Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 27 September 2006

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

This page was nominated for deletion on September 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep per WP:SNOW.

This page was nominated for deletion on September 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep per WP:SK #7.

Archives
Archive 1: Jan–Aug 2006

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Enjoy yourself and Misplaced Pages:Dynamic infobox templates, merge old guidelines like Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Oppose elevating this. I've seen inflammatory uses of WP:SNOW where the use amounted to throwing gasoline on a fire far more often than I've seen uses where it actually ended the discussion. My impression of this is that Misplaced Pages:Steamroll minority opinions, which is supposed to be a parody, more accurately describes the effect of using WP:SNOW than WP:SNOW does. That being said, if we are going to elevate one of them in status, it ought to be WP:STEAM, because it at least has the virtue of being accurate. GRBerry 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support elevation straight to policy. I have never seen a bad use of this. If an AFD has 15 deletes after two day's, there's no point in running the full seven days. If someone doesn't like it, take it to DRV. And I find it ironic and hilarious that the deletion of SNOW was keep by WP:SNOW. And for the ones that go it just has "admin" support, I'm just an average-joe-editor. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as contentious, unnecessary, paradoxical instruction creep. —Nate Scheffey 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. —Centrx→talk • 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

?? --PopUpPirate 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Instruction creep, and IAR covers it anyway. --PopUpPirate 20:00, 15 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, Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages: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 is a situation I have encountered several times. The new user doesn't think it was mistake to nominate it; or the new user just made a few edits and never returned, they can't be convinced to withdraw, they are gone, but it still not "clear-cut vandalism". I am just giving a few examples, and I am not going to keep giving you all the many examples that add up to whatever number you would think is sufficient to make SNOW suddenly usable, and respond to your erroneous nitpicking about them. The fact remains that SNOW is a reasonable way of doing things. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 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)

On Misplaced Pages, we derive our rules by empirical testing. What works is what we keep. "It just does" is, in this context, a solid argument. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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. —Nate Scheffey 02:31, 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)

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)

It shouldn't ever be cited anyway. That never changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well.... SNOW is marked as equivalent to IAR now, and IAR is citable policy... --Interiot 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, 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)

Actionable means that it may be the subject of an action, not that it is a good idea to act on it. For example, it is possible to close a deletion discussion by reason of its snowballing, though you may think it a bad idea, but it is not possible to do it by reason of Misplaced Pages:Process is Important; of necessity, you would have to say "what process?" and then do it by that process; you wouldn't close an AfD saying "Keep: Process is Important", you would close it saying "Keep: Per the AfD process and the reasons given in the discussion in accordance with that process". —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actionable means something affords grounds for action. There is disagreement over whether SNOW affords grounds for action. As for Process is important, what if i overturned a SNOW close and cited PROCESS? Just a thought. —Nate Scheffey 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW boils down to, when the only point of following process is to follow process, there's no need for the process to begin with. WP:SNOW provides a very valid rationalle for disregarding m:Instruction creep in cases where the outcome would be the same either way. Or to put it in other words, common sense should generally overrule the need for process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Process is a collary of the existance of policies. Executing process is actionable. They are direct complements. Trust me, this is for your own good. Herostratus 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus: You seem to be using a great deal of words here in inappropriate contexts, such as "actionable", "collary" , and, umm, "good". Trust me, you're talking nonsense.

James F. (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems 100% right to me. Maybe we need Misplaced Pages:Jamaican Bobsled Team for things like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Triona; got it in one.

James F. (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to my education with your spelling and writing corrections. Nevertheless, fair is fair. The articles must remained yoked. This prevents needless bickering when proponents of one article try to get a leg up on the other. If you want to slap a Guideline or Policy tag on one, assume that you are automatically placing the same tag on the other. Thus no advantage, no motive, and more time for all to work on other things. Herostratus 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think they should be yoked? --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can explain it better than I have: (1) it's just fair, since they are complements and (2) knowing that they are yoked makes it less likely for someone to try to put one on a higher level than the other, thus avoiding warring over the issue. Herostratus 02:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that SNOW "put it in other words, common sense should generally overrule the need for process." But isn't that already covered by WP:IAR? Am I the only one who finds this need to explicitly state ways to Ignore all Rules, and then make these official rules, in the name of avoiding instruction creep, a bit silly? —Nate Scheffey 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there

I'd like, if I may, to address the idea that, since WP:SNOW is invoked more often than WP:π (if it is, which I assume is so), therefore WP:SNOW reflects community feeling more than WP:π. Nothing could be further from the truth. WP:π is invoked by inference every time process is followed. One doesn't say "Per WP:π, I am now closing this AfD in the normal manner" "Per WP:π, I am allowing this DRv to run its normal course instead of closing it early in a fit of pique or impatience" ", and so forth. That would be unnecessary verbiage.

But, you know, one could do that. If necessary, I could start droping a WP:π reference into my edit summaries and encourage other editors to do the same, as well as dropping in on random discussions to note "Per WP:π, I won't be cutting this discussion short, bye!" or whatever. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Herostratus 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to "enforce parity" by removing all tags from certain other project pages, I will not revert you. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever that means. I see that your response was to delete WP:π with an edit summary of "Process is an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia." I'd call you to task for this on your talk page, but of course as usual you'd delete it unread, so. Are you trying to start a revert war or something? Sheesh lighten up, will ya? Herostratus 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain your purpose in making this edit? Your edit seems merely to be a sequence of minor personal complaints that don't seem to relate to this page at all. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to express my dismay at your deletion of Misplaced Pages:Process is Important. I can't do it on your talk page with assurance that it won't just be erased out of hand with an insulting edit summary, so I have to do it somewhere public, this being as good a place as any. So: I'm dismayed! Don't do that! Herostratus 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Humorously, you don't have a WP:SNOW of this discussion being relevant here. Or, seriously, WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Or, humorously, we can invoke WP:IAR and smack elec with a trout for excessive use of policy shortcuts. WP:WP. WHACK WHACK WHACK. Electrawn 11:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA Kim Bruning 12:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Put that trout down! Electrawn 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Status?

Surely this is either an essay or a guideline? It used to be simply an essay, and there doesn't seem to be the necessary consensus to make it a guideline, so that would seem to keep it as an essay... —Ashley Y 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's Wikpedia policy, but to avoid unproductive edit warring it's probably better not to tag it. Let's just leave it as it is. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it Misplaced Pages policy? —Ashley Y 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR is, unfortunately, policy. People like to use this asinine essay as a "corrollary," but this essay itself is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And where is the logic in demanding that we create more Official Rules in the name of Ignoring All Rules|? Seems bizarre. —Nate Scheffey 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You speak with intelligence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course it is. Misplaced Pages policy is what Misplaced Pages does. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought we had agreed to have no tags to avoid the pointless controversy, but then for who knows what reason, Tony decided to put it back up there. To calm things down I guess. —Nate Scheffey 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort. Please check the edit history. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did something of the sort. You should have taken the essay tag off if it offended you so much. Changing it back to guideline was not smart. —Nate Scheffey 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My error. You're right, I did switch essay-> guideline. Whatever. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I made an edit quite close to some other folks. In any case I'm documenting my edit on talk. I reverted NetScott using the process described at Bold Revert Discuss, to get him to come back. I'd like to hear more detail on why he(?) made his own revert (restoring the essay tag). Specifically, I'd like to hear more about where NetScott looked in his determination of consensus. Kim Bruning 01:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it, but the "consensus" was based on a different understanding. Since some people continue to refer to this as "de facto policy," it seems to me that an essay tag is necessary to clarify that it, in fact, is not. The agreement to have no tags came from the understanding that this wasn't going to be referred to as anything, from my point of view. Perhaps I was mistaken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The {{essay}} tag should stay imho. If a page is a "defacto" policy/guideline then there should be no pussyfooting around the issue. Tag it as such. (→Netscott) 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

