Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

Why is a joke about a tiger biting a soccer ball in this article? This just seems very idiotic and pointless.--CheeseInTea (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea

:I've noticed that pages about Wikipeida and its functioning usually allow more informality and occasional humor. There's probably better out there than this tiger, but the replacement might also be something with at least some levity to it. B k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

:It doesn't. In fact, it seems funny to me, because this page is indeed supposed to be humorous. Berpihakdibalutkenetralan (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

::The page is NOT trying to be humorous. it says 'please do not bite the newcomers' Wikalevi (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status = dead

|result = There is no clear consensus. I will be editing the rewrite according to feedback. Thanks to everyone for the advice. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1725969671}}

Background: This page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers&oldid=1142798 created in 2003], and the guideline header was added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers&diff=next&oldid=13665539 2005].

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing.

See also: {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Rewriting_WP:BITE}}

1. Do not accept the rewrite as guideline; this page does not need to be rewritten.
2. Do not accept the rewrite as guideline; the rewrite needs more work to replace the current text.
3. Accept the rewrite as guideline, but add the template {{tl|under discussion}}
4. Accept the rewrite as guideline, and do not add the template {{tl|under discussion}}

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:Pinging idea lab participants @Chaotic Enby @Folly Mox @Aaron Liu Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3, definitely an improvement on the current guideline! And we can move to option 4 once the VP discussion concludes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 The source for {{tpq|newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content}} is from 2006 and is 18 years old now. Additionally, that study only looked at content in two articles. Please find a more current and comprehensive study to support this point, or remove this point from the page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Do you think this issue is too severe for the rewrite to become a guideline, or do you think there are other problem points? I don't disagree with you: I'd imagine this detail could be removed with discussion after it's been made into a guideline. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• :: It should be fixed first, since it is a key part of the lede. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::That's fair. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• :All of these points are mentioned in the footnote already. I don’t see the problem with having an outdated study, especially since editor activity has only declined since 2006. We could stress that it’s not the best. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2; I agree with RudolfRed that the study is far from ideal and should be removed before any other substantial changes are made. ― novov (t c) 08:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think the old lead is much more concise than the new one, but I think the rest of the rewrite looks good. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Other way around. The guideline's lead is 152 words; the proposal's is only 114.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Too much material has been lost. While the extant guideline page has blathery cruft in it, this calls for a point-by-point concision edit, not loss of a whole bunch of entire points/principles. If one of those should be excised entirely, each such change would be a major guideline change that should be subject to pro/con discussion about that change. PS: RudolfRed's skepticism about a statistically invalid pseudo-study from ages ago is sensible, but it's already part of the extant guideline, so whether to remove it or not really has nothing to do with the current proposal. That is, if the proposed version is poorer in comparison to the "live" version (and I think it is in some ways) it will not be because part of it in the long-accepted live version {{em|wasn't}} changed/removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - it looks largely good to me - I've added a minor suggested change on /rewrite's talkpage, but overall it is a lot more condensed and focused than the previous guideline, and has less of a Us Vs Them feel to it. BugGhost🦗👻 15:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: Looks like an improvement. I have no issues with it. The current page always seemed more like an essay to me because of the excessively long lists and relatively poor formatting. C F A 💬 17:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. Agree with {{u|SMcCandlish}}. I respect the effort but the result fails to match the purpose of the document. The page is a plea to biting experienced editors to stop biting. It is supposed to be a reading material that uses a particular narrative structure, covering certain scenarios, gradually leading you to reflect on your actions and understand that your approach has been harming the project. It isn't supposed to be a set of rules. It must have some emotive and seemingly repetitive verbiage to act as effective persuasive writing. There's no hard-and-fast no-bite formula that can be summed up in a handful of bullets. The guideline isn't about that. It must instill the feeling that being unkind and impatient to new editors is deeply wrong. The biter must feel that it's wrong. The rewrite doesn't do it. The current and recent versions do. It could be "rewritten", but it should happen incrementally.—Alalch E. 13:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• :I would endorse Alalch E.'s statement. It well-addresses some things I was thinking but didn't quite have good wording for (so I just stuck to rather procedural considerations in my own comment).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• :That is definitely a valid vision for the guideline. However, I believe this version fails spectacularly to be persuasive. As I read the guideline I did not come to any new realizations—it just felt haphazardly written. Either way, this guideline needs a rewrite. Since the principle seems pretty obvious (be nice to newcomers), I opted for an informative than a persuasive writing approach, but feel free to propose a rewrite with your vision. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{closed rfc top

