Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Anybody who wants it "rewritten", just start editing. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope


Seemingly used for no other purpose than for admins and wannabe admins to look down on good-faith editors. We don't need an essay to make the point that people should be given a chance; at least, not this essay. Alakzi (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, I've seen some pretty dumb MfD in my time but this takes the cake. The nomination is without merit, it is because this person doesn't like it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were an admin, I'd block you for incivility, then give you some rope. Alakzi (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is why people think it has no merit and if you actually thought that was blockable incivility I'd wonder at your WP:COMPETENCE but maybe this is WP:POINT editing? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the question, do I think that I was illustrating a point? The answer is yes. I don't actually think that you should be blocked. Alakzi (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no inherent harm or malice in the quote itself. It is something of biblical origins; rather than taking the effort of direct action now, let the subject do what he will, because he will likely find himself in deeper trouble anyways.  If it is used as a directed slur, then sanction the user, not the essay. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No merit to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seemingly used for no other purpose than for admins and wannabe admins to look down on good-faith editors. That's a very I don't like it-esque thing to say. "Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves" is a common adage. For instance, one gets 806,000 results on Google for "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves," and 644,000 results for "give 'em enough rope." The amount of pages that link to this is immense. There is an album with the name "Give 'Em Enough Rope", and a book that has it in it too. Not to create a "slippery slope"-type argument, but should those be censored too? I think we might all conclude that that is ill-advised. I cannot see malicious intent in this essay. For example, we are to assume good faith on Wikipedia, and I believe that this essay encourages us to assume good faith; when a user says they will not do the thing that got them blocked, ROPE helps an administrator to assume good faith and unblock them -- if they are sincere, they will not be blocked again, and if they aren't they will. I don't believe that the essay is itself the problem. Perhaps how it is used is the problem. In that case, I don't believe it makes sense to slap fines on gun companies when their products are use unconstructively. Similarly, if the essay is used maliciously, the problem isn't the essay itself, it's the user who uses it maliciously. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 13:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, the phrase is perfectly harmless when you purge it of all context. The usage of it in the street, and in literature and music is completely irrelevant. I have not said the essay is inherently malicious; but, almost without fail, it is referenced in a derogatory manner. Prohibition is - in fact - effective. Alakzi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow I could point to several failed policies arguing for prohibition and how it caused more problems not solved others. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an album called something worse; that doesn't make it a good phrase to use when discussing a fellow editor. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reyk  YO!  13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all of the above. If you don't like it, don't use it. If someone uses it as a personal attack, it can be dealt with as a PA, not by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete needlessly graphic and violent metaphor. Brustopher (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please protect us. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dark or not, its a pretty commonly used phrase/idea. Sergecross73   msg me  14:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Discipline the nominator for wasting the community's time on asinine matters like this. Oh, and keep. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? The way we treat each other is an "asinine matter"? Also, participation is voluntary; do feel free to pursue other matters if you feel like it's a waste of your time. Alakzi (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope, On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope, On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope, On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope, On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope, On a rope, on a rope, got me hanging on a rope.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a valid deletion reason. Sergecross73   msg me  14:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: legitimate essay making a valid point. BethNaught (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: good essay making a good point. Thomas.W talk 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This page already caries the notice "Using the rope analogy directly can be regarded as uncivil and a lack of good faith, ". The image is hardly conducive to reconciliation. I suggest that the page be rewritten, and moved to a less aggressive title, with the current title kept as a redirect. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a children's game for cripes sake. You are objecting to the use of an image from a childrens game? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.