De facto policy here means that people act in ways described in the document, whether or not it's marked as such. We've been routinely closing processes on this basis for months, even when it was marked as an essay. Thus it was then, and is now, de facto Misplaced Pages policy. Neutral point of view would still be policy even if it were marked as an essay. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you were doesn't mean it was correct or proper, thus the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipiedia policy is what works. The written stuff is just an attempt to document it. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And the fact remains that it is correct and proper, and the only objections to the tag have been procedural with little explanation why this should not be a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the complete nonsense of demanding that a "corollary of Ignore All Rules" be Officially Declared An Official Misplaced Pages Rule, there is no consensus for making this a guideline. Glance at the comments in the last first MfD for examples of dissenters. Heck, just two short months ago even Tony Sidaway said WP:SNOW was an "essay and that's that." —Nate Scheffey 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions change over time. Mine, for instance. Indeed the latest nomination for deletion was closed as a keep...per WP:SNOW ! --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the result of the latest MfD, I voted Keep during the nine minutes it was open. It's absolutely fine that your opinion has undergone a complete and total reversal in two months, but that doesn't mean everyone's has. Let's see what others think, ok? —Nate Scheffey 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that was rude and wrong, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's one thing we should be able to agree upon logically, it should be this: WP:SNOW cannot be invoked to close a discussion involving itself, such as an MfD. Does anyone object to actually writing this into the policy essay? Kasreyn 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody can seem to agree on tags, I suppose no tags is fine. That lets both sides have their way ... one side can continue to claim it's not policy while the other side will continue to use it as such. --Cyde Weys 05:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What about categories? —Ashley Y 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Misplaced Pages Weather? >Radiant< 15:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline?

I think in it's current form the essay/policy/guideline is ready for {{proposed}}

I have made a few additions to help move it along to a consensus.

• Adequate definition of the problem? Tony Sidaway defined it earlier in the talk page: "What should we call it instead? Timewasting, fillibustering?" This inspired the nutshell and filibuster sentence. We want to recognize that needlessly waste admin/editor time with debates and processes that nobody in a sane mind whould think could pass disrupts the main task of editing wikipedia.

• Solution? No solution is proposed to violations of WP:SNOW, so this would be a guideline and not policy?

• Adequate narrowing of definition by including not. I have included the term "uphill battle" which is commonly defined as a sort of extremely difficult but not impossible military action. This is included to provide a check against potential abuse of WP:SNOW.

Proponents don't want editors using process as a filibuster. Critics want protections against information suppression, right of due process and single heavy handed admin/editor decisions of what WP:SNOW is.

If we satisfy the critics, I feel this becomes at least a guideline. Electrawn 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire premise is false. As long as the premise is incorrect - that process is largely a waste of time and can be abandoned on anyone's subjective whims - this will remain a problem. Furthermore, if WP:SNOW is indeed a corrollary of IAR, then reversing a WP:SNOW action is just as legitimate as WP:SNOW to begin with, as IAR is inherently subjective in its wording and use (the main massive fault with IAR). Using the term "uphill battle" may be the only real useful addition I've seen to this monstrosity since it started popping up, but I don't expect the steamrollers to pay a lick of attention to it. Those are the massive problems, and most editors won't notice it until it affects something they're involved with, which simply allows the proponents to act as if there's more support than may actually exist - you don't notice how vile the use of this often is until you see it in action against something that could be controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems your beef is with WP:IAR, and not WP:SNOW. IAR is a piece of wikipedia philosophy that requires explanation, and in its current form as one sentence of jimbo wales scripture makes it anarchist. With definitions, context and intent, it can be shaped into a workable/livable policy. Electrawn 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That, however, is not the premise. The premise is that process is sometimes a waste of time because the result is already obvious, and in that case may be "speedied" through. It is definitely true that SNOWing is inappropriate at some times; "violations" are usually dealt with by talking it out with the SNOWer. For instance, closing any process against consensus is a bad idea, SNOW or no snow. Electrawn, thanks for your input. Jeff, please point out some SNOWings that were really inappropriate (and please don't say "all of them", because that is an extreme minority opinion). >Radiant< 15:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out a couple above. Some more recent ones might be the snowings of a few deletion reviews this past week. I'll compile a better list when I'm on a better computer for you, though. In the meantime, if the premise is, in fact, how you state it, then WP:SNOW is rarely applied in ways that mesh with it. It's entirely subjective and at the whim of the person who decides to do it, and is rarely actually reversable with discussion or a simple revert without various reprisals. I've actually chunked my feelings on it into my own little humorous essay to act as the WP:SNOW to WP:Process is important at WP:JAMAICA. Maybe that'll be clearer for the parts that weren't addressed in your question to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the MfD to delete WP:DRV. Do you think that was an inappropriate use of SNOW? —Centrx→talk • 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. At best, it wasn't a WP:SNOW situation because it was the wrong venue (I disagree with that, but it's legitimate and I can accept it), at worst, if it wasn't a venue issue, there was no harm in getting an actual consensus on it. Given the issues DRV has right now, the hearing was necessary, and the closing was very premature. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good use of WP:SNOW, should probably be used for AfDs to Counter-Vandalism Unit too. Electrawn 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding my thoughts because I'm feeling forthcoming today. Maybe there are worthwhile places to end a discussion early. I can point to a number of situations later that absolutely warrant it. For example, articles that clearly meet both our policies on verifiability and our guidelines on notability. For instance, Person A nominates Dustin Pedroia, a September call-up for the Boston Red Sox. While there's debate on WP:BIO's talk page regarding how far down the baseball ladder the "professional athlete" clause extends, Pedroia has played a few games in the big league uniform. Meanwhile, Persons B, C, and D say "delete, because he hasn't made an impact," while Persons E, F, G, H, and I all cite WP:BIO combined with, say, scouting reports naming him a top prospect. Should that stay open? It doesn't hurt anything to keep it open, but it doesn't necessarily make much sense, either. The issue is that we can easily change our guidelines and policies to reflect these situations. The problem? When it's brought up, no one wants to do it. So we end up with a bit of a contradiction. We have folks here, at WP:SNOW, saying that there's consensus to do what they're doing, closing AfDs or DRVs early and acting on their personal whims. When you discuss the possibility of making those acitons legitimate across the board, you meet opposition from the people working on those articles, and who would not approve of working WP:SNOW in that instance.

The smart move, IMO, would be for these people to work within the framework of the Wiki, to improve the quality through consensus rather than forcing their will. The problem is that WP:SNOW exists because they know that some of these ideas cannot and will not hold water when presented to the specific instances. WP:SNOW isn't an ability to act, but rather something of an excuse to do what you wouldn't normally. It's why I disagree with it being a corrollary to "ignore all rules." IAR has the quality of the encyclopedia in mind, and the guidelines in place are there specifically to deal with those quality issues. The rules, in many cases that SNOW is cited, do not disturb the quality of the encyclopedia, but instead endorse a subjective, unilaterally-based result instead of the consensus-based result we typically strive for. A lot of people may be pissy at me for what went on with the Encyclopedia Dramatica situaiton a couple months ago, but if WP:IAR was in the state it is in now then, MONGO would have been absolutely right in ignoring the rules regarding page protection and image deletion policies. That is a worthwhile example of "Ignore all rules," not this squishing dissent and calling discussion a tactic of trolls. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Choose a real example. That baseball player page was never nominated for AfD and, based on the information on it, there is no reason to think there would have been overwhelming support for deleting it. Even if there were, it wouldn't qualify for SNOW; SNOW does not mean immediately delete anything that has strong support for it. —Centrx→talk • 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I say SNOW would automatically delete it? My use of the theoretical example was to demonstrate a situation where WP:SNOW might come into play to close a discussion early, as, to coin the phrase, there wouldn't be a snowball's chance of deleting it even though there's some worthwhile opposition to the article. Is that the only part of these two paragraphs that jumped out at you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a snowball's chance of doing anything either way. If this page might need refinement to clarify ambiguous cases, that doesn't mean it be not an appropriate guideline. —Centrx→talk • 17:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay, I'm not sure you really followed me, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to make this a guideline. The only possible gain by labeling this an "official guideline" (whatever that means) would be to give it weight if one was debating a contentious SNOWjob. But, if someone is arguing about a SNOW it probably shouldn't have been snowed. Closing obvious deletion debates is what SNOW is generally used for and will coninue to be, and most of the time it works. When it doesn't, let the process play out. Lableing it a guideline could only be a change for the worse. Let's go with the "labeled as nothing" idea and be done with it. —Nate Scheffey 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice if people didn't consider it "de facto policy," and that contesting a SNOW doesn't mean anything to some folks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since IAR is policy, it shouldn't be all that surprising that some people see SNOW as de facto policy. I'd hope it's somewhat easy to contest a SNOW, as long as the person has a reasonably convincing argument. (eg. some reason why a process has more than a snowball's chance in hell of coming up with a different result, and not just "you should never ever use SNOW") --Interiot 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, since we have deletion policy, would it be surprising to consider "Process is important" as policy, since it's essentially the same idea on the other side of the looking glass? Anyway, it's not easy to contest a SNOW, regardless of if you have a "good reason" (entirely subjective) or not. It largely depends on who's doing the snowballing, and most snowballs are done by people who tend to be hostile to having been questioned on it. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, Misplaced Pages:Process is Bad needs to be demoted to an essay, which it really is. Electrawn 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of "proposed". Then we can see if there's consensus for it. And if there isn't, we can mark it as a rejected policy, as per process. —Ashley Y 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people think this ought to be a guideline. So I have added "proposed" to reflect this. —Ashley Y 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know as that's fair, since this page will never, ever, be allowed to be tagged as "rejected". I know this, you know this, everyone reading this knows this. So this is a proposal with an upside but no real downside, no chance of failing. But whatever, it's my article, I'm not gonna touch it. Herostratus 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  So we are forgoeing the traditional wiki spirit... why? If the community does actually reject this what would you do? Also keep in mind WP:OWN about "my article" statements. Ansell 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Towards a guideline

