User:Skomorokh/Jumping the Gun
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
We seem to have adopted the Red Queen's Rule:
whoever executes someone first settles the case.
In situations which can be resolved immediately by the taking of affirmative action [i.e. block, delete, protect, alter user rights] but not by the declining to, a resolution is more likely to arise from the decision of an impulsive administrator than from that of a meditative one or from a community discussion. As a result, such resolutions will disproportionately consist of affirmative administrative actions rather than lenient or time-intensive [i.e. exoneration, warnings, sanctions, private mediation, waiting periods, wider discussion] outcomes, and as a consequence have a predilection to being poorly thought out and unduly harsh.
Moral of the story: don't jump to conclusions, or allow others to, lest premature and unduly harsh outcomes prevail. Caveat: this analysis is less applicable in situations which are clear-cut or time-sensitive.
Mitigation[edit]
- Decision process made public and open to review.
- Set time periods for discussion prior to decision.
- Routine post-facto ratification discussion, with no prejudice towards upholding the initial decision.
- Recrimination for impulsive action.
- Cultural prejudice towards holding a meditative, even-handed nature as virtuous, and towards requiring editors in positions of responsibility to be of such disposition
- Corollary: Cultural prejudice against editors displaying a tendency towards impulsive action assuming positions of responsibility.
Instances[edit]
- ANI reports: the archetypal instance of this phenomenon
- Requests for resysop; resolutions biased towards impulsive action, often followed by new information and disputes over time period
- Oversight requests; resolutions biased towards impulsive action, presumption in favour of both quick and affirmative action
- Edit-warring reports: resolutions biased towards impulsive action, spurred by effective time limit [before deemed stale]
- Lesser
- CSD patrol: resolutions biased towards impulsive action, and narrowly towards delete rather than decline/cleanup [effort differential]
- Requests for protection: as above [swap delete for protect]
- Deletion discussions: as above – despite bright-line set period for discussion, resolutions biased towards impulsive action by administrators who ignore it without penalty
- Administrative enforcement: ostensible bias towards impulsive action, often mitigated by the experienced and meditative nature of
Counterexamples[edit]
- Arbitration: decisions taken by default by a plurality of a set group, often after a set period
- Requests for Comment: typically no direct resolution, process used as context for future decisions
- Requested moves; set period for discussion, typically overrun despite ostensible bias towards impulsive action
Related issues[edit]
- Siege mentality, which fuels impulsive and harsh decisions