| result = Proposals 1 and 3 are successful with modifications. Proposals 2 and 4 are successful as written. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

There are several questions, as follows:

1. Should the lead of the current guideline be replaced with lead of the rewrite?
2. Should the "Common newcomer scenarios" section and the "How to avoid being a "biter" section of the current guideline be replaced with "How to avoid biting" section of the rewrite?
3. Should the "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "It is okay not to be aware of guidelines" section of the rewrite?
4. Should the "What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or "have been bitten" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "I have bitten someone—what do I do?" section of the rewrite?

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing. Also see the idea lab discussion: {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Rewriting_WP:BITE}}. After the last RfC,

User:Alalch E. has done work on cleaning up the "Understanding newcomers" section. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Please answer with Yes or No in below each section.
• Pinging previous participants: @Chaotic Enby @RudolfRed @Novov @Voorts @Aaron Liu @SmcCandlish @Bugghost @CFA @Alalch E.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = There is a rough consensus for this proposal. Numerically, 5 participants opposed the proposal outright, 4 were conditional proponents, and 10 were unconditional proponents. The primary objection against the proposal was due to the removal of the {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process.}} blurb. It was argued that the guideline did not make sense in its absence. This led to several proponents of the proposal being willing to compromise, restoring that sentence to the modified version. This is sufficient to overcome the objection. There were two other opposing arguments. The first one was based on how the new version was less focused on "we." The word "we" appears twice in the original. The first was in the sentence that the proponents compromised on. The second appearance was in the phrase, "we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia." While the opponent's point that the new version may be more impersonal, this was not sufficient to overcome arguments in support of the proposal, such as that the terminology used may be confusing. Thus, there is consensus for the proposal. However, there is no clearly numerically superior solution regarding whether or not the compromise version or the originally proposde version should be adopted. Numerically, 10 opposed the inclusion of the additional blurb (unconditional proponents), and 9 supported it (opponents and conditional proponents). However, the arguments in favor of keeping the statement are concerned with how "not having a clue" being a common occurrence for newcomers is the "whole purpose" of the guideline. Therefore, I find a rough consensus to adopt the compromise version. And since none of the conditional proponents (except for one, who later changed their mind, and one that was unclear) explicitly preferred that it be present in the first paragraph, the originally suggested addition as a thesis statement in the second paragraph is to be implemented. In short, the consensus is to adopt the rewrite, plus {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process.}} at the end of the second paragraph. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Verse translation

|head1=Original|lang1=en

|Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions. It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad policies, guidelines, and community standards. In some areas, even the most experienced are still newcomers, needing an occasional gentle reminder.

Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process: Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay and continue contributing in an increasingly constructive manner. Therefore, treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

Being open and welcoming to newcomers is a foundational principle of Wikipedia that forms a part of its fourth pillar. Newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity. While this guideline includes various best practices and suggestions about how to perform adequately in this regard, {{em|having a willingness}} to do it is more than a suggestion—it is a requirement.?

|head2=Rewrite|lang2=en

|Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. All of us were new editors once, and in some areas, even the most experienced are still newcomers. Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions. It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its policies, guidelines, and community standards.

Initial interactions sets the expectation for the entire community. A welcoming atmosphere invites new editors to learn and grow. A harsh one fosters an idea that Wikipedia is unkind and rigid.