Let's try to make a guideline out of this. I think if we try to identify the main problems and possible abuses of this, and give appropriate weight to them in the text, we might be able to come up with something everyone can agree with.

Unless of course you think nothing should ever be snowballed. —Ashley Y 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe "nothing should ever be snowballed".Indeed, I think SNOW works well at what it's most commonly used for, closing deletion debates where the outcome is painfully obvious. However, as I've stated several times elsewhere on this page, I see no advantages in elevating it to a Guideline, only dangers. —Nate Scheffey 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that anything taht can "legitimately" be snowballed is better off being codified in existing processes. As WP:SNOW essentially limits itself to discussions, we're better off incorporating some of the ideas into speedy keep, RfA, wherever it may be warranted, than just leaving it up to subjective whim. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I haven't looked into what SNOW has been used for lately - but the original two applications were (1) closing a "doomed" request for adminship to avoid a negative pileup against the candidate (we've had some novice users leaving over a perceivedly-hostile RFA) and (2) as argument in DRV discussions (not for closing those discussions) to say that "well, this page was wrongly deleted and we should probably undelete it on a technicality, but then AFD would obviously delete it again so why bother?". A third legitime use I've seen recently is for closing an AFD on an article that is a third or fourth nomination - we know from the previous noms that it's going to be kept so there's no need to rehash it again. Anyway YMMV and I'm sure this has been abused at some point, but the clause isn't meaningless. I have no real objection to either a guideline or an essay tag. >Radiant< 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, you were gone longer than I realized. The former (RfAr) doesn't need this guideline - the idea is codified into what the bureaucrats can do by process, and they're largely considered unofficially autonomous anyway. The latter was never a good application at DRV, given that DRV is about process and not about its chances at AfD. Since your last observation, it's been used to end discussions with a possibly predicable result in a variety of circumstances, and some editors like to be super-rude and archive entire talk/noticeboard discussions because they feel it's pointless. On the former (early closures), those should be codified into policy when proper because it makes sense, but should have wide approval. The latter should never occur, but challenges to it ahve been fruitless and are often considered disruptive by our more rogue elements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did see it

I really think I saw a snowball behind that third demon in hell. If you look really closely and supplement your diet with the right drugs. Wjhonson 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are faces, dead faces, in the snowballs. Staring, staring. I see them in my sleep. Herostratus 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion nomination and speedy keep per WP:SNOW.

Paradoxical and not entirely true --PopUpPirate 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a universe in which that action could have the slightest shred of justification. When a WP policy, guideline, or rule is up for deletion, it is absolute nonsense for it to be judged within the environ or framework of itself. Perspective is only achieved from outside. In fact, the actual nomination itself cited as its complaint that the trouble with WP:SNOW was that it did not allow full process and time for all contributors to say their piece. So then the discussion was closed without full process and before all contributors could say their piece.

If I was the nominator of that MfD, I would feel distinctly as though I had been deliberately slapped in the face, especially considering that WP:SNOW is not even an official guideline or policy (yet), making its recursive use even more unjustifiable. Alphax, can you explain why this was done? Kasreyn 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a page describing a well supported Misplaced Pages policy is listed for deletion does not in itself call into question that policy, otherwise someone could nominate the deletion policy for deletion and we'd be unable to close the discussion because that would rely on the deletion policy!

The fact that it was closed per WP:SNOW by User:FCYTravis after just eight minutes demonstrates just how strongly entrenched this aspect of Misplaced Pages policy has become. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To Kasreyn: IIRC, pages do not have to be prescriptive of admin actions, they are more descriptive of them. In other words, the the admins don't need this to be a policy/guideline to invoke its logic (disputed or not); they would be able to just invoke the logic anyway.

To Tony Sidaway: I would more regard it as more of a self-referential joke than that the page has become "strongly entrenched". Deletion of the page doesn't prevent people from invoking IAR, it just declines this particular interpretation/application of IAR. Going by how much opposition there's been to this in the past while, I personally would like to see a deletion discussion to gauge support/opposition. —AySz88] 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion just four months ago and the result was an overwhelming keep. However just because people don't agree to delete a policy page, doesn't mean they agree with the policy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and by that measure the regular successful application of this policy is evidence that it's very widely supported. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this is getting shoe-horned into becoming policy by one users persistence. It's not very widely supported and it's not all that popular --PopUpPirate 15:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The main issue here is that, given the way Misplaced Pages works, deleting a guideline or essay does not somehow put a stop to people who act in a way consistent with that guideline or essay. You might be able to stop people from SNOWing but you won't accomplish that by deleting WP:SNOW. As such, deleting the page is a bad idea since it only creates confusion and does not do anything useful. It may have been nicer to say "close per MFD precedent" or "WP:CSK speedy keep criterion 7" rather than the ironical self-ref, but it was a good idea to close the deletion debate since it focuses criticism to WP:SNOW to the more appropriate spot, which is this talk page. >Radiant< 11:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline? (2)

Uh, there's a Guideline tag on this now? Gee, I didn't know if was even proposed... oh well. Naturally WP:PI has a guideline tag now also, so I guess its all the same. Herostratus 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Now it's gone from both articles, which is also fine. That was quick. Herostratus 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

So should this be made a guideline?

