Wikipedia talk:One last chance

Feedback

I saw your message at Bish's talkpage, and commented at the MfD. I think the idea of a rewrite, as you are doing here, is a good one, but I disagree with removing all mention of "give them enough rope". I'd suggest adding something at the end of the Daughtry intro, saying that the concept of the essay has been expressed historically by that phrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• The phrase "one last chance" has a different meaning than "give them enough rope". The issue with trying to find a replacement phrase is that 'rope' allows both for a (perceived) positive or negative outcome. It is a "give them time" + a "wait and see" + a "to see if they do (or do not) shoot themselves in the foot", approach. But there could be more than one "chance" (action/choice) involved. - jc37 00:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you for commenting. Tryptofish, my intention is to create an alternative version of the essay that does not contain this specific rope metaphor. As a (retired) mountaineer, I do not object to to rope metaphors and back when I was a new editor in 2009, I talked about "learning the ropes", which still appears near the top of my talk page in a comment I made shortly before climbing Mount Whitney at age 57. My objection is to the second half of the metaphor, "and they'll hang themselves". It is a suicide metaphor and I reacted negatively when I first saw it ten years ago. This is not "Give 'em enough rope and they will climb Mount Everest" or "Give 'em enough rope and they will pull that poor kid out of that deep well". It is a suicide metaphor. I am well aware from reading the MfD discussion and the discussion at ANI that a majority of editors have no problem with the metaphor and I respect their opinions. I do not have a bee in my bonnet about it, to use another metaphor. I just think that we can come up with an essay that makes exactly the same point that will be accepted by close to 100% of active editors not just a clear majority. I am not claiming that this essay would motivate someone to commit suicide. What I am saying is that it is offensive to a significant minority such as me. I lost an uncle and two cousins to suicide. Those suicides caused great pain to my mother's side of my family because of my uncle's death and to my father's side of my family because of the death of my cousins, who were sisters. It does not anger me or motivate me do anything unreasonable. It bothers me just enough that I will never link to the essay myself in its current form. Pinging Beeblebrox so that he will better understand my thinking on this matter, and to assure that esteemed editor that I respect their work highly. This is a relatively minor disagreement that I am trying to resolve amicably. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I like the new version, it's clear and succinct. I do see that "one last chance" isn't quite the same, but it's hard to think of a better phrase. The important concept for me is "give them time" (c.f. jc37. My rather old-fashioned churchy upbringing called it "time for amendment of life", i.e. the time to put right what we got wrong, and show that we've taken past mistakes to heart, and are now heading in the right direction. That is the basic idea expressed by Cullen's new text. Elemimele (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I like it too and agree with what Cullen’s says completely. And a point I tried to make in the ANI thread (and which Beeblebrox seemed to misunderstand when they replied) is that “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.” This is much better captured as “one last chance” and I think your draft does it well. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, I prefer this essay for the reasons given above by you and DeCausa. Disagreeing with Tryptofish, I think there is no need to mention the previous essay here. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, after reading and carefully considering all of the replies here, I've revised my MfD comment to oppose this rewrite. First of all, I want to make it clear that I, myself, am someone who lives with major depressive disorder, so I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that we should avoid triggering suicide or triggering sad feelings in surviving loved ones. But, bluntly, I find the sensitivity here to be over-the-top, and I'm likely to oppose any rewrite along the lines discussed so far in this talk section.

Now, that said, I still would like to be helpful in finding a mutually happy solution here, and I'm certainly not opposed to any rewrite. I just think that this does not have to be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Let me illustrate what I am thinking of. Here, I'll take the last paragraph of the current version of the lead section, and suggest an addition, in green font:

"Sometimes this is the best approach to take when dealing with blocked users. If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't repeat 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 one last chance. Sometimes this approach is described as "give 'em enough rope", although the hope is actually that they will see that it is in their best interest to become good editors. 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."

I think that this is reasonable, and still sufficiently responsive to some editors' concerns. Of course, it could probably be worded better. But I would hope that others here will be open-minded about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Just an fyi - 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 a combination thereof). Any also early uses of the later compound phrase typically include "may". not "will", so options for positive or negative results, as I mentioned above. - jc37 21:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC).

