This ball does not mind being bitten, but newcomers do.
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, having a willingness to do it is more than a suggestion—it is a requirement.
Understanding newcomers
Our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is to be bold. We have a set of principles, best practices, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity, and experience from other areas that, current rules aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision). Perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Before concluding they are simply "wrong", it is sometimes better to observe for a while and, if necessary, ask the newcomer what they are trying to achieve.
It is a given that newcomers make mistakes. A new editor engaging with content is a promise. A new editor engaging in communication is a treasure. Understand your responsibility as a more experienced editor. Don't squander the opportunity for Wikipedia to get a valuable contributor down the line by getting off to a bad start with the newcomer because of their "big mistake"; the opportunity is not yours to waste because you are exasperated by how people who have never written an encyclopedia before do not have encyclopedia-writing skills—the opportunity belongs to the entire community, so respect it. By doing so, you show respect to the community. By failing to do so you have maybe made yourself feel good for a second, but you have shown bits of hubris and carelessness that are a sign of disregard for the project's best interest. The newcomer's mistake that you've recognized does not have an impact in the scheme of things. They have to make the mistake. What really matters is that the editor is or becomes communicative, shows signs of getting it and gradually starts improving.
So teach by example and correct the mistake yourself. A note to the newcomer explaining what you have done and the relevant Wikipedia standard that they should follow in the future will prove more useful than slamming them. Communicate gently and respectfully to also immediately set an example for how to address other editors' mistakes and behave collegially. Tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual Wikipedia norm. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well.
Unlike most online communities most people visit, Wikipedia is "mostly negative", because it is a collaborative working environment in which everyone's work overlaps with that of many other people, and good results are achieved by finding imperfections in what someone else did and incrementally improving on it. Expect that newcomers do not understand this and will receive much of the feedback as real negativity. It takes time to adjust to this unusual environment. Do not overwhelm them with too many instructions by sending out a flow of final statements; instead, enable them to engage in a fluid conversation. By creating an opening for them to respond, each point of criticism will come off more naturally.
You too were once a newcomer. Treat others as you were treated (or, probably, wish you had been treated) when you first arrived. Remember: "Do what's right; don't bite. Being a friend is all right!"
Common newcomer scenarios
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 than to rush 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 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 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 you know and 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 {{unsigned}} to fix unsigned posts, and use {{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.
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:
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.)
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.
Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
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, even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended.
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.
The principle 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.
What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or have been bitten
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.
Choose to learn from the incident.
Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user.
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.
Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
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.