• Don't know —Ashley Y 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that it already is a guideline, or like a guideline. Changing the tag one way or the other would therefore not make it a guideline or not a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't one. And it probably shouldn't be one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• No Codifying a contentious example of how to Ignore All Rules doesn't make sense on any level. Pointless, useless instruction creep with no possible benefits. —Nate Scheffey 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - It's used as a guideline, to say otherwise would be misleading. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• No Instruction creep, ignorable by virtue --PopUpPirate 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• MU. The question is wrong, as we cannot decide here whether or not this is a guideline - we can only decide here which tag to put on it. If the action described on this page is in use, and it works that way, then it is a guideline regardless of what tag is on the page. If the action described on this page generally fails or leads to awkward situations, then this is not a guideline, regardless of what tag is on the page. It would be prudent to match the tag to actual practice; practice will not as a rule adapt itself to the outcome of a straw poll. >Radiant< 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The question isn't wrong - constant abuse of this essay doesn't constitute it becoming a guideline by fiat. While a straw poll may be improper, so would assuming it's a guideline by use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You misinterpret my words. I am not assuming it is a guideline by use - I am stating that if it is already in use as such, then it's a guideline regardless of what we say here. Fiat has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• No we already have WP:AIR, which has many of the same aims and has been abused to hell and back. Cynical 15:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• MU. Voting encourages a false dichotomy. Keep it as a tagless corollary, or tag it as a guideline, as long as a first-time reader doesn't get the impression that it's unofficial. --Interiot 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unofficial. How does labeling a specific example of Ignoring All Rules as an "official" rule make sense? —Nate Scheffey 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

False dichotomy again. First-time visitors don't necessarily have to get the impression that it's a separate rule, but they also shouldn't get the impression that SNOW has no basis in policy. --Interiot 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mu - it is a guideline, whether or not it's tagged as such. Whether something is a guideline or not isn't a matter of a tag, it's a matter of its nature. This page describes a common practice that derives from basic policies, ergo, it's a guideline. It's not an essay because, look at it, it's describing a common practice, not advocating for some Wiki-philosophy. Is there some question as to whether this is, in fact, a common practice, which is uncontroversial 95% of the time? -GTBacchus 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  We're rather concerned about the other 5%. —Ashley Y 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Is it possible that the other 5% are cases where the action in question really did have better than a snowball's chance in hell of going the other way, and therefore were incorrect applications? -GTBacchus 20:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  If it were uncontroversial 95% of the time, there wouldn't be this much opposition to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Jeff, you don't ever hear about most applications of WP:SNOW. That's how you can tell it's done right. I've personally applied it scores of times, and nobody has objected to any of them. The whole point of WP:SNOW is to only apply it when there won't be any objection. -GTBacchus 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I have my doubts on that. Just because many of us have been forcibly silenced when we reverse/protest it doesn't help the matter much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Would you like to see examples? I'm not talking about userboxes here. Those were quite clearly controversial, through and through. -GTBacchus 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'd love to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I tried that before, the response was that for all of them, either using SNOW was invalid, or that policy already covered the case and SNOW didn't need to be invoked. Anyway, I have a list here, Nscheffey has a similar one here. --Interiot 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. Leave an essay tag on it. Or merge it into IAR. Then someone can cite IAR to delete IAR because ignoring all rules makes it more difficult to improve and maintain wikipedia. Then we can debate the deletion on WP:DRV. When you get down to it, making rules about ignoring rules is a joke. --JJay 13:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. Far too much opposition to it, and pointless instruction creep with no legitimate purpose. Gene Nygaard 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No straw poll

Whether or not this is a guideline cannot be feasibly decided in a straw poll. For now, everybody please lay off revert warring over the tag. >Radiant< 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete people's comments. I think we can at least see if there's consensus for adding a "guideline" tag to this. —Ashley Y 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• You can't feasibly establish consensus for that through polling. For instance, this page is a good example of why that doesn't work. >Radiant< 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish consensus, only to see if one already exists. —Ashley Y 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a noble attempt, but this entire talk page already does that; you can read people's opinions in their comments. By the way the question you poll for is slightly flawed (see above). >Radiant< 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've about had it with the voting-is-evil stuff. Look at the world around you. Who are the people against voting? Fascists and their bootlicking toadies. Dicatators and their simpering lackeys. Bullies and blackguards of all stripes. Granted that this is business, also an organization based partly on common good will and discussion and all that (but where voting certainly has a place also. Anyway I feel about the same reaction to seeing WP:EVILVOTE on my screen as I would to seeing WP:EVILJEWS or whatever. As a democratic republican they both stick in my craw. I'd suggest a less inflammatory shortcut name, at the least. Herostratus 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's law. >Radiant< 08:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheap shot. —Nate Scheffey 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? —Nate Scheffey 11:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony. >Radiant< 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. We make discisions based on discussion and consensus. The general consensus is that in most situations voting hinders rather than helps. You are free to create a different shortcut if you want, but that doesn't change anything. Thryduulf 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arg, sorry. I wasn't saying that anyone here is a fascist or whatever, or that Misplaced Pages is a democracy either, I was just saying that maybe something like "voting is not appropriate" is less inflamatory then saying "voting is evil. Herostratus 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter

This page doesn't need to be tagged as a guideline or policy. Anyone who disputes any action taken referencing this page will dispute it for one of two reasons. Firstly, because the action was disputable, or secondly, because this page has no official status. The second reason adds nothing to the debate and misses the point. WP:IAR is policy. We should focus our debates and discussions on the issue at hand, not the process used to justify the action. Misplaced Pages operates through community consensus. Sometimes this means accepting a decision you don't personally agree with. We should always debate contentious decisions; however, we should respect whatever consensus determines at any given instance, rather than prolonging a debate for the sake of it. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not argue over the rules of how to do it. Steve block Talk 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If this page is being used in disputed circumstances as an example of Ignoring the rules where the community is not being benefited to the point it is hurting the encyclopedia than IAR does not fit anyway, which means this page does not have support. This page IMO adds nothing to IAR if it does not confine itself to non-disputed circumstances. At least in the past this page has been used to justify a number of things which would not fit IAR because in the ignoring the rules the community is damaged.

I hope my logic made sense. Its a two step process basically... maybe its one too many but it seems clear to me. Ansell 11:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline already?

There seems to be some confusion over this issue. The answer is, no, it's not currently a guideline. Guidelines are prescriptive, not descriptive. The definition makes this clear: "a guideline is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus". If guidelines are merely descriptions of common practice, we would have to include all common practices of Misplaced Pages, including edit-warring, a quite widespread phenomenon.

So what's the difference? Well, we disapprove of edit-warring, while we approve of the things that we want guidelines for. It's this approval that defines them as prescriptive. And where does this approval come from? Proximally, it comes from project pages marked as "guidelines" (which get continually cited to justify controversial edits), and originally, from the process we have for making pages guidelines, that is, obtaining consensus.

Sure, you may think, but we practice WP:SNOW all the time, and unlike edit-warring (which is also practised all the time), people generally approve. But how do you know? What's the nature of this approval? Does it really carry the consent of the community? We actually have this very convenient guideline-making process to discover and establish this sort of thing. Gosh, who'd've thought process could actually make things easier?

You may say that WP:SNOW is purely a consequence of WP:IAR (which is policy). And it may be. But there doesn't seem to be consensus on this deduction either.

This is not to say that WP:SNOW should not be made a guideline, only that it isn't one now. I think it could be made one if consensus is achieved. Those who have trouble with it should outline potential abuses of it, and perhaps we can work the appropriate safeguards into the text. —Ashley Y 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, I really admire your continued thoughtful and clear-headed comments in this murky and semantically confusing discussion, as well as your noble efforts to seek actual consensus. So, to do my part, let me outline why I'm worried about making this a guideline.

There have been several comments from editors attempting to defuse the problem of controversial SNOWs. e.g.

• "This page IMO adds nothing to IAR if it does not confine itself to non-disputed circumstances."
• "The whole point of WP:SNOW is to only apply it when there won't be any objection."

But, just a few PgUps earlier, a certain editor repeatedly made the argument that SNOW is useful because:

• "forest fires are killed,"
• and "where there is nevertheless a small rump prepared to waste time"
• because "Rancorous discussion for its own sake must be wiped out"

So, is SNOW only to be used in uncontroversial situations, or is it specifically to end controversy? This confusion over its application is, in my opinion, the crux of the problem. —Nate Scheffey 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nate, hi. I agree you've put your finger on the problem. I would say that... common sense and courtesy are policies here. It's my opinion that if SNOW is applied with common sense and courtesy, then one would not use it specifically to end controversy, for the simple reason that it tends not to work, in that capacity. I think that if one wishes to end controversy, one would be better to reach across to the other side, achieve understanding, break down dichotomies, find common ground, etc. That's all hard work, of course, but very few arguments are actually resolved by slamming a door in someone's face. -GTBacchus 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least establish that the certain editor is wrong in the arguments made above? —Ashley Y 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I said so at the time, and I'll say it again: yes. In my opinion that's an incorrect and injudicious way to apply WP:SNOW. -GTBacchus 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, in that case we have the potential for abuse, if at least one editor, especially an admin, is interpreting WP:SNOW over-broadly. Perhaps we can improve the page to make this less likely? —Ashley Y 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I've just added a section to the clause; let's see if it sticks. There's still more that could be done, although I wouldn't be hasty... -GTBacchus 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How are "rules" actually made?