Could you link to what you’ve found, out of interest. After searching, I could only found the more common interpretation of “giving enough rope” only leading to an inevitable negative result. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I will say, one needs to wade through a lot of "urban dictionary"-like nonsense to find decent info. I added more info at the MfD. I hope this helps. - jc37 22:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support this essay rewrite. I really think it's a better option that doesn't cause unneeded controversy with potentially triggering phrases. Thank you @Cullen328 for taking the time and effort to make this. ––FormalDude talk 22:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always seen the metaphor as being related to "keep them on a tight leash." Rather than keeping a tight leash we're giving them more leeway with the understanding that they could use it to put themselves in a worse position. Sure we could keep them on a tight leash and put them under strict topic bans, interaction bans, page blocks, etcetera, or we give them more rope and see where they go with it.

To use the climbing metaphor from above, one can set anchors every ten feet so if you do slip it's a short drop. You can also set the anchors further apart, but if you do slip it's a much further fall.

That said I'm not bothered one way or another. I don't personally think the metaphor is actually an allusion to suicide, but I ken why it's close enough for some people. I do think that the rope metaphor is different enough where WP:LASTCHANCE would have different use cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note to leave feedback, and having read the essay, I think it's a good replacement. I do wish we could somehow place the agency more squarely with the "at risk" editor, as it was with "rope," but all in all I think that's a small sacrifice and this is a good way forward. Though I think no ill will was intended by the old essay, nor could it be honestly misinterpreted by 99% of readers, best to adopt something like an "appearance of impropriety" standard here and try to stand beyond reproach. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What do we do with the ropes?

The assumption is that this essay will overwrite the current version of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, right? The shortcut WP:ROPE will then point here, and it will be surprising for people who follow it (either from old discussions, or from continued future use) and see there's no mention of ropes here at all. Maybe bring some of the rope back, but without the gruesomeness? Like, we should see if the user to be unblocked will use the rope to climb a mountain or to descend deeper into the abyss? Or see if they go up or down the rope they're given? Or find out if they'll use the rope to make something constructive, or get themselves entangled in it? – Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, my recommendation is to mark WP:ROPE as historical, so that people who look can read it but not be encouraged to use it going forward. That may not be possible at this time, so it may be that the two essays exist side by side. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel fairly strongly that, even with a rewritten essay, the WP:ROPE shortcut should be retained. I see it used frequently, and it would be a very bad idea to turn it into a red link, or to a link that says that what you are looking for is historical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen, it's time to retire the usage of "rope" in this context. I'm fairly certain it won't prove to be an inconvenience for any editors. ––FormalDude talk 22:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Literally every unblock discussion I see at AN there are several "unblock per WP:ROPE" votes. It's fanciful to think this shortcut can just be "retired." Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the extent to which it's used. But take a look at the Stand Alone section below that discusses keeping WP:ROPE. ––FormalDude talk 00:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Image

I'd suggest that this image (found on Commons) is slightly better, especially because the sign is more legible.

It could perhaps be cropped for even better legibility. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider this crop:

Generalrelative (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Generalrelative. Your suggested image is clearly better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Song lyrics

I'm also not sure that these particular song lyrics are that helpful. They're not super illustrative and there's just so much divergence in the types of music different people are familiar with. I for one had never heard of this band or song. Not sure what, if anything, to replace them with though. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the band (having watched American Idol sometime in ancient history), but I also find the lyrics a little distracting. One option that I could see is to quote only the third of the three lines, without a line break or indenting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on this feedback, I have removed the song lyrics. I was unsure myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

CU blocks

Does this need to be added to 'when not to use', or is it just so well understood that it's not necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is only an essay. However, if one wants to put the full disclaimer, there's more than CU at WP:NEVERUNBLOCK.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Wikipedia:The final straw→User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance

This essay is short and quite similar to the one here, could we merge it and also use the WP:FINALSTRAW shortcut? ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Last Chance Saloon could also be merged to this page. Though it is labelled humourous, it would not take much editing to adjust the tone. - jc37 23:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Stand alone

So I went through the redirects for WP:LASTCHANCE and WP:ROPE and it seems to me that they are being used differently. Which led me to thinking that there really might be room on Wikipedia for both pages.

ROPE - more about "giving things time" to see what may happen.

LASTCHANCE - more about giving a last chance to stop, "or else".

