Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause

This article was nominated for deletion on May 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Older comment

Hmmm well. It's fine as an essay, an opinion. If it were to be a guideline... I would have an issue with the example of an article being speedied out of process not worth being restored if it has no chance in AfD...

1. That would create a de facto CSD of "Has no realistic chance of surviving an AfD, in my opinion". The problem with that is that the person's opinion is often right, but fairly often wrong. Happens a lot.
2. If this is happening, the solution is to reform CSD (as happened recently to include nn groups) rather than to speedy individual articles.
3. Subject to abuse by a disengenuous rogue deletionist.
4. Process shouldn't (usually) be ignored and if it is the consequence should not (usually) be that the person ignoring the process gets their way anyway. Herostratus 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad example

I have a problem with the other example used: closing RfA early. As discussed on the RfA talk page, the onus is on the person being nominated to withdraw their nomination, which then can do at any point. Some prefer to keep it open to get the maximum amount of contructive critcism. Other times, a RfA can be turned around even after a shaky start. At any rate, it's not the best example for WP:SNOW. Turnstep 13:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• The bureaucrats seem to have a different opinion [1]. SNOW is common sense, not a straitjacket. I'd say the candidate has the right to keep the case open if they really want, but many (esp. newbie) candidates are unaware of exact procedure, and we've lost at least one editor over negativity in RFA. Radiant_>|< 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I have no problem with bureaucrats closing AfDsRfAs, but I still don't think it's a good SNOW example as far as having people other than bureaucrats, nominees, and their nominators close the RfAs. As I've said before, people self-nominating should know what they are getting into. If a nomination is going badly, people already have no hesitation about letting the nominee know both directly on the RfA and on the user's talk page. But the decision to close the RfA should ultimately lie with them. I just think we can come up with better examples for SNOW, as closing other people's RfAs early is, at the least, a controversial action. Turnstep 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_45#Wikipedia:Snowball_clause. 5 people there supported early removal, and 10 were opposed. If you want to apply WP:SNOW to WP:RFA, then please start a poll on this matter at WT:RFA. --Durin 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No polls please, voting is evil. I'm assuming that Turnstep means "RFA" rather than "AFD"? You might want nominees to know what they're getting into, but plain fact is that they oten don't. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so we should play nice rather than assume people know all the rules. The suggestion that only a bureaucract should remove RFAs is moot, since I have the backing of a 'crat on this one. Radiant_>|< 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • (Oops! Alphabet soup on the brain. Did mean RfA, made changes above, thanks) Turnstep
      • One bureaucrat Radiant. One. Also note that the bureaucrat you suggest has backed your actions stated in August of last year, "if we're going to have a mercy rule, it's the bureacrats who should be applying it". ([2]). Pending further demonstration of his opinion, it would seem he backed his own action, not yours per se. --Durin 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that the RfA header currently says "Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion.". Also note Raul said in November of 2005, "I am adamantly against non-bureacrats deciding that there was no consensus". RfA's policy and Raul's statements seem to be against you Radiant. --Durin 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Bureaucrat's are charged with determining the outcome of RfAs. Admins (and other editors) are not. If you'd like to be charged with closing RfAs, then please request Bureaucratship. -Splash^talk 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It has come to my attention that several candidates don't appreciate being unlisted, because they like to learn from the feedback given. As such I believe my assumption regarding negative pileons and prevention thereof was in error, and I will refrain from making more snowball calls on RFA for the time being. >Radiant< 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Idiom

The term "has a snowball's chance in hell" is ambigious because the more common idiom in Britain, for instance, is "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell." As a compromise I've inserted the following, which I think is less ambiguous:

If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just in Britain; in fact, in America (or at least my corner of it), both has a snowball's chance in hell and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell are seen — with, amusingly, equivalent meaning: no chance at all. I've gone ahead and changed this (since it seems to have been changed back at some point). I don't think I've altered the intended meaning thereby.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki

This page belongs on the meta-wiki, if anywhere.

-Ikkyu2 -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Now what?

Both the clasification and point of this article confuse me. As to classification, it's named as a Wikipedia: article, but its not policy or guideline or a proposed policy or guideline (at least, its not stated as such on the page). So what it is? I'm not making a point, I actually just don't know.

As to the point, it now has two small sections, each of which basically contradict the other. A minority rebuttal is OK, but this is basically two equal sections.So I'm not sure what purpose its serving.

Anyway, besides all that, I'm not seeing a huge amount of support for the whole thing... which makes sense to me. While the basic sentiment is unexceptionable, it's solving a problem that either doesn't exist or is minor -- after all, most people just stop voting on an RfA or AfD that that's running at or near 100% either way and has sufficient votes, so what's the problem with letting it sit a few days until closing. And on the other hand its just too subjective to be sitting out here, it could be misinterpreted or misused, especially when we are already having issues with some people accepting the need for a process at all...

All in all, I think this ought to go into userspace, or essay space. Does that make sense? Herostratus 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One could almost say that it should be moved because it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming official policy? :) Turnstep 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not everything in Wikipedia namespace is policies or guidelines. In fact, most of it isn't. This page is sometimes cited as a reason for doing something, primarily on DRV and sometimes (disputedly) on RFA. That doesn't mean it should be used always, or even often. It's just a minor meme, really - people say "KD - snowball" rather than "Keep deleted because if put back on AFD this article would end up deleted anyway so there's no need to be overly bureaucratic about it". HTH. >Radiant< 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping it where it is at. As a Wikipedia essay, I feel it is more than appropriate to keep it with the current namespace and title - although I don't strictly object to transwiki-ing to meta, if people feel that this would be appropriate. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well... Another user, Ambi I think it was, over at Wikipedia:Process is Important was pretty adamant that that piece either be moved to userspace or stamped PROPOSED (for an up/down discussion) on the grounds that people were citing it. But WP:SNOW I have also seen several cites for. Anyway, the upshot of that was that a disclaimer was added beginning "This page is an essay... It is not being proposed as official policy...", etc. (plus the article already was in Category:Wikipedia essays. So wouldn't it make sense to do that here? Herostratus 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's fine as it is. Stifle 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition

An editor added this:

Attempting to cite this as if it were policy leaves you open to ridicule by those who can a) click a link and b) read.

I recast it into these terms:

Citations of this essay should be taken as a shorthand expression of the citer's personal opinion and not be confused with citations of official or proposed policies or guidelines.

I don't really think that the passage is necessary, given that the preceeding paragraph basically says the same thing. I would not have added it and I (personally) wouldn't object to its removal, but at any rate the more formal tone is better, IMO. Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't becuase is misses the point. People are citing this as if it were policy and it is time they stopped.Geni 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they citing it as policy or as just shorthand, a pointer to a expression with which they agree. Also, everything that goes on this page should be mirrored on Wikipedia:Process is Important IMO. Herostratus 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The WP: extension, at least in my mind, implies policy or guideline. A see it over at DRV a lot, where people mention WP:SNOW as if it has any sort of bearing on anything in reality. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then your interpretation of WP: is mistaken. People regularly create new essays, suggestions, hopeless proposals etc etc and give them a WP: shortcut. It is no way a statement of officialdom of any kind and never has been. -Splash^talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Snowballs" pic

The snowball pic is "LOL funny" but rubs it in a bit (which might be the point). Completely irrelevant to the article but it sure is "LMAO" kinda funny. --ZacBowling 08:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

So, once again, this is being misinterpreted as policy. It's happened over at WP:DRV a few times, I've seen it mentioned at WP:AFD, and it's slowly becoming an excuse to ignore process in relevant discussions. This helps nothing, even though it's clearly stated that it's not policy. Should we get rid of it so people don't refer to it as any sort of relevant guideline or policy, proposed or otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion as an alternative to education? No. -Splash^talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Educating what, exactly? That process isn't relevant? That people see no need to achieve anything by consensus if they believe there's "a snowball's chance?" This doesn't disturb anyone? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Educating people that, if they cite it as policy, they are mistaken. Making the link red won't stop people invoking the spirit of the page, nor in some cases the letter. -Splash^talk 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion, although I'm not a big fan of it (I believe that not much is gained by hurrying to close things - what's the hurry? It doesn't really save work to close sooner.) But let people who want to say WP:SNOWBALL do so as a shorthand. I don't see why it would be better for people to have to say basically the same thing by typing it out. Herostratus 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because it isn't policy doesn't mean it's inapplicable to the real problems we face on Wikipedia. Besides, deleting this would obviously violate WP:SNOW since someone would recreate it. :p Anyway, I think the problem is really abuse and misunderstanding of the snowball clause. To me, it's more than just about ignoring the rules. I'll go add something to the essay. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's always WP:MFD just in case you didn't know (not to sound patronizing). Really though, if people are acting out of process, and it's leading to negative things happening, then uh, deal with them acting out of process. I don't think this essay is making them do it... it just expresses logic that, if applied correctly, should avoid problems rather than cause them. I think a lot of people know it's not policy, they're just saying "Per the logic expressed in the essay, I think it would be a good idea to..." --W.marsh 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a guideline, or reccomended best practice. These things are always more powerful than policy, because they're wiser to follow, and are more likely to be followed.