(edit conflict, reply to Ashley) The majority of Misplaced Pages's "rules" were not established by some kind of process. They were established by people just doing stuff, and then writing down the good ideas later. That's what we mean when we say our guidelines are descriptive. The practice almost always predates the writing down. This has been true ever since the very first Misplaced Pages rule was written down, which was.... "Ignore all rules".

That said, before determining whether WP:SNOW has community consensus, it would help to determine what it actually means in the first place. (What "SNOW" means, that is... not what "consensus" means, although that's important, too.) Now, I think WP:SNOW is the bees knees, but I also have always understood it to mean that it's ok to cut corners when it's obvious that nobody is going to have any problem with it. That, to me, is precisely what chance a snowball stands in hell. Hell is unanimously against snowballs.

As for how I know that people approve of using WP:SNOW in utterly uncontroversial situations, it's because I've asked, repeatedly. I've given dozens of people chances to say "no, GT, that was a bad application of WP:SNOW." When I kept getting positive responses instead, and "duh, why are you even asking" type responses, I eventually decided I could trust my judgement and stop bugging people for review. It would be difficult to say the same about edit-warring - however widespread it might be, it's also widely understood to be wrong.

It's true that WP:SNOW is sometimes used to justify controversial actions. It's also true that WP:NPOV is sometimes used to justify biased edits, and WP:CIVIL is sometimes used to justify acts of astounding rudeness. Does that mean that those policies don't have consensus? No. Perhaps this page could be clarified, so anybody reading it will know that it's not a bludgeon to force one's way in controversies. I guess I would ask this: if it were made clear that WP:SNOW is not intended to be used in the face of any objection (kind of like WP:PROD), then would its detractors be ok with it? -GTBacchus 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GTB, I think that would be nice in theory, but I can already see the problems. Even if we explicity specify that SNOW shouldn't be used in the face of any objection, someone's going to decide that objections don't count if they are made by "trolls". I apologize if I'm a little sensitive about this issue, but if we ignored everyone some admin deems a troll, I wouldn't be able to discuss this here. —Nate Scheffey 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD seems to work, and it's the same standard - if anyone objects, then Prod doesn't fly. All it takes it starting to think of SNOW in the same way. -GTBacchus 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work very well, when the WP:PROD template explicitly tells people they have five days to fix it up, and removing of the prod can mean that it is sent to AfD and removed immediately without any five-day waiting period. That violates my sense of basic fairness. Gene Nygaard 05:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) See David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 24. Gene Nygaard 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've followed those links, and looked at the deleted article. I'm not sure exactly what your issue is with that deletion. Do you object to it solely on process grounds, or do you think the article is a keeper? It appears that the usual AfD following a contested Prod was forgone because nobody had actually brought up any reason to keep the article other than the argument that process much be followed, even in the absence of any reason, which is not really an argument. Please feel free to explain what I'm missing there.

Regardless, if Prod isn't working properly, that's a reason to fix prod, and not necessarily any kind of proof that a standard like what is supposed to be applied at Prod can't work. I stand by the second sentence of my previous post - all it takes is thinking of SNOW as a guideline that can only be applied in the absence of any controversy. -GTBacchus 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors were promised a 5 day period in the prod, posted today (maybe yesterday on your clock). Then someone (not me) removed the prod. Then it was moved to AfD, and somehow that promised 5 day period vanished into thin air, even though AfD itself also supposedly has a five-day period for it to run its course. Then you come here, still on the same day, claiming that it was proper "nobody had actually brought up any reason to keep the article". It's still the same day, for Christ's sake. Where I come from, we call that bullshit. I say something is seriously broken in the process. Gene Nygaard 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gene, you didn't answer my question - do you object solely on process grounds, or do you think the article was a keeper, for any reason? If you're objecting solely on process grounds, you won't find much sympathy around here. Procedure, by itself, is not considered a valid argument. Your use of the word "promise" is also incorrect. There's no such promise, just an idea that it could work that way in most cases. This isn't most cases - this is a clear A7 speedy that got bounced around a few times before an admin got to it. I understand that you're saying process wasn't followed in this case, and it looks like you're right, as far as the AfD process goes. When you said in the AfD, "I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules," you're basically invoking a recipe for drowning in red tape (as well as indicating a misunderstanding of the nature of "rules" here). We will not subvert common sense to mindless "rule following". We will cut corners when nobody provides any kind of reason not to cut them. That's always been the case here. If you condiser that "seriously broken" or "bullshit", then you must really hate this place, because we built this website on bypassing process when common sense dictates. You're very unlikely to convince all of Misplaced Pages to change the game into some kind of rules-fetish. Speedy deletion candidates will be summarily deleted when someone with deletion buttons sees them. That actually is a rule, come to think of it. Obvious speedies get speedied. Still at DRV, nobody's explained how it wasn't an obvious speedy. Unless you do that, you've got nothing to stand on in this case. -GTBacchus 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you're objecting solely on process grounds, you won';t find much sympathy around here" is exactly the problem. The reason many of us object on process grounds is simply because we know we cannot predict the future. Combined with the well-poisoning by those who grossly abuse and/or misuse this essay/page/whatever and you get a better grasp. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I hope you've been paying enough attention to realize that I'm fully on your side against well-poisoning and SNOW-abuse. Frankly, the case we're talking about here wasn't even an application of SNOW, though someone may have mistakenly called it that. It was just a slowish but straightforward application of CSD A7. You know what stops a speedy? A {{hangon}} tag and (much more importantly) a reason. You know how you find that out? It says so, right there on the speedy tag. You know what nobody's done? Give a reason. -GTBacchus 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have followed that, no worries. However, for instance, you note the speedy? Guess what - a hangon tag can be ignored, too. Possibly not supposed to be, but hey. Now, if SNOW is a delayed speedy, that's one thing - but that means we're abandoning on expectation for another. If I'm seeing an AfD, an expectation is created that the article will persist for five days unless it meets a speedy criteria. Conversely, if I see a CSD candidate, an expectation is created that the article will persist for five seconds if I'm lucky. If there's an expectation based on policy, process, and, to use Tony's wording, thousands of successful implementations of the full directive, why is that wrong? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like we're close to understanding each other. A couple of points, though. I'm not saying that, in general, SNOW is a delayed speedy. I'm saying this particular case wasn't SNOW at all, but just an ordinary speedy that lasted longer than 5 seconds, and during those >5 seconds, someone else listed it at AfD. It was still a CSD candidate, based on the lack of asssertion of notability, so your CSD expectation should continue to apply.

Speaking of expectations... I've spent some time in AfD. From the start, years ago, I noticed that they don't always run for 5 days. I noticed from the start that obvious speedies, whether deletes or keeps, get closed early. Thus, based on simple observation, my expectation is that AfDs run for 5 days when there's any kind of contention, but that they might be closed early in some cases, when the outcome is obvious. Maybe the AfD page needs to be clarified so that people don't get the wrong idea, that they're being "promised" 5 days no matter what. -GTBacchus 16:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way - you said a hangon tag can be ignored - that's why I said giving a reason is "much more important" than affixing a particular piece of redtape. If a reason to keep is given and ignored, that's wrong, and I for one am working for a Misplaced Pages where that doesn't happen. That's why I added the "Snowball test" to this page. -GTBacchus 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even care if it's a keeper or not. The editors who might think its a keeper were promised five days in the prod. Yet the very same day (which is still only yesterday on my clock), the article vanished, so they wouldn't even be able to find it (or even the notice that it had been sent to Afd) even if they intended something along those lines. That's not common sense, and that's not fair play. Fdurthermore, it is most certainly not an "obvious speedy" because a speedy tag was also removed not once but twice, and even the first removal was supposed to stop the speedy process. Gene Nygaard 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I explained once that no "promise" was made. No procedure here is a "promise". Ok? Whoever told you it was, they were wrong. Furthermore, speedy tags are removed from obvious speedies all the time, by people who don't understand what the speedy criteria are. This was a clear A7 - no assertion of notability. The fact of the tag being removed without any kind of discussion does not mean it wasn't an obvious speedy. The unexplained and unsupported removal of a speedy tag is not "supposed to stop the speedy process"; that would be silly. Adding a {{hangon}} tag and doing something to address the reason that it's a speedy - now that stops the speedy process. Removing the Prod tag stops the Prod process, but CSD supersedes Prod. That actually is the rule. -GTBacchus 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

False. According to the template itself, adding a "hangon" tag is only required when it is the original author doing it. For anyone else, the template says removing it will accomplish the same purpose. Gene Nygaard 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting - reply to Gene Nygaard) Ok, my mistake about the "hangon" tag. I see that you're right. I was still right about everything else. ;)

This is good; we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of how Speedy Deletion works and how it ought to work. Let me describe a common situation to you. (a) Someone posts an article about a person with no assertion of notability: "Justin Brown is in the 6th grade, and intends to rule the world someday. His favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate." (b) Someone tags it as a speedy. (c) An anonymous account with no other contributions removes the tag.