So rather than treat this as a replacement for WP:ROPE, treat it rather as a split from WP:ROPE. In that case you could subsume the WP:LASTCHANCE redirect, while leaving the WP:ROPE redirect in place for that page.

What do you think? - jc37 23:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. The issue is, as I see it, that some find WP:ROPE distasteful or offensive. I think we'd be better off finding a better replacement for ROPE too promote harmony, rather than make a second related essay that doesn't replace the first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is what to replace ROPE with. Perhaps we don't need to replace it, if we could just remove the phrase "and they'll hang themselves," as that seems to be the most controversial portion. ––FormalDude talk 23:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Given how the MfD discussion about WP:ROPE appears to be going, this suggestion by Jc37 may be the best possible outcome. The question is whether anyone would object to the LASTCHANCE redirect being changed to this essay when I move it to Wikipedia space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: that's true, but ROPE will still have to be rewritten somehow to remove the violent analogy. Probably best not to have any analogy, since the other alternatives involving ropes sound forced and not intuitive. I'd just spell out what the concept is.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See also?

I'm only going to suggest this on the talk page, but I'd like to suggest adding WP:Give 'em enough rope to the "see also" section. There's a corresponding reciprocal "see also" there, and there remains a lot of similar content. I hope that no one would find such a link too triggering.

Somewhat similarly, I would suggest adding Template:Copied at the top of this talk page, in addition to the edit summary that is already in the page edit history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Equivalent edits done: [1] and [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep the allusion to rope, lose the hanging angle

Please see my comments today on the talk page for WP:ROPE for further context to my thinking here. As I expressed on the TP, I have some concerns about losing this highly functional reference point from the community discussion shorthand just because of a mistaken folk etiology as to the underlying phrase's origins. However, that said, if there is a way to preserve the reference point and address the concerns of others about possible perceptions as to imagery involved (factually mistaken though such perceptions may be) obviously that would be a best of all worlds approach. So I was pleased to see that Cullen had already gotten the ball rolling on this process. Especially because something about the semantics of how we use this phrase occurred to/crystalized for me in that discussion, and I think it just may point us towards a potential means of threading the needle here.

Part of any discussion about how to mitigate the concerns here while preserving a useful essay and reference device for the community, would be trying to find a way to preserve the shortcut (WP:ROPE) which we are all so familiar with. This is important not just for convenience but because this phrasing has a certain idiomatic/contextual meaning that is somewhat vitiated (or at least offset) with different wording. With respect to Cullen's initial thrust at this issue, this an important factor that his proposal did not take account of. But a that same time, frankly I don't think the hangman element is likewise necessary. In fact, it's always seemed like a slightly off element of the metaphor here. The phrase "give them enough rope to hang themselves with" is traditionally used in a context where the "rope" supplying party is hoping for the downfall of the rope-receiving party and the rope supplier therefore provides the rope to help ensure that outcome by letting the rope taker undermine themselves through some sort of failure at self control. For example, an attorney might well let an opposed party ramble on the stand (giving him rope), even if he were in a position to object, because the party is somehow doing damage to their own interests (hanging themselves). However, that meaning doesn't align perfectly with the situation we use it for here, because obviously when we give rope, the outcome we are hoping for is not for the other party to hang themselves; when we talk about extending rope as rhetorical matter, it is clear that we are referring to it as something the community member can use to extricate themselves from a situation (usually an WP:IDHT situation), but which they only get so much of. That just doesn't match up with the hangman metaphor.

And bringing that into focus, and looking at how we use WP:ROPE as both a syntactic and semantic matter, I realized that I (and I think just about everyone else who sometimes finds reference to this essay to be useful) have never really used it in a way that is consistent with the hangman set-up. I think if we look analytically at how we use the reference to "giving rope", it is pretty clear that we are actually using it (and it's embarrassing to me that I never made this connection expressly in my own mind before), like we would talk about utilizing rope in mountaineering. In particular we use talk about "rope" and the "amount remaining" in much the same way you would be preoccupied with it for strategy on an assent or when belaying someone. If you need it on a climb or a particular approach, you definitely want rope (here synonymous with "community patience") and anybody working with you wants to give it. But there's a practical limit on how much you have at your disposal at any given moment in time, and some of the most dangerous situations that arise on a climb feature or descent are situations where one moves to a place where (for lack of remaining rope, for example) they are suddenly in a position where they can't go back and they can't go forward--thus, if someone on your team tells you that you are low on rope relative to the circumstances, you take that seriously--just as you should take a warning about WP:ROPE here, if we extend the metaphor.

