Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope

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

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)
  • Do hold it against me for cursing while under distress. You're a disgusting individual. Alakzi (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't hold it against you I'm just noting the subjective nature of your desire in civility. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Why is that crusaders for civility are always so blind to their own bltant incivility. WP:NPA please. Comment on his opinions all you like, but attacking another user's character is across the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Because "crusaders of civility" are worn out by people who don't seem to want to get the point. No, we're not infringing on your freedom of expression. Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 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)

And now a have you stopped beating your wife? question. It's like a quest to make sure all of the most tired, played out stereotypes make it into one conversation. I believe I am done conversing with you as I don't see the point of responding to the sort of infantile arguments you are making. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's not it, why would you object to moving the page? Maybe you should try some self-reflection. Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 13 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)
  • You're an involved admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: And....? --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:22, 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)
  • I'm grateful for you starting the essay. I saw somebody reference it once, and I have used it since to be more trusting and to give editors more leeway. That being said, as this essay is in Wikipedia space as opposed to being in a user page, it's also fair game for changes that have consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Hopefully the good editors retain the common sense to make a common sense consensus but the only such showing now is the opposition theory. Maybe with more time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There's a fair share of consensus for non-common sense actions on Wikipedia, but it's consensus nonetheless. Of course, common sense is all relative.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not only about implying that people will commit suicide, which is, in fairness, a bit of a stretch; it's about implying that they'll eventually get blocked - be it tomorrow or in a week - because that's who they are. This is the exact meaning of the phrase. You'd be saying that they are beyond redemption. How is it so difficult to comprehend? Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comprehension is based on reading for example in the first paragraph third maybe fourth sentence you may see a phrase "If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." Now to break it down if they are true to their promise to not repeat the behaviors then they will be ok, if they misbehave they will be blocked. Lesen the essay, it's not difficult to comprehend once you have done so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Because it's just flat-out wrong, and apparently reflects a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction not based on a careful reading of what the essay actually says, which is far more nuanced than you imply. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It hardly matters what the essay intends if this is how the phrase is used and how it's understood. Wikipedia isn't in a position to redefine the English language. Alakzi (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Apparently it's a very small amount of people that can't understand this, perhaps you can find sourcing about this phrase in particular that has been modified so much in the English language. I'd be interesting in seeing those otherwise this is exactly what it appears a politically correct witch-hunt because you don't like it. Editor up, show your cards on something real to base these concerns on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Really? "[To allow a person complete freedom to continue his or her misdeeds in hope that retribution will follow]"; "to allow someone to do what they want to, knowing that they will probably fail or get into trouble"; "the argument that some individuals given sufficient opportunity will bring harm on themselves"; "to allow someone to accomplish his or her own downfall by his own foolish acts". Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
            • [ec] Your mystery-meat link to Wikipedia:Competence is required is both unaceptable and unwarranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Well I assume the next debate will be on the existance of that page as well? Instead of compabout me if you have issue here ya go WP:ANI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                • I assume this is all of the vacuous arguments of the opposition. Can we speedy move this now? Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • I bow to your superior personal experience in exercising vacuous arguments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • This isn't a pissing contest. All of your arguments have proven to be bogus - to the point that you've even had to ask for sources for a phrase that's completely transparent to second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-language speakers of English. Why don't you admit that you have no trouble with deliberately offending people? Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                      • I'm not sure I'm talking with a person that does oder can't understand metaphor. I keep showing you those essays because you are editing in a fashion that will soon have you out the pedia if you don't change. Being disruptive and spewing hate while arguing for civility is still disruption. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                        • Oh, please do not concern yourself with whether I stay or go. I understand the metaphor perfectly well, and I have explained it above. If you object to my interpretation, do, in turn, explain why. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 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)

The "concern witht he suicide analogy" is a ridiculous concern and a red herring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 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 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)

• Most references to this essay would not need to bluelink the reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. ~ Rob^Talk 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Any editor who takes that as an invite to kill themselves seriously would lack the competence to be here. Here is the crux, I don't believe in forcing other people to be sensitive to my traumas. They are mine, when I find things that disturb me greatly enough I leave, I remove myself before forcing other people to change because of my sensitivities. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• That's not very optimistic... is that what you meant? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I meant: if the RM fails. I see how that's worded now. Reworded. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I figured out what you meant, but got edit conflicted with you when I went to fix my comment. I'd be inclined to say move protection should stay no matter what the result of the discussion, but that's not very Wikipedian of me... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • But it's very sensible of you. I really think it should stay. What happened here is drama that we should strive to avoid in the future. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:43, 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"[1]
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[2]
5. 15:57 Indef move protection[3]
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)