Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Informing reverted new users how to access deleted contributions

"Remind newcomers that their edit histories are usually saved, both at the article page history and a list of user contributions associated with their user name". If this is a good idea (and it probably is), should we also ask to add a note about that into Template:Welcomeunsourced? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

better procedures for admins and experienced editors

Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#WP:NEWBIES shows that even experienced editors still treat newbies badly. It's especially bad when they claim a newbie's edits are not constructive or that these are even vandalism when what they are doing is very clearly not vandalism but naive editorializing or presentation of personal opinions or presentation without a citation of what they read or heard somewhere, which may even be a reliable source.

Even more stupid is to then block them after they've made an effort to even add a quote and even a source to their readdition of their material just because they try to defend their edit by reverting often. They should have been praised, not blocked! And their edit should have been improved, not removed by reverting. Can't blame a newbie for reverting childishly when that's what you're doing and thereby teaching them to do. Blocking them for 3RR is especially stupid, counterproductive, and unfair when they weren't warned in the previous revert that they will be blocked if they revert again and weren't encouraged to come to the talk page.

We need many new editors and therefore have to encourage all new editors to stay and edit according to the rules and policies they don't yet know about. Not only the content, even the tone of voice was wrong right from the start in the way this newbie was treated. Anonymous users should get the same friendly welcome message that registered users get! --Espoo (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Espoo: In my defence, the original report was on WP:AIV for vandalism, and I stressed on the talk page that the block was not personal, that their edits were in good faith, and the previous messages about vandalism were completely wrong. I also gave the original filer of the AIV report a warning to assume good faith next time. It's a shame they didn't leave any message on their talk page, as I would have listened to it, and probably unblocked. The problem I faced is, to be honest, if I hadn't done done the 3RR block, a less charitable admin might have come along and blocked for vandalism anyway, and I probably would have never gone near the original diffs to give them a raking over the coals for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hostile editors in the Israel-Gaza section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wanted to contribute since I speak Hebrew and I understand the region a bit better than people who live in the west. The problem is that the editors are hostile, unhelpful and rude. They are also uninformed and just like to criticize instead of contribute and help new editors. Here is an example of what an experienced editor wrote on my page. A perfect example of hostility. I was having problems with a new page that I created. The experienced editors did not want to help but did everything to make sure this page would get removed. After 500 edits, instead of a thank you, this is what I get.

"Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away". Zerotalk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)--Jane955 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to report other editors' behavior that you consider bad, I don't think this talk page is a good place to do that. My guess is that any response here will be redirecting you to do something else. I'd recommend reading through WP:DR to get a better idea for how Wikipedia handles disputes (both disputes over article content and disputes over user behavior). Alephb (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Alephb, There is no dispute, there is nothing to resolve. I think people like Zero should be removed from Wikipedia. I don't want him to talk to me and the page is getting shut down, so that is that. If nothing else, at least this will serve as an example of how not to behave to newer editors. I looked at the page, but it didn't indicate clearly where to complain about abusive editors.--Jane955 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If Zero was to be removed, the forum where that would happen is probably WP:ANI, but I don't recommend going there because most likely the folks there will find Zero's word's not nearly severe enough for a block, and your complaint could easily be looked on as disruptive. I also don't think the page is going to be shut down. It's probably there to stay. It'll change over time, but not likely go away entirely. Alephb (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, on Wikipedia reporting about abusive behavior is seen as disruptive? What does that say about Wikipedia? It almost feels like the older editors create virtual gangs and don't let new editors in. (In the Middle East section.) That page was shut down. Thank you for the link, I did decide to complain, so that he does not do this to other people.--Jane955 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The cat in the picture is getting what it deserves

I don't have any primary sources on this but I'm pretty sure that cat got what was coming to him in the picture here, could it be time to change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.245.150 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) no --Jrgamer4u (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BITEy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BITEy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I keep on getting 'bitten'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am new to wikipedia and I have made a handful of edits and already been told I would be blocked if i did it again because I did not understand every rule I should be following :( I do think this has discouraged me from editing more often, which as a whole is not very good for Wikipedia as this article suggests. Tommyhetrick (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been given standard and appropriate warnings for adding unsourced content on numerous occasions. That is not "bite" behavior. Those warnings include links that clearly explain our policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to provide examples. I did it once and you came on my talk page and threatened to block me because I am new and do not know what content is needed, and you accused me of sock puppetry with no proof xd. Also, this: If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well. Tommyhetrick (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Methinks the newbie doth protest too much! Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I just dont want to be treated hostility because I don't understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read and heed the warnings then? WP:BITE does not mean "non one can tell me I'm wrong." Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I do, but telling me I'm a sockpuppet after making one edit an admin didn't like and then threatening to block me next time does not seem right. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think Praxidicae might be willing to mentor you, if you were to ask nicely, however. Nick (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