Thereby it seems to me not just that 1) this alternative metaphor provides us a possible avenue here to thread the needle between keeping the essay (and it its current home) while addressing concerns about the noose imagery, but in fact also 2) I think we're already more than half way there in how we functionally reference this essay anyway? Any thoughts on this as a prospective solution? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think your analysis is quite apt. There are several references to death by hanging that should be removed or changed. I'm open to anything that clarifies phrasing in the article to its true intention that you've outlined and prevents possible allusions to death by hanging.

One proposal I had was "Give 'em enough rope for their last chance" as a replacement for "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." ––FormalDude talk 07:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "Check your rope" or "Measure your rope"? I'll grant that nothing is likely to be as punchy as "give them enough rope to hang themselves", but I think the most important thing is to preserve the familiar rope hook/link in general, and the belaying metaphor could be a good parallel to use in the opening paragraph, even if whatever goes into the bolded initial phrase ends up a little less eye-catching. In any event, thank you for the support and feedback, FormalDude. :)

On a side note, when I wrote the above, I was not paying enough attention to the fact that this page had already been moved out of draft space. To be clear, I was thinking that this discussion was seeking to create a proposal that might be embraced by the local consensus at WP:Rope and thus replace the wording of that essay. I did not fully take a moment to appreciate from the foregoing discussion (and current location of the page) that the plan is actually just to place a competing (but very similar) essay into project space and hope it eventually gains currency enough to displace WP:ROPE and its (problematic to some) imagery, by becoming the more frequently cited essay in the context in question. I suppose that's one strategy, but (without meaning offense to Cullen and the other good faith editors here working towards a solution, I'd just be very, very surprised if that happens. WP:ROPE is an immensely well known, intuitive, and useful metaphor that virtually every veteran community member is familiar with. I'm just not sure there is much chance for WP:LASTCHANCE to supplant it. My proposal would be to adjust the current wording of WP:ROPE and I only proposed it here because I was thinking this was a workshop for exactly that idea. Now that I've realized my mistake, I should probably port the proposal back over to WP talk:Rope, but I'm going to leave it open here a few days first, just to get some extra input before I repeat the discussion there. Any thoughts welcome! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Shall we move this discussion to WP:ROPE's talk page now? It may get more engagement there. ––FormalDude talk 01:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope. ––FormalDude talk 05:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, please accept my apology for the significant delay in response. In fact, I saw your first message some weeks ago and meant to respond to it, but at the time I was literally on the site for mere minutes and not for editorial purposes. I'm afraid some off-project emergency circumstances have foreclosed any prospect of volunteering time in the last six weeks: between home life and professional demands on my waking hours, I have been barely holding things together as is. In truth, this is likely to be the case by and large for a while yet, but I am going to be making efforts today and tomorrow to at least make some cursory comments on the editorial and community issues which I had to drop like a hot potato when things got difficult on this end--or at least those issues which are still live and which the community has not already resolved. So you should see some limited input on the other essay talk page soon. I support your initiative on this matter and thank you for keeping me informed--and again, please forgive my poor response time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, it's no problem. Wikipedia has no deadline after all . Thank you for offering to participate on the other essay's talk. Though, I appreciate getting any response at all from you Snow–considering you're dealing with so much off-project. I hope things start get better for you soon, and look forward to when you're able to return to your normal level of editng! ––FormalDude talk 07:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

known ropes

I see edits attributed to 'known sock puppets' who must have past their last rope session, hence the absolute reversion of any posts, but I see sensible posts with refs getting reverted. Are we really against all content from a puppet ? Dave Rave (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Dave Rave, I'm not sure the question is particularly relevant to this essay. That said, not all sock edits need to be reverted. See WP:BANREVERT and, a bit indirectly, WP:PROXYING. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

that was the point, being that sock puppet edits are reverted out of hand despite them being sincere and ref'd, so the puppet is roped ... Dave Rave (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)