User:KillerChihuahua/Haste

Don't be hasty

Some things should be done immediately - reverting clear vandalism, blocking vandal-only accounts which have gone on a spree of extreme vandalism, deleting copyright violations and attack pages - and some things should not be. In some cases, a little time and reflection is indicated, and more and more, I am not seeing that people are taking the time to reflect. The net result is an increase in adversarial situations. This is bad for everyone, and bad for the project as a whole.

Don't be so quick to cry "foul"
We value civility here on Wikipedia. We all work together; it behooves us to treat one another with civility and respect. But some editors are so quick to scream "NPA violation!" it almost seems they know of no other way to handle personal attacks other than "calling" the other editor on their violations and demanding "justice", which usually involves blocking or banning. This is a Bad Trend. Consider: Try ignoring the attack, finding out what the editor is trying to discuss, and addressing the reason for the frustration. This is not always the best course, but it appropriate more often then it is applied. Never engage in counter attacks, this merely escalates the situation. This does not mean one should not attempt to educate a new editor on how much we value civility; it does not mean such attacks are acceptable. It means stop, consider, and proceed without haste. If there is a way to handle the situation without being adversarial, do so. This isn't WWF; this isn't Jerry Springer; this isn't Court TV; this is Wikipedia. This also isn't therapy; if an editor is continually agressively hostile and disruptive, and fails to improve with time, there is no need to coddle an anti-social drain on the community. Don't be hasty to determine that is the case, either! Perhaps the editor is merely terse and candid. Failure to tip-toe around your sensitive feelings does not make them in the wrong. Sticks and stones are usually ignorable and irrelevant.
 * Incivility is not a personal attack
 * Personal attacks, even if clear-cut, usually are (poor) expressions of frustration
 * What appears to be incivility or a personal attack may simply be poor phrasing, or a difference in communication

Don't be so quick to block
Some administrators have become "block-happy". Blocking is preventative, not punitive. If the block is punitive, don't do it. If the block is at all questionable, or might be seen as questionable by others, take it to AN/I for review. Listen to the feedback, don't "argue your case". If another administrator expresses concern about a block, or undoes the block, find out why. Try to understand their objections. Learn. Before blocking anyone other than a brand new vandalism-only account, or an editor going through a massive "meltdown" who is aggressively vandalizing, try talking to the editor first. Blocking is a last resort, not a first.

Don't be so quick to use IRC
IRC has its place. IRC is a mode of communication which works well for material which is time-sensitive and/or has privacy issues. IRC works well for getting to "know" fellow editors without filling up talk pages and the servers with reams of idle chit-chat. IRC is being used in other ways, however. Block discussions should almost always be transparent. There are exceptions. If the reason for the block involves legal concerns and/or privacy issues, then it should be semi-transparant - which generally means email, not IRC. If a discussion is held on IRC which leads to a block, the reason should stand on its own, and be stated in the block, and placed on AN/I for review - If there was a need for discussion, then there is need for review, and limiting the review to those who happened to be on IRC is divisive.

There is too much adversarial attitude, on both sides, about IRC. Those who use and support the use of IRC are often quick to dismiss legitimate concerns with the hasty snap judgment "that's just anti-IRC whining!" Those whose concerns about IRC have been dismissed too often, and increasingly, even those who are new to the debate, are often too quick to tar and feather any use or mention of IRC. A few years ago, when a prominent administrator defended an action with the explanation that "no one objected on IRC" condemnation of that attitude was almost universal. Not so any more. IRC is not Wikipedia. Its a great place to get questions answered quickly - but small questions, like "what is wrong with my table markup?" IRC is frequently being used for off-wiki decision making which could, and should, be on-wiki. This promotes an adversarial atmosphere. IRC is being defended on the basis of ease of communication, which is true but irrelevant, and on the basis of privacy issues, which is over-used and frequently not applicable. Don't be so enamored of the ease of communication that you get confused. And the desire for ease of communication is just another way of saying, I'm hasty, I don't want to wait for AN/I, for the Village pump, for the full community.

Don't be so quick to change policy
Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. Don't be hasty to change a policy. Gain consensus first, then change, always. If a change is truly warranted, support will be relatively easy to gain. If you find yourself "making a case" because "this is how it should be" then you're probably trying to make a policy prescriptive.