At least an apology from User:Ohnoitsjamie would be nice... Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tommyhetrick the only person owing an apology here is you. No one ever accused you of being a sock, which means you've just lied and made a false accusation. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie literally blocked the me at the zoo page after I tried to edit it and put 'persistant sockpuppetry' Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for warning you to stop adding juvenile crap to an article that several other accounts had already been blocked for. See also WP:MEATPUPPET. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that. I am new. You could have nicely explained that instead of threatening to block me from editing Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tommyhetrick, before I drop yet another warning on your talk page, please stop using the "minor" checkbox with your obviously non-minor edits, including to this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia editing is not for you if you think that editors civilly and calmly discussing errors in your edits is "bitey" Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But they didn't. That's the point. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously complaining about an edit six months ago? Might I suggest you go to WP:ANI if you think this is an actual problem rather than ranting about it here? Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, every article I've tried to edit with good faith Jamie reverted without really explaining Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

tommyhetrick well, this isn't the place to discuss others behavior, there are other boards like AN or ANI for that. Discussion here should be limited to the actual page. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which two templates?

• Sometimes users forget to use four tildes after talk page posts. You can make the reminder process easier and less annoying by using the following two templates. In the meantime, you can use {{unsigned}} to fix those anonymous comments. The two templates are promised, but not delivered. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  In this revision it indicates that they were {{Sign1}} and {{Sign2}}, and the red indicates that they have since been deleted. The modern warning is at {{uw-tilde}}. Elizium23 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Elizium23, thanks - I've tweaked the text. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  You're welcome. This detective work is courtesy of WikiBlame! Elizium23 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh?

"Avoid acute and repetitive paraphrase of intimidation language, confrontations and quizzing with respect and confidence." Say what? —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC))

Seriously, though: the above wording really needs to be improved.

For example, is it asking us not to "quiz[...] with respect"? So we should quiz without respect? Or if we show respect we're not allowed to quiz? Come on!

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

Some strategies are

I have deleted some text (diff) in sympathy with the comments in #Huh? above. The deletions were:

• Caption "(like the cat)" added by an IP in March 2020.
• Points following "Some strategies are" added by an IP in January 2017.

Explaining a joke rarely works and the caption does not need "(like the cat)". The strategy points are impenetrable fluff that do not help the basic don't bite message. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the awesome "Please do not bite the newcomers" image?!

I had that image (the one with the man biting the earth taken from some WWI era poster thing) on my user page. I noticed it wasn't working, so I went here, and can't find it. What happened to that image, can we bring it back please? ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 16:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: File:Pdnbtn.png is being deleted because it was a modified copy of C:File:Guerre 14-18-Humour-L'ingordo, trop dur-1915.JPG, which was deleted after the discussion at C:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Eugenio Colmo "Golia". Apparently they have to stay deleted until 2038. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is the saddest news of my day. :( Hopefully we can get some other awesome looking image for "not biting newcomers" soon"... I LOVED that image. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 16:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

Would terms like 'train wreck' and 'a mess' be considered biting the newcomers when patrolling new pages? I try to only use them when they seem appropriate (such as situations when I would call them some pretty bad names in real life. Some people are really stupid.). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)

• Date added to sig – I think its absence was thwarting the archiving. DBaK (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Aggressively policing edits

I had edited a BLP article on here a few days ago, and it has since been reverted several times by the same user @Yngvadottir which in my opinion did not benefit the encyclopedia, but made it more of a chore to read. They later cited ‘policy violations’ as their reasoning but did so in a way that came off as combative and micromanage-ish in nature.

