Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 2

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 Wikipedia, 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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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(talk) 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we at least establish that the certain editor is wrong in the arguments made above? &mdash;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(talk) 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? &mdash;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(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How are "rules" actually made?
(edit conflict, reply to Ashley) The majority of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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. &mdash;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(talk) 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 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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(talk) 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [see below, where GTBacchus admits that a "hangon" tag is only required when it is the original author, not—and this is "right there on the speed tag—when someone else removes the tag. Gene Nygaard 19:52, 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia where that doesn't happen.  That's why I added the "Snowball test" to this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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 Deletion review.  Gene Nygaard 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed something about the example - aren't speedies meant to be less controversial than prods, which are less controversial than AfD? If an admin encounters a prod tag on something they think should be speedied, either:
 * the first person doesn't think it's obvious enough that it should be speedily deleted or doesn't think it fits in the speedy criteria, or
 * (just in case they're the "what's a speedy?" type) the first tagger should be contacted to get their agreement on whether the criteria applies.
 * I don't think it's any harm to leave the page sitting there with the big ugly prod or AfD tag at the top, and I don't think it's appropriate to just move the deletion speediness upwards while others probably chose the lower speediness for a reason - it's rather arrogant to just override the process choice of others like that. —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 23:26, 27 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 Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * This deletion of this page, I assume. &mdash;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(talk) 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. &mdash;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(talk) 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. &mdash;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(talk) 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 Wikipedia.  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(talk) 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(talk) 16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be productive to spend time in explaining the precise mechanism by which Wikipedia deals with dickery. I express it as "Sidaway's First Law of Wikipedia : Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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(talk) 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
Wikipedia: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 Let's burn down the whitehouse in favor of the policy, and Jimbo Wales steps in and deletes it saying "Wikipedia 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. &mdash;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 Wikipedia?  Check.  He has to exercise discretion when doing this, so as to not do something that actually harms Wikipedia?  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(talk) 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)
 * 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. &mdash;Nate Scheffey 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, that exact reasoning, was what motivated me to create 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. Ans e ll  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(talk) 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 Wikipedia.  (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(talk) 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because some of us haven't seen it, or don't know or are afraid to challenge it, doesn't mean it's "worked that way a lot." --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just because you haven't seen or experienced something yourself, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, either. I'm talking about cases, for example, where I've SNOWed something, submitted my action for review, and been told by everyone who chose to comment that I did the right thing.  In fact, many of our current guidelines had their genesis in someone applying SNOW, being confirmed by others, and after doing it a few times, just writing it down, so in the future, people who don't know about SNOW would do it anyway.  Where do you think the Speedy Keep criteria came from?  People were applying them before they were written down, and that's how they knew what to write down.  That's a much more common way for policy to be written here than for it to be proposed, debated, and voted into practice.  Are you questioning whether this site was really begun without guidelines, and the mechanism of how those guidelines came to be?  If you are, that's an historical question that should be very easy to answer.  It seems odd to say that, just because something's written down, then we have to do what it says until someone votes to change it, especially when nobody voted to write it down in the first place - it was just someone six months or a year ago writing stuff down.  By what strange magic does something someone happened to write down last year, with no more mandate than thinking it sounded good at the time, become policy that compels how we act this year? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 28 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 Wikipedia).  --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(talk) 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, quite frankly, you're not paying attention to Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 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 Wikipedia; 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 &bull; 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Centrx, and I think the current version with GtBacchus' revised snowball test puts it well. With respect to Radiant's argument, I think he misses the fact that many of these processes are subjected to pettyfogging bureaucracy and needless, manufactured controversy.  If you spot a deletion nomination that  has been running for a couple of days, the article is about a famous racing driver or something, it's pointless wasting further time on it, even if nobody has speedy kept.  Snow fits that to a tee.  There are people who will put up procedural objections to this, and Snow works for them. There are people who will say "not notable" but they can be ignore in an obvious case such as someone with six top ten hits or whatever.  --Tony Sidaway