Don't tell the police, but I often find myself passing a sign "legal speed limit 80" at 100, because apparently they can only enforce the limit by placing police officers. But if the sign says "reccomended speed 50", I typically pass it at 40, because 9 times out of 10, it turns out to actually be A Good Idea.

Kim Bruning 07:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC) going entirely offtopic: on german autobahns, they often DO set the legal speed limit to the reccomended limit. Don't blow past an 80 sign at the 160 you were doing before, you may not live to tell the tale.

What about...?

• SNOW is unlikely to become policy for the reasons above. Anyway, speedy and prod seem to working OK, and every other article deserves its day in court. Articles which have 25 simple "delete" votes from experienced editors don't really need any more comment. However, something like:

"If, in the opinion of an admin, an AfD has been running for long enough to get a very clear idea of where the debate is headed, and that debate has been attacked, pushed off-topic or otherwise disrupted, that debate can be closed. Debates where the {{afdnewbies}} template have been applied or where the creator and / or one or more users with a vested interest in the article have made multiple posts displaying a clear ignorance of WP procedures could be candidates for closure under this rule."

...would surely be useful and far less contentious. Deizio 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because this page is not a rule, policy, guideline or anything. Thus adding new rules to it (which we don't need anyway) would have no effect. I don't see the hurry to close such AfDs anyway. What's the point? It'll only result in a deletion review and a repeat performance over there. -Splash^talk 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that such attacked / disrupted / off-topic / personal etc. AfDs (that are obviously heading for keep or delete) become divisive and get people worked up over nothing. They are also more likely to see newcomers bitten which can scare off new wikipedians. The "very clear" is to prevent this going to deletion review - as admins would probably not want to get dragged into something controversial at DRV by closing a truly contentious - rather than noisy - debate, then this would be kind of self-regulating. Obviously, SNOW is not policy or a guideline so I'm not advocating "adding" to it, just floating an idea on a talk page. Deizio 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Header

There's already a header which says this is an essay and not policy. A little italics thingy finger-wagging "OMG NOT POLICY" below it is ridiculous overkill and I've removed it. FCYTravis 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Herostratus 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Also agreed, which is why I've removed it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. It's too often cited as something worthwhile and it shouldn't be. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not? Most citations of it that I have seen are rather benign. And the repetition of a "warning" is rather pointless anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't think of many benign uses of it, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The way you're talking, it's as if this page is a threat to Wikipedia. Whatever you may think, the double warning serves no purpose. You're avoiding the crux of my point. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
        • the warning was somewhat toned down from the original.Geni 12:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If people can't read and make up their own minds, then they are going to end up confused no matter what steps we take to protect them. --Gmaxwell 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but if we just treat it as whatever, people might think it holds weight. It doesn't. It's nothing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • A number of well respected editors disagree with your claim that it is meaningless. Be more considerate, your words here are very insulting. --Gmaxwell 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry if you're insulted by it, but it's not an insult. This is not anything. It's not policy, it's not guideline, it's merely a divisive essay. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, telling people to get more discussion if they feel an action would be reverted is sooooo divisive. Shame! Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
            • You're right, it wasn't there, but your continued mockery of my valid protests isn't appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just in case we're wondering if the "not a policy" flag is needed: [3]. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OH MY GOD! AN ADMIN CLOSED AN AFD OUT OF PROCESS CORRECTLY, BUT CITED A NON-POLICY PAGE! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO! Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Your unnecessary mockery aside, this should never be cited as a rationale for anything, especially not an admin action. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So what should Stifle have done? Should he have said "I'm closing this because there's no way we'll ever get consensus to delete this, judging from the response thus far"? Is that not exactly what WP:SNOW says? What's your problem? Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think these should ever be closed early unless there's a reason to via speedy keep/speedy delete, but to cite non-policy as a reason for doing so is doubly bad. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
          • So let me get this straight. You don't like admins using common sense and closing AfDs early, but you tolerate them simply saying "I'm closing this because I think it should be closed early" instead of "I'm closing this because I believe in WP:SNOW"? Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't really tolerate it at all, assuming there's no policy in place designed to close them early. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
              • But people acting out of policy is part of our culture and is enshrined in a somewhere-between-policy-guideline-and-essay page (cough). Process wonkism is not a good thing if it discourages doing the obvious. (And even then, WP:SNOW as it stands is benign in this regard because it encourages people to seek discussion and not wheel war if the obvious is undone; this is why I prefer it over IAR.) Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't be putting redundant notices on this essay. Indeed it is so obviously best practise that I'm not surprised to see it cited in AfD closes. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• And now people citing it for speedies: [4]. I'm starting to go as far as reconsidering my choice not to take this to MfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, go ahead. It'd be more fun to have people other than the two of us going around in circles. And on another note, stop comparing citing an essay to citing policy. People do these two things for the same reason: to provide a rationale for what they are doing. People cite WP:SNOW because otherwise they would have to type out in long form "This isn't worth keeping, an AfD would get rid of it anyhow, since it's obviously a hoax". Both stands don't fit in the process mold, but you seem to prefer jumping on people who cite a well-built-up page encouraging work towards consensus to people who cite whatever comes out of their head. Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of the essay box

It has become clear to me that the essay notice is being abused by people who believe they disagree with this page and wish to discredit it. I don't believe we should have a template for that purpose, and as a result I'm thinking of TFDing the essay notice. Before I start a forest fire, I thought I would ask for commentary here. --Gmaxwell 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just MfD this. The constant abuse of this project page is what warrants the notice. This is quite easily the most asinine edit war I've ever seen. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you being consistently hostile or am I misunderstanding you? If you are, it's really making discussion difficult. If you are not, I apologize in advance for my misunderstanding. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the discussion? A hostile non-policy page is consistently cited to attempt to, and often override, policy in other areas. The essay is divisive, and people insist on removing text that explains clearly that it is not policy or guideline or anything, instead erroneously calling it "common sense." Don't accuse me of hostility, I'm not the one pimping out a flawed essay currently to justify my actions on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you MFD the page, you'll contribute to adding more hidden rules to wikipedia. This is a commonsense rule that follows from the way things work. So in the end it won't go away, only the page will.

The idea is flawed. The idea is merely fueled by the page. Remove the page, and the idea thankfully carries less weight. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Think Sapir-Whorf. Wasn't that shown to be essentially incorrect? Kim Bruning 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Common sense" has no place in rational theory (see monty hall problem amoungst other things). This page is an essay just like Wikipedia:Process is Important.Geni 11:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured essay

The featured essay tag is used in the most important and commonly cited wikipedia essays. The essay WP:SNOW is cited often in various discussions in Wikipedia and the mailing lists. It's even sometimes used at AfD. That's why I've used the featured essay tag. It does not claim universal consensus, so please don't remove it just because you personally disagree with the essay. Loom91 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup and things it has been used for have failed to be upheld at deletion review. If you want this as policy stop trying to do it through the back door.Geni 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Since no one except me seems to be bothered to discuss the matter at the talk page, I'm reinserting the template. Loom91 05:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He isn't the only one who feels that this is not policy. Uses of this at AfD are not defacto policy by practice, no matter what people say, however, the use of the featured essay tags makes it look authoritative, which will make it harder to convince people of its lack of practical value particularly at deletion reviews, where it is totally out of scope to use. Ansell Review my progress! 06:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The template explicitly states that it isn't policy and is informal. Moreover, it is not an assertion of whether or not the page is "right". You yourself say that the page is used a lot at Deletion Review, which means that IS quite popular. I personally disagree with its use in serious situations, but that doesn't stop it from BEING cited. The tag is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The only thing it reflects is that this page is a ppular one, for better ror for worse (for worse, I suspect). Do you still object to its inclusion? Loom91 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The template has been changed. Now it's {{popular essay}} rather than {{featured essay}}. This is to remove any connotations of peer review or prescriptiveness. I hope this is sufficient to conclude the debate. Loom91 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong with essay?Geni 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Ignore All Rules, the snowball clause is just common sense. There is indeed no absolute common sense, but common sense inside some given context *does* exist. Here the context is the software environment, as well as guidelines we've figured out ourselves. Kim Bruning 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

People used to claim that "common sense" said wikipedia would not work. They now claim that "common sense" shows that wikipedia will colapse soon. Common sense is not a logicaly valid justifaction for anything.Geni 10:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Will the revrters bother explaining why this essay is not a popular essay? Take a look at What Links Here, look at the amount of links to WP:SNOW in discussions. Add to that the number of citations in the mailing lists. Do you still say this is not a popular essay? Don't turn it into a question of right or wrong, it's a question of objective popularity, and I think this page exceeds some guidelines in that respect. Please give reasons when you are reverting ym additions. Loom91 10:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does the distiction need to be made.Geni 11:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To piss people off. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not out to piss people off but provide an organisation for essays that are used frequently. I don't see why anyone needs to get pissed off about this, I'm not making this into a guideline process. Loom91 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to WP:BOLD

This is yet another in the long list of corollaries to Be Bold. Whatever happened to avoiding instruction creep? If somebody nominates a page that will never get deleted, just close it as speedy keep and redirect the discussion to the article's talk page. And, of course, let others be bold if they disagree.

