 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: If you want an argument to stop,stop arguing. |
"Just drop it" is a sentiment sometimes voiced during heated or protracted disputes on Wikipedia. It may also be used when one party is advocating a position unpopular with a number of other respondents.
While some users do behave in atendentious manner, others may be voicing heartfelt concerns. "Just drop it" is not a very useful response in either case.
Some users thrive on arguments, and an admonition to stop arguing just gives them a new thing to argue against ("You can't silence me!"). The simplest approach toward these users is "do not feed the trolls". Such users are playing a game, and telling them to "just drop it" is just hitting the ball back to them. Instead of trying to get inthe last word, ignore them and walk off the court.
If other responders choosenot to walk away, and instead continue responding, either in agreement or disagreement, that is their right. Unless the conversation isexpressly disruptive and turning into aflame war, let the conversation continue unabated, and find somewhere else to focus your energy.
If a user is dissatisfied with the answers they receive in one forum, the user might decide to take their concerns to another forum. For example, if a user makes anANI report and finds the users there unwilling or unable to address their concerns, they might choose to post the same concern on a policy talk page, anadmin's talk page,Jimbo's talk page, or in several such locations. This constitutesforum shopping and is discouraged. In cases like this, the user should be contacted on their talk page and given an explanation as to why such behavior is considered disruptive. Adding a note to each "shopped" post explaining where prior discussion of the issue took place helps to keep redundant discussion to a minimum.
A user who finds themself in a minority position may resort topersonal attacks or some other form ofincivility. When an editor makes targeted personal attacks against another user, that editor should be asked politely but sternly to discontinue making personal attacks (any editor may do so, including the one being attacked). If the editor persists in being uncivil, theblocking policy may have to be applied. However,good faith should still be assumed, if possible; people in minority positions may have a valid point that is masked by their frustration. This is especially true when responding tonew users, who have yet to learn Wikipedia's standards of contribution and conduct.