So next time you feel frustrated with a newcomer’s mistake, see it as an opportunity to nurture future contributors. Wikipedia needs a constant stream of new information, experience, and ideas.{{efn|In an informal 2006 study, the articles Alan Alda and Anaconda (Python distribution) had their user contributions by word count ranked. 6 of the former's top 10 editors had less than 25 edits, and the majority of the latter's text was made by a user who had made "only 100" edits.{{citation |url= http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia|title= Who writes Wikipedia? |work=Raw Thought |access-date=2009-04-21 |last= Swartz |first= Aaron |author-link=Aaron Swartz |date= 2006-09-04}}}} Guide newcomers patiently and thoroughly: kindness and patience is a necessity for Wikipedia's survival.}}

{{Reflist-talk|group=lower-alpha}}

{{talkref}}

• Oppose. The phrasing {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process}} is the core reason that we have this guideline, and it so well encapsulates this into a short phrase. But the rewrite of the lead totally removes this, which is tragic, and alone is reason enough to oppose replacing the current lead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• :{{tq|nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility}}? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• No - As per RTH, and it isn't clear why this rewrite is an improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not a fan of the rewrite; the most important thing for me is that it does not focus on the "we" as much, which is important for reminding editors that we are all in the same boat. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Can the new policy at least mention that 'experienced editors can still need a gentle reminder?'
• :JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support The prose of the new version is much clearer, which is particularly important for a page that may be directed at new users. Any nuance that the existing version tried to provide got lost because the phrasing was bloated. Removing the unnecessary internal references like "not having a clue", "fourth pillar", and "editor lifecycle" is a very good call, and the new version is much more persuasive for it. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• :You refer to these items as {{tq|unnecessary internal references}}. This is a guideline written for established editors about how to talk to new editors; I think that highlighting these long-established concepts, rather than trying to de novo just writing a guideline, is the way to go forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support The original seems...not well written. The revision is better. I object to the language "Not having a clue" - overly informal, or derogatory even. But: "It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with" change to: "It is unlikely a new editor will be familiar with"; "Initial interactions sets the expectation" change to: "Initial interactions set the expectation"; "So next time you feel frustrated" change to: "So the next time you feel frustrated". Bdushaw (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support as clearer than the original. I particularly like the new paragraph focusing on initial interactions, which is where I think we have the most work to do. Ajpolino (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it's clearer and the "CLUE" thing could seem quite odd to someone who doesn't know the in-jokes, which is the type of editor this is about. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support on the grounds that not using our bizarre inside-baseball jargon is a good example for experienced editors to follow when interacting with newbies. The revision is more concise and less full of itself. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Among the other reasons above well-mentioned, the fact WP:CLUE is seen as "inside baseball" is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support for increased clarity. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support The new version is more clear and more well-written than the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• :I would prefer to include the two sentences mentioned by SMcCandlish, but I still support this rewrite without that sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, for basically the same reasons as everyone else. Thanks for the rewrite. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Suppport in large part, but not the deletion objected to in this pithy first comment: "The phrasing {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process}} is the core reason that we have this guideline, and it so well encapsulates this into a short phrase."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support in large part Agree with RTH and SMcCandlish that we should keep these two sentences of the original. I agree with Freedom4U that using terms like "fourth pillar" and "editor lifecycle" are too technical for a page that many new users see when experienced editors are being cautioned. However, WP:CLUE is intertwined with WP:BITE and needs this wikilink in the lead. I also agree with the second and third of Bdushaw's proposed grammar fixes. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support as written. If that makes it easier, we can also append {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle, and se want editors to survive this process}} to the end of the second paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, rewrite is much clearer to average layperson. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support most of this, but I do agree with Red-tailed Hawk that WHY is important and needs to be added back in: {{xt| Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process}}. That's the entire reason for the guideline, and it needs to stay in the opening. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• :By "needs to stay in the opening", do you mean it needs to stay in the first paragraph (if so, would you like to explain why?), or can we also just append it to the second paragraph? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - in my opinion, while significant parts of the new version are better, some are not as good as before. This has undeveloped potential and I would welcome a further edit proposal. arcticocean ■ 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• :@Arcticocean Would you like to elaborate on which parts aren't that good? Would my proposed appendage solve the issue? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Consider placing {{tq|Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process}} in the first paragraph. Perhaps like this: {{tq|...even the most experienced are still newcomers. Remember that not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process. Therefore, treat newcomers...}} pillowcrow 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• :It feels too long for the "thesis statement". I think it's fine if we put it in the second paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Fair enough. pillowcrow 19:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = This proposal is successful. Numerically, 11 participants !voted in support, and 1 against. The "Oppose" !voter agreed that this more concise version is preferable to the current "Common newcomer scenarios" and "How to avoid being a 'biter'" sections, but argued that it is actually too concise (one commenter who did not !vote argued similarly). The proponents of this proposal replied to this objection, arguing that much of the material in the original guideline is also found on WP:TPG, and was thus redundant, and the opponent did not respond to a request for information about what important insights were being lost. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Verse translation