So, should we redirect this to WP:BOLD? Zocky | picture popups 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people are... not so smart Kim Bruning 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this policy goes further than WP:BOLD, which mostly refers to simple edits. This page is focused narrowly on deletion decisions and their effect on the community. Ansell Review my progress! 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

...although, a clause on this page about "not being reckless" would not do any harm. Ansell Review my progress! 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Am I the only one who can see the "Don't freeze yourself" section, which basically screams at editors not to abuse WP:SNOW as has been done so many times? Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It just happens to use the example of deletions; it applies to pretty much everything. The fact that its most noticeable use is in deletion-related processes is just a coincidence. I now pretty much follow only WP:SNOW, which I find to be an excellent rule of thumb. (Although IMO, WP:SNOW should never be used as a stand-alone reason; this is why I always present a rationale for what I'm doing and/or why I believe the decision would not be undone.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies only to articles. This page applies to nearly everything, and if used properly, has a helluva less chance of abuse than WP:BOLD if the latter was applicable to everything on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Policy?

I think not, it's a corrolary to existing rules, after all. Kim Bruning 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

which one? IAR is not a rule, common sense has not place in logical approaches and it goes far beyond Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.Geni 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite parse that? Kim Bruning 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Which rule is it a corrolary to? I was just dealing with all the claimed cases in the opening sentance.Geni 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, Ignore all rules is a rule... but true to form, no one agrees under which header to put it. :-P Let me think about the rest later. Kim Bruning 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this policy if used according to the boldness with which CSD is used will actually use more time and resources on useless debate than if it were not used as a justification at all. Notably, and perhaps I shall write an essay on this, the fact that non-admins cannot see content once deleted, causes one to act in ignorance to keep with WP:AGF. A higher level of transparency as to the exact nature of actions may infact avoid many DRV's, which will inevitably come from even slightly controversial SNOW deletions. Ansell Review my progress! 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of this policy at Deletion review

If someone has thought it necessary to discuss a deletion at deletion review. Is this policy really appropriate. Its recent use by several editors there seems to be antithetical to its aims. Ansell Review my progress! 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

MfD

Well, since it seems like people don't bother to take a damn thing seriously. I'm done bitching. But closing the MfD per WP:SNOW is quite possibly the rudest thing I have ever seen on wikipedia ever. Completely pathetic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly in line with the page though, mind you. ;-) Kim Bruning 11:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. The page is rude, uncivil, and decisive. Perfectly in line. Way to go, folks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

<grin> Whatever gets the encyclopedia written as efficiently as possible :-) The de.wikipedia even has a policy of "be cruel". I'm not sure we want to go that way though.

Even so, polite, clear, concice, and decisive sounds like a good idea. Maybe you can make the page more friendly? Decisiveness in itself is pretty important for online systems, so we do need to keep that as much as possible. Kim Bruning 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't efficient. It's divisive and moronic. Glad you like it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very interested in ways to make things more efficient though. Any suggestions? Kim Bruning 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave things to run for a week then close it with all the others. See Assembly line.Geni 12:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you do a lot better than that. Go on! Here's a great chance :-) Kim Bruning 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For bulk stuff Assembly line is generaly the logical technique that should be followed. Of there are times when leaveing something on AFD for a week is a bad idea how lack of effeincy is not one of them.Geni 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow, and your last statement is hard to parse. :-/ Could you expand on that, somehow? Kim Bruning 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

there are reasons to close an AFD early (eg an AFD tag looks stupid at the top of GWB or someone has nominated wikipedians for decency for deletion again) however efficency is not one of those reasons since it is likely a that a time montion study would show that it would require less time if it was closed with all the others.Geni 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In a case like GWB, I'm trying to get some consensus to a change to WP:Speedy keep where articles kept over the last 6 months via consensus would be speedy kept if nominated again. I'd also like to see us expand speedy keep for articles that undoubtedly meet various WP guidelines, but that's another battle. You know, changing the policy instead of invoking bogus essays. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is in line with an essey is of minnimal significance.Geni 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the MfD was intended more as commentary on the value of the policy anyway - that belongs here more than there, I think. A speedy keep need not kill the discussion. -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it was intended to kill the nonexistent, poorly thought out, falsely invoked essay. Since, you know, no one seems to think discussion is worth it, judging by the repeated edit wars and numerous misuses of the term. And yes, I still have a bug up my ass about it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of original formulation

In this edit I have changed the current formulation:

If an issue raises no controversy, and therefore doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.

to the earlier formulation:

If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.

This is because there are certain proposals that, while they may not stand a chance of being accepted by a process (for instance, an attempt to revive the pedophilia userbox) would nevertheless cause a lot of controversy if the process were extended to its full length. This is very much the kind of situation where we'd want to invoke the snowball clause, to prevent a forest fire. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we should never want to invoke the snowball clause, as it only acts as a divisive measure and often ends up stretching out a short process longer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have something to contribute to the discussion here or do you just enojoy complaining? As far as I can tell you haven't offered anything new for a while, and it doesn't appear that your argument has convinced anyone. At this point it appears to me that if you're looking for divisive you need look no further than yourself. --Gmaxwell 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's necessary. Try being a little civil sometime, and assume some good faith. I want to improve the encyclopedia, and this does not - "snowballed" actions by various admins this week, for instance (see Wikipedia:Conservative notice board) have only shown to prolong otherwise clear and relatively quick processes. Maybe I should include a list of out-of-process snowballs that demonstrate how divisive the essay is and how it only seeks to extend a process that may very well get the same result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the wording on controversy. While it is certainly tempting to try and avoid controversies by going straight for the inevitable outcome, it seems to me that it would rarely be wise to do so; controversies, even those of the tempest-in-a-teapot variety, aren't going to go away just because we short-circuit the processes that they've generated. Invoking this clause in a case like that will only cause arguments that might otherwise have been resolved by letting their processes run to the inevitable result instead spill out onto userpages, WP:AN, and so forth. --Aquillion 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that seems to have strayed in from another essay entirely

I've removed this because it doesn't seem to be particularly applicable to the snowball clause at all.

Don't freeze yourself

One of the major rationales for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong. If we had an infallible person, there might not be any need for process; as we don't, there is. Furthermore, potential contributors would like to know that their contributions were entering into a space where some rules and some process do exist. Aborting process may eventually send good contributors away.

However, the snowball clause may prove to be helpful in delineating where process should and should not apply. The snowball clause does not necessarily (but often does) assume that an action is obviously the right one: rather, it assumes that nobody will undo that action if it is taken. If the action is undone, then the original assumption was wrong, and process should take precedence. However, if it is not undone, then the action taken must have been the right thing to do. In any case, the snowball clause — when applied rationally — may often prove to be helpful in determining when to be bold and when to wait. If interpreted in such a way, the snowball clause tends to be a good rule of thumb that should help increase discussion where necessary, while reducing time wasted in redundant discussions.

It should be made clear that there is nothing wrong with making the wrong assumption. Rather, what is wrong would be making that same assumption again even if little has changed. The snowball clause is not equivalent to ignoring all rules. Instead, it is meant to encourage boldness in taking action where it appears that the course to be taken is clear or has been agreed upon, and meekness in the case that the action has been undone. Should an action you have made under the snowball clause be undone, take it as a sign that more discussion is needed and that the wiki process is working: after all, if we didn't expect people to make mistakes (and honestly admit them) once in a while, we wouldn't be using a wiki to build an encyclopedia.