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 Wikipedia 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 have already been debated to death (and ditto, speedy keep criteria, etc). Wikipedia would bog down entirely into repetitive discussion if we didn't short-circuit it at times. In the early days of Wikipedia, 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 they 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  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, I appreciate your response and agree with virtually everything you are saying. However, I don't think it addresses the thrust of my argument. Although I used Tony as a specific example, I think there are other editors who interpret SNOW incorrectly, and there will be more in the future. We are talking about serious, mutually-exclusive differences of opinion as to SNOWs fundamental usage.For example, you say that closing discussions on ANI is "proven to aggravate the situation", however, on this very page Tony cited killing ANI postings as a tangible benefit of SNOW. Is this a problem with Tony, or an inherent problem with SNOW (at least as it is currently written and interpreted)? I feel it is the latter. &mdash;Nate Scheffey 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start referring to any attempt to use SNOW to kill active discussions as YELLOWSNOW, for clarity? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the intentions behind this page were good but it has become so tainted with overapplication that I can't stomach it as a guideline. When I see this page cited it seems to be mostly to bludgeon reasonable people making reasonable arguments. Haukur 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Example please?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It's easier to make broad sweeping unsubstantiated allegations. ... Oh, okay, I wanted to spare Tony and I couldn't easily find a good example elsewhere. Maybe most references to this page are reasonably innocuous. I still don't think it's very useful. I've never felt a need to cite it. Nor have I ever felt a need to cite IAR, supposedly 'fundamental' to the site with SNOW as an obvious corollary. Interestingly you now have PopUpPirate here - a big IAR-fan and a strong SNOW-opponent. Haukur 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the latest edit on IAR talk sums it up pretty well which I agree with, but on the other hand WP:SNOW appears to be so old hands can use it as a justification for breaking the other rules --PopUpPirate 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe some people are under the impression that whether or not this page has a guideline tag has any kind of influence on the people who presently use (or abuse) it. That is simply not the case. If people are abusing it, take them to RFC.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But the tagging of pages matters. If newbies see a page marked as a widely-accepted guideline which everyone is expected to follow then that will influence what they do with it. Haukur 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the whole point of guideline tags is to let people know how well accepted those ideas are, and how likely it is that others will agree with it. Fresheneesz 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Haukur is correct. However, my point is that if you have a problem with Tony (I haven't investigated but his name comes up a lot on this page) then you can't resolve that problem by changing the tag on this page. Go open an RFC or something. Tony is not Snow, and Tony's behavior (or that of any other individual) need not be representative for this page. Look at the bigger picture. I'm not convinced either way yet as to the tag on this page, but some of the argumentation used here is simply not very useful.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, SNOW lends itself to abuse. This week it's Tony, next week it's someone else. &mdash;Nate Scheffey 11:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * re 'Go open an RFC or something' - would only get reverted per SNOW.--PopUpPirate 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would not. I will personally revert and troutwhack anyone who removes a good-faith RFC.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And therein lies a problem with SNOW --PopUpPirate 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nate alludes to my supposed abuse of this clause. However I've probably made perhaps the highest number of successful applications of this clause. It seldom fails, so I'm forced to conclude that it's policy, and that my use must be successful and correct application.  --Tony Sidaway 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, it really hinges on what you mean by success. What if your standard for judging a "successful" application is itself flawed? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this another attempt to force it into being policy, which of course it isn't? --PopUpPirate 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep #7?!
'''The page is a consensually-accepted policy or guideline, or an active Wikipedia 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(talk) 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I nominated it for deletion because imo it is an awful idea. The positive I was hoping for was the Snowball Clause be deleted, because it removes the whole idea of concensus from the wiki. --PopUpPirate 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. It turns out that's pretty unrealistic at this point, pretty much for the reasons Interiot detailed below.  We definitely discourage the nomination of pages for deletion that are unlikely to be deleted; it's kind of disruptive, and ultimately pointless.
 * Please read Radiant's comments above, regarding the intent of the Snowball clause. Those of us who have been using it for years would dispute your claim that "it removes the whole idea of consensus".  It's pretty much designed to stop the beating of dead horses, or the tedious rehashing of arguments that have been seen dozens of times, and haven't evolved in any way.  In this case, we're pretty much aware that some people think Wikipedia should be run according to strict procedures (or assume that it is run that way), but that's not going to happen unless Jimbo changes his mind about the basic foundation of the project, so what's to be gained by arguing about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not "remove the whole idea of consensus", it allows that a consensus was previously established so that one does not have to be repeatedly wrought on the same subject over and over. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * SNOW is about removing discussion. The way this page was removed from a deletion list is proof of this. I appreciate the motive for the idea, GTBacchus, but it's open to misuse by established editors.  IAR on the other hand empowers novices, which is in my opinion to be encouraged --PopUpPirate 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting distinction, PopUpPirate. To be fair, IAR is also open to abuse by established editors, as are most policies and guidelines.  Still, it's true that SNOW really can't be invoked by a newbie, because it depends on knowing the odds of a particular article coming out of a particular process in a certain way.  I'm open to the idea that sometimes stopping discussion is a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it has historically been an active Wikipedia 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)
 * (Just to ensure this option doesn't fall in the cracks, historical is available too, which doesn't mean "consensus to reject" like "rejected" means.) —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Previously established consensus is history. People change their minds all the time - and so do big groups of em. Much consensus which was 5 years ago, is not so now, and vice versa. As wikipedia progresses, old consensus becomes more and more useless - new consensus is needed. Fresheneesz 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this not policy yet?
