Wikipedia:Don't be trigger happy
Recent changes patrol and Wikipedia:new pages patrol play essential roles in the protection of Wikipedia from vandalism, abuse, and disruption. At the same time, the following constraints on these activities should be observed, to avoid biting the newcomers, to assume good faith, and maintain a pleasant and harmonious editing environment:
- Only use the rollback function and other non-edit summary methods of reversion to remove unambiguous vandalism and truly blatant disruption. In all other cases, including reversions which are clearly necessary to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, please supply an informative edit summary. If you merely disagree with edit(s), consider discussing the issue with the user(s) in question without immediate reversion.
- Except when responding to extremely severe vandalism, be sure to adequately warn users before requesting administrative assistance in blocking accounts. Warning levels should be started and escalated as appropriate for the severity of the vandalism or disruption in question. These requirements do not exist only because of the possibility of miscreant users reforming. Instead, the primary purpose of warnings before blocking is to avoid the collateral damage caused by blocks, which can lock productive contributors out of Wikipedia.
- Only tag new articles for speedy deletion on CSD A7 grounds when the subjects are blatantly non-notable. If there is any ambiguity, consider performing an appropriate web search for reliable sources before requesting the deletion of the article via any method.
- If you are angry with other editor(s), please consider a wikibreak to regain your composure, and avoid saying or doing something that you may regret later. Wikipedia will survive your temporary absence.
- Do not respond to personal attacks, userspace vandalism, or other abuse in kind.
- Please do not edit when you are extremely tired, intoxicated, or otherwise impaired.
- If you see an edit war in progress, consider intervening to resolve the issue as a neutral third party. If you do express an opinion as to the correctness of a particular side, do this on the basis of the merits of the case, not the status or experience of the users involved. Never aggravate the situation by joining an edit war in progress. While actions taken to protect Wikipedia from truly blatant disruption will not be considered edit warring on the part of the users effectuating them, you should construe this exception narrowly.
- Remember that every edit you make could potentially affect Wikipedia's public reputation, and every edit is visible to everyone viewing your contributions.
- Periodically review every reversion you have performed for quality control purposes. Navigation popups will make this task much easier by allowing more convenient viewing of diffs.
- Understand the diversity of editorial tasks on Wikipedia. Counter-vandalism and speedy deletion experience, however meritorious, usually cannot serve as sole basis for a successful request for adminship. Editors generally expect RFA candidates to have significant contributions of high-quality encyclopedic content. Additionally, candidates for adminship should be prepared for the extensive scrutiny of all of their contributions, ever. If you made a mistake years ago, you should be able to explain what you have learned from the experience, and the measures you have taken to avoid any repetition of the offense. Don't be discouraged from contributing if it appears you might never obtain adminship: there are plenty of opportunities to honorably build and maintain Wikipedia that do not require access to administrative tools.