|head1=Original|lang1=en

|{{cot}}

• A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. Wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves, rather than rushing to criticize.
• A newcomer may create an article about themselves, their garage band, or another topic they have an external relationship to. One way to deal gently with this is to draftify the article, leave a note saying why, and explain what conflict of interest means on Wikipedia, especially the part that {{em|having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith}}. Autobiographers need to be approached with a high degree of sensitivity when their biographies are discussed, and while creating such pages is strongly discouraged, that does not mean that biting the newcomer can make things better.
• A newcomer probably does not know that we save everything. When their edits are reverted, they may panic, start an edit war, or leave Wikipedia entirely, mistakenly assuming that hours of work have been irretrievably deleted. Let them know they can negotiate with other editors on talk pages and, if all else fails, they can request undeletion.
• Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians and being flamed). Teach them to be bold, but of course, be cautious.
• While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience". This both discourages new editors and deprives Wikipedia of much-needed insights. Let newcomers express their opinion and remember that you can support your argument when the discussion is happening.
• On occasion, a disproportionate number of new users will show up in a discussion to support a particular issue. This is {{em|not}} a reason to assume a militantly defensive posture and start biting. Our decision-making processes are sufficiently robust to handle this phenomenon. While the new users could even be sockpuppets, do not address them using that particular word (or "meatpuppet"), which can be received as disparaging language. Start a sockpuppet investigation if there is evidence. In the meantime, simply treat the new users as legitimate newcomers and explain that their recommendations may be disregarded if they are not rooted in our content policies, that any misuse of multiple accounts can not help their case, and that polling is not a substitute for discussion (it's enough that {{em|you know}} and {{em|trust that the closer will know}} this principle; not every newcomer must also immediately internalize it for the process to work). No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).
• Sometimes newcomers forget to sign their talk page posts. Use {{tl|unsigned}} to fix unsigned posts, and use {{tl|uw-tilde}} on the user's talk page to remind the user who forgot.
• There are some times when users add in new discussions to talk pages, despite the discussions already being ongoing. Often, the newcomers wouldn't be aware that there has already been a discussion on the topic, even if it is very recent, so please guide them with it.
• No Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian, even if experienced. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies.
• Newcomers might violate the three revert rule. There is no reason to expect that a newcomer would know about this rule, so it is a good idea to inform them of the rule on their talk page after their second revert.
• Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. As always, assume good faith.
• It is polite to point out to newcomers little details about editing on Wikipedia, such as the fact that one can sign one's name on userpages by leaving four of the tilde symbols (~), or pointing out that a wikilink can be achieved by putting double square brackets around a word or phrase.