This spirit can perhaps be embodied in the following post from the English Wikipedia mailing list:

The thing is, you've got to be prepared to accept that what you're doing may not be the Right Thing and, if so, be willing to apologise. And Right/Wrong isn't binary: it's a spectrum from Wrong Thing to Right Thing and you can be 90% Right and still be causing legitimate editors to complain because you didn't get spot on. That's where "my ideals were right, but it lacked something in the execution" comes in.

And to make things more complicated, sometimes (but not as often as we're led to believe) the Right Thing can only be achieved by following process, lest we get 10% Wrong by pissing a legit editor off ...

The reason for this massive removal is that it doesn't seem to have anything useful to say about the snowball clause at all. Radiant! introduced this clause, and it's seen its most productive use, as a way of short-circuiting pointless, slavish adherence to process to the detriment of the encyclopedia. To add to it a homily praising the use of process seems unproductive. That homily can be placed in another essay, or added to "Process is important". This essay is too important and widely used to be freighted with duplications of other essays. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of a puzzling statement

I have removed the following statement:

Keep in mind as well that, often, the full process may take a shorter amount of time and less protest to produce the desired result than "snowballing" the process.

To me, this is obviously untrue. It's a rather puzzling addition. Could someone explain it? --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, Tony, I had you in mind when I wrote it. Often, if you just let something go through an *fD, or actually find a legitimate speedy keep/delete process, the timetable for those processes take less time than the ensuing discussion, appeal, and gnashing of teeth that the out-of-process closing of a discussion can achieve. So, instead of snowballing and then dealing with a week long appeal at DRV after an AfD has been open for a day or two, just let the AfD run its course and the offending article is gone faster than it would have been if you abandoned process. Not always, of course, but often. If we're going to keep this flawed, divisive essay intact, we may as well make it clear that the processes that are being considered for abandonment might actually be the better option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good argument for truncating the review process. It is not a good argument for avoiding the application of this clause to "no hope" matters such as the Conservative notice board". --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The review process is absolutely okay. The abandoning of the review process because an admin thinks s/he's a psychic is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I rather think that just letting a deletion debate run its normal course takes less time and causes less drama than a speedy delete, a DRV thread, angry AN/I back and forth, an RFC, maybe an RFAr, and so on! Sheesh. I think the language should have stayed in WP:SNOW. --W.marsh 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a single hostile and unreasonable editor can always cause a discussion to be drawn out needlessly. This doesn't mean we should let them hold us to ransom. This clause can be invoked at any point to deal with such filibustering, and in practice it's proven very useful for just that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And every single admin action can easily be handled with the processes in place. I don't get this response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement I feel needs to be there to emphasise the 10 percent that go wrong taking up to 300 percent more time to complete than they would have had the initial discussion not completed. It isn't a binary untrue statement as you imply Tony. Ansell 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While it may be annoying if a discussion goes on for a long time, I think it's mistaken to refer to this as a failure of the Snowball clause. If our procedures really do take too long in the case of a challenged snowball then we always have the option of agreeing to shorten them in such cases if that is really thought desirable. Whilst I haven't done a rigorous check of al invocations of this clause, in my experience it is rare to vanishing for the clause to be invoked and then, upon challenge, an end result opposite of that expected by the snowballer ensues. This suggests to me that the clause is probably being properly used, so it would probably be unwise to put language into the essay that might deter its appropriate use or encourage inappropriate challenges by emphasizing the possibility of inflicting further delay. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely a failure of the clause. Because the clause is invoked, it causes further strife, thus taking longer to accomplish. Look at all your early closes this week, Tony. Even if your desired result comes about, it's going to take longer because you felt that invoking this nonsense was more important than going along with policy. It'd be a much more productive use of your time to help get the speedy keep criteria changed than to continue to use a clause that has absolutely zero chance of becoming anything more than what it is now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of two recent edits

Two recent edits were as follows:

The first was a removal of the following section:

This is possible on Wikipedia because, unlike many other environments, most actions are almost as easily undone as they are done. Accordingly, the level of certainty required to snowball clause something which can not be undone is substantially greater.

The edit summary reads: "kill the easy to undo claim. The evidence suggests it isn't true" and the editor was Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The second was a removal of the word "commonsense" from the following section:

The "snowball clause" is a corollary of "ignore all rules", common sense, and the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

The edit summary was "removed reference to "common sense" since it varies from prson to person" and the editor was Eluchil404 (talk · contribs).

I am reverting both of these changes, which were not discussed.

The reason for my revert of the first change is that it is a fact that administrator actions can be quickly and easily undone. Until recently it was true that deleted images could not be undeleted, but that problem has now been remedied.

The reason for my revert of the second change is that commonsense is expected to be practised by all editors to the best of their abilities. While personal judgement does differ from person to person, Wikipedia depends on commonsense to produce group consensus for actions. I feel that dismissing this principle because "it varies from person to person" is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So why do people keep trying to get me to go through DRV rather than just undelete stuff that shouldn't have been deleted? why do people keep thinking they own their blocks? Sure in theory I can do a lot of things. In practice regularly unding actions quickly causes people to complain. Thus the sentance is false. "Common sense" has no place in rational theory (ok Intuitionism accepts it but the very existance of Intuitionism should tell you that "Common sense" has problems).Geni 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean--you're saying "okay I may be technically able to undelete this deleted page, but if I do there will be trouble." Well, maybe, but I think we'd probably want a more nuanced treatment of that than merely removing the paragraph.

We're running an encyclopedia project, not a course in rational theory, so I don't see a reason to remove the words "common sense" from the essay. Perhaps it might be interesting to run a project on logic, but Wikipedia isn't it. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

removeing the paragraph is nuanced. I didn't delete the page did I? If we abandon rational theory there is no useful basis for debate (even maths tends to run into problems under intuitionism).Geni 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the first is right, but the second certainly is not. There's absolutely no common sense in doing actions that will largely take more time to do in many cases to get the same result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

the results are not the same they just have stuff in common.Geni 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is presumably common to all editors yet some, otherwise reasonable, editors claim that WP:SNOW is nonsensical. Ipso facto the sense it reflects is not common in the usual sense. Eluchil404 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see here Geni appears to be disrupting the page because he's upset that everything isn't easily undone due to social impact. ... The text which he removed doesn't claim that everything is easily undone... only that WP:SNOW should generally be only applied when things can be undone with little effort.. We don't do WP:SNOW adminships often, no doubt in part because although deadminship is technically simple, it is socially difficult. Most changes on Wikipedia, are both socially and technically simple to undo... witness the hundreds of thousands of reverts. :) Perhaps WP:SNOW is being over applied by people who don't expect other admins to be clueless or disruptive, but thats not a fault of this document. --Gmaxwell 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it IS a fault of this document. Admins consistently use it as an excuse to act when process won't allow them to do so otherwise. It's unacceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As an excuse or as an explanation? There is no excuse for doing something which is actually wrong on Wikipedia, even if the wrong act is permitted by policy. ... Perhaps you have a minority view of what is acceptable, because I promise that no Wikipedia: page could ever persistently permit actions which believes are wrong. --Gmaxwell 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse, not an explanaiton. It can't be an explanation, as it isn't anything. We've had this discussion way up above, perhaps in archives, and I don't nkow why you continue to justify it. I do suggest however, to not take a firm disagreement with this monstrosity as disruption in the future. That was uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that this is the third time you've gone up against me about this. You seem to consistently misunderstand me, I don't really know why. God forbid we follow process and not have to cover 5 things a day at DRV that would ahve been resolved positively anyway. By the way, the two discussions regarding why this has an essay tag are up above, I implore you to read them again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing, since you've managed to get me fired up - I reverted exactly what I meant to revert. I don't edit war on WP: pages, so I'm not touching it again for a while, but be careful before you sling around accusations in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your petty DRV disputes, so please keep your argument over there and stop trying to screw up unrelated pages. ... and my apologies for assuming that your explanation-less revert revert of all my changes was a mistake rather than incivility on your part. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They actually aren't my disputes for once, but I will note that you apparently ARE - a number of them are specifically due to this essay. I'll also ask you, AGAIN, to cease with the accusations and allegations which are without merit. Wholesale reversion of poor edits to this article are not uncivil, especially when the discussion was had about many aspects of them above. So, please, stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is your basis for determining the change was poor? You reverted without commenting, so I can't tell. It's bad form. Also, where am I making accusations and allegations? How have you determined that they are without merit? --Gmaxwell 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, you called my edits incivil, you called DRV disputes I'm involved in petty, you accused me of "crap"ping all over this page because of your perception of sour grapes about the MfD, accused me of disruption, and that's just in the last hour. They're all without merit - assume good faith, I've been explicit about my rationales and opposition, and have been here long enough to at least deserve that courtesy, especailly from someone who's been involved in the discussion on this page for a number of months. The change was poor because it gives a false projection of this meaningless essay as being more than it really is, and ignores discussion and commentary from other people, such as about the "easy to undo" stuff, which obviously isn't the case if you look around at what happens when admins close things per this essay out of process. Bad form indeed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are being a hurtful and uncooperative person, call it an accusation if you like. It's my perception and I am entitled to it. Your incivility and unwillingness to discuss (calling everything you dislike as a "meaningless essay" is not discussion) is causing me to want to abandon this page, which I do not doubt is by design... just as all moderate, and civil users have effectively abandoned long term involvement with the deletion pages. If you think this page should be deleted, please AFD it again, do not circumvent policy by trying to destroy it one word at a time. Oh, and your DRV discussions are petty. It's a freeking flame war on wikipedia, it is by definition petty. Get over it. You're not saving the world. --Gmaxwell 01:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to be cooperative on this issue. It didn't work. I tried being blunt. It didn't work. I tried going through process to get it eliminated. It didn't work. All i'm doing is pointing out the flaws and how wrong it is, and the only person who's been nasty about it multiple times in the past with me over it is you. I hate this essay. I hate what it stands for and I hate what it causes in later discussions. As for my intents on DRV, that's a pretty nasty insinuation, so stop. Your actual attacks on me are wearing very, very thin. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems that darn near everything is working against you as you try to destroy this thing you hate so much, eh? Has it never occurred to you that you, rather than the document, might be in the wrong? In any case, you've admitted that you hate the document and want it destroyed... how are we supposed to view your actions in regard to it as anything but an attempt at an out of process destruction of the document? --Gmaxwell 17:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, you claim that only I've been rude.. but above you enumerate my rude acts, and they simply amount to calling you rude, and accusing you of attempting to destroy the document.... which is a motivation you admit in your most recent reply. I'd like you to stop and think carefully about how your repeated angry outbursts (what else can I call the "hate...hate...hate" above?) impact people, like myself, who not only support this document but consider it to be common sense, and are honestly a little surprised that anyone is making a fuss about it. I do have sympathy for your troubles elsewhere, even though I think you'd do best to just avoid nasty areas like DRV, ... but there is *nothing* about this document that grants power to people. If someone is doing something wrong and using this as an excuse you should take them to RFC, and failing that, to arbcom. No policy page can permit bad behavior. --Gmaxwell 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And again with the baseless accusations. I'm going to step aside as opposed to make any sort of statement toward you that I'll regret later. I suggest you do the same instead of making more accusations toward me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"long tradition" = 6 months?