Now, at this point, what should happen? Should it not be tagged again as a speedy? Should it not be speedied? What if someone, figuring that the drive-by removal of the tag was somehow well-informed, lists it at AfD, and then a knowledgable admin comes along and sees it, and thinks "what's this obviously speediable piece of junk doing here?"

Gene, I'm not asking what the "rules" currently say, I'm asking you, in your opinion, what would make the most sense in this situation? Would it make sense to say that it can't be retagged? Would it make sense to let it sit around for five days, getting copied to mirrors? Would it make sesnse.... I dunno, just please let me know, if there were no rule governing this situation, what one should say. I'm curious what you think. -GTBacchus 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It should go to AfD and sit out the course of the five-day period. Little harm is done in letting a very small percentage of the cases sit there, when at least some indication of objection has been made. Or, if you can prove an identity between an IP address removing it and a logged-in user who created it, it might be different, but there was not even any claim of such identity in the course of the proceedings wrt the David Harris article.

The distinction made between requiring "hangon" for the creators but not for others also makes good sense to me. Gene Nygaard 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The speedy process is designed to handle the most clearcut cases only. When there is any question of its applicability, regular process should be used. Gene Nygaard 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, non-notable information isn't harmful other than taking up a little space, and that is true on mirrors as on the Misplaced Pages itself. There's no reason to be in such a huge rush to hide it away that five days is going to make any difference at all. Gene Nygaard 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear what you're saying. The sticking point seems to be whether or not this was "one of the most clearcut cases". It seems most clearcut to me, seeing the article and knowing its history with all those speedy and prod and afd tags. I take it your position is that no matter what the source of the opposition to speedy deletion, and no matter what form that opposition takes, whether or not it's constructive or reason-based, that we should be required to do a full 5 days on AfD. Is that what you're saying? -GTBacchus 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, just read what I did say for a change. Gene Nygaard 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gene, is that tone really necessary? I think I'm being quite polite and really trying to understand where you're coming from. I've read every word, and I thought I was understanding you. Now, I'm willing to admit that I screw up and mistook your meaning, but that's exactly why I asked you if I was paraphrasing you correctly. Now, we're not all the best communicators in the world, so I'll just apologize for my obvious reading comprehension weakness. I thought that what I wrote was implied by what you had said. If not, please just tell me. I'm not going to snip at you, or lash out at you, or be rude or dismissive to you. Could you return the favor, please? -GTBacchus 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, largely as a reaction to this conversation, I made this edit to the speedy template. I think it's an improvement. -GTBacchus 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that challenge: Yes, we are required. We're compelled by the policy, which refers to the process, and IAR wouldn't apply in this case, as the rules don't keep anyone from improving the encyclopedia in this case, since when this particular article is gone isn't going to make a heap of difference, and one can just as easily argue that deleting it early causes more harm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I liked the formulation of IAR where all the rules had to do was make you nervous, and you could ignore them. ;) In all seriousness though, I think this is an important discussion we're having, but I fear we're drifting off-topic. Jeff, can we continue at your talk page or somewhere? I appreciate your picking up the torch here, and advocating for our being "compelled" to follow process. I'm not certain why Gene got upset above, and I understand how a reasonable, intelligent and well-intentioned person could think that's the best way to run a project like this. Jeff, you seem to be such a person, I just don't think we're really talking about WP:SNOW right now, and wonder if we should move. -GTBacchus 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, GTBacchus, you may be able to read the article and see its page history, or maybe you participated in it and have a photographic memory of everything that took place. But editors in general, and the one who removed the tags in particular, cannot do so. It has disappeared, and along with its history and the notices that it had been sent to AfD (at least unless somebody has the patience to continue with it and keep clicking buttons until they get to the fifth or sixth suggestion as to what might have happened--none identified as what did happen), where someone who was interested in it might at least be follow links to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Gene Nygaard 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of process

A self-reflexive determination of "speedy keep per WP:SNOW" might tickle somebody's funny bone, but to me it is about the most blatant abuse of process I've seen in all my days on Misplaced Pages. Gene Nygaard 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, in all cases, or are you thinking of a particular example? -GTBacchus 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This deletion of this page, I assume. —Ashley Y 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it was up for deletion... Seems like a silly thing to nominate for deletion. I mean, what were the odds that was the best way to resolve the dispute? -GTBacchus 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite as far as Gene Nygaard, but I suppose there was an argument for letting the snowball melt specifically for the self-reflexivity of the case. On the other hand, it was a second nomination and the first one had run properly. —Ashley Y 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Singlemindedly proved why it would make a terrible policy. --PopUpPirate 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this page, of course, if I need to spell it out—the second of those colored/coloured boxes at the top of the page, and the self-reflexive use of the content of this page as a rule which provides a reason for the keeping of this page. Gene Nygaard 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd figured that out by now, but thanks. Actually, I think nominating a page for deletion when it obviously enjoys wide support from experienced Wikipedians is kind of a silly thing to do, and is only likely to generate ill-will. Closing a discussion like that early is a good idea, just like closing the GNAA discussions early is a good idea at this point (even though that article should be taken out and shot). -GTBacchus 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On GTBacchus "Snowball test"

I've done a few snowballs in my time. Sometimes somebody objects. Then somebody else snowballs and it sticks. I don't think unanimity is realistic. In fact, I think Snowball closes work best where the end result is obvious but there are some routine objectors who always turn up and make a pointless noise during the discussion. They don't like to be deprived of their forum to gripe, and the snowball clause is a good way of depriving them of that forum. It doesn't affect the end result, and their identities and behavior patterns are well known to the community. One may perhaps compare this kind of activity to vexatious litigation. If a Snowball application is genuinely misapplied, it's usually evident to many editors at once and there's little problem reversing the snowball close (this assumption is built into the clause). --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly the problem with the snowball clause idea. It removes the idea of concensus which is a central tenet! --PopUpPirate 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why I object to SNOW becoming a guideline. Unanimity is not only realistic it happens all the time. Look at the list of SNOWed deletions I created. The vast majority of them were early, uncontroversial closes to which there was literally no objection. Tony's vague talk of "routine objectors" looking for a "forum to gripe" is worrying. Also, Tony continues to feel SNOW is best at ending discussions, something which I completely disagree with. Until this confusion is cleared up, I cannot endorse this page being anything more than an essay. —Nate Scheffey 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What you said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'm sorry, but that's not going to work. You say "the snowball clause is a good way of depriving them of that forum". This flies directly in the face of "Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity," from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. The "utmost respect and dignity" means giving them the forum to "gripe"; not calling it "griping", but rather a complaint from a respected user; and responding with clear communication to their issue, no matter how many times you feel you're repeating yourself. The "utmost respect and dignity" does not mean dismissing objections as "routine", or useless to respond to. It is more important to maintain the level of dignity here than to be ruthlessly efficient. Not only on a moral level is it more important, but anyone who fails to treat everyone with the utmost dignity will eventually find themselves unable to work with the community, because the community eventually won't tolerate dismissiveness or contempt of any kind. That's the reality we're working with.

