Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FormalDude (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 30 August 2021 (→Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope

All prior XfDs for this page:
Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Deeply offensive and traumatizing terminology such as this is completely unnecessary. Jacona (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and either rewrite or mark historical. Deleting this page would break links from somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 archived discussions (the toolforge link counter doesn't seem to follow redirects properly, this number is my rough math). The sentiment intended by the essay's authors can easily be rewritten to exclude the violent metaphor, and it's about time that we did. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is still a common expression and just an essay, no one is required to read or follow this - but if someone uses the common term it provides useful background. The Wikipedia:Give_'em_enough_rope#Citing_this_essay section already includes some guidance on how to best use it. Also, not seeing any thing new than when this was just speedily kept a few months ago in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (2nd nomination). — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the last nomination just a few months ago. As with that one, it seems the objection is not to the essay itself, but the title. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid concept commonly used in discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the essay and the title, and continue using the expression. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with current title and current content, although content is subject to normal editing. I respectfully disagree with the nominator and the previous nominators. Any material can be used and misused. I disagree that the primary reference is to use as tool of racist oppression. Primary reference is to giving it to a fool who will do it to himself. Competence is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical - WP:ROPE is linked to a couple thousand times it seems, so deleting the page will be too disruptive. But it should be marked historical because of the violent metaphor. Someone can write a new essay saying the same thing in a different way (and some such essays already exist). I'm actually opposed to moving it or rewriting it because that will change what people meant when they linked to WP:ROPE in the past... so I'd rather just keep it in its present form and mark it historical so people know it was something we once used but no longer use. And by the way, this isn't just about referencing racial oppression (though it is that), it's more about referencing suicide. "Give them enough rope to hang themselves with" is wishing suicide upon someone... that's not good. Levivich 16:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical Rewrite and rename because we ought to have grown up by now. Yes, it's just a metaphor, and one that I personally like, but one that really we shouldn't use in those contexts anymore. For some, it evokes associations with lynching, which – correctly or not – makes them uncomfortable about the project.
    More harmful though is the overt reference to suicide. Yes, all but the most literal-minded users will know the essay isn't actually telling them to go hang themselves, and yes, for almost everyone suicide is a topic like any other. However, this is used in the contexts of users with a history of problematic behaviour, and among that population there's likely to be over-representation of people who have mental health problems or who are not neurotypical. Even if out of ten thousand people only one is driven to attempted suicide because of this metaphor, then that will be a major failing for us, and one that's totally unforgivable as the issue has been raised again and again over the years.
    And it's not that we don't have alternatives. We should just revive Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes, with its handy shortcut WP:STRIPES – an essays that says the same things, but using a more benign metaphor (the fact that people thought to propose it for deletion, and the fact that they succeeded – beggars belief). – Uanfala (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing bolded part of my comment to "Rewrite and rename", as that's obviously the better way to address the concerns that have been raised. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's hard to believe that an essay that was 95% just a copy of this one and was simply left to gather dust by it's author when they were discovered to be an abusive sockpuppeteer? Revive it if you want but stop with this cheap narrative that something untoward happened with that deletion. For the record Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes is there for one and all to see. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your sentiment completely but the problem with "tiger stripes" is that it assumes the editor in question is a "tiger" (disruptive) and will "show their stripes" (be disruptive). I definitely think we can do better than WP:ROPE but I think we can do better than WP:STRIPES, too. And tigers aren't disruptive, they're very nice creatures, just misunderstood. Levivich 16:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that is the literal viewpoint of this essay, isn't it? That we let a problematic editor reveal themselves? Somebody wrote on another page that this assumes bad faith, but I think it's really the opposite: by employing this essay when discussing a troublesome editor, we're assuming good faith that they'll not continue to be troublesome - that they're really not a tiger. But, also, we don't want tigers among us, so if they reveal themselves to be then we will respond accordingly. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In essence it means "give them the freedom to be good or bad, and we'll see what they do and they will be treated accordingly"North8000 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meaning isn't the issue, though; we all know what it means and agree with the meaning. The issue is whether this way of conveying that meaning--by evoking suicide and lynching--is an appropriate way to convey that meaning. Levivich 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical and write a new essay expressing the underlying concepts without violent metaphors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical. This is a common metaphor. I've certainly used it in its intended context, and I personally have no strong feelings about it. That being said, the concerns mentioned here and in the ANI thread that prompted this discussion are legitimate and what swing me away from a straight keep !vote. The ideal approach is to develop another essay that conveys a similar message using a more benign metaphor. WP:ROPE should then be retargeted there so as not to break the numerous links to it. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia uses words that may be offensive to some readers, and the phrase is a common colloquialism and is not offensive or traumatizing to a reasonable person. I am sensitive to those who have wished not to live anymore because I was one of those people, but it does not entitle us to force society to change to accommodate our feelings, because our feelings are our own responsibility. MarshallKe (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two links pertain to articles not essays. An widely cited essay should be written to be as persuasive and effective as possible. I agree completely with the underlying point of this essay but the violent metaphor prevents me and some other editors from linking to it. We ought to show good editorial judgment and come up with another version without the suicide metaphor that bothers many editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not object to someone writing a more "friendly" version of this essay to be used as an alternative. In time, usage of the old "rope" essay may fall off naturally. There's no need for heavy-handed deleting. Side note, I think the assertion that my links only apply to articles and not essays is at best WP:Wikilawyering, as it pays too much attention to the letter rather than the spirit. MarshallKe (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @MarshallKe, it's not wikilawyering. We don't censor articles, and have articles on the most racist of terms. Like most workplaces, we do not tolerate the use of those same terms in our workspaces. Essays are in our workspace. —valereee (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I live in The United States of America. It is considered offensive by many people to suggest that someone be given the opportunity to commit suicide. Where do you live that such a suggestion is considered civil? Jacona (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical to avoid breaking links, and rewrite under another name. I regret that I have no good suggestion for such a name. It's a lively and well-known metaphor; but we must take every step possible to avoid the risk of self-harm, and being pointed to an essay with this title and shortcut might trigger it.
(A colleague hanged himself, around 25 years ago, on this very same UK bank holiday weekend. He did it preparedly and tidily, to minimise the fuss. None of us (in a department of ten, equal numbers of men and women, we all thought we knew him) saw it coming, nor could we work out afterwards what we might have done differently to prevent it; but we all felt guilty.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I offer WP:Last chance saloon / WP:LASTCHANCE as a possible alternative title. (I've never heard of that stuff about tigers and stripes.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A straightforward title would be "Give them an opportunity to either succeed or fail". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking maybe even something super-generic like "unblocks are cheap", expressing the sentiment that it's easy to unblock someone, but it's even easier to re-block them (WP:RECIDIVISM). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We actually already have Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap. Maybe there could be a merge. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a metaphor about suicide, but rather incompetence - getting tangled up by foolish use of latitude. It's a common phrase and not meant maliciously - it's not a literal hanging being referred to, after all. It's difficult to replace because the whole point is to show that someone is unworthy of trust precisely by extending them that trust, then seeing if they handle it well. In other words, it is an attempt to convince someone who is already hostile and angry - wanting someone banned, perhaps - and telling them to actually be "nicer", to extend credit and good faith. If you were "right" that they were bad news, fine, at least you'll have evidence. If you were wrong, then everyone's happy. Giving someone rope - a tool that can be used both usefully, yet also for preparing for a hanging - perfectly encapsulates the idea, and any suggested future essay needs to encompass the same duality and thus wouldn't be any "safer", that of a tool that can either be useful or self-destructive. So just keep it here; a new title would have the same issue anyway (or would change the meaning of the essay). SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep/Do not mark historical Knee-jerk nomination in reaction to one specific user misusing the essay in contravention of the essay itself. That's all that has changed, clearly, since the last nomination. This is part of Wikpedia parlance and is used regularly, so marking it historical is nonsense, that's for things we don't use. As always, if others would rather some other essay that expressed the same idea with a different metaphor was more prevalent, I encourage them to write that essay already instead of trying to delete this one. I have no problem with this being superseded by a newer essay, but somehow those who suggest that never seem to want to actually try and do it, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll certainly see what I can come up with tomorrow. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've long thought that WP:TNT is an obnoxiously violent metaphor. If WP:TIGER marks the cut-off level then shall we nominate the following for deletion too?