This user has since been aggressively policing every edit I make which seems to violate this policy. Has anyone else experienced this from the same user or users in general? — @Therangerrick (talk - contribs) Therangerrick (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is in reference to Ruby Franke, where I started a section at the BLP noticeboard; see discussion there (and a section I had previously created on Therangerrick's user talk). It should be noted that the Franke article is a touchy BLP and my concern went beyond this particular new editor; it's just had a drive-by BLP-violating edit by another presumably new editor, which someone else has reverted. I welcome examination of my conduct with respect to that article and elsewhere. Before leaving my note to Therangerrick, I looked at the other articles they edited, because I noticed that they were also leaving edit summaries referring to fixing grammar when the change was purely stylistic. I saw an infelicitous sentence they'd added to Matt Koleszar, as well as the common newbie mistake of reusing a reference without making a named reference, and improved their work then came back and made more thorough changes to the article; after edit conflicting with them, I noted in my edit summary that I was leaving their infobox changes, without naming the editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We vs you

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia (only about 250 edits, with the first edit in 2005), and I've noticed a common pattern in comments to me from editors who have made thousands of edits, of the form "We don't do what you are doing now." There's a joke I've heard a few times: "Wikipedia is a community of editors, and everybody else is an uninvited guest," and the use of we/you bolsters that perception. As much as it is advised against, there are page owners who maintain their authority partly by use of the we/you dichotomy.

I realize that "we" in English grammar can include or exclude the person being spoken to, but context often makes it clear that the experienced editor is using the exclusionary form. Even if not, it's very easy to read/misinterpret it as such unless the inclusionary form is somehow made explicit.

So, I propose adding an etiquette rule to this page such as:

An editor is a member of the Wikipedia community from their first edit, and there is no "we" versus "you".

or

Avoid "othering" editors by distinguishing between "we, the editors" and "you, the newbie".

Is this something others have often observed? Is it worth adding; is it already covered elsewhere? B k (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Having heard this myself, I'm in agreement. It gives a sense that you are being allowed into their space, and you must do things their way. Rather, a discussion of "Here's how we have done things in other places, here's why, with that in mind, we should do the same on this article you've made." Not it's possible to use the terms "we" and "you" in a sentence without making someone feel excluded. El Dubs (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can relate to that. If you come as a new editor and you don't do things exactly as the "we" want then they just ban you. Dbainsford (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether the Wikipedia community has considered whether new editors even care about the community? They may care a great deal about creating missing articles, but may not give a fig for the community of Wikipedians, who are usually referred to outside THE COMMUNTIY as "Those ignorant prigs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Pwnt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to distance myself somewhat from King of Pwnt's speculation, though I understand where they're coming from; new editors dip their toes in the water for many different reasons (and in many ways; some edit for quite a while before they register an account), but yes, some do come here with a very specific goal in mind, including making an article on a non-notable topic and paid promotion.

B k has a valid point; it's easy to come off as a know-it-all insider when referring to our voluminous policies and guidelines, and one reason for our templated notices is that the wording has been refined to be as clear and polite as possible. The fact is, though, this is a unique project (with 20 years of accumulated practice). The way we do things is hard to predict or even understand from the outside (such as the role of consensus and how we define it). There are even significant differences between the different-language Wikipedias (in things as fundamental as who can create new articles and the process for examining them). It's hard to not say "we do it this way" when our guidelines are fundamentally what the community has evolved. But while I share the concern, I don't think further accretion of guidelines is the best solution. The message of this essay is to remember that we were all new once, and treat new editors like human beings and remembering that it's good to have new editors. I advocate keeping the essay as simple as possible to keep the focus on that fundamental message. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

At this point (I posted the above a year ago), I agree with you, @Yngvadottir, there _is_ a "we" versus "them", people who edit Wikipedia are not necessarily Editors, and to say otherwise is a polite fiction. Note that the very page we're discussing is written entirely in a we/they format.

In ostensibly flat hierarchies, an unwritten informal hierarchy invariably emerges, often based on social ties invisible to outsiders; this is more-or-less a law of nature. As desperately as everybody tries to deny it, WP is heavily run by page owners ("VIP"s), and in consensus discussions they get priority over everybody else, partly for those social reasons that moderators give them deference and they can call on associates to win debates over a lone newcomer. A year ago, I wrote in a manner that denied these realities of loose holocrocacies, but I'm accepting of those realities now.

[Which is not to deny that Wikipedia is an incredible achievement of humanity that for the most part works. But on the narrow topic we're discussing, flat hierarchies are all but impossible.] B k (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)