortcuts, and personally (anecdotally) I use ROPE the most. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support - It's a step in the right direction of cleaning this up. -- Orduin Discuss 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support for pretty much all of the above reasons. This essay has other problems, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - It's easy to remember and explicitly part of the saying the essay mentions.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Unless there is consensus to move at #Requested move 12 August 2015, I'm content with dropping the stick.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. I am neutral. I think the usage is dependant on the user. I have added a minor tweakage though below that may help the overall problem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you want WP:MFD, instead of this sloppy format that requires users divide themselves into two camps instead of just discussing the utility of that particular redirect. That being said, I really don't care one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not asking for the page to be deleted, just the redirected shortcut. I fail to see how that falls under WP:MFD since that is concerned with pages containing content, unless I am missing something? If I am missing something about MFD, please clarify with a quote or example. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:RFD, then?--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Müdigkeit, I am unwilling to step into that technical mire due to inexperience, though I would support such an action especially due to WP:R#DELETE reason 3. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Joe fixed the headers, so this is a better format and people are voting, so that's that, the discussion is here. And it really doesn't need three shortcuts anyway. I have to agree that this particular one is the low-hanging fruit of the three, in that it does not really reflect what the essay is all about. We don't actually want users to "hang themselves" and get reblocked, we want them to prove they were sincere int heir unblock request and become productive users. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of intention if someone casually posts WP:ROPE (although HANG would be worse), especially since it's often in a confrontational discussion, it does seem as if they're suggesting that they do, just as IAR seems to imply someone should be rational... -- Mentifisto 10:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Tweaking wordage prospect

I think maybe an addition "when offering a rope to a blocked user it is that person's choice whether they use it to climb back to solid editing footing or figuratively walk to the editing gallows." Let's make sure it is a pointed out that it is a metaphor for those that are like Drax. FYI the link is just to lighten the mood with 30 seconds of humor and does not point to any party. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to copyvio removed, per policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia:High-functioning_autism_and_Asperger's_editors#Understanding_and_tolerance is more appropriate, though I don't quite understand the WP:COPYVIO edit, especially on a talk-page? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing I've readded it you have a problem take it to the appropriate board otherwise have a great day. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Noted that you subsequently removed the link yourself, replaing it with one not violating both copyright and our policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
By youtubes standards it was fair use. I considered this might not apply to this website you are correct. It is basically the same thing so either way it can serve the purpose. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The change Hell in a Bucket proposes would be very helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For the inveterate good-faith assumers: the optimist's guide

Compare The optimist's guide to Wikipedia: "The use of WP:ROPE in a discussion simply means the user wants to give somebody a second chance, not that they enjoy invoking violent metaphors or are out to ambush somebody." If you're an optimist, that is. To be absolutely clear, in case the "optimist"'s sarcasm misfires: it's not just about the shortcut WP:HANG. I dislike Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope altogether and I dislike the popular practice of linking to it. I would like to see it gone. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

I find #7 and #9 are outliers in that list. To refer to ROPE is to grudgingly concede some faith in the accused. It is to concede their claim but no more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see it rewritten. The core concept is, more or less, If an editor released from a restriction returns to disruptive behavior they can be sanctioned more strongly than they were the last time, so there is often no reason not to give them a second chance. Note the total lack of negative assumptions in that nutshell.

Someone's given a go at rewriting, at WP:Let the tiger show its stripes, and while many of the changes are good ones, that phrasing is not really much better; that saying is rarely interpreted positively. In both cases, there is a negative presumption of bad faith. Yet many admins (among others) at ANI and AE have little compunction against using citing ROPE to "cleverly" imply without quite a WP:NPA/WP:AGF violation that they're actively predicting that the user will screw up and maybe even hoping they will. I've been objecting to this kind of citation to this page, for years, but we had no other page for the concept (I referred to it the other day myself before learning of WP:STRIPES, but didn't feel good about it). It surely can't be hard to fix this.