This page has never been particularly stable over its six month history, I'm not sure saying it (or Process is Important, to be fair) has a "long tradition" at Wikipedia is very accurate. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so bad really, because any addition of such stuff automatically gets a placement in WP:PI to maintain parallelity. Herostratus 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so it's an arms race? -- nae'blis _(talk) 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That, or a race to the bottom. Either way, it's only fair and right. Herostratus 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An arrow pointed directly at the heart of Wikipedia

1. When this article in invoked to justify a speedy close, the amount of time and effort saved can be measured with great precision: it is exactly zero. There is no gain - none - in closing an AfD early. Calendar time is free. There is no advantage in trolling recent AfDs looking for early close candidates when there is always a backlog of expired AfDs to close.
2. When this article is invoked, at least in spirit, in speedying articles (usually articles that don't meet any CSD), the amount of damage done cannot be measured precisely, but is far from negligible. I would say from experience that about 10% of articles speedied and deleted are worthy of being kept, and thus their loss is a loss to the Wikipedia as whole.
3. [redacted over-the-top comment (sorry)] It's Antwerp. Antwerp is an arrow pointed at the heart of the Wikipedia. Sorry.

That is all. Herostratus 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Easily undone?

I don't consider speedy deletes to be easily undone, at all. A speedied article gets read by two people (in theory; sometimes only by one, I think) and its just gone. There's no AfD discussion to call attention to the deletion and to refer to. The article content can't be accessed so (with no AfD discussion) it's quite difficult to tell if the article actually met a CSD (as about 10% of articles nominated and deleted via speedy do not, in my estimation). You have to dig up an admin Assuming that the deleting admin properly removed all incoming redlinks, there's no easy way to tell if the article even ever existed.

True, I haven't seen WP:SNOW explicitly cited in speedy nominations or deletions (although it certainly could be), but its spirit stalks the 'pedia and appears to have entered the the minds of some speediers. Herostratus 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I used to have a list - it's done often. There might actually be a few listed in the archives here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List needed?

Re "This is possible on Wikipedia because, unlike many other environments, most actions are almost as easily undone as they are done"... would it possible to make a list (for the article) of which actions are and which are not easily undone? This would be helpful in knowing how and when to invoke the article... So far I come up with:

• Easily undone: edits, moves, placing of cleanup tags, PRODding
• Not easily undone: speedy deletions, hurtful remarks

I'm not sure where other actions fit on this list... Herostratus 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"easily undone" came about the fact that we can click a button and it's done. In reality, the actions usually consist of the SNOWing admin not liking being questioned, and subsequent DRVs/AfDs and other things coming up, thus making it an uneasy undo. So yeah, it's tough to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is important" boilerplate

I don't know when this appeared. This is really just an essay. I've removed the boilerplate and restored the "essay" tag. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. And I see you also removed it at WP:PI, which is proper. These two essays need to maintain parallel headers. Herostratus 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. They're separate and independent. In practice, this one has somewhat wider practical currency. Process is important is really just a lament about the way Wikipedia works, and how those nasty administrators keep ignoring processes. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes RLY. They complement and yet contradict each other, They are mutually exclusive, yet both true. Pace Neils Bohr, the opposite of Truth may be Truth. Bohr knew what I suspect many of us secretely disbelieve: that Schrōdiger's cat really is both alive and dead, not one or the other. Ponder this, grasshopper: What is the sound of one man whining? Herostratus 01:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I am really insulted that you just put the essay notice back on this without a prior attempt at discussion. Was it so hard to look at the contribs, see who changed it last, and leave them a note? I have no particular attachment to the 'this is important' notice, it was merely the last thing I found in the history that was there before the essay notice was put on it. There is a time for being bold, but being bold shouldn't be allowed to obstruct cooperation. Perhaps your obsession with Brenemann has caused you to forget that not all of us come here to argue with you? :-/

I believe fairly strongly that the page is, quite simply, not an essay. Were it an essay it would have a single author and be polarized to a single perspective, but thats not the case... it is no more an essay than our articles are. It appears to me that attempts to insert the essay notice here seem to be largely centered around discrediting the document. The page works just fine without any notice... which is how it was initially created. --Gmaxwell 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it back if you like. I didn't intend to offend anyone. I thought it obvious that this is a document of the type that we describe as an essay. The description above is intended to be a start at discussion of my action, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell and Tony Sidaway, I think you are both in violent agreement, or at least very near to it. Gmaxwell doesn't want an essay tag on the page, and Tony thinks that the page is less important than people make it out to be. So basically all you need to do is find an option that *is* acceptable to both. No tag at all, perhaps? Kim Bruning 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really that bothered. The tags aren't that important, although it's nice if we can agree on what this document is. I probably cite this essay as much as anyone, so it's pretty useful. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo needed

After the photo of snowballs, it would probably be informative to have a photo of hell, wouldn't you agree?  ;) Kasreyn 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

as you can see [5] in older versions, there was an image... but it got taken out at some point. The page is shorter now but perhaps the image would still fit.--W.marsh 02:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want your water frozen or boiled?

You've seen WP:SNOW, now check out WP:STEAM :) Haukur 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

This is used so routinely now that it's getting silly to continue describing it as an essay. It's a corollary of, or an elaboration of, the Ignore all rules policy. I've promoted it to guideline status. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted you. There's no strong cosnensus for such a change, the essay is still considered divisive in many areas, and more discussion is certainly in order as opposed to an attempted force. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been in routine use for yonks now. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything I'd actually move from Guideline to Policy, it's that well accepted. That's how policy gets done here, Jeff. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'all keep saying that, but there's still no evidence that it's true.

