Wikipedia talk:Just drop it

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Perhaps this needs some more thought: The first case needs to be divided into two , where the complainer either does have a valid complaint, or does not. If he does, attempts to squash it are wrong. I think that's what you have in mind--but what if he does not., if his repeats are all identical baseless accusation of false feelings of being attacked? And the options are more than the three you have given--the best option--not really mentioned--is to give a more effective argument. And if that doesnt work the fall-back is to look for respectable support. It's the best defense if someone is really being treated unfairly.

I had a slightly different typology in mind. What I frequently deal with as an admin is party 1 comes to me to complain about party 2. Party 2 is indeed behaving badly. But party 1 is behaving slightly less badly, or even deliberately provoking him. There is only one good course of action, which is to get both of them to stop. But party 1 typically continues to feel outraged, because after all the other guy was somewhat more culpable.

There's a different thing, which is when someone relatively weak is completely in the right, and is unable to prove it by the standards of the forum. (which may be fair standards--or which may not be.) It's not the process, but the merits. The point of process is to require a fair hearing, which is good, but it cannot by itself bring about a correct judgment.

I apply this here to some recently clear but long-standing examples: one is where someone who has behaved very badly indeed is still considered on balance productive, and will be protected. Another is where someone is clearly known to be very bad and have done things that will not normally be pardoned, but he did it to protect himself against an equally bad or worse enemy. And a little different, people having done critical work in ridding us of major dangers to the project, but doing it in an abrasive way that makes enemies, and finally doing one thing clearly wrong but not actually important, and (almost) destroyed for it.

I refrain from historic analogies, or WP user names. DGG (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. First I should point out that I didn't mean for this to be purely with regard to situations where one user complains about another. A user could be complaining about a policy, a block, or some other more general aspect or event. The existence of two clear warring parties might complicate this, in which case perhaps a different example discussion might be in order.
Addressing your first concern of dividing the case in two, I don't think that's possible since the point is that in cases such as the example given, of course most of the people responding will believe the complaint to be baseless. I'm assuming that from the get-go. In other words, how can we divide the example into valid and invalid complaints, when that question is so subjective? Even in cases where the majority opinion is that the complaint is baseless, telling the complainer to stop responding is, I feel, not appropriate -- except in cases of forum shopping or incivility, as stated. There's simply no reason to force them to stop.
Take an extreme example: Someone repeatedly calls another user a jackass and gets blocked for 24 hours. He complains afterwards at ANI, insisting that a block was not warranted, and makes no postings in any other forum to that effect. We have a few choices: keep responding, tell the user to stop complaining while perhaps threatening a block for disruption, or simply ignore the user after a certain point. Is the second option ever warranted? I would say no. All he's doing is discussing the matter. Do we ever need to forcefully stifle a discussion, when no policies are being violated? What's wrong with just ignoring this person? Is it disruptive if an unfounded claim goes unanswered after a while? As much as he can drop it, so can we. If we respond, we have to expect him to respond as well. Equazcion /C 02:15, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Using your example, it should not have gotten to that point. He should first have received warnings after the first one or two "jackass" remarks, and if he understood that it was not acceptable he would have stopped; if he objected earlier,it would be less drama-worthy, and if he continued, then a block should be clearly obvious to any outsider. Personally, i think the real problem is that many admins are much to quick to block in a variety of circumstances. DGG (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what prevents us from getting to this point. Let's assume he was warned multiple times prior to the block. The user continued with his personal attacks, was blocked, and now we're at ANI with my example. I don't see what has changed. Equazcion /C 21:38, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Exclamation in title?[edit]

Saw this linked once with an exclamation in the title ("WP:Just drop it!"). It looks like it kind of belongs there. What do you think? Equazcion /C 14:38, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No!--Father Goose (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It makes it look like a German imperative (well, okay, it is an imperative), but what we want to do here is discourage people from using the phrase. Without the exclamation point, it's a level-headed essay; with it, it's the very retort we want people to avoid.--Father Goose (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine! I mean okay I agree, good point. Equazcion /C 15:43, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)