I understand what you want the snowball clause to be, but it can't be that. It cannot be a way of shutting people up - the only method we are allowed for shutting people up is listening to them with absolute respect. The snowball clause, if it endorses actions that meet any kind of opposition, contradicts WP:CIVIL and WP:SENSE, neither of which is acceptable, nor effective, in the long run. It has to be treated like Prod should be treated when it's working right - any objection means we revert to full process, and we feel good about it. -GTBacchus 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Read further on the statement of principles that you just cited and you will see my opinion expressed very well by Jimbo: "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk." The Snowball clause is very powerful anti-jerk medicine for Misplaced Pages. I don't describe what I want the Snowball clause to be, I describe its successful practical application over a period of many months. --Tony Sidaway 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please. If we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to get concrete. Show us where you succesfully used SNOW to shut up a "jerk". Otherwise, I don't believe you. I don't trust your judgement as to who is "just being a jerk". You're too quick to come to that conclusion, and erring on the side of too quick is wrong. If by "successful practical application," you mean the generation of ill-will, then I might agree, only that's not what "success" means to me. There's a lot of ill-will around this page that it's already going to take months to air out, and I'm trying to get the windows open. -GTBacchus 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How about splitting off a page from this? WP:SNOW can specifically apply to cases where no objection is likely (this doesn't necessarily require unaminity: if an AfD is running 14-1 Delete, you can assume that the lone delete voter can see as well as anyone that there's no point in continuing, and if he's a reasonable fellow is not likely to object). Another page -- maybe WP:STFU or some other name -- could be written for when when an editor wants to shut up the jerks, trolls, and morons who supposedly infest the 'pedia... but in fairness I think WP:STFU should either be just an essay or should be proposed for an accept-or-reject discussion. Herostratus 09:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But situations where SNOW would theoretically come into play have nothing to do with how many people "Vote" a given way. You can't assume the one lone voter sees no point in continuing, especially if s/he is right in his/her argument, and the closure would have to reflect the greater consensus if the argument went a certain way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Using snow to "shut up a jerk" is a gross violation of the assumption of good faith, and goes against even the stated goals of this page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I like Herostratus' suggestion, that if one is trying to ram something through per WP:STFU, we shouldn't blow a bunch of SNOW and tell people it's Christmas. -GTBacchus 16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be productive to spend time in explaining the precise mechanism by which Misplaced Pages deals with dickery. I express it as "Sidaway's First Law of Misplaced Pages : Misplaced Pages is cleverer than you." I think we're increasingly seeing policies that work in practice but will never work (as Kim jokingly says), in theory. The Snowball clause, whether described as such or hidden in some other guise, will always be the primary method of dealing with filibusterers and timewasters. Not all Misplaced Pages policies are written. Not all written policies are correct. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's at least worth noting that there are two different principles being claimed as the "point" of SNOW. One is that it's ok to bypass process when it's unopposed. Another is that it's ok to bypass process to shut people up when they're being trolls/dicks/timewasters/what-have-ye. I think the first principle in uncontroversial, and the second... seems to be somewhat disputed (at least by myself and a couple of others). Does that sound accurate? -GTBacchus 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think that either of those is accurate, you've misread the policy. It says that when the outcome is obvious you don't have to go through the whole process. This applies when there is no opposition or when there is a tiny rump of filibusters. The beauty of the policy is that it works even when there is a small minority of die-hards. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't claiming that either of those is "what it says". I was really just trying to point out that two different standards are on the table. If I didn't phrase them well, don't you still know what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the two different standards that are on the table, see 'em?

I'm happy to use your formulation: "when the outcome is obvious you don't have to go through the whole process." I think where we're not seeing eye-to-eye is on the definition of "obvious". I think something is obvious when I'm convinced that nobody will oppose it with any actual reason. It seems that your standard for obviousness is more like... you're pretty sure that no one will oppose it, other than possibly a small minority of die-hards who have already been shown to be wrong and who should now be ignored until they go away. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please let me know if I'm close to characterizing your position. -GTBacchus 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on - if principles behind WP:SNOW will be invoked whether or not it's called "WP:SNOW" - or, by extension, regardless of whether or not WP:SNOW even exists - why not just take the easy way out and don't have it at all? It's much safer that way, because a weakness of this sort of thing is that it's rather easy for people to begin to interpret WP:SNOW in inappropriate ways due to the abstraction from the more-concrete principles (like how people seemed to keep misunderstanding WP:POINT a while back). It seems to me that there's no benefit to keeping this as some sort of separate entity. (If you wanted a sort of boilerplate "this is how this logic works" explanation, I think that's more of an essay about existing policies, not a separate policy or guideline.) —AySz88\^-^ 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(Reading up a bit, my mistake; I thought someone was still trying to get this tagged as policy/guideline.) —AySz88\^-^ 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the "Hah! I'll just tell everybody I consider a jerk to shut the fuck up!" way of thinking won't get you anywhere. It just makes things worse. 1ne 05:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Listed for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

Please vote as you see fit, thank you! --PopUpPirate 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do things like this, all it does is waste people's time.--SB | T 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The third colored box above falsely claims that it was closed as the result of discussion. There was no discussion, only a nomination and a closure. Is that a problem with the template used to make hte box? Gene Nygaard 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that IAR can be done without consensus as well (eg. a majority consensus forms at Misplaced Pages:Let's burn down the whitehouse in favor of the policy, and Jimbo Wales steps in and deletes it saying "Misplaced Pages doesn't endorse doing something illegal like burning down the whitehouse"). --Interiot 00:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how any of Jimbo's actions could fall under IAR. —Nate Scheffey 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He does things that are outside of or contradictory to policy? Check. Those actions are done with the intent of benefiting Misplaced Pages? Check. He has to exercise discretion when doing this, so as to not do something that actually harms Misplaced Pages? Check. --Interiot 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The acceptance is not that Jimbo is ignoring the rules as much as his word is law, and that he can't really break the rules since he's above them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether Jimbo's actions can be considered an application of IAR seems to me to be a point of semantics with little practical upshot... am I missing something? Nobody doubts that the Jimbonater can do what he wants, and whatever we decide to call it, there it is, right? -GTBacchus 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's merely combating the fallacy that the actions of Jimbo can be replicated by any editor or admin. You can't use IAR when pointing out what Jimbo does, as anything he does is within the rules. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I'm sure there's some application of SNOW or IAR out there that badlydrawnjeff agrees with, I'm just looking for a tiny bit of common ground. Badlydrawnjeff, is this documented somewhere? --Interiot 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that the Rdsmith edit section above shows BDJ supporting IAR. OMG! -- nae'blis 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know of no rule indicating WP-space articles have to have a tag on them, and since I believed at the time that there was no real consensus for any tag, that's why I supported it. A for effort, though. d:-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of a recently added codicil

I've removed this after quite a lot of discission:

The snowball test

This test can only be applied retroactively, and is thus useful for learning from experience.

*If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous with several people agreeing that it's obvious, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.

*If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody objects, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause.

If somebody will always object, we can reliably predict who that person will be, and he has repeated his wasteful pointless, and pro-forma objecion fruitelessly hundreds of times, then it wouldn't be surprising to find that person objecting again. He has become the dog in the manger. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm reverting your edit. I don't believe that's a fair analysis of the discussion above, and you seem to be the only one arguing that WP:SNOW should be used to silence debate. Only when there is no (legitimate) debate/dispute, is WP:SNOW appropriate. Removing this codicil muddies the waters. -- nae'blis 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a bit of opposition to this, actually. Perhaps there's a pack of dogs in the manger, to play along with your, frankly, offensive commentary on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you see one person rolling a snowball through hell, and 40 people speak up and say "we tried that already, it doesn't work", do you call the person disruptive and put the snowball back, or do you cite SNOW and then put the snowball back? Does it matter?