WP:IAR is policy, per Jimbo and others. SNOW is a pretty direct corollary. So it's a guideline at the least. --Interiot 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the same three or four people, sure. I'd love to see what would happen if we actually sought consensus instead of forcing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly put the guideline tag back. Sounds like we may have consensus. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't consider what two people do "consensus," especially when they use their rollback button as if I was some common vandal. But, hey, steamroll away if you can't get things done normally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the discussion: two people (Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin) have tagged it as a guideline and two other people (Lar, Interiot) have made comments supporting that action. You alone oppose it because, you claim absurdly, there is no evidence of consensus! --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. This discussion has not been pointed to anywhere else, and is only really advanced by three or four admins working outside of already-established policy (until recently in one case). I do not appreciate you removing my dispute tag when this dispute (lack of discussion of guideline, lack of outside input by people not involved with the discussion here, etc) is obvious. My claim is not "absurd," it's actually how things work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. There seems to be no significant, reasoned opposition to making this routinely used facet of Ignore all rules a guideline. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; I think it's certainly not a guideline, not a policy. Badlydrawnjeff, just because people don't weigh in on the issue doesn't mean they disagree. Ral315 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But we don't know that, now do we? I don't support creating policy or guideline based on what we assume, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We know that at least 338 xfD's referenced SNOW. --Interiot 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And don't know the context. You'd probably see me link to it a few time in them, and I, by no means, would be a proponent of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just adding another voice to affirm this. We use it all the time. It's at least a guideline. Watching these things evolve from ideas to guidelines to policies is fascinating; we're always in a process of change. This particular guideline/policy is strengthening, imho. Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did what the proponents of this should have done and listed this discussion at the policy pump. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Do you plan to stop edit-warring at some point? This isn't a new proposal, having been drafted by Radiant! back in December of 2005. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I plan to stop fighting this. God forbid I try to oppose a rogue juggernaut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, are you above expressing your intention to continue edit warring to dispute the status of this guideline in the face of growing support for it? --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responding to your inaccurate framing of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is little if any point to take this to the village pump. This has been used many times in the past for various closings, etc around Wikipedia and there has been little if any objection to it. As you can see there is a consensous among most if not all administrators present to kick this up to policy. I support them on this issue and fail to see why Jeff does exactly. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought discussion of a guideline would ever be pointless. Disturbing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve to take my comments out of context. The general fact that every Wikipedian has to agree on everything is disturbing. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of context? You also say you fail to understand my protest. Read back a little bit. I'm not looking for everyone to agree on everything, I'm looking for an actual discussion. You know, the type of thing this moronic essay frowns upon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm perplexed why proponents of this page, wish it to be guideline. If you beleive in WP:SNOW, you don't need a guideline backing you anyhow. Making something into a guideline, with broad impact, takes a broad consensus, and there seems to be a lack of discussion. In particular, I want to see more non-admins endorsing it, and ensure its not mainly admins (who like to use their special powers to do what they want, instead of being bothered by guidelines and policies adopted by the broader community). --Rob 17:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well of course we do use it routinely. However it's nice to have our written policies keep up with practice. You don't need to be an admin to use this guideline. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly endorse guideline Oh, come on, this is clearly a very sensible guideline. The only fault I can find with it is that of "consensus", rather than "informed consensus", ie that this is supposed to apply when such strong solid reasoning based on policies and guidelines has been cited, that there is almost no means at all to counter them. In general, that's how it's being used. I'm welcome to examples of it being used badly, however LinaMishima 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is trivial to show that the central claim is false (see Assembly line) thus the page is flawed thus it should not be a guideline.Geni 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you point out what you mean, I'm not finding it very clear :( LinaMishima 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

efficiency is good. unless an xfd is being activly dissruptive it makes no sense to close it eary rather than ueing Assembly line methods to close all afds in bulk.Geni 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this should be considered as "policy" -- it is a little too vague to ensure equitable enforcement as a matter of policy. However, it is undeniably an accepted practice and has been so for quite some time, which it seems is pretty much how most guidelines develop around here (with the exception of a few where the status was decreed by Jimbo and or were explicitly voted upon). older ≠ wiser 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A problem here is the proliferation of too many policy/guideline pages. About 80 guideline pages, and 50 policy pages, ensures many official pages, are only monitored and changed, by a small minority. Before adding yet another guideline page, somebody has to explain what *extra* this page tells people about our guidelines, not told elsewhere. Recent discussion and changes here, reflect this change. Notice, how just a small number of people supporting a change here was branded a "consensus" above (ignoring completely the size of the Wikipedia community) --Rob 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that SNOW provides anything extra beyond IAR, but it explains IAR in a way that's more clear in many situations, so it tends to get referred to a lot in official contexts. Its use is encouraged, not discouraged, and people reading the explanation for a close shouldn't come here and get the impression that its use is unofficial or not widely supported. --Interiot 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

so if doesn't provide anything extra beyond IAR, why make it a guideline? Besides, IAR is subjective enough as is, why expand that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's probably a good idea to encourage the usage of other guidelines and policies where ever possible. WP:IAR is a nice idea, but it can be used in a manner it was not intended for. As such, having more clearly defined corollaries to cite in it's place make good sense. I'm begining to think we should snowball the snowballs :P LinaMishima 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's your objection it is probably best to clean out the guidelines category of things like Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself and Wikipedia:Dynamic infobox templates, merge old guidelines like Wikipedia:Check your facts, etc. than opposing the inclusion of a more widely used, more important guideline. Also, the number of article editors, etc. in the Wikipedia community is not relevant to this; most interested persons are watching this page and so will see any changes. It is posted at the Village pump if anyone wants to object to its content, that doesn't mean that reverting something reasonable is necessary on a false point of procedure. —Centrx→talk • 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A few touch-ups?

Checking the article over, I believe there may be a few minor touch-ups that would be desirable:

• Remove the bit about instant deletion without AfD
  • This is probably one of the main arguments against this essay becoming a guideline. To be quite frank, most such cases can be squeezed into a CSD type, or indicates a need for a new CSD entry. Anything that can't be squeezed into a CSD type is probably in need of proper process so as to prevent POV issues.
• Make it clear that the consensus here is informed consensus.
  • Snowballing doesn't mean "if ten people go 'delete per nom', delete", it means look for when an argument based on policy is made that has little or no counter, and if there really is no means to answer the argument or fix the article, delete it (guidelines in this case are a bad idea, since this includes notability and other highly contentious issues that really need some degree of debate to decide).

I'm a little unsure on how to make these changes, but I'm sure greater minds will know what to do. I remind people that although the above may seem obvious or implied (and indeed generally followed), the best defence against the abuse of this and any resulting wikilawyering is to make it explicit. LinaMishima 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. My fear is this being used to, say, delete an article when not enough people have entered the debate. On the other hand, if it's a case where a lot of people are involved and they all have given their opinion and a real consensus is almost certain to emerge, then I think this clause should be used. It should be clear that this is to reduce bureaucracy when the result is virtually certain to occur, not merely when it's leaning that way. Fagstein 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

this is to reduce bureaucracy when the result is virtually certain to occur, not merely when it's leaning that way I had to check if you were quoting me on that, it's so well written and exactly my point! I'm just a little bit scared off trying to work this into the proposal itself, though, as it's such a well-loved one I don't want to make any mistakes :( LinaMishima 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Descriptive, agreed policy

