| Revision as of 19:34, 13 August 2015 editBagumba (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators173,951 edits →Requested move 12 August 2015: re: leopards← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:14, 3 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,267,924 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (232 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |date1=12 August 2015 |result1='''Keep''' |page1=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope |date2=11 March 2021 |result2='''Speedy keep''' |page2=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (2nd nomination) |date3=27 August 2021 |result3='''Keep''' |page3=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination)}} |
|
{{essaysort|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
{{Oldmfd | date = 12 August 2015 | result = "keep. Per ]. Anybody who wants it 'rewritten', just start editing" | votepage = Misplaced Pages:Give 'em enough rope }} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Essays|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{old moves |
|
|
|list= |
|
|
*RM Give 'em enough rope→Give second chances '''*not moved''' 12 August 2015 ] |
|
|
*RM Give 'em enough rope→<not specified> '''*not moved''' 28 September 2016 ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive basics|counter=3}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages space in this form, yet ] does not even though it seems to address an important reality (which perhaps does not want to be more widely admitted). ] (]) 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 ].—] (]) 08:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If they are that incompentent they shouldn't be here. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 12 August 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{requested move/dated|Misplaced Pages:Give second chances}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] – This essay should be moved to ] (a recent good-faith move by ] to that name was reverted). The page already caries the notice {{tq|"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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Ping|Bagumba}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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.) ] (]) 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.) --] (]) 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 ] only counts when the person wants it. ] (]) 16:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** Do hold it against me for cursing while under distress. You're a disgusting individual. ] (]) 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***I don't ] it against you I'm just noting the subjective nature of your desire in civility. ] (]) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****Why is that crusaders for civility are always so blind to their own bltant incivility. ] please. Comment on his opinions all you like, but attacking another user's character is across the line. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 22:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::And now a ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose move''': My comment at the ] 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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**You're an involved admin. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***{{ping|Pigsonthewing}} And....? --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages space as opposed to being in a ], it's also fair game for changes that have consensus.—] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****There's a fair share of consensus for non-common sense actions on Misplaced Pages, but it's consensus nonetheless. Of course, common sense is all relative.—] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. '''Read''' the essay, it's not difficult to comprehend once you have done so. ] (]) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****{{ec}}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. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages isn't in a position to redefine the English language. ] (]) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
******Apparently it's a very small amount of people that can't ] 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. ] (]) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
******* ''Really''? "o allow a person complete freedom to continue his or her misdeeds in hope that retribution will follow]"; ""; ""; "". ] (]) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
******* Your mystery-meat link to ] is both unaceptable and unwarranted. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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 ]. ] (]) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
********* I assume this is all of the vacuous arguments of the opposition. Can we speedy move this now? ] (]) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**********I bow to your superior personal experience in exercising vacuous arguments. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
************I'm not sure I'm talking with a person that ] or ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{OD}}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. ] (]) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The concern with the suicide analogy ]. 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 ] debate. Much like the ], 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 ], which is a fundamental part of Misplaced Pages's ]. Yes, some editors will ultimately be indefinitely blocked, but the positive is that others go on to be (more) productive.—] (]) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::The "concern witht he suicide analogy" is a ridiculous concern and a red herring. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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 ] to a page.—] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' I got to toying with the potential title ] and even got as far as doing the According to ] 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. ]] 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**Well put, and thank you for your frankness. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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. ]] 02:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, the essay is ''still relevant'' as the essay's ] 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"<sup>emphasis added</sup> as well as the tag ]. Hope that helps, ] (]) 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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose move''' per Ceradon,Chillum ,Sitush and 209.211.131.181.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ahem, here's a ]. Historical sayings should stay in the historical linguistic reference books. Just saying, ] (]) 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... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 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 '']'' that we may be discussing. Have a fantabulous day and remember ], ] (]) 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 ]. 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. - ] (]) 00:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So now we allude to me being "crazy", whatever, you can look ] 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**Well, I'm sure that some people, in good faith, are offended that wikipedia covers ], or ], or the ]. 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 "]"-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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 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. <small>They so often do, but that's a story for a different day.</small> Thank you, --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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? ] (]) 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 ] 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? --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 12:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Oh well in that case, why don't we go back to calling black people niggers? ] (]) 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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 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. {{xt|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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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? ] (]) 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. --] (]) 02:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***{{+1}} --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 redirected links via WP:ROPE redirected links via WP:LASTCHANCE and redirected links via WP:Give second chances. I was unable to confirm use of WP:Give second chances as a link. ]] 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Most references to this essay would not need to bluelink the reference. --] (]) 06:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose'''. I don't think it's necessary. On the other hand, I created ] which I think is based off the same principle (but may offend tiger lovers) so any opinions on that? -- ] (]) 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. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ]", which is an analogy that includes handing someone the tool to kill themselves. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 13:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Next we need to get rid of ] and ] because obviously we're talking about outright ''murder'' there, and also ] clearly encourages self-harm. I'm sure there is more, we need to ramp this thing up and do a wholesale purging of anything using a metaphor that doesn't involve puppies and sunshine. ] (]) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::]? ] (]) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)' |
|
