I'll take the opposite approach to the other answers (so far), addressing the question of empathy more broadly (rather than the specific 5 points), as I've been thinking about it for a while. I think there definitely is a shortage of "empathy" sometimes, though this site is much much better than most other sites on the Stack Exchange network, or even internet forums generally.
The problem IMO has not much to do with whether the user knows LaTeX well. Plenty of "good" questions from obviously novice users do get empathetic comments and answers that are appropriate to the user's level of knowledge. And there are also occasional "bad" questions from users who may have some expert level of knowledge, but (because of the way the questions are asked) are treated with not much empathy. Rather, the pattern I see, which is mostly just an inevitable consequence of people being human, is the following.
When someone "joins" this site and starts "participating" by looking at questions other than their own, what is their motivation? There could be many reasons why you (not specifically you who posted this question, I mean a generic "you") may start participating on this site: Maybe you just like helping people in need. Maybe your curiosity is piqued by the questions, or you like solving interesting problems. Maybe you have all this esoteric TeX/LaTeX knowledge, and want to put it to some use. Maybe you want to show off how brilliant you are. Maybe you want to "give back" to the community, having benefited in some way. Maybe you just like competing for internet points. All of these are valid motivations! They can all (in principle) be good for the site.
But over time, as you start looking at various people's questions, something happens to you: you become more discerning, and can clearly see that some questions are good and some are poor (by the standards of the site). This is because our brains do that with anything (xkcd 915: Connoisseur). There is reasonable consensus what a "good" question is:
The hover text on the upvote button says "This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear". This is generic across StackExchange sites.
On top of that, there are community-specific norms, like (here) the question includes a minimal example (wherever it makes sense), shows that the questioner has made an effort to solve the problem by reading relevant documentation, is otherwise well-written or well-stated except for the part the question is about, etc.
So far, all very good. These considerations influence (as they should) whether or not someone clicks the up-vote button. But beyond that, when it comes to actually interacting with the person who posted the question, that is where the question of empathy arises.
Because you see, you know what good questions and bad questions are. You have seen the entire spectrum of users. When you see a poor question (and that too again and again), it is natural to get annoyed, consciously or not. Grumble grumble, why can't this person state their question well -- look at the previous person: they asked their question so well? Questions like this are not what the site needs. So by now, especially if you strongly identify with this site or community, you may think to "improve the quality of the site" by telling the user how to make their question a "good" question.
But the person asking the question (typically not someone who has read enough of others' questions to have absorbed site norms) does not know or care. They are a separate human being from everyone else who came before and posted other questions, with their own goals and hopes and desires and attitudes and culture and everything. They have no thought or conception of "good questions", the quality of this site, or any of that. They are just here because they had a problem and thought they might get some help. You may think you are helping them to ask a better question "in future" or "the next time", but there likely won't be a next time -- more likely they'll just give up on the site, or even TeX/LaTeX itself, and move on to something else.
This IMO is the crux of the empathy problem: the disconnect between site regulars judging new questions and worrying about the site quality, and question-askers who are removed from all that context and just want help. From the asker's perspective, they came for help but got all this nitpicking about their question. From the site regulars' perspective, they gave the asker all this concrete advice on improving their question, but they showed no interest in improving the question and just went away. A mini-tragedy playing itself out day after day.
So what's the solution? I'm afraid there's no perfect solution, but I can think of a few things that we can keep in mind that may help. Well, I try to keep them in mind anyway:
While it's good to improve the quality of this site or questions thereon (after all, most of the site' usage/help over the long run will not be to the person who asked the question, but later visitors with the same or similar problems), never get so involved in this secondary goal that you forget your original motivation (helping people or whatever).
Always remember that the person you're responding to is a real person, different from everyone else, not just a generic "question-asker" or the same as their question itself. While evaluating questions as good and bad is fine and possibly important, mentally keep this evaluation a separate step from the act of communication. Before writing anything, try to invoke a feeling of empathy with another human being. If the only thing you can think of saying is something not nice, consider not saying it at all; someone else can deal with this question. One more sub-optimal question on a random internet website is not the end of the world.
This one is more subjective than most, but avoid pre-written text templates. I used to think they save time and can ensure everyone gets a consistent response, but I find I can manage better empathy (or at least be better aware of what I'm communicating) when choosing words afresh, in reaction to the question. The little details help.
Look for points of intersections between the user's needs on the one hand, and your/the site's needs on the other hand. Focus on and emphasize them. For example, instead of something to the effect of "No MWE. Bad question" (even if stated very politely) (remember, making questions "good" is not the user's immediate need), you could emphasize the benefits to the user (if you can honestly judge them to be true in this instance): "Welcome. It might be easier to answer your question if...", etc. By the way, from this point of view, five of your points can be either acts of generosity or of unhelpfulness; the difference is only in the intent and communication:
Requesting MWE: Help the user get their question answered.
Referring to similar post: Helpful if in the spirit of "in case you haven't noticed, have you seen this question? Does it help you? If not, why not? [let's fix that]"; unhelpful if in the sense of "already answered (even if you can't figure it out), go away"
Pointing out the manual: Similar. Note the user may have already looked at the manual but just forgotten to mention it or say what the difficulty was (it ought to be clear that "nothing makes sense to me" is fine too); bringing up the manual focuses the question and makes it easier to be helpful.
Criticizing users for not doing research: Well, merely criticizing per se is unlikely to be helpful, but pointing out how to do research, and that many of the people best positioned to answer questions are likely to respond better to well-researched questions, can be a way of helping.
Pointing out stuff other than what the question is about: Again, can be either generous or nitpicking.
The difference is all in the intent, and in the care taken to avoid coming off as rude, and sensitivity to what the user's immediate needs seem to be -- in short, in empathy.
Finally, retain your humour :-) Things won't be perfect: users will continue to post awful, lazy, poorly researched questions (by the standards of good questions on the site), and you yourself will often fail to be empathetic or helpful. It's fine, when you realize the situation laugh at human foibles and move on.
I would like to do this drawing and I don't know how to do it
and the questions that pose a problem. The first ones naturally lead to answers that don't need to be explained because the explanations themselves are too long. You can't comment on the whole code. As for questions that pose a problem, even if the applicant does not ask for it, others will read the question and the answers and benefit from the explanations. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) – AndréC Jan 30 '20 at 20:12