Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Brilliant solution

Absolutely brilliant solution, words can seldom describe how much good this will do to wikipeida. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm-alert? — Kurr 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking?(Deadly serious) This would be a fantastic solution for wikipeida. Why indef block users when you can give 'em rope? That way there will be more users to contribute and less users to vandalize wikipeida and potentially cause a state of emergancy. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly thought it was just good common sense and only created the essay after not being able to find any similar advice anywhere. I certainly don't mind having my work referred to as brilliant though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding, it deff should be inforced 100%. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do ya have to be a admin to decide wether or not to give indef blocked Users rope? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Only an admin can unblock a user, so the answer is more or less yes, although in some cases a broader discussion at WP:ANI is needed before unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've just been reviewing some recent unblocks I made with this in mind, and for the most part what has happened is that once they "win" and get unblocked, they actually stop editing. There were two exceptions, one user who seems to be just fine and is actively contributing, and one who "hung themselves" and has been reblocked for socking and trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In EN Wikipedia, it is amazingly difficult to get an indef block. The current policy/practice is give em enough rope, let em hang, take em down and revive em, give em more rope, let em hang a bit longer, take em down and revive em agin, give em even more rope, let em hang a bit longer again. Repeat a few times. Finally give up and indef. Listen to the arguments and GIVE EM EVEN MORE ROPE if they act contrite.- Sinneed 17:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are over simplifying a complex situation. I have seen the scenario you describe, but it usually involves a user who makes good content contributions, but tend to adopt a battlefield mentality when challenged on any edit they make. These users are often blocked and unblocked over and over as the community tries to weigh their positives contributions against their negative talk page comments and/or edit waring. Outright vandals and spammers who don't have any constructive contributions to claim are usually shown the door rather quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The user above who called this idea "brilliant" has been indef blocked as the trolling sock of a banned user, and cited this essay in an unblock request. How disappointing... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent philosophy that deserves to be more than just an essay. I would just ask that the overall tone be changed to one that better emphasizes that blocked users can be reformed. I'm speaking from my experience as a Kongregate mod here, but I've encountered plenty of problem users (including those with permabanned accounts or other active bans) on Kongregate who have started over on a new account and shown by their actions that they have learned their lesson and can be trusted to come back to the community. We don't ban accounts for ban evasion either, as a general rule, since if there was any preventative purpose for it, as opposed to punitive, there would be some other existing problem that would warrant a ban. I'm actually considering writing an essay on the problems with Wikipedia's strong anti-sock position in response to past cases where good faith editors have been accused and blocked as socks. --Tathar (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor Change

I think that if you really believe in this policy, it should emphasize the point that an unblock is in order more strongly. Personally, I think even people who initially start using Wikipedia with a vandal only account will sometimes become productive users. I think the article should point out that there should almost always be a second chance, but rarely a third chance. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know where you are coming from. I also think, from my experience, that I am much more inclined to give a second chance to ex-vandals than most administrators: quite often I have been in favour of doing so while others have been opposed. However, even I would be reluctant to say "almost always". Also, there is the point that if you express it too strongly then it might be less likely for people who are doubtful or borderline to feel they can agree with the idea, so I prefer to leave it as it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Useless belly-gazing article

This may be the most useless belly-gazing utterly defective and not-notable article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Anyone care to defend it or point to why it is needed? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This rant barely deserves a reply, but for the record, it's not an article, it is a Wikipedia essay. Since it is clearly marked as one with a large box at the top, I can't imagine why you weren't able to figure that out for yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My comments were unnecessarily critical. It was not my intent to personally slight the original author or those who've contributed to developing the essay. I followed a link to the essay that seemed to me to suggest it as guideline or policy, but instead I saw a saying, which in its complete form is "Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves," which in my opinion is an inappropriate attitude for an admin.

That saying in my experience is used by those who view the self-hanging as a desirable outcome.

Having looked over the essay again, I see it is more nuanced than that. I do not know enough about Wikipedia essay standards to gauge the value or appropriateness of this entry. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)