The principal obstacle to addressing this page's problems will be "don't you dare touch our precious old essays!" invective that shoots forth (mostly from a single party I needn't single out here) whenever shifts of this sort are proposed. The actual rewriting would not be difficult (though I'm loath to draft something myself, given the extent to which I've been repeatedly attacked by the same part for doing this – in a sandbox, mind you – at another page with similar problems).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem which WP:STRIPES does a clever job of solving is that it uses a metaphor suggesting that a user's true nature will reveal itself and can be dealt with accordingly, while ROPE extends that metaphor to suggest that once their true nature is revealed, we've given the user the tools to kill themselves with. That's a very troubling metaphor for people who have been touched by mental illness, and there are many of us. That's my issue with ROPE, anyways, and seems to be true of many others in the discussion above. I'm not really concerned about it going against WP:AGF: users who have demonstrated poor behaviour needn't have their good faith assumed; at some point AGF goes out the window, and that point is long before we get to a situation where we're considering giving a user one last chance to show they want to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I fully understand why Bishonen raised this issue and why SMcCandlish wants the whole thing rewritten, and I totally agree with the sentiments of those two editors. However, for me, there is one great advantage of the present version. I am a great believer in giving blocked editors second chances in certain situations, such as vandals who say "I admit what I did was silly and childish, but now I will be more mature". However, I find that the great obstacle to unblocking is other administrators, many of whom are extremely reluctant to give second chances. I can't easily just ignore them and unblock anyway, because administrators are, in most circumstances, not supposed to unblock unilaterally without consulting the blocking admin. However, pointing to an essay which grudgingly concedes that we might unblock to give a second chance, and emphasises the "we can always block again" aspect can be useful in appealing to an administrator who is reluctant to accept an second-chance unblock proposal because they don't like trusting former disruptive editors who say they have reformed. SmokeyJoe says "To refer to ROPE is to grudgingly concede some faith in the accused", which is absolutely true. For anyone who is perfectly willing to assume total good faith, this essay is unnecessary, because of course they will be willing to consider giving a second chance. However, for someone who is reluctant to assume good faith, an essay which encourages them to grudgingly consider making a small concession may be just what is needed to get them to grudgingly allow a test unblock. Putting emphasis on the point that we can always block again if their lack of trust turns out to be justified may be an essential part of getting them to agree. I am not trying to be clever, or make a silly point, I am 100% serious about this: I genuinely think that this essay in more or less its existing form is really useful precisely because it appeals to people who make the "negative presumption of bad faith" that SMcCandlish rightly decries: it may be difficult or impossible to get someone with a negative presumption to drop that negative view, but it may be possible to get that person to grudgingly allow a test unblock by accepting their negative point of view, and arguing that even from that point of view there is a case for an unblock. That is why I sometimes link to this essay, NOT because I like the tone of the essay myself, and if we rewrite the essay to look at the issue from the point of view of someone who takes a more positive line, we will lose a tool which can at times be very useful in persuading those who don't. Or, to summarise my point in terms of Bishonen's heading for this section: this page doesn't exist for "inveterate good-faith assumers": it exists for "inveterate bad-faith assumers", and can often be useful in persuading them to shift a little towards at least considering the possibility of good faith, even if not assuming it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: It seems that this essay arguably addresses admins that are looking for an unblock rationale that follow WP:GAB to a tee, and anything short is viewed as reason to not AGF. Per WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism)." It's probably accurate that some admins are inclined to stop AGF as soon as they see an editor has been blocked. Maybe this is the right balance to convey without implying that some admins are skirting WP:ADMINCOND.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite what I have just written, I am going to make one small change to the lead of the essay, to make it a little less grudging, and a little more genuinely positive. Instead of "If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough", I am going to put "If they mean what they say, then unblocking will be the right thing to do, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Made a similar essay that contains the same idea but different wording and language

Hello all, it's me again. I've moved my essay, WP:Last_Chance_Saloon to mainspace and would like to get some feedback and comments on editing it to be better. It has the same ideas and message as WP:Give 'em enough rope but in much different language and minus the hanging metaphor. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: Are you simply soliciting collaboration for that essay, or suggesting to possibly replace this one with it?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Collaboration for now, and if the community feels that it should replace this essay, well ... *shrug*. I am not currently looking to replace this essay though I do still believe "Give 'em enough rope" needs to be rewritten. At any rate, this is a rewrite I did that simply uses the same ideas but different wording and I would like feedback and collaboration, and whether to replace this essay or not is up for the larger community to decide. Trust me, if I was intending to replace Rope with Saloon, then it would be very clear and obvious. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Little brother

I have removed the little brother defence because I do not think it is really a good example considering it is listed below as an example of when not to use this technique. Christine Fuell (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have restored it for now. The conversation should take place first. -- GB fan 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The quacking is growing louder. There isn't consensus to remove this and the original poster knows this. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Support followed up, opposes uncountered. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope → ? – a year later, could have consensus changed? No problem with WP:LASTCHANCE, makes more intuitive sense without needing to click, but how could "apply WP:ROPE" be compatible with WP:CIV? -- Mentifisto 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not compatible with CIV really in any form: just the word "rope" is carrying an expression of desire for a problem user to harm themselves, though usually not physically, especially in the context that we most often use it. It should go the way of WP:VANITY and WP:STALK, but I think that's not what you're asking. As far as the title goes, as long as it's a title for this essay, it's the right one, horrible though it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose we really don't need to have this discussion over and over again --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, consensus hasn't changed. The oversensitivity on this issue is thoroughly misplaced and as it is, not enough people agree with the assertion Mentifisto makes. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you're so offended by the metaphor I would suggest you get outside more!, There's absolutely nothing offensive about the title and the title should remain IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a tiny step in the right direction, although it's better to use WP:STRIPES instead. It's not just a matter of civility or not getting people offended. Yes, the rope metaphor in this essay is mostly a pretty piece of idiomatic English, but it can have real-life consequences. It is invoked in the context of problematic user behaviour and although there can be many reasons for such behaviour, in a significant minority of cases it is ultimately down to the user's emotional or psychological problems. And when you're going through a rough patch, a suicide metaphor isn't the best thing to come your way. Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"STRIPES" is an assertion that a previous miscreant can't change their inate miscreant nature. It is therefore predujicial, far more more negative, and is no substitute for the message of this essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
An interesting opinion. I'm rereading both essays and I can't really see that. They're almost identical in content and the only substantive difference is the metaphor used. Uanfala (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the history, you'll see it is explicitly a fork of this essay, and so of course it reads the same. It is just titled under a different metaphor. And the stripes metaphor, which is a random alteration of "a leopard can't change its spots", doesn't fit the essay. The STRIPES/spots metaphor is about someone concealing their true nature, and the lesson is that it is always temporary ruse, it is a completely prejudicial metaphor. The Enough Rope metaphor is about behaviours, give them freedom, and judge on their behaviour. Very very different attitudes when it comes to someone claiming to have changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The metaphor is regarded differently by the "them" addressed. I have seen the result. We could be nicer not using this image at all, under whatever name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A common real world phrase, it is sometimes appropriate, it has a nuanced particular meaning not easily substituted. It does not mean "LASTCHANCE", it is closer to "grudgingly, let's believe that at face value". It is a statement of grudging trust, an offer to redemption, and is on balance a positive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing has changed since the last discussion where my opinion can be read.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons that can still be seen from the last discussion up at the top of the page. Yes it is possible for consensus to change, but I don't know that the proposer had the slightest reason to believe it actually had changed before opening this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Give_%27em_enough_rope/Archive_2&oldid=1136060340"