If you oppose the use of this guideline or its classification as such, please explain what is wrong with its use or this page. Otherwise, it will continue to be widely used, it will continue to be effectively just the same as any other guideline, it will only be this page that inaccurately describes it as an essay. You are welcome to advertise why you disagree with its wide use, you are welcome to advertise the change of the page to reflect common practice and its position within the policy nexus, but that does not mean that a survey of editors, who would much prefer to be writing articles and who otherwise have little or no knowledge of this or any other guideline or their use, is necessary to change this page to accurate describe what happens on Wikipedia. The reason you see so many people commenting here is that most all interested parties already have this page on their watchlist; more will come and comment, and add their thoughts on the subject, but a constitutional convention is not necessary to change this page. —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As this is just a corollary of Ignore all rules, and probably the best known instance of that policy, I suggest that we put back the "guideline" tag while we try to work out why a few people object to it. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just add that I support the guideline status. Wide usage, the IAR corollary and descriptive nature swing it for me. If you made it policy you wouldn't get too much complaint from me either. Steve block Talk 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not agree with any other established process or policy, outside of the somewhat-controversial WP:IAR. It lacks broad acceptance or consensus as an essay, let alone guideline or policy, and is largely pushed by a half-dozen administrators. It assumes that we can predict the future in regard to major deletion processes, and assumes that users are not capable of making proper decisions or having an actual discussion, instead opting for administrative silencing of otherwise useful discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem may be that the essay category needs to be split in two, or have some removed: Some essays really are just personal essays few people agree with, while others, such as this one, are fairly well-agreed extrapolations of policy but that may be too vague or subjective; that may also just mean that the text of it needs to be revised. However, saying this is being pushed by a half-dozen admins is an exaggeration; several of the admins here never used it, and it is agreed by far more people, admins and non-admins alike. Also, IAR when properly used is not controversial; opposition to it is about how it could be abused and you don't see the thousands of proper uses of it every day that no one notices because they are not controversial. —Centrx→talk • 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone says there are "thousands" of uncontroversial uses - I have yet to see even one demonstrated. That's a bit odd, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you edit an article and add an unsourced statement, you're ignoring several rules. This is okay because someone can add the source for you. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You may well disagree, but I consider these to be valid SNOWs. Poop Juice, List of legal abbreviations, TCU library scandal, Clean safe nuclear energy. --Interiot 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked, Poop Juice was not valid, Legal abbreviations was a legitimate speedy keep (i.e., not SNOW), TCU did not need SNOW to justify the deletion of the attack page, and nuclear was not valid, although probably could have been speedied as an attack page. 0/4. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules (IAR as it is sometimes called) is official policy. All Wikipedians are expected to support it. If an action under the Snowball clause harms the encyclopedia, we can reverse it, as with any action. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be official policy by a hamfisted declaration from above but it's a bit too much to say that "all Wikipedians are expected to support it". Lots and lots of people oppose it and are still excellent contributors. Haukur 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We're expected to follow it, NOT support it. I certianly don't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not support it, but you cannot reasonably object to use drawing a useful corollary. If you did so, you'd not be following it, would you? --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly reasonably object, as IAR is in direct contravention with better established and accepted process and policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to this: "But sometimes it just creates a space for WikiLawyering". In my opinion "WikiLawyering" is a mostly useless pejorative term. Haukur 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable objection. What should we call it instead? Timewasting, fillibustering? --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "discussion?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, wikilawyering is a good term, for using the letter of the rules, not the spirit. Similar variations are used in many fields. LinaMishima 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I think the name is minimally acceptable. They've discussed renaming the page at Wikipedia talk:WikiLawyering for the exact same reason (that it's pejorative, not that it's useless), but no alternatives have stuck that capture the idea of being quarrelsome for its own sake. If that page moves, it should definitely be renamed here though. --Interiot 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the reason it's pejorative is that it's regarded as a bad thing to so! I can't see how we can get around that! :) --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know Wikipedia does not believe in polls. Still, just for the record:
  • Support: Centrx, Steve Block, Older Wiser, Interiot, Mackensen, Ral315, Antandrus, Pilotguy, Tony, Lar, myself (=11)
  • Oppose: Jeff (=1)
  • Support but clarify: LinaMishima, Fagstein (=2)
  • Unclear: Rob, Haukur, Geni (=3)
• And apologies if I misunderstood anyone's remark. Of course what I just said wasn't formal, but it does kind of show something. --Radiant! 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It shows that there's a lot of people chiming in over a 5 hour period on a Sunday afternoon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • True, including the person who nominated this essay for deletion in May and argued strongly for it to go… ;) LinaMishima 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that I do not support.Geni 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, Geni? If we understood your concerns, we could work to find solutions :) LinaMishima 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

the whole approach is wrong. Unless allowing the xfd to continue would be actively destructive there is no point in closing it early. Nothing is gained and since the potential loss is always non zero there is never any reason to close unless you can show that not doing so would be destructive.Geni 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course having to go through a discussion for every obvious deletion is destructive. It provides trolls with a weapon they will use against us. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

obvious deletion is covered by CSD. Now do you have something other than an argument by assertion?Geni 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious deletion is also where there exists consensus but people are nitpicking, saying that the full five days hasn't gone past. This is common in obvious cases where there is nevertheless a small rump prepared to waste time in the hope of driving people away from the project or subject. --Tony Sidaway 22:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Except the consensus can be wrong, and the full five days can result in a different result given new evidence. Why the rush? As JzG says, we don't have a deadline. --badlydrawnjeff

in the case you describe the consensus will still exist after the full five days so there is nothing to be lost by letting it run. if haveing to wait a couple of days drives people away from the project they would not have lasted long anyway.Geni 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

talk 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, trolls. Sheesh, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I can see your point, mainly with regards to anything that can be labeled cruft. Much of this cannot be simply called, and does need a complete five day run to allow people to appear and give non-kneejerk input (as if cruft really should go, you can normally find better reasons than 'cruft'). I'm sure there is a solution somewhere here, but it's hard to pluck it out from the air right now :/ LinaMishima 22:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we've got enough of a consensus to put the guideline tag back. The individual reservations can be addressed by clarification. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to judge consensus on a) a Sunday afternoon b) after roughly 6 hours c) on the first day of football season, nonetheless. I don't understand your need to rush this through - if you're actually right (and I hope for the sake of the project that you aren't), you'll get your desired result soon enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Football season? Of course I'm right, but if you think people will pile off the terraces and remove the guideline tag, it can't do any harm to have it on in the meantime while we have this overwhelming consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're right, no, but yes, this does harm. It harms us now by falsely assuming it's agreed now, and it'll falsely make people assume so later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, Geni. I thought the paragraph Strongly endorse guideline above was signed by you; turns out it was signed by Lina and lacked a line break (which I have now added). --Radiant! 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. IAR is policy only because it provides the sane outlet to bypass wikilawyering. The Snowball clause is based on IAR, but to try to claim it as a guideline is perverse wikilawyering of the opposite sort. Early closes are allowed in certain cases already outlined in the deletion policy, anything else ends up being an expansion of CSD, suppression of discussion, or other problem behavior that are tolerated at best and inciteful at worst. -- nae'blis 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline checklist

Let's see... is this actionable? Yep. Is it endorsed by consensus? I'd say it is - despite having a few vocal detractors, it usually works when applied. I'd refer people to the essay at Product, Process, Policy for an explantion why "process wasn't followed" is not very convincing if used as a sole objection to anything.

I believe it would be reasonable to add a paragraph with some examples of when snowballing might not be appropriate. But other than that, it's a fair guideline. Endorse. >Radiant< 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with a word of this, honestly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• So basically you're saying that this is not actionable, it's not consensual, has no vocal distractors, usually doesn't work when applied, "process wasn't followed" is a convincing objection, and we should not add a paragraph explaining the hazards of snowballing. Well, Jeff, I respectfully agree to disagree. Oh and btw, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you are correct. Except for that last little dig. To expand, read what you're linking to: "Follow the spirit." Yeah, the spirit is that things like XfD's, RfAs, etc get fair hearings. WP:SNOW invalidates the spirit of these processes. The deletion policy is designed to create consensus when it comes to discussion, not predict a result based on early returns. This also violates the spirit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the spirit of AFD is that we delete articles when there is consensus to do so. The spirit of Wikpedia is that we do not need repetitive debate if the consensus is already clear. That's where WP:SNOW comes in. >Radiant< 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're making my point, even if you don't realize it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • How so? AfDs are supposed to allow five days of consensus making, snowball is intended to allow earlier closure of those that reach consensus (which is currently a controversial matter) LinaMishima 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And again I'm going to witter on about informed consensus, as unlike voting consensus, an informed consensus can quickly form, as it only takes a few people to accurately point out the lack of references, original research, blatant POV, poor tone, and product pitch in an article. Lists shouldn't be snowballed (as they're highly debated subjects), but junk articles that didn't make a CSD should be. LinaMishima 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course they shouldn't. "Junk articles" could be repaired with more eyes. Tone/POV/OR can be dealt with. Sources might be found on Thursday that weren't readily available on Monday. To misuse another policy/guideline, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Sources might be found on Thursday that weren't readily available on Monday Then you've not really had much experience at trying to source unsourced articles, then, I'd dare to suggest. If entirely new sources appear, then the subject may be too new so as to be sure of it's long term nature (something we should strive to focus on). If an article doesn't provide any sources, we are indeed free to delete it - I could quote from WP:VERIFY if you wanted. Common sense lets us check for sources rapidly when they are suggested to exist but are not included in the article. The problem you are worrying about does not actually exist, I'd suggest you throw your weight behind my proposed clarifications which would ensure that we are protected from it. LinaMishima 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
            • That's a poor assumption, actually. I've seen many like it, some that I've been involved with. The most recent AfD I started, in fact, is an excellent recent example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Nudge nudge. --Interiot 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, because that's productive. Do as you wish, but it wouldn't speak well of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It might be useful in discouraging (dare I say it) Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to add a note of caution on AfDs, as I have had experience of debates being completely turned around because of more research being carried out during the course of the debate. There is sometimes the appearance at least of a certain "follow my leader" tendency, where deletes follow on without any evidence of further research beyond the nom, whereas a more searching look has turned up the apparently non-existent references etc. Obviously there are many cases where this doesn't happen, but there are some where it does, so a key question is how to tell the difference. (This is not an opposition to SNOW, by the way.) Tyrenius 02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree on this. Sometimes someone will just put the bit between his teeth and really do an amazing job on an article, resulting in a huge delete turning into a keep. So snowballing deletes of articles should be done with care, and all administrators should respond reasonably to requests for undoing a deletion where clear errors have been made. --Tony Sidaway 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tangible benefits?

