Maddy from Celeste

Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)

In the case of marginally notable topics, consider how we best serve the reader – if we cannot say much of substance without becoming a carbon copy of the subject's website or of a tabloid news article, it is kinder to our lectrice to say nothing at all. But if we can tell a little, enough for the future casually interested surfer, who stumbled upon a nomen out of context, to satisfy their curiosity, we must by all means do so. In particular, articles on organizations and contemporary people often fall in the former group, where our writings are not only redundant but may for the lack of a true NPOV pass off promotion as balance, whereas bygone events and persons rarely have promotional materials to plagiarize, and even a short stub may be a helpful summary.

It is commonly cited that the minimum condition for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. However, for Wikipedia's purposes, verifiability is truth. We can't call something true without evidence, and our standard of evidence is verifiability from reliable, published sources.

When discussing the already painful topic of editor behaviour, the last thing anyone needs is to think of hangings. Please just use WP:LASTCHANCE instead.

Occasionally the question comes up, whether experienced editors should be afforded more or less assumption of good faith than newcomers. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between good-faith goals and good-faith methods, and that that distinction is relevant here.

Working towards good-faith goals means wanting to make a better Wikipedia. This encompasses all behaviour that isn't vandalism. A significant proportion of new editors are here to vandalize, while editors who put in any significant amount of effort into Wikipedia rarely vandalize.

Someone who is trying to improve Wikipedia might still resort to methods that consciously contradict the editing policy. An editor might be so convinced they are right on some matter that they resort to domination techniques or sockpuppetry to achieve their goals. Such techniques may be used by editors of any level of experience, but newcomers cannot be assumed to be familiar with our editing procedures; as such, it can be reasonable to allow inexperienced editors some leeway under circumstances where a more experienced editor may be seen as acting unambiguously maliciously, if the situation could instead be explained by a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.

Uncontrollably long lines are uncontrollably hard to read. Typographic wisdom has it that 10 to 15 words per line is a good number. I use monobook, but I have amended my CSS to that effect.

TL;DR: If you feel the need to cite WP:BADNAC, don't.

Every now and then, someone will bring a discussion close up for review at the appropriate venue, citing the essay WP:BADNAC. Often these challenges are the ones with the least factual merit to them; while BADNAC may at times be useful for inexperienced editors looking to get started with closing discussions, citing it as a reason to overturn a closure is invariably a fallacious ad hominem and should be met with sanctions for making personal attacks. In fact, each of these criteria for "inappropriate non-admin closures" is complete nonsense.

A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations:

1. The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.

Irrelevant. Either the closer is involved and should not close the discussion, or they are not. Admin status does not grant exceptions.

2. The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.

I could not care less how "contentious" the discussion or topic is. Either the closure is correct or not. Either it is upheld on review, or it is overturned. Nonadmins can make great closures, and admins can make terrible ones.

3. The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.

This in praxis is just used for dismissing closers for editcountitis reasons. Sure, one needs some experience to close, but once a closure is in place, it does not matter who made it. The closure is either correct or not, regardless of the closer's person.

4. The result will require action by an administrator:
   • Deletion (except for TfD discussions where orphaning is needed)
   • Unprotecting a page
   • Merging page histories
   • Either imposing a ban or block

Yes and no. Requested moves requiring admin action are regularly closed by nonadmins, who will then post at WP:RM/TR for help. CfDs are also often closed by nonadmins, who will post at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. {{db-xfd}} also exists, though it is to my knowledge not really used for AfDs, at least. Thus, there is nothing about a closure requiring admin action that makes it unsuitable for nonadmin closure. Rather, different kinds of discussion have different conventions on this.