WP:IAR is policy. WP:NOT a buraucracy is policy. WP:SNOW doesn't propose anything which isn't already covered by those two policies. Yet this isn't policy. I don't get it. Note: I had a lot more typed up but decided just to post this, since it's the core of what I had to say and didn't want to ramble on -- Steel 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly because WP:IAR is rather clear in its limit, and WP:NOT is very specific. WP:SNOW is divisive, is in direct opposition to many other established policies, is not necessary, and has had it's well poisoned by people who would rather force this through.  The liklihood of this becoming policy is slim, judging by recent discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you say it's had its well poisoned by "people who would rather force this through," I feel like something's being equivocated. The well is somewhat poisonous around this guideline, in the sense that there's some bitter disagreement about a certain way of appealing to this page to justify WP:STEAM type behavior, by a fairly specific group of people.  I think the poison was largely generated, not by trying to force SNOW through, as such, but by assuming a certain interpretation of it, and using that to force various actions that were otherwise unrelated to SNOW.
 * A different understanding of SNOW actually does enjoy broad support, according to the discussion above. I do allow that badlydrawnjeff and a few others are dissenting voices, but I still feel comfortable saying "broad support" - not everyone blames the behavior of strident admins on this particular page.  (Ultimately, how much support SNOW has got is an empirical question that we could talk about trying to answer, if it seems important.) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded BDJ --PopUpPirate 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is the most vague rule on the whole site, so you'll have to elaborate on how it's clear on its limit. At present, WP:SNOW basically paraphrases WP:NOT. And "not necessary" is subjective - there are a number of people who think sending obvious deletes to AfD is not necessary. -- Steel 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its clarity is in its simplicity - if you feel it improves the encyclopedia, do it. The problem is that it can apply to anything, even undoing IAR.  So it's crystal clear, it's just never possible to use properly anymore, if it ever were at all.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "disputed" thing added by an apparent driveby editor. This particular bit of policy is perhaps the most tested and successful aspect of Ignore all rules, and has proven its effectiveness in dealing with cases where the controversy is in fact somewhat contrived and the behavior of the opposing parties in raising up such false objections is well documented. --Tony Sidaway 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that exactly this interpretation of a "reasonable" reason to close debate early is the problem. I'm not aware of more than one editor for whom stopping discussion is considered a good application, as discussed in the "guideline ready" section above.  Can I hear an "amen" on this at least? -  brenneman  {L} 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See GTBacchus' snowball test. Absolutely nobody wants to stop reasonable discussion, but stopping filibusters and pointless "procedural" objections is definitely what this is about. --Tony Sidaway 06:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just about the only venue in which it is actually possible to filibuster is arbitration. All XfD have a set time to run, as does deletion review.  "Reasonable discussion" to me included almost any objection voiced in good faith by a contributor who is contributing to articles.  Even leaving aside its ethical grounding in silencing dissent, it has pragmatic problems.  Shall we draw up a list of instances of the embolded line below?  I also note with amusement that this conversation appears to hinge upon the objection of pretty much one user.  Shall we "snowball" this then, and flatly state that it is not to be used in this way? *insert Ouroboros singularity*  -  brenneman  {L} 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Early Close) + (Deletion Review) + (XfD Re-run) >> (Letting discussion run its course)

I think I'll stick to the policy as written and successfully applied many times without problems. If we're all agreed with the policy as written and we all think it's useful, I don't see how we can refer to "objections of one user". You cannot filibuster arbitration. Arbitrators have brains.