Sorry I just came across this discussion. I'm probably missing something, but could someone explain to me the tangible benefit of closing a discussion early? I've heard people say it's to "reduce beauracracy" but I'm not really sure what that means. Does letting a discussion continue for a few days increase the amount of work necessary to close it? Whose workload is increased or whose ability to contribute to Wikipedia is lessened? I ask in all honesty because maybe as a non admin there is some behind the scenes process I'm not aware of. Thanks. —Nate Scheffey 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious benefits are that forest fires are killed, trolls are denied a divisive forum, mistaken nominations for deletion that would have been better off speedied are not dragged on, rancorous and divisive requests for adminship that haven't a hope of succeeding don't become flame fests, misplaced filings on WP:ANI can be quietly killed, saving administrator time, and I'm sure I could think of many more benefits if I spent another thirty seconds thinking about it. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of misplaced filings on WP:ANI and invariably someone tells them the proper venue for their concern and that is it, I've never seen them "quietly killed" per SNOW. I'm not sure what "forest fires are killed" means. Heated discussions are ended? That doesn't sound like a good thing. Nominations for deletion that are speedy candidates are closed as such, there is no need for SNOW there. As for denying trolls a divisive forum, if people are trolling an XfD or an RfA they should be ignored. If they are violating policy they should be blocked. I'm sorry, but I don't see SNOW lessening administrator effort or improving Wikipedia in any of the examples you gave. Maybe you could clarify some of that for me now that you've had more than another 30 seconds to think about it. Thanks —Nate Scheffey 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the point: heated, pointed off-topic discussions sometimes develop on many discussion pages, and WP:ANI has at times been rather messy until someone came along and quitely throttled the thing. A number of different techniques have developed but my impression is that simply marking the pesky thing as archived is quite successful.

You don't notice this happening? Good, that means it works very well! --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it means it doesn't exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen offtopic discussions moved and archived, just never with the justification of WP:SNOW. Maybe that's because SNOW doesnt say anything about moving discussions in an inapproriate venue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but SNOW as it reads now solely concerns ending processes early. So how is the ability to move offtopic discussions granted or enhanced or explained by SNOW? —Nate Scheffey 00:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW explains why we do what we do. Rancorous discussion for its own sake must be wiped out, throttled quickly and quietly. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that any discussion should be quietly wiped out. You have shown me no examples of a productive use of SNOW. —Nate Scheffey 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And if this is your rationale for using this, something needs to be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, think of it as a wiki version of Do not feed the trolls. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then make a "do not feed the trolls" guideline. But that's not what SNOW is, and it's not what it's used for. Can I just get an concrete example of how closing a discussion helps things? —Nate Scheffey 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly obvious that this guideline is exactly "do not feed the trolls." Which is why removing the tag was exactly the right thing to do. :) -Tony Sidaway 02:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to engage in angry, ineffective discussion is free to do so elsewhere. Wikipedia discussions are for improving the encyclopedia, and there is no reason to allow an anonymous POV pusher to oppose the speedy deletion of his original research when his original research on other topics has already been deleted through AfD several times and have countless Wikipedians waste their time commenting on it when they could be commenting on a page that actually has some chance of not being deleted or on writing an article. The fact is, these discussions sit there and every time a new editor looks over them, they add their own comment or get sucked into responding to some troll, until they realize the waste of it and go away, when the next editor comes along and responds to the troll. Conversely, if an established user writes a legitimate article that has no delete votes, except perhaps for some sockpuppets who are going to compromise the integrity of the page even further if the discussion is not archived, there is no reason to leave the AfD notice at the top of the page and let the farce continue. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles recreated after AfD can be speedied per CSD:G4. Leaving an AfD discussion open encourages sock puppets to compromise the integrity of the article? Is this a real problem? Illegitimate AfD noms can be dealt with through Speedy keep. Why is it so important to make more rules dealing with various aspects of Ignore all rules? How does this make sense? —Nate Scheffey 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The new article under discussion is only by the same user. It could be a version of the same article that is sufficiently different from the CSD does not apply, or it could be not even about the same subject. The first case is more likely for WP:SNOW. The article is substantially changed, it absolutely doesn't qualify for CSD, several paragraphs have been removed and several others added, and the remaining heavily revised; but it still happens to be about his favorite website, and is still not going to be kept. Still, it sucks up a lot of time of any unsuspecting editor who comes across a clearly open discussion and talks to several fans who want to keep the article because it is cool, man.

For the second example, Wikipedia:Speedy keep would not apply. It is a nomination done by perhaps a new user who doesn't know his way around. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is "clear-cut vandalism". Nevertheless, the article is about the King of Spain, and there is to some minds no official policy that would warrant an early closure. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To your first example, is this a hypothetical or a real situation you could point me towards? As for the second, if a new user mistakenly nominated King of Spain for deletion, couldn't they be persuaded to withdraw their now, hence a speedy keep? Are mistaken nominations of major article by new users clogging up WP:AFD? Are either of these situations actual reoccuring problems that necessitate a special guideline? —Nate Scheffey 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It just does. Speedy keep and G5 are often pointlessly challenged by rule warriors. So we sometimes need to tell them where to get off. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"It just does," is not a satisfactory argument. If people are really doing things that are obviously pointless, just tell them where to get off. Consensus will support you. —Nate Scheffey 02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We derive our rules by empirical testing. What works is what we keep. "It just does" is, in this context, a solid argument. Now run off and play logic games with someone who cares more about those than about Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway

Thanks for the dickish welcome. I have a couple thousand edits, but you're right, I'm newer then you, hence, automatically incorrect. But let me just try to explain my concern. WP:SNOW is not a "rule." I think it doesn't work more than it works. "It just does" is not a solid argument in any context. Don't tell me to run off, don't question whether I care about Wikipedia. Don't be a dick. —Nate Scheffey 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well on the one hand you're accusing another editor of being a dick, and on the other hand you're denying the basic mechanism by which Wikipedia policy develops. Which is it to be? --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The former. I love the way Wikipedia policy develops. I'm participating in it right now. —Nate Scheffey 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That much is true. I question the efficacy of randomly calling your fellow Wikipedians dicks, however. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you there was nothing random about it. —Nate Scheffey 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith4's edit

Actually I quite like Rdsmith4's removal of all tags. It gives the page simplicity while still identifying it as a corollary of established policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[via edit conflict] I also do not find the tag on this page particularly relevant -- the page is not a justification or license for anybody to do anything; it's simply an explanation of the reasoning used for a set of actions which would occur whether this page existed or not. In other words, it's here so someone closing an RFA early (or whatever) can cite WP:SNOW rather than explaining his reasoning every time. The reasoning given here will continue to be used regardless of the tag.

Of the three options advocated above, "proposed" is the only one which doesn't make sense, as it implies that the page is not in use (due apparently to ongoing modifications), and will remain unused until it gains approval. As it turns out, this is a wiki, which means everything is constantly a work in progress; the reasoning given on this page will remain in constant use whether it's approved by anybody or not. As for the other tags -- essay and guideline -- I really can't begin to justify using one over the other. I volunteer to flip a coin if necessary. — Dan | talk 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be done for a lot pages. These standardized tags seem to turn into standardized nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal of all tags. Dan summed it up quite well, it's merely an easily citable explanation of a (in my opinion shaky) thought process, nothing more. —Nate Scheffey 02:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One could say there's a snowball's chance in hell of Tony Sidaway and badlydrawnjeff agreeing, but it just happened. Do we have to wait a while before citing WP:SNOW now, to give hell a bit of time to melt? --Interiot 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarless, parallelity with WP:π must be maintained

I don't know what's going on here, but it seems incontrivertable to me that this article and WP:π are and must remain and be considered to be fully complementary, and thus should always be tagged identically. If WP:SNOW gets a Disputed Policy tag, WP:π gets a Disputed Policy tag". If WP:SNOW gets a Guideline tag, WP:π gets a Guideline tag, and so forth. Right now this article has no tag, so WP:π has no tag. There are many good reasons for this, one being protection of both articles from being improperly tagged. Herostratus 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. That one is not actionable, this one is. That one is not s necessary corollary of any policy, this one is. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether SNOW is actionable is the whole debate. And can there really be "necessary corollaries" to a policy which advocates ignoring all rules? Isn't that fundamentally contradictive? —Nate Scheffey 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)