{{fake heading|How to avoid being a "biter"}}

Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to:

1. Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors and regulars from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
2. Show civility and good etiquette by assuming a calm and measured manner, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. Avoid intensifiers (e.g. exclamation marks), disparaging words (terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, poor, toxic, etc.), and sarcasm.
3. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
4. Be gracious.
5. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
6. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
7. Reciprocate where necessary.
8. Listen actively.
9. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
10. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
11. Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
12. Don't fill the page with maintenance templates or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, [https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/07/18/building-community-inclusivity-stack-overflow/ even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended].
13. Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion.
14. Remember that it's okay to make mistakes—we're all only human.

Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning.

Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia.

{{cob}}

|head2=Rewrite|lang2=en

|# Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, first try to fix the problem rather than removing them.

1. As always, assume good faith. You can't blame someone for breaking a rule they weren't aware of. We were all newcomers once.
2. Avoid intensifiers such as exclamation points(!!!!) and words such as terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, poor, etc.
3. Explain reverts via edit summary or on their user talk page.
4. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
5. Templated messages may seem unwelcoming. Consider writing a personalised one.
6. Avoid filling a newly created page with maintenance templates or nominating them for deletion. Wait a few days to see how the page evolves first.
7. Don't join a pile of people pointing out problems, even when each comment is kindly phrased.{{efn|Hordes of comments that point out problems nicely [https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/07/18/building-community-inclusivity-stack-overflow/ is one reason why many find StackOverflow toxic.]}}
8. Remind newcomers that everything is saved. When their pages or edits are deleted, they can request undeletion, or recover them from the page history.
9. Do not call newcomers disparaging names like "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". Point them towards relevant policies instead.}}

{{Reflist-talk|group=lower-alpha}}

Try linking to each of the options you would like us to consider, so we know exactly what we are being asked to consider. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I do like the how the new section is trimmed down, numbered, and combines the two lists (which seem a little duplicative). If I had my druthers, It would be written in a "do this, not that" way and would be a little longer, because part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didn't read the original text all the way through, so take that comment with a grain of salt. Also, I wish each list item would have a bolded word or phrase describing what it was about. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• :I don’t think bolding is necessary since the new list items are short. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. The new list does a good job of streamlining the recommendations to maximize focus and clarity. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes the new list loses some information that was present in the old, but {{U|JuxtaposedJacob}} clarified it for me with {{tq|part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didnt read the original text all the way through...}}. The old list is so long that you find yourself skimming it. The new one is shorter and to-the-point, and may actually be read. There's some valuable info in the old list, but I'm sure it's repeated elsewhere. The new list keeps us focused on "Please do not bite the newcomers", which is the topic of this page. Ajpolino (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, we shouldn't have policies so long that experienced editors don't read them.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The existing version is so long that it impairs its ability to be helpful. The new one is short, to the point, and still includes tons of important content. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes "Helpful advice" shouldn't make the reader's eyes glaze over. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• No, but .... This concision edit is heading in the right direction, but has gone too far. The original has grown crufty and long-winded, but needs to be reduced to about 1/3 to 1/5 of its current size, not to less than 1/10 (and to use clearer language, which this proposal {{em|is}} largely doing). Too much insight is lost in a compression that harsh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I understand SMcCandlish's worry of lost insight, but as Ajpolino noted, the advice on signatures and talk page guidelines is already better covered at WP:SIG and WP:TALK. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: We don't need all those examples on a guideline about principles. I've reviewed and contrasted the trimmed version before, and I wonder which specific insights McCandlish would like to restore. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hard Support: So much cleaner Reader of Information (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. arcticocean ■ 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The original is very tldr. The new version is all we need. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = This proposal is successful. Numerically, 18 participants !voted in support, and 1 !voted against. The opponent argued that the proposed version removed the fact that "length and depth of tenure here are not measures of editorial value." However, this objection did not overcome the rebuttal from proponents of the proposal, that the lede of the proposed guideline includes similar information. There was also a brief discussion toward the end of this part of the RfC surrounding a grammatical issue. It was concluded that the proposal was incorrectly written, so the following will be the sentence added: {{tq|As all editors are encouraged to be bold, unfamiliarity with the rules is expected, but willfully disregarding them is not.}} JJP_Master (she/they) 23:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Verse translation

|head1=Original|lang1=en

|The principle {{lang|la|ignorantia juris non excusat}} (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can or may excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow—or are simply unaware of—our guidelines from time to time.