Since Aaron seems above to implicitly acknowledge that (as long as I don't object) there are no other objections to this policy, is it time to mark it as such? --Tony Sidaway 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Crikey. That's just surreal. - Aaron Brenneman 07:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly. You like the policy, I like it.  Just about everybody else seems to like it.  So if there are no further objections let us slap a policy tag on it. --Tony Sidaway 07:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Just about everybody else seems to like it" that's just not true, please read the Straw Poll above. --PopUpPirate 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to its elevation to policyhood. The potential for its miscitation/misuse is exceedingly great.  Better to elevate the (humorous) WP:STEAM to guideline status, I think. Xoloz 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is, frankly, absurd. This isn't policy, possibly will never be.  A lot of reason why is significantly because of your application of it in the past, Tony.  If there were ever proper uses of WP:SNOW (which I'm still unconvinced of at this stage), your actions in using them to quell discussion (which you happily frame as filibustering to demonize those of us who prefer consensus to decision-by-fiat) poisoned the well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This policy is only for early closing a long process. If it's ever misused, the misuse is easily reverted. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not so, in my experience. If WP:SNOW is used to close an AfD, and that use of WP:SNOW is faulty, reversion is only possible if the error is quickly discovered AND acknowledged by the original closer who invoked WP:SNOW.  Otherwise, Deletion Review is the course necessary to avoid acrimony and conflict, and then (presuming WP:SNOW is overturned) a relisting takes place.  This is all very time-consuming; here, I speak from a wealth of experience.  Since WP is not a bureaucracy, we should avoid creating ambiguous policies whose frequent misuse would impede our productivity.  Xoloz 07:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, I've gotten blocked for reversing a SNOW before. To be blunt?  Easy my ass.  Might be easy if you're an admin, near impossible for a regular editor, and definitely impossible if the snowbazlling admin could give two shakes about the editors involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest now. Snows have frequently been challenged and almost invariably they go through a long loop of petty bureaucracy followed, eventually, by confirmation of the original conclusion  (offhand I can't think of a single instance where someone has incorrectly invoked this policy, but I'm sure it must have been).  So the main problem is that Snows are often incorrectly challenged and the application is "punished" by putting us all through a pointless charade of a procedure.   This kind of abuse will become less frequent as those who make such abusive challenges realise that they cannot hold Wikipedia to ransom in this way.


 * But if you prefer we can keep this policy unmarked and it will continue to be successfully applied without being a policy in name. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do so prefer. If we foster a culture where "challenges" of WP:SNOW are presumed to be "abusive," we run the risk of detering meritorious challenges, and stifling the fullness of discussion.  Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we must make every reasonable effort to ensure that our coverage of material is complete and accurate.  Meritorious challenges aid the encyclopedia; ergo, actions which would deter meritorious challenges must be avoided. Xoloz 08:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There will still be abusive challenges of this policy, whether we call it policy or not, whether we call them abusive or not. At least this policy's existence enables us to recognise abusive behavior of this type and documents a reasonable treatment to be applied (admonishment).  Eventually the abuser gets the idea and the abusive pattern of pointlessly challenging stops, or else this is escalated in the usual way. --Tony Sidaway 08:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why we may have to tag it with or  to get the point across that it doesn't have the type of support continually asserted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of abusive challenges is a fair cost to pay for the assurance the meritorious challenges will be fairly considered. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a bureaucracy, our first aim should be to ensure the accuracy and completeness of material through the fullness of discussion; we should not make our focus rapidly eliminating phantom "abusive challenges," as those will be turned aside in any event through the fullness of discussion.  Obsessing over eliminating phantom "abusive challenges" at all costs sounds like process-wonking and instruction creep to me. Xoloz 08:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader 1

 * In reply to Jeff, I think we've established that we all agree with this policy. In reply to Xoloz, the suggestion that some editors may make incorrect challenges to this policy isn't a good reason to avoid putting a policy tag on it. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, are you a dadaist, by chance? -- nae'blis 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We have? That's a new one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So I believe. I think your only objection is that you don't believe it is possible to apply the policy.  Which is fine; nobody is asking you to do so. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't really been paying attention to my objections. Read back a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you said that it had been abused. However this isn't the case.  It has frequently been applied with great success, in one recent case on this very policy itself. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly been abused, and you've in fact advanced a notion of such abuse - attempting to "end discussion" in a way - that's contrary to even why this exists. Meanwhile, no "great success" has occurred, your specific instance was a great example of how the well has been poisoned by the continued divisive use of this.  Again, there has never been an uncontroversial use of this, and, thanks to actions similar to what you've done and advocate, likely will never be.