|
::::::The important word there is "don't," except for in "Shoot it early" which refers to "shooting" edits not editors. If we had an essay encouraging editors to shoot themselves/messengers or speculating on their likelyhood to do so, that would clearly be completely inappropriate. With regards to changing for someone elses sensibilities: would anything of any value whatsoever be lost if people stopped referring to hanging metaphors during unblock discussions? ] (]) 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::This sums up my stance more eloquently than I probably have. This isn't about political correctness. It's about whether we should be choosing an offensive option when there exists a non-offensive option that is equally effective or better. It probably is more effective not to include this analogy, as it's extraordinarily negative and contains the implication that we expect another block. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''- ridiculous. Misplaced Pages 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. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Indeed, I've just been reading ], where this was mentioned as part of trying to convince the person who stirred all this up to please stop personally attacking people, after being repeatedly blocked for it. The hypocrisy is hard to miss in light of this. ] (]) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I've only been blocked once, but whatever it takes to feed your sense of ], I suppose. You know what's what. ] (]) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not what your block log says. ] (]) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I was blocked once in March by mistake and was swiftly unblocked; and was blocked by Ceradon for 3 days, which he then reduced to 24h, and then unblocked me. HTH. ] (]) 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{re|Beeblebrox}} The followup to that "Unsolicited advice" thread, which I started, is ], where I apologized for using the WP:ROPE shortcut, which had the unintended interpretation that I was implying that the editor would hang themselves (in a Misplaced Pages sense of being allowed to edit) instead of something more AGF. This, in turn, spawned my addition of text into this essay, which you referred to as a "silly 'warning'" at ] (below).—] (]) 18:04, 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: ]. Or, ]. 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. --] (]) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::The race card, excellent. Now if someone could just compare me to Hitler, we'd be done here. ] (]) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] 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. --] (]) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''<s>Comment</s>''' - 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. <span style="color: blue; text-shadow:7px 7px 7px blue">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** Except that's not what the phrase means in English. ] (]) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***Except that is the meaning in the essay as it is written. <s>However, your comment is the exact reason that I have not directly opposed.</s> <span style="color: blue; text-shadow:7px 7px 7px blue">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 18:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****'''Oppose move as stated''' however, I '''support''' a rewrite, such as the one stated in the below counter proposal. I oppose the move per the comment of 209.211.131.181, as such a move would take away from the meaning of the page. It would be better just to create an unrelated ]. The title there would bring different meaning to the same concept. <span style="color: blue; text-shadow:7px 7px 7px blue">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 19:17, 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. ] (]) 19:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**I respect your oppose. However, I'm not sure where you are going with the leopard analogy. Does make you the exception on changing spots?—] (]) 19:34, 13 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
]] 16:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is an excellent start to addressing the perceived disparity between Misplaced Pages'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".. The English saying implies that the person given "rope" will eventually hang themselves. Period. Misplaced Pages's essay, however, implies that a person given "rope" will hopefully save their editing privileges on Misplaced Pages; 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, but it was removed on August 12 as part of the recent spike in the page's activity. 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 Misplaced Pages namespace as opposed to being a ].—] (]) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
At the same time as the move suggested above, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Give them enough rope|675769267|675768285|my recent edits}}, taking into account the new name, and which were summarily reverted (with edit summaries of "undiscussed move" and " pre-crusade version"), should be restored. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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.—] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Given the response to your other changes I would seek consensus first. ] 19:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{OD}} |
|
|
You all seem to have missed the opening phrase of this section: {{tq|"At the same time as the move suggested above..."}}. I chose them deliberately. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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. ] 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds although I'm not sure how. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I found the <s>removal</s> <ins>warning</ins> 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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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. ] (]) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Per ], essays may be freely edited by others subject to the usual community policy on consensus. Essays on ], however, offer more protections if one doesn't want their viewpoint modified.—] (]) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's called ], 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 ]. ] (]) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|Beeblebrox}}: The 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 ] shortcut that you had created going forward.—] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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? ] (]) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm preparing the groundwork for a run for ArbCom. --] (]) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I tried to move it back to the original title without reading this discussion, but botched the move; ] 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. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 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''. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Move protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Upon the failure of the RM</s> Should the requested move not gain consensus, should the move protection stay indefinitely to prevent such a blowup from recurring? --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*That's not very optimistic... is that what you meant? --] (]) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** I meant: if the RM fails. I see how that's worded now. Reworded. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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... --] (]) 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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 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 ]. Here's what I see what happened: |
|
|
#15:27, 12 August 2015 ] closed as snow keep. |
|
|
#15:34 ] moved to ] with edit summary "Move to a title that's not glaringly offensive for a start" |
|
|
#15:51 ANI report at ] |
|
|
#15:53 ] moved to ] |
|
|
#15:57 Indef move protection |
|
|
#16:35 RM started at ] to move ] to ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd unprotect after the RM is closed, and revisit only as needed.—] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.—] (]) 20:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your point 1 should be "...with a summary of {{tq|'Anybody who wants it "rewritten", just start editing'}}". This was clearly in response to my comment in the MfD {{tq|" I suggest that the page be rewritten, and moved to a less aggressive title, with the current title kept as a redirect."}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 00:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nothing in your comment refutes what I wrote in mine. Your claim that "consensus at the MfD 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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 11:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Nothing in your new comment refutes what I wrote in either of mine. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::]. Bye. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
