| Revision as of 18:56, 12 August 2015 editFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,362 edits →pagemove cleanup: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:59, 12 August 2015 edit undoIzkala (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,341 edits →Requested move 12 August 2015: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| ********* 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 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) | **********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. ] (]) 18:56, 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) | ||
| *'''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) | *'''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) | ::The "concern witht he suicide analogy" is a ridiculous concern and a red herring. ] (]) 17:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 12 August 2015
 | Misplaced Pages essays Mid‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 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 User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables does not even though it seems to address an important reality (which perhaps does not want to be more widely admitted). Sighola2 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- On a different note, I mentioned WP:ROPE recently, and I had the unintended response that I was implying an editor would hang themselves, as oppose to being a net asset if they were unblocked. I've added to the article that the title and the WP:ROPE shortcut can be be taken as uncivil. Perhaps this essay should be renamed, or merged with Misplaced Pages:Unblocks are cheap.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- If they are that incompentent they shouldn't be here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just noting for the record that:
- If someone thinks we are actually trying to compel them to kill themselves, they clearly haven't actually read this and are probably too emotionally unstable to be editing in a collaborative environment like this
- I kept the unblockables essay in my userspce because I wanted to keep it saying what I wanted it to say, and not be watered down by fake civility crusaders making up silly objections. Until now that hadn't been a problem with this essay, but if a consensus should emerge to transform this into a piece of cuddly, everybody-gets-a-gold-star nonsense I will recreate it in my userspace, and I imagine it will kepp getting cited by others in discussions as it has been for five years now.
Hope that clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 12 August 2015
 | It has been proposed in this section that Misplaced Pages:Give 'em enough rope be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log |  |
Misplaced Pages:Give them enough rope → Misplaced Pages:Give second chances – This essay should be moved to Misplaced Pages:Give second chances (a recent good-faith move by User:Alakzi to that name was reverted). The page already caries the notice "Using the rope analogy directly can be regarded as uncivil and a lack of good faith"
, and the current title is not conducive to aiding misguided editors to become more amenable and productive. See also the section preceding this one. There is nothing to lose, and much to be gained, by a rename. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Bagumba:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move - Common guys, let's not squeeze all the juice out of the place in our attempt to be PC. It's a colorful metaphor, not an invitation to a hanging. (And, BTW, in the history of the world there have been far more legal hangings then there have been illegal lychings. For centuries hanging was the normal way of carrying out a legal death sentence.) BMK (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support move and rewrite. The essay and article name are easily misunderstood, and wording in suicide metaphers is hardly civil, not even funny. On top of moving, it should also been used less. (I have seen one editor made unhappy by the usage, which is one too many.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move for the same reason as I opposed the deletion, just because you don't like it doesn't means it must change. I'd also like to point out that only counts when the person wants it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do hold it against me for cursing while under distress. You're a disgusting individual. Alakzi (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't hold it against you I'm just noting the subjective nature of your desire in civility. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Why is that crusaders for civility are always so blind to their own bltant incivility. WP:NPA please. Comment on his opinions all you like, but attacking another user's character is across the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because "crusaders of civility" are worn out by people who don't seem to want to get the point. No, we're not infringing on your freedom of expression. Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Why is that crusaders for civility are always so blind to their own bltant incivility. WP:NPA please. Comment on his opinions all you like, but attacking another user's character is across the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't hold it against you I'm just noting the subjective nature of your desire in civility. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do hold it against me for cursing while under distress. You're a disgusting individual. Alakzi (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move: My comment at the MfD are still mostly relevant. If this essay is being used to advocate for suicide, that's disgusting. But it also isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This essay is a colorful adage with a good teaching behind it. If the essay is being misused, that's a reflection of the user who misuses it, not necessarily on the essay itself. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're an involved admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: And....? --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're an involved admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move And all other attempts to turn this into a histrionic, handwringing, wishy-washy essay. I had taken this off my watchlist because it had been stable for so long and was widely cited in discussions, I figured it was off on its own now and would remain stable, but apparently we have to now re-write so that people who don't understand what a metaphor is won't be scared by it and think we are actually going to cause them to be hanged. I'd rather see it deleted than see any of that happen. If you want an essay that says soemthing other than what this one is says, write it already. Add it to the "see also" section on this essay if you like, but don't destroy this oft-cited essay just because you don't persoanlyl happen to like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm grateful for you starting the essay. I saw somebody reference it once, and I have used it since to be more trusting and to give editors more leeway. That being said, as this essay is in Misplaced Pages space as opposed to being in a user page, it's also fair game for changes that have consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully the good editors retain the common sense to make a common sense consensus but the only such showing now is the opposition theory. Maybe with more time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's a fair share of consensus for non-common sense actions on Misplaced Pages, but it's consensus nonetheless. Of course, common sense is all relative.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully the good editors retain the common sense to make a common sense consensus but the only such showing now is the opposition theory. Maybe with more time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's not only about implying that people will commit suicide, which is, in fairness, a bit of a stretch; it's about implying that they'll eventually get blocked - be it tomorrow or in a week - because that's who they are. This is the exact meaning of the phrase. You'd be saying that they are beyond redemption. How is it so difficult to comprehend? Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comprehension is based on reading for example in the first paragraph third maybe fourth sentence you may see a phrase "If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." Now to break it down if they are true to their promise to not repeat the behaviors then they will be ok, if they misbehave they will be blocked. Read the essay, it's not difficult to comprehend once you have done so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Because it's just flat-out wrong, and apparently reflects a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction not based on a careful reading of what the essay actually says, which is far more nuanced than you imply. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- It hardly matters what the essay intends if this is how the phrase is used and how it's understood. Misplaced Pages isn't in a position to redefine the English language. Alakzi (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently it's a very small amount of people that can't understand this, perhaps you can find sourcing about this phrase in particular that has been modified so much in the English language. I'd be interesting in seeing those otherwise this is exactly what it appears a politically correct witch-hunt because you don't like it. Editor up, show your cards on something real to base these concerns on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Really? ""; "to allow someone to do what they want to, knowing that they will probably fail or get into trouble"; "the argument that some individuals given sufficient opportunity will bring harm on themselves"; "to allow someone to accomplish his or her own downfall by his own foolish acts". Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your mystery-meat link to Misplaced Pages:Competence is required is both unaceptable and unwarranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well I assume the next debate will be on the existance of that page as well? Instead of compabout me if you have issue here ya go WP:ANI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I assume this is all of the vacuous arguments of the opposition. Can we speedy move this now? Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I bow to your superior personal experience in exercising vacuous arguments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't a pissing contest. All of your arguments have proven to be bogus - to the point that you've even had to ask for sources for a phrase that's completely transparent to second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-language speakers of English. Why don't you admit that you have no trouble with deliberately offending people? Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I bow to your superior personal experience in exercising vacuous arguments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I assume this is all of the vacuous arguments of the opposition. Can we speedy move this now? Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well I assume the next debate will be on the existance of that page as well? Instead of compabout me if you have issue here ya go WP:ANI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently it's a very small amount of people that can't understand this, perhaps you can find sourcing about this phrase in particular that has been modified so much in the English language. I'd be interesting in seeing those otherwise this is exactly what it appears a politically correct witch-hunt because you don't like it. Editor up, show your cards on something real to base these concerns on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Alakzi (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Because it's just flat-out wrong, and apparently reflects a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction not based on a careful reading of what the essay actually says, which is far more nuanced than you imply. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:54, 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 user page, it's also fair game for changes that have consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support The concern with the suicide analogy has been outstanding since 2014. I don't think the new title needs to be the final one, but it's a start towards finding a better one. Let's all be frank: that this is a political correctness debate. Much like the modern display of the Confederate flag, it needs to be decided if negative reactions need to be balanced with historical usage. I'm OK with the content having some references to rope, but the title having rope as the main theme goes against WP:AGF, which is a fundamental part of Misplaced Pages's five pillars. Yes, some editors will ultimately be indefinitely blocked, but the positive is that others go on to be (more) productive.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- The "concern witht he suicide analogy" is a ridiculous concern and a red herring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. This proposal would change the scope of the essay. Since there's nothing to stop any editor from writing a "give second chances" essay afresh. moving this page to form the basis of an essay with a different scope would be effectively deleting the present essay. There has just now been a closed MfD in which the idea of deleting this essay was opposed almost universally. Therefore, there should not now be a proposal to effect the same deletion by a different means. Also: fuck the use of "triggering" for bullshit censorship. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move We have been linking to this with a context for years now, changing it now would remove that context and make countless comments make no sense at all. The essay is trying to get something very specific across and the current title does a good job doing that. Chillum 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits
At the same time as the move suggested above, my recent edits, taking into account the new name, and which were summarily reverted (with edit summaries of "undiscussed move" and " pre-crusade version"), should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest waiting for consensus on the above page move. It involves the similar theme of whether the metaphor should remain the main theme of the essay.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Removals and Additions
Editing the article to a POV status doesn't help the case, hyperbole that this advocates suicide with dubious references just makes it look flimsy and reaching. Also when removing long standing content merely on the basis you don't like it needs a consensus when challenged. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found the silly "warning" particularly offensive. Just because some people are apparently incapable of understaning what a metaphor is we aren't allowed to use them anymore? I don't think so. And why was a link added to "wikibullying" which the exact opposite of what this essay is about? This sin't about pushing people around, it's about finding out if they are honest and competent or not. This is indeed a "crusade" and it is utterly ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found the removal far from silly, and its removal offensive. And Hell in a Bucket's edit war to remove it (removing long standing content merely on the basis he didn't like it) PoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's an esay, not an article. Its explicit purpose is to express a point of view. If you have a differing point of view, feel free to write an essay about that and call it whatever you like, avoiding scary metaphors of course. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's called WP:BRD, I challenged the removal the next step was for a discussion to gain consensus but if you feel that strongly let me help you with the link WP:3RR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found the removal far from silly, and its removal offensive. And Hell in a Bucket's edit war to remove it (removing long standing content merely on the basis he didn't like it) PoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages Talk:Give 'em enough rope/Archive 1. If this name is to be kept it should be moved. I am just noting this for the record here and would ask everyone to please not act hastily, there's been quite enough of that already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've moved the archive *temporarily* to here, so it's all together. i think there might be a benefit to being able to read the archive when discussing the RM. It might have been cleaner to move everything back to the original title, but at this stage it would cause more heartache than it's worth. When the RM is closed, the talk page archive can be moved wherever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)