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, you're not sounding any more grounded in reality than Tony is here. "There has never been an uncontroversial use of this"?  That's simply false.  Look at my contributions over the last 2 weeks.  I've done a lot of page moves.  In about half of them, I bypassed some aspect of the labyrinthine WP:RM process.  On one of those, I requested community review at Wikipedia talk:Process is important, of all places, a veritable temple for process wonks, and everybody there agreed that I was right to cut that corner.  If you want to be taken at all seriously, you won't make assertions like "there has never been an uncontroversial use" of SNOW.  There've been hundreds.  Your argument, if it makes any sense, must be that the controversial uses are (a) unavoidable, and (b) have negative consequences outweighing the benefit of the uncontroversial uses. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy, guideline, or process, WP:RM. Your moves are obviously unconvtroversial, which is why you can bypass it, not because any WP:SNOW situation is - your page moves would never fall under WP:SNOW as far as I can tell.  If I'm wrong on this, then I may need correction and I may need to take a closer look at your moves as a result. As for your secondary comment, you have accurately presented my argument.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You say Requested Moves isn't a "process"... I guess I was using the ordinary English definition of the word "process".  It is a set of procedures that somebody's written down, and that lots of people mindlessly follow.  I've been frequently applying common sense to short-circuit unnecessary application of procedures, process, hoops to jump through, red tape, call-it-what-ye-will.  If you're going to claim that my applications of SNOW aren't actually applications of SNOW, then I'm not sure how to communicate with you.  Clearly, they are applications of SNOW, according to my understanding of SNOW.  Can you consider that my understanding of SNOW, and possibly many other people's understanding (no, not Tony's), is something that you might actually be ok with? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's this place that some people come from where "policy is simply what we do," which is misleading. We have some actions that we have pages mapping out the best way to do them (which are simply suggestions, and don't necessarily need to be followed, such as WP:RM - you don't have to go through RM to move a page, and you don't have to go through an arduous process to move a page where a history exists, it's quick and easy), we have some actions which have some direction that are expected to be followed, such as our guidelines, and actions that have directions that are intended to be followed to keep things going smoothly, our policies.  The controversial use of SNOW comes in when you start using it in place of the established policies and guidelines that enjoy wide support.  Those will always be controversial, regardless of how tactfully it's done.  There's a reason we send things to AfD for 5 days, there's a reason we have caveats in our speedy deletion policy, etc etc.  To shut down any sort of discussion on those completely circumvents those policies.  This brings me to the other thought, that it's a corollary of IAR.  I think Jimbo was extremely misguided in pushing the policy angle again, but it's obvious that IAR is entirely subjective and should not be used lightly.  It's in place for situations where general harm may come to the project or a user, or when the state of a situation is so bad that the rules have to be ignored to fix it.  Those situations rarely exist, I can think of only one in my 18 months of WP editing where an argument could be made that IAR was done properly, and even that could have been handled within basic policy with a little communication.  Combusting discussion and ending debate early on a situation, whether it be a vanity article or discussion on the behavior of a user, is NEVER a good qualification.  Allowing such things to run their course do not keep anyone from improving the encyclopedia, and, for instance, keeping an article at AfD for 5 days instead of 3 does not improve it any further, either.  It's a nonsensical corallary designed to allow rogue admins who don't want to listen to the input of others to get their way, no more and no less.  The way we do things is for a reason, and they have broad support because of that.  Period.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) You make some interesting claims above about what certain policies (guidelines, etc) are for. Saying that IAR is only intended for rare cases where "general harm may come to the project or a user" is interesting, but I'm not sure that's what was intended when it was first written down. I'm pretty sure, when IAR was first written down, it was actually intended to preseve people's freedom to improve the encyclopedia as they saw fit. I think it was intended as an antidote against Instruction creep. I don't believe it was intended as a last resort, but as a normal thing - feel free to cut corners. It was encapsulating the early spirit of the project, when people were really just making stuff up as they went along. That spirit has evolved, and some claim that we've outgrown the early understanding of IAR, and that its new sense is closer to what you describe. That's much more believable than saying that IAR never meant free-wheeling improvisation, because it certainly did, at first. If you argue that the project has grown and changed, rather than claiming it was always rule-bound, people are more likely to listen to you. From a diplomatic perspective, I think you'd get tons of mileage out of acknowledging the somewhat anarchical foundations of the project, and granting that something got done that way, whether or not it's appropriate now.

You also talk about what SNOW was designed for ("to allow rogue admins... to get their way"). Radiant is the one who first wrote it down, and he explained on this page what he meant, and it wasn't aps you describe. In fact, he's come out against the WP:STEAM use of SNOW, so your allegations about what the page was "designed" for are simply incorrect. I agree that it's been used that way, but that's not what it was designed for. Maybe it was poorly designed, with abuse likely, but that doesn't mean the abuse was the intent. Does that distinction make sense?