To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected, but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without barnstars and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product. In all cases though, we ought to interact with our fellow editors with gentleness and respect. This is the most important thing to stress.

|head2=Rewrite|lang2=en

|Ignorance of guidelines can excuse mistakes. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be overwhelming. As all editors are encouraged to be bold, unfamiliarity with the rules can be expected, but willfully disregarding them is not.

}}

• Yes, much clearer and simpler. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it's the English Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes: Good heavens, of course. This isn't the legal field, and attempting to impress people with our erudition. Ravenswing 18:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Much clearer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• SupportThis is much clearer, not duplicative, and is itself less bitey than the original ("you yourself violate our policies and guidelines") JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Much clearer and more to-the-point. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oh man the proposed version is night and day compared to the old one. Support ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - The same message distilled into fewer words. Ajpolino (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, more clear. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The new version looks much cleaner. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The old version starts off like this: "Here is an intimidating Latin phrase — but wait, that unfamiliar thing is not how we do things here!" That's hardly a clear flow. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, huge improvement. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• No, but .... As with the one above, the concision goal is admirable but this loses too much. Try to restore some key points like (for the biter or potential biter) that they should try to help newcomers learn the ropes, and employ gentleness and respect. The point of this section is not {{em|only}} that ignorance can be an excuse. Another key point is that length and depth of tenure here are not measures of editorial value. The original's weirdly obfuscatory ways of making these points – veering from tedious pedantry, to weird Victorian-esque constructions, to outsider-impenetrable synecdoche like "barnstars" standing in for experience – can easily be avoided. My thrust here is that the cure for poor-quality writing (both tumid and unclear) isn't by fire and sword but by scalpel.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Disagree with SMcCandlish that this section needs to reiterate that length and depth of tenure are not stand-ins for actual editorial value, given that the lead of the rewrite clearly opens with this point. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per Viridian. As seen in discussions, repeating a point does not make it better. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, though agree with SMcCandlish we could include the finer details somewhere, the more concise guideline is much better for readability of a core guideline. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• :I don't think the other details should be included. The point of this section is that ignorance can excuse. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. arcticocean ■ 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support the much more concise wording, streamlining our policy pages is an admirable goal. But the sentence "As all editors are encouraged to be bold, unfamiliarity with the rules can be expected, but willfully disregarding them is not" is ungrammatical. "is not" what? is not expected? I suggest changing the comma to a period and rewording the part after to "However, willfully disregarding the rules is not okay." Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Oops. That was an artifact of trimming the original, in which the construction makes sense. How about "... may not" and changing the earlier "can" to "may"? Or both to "is"? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Love the brevity. I'd recommend a slight tweak to the last part: {{tq|As all editors are encouraged to be bold, a new user exhibiting unfamiliarity with the rules is to be expected. However, willfully disregarding the rules is not appropriate.}} Or something like that. pillowcrow 19:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = This proposal is successful. Numerically, there were 7 proponents, 2 opponents, and 1 neutral commenter. There were three main arguments against this rewrite. The first objection was that the advice for people who had been bitten was removed here. However, this objection was unsuccessful. The proponents rebutted it by pointing to language that could, perhaps ironically, drive newcomers away from Wikipedia, and argued that any advice for victims of biting, if present at all, should be separate from advice for biters. The next objections were related to the wording of the rewrite. The first one was about how the rewrite supposedly undermined "its own concision goals" through a long point #3. It was pointed out that this was not an "extension of point #1, but rather a merging of #1, #4, and #6". This then led to a tangent regarding "silly Dickensian" wording of the phrase "unintentionally veiled", however the person who proposed the objection did not give a sufficient reply to counter-objections about how important information needed to be preserved, nor did they respond to a question about what specific parts of the rewrite were worse than the original (as the objector had stated in their comment), continuing to discuss the "Dickensian wording." Additionally, the proponent of this argument was the only person who argued that the rewrite was insufficiently simple. The other objection acknowledged its simplicity, but opposed the removal of some particular items from the original list, in particular regarding the process of explaining the situation to the bitten user. However, this objection was defeated by noting that the requirement of explaining the reason for biting was preserved in the modified version, but was just less prominent, and that keeping the current level of prominence itself could be BITEy. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Verse translation