Also, I don't know if it's useful to argue over the details, since IAR doesn't necessarily demand unanimity. --Interiot 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is subjective to a fault when it comes to instances where SNOW would allegedly be a useful corrollary. IAR is simple - if the rules keep you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. If Editor A closes an XfD using IAR, s/he's saying "I think the encyclopedia is improved by ending this discussion early." Editor B is completely within his/her rights to revert that using IAR, as s/he's saying "I think the encyclopedia is improved by allowing this discussion to run its course." This sort of thing is almost a bastardization of IAR, where IAR (one would assume) was in place to deal with quick action for a potentially harmful situation where the processes needed took more time than was useful. Discussion at an XfD would never, ever fall under that umbrella. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (17th nomination). --Interiot 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

SK #5. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The last four deletes weren't done according to any apparent schedule at least. (not that I don't think that something along the lines of "nominating something for deletion when it's been kept 10 times in a row in the last X months" shouldn't be a speedy keep criteria. Then again IAR exists so we don't have to argue over amending policy every time a small exception happens) --Interiot 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight

Closing discussions that have a patently obvious outcome, or declining to run things through process simply for the sake of process are uses of SNOW that I can support. Ending controversial discussions because Tony Sidaway has decided that the people who disagree with him are "jerks", "dicks", "trolls" or part of a small "rump" I do not support. SNOWing a controversial discussion will make things worse every single time. Whether there is one person or five in the minority view, they are going to be pissed off that the discussion was ended early. The resultant personal attacks, ANI posts, "cool down" blocks, and general drama will greatly outweigh the benefits of an early close (whatever those are). Sorry to personalize things, but I believe Tony has a knack for inflaming situations, and I think that disregard for diplomacy is what we are seeing here. If we want to fix SNOW and streamline it into the useful tool it should be, we need to firmly agree that it is not to be used for ending debate. —Nate Scheffey 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that exact reasoning, was what motivated me to create Misplaced Pages:Reduce confusion by following policy, not as an antithesis to this page, but as a way of avoiding the ruckus that ensues when this page is used in non-unanimous discussions. Ansell 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right though --PopUpPirate 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't controversial discussions by definition not covered under this policy? If not, it could probably be solved by pointing that out explicitly. This is about process where everyone agrees what the eventual result will be. Fagstein 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct in theory, but it's never worked that way in practice, which is one of many reasons why this doesn't fly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff, you say "it's never worked that way in practice". That's not quite true. It's actually worked that way a lot, and nobody has complained about those applications of SNOW (except possibly on the principle that process must always be followed). The real trouble is that there's a small but influential minority of people who have chosen to apply SNOW in controversial situations anyway, provided they deem the opposing side of the controversy to be sufficiently stupid or trollish. That minority use is what people have objected to, but I don't think it's fair to blame WP:SNOW for those who choose to use it in that way, anymore than it's fair to blame WP:NPOV for those who misapply it. -GTBacchus 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the minority case is all that wrong. Admins can already act to minimize disruption (eg. block someone who's disrupting wikipedia by obviously being provocative or reverting too often), I don't quite see why less serious actions than blocking can't be employed to prevent people from disrupting Misplaced Pages. (obviously there are questions about how much disruption is too much, what the appropriate response to a given action is, etc.) Though I agree that this minority issue is separate from the discussion about SNOW's primary use. --Interiot 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to talk about a concrete example of the minority use, in a case where it works well. Can you think of one, or make one up? -GTBacchus 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think Tony has intended to silence someone who disagrees with him. He admits that his actions didn't cool down some situations, but I don't think it's reasonable to imply that he's acted to explicitely silence critics (rather than to attempt to cool down a situation, or to minimize disruption to Misplaced Pages). --Interiot 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a more accurate description of Tony's intention, if I can presume to speak as to Tony's intentions. Cooling down a situation takes finesse, and if it's not done just right, it can certainly end up increasing the heat, inadvertently. This is why people like police officers and counselors are trained in de-escalating situations - the techniques are not all obvious or intuitive. I hope that anyone intending to "cool down" situations by closing discussions would take some interest in learning some de-escalation techniques. -GTBacchus 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should not be used in situations where the outcome is ambiguous ("controversial"), but it should in cases where the opposite argument that makes it "controversial" is in fact a small minority that is repeating the same arguments that have been tried and denied before. For example, if the opposing argument in an AfD is the author and his friends claiming they are experts who have a right to publish their research in this ostensibly 'free' encyclopedia or who claim that a band is simply "really awesome", the argument has been repeated before over and over, that is invalid for Misplaced Pages; it is not going to result in keeping the article. If the opposing argument in a second-nomination AfD is the same failed argument presented by the same people as in the first AfD, it is the same failed argument and the same minority arguing it; the same people using the same arguments is not going to convince all those who remained unconvinced last time, and a one AfD is not the place for that long-term discussion. —Centrx→talk • 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

• I'm quite sure we shouldn't let one editor's perceived misuse of a page speak for that page itself. As we all know, on a Wiki, any guideline can be abused, and that's strictly the fault of the abuser and not of the guideline. Anyway. I was asked to comment on this since I wrote the Snowball Clause (actually that's not really true, I drafted the page but the practice was already there).
• The point is that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. In particular, that means we don't have to debate everything to death, especially not multiple times. For instance, we make speedy deletion criteria not because we're t3h 3vil deletionists, but because some issues are already debated to death (and ditto, speedy keep criteria, etc). Misplaced Pages would bog down entirely into repetitive discussion if we didn't short-circuit it at time. In the early days of Misplaced Pages, every block was discussed; nowadays, breach of 3RR is a block, no need to discuss that (yes, yes, there are always extreme circumstances). This, in essence, is the point of the highly succesful WP:PROD - if there is not a single objection to a deletion, there really is no need to debate anything (whom would you debate it with, anyway?).
• The original purposes of SNOW were twofold: first, on deletion review, some people would argue "yes, this article deserves to be deleted, but it was deleted out of process, so we must put it back into process, debate for a few days, and delete it". The circularity of that, frankly, is pointless. Second, on requests for adminship, novice nominees sometimes get swamped under semi-nasty opposes; it may be prudent to close down the nomination to prevent further nastiness. I'm sure there are some other purposes; but the point is that if your only argument is that process wasn't followed, you don't have an argument. (of course, if your argument is that process wasn't followed and a valid source wasn't mentioned before, you do have a point).
• Now, telling people to shut up now because you are wrong, is not a very nice thing to do and generally doesn't work. Closing down discussion on any discussion board (e.g. WP:AN) has been proven to aggravate the situation rather than calm it down. The important distinction is that closing down an active discussion under WP:SNOW is not a good idea; its intent is to close down a newly beginning discussion of something that has already been discussed. For instance, if an AFD was closed as keep yesterday, and someone nominates it again, that's a SNOW. We know the outcome, we had one yesterday, stop wasting our time, have a nice day.
• So yes, controversial discussions are a no-go, or rather, a no-snow. Of course you cannot please everyone and nothing really is unanimous on a wiki this size, so you may have to tell off one or two people who disagree with the snow, especially if they don't really make an argument. But it is important to realize that wikipedia is not in a hurry so leaving an existing discussion open for two or three more days is not going to hurt anyone, even if you Know that You Are Right.
• Wow, a lengthy rant. Hope that helped :) and enjoy the weather our there >Radiant< 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep #7?!

The page is a consensually-accepted policy or guideline, or an active Misplaced Pages process. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy. - it is NOT policy! --PopUpPirate 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PopUpPirate, nominating this page for deletion when it clearly enjoys wide support from lots of experienced Wikipedians doesn't seem very productive. What did you hope to accomplish? Were you trying to provide an example of a perfect time to apply WP:SNOW? Were you trying to stir up more negativity and strife? What positive result was realistically going to follow from nominating this page for deletion, when it has been previously nominated and kept? -GTBacchus 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it has historically been an active Misplaced Pages process, with over 650 backlinks, many of which are from official closing comments. It would not be appropriate to make redlinks in so many closing comments. Even if it were decided that it won't be an active process in the future, {{rejected}} would be vastly prefered over deletion. (though it's unlikely that there's support for this to be marked rejected) --Interiot 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)