As for practice versus Guideline versus Policy, I think the reality is that of very fluid practices gradually hardening over time in to processes and "rules". Once a very fluid process has settled enough for someone to write it down, they often do. Once enough people seem to be following that process (often for no more reason than seeing it written down, and assuming it must be a "rule"), someone thinks to tag it as a guideline, unless it seems particularly central or important, in which case they tag it as a policy. Now, it's inevitable that fluid processes will harden over time, especially given people's tendency to treat anything that already exists as received wisdom which must be preserved and defended. I see IAR as being in place to provide a dynamic tension with that hardening, constantly reminding us that this is all just stuff that people made up, and it can all be dispensed with if it doesn't seem to be working. Trouble is, the more people who think that rules, once in place, must be defended, the more difficult it becomes to improvise and cut corners. This is very natural, of course, as is the resistance to ossification from those who have become used to a more free-form mode of working.

I hope I'm making sense. I can see where you're coming from, badlydrawnjeff, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I would really like it if you seemed to understand why people find your insistence that everything be done according to the book to be so offensive. The first step towards working together is understanding one another. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader 2

 * You have claimed that I waa attempting to end discussion. It's ironic that you refer to "poisoning the well" in the same breath that you knowingly make false and damaging claims. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty nasty claim you're tossing at me, Tony. Seeing how you've referred to discussion as "filibustering" and advocated the use of SNOW to deal with that and such types of "timewasting," I think I'm being fairly honest.  You might want to retract such an accusation of my statements and actions, given how uncomfortably honest they are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not described meaningful discussion as "filibustering". You are aware of this. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can say that honestly, no. Given that I've seen you do snowball closes where meaningful discussion was occurring, I know for a fact that you may indeed have a remarkably different perception of what "meaningful discussion" is, but you're certainly smarter than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude. Are you guys even trying to communicate?  It's like being in a foreign country, and not speaking the language.  Do you attempt to learn a few words, or do you just keep repeating yourself in English, louder, hoping that it'll get through that way?  Clearly, BDJ and Tony Sidaway do not mean the same thing when they say "meaningful discussion".  So... rather than go back and forth like kids in a schoolyard ("did not!" "did too!" "did not!") why not explicitly talk about what you mean by the phrase "meaningful discussion".  C'mon, guys.   Tony, every time you say "you knowing make false and damaging claims", or "You are aware of this", to Jeff, you make it abundantly clear that you don't know where Jeff is coming from at all.  He's speaking a different language than you are, and that's what needs addressing.  Do you guys need a translator?  I understand both of you, so I'll volunteer, if that would help. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW there's at least one instance where SNOW'd closings aren't easily reversible: policy proposals. This happened recently over at WP:CHILD -- a proposal for a minor (but worthwhile) policy which was fairly obvious and not very controversial, with an active and fruitful discussion tending toward a clear supermajority for acceptance. A couple of editors decided the proposal was not to the their liking, claimed (falsely in my opinion) that it had no possibility of being accepted, slapped a Rejected tag on it and protected the page. A proposal with a protected Rejected tag cannot easily be "undone", as this effectively stops all discussion and obviously discourages input from new editors, and it can take a long time (my request for mediation was answered a week later) to get the tag removed, by which time it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as discussion has died. So there's that. Herostratus 18:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you give some more details? Specific diffs, exactly where WP:SNOW is supposed to fit in, etc. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's talking about this rather forceful treatment of a proposal which had the support of around two thirds of those who had commented on its talk page.   Haukur 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. WP:SNOW wasn't expressly invoked there (although perhaps in spirit, at any rate the WP:STFU interpretation), so maybe it's not germane to this page. But because people sometimes point in the context of the discussion on this page that that, after all, it's easy or at any rate possible to undo anything, I was just pointing out one possible counter-example of that. Herostratus 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What happened at WP:CHILD (a proposal to ban children that give personal details) has absolutely nothing to do with SNOW. It is entirely false that a 'rejected' tag is capable of making people stop discussing an issue, nor does it even encourage that.
 * To get back on topic, it might help if the people here gave citations of succesful or controversial usage of SNOW.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, you don't exactly come out of this WP:CHILD business smelling like roses. You edit-warred to keep a "rejected" tag on an actively discussed proposal which had a lot of support on its talk page. You even used the rollback button for this purpose. But, yeah, examples where SNOW was explicitly cited would be more useful. Haukur 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)