|head1=Original|lang1=en

|If you have "bitten" someone, or feel that you have been bitten, you should consider the key principles to help ensure that it doesn't happen again as follows.

1. Choose to learn from the incident.
2. Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user.
3. Consider alternatives to biting that could have achieved a better response. If you encounter a similar situation in the future, choose one of those alternatives instead of repeating history.
4. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
5. Be reasonable. Explain why you were offended, but learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the bite.
6. Move on from it!

|head2=Rewrite|lang2=en

|If you believe that you have bitten someone, don't worry about it too much. Mistakes are human nature, and simple steps are available to correct them.

1. Apologize, explaining what motivated you to bite.{{efn|Harvard Heart Letter has [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-art-of-a-heartfelt-apology-2021041322366 a blog post] on effective apologies.}}
2. Guide the newcomer through Wikipedia processes and reflect on what you could have done differently.
3. Find something of value in the experience, and move on. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.

}}

{{Reflist-talk|group=lower-alpha}}

• Comment/question I like the simplicity of the rewrite, but what are we going to do about the people coming to the page after having been bitten? The new writing is not tailored to that group. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. I would not be opposed to giving advice to people who come here after having been bitten, but I don't think it's necessary for two reasons. First, the new users who are being bitten are by their position unlikely to know about this page. Second, imagine a new editor who has been bitten like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbnjb1&oldid=1263365778 this person] comes here trying to understand how to appeal their block. They're already confused and likely frustrated after being blocked and reprimanded for adding red-link categories, which a new editor would not understand is a problem. Then, here they get told to "be reasonable" and "move on" which in their case would translate to "leave Wikipedia and never return". The previous advice for folks who have been bitten is both confusing and potentially liable to amplify the new editor's frustration. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The new version is much more useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Advice to the biter and to the bitten should be cleanly separated. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. Not overall an improvement. Parts of it are, and can be integrated a bit at a time through normal editing, no RfCs and drafting pages needed. But in other ways this is worse, and is sometimes abandoning its own concision goals. E.g., "Chose to learn from the incident.", short and simple, was redundantly reiterated in the blathering "Find something of value in the experience, and move on. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.", which is ... well, it's, um ... {{em|something}} I suppose. For no explicable reason the jabbery version was retained, complete with its silly Dickensian tone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• :@SMcCandlish That point is not an extension of point #1, but rather a merging of #1, #4, and #6. No new sentences were created for the point, and I think the insight that there is a learning process for both newbies and oldies deserves to be retained. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::If you think it's merging 3 points that we already made then it was even more redundant in the original that I suggested. Your "I think that insight {{var|X}} deserves to be retained" actually backs up what I've been saying throughout the sections of this revision proposal thread: the concision goal is good, but over-zealous pursuit of it in this draft has resulted pretty consistently in excessive loss of information from the original instead of compression of it into tighter wording. As for keeping the "unintentionally veiled" line because of its underlying point, there's no reason to retain that point in the original's bizarre wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::Well, my point is it absolutely does not make it worse, and I would like to know what else you dislike about this section of the rewrite. (I also tried to rewrite that sentence, but couldn't think of better ways fit to conclude a section with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::::What about something like this:
• ::::It is okay to make mistakes. Take what you learned from your mistakes and move on. Find something of value in the experience and extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
• ::::I’m sure it could be better but something like that would make it seem much better, it adds the learning part while acknowledging the mistakes and giving advice. It seems a little iffy but if you guys could somehow figure out a way to condense it without it losing its meaning, it might be even better than the original proposed 3rd point. Reader of Information (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Maybe something like this would also work:
• :::::Acknowledge your mistakes internally, and learn from the wisdom unintentionally veiled. Find something of value within that and move on. Reader of Information (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::"unintentionally veiled" is the "silly Dickensian tone" McCandlish (I think) is objecting to. I don't think any of us have any problems with the rest of that point.
  I think the part seems jarring because it's the first time the rewrite tries to alter the reader's emotional feelings (by being uplifting), which I think is okay here and achieves the same thing as "it's okay to make mistakes". Now there's a good chance the target audience might just jolt at that, but I think there's also a good chance it'll make them think, just like how the pre-rewrite guideline was so persuasive-essay–like. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::True. Valid point. Reader of Information (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Disagree that "Choose to learn from the incident" is better than the rewrite's third point. After biting, it is easy to dismiss the incident as an embarrassing aberration, so the extra words feel necessary for introspection. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes seems cleaner, and provides some grace to biter for accidental bites.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Oppose: I like the simplicity but we are missing some of the lists that are useful such as explaining and being reasonable. That should be the fourth point. Reader of Information (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::I really don't see how encouraging biters to apologize by saying "oh, yes, I was wrong to bite you, but there was this, some vandal did this last year, and you did that, just like that filthy vandal, so hopefully you can see why I bit you!" is going to help. Thus Ca's explaining relegation to the first point in the rewrite and attachment on apologies is a great change, IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. arcticocean ■ 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Not just shorter, but objectively better. Toadspike [Talk] 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Why is this structured section by section instead of an up or down !vote? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:I figured(and multiple people recommended to me) it would be more likely to gain consensus if I was going step-by-step instead of attempting to replace the entire guideline. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you make it easier to compare the options, you are more likely to get useful feedback. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:I agree, I don't really care for the way this is structured. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Good idea; I will work on this this afternoon. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Question by question (or subheader by subheader):

:# No link needed; it's the lede

:# Replace WP:Bite#Common newcomer scenarios and Wikipedia:Bite#How to avoid being a "biter"——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#How to avoid biting

:# Replace Wikipedia:Bite#Ignorantia juris may excuse——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#It is okay not to be aware of guidelines

:# Replace Wikipedia:Bite#What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or have been bitten——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#I have bitten someone—what do I do?

: Aaron Liu (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Request I like the easy section comparison, but I wish that it read left-to-right, in that the original would be on the left and the rewrite would be on the right. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Done. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Aaron Liu, thank you! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::thanks! there's a help:thank feature btw lol Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::::My beautiful friend @Aaron Liu, life is too short to transact every happy thing in private JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 14:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is this discussion finished, @User:Ca? JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd say the outcome is clear but I'd let the RfC finish first. That'd be in a week. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Aaron Liu Stupid question, perhaps, but how do you see when Rfcs are due to be done? JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::It's 30 days after they are listed, which is usually the first signature's date below the big RfC template ("An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion.") Aaron Liu (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

I think a crucial piece of information has been omitted, so what does one do if they are the victim of being bitten as a newcomer? Booklover9876 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think in that case your only option is to perish, make a new account, and fill out the appropriate paperwork notifying the admins that you are not, in fact, a sockpuppet, merely avoiding a vampire. XFalcon2004x (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, thank you for the information! Booklover9876 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)