User:Skomorokh/Jumping the Gun

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

 * 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

 * 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

 * 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

 * Siege mentality, which fuels impulsive and harsh decisions