  1. WP:ALLMAD
  2. WP:ASSHOLE
  3. WP:BEAR
  4. WP:BITE
  5. WP:BOMB
  6. WP:COCK
  7. WP:CUT
  8. WP:DEATHS
  9. WP:DYNAMITE
  10. WP:HANGINTHERE
  11. WP:IDIOT
  12. WP:KILLINGS
  13. WP:KILLITWITHFIRE
  14. WP:MURDERS
  15. WP:PRICK
  16. WP:SHOOTINGS
  17. WP:SNOWFLAKE
  18. WP:STUPID
  19. WP:SUICIDE
  20. WP:WOLF
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know some of these existed. Leave it to Wikipedia to make WP:STUPID. WaltCip-(talk) 20:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man plus WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nominate separately any you consider objectionable. Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to WP:Time will tell with corresponding editing changes in language. I have never been troubled by this common (at least in the U.S.) saying as used here, but I have noticed a number of complaints from others over the years based on perceived connotations of suicide or even lynching. I think the the name I've suggested captures the meaning of giving a user time to reveal their true selves. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I personally find this (3rd!) nomination a bit ridiculous; indeed, I've used the ROPE shortcut myself in the past couple years without incident, and while I do respect the people involved we can't really be "wussifying" (God I sound like a boomer, I know) WikiCulture to this extent, especially in light of the shortcuts Mr. Davidson has presented above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In fencing there is a very similar tactic we call a stop cut. Basically, you retreat and let the opponent walk right into your sword. It's an extremely effective tactic and one that Bruce Lee heavily incorporated into his Jeet Kune Do. The point is that it is a universal tactic that proves extremely effective in almost any dispute, whether it involves swords, fists, or just words, and one that can even be traced back to the great Sun Tzu. Sometimes it's best to simply stand back and let aa person dig their own grave (which is also a metaphor, meaning to let them be the cause of their own failure). Sometimes it is simply counterproductive to simply argue back and forth. In my opinion, if such metaphors disturb people, then they have much bigger issues underneath the surface that simply changing the way people speak will never cure. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A second point I would like to make is that this is one of those things I would say crosses the line into real censorship, not those lame arguments people almost always make when they use the word. This is where we get into the real definition of the word. Some people don't like nudity in art, and think it creates deviants. Others don't like rock music. Once the book burning starts, it always leads down a dangerous path. Zaereth (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belittle a real emergency, but I don't see the connection. Seems a little post hoc. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the essay, and I've dealt with dozens of threats of harm over more than a decade. There's no connection between this essay,which, again, is advice for administrators to consider during an unblock discussion, and real threats of self-harm. It's ridiculous to the point of offensive to make such a suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be so sure there's no connection? I don't believe there's any way you would know of the actual instances self-harm (rather than on-wiki threats) that occur to people who are blocked from editing here. – Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't. Hence the post hoc fallacy. Unless a connection can be shown, assuming there is one is logically flawed. As above, this is the same censorship argument people have used for thousands of years. Wikipedia is not therapy. (And I think there's an essay on that too.) Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get this straight? Given the same absence of data either way, it is a logical fallacy to state that it's possible there is a connection, but it's not a logical fallacy to confidently assert that there is none? We've got a plausible explanatory mechanism here, and given how serious the consequences are if this mechanisms turns out to be correct, it would be a moral failure not to act on it, especially as the costs of acting are so preciously small. Are we going to have to wait until someone kills themselves and the media trace it to us before we change a silly little metaphor in an essay? – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could say that appeals to emotion are another logical fallacy, but it seems you just made my point. Zaereth (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me even one example of the media blaming a suicide on an essay on a website that is not even about suicide? People who kill themselves don't do it because someone mentioned rope, they do it because they have other very serious issues. I find this argument extremely unrealistic. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people who commit suicide do so because they've got serious issues. But the sorts of people who get themselves blocked here and then come back begging to be let back in are more likely to have serious issues than the average Joe. Will anyone hang themselves just because someone on the internet told them to get some rope? Of course not. But if you're in a bad place already it doesn't take that much to get you thinking again about stuff you've been trying not to think about. Little things can make a difference. Can we guarantee that this essay was not among those little things for each one of the thousands of problematic people it has been handed out to over the years? – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nature of life. If someone goes out and becomes a serial killer, can we really say the horror movies caused him to do it? Do nude statues by Michelangelo produce child molesters? We cannot protect the world, and ultimately no one knows why people do the things they do. And the person who almost always understands why the least is the very person doing whatever they're doing. (There's a whole field of psychiatry that is built on that foundation.) The only thing I can ever guarantee you in life is death and taxes. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in re-reading your comment, I think I see a point of confusion. This is not an essay we "hand out to problematic users". It is an essay from one admin to other admins that basically says, "there's a nicer way to handle a problem user than simply blocking them on the spot. Let them give you a reason to block first, and maybe, just maybe, you'll be pleasantly surprised". In a more general context, it's a good tactic in any dispute. If you know your argument is sound, there is little need to debate the issue unless you think there is some chance in changing the person's mind (which there rarely is). The bigger issue to keep in mind is that it's not your opponent you need to convince, although it's worth attempting if you think there's a chance. When it comes to language, context is everything. I would also say, if you're in a situation that is escalating, say ... it's gotten down to personal attacks, it's easy to get caught up in the emotion, which is the very point of a personal attack. At that point the natural instinct is to respond or defend whereas the most effective tactic would be to simply retreat. I could go on, but I've said this so many times to so many people over the years, it's nice to have a metaphor I can point to. Zaereth (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're not talking to me, but to indulge, as I recall, someone once sued Ozzy Osbourne because their son committed suicide, and he had a cassette tape in his recorder, and one of the songs was titled Suicide Solution. Of course, the case was thrown out of court, because the song is all about the evils of alcohol, and the title is simply a play on words; "solution" being a mixture of liquids. Such plays on words are common in the English language, and especially in poetry and music. (Bon Scott was a master of this.) Like I said, it's the same argument that has always been used. It always must be someone else's fault, right? (That's sarcasm, for those who don't recognize it.) The entire premise is ludicrous. Zaereth (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking Uanfala, there was an edit conflict while I was responding. I agree the premise is ludicrous. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was 99.9% sure of that. I'll just leave with this: language is rarely ever translated so literally. We speak figuratively because that's how language works. It saves a lot of words, and we speak metaphorically because it gives a broad comparison to an otherwise difficult thing to verbalize. That's not just English, but all languages. (For example, I got one of those electronic massagers for Christmas; the kind that send electric pulses through your body. In describing the different pulse settings, the instructions said, "This setting is like jumping frog, and this setting like crispy rice..." In Chinese, these metaphors probably make sense, but literally translated...) The only places where this becomes a real difficulty is when non-native speakers only look at the literal definition, or when you have people who for certain reasons have trouble following figurative speech. But that doesn't change the fact that this is common speech, and if we start trying to change the language to compensate, we not only make things harder on ourselves but do a serious disservice to the reader. Society as a whole determines the language, and no encyclopedia or dictionary has ever changed that (or else we'd be speaking Old English right now). Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, though, that the applications extend far beyond the original intent. In any RFC, for example, you get someone WP:Bludgeoning the process. In most cases it's best not to engage (or you may give yourself enough rope). Or in a simple dispute, there's a time when it's better to step back and let the opponent unwittingly make your point. I think its value transcends it original intent. I've spent a lot of time over the years trying to give people the same advice. There's a time to advance and a time to retreat. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is any changes can be made through consensus at the talk page. As mentioned before this is an old expression about incompetence and not about suicide. Nothing has changed since the last 2 times there was a strong consensus to keep this essay. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a common phrase, and while it remains common there is nothing wrong with us using it in its normal context. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known expression with a clear guideline for use; replacing it with some sort of euphemistic/inoffensive alternative will add unnecessary confusion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical we all certainly have different interpretations about certain metaphores - something that applies to everything else: poems, texts, etc. - so I do not believe the editors that disregard the interpretation of suicide are being too reasonable. Personally, this metaphor doesn't affect me, but to other editors, who who've had or are struggling with rought times, might. It's unnecessary to use this metaphor, as other editors have pointed out, and in a way even counterproductive: the title of the essay presupposes that the "last chance" will end a certain way, when in reality the introduction states it can end both ways; so the current title is more confusing than the proposed ones above. BunnyyHop (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no changes other than normal editing -- there's a moral-panickiness about this. Common phrase, English speakers know what it means, no one is going to hang themselves over this. Kind of silly brouhaha really. Antandrus (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I considered a WP:SNOW close, but it's probably best to let people talk this out even if the outcome is clear. This board is technically "for deletion", but we can pretend it's "for discussion". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia:Who knows what they'll do. Not going to lie, even as someone who has dealt with mental health issues before (including self-harm) I have never been bothered by this essay. I've read it a few times before and have agreed with all of its contents (and even cited it myself). However, I can see why some people would be a tad disturbed by the dark humour it evokes (literally Gallows humor). This is my suggestion for what we replace it with since it involves the same laissez-faire attitude as the essay's contents. There's a bit more info at wikt:who knows, but I think most people are going to get what I'm going with here: Will they be productive after an unblock? Who knows. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the thought behind it, but the title maybe strays a bit from the concept. I would say maybe "Give them enough slack and they'll pants themselves", except that is not a widely known metaphor, and a lot of people are unlikely to know that "pants" as a verb means to be put in an awkward position, as in "caught with your pants down". Zaereth (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same as each time previously. And if this is deeply traumatising, then I guess the wider world is not for you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: The phrase literally is about someome killing themself. In what wider world do you live in where that isn't considered a sensitive topic (at the very least)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right; while death in general and suicide in particular are heavy topics, gallows humor is quite common, as are such suicide-referencing phrases as "kick the bucket". Making jokes about something (which these aren't even; they're references) is not necessarily making light of it, and while I understand that some might be genuinely triggered by it, such concerns need to be taken to therapy, and not Wikipedia. You should not edit Wikipedia when you aren't at your best, and Wikipedia should not be changed to suit your specific (and, in this case lest I be misunderstood, valid) needs. I say this as someone with an unfortunate history on the matter.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    kick the bucket is a euphemism to avoid saying "die". It has nothing to do with suicide and mentioning it kind of betrays your point... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: it's actually a dysphemism, referring (likely) to the act of literally kicking the bucket out from under yourself to hang yourself. Even if that origin theory isn't true (the etymology remains controversial per the article you linked), "kicked the bucket" is deliberately more lighthearted/less respectful than saying "passed away" or "with the Lord", etc. (being closer to stuff like "belly up" or "bit the dust", similar Bart Simpson-isms), and it's prevalence proves my point of lightening the mood of something while still recognizing its seriousness.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User:MJL, it is not about killing oneself, where that implies intent. Literally or otherwise. It is about someone getting themselves into trouble, decisively, due to their own foolishness. There is a figuratively allusion to death via hanging, but this is figurative not literal, and is more accurately a figurative allusion to “tried and sentenced” by their own actions.
    It is a popular and common phrase that communicates the message very well: OK, we will let you manage your own behaviour, but be warned that if you continue foolishly then you’ll condemn yourself, to whatever sanction we have been considering. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: We seem to be talking about different things. I know the essay is not about killing oneself. I'm referring to the phrase which composes the essay's title in isolation (which is explicitly about suicide). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The title is NOT “explicitly” about suicide. Not at all. The fool will do it WITHOUT conscious intent. The title is explicitly about giving (not forcing, no coercion) “rope”, and rope has a great many uses. What the fool may do with the rope is not explicit in the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally the first sentence of the essay is As the old saying goes "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.", bold in the original, and hang themselves means suicide. It is, in fact, explicitly, and in the first sentence, quoti f a common saying that uses suicide as a metaphor, and the title of the essay is a portion of that quote. The objection is to the use of suicide as a metaphor. This is not a complicated argument. Levivich 01:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the etymology, not the title, literally or otherwise. “Hang themselves” does not mean suicide, the meaning of the original is that they will, figuratively, convict (and sentence) themselves through their own negligent foolishness. Suicide requires intent. The phase does not mean suicide. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical Rename and replace – This violent metaphor has no inherent advantages compared to other ways of illustrating the point it wants to make. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a common phrase, but even if the use of the phrase is unacceptable I don't see why we'd want to mark it has historical. None of the "mark historical" comments are objecting to the actual point of the essay, which could be moved to a different title. Hut 8.5 09:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It’s a common saying- there’s really not much of an issue with it. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of the dumber arguments I've seen recently, which is saying something. The idea we should remove a commonly used metaphor because some people are crybabies is just absurd.50.201.228.202 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite, rename. As someone with a suicidal friend with "hanging" among their triggers (yes, she's been treated multiple times, she's been doing much better since the ECT 2 years ago), the essay and its name need to catch up with the times. Never mind the clear and obvious other implication of hanging (lynching) which we all know was and even is a significant problem for black people. Between the two, I am one-hundred percent certain the same thing can be said in another way. --IznoPublic (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying it's just a saying which rightfully people here voting to keep it based on that reasonable thought however some while using it in a offensive/derogatory way towards others and essentially getting away with it is what I assume is the main problem to solve. TataofTata (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark has historical and start again with a new name. The more I think about this, the more I dislike it, because of the underlying assumption of bad faith. It means "This person has not yet done something awful enough to justify my blocking them, but I am convinced they will, and therefore I am going to give them the space to do something awful so that I can then block them with justification". The message ought to have been "I am currently in doubt about this editor, and therefore I am not going to leap to any conclusions, but instead wait: time will tell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemimele (talk • contribs)
See, you're just wrong in every possible regard. First of all, this essay is advice for admins considering an unblock, you seem to have missed that entirely. Second, what you say "should be" the actual message, is the actual message and always has been. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing the essay in the first place. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I know I should probably just shut up since the outcome here is obvious, but it's aggravating to see all these comments from people who are apparently just don't want to acknowledge what the essay actually says, and that is really about giving people chances. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As invited by Beeblebrox, I have written a modified version of this essay, which is currently at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance. I welcome input from any editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Well, it seems that makes two of us.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't own the essay anymore than anyone else does, but once these are beyond the draft stage I would welcome them being linked in the ROPE essay, perhaps in the "citing this essay" section rather than "See also". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not mark as historical, but maybe rewrite as per Cullen328 just above. The idea that "give them enough rope" is triggering of either lynching or suicide is unconvincing to me, and seems to me to be overly sensitive in a snowflakey sort of way. I have no objection to rewriting the essay, so as to put less emphasis on the rope aspect, although I think the shortcut and a brief mention of the phrase (perhaps treating the phrase as historical), is reasonable. As a concept that applies to our blocking policy, it remains a useful essay-level idea that can be referred to in discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what I'm seeing in the discussion about the rewrite, I'm striking my support for such a rewrite – just keep, and do not mark as historical. I still feel that the essay could be rewritten as I described, but it now looks to me like the sentiment there is "remove all mention of ropes, full stop", without any room for a middle ground, and I cannot support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be crystal clear, Trypofish, it is the mention of people hanging themselves that bothers me, not the mention of rope per se. As a mountaineer, I love good quality ropes, and metaphors about people doing positive things with ropes are perfectly acceptable to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood that, and was really just using "rope" as shorthand for the phrase. And I appreciate the effort you have been putting into this. But my opinion is unchanged. I actually suggested what I think is a very reasonable compromise on the talk page of your draft, one that mentions "rope" but leaves "hanging" completely unsaid. But I'm getting crickets from the editors who are commenting there, because I think the discussion there has self-selected for editors who want to go entirely ropeless. Comparing that with the discussion here, it's pretty clear that the emerging consensus here, with a larger cross-section of participating editors, goes against what is emerging from your work there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Crickets. This is not the proper forum for edit discussions. D in MfD is for Deletion. If editing will improve the page, there’s BOLD, the essay talk page, and RfC. Good edits don’t come from a short MfD under threat of deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rewrite, as needed. I've only used WP:LASTCHANCE for years. Alternatively, mark as historical—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per SnowFire and others. People are misunderstanding what it means. Even though in recent years it's become one of the internet's favorite hobbies, people need to stop looking for things to be offended by on behalf of others. We even see in this thread people saying that they dealt with mental health issues and never thought anything of it, but maybe some unspecified group of other people will be. There is literally no end to that line of reasoning. I can think of various things that will be next on the chopping block (tsk tsk!) but I will refrain from naming them per WP:BEANS. Language is full of metaphors that someone somewhere can claim to be offended by - or more often, claim that some other group finds it offensive - and thus claim and exert authority to change the language. Barring WP:RS that show a term actually is definitely considered offensive among a specific demographic, these sorts of proposals have become tiresome. Enough. Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and replace with Cullen328’s re-write here. It’s an unnecessarily unfortunate metaphor. Also, I’ll repeat what I said in my feedback to Cullen’s draft: “Give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” isn’t actually what the ROPE essay is trying to say in any case. There’s a disconnect. The maxim implies only one outcome - a negative one. The point of the saying is that one is dealing with someone who, if given enough freedom, will be the author of their own disaster. But the point of the essay is that a positive outcome is possible: “if they mean what they say, then unblocking will be the right thing to do, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough.” DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to remove the metaphor. I don't see any reason to keep using a metaphor that is deeply painful to multiple colleagues. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should not get rid of or replace a useful infomation page based on a metaphor just becuase some people may find it offensive. Also other arguments by Crossroads and others are compelling.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I can't see a valid reason to change it. Intothatdarkness 16:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - after doing a simple search online, it is clear that "suffer [permit/give] them enough rope" is older than the entire phrase about hanging (probably either related to sailors and ropes or "giving the horse the rein" from riding, or rope to a cart horse, or a combination thereof). There are quite a few sources for this, but this provides an example of early text. - jc37 21:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change 'they'll' to 'they'll likely' or 'they may' - per my comments above. And because the intent of the phrase (while obviously pessimistic) is to give possible option, not to guarantee a negative effect. - jc37 21:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: This is clearly not about intentional suicide. For another example. (praraphrasing) "Give that sailor enough rope and he'll likely hang himself from the yardarm" (see also this page for info about sailing ropes and rigging) - And one can get 'hung up' in the ropes and not die. - this is about a question of competence, not intentional suicide. - jc37 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the more I think about the essay the less I like it. There are two basic principles, and both are sound. First, don't build a mountain out of a molehill, it may be better to unblock and find out what happens, rather than to spend a lot of editor time arguing about an unblock. In particular, for new users without a history of behavior. Second, by their fruits you shall know them. We give the user a gift, a metaphorical rope, which can be used for good or for ill. The choice is theirs. (I note there are many bad things other than suicide one can do with a rope). However, the examples in this essay are low-quality, the tone is too eager to see the editor blocked in the long run, and the point that the essay is targeted towards the virtual "Administrator's noticeboard/appeals" isn't clear enough. I am sure somebody can write a better essay, and once it is accepted by the community this may be marked historical. But for the purposes of discussion this week, it must simply be kept. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per many other keepers above and the previous MfDs. As said by others already, this essay is meant to be read by admins, not the blocked user themselves. --pandakekok9 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove "and they'll hang themselves": This is obviously the most controversial portion of the essay, and the main justification behind people opting for deletion or marking as historical. I think removing this one part is the best compromise. ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: That's certainly an interesting compromise, but what will we replace for that part? "Give 'em enough rope" alone won't make sense. Maybe "and we'll see" could work? pandakekok9 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Give 'em enough rope for their last chance"? pandakekok9 ––FormalDude talk 15:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That way it can be interpreted as a "long leash" or "last straw" idiom. ––FormalDude talk 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical For three reasons 1. While the intent of it is to be used among admins, that's not how it's actually being used. I've seen a couple instances myself where non-admins have cited it to other non-admins, or an admin cited it to a user. 2. Looking through the discussion it's pretty clear that someone would have to look into the history of the term to get the underlining meaning and intent of it. Most people aren't versed on 15th century execution practices or how to tie a horse. So it's expected that they will read the modern usage of suicide or lynching into. I don't think it's "censorship" or anything to update the wording in way that people can understand it. 3. From what I can most of the keep votes are along the lines of "We have been using it. So we should keep doing so." Which isn't a good reason to not improve something. I can't think of anything better then that to justify maintaining the status queue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's not kid ourselves it has anything to do with John Ray's 1670 book of proverbs. It's about being allowed to metaphorically hang oneself by being given licence to err. It's a metaphor, not an incitement to permit someone's actual suicide. The English language can be blunt. Sorry if this is seen as old-fashioned and non-woke. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although to "hang oneself" can refer to suicide, I think in this instance the metaphor is likely referring to a person managing to inadvertently hang themselves. The meaning of the metaphor is "give them enough leeway to make a mistake, and they will do so"; since the 'hanging' corresponds to the mistake, I don't think it is a reference to suicide. That being said, even if it was, it's a common enough phrase that I don't think replacement is particularly warranted. Rabbitflyer (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a reference to the killing of oneself. I fail to see why it matters whether it's intentional or not. It's potentially triggering either way. ––FormalDude talk 23:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Give_%27em_enough_rope_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1041512209"