Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 3

Examples of controversial Snowballs

Response to Radiants request : Controversial examples would be, for starters, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball clause (2nd nomination) / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walrus / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (4th nomination).--PopUpPirate 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keeping Walrus was controversial? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that Walrus qualifies as Speedy Keep (#3). Also, WP:MFD says that nominating proposals or guidelines for deletion is frowned upon; we rarely delete even failed proposals. So I'd say there was good reason for keeping both Walrus and WP:SNOW. I'm not sure about Al Gore; it seems that AFD renominations are becoming a problem. >Radiant< 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there were some controversial claims to use SNOW during the userbox wars, but I don't want to go wade through those discussions to find them. GRBerry 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those make a funny example. I mean, many of the debates on DRV weren't even about the particular box in question, but about how people were interpreting T1 or T2 or whatever at the time. It got pretty repetitive, and it wasn't clear to some that any progress was being made in those debates. In cases like that though, I think it's a bad time to use SNOW, simply because of the ill-will bred. It still hasn't dissipated, and the windows have been open for months. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of NON-controversial Snowballs

Radiant! mentioned above that one of the motivations for creating SNOW was the occasional clueless RfA by a newbie with 50 edits. Does that provide any examples of uncontroversial SNOWs? How about Radiant's other example of why SNOW was written - DRVs where the only argument for recreation is so that the article can be deleted again, according to process? I've objected to that in the past, on the grounds that it's ghastly and wrong to reanimate the dead in order to re-execute them according to procedure. It didn't occur to me at the time that I was talking about SNOW. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good point... Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies contains (at a rough count) about 120 RFAs withdrawn by some admin or 'crat.
• In WP:DRV, SNOW is (usually) invoked not to close the current discussion on an article, but to argue against creating a future discussion of an article on AFD. I think that's an important difference. >Radiant< 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's certainly fair enough --PopUpPirate 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Although some 'crats erroneously cite it, RfAs are never snowballable in reality due to the way the RfA process works, where 'crats can close RfAs at any point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was the third picture added?

I don't see why the 3rd picture was added to the essay. I have nothing against it, but it seems kind of random.--Grand Slam 7 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor who removed it stated that it didn't add much and cluttered it up. I have to agree with that. — Seadog 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just let it be?

While I understand that some AfD debates might attract undue attention from vandals/socks etc if left to fester, I can't help but wonder why we can't just let every AfD wait for the requisite number of days. I only say this because I have seen a lot of users refer to WP:SNOW or some such thing as part of their reasoning in the debates, and to that extent I feel like this essay does more harm than good... I am certainly rehashing something that has already been hashed to death, but there you go.--Dmz5 08:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really the existence of this file that causes people to think that. This essay comes from a common phrase that would likely be quoted in it's place. Some issues don't have a snowball's chance in hell.. You could delete this page and people will still come to such conclusions. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough--Dmz5 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

It sounds like the dispute tag and essay tag stuff are effects from a larger debate? Other than the edit summaries on the project page, there doesn't seem to be.. any elaboration on what the dispute is. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. The issue really is that some people consider the snowball clause a guideline and use it accordingly, thus pretty much making it part of the way Wikipedia works. Other people think process should not be bypassed and would like the former group to stop, alleging that this page is often abused (although the allegations are generally about a single editor that is now inactive, and I haven't seen any evidence of the abuse). For some reason certain members of the latter group believe that "tagging" this page will somehow stop the former group, but of course that doesn't really work. If you're familiar with the history of IAR, there was a similar dispute there for a long time, until Jimbo stepped in. The point is really that any tag here will be disagreed with by one of the groups. The best tag would probably something like "this is an established part of Wikipedia culture although some people would prefer it was not". >Radiant< 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That seems rather silly. As I mentioned above, this is a common phrase. Most people don't need to read this page to know what a snowball's chance in hell is. You could delete the page and people would still use the term and logic. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but they wouldn't have a page to point to that has a wording that resembles anything binding or typical. I'll note that the essay tag sat here for three months until someone decided to rock the boat. The page was in constant conflict before that, finally an essay tag sticks, and now we're going to fight over it again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What makes you think this page is binding, when nothing on the page says that it is? >Radiant< 14:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't. Please read my comments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I did, of course. You wrote about "a wording that resembles anything binding", and I wonder why you wrote that when nothing on this page says anything about it being binding. >Radiant< 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
            • If you read my comment, you wouldn't have asked the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
              • ...... you are worried that a page that encourages one to use common sense in obvious situations could be seen as... binding...... You are thinking about this WAY too hard. -- Ned Scott 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                • No, I'm just recalling how horribly this was abused, and how one of our worst administrators at the time used it. This page doesn't involve common sense, and usage lacks wide acceptance. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives, and this entire war is being brought up again by one person who doesn't seem to get it. "Common sense" tells me that if an essay tag sat here for 3 months with no problems, and then removal of it creates the same exact problems that caused the strife before the essay tag was removed the first time, that maybe this isn't a fight worth having and the status quo should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • The archives seem to not support your words. -- Ned Scott 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • Oh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • Ya. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Evidence of the abuse, please? >Radiant< 13:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Every single time it's used. Check the archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're handwaving again, Jeff. The ridiculous assertion that every single usage is abuse is easily disproven by citing a single example where it was not abused, for instance here. See also Falsifiability. >Radiant< 14:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That wasn't WP:SNOW - the RfA process allows for the 'crats to close any request early if consensus is unlikely to occur. If you'd read the archives, I've covered that, too. So we have two types of snowball closes - the disruptive, controverisal ones, and the ones which are improperly cited. You hadn't been around during the dispute, so I can understand your relative lack of knowledge on the situation, please do yourself a favor and read the archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Aeropagitica is not a bureaucrat, and he plainly cited WP:SNOW; that he could also have cited some other page, or indeed none, is irrelevant. You tend to make incorrect assumptions, so I can understand your general refusal to provide evidence for your statements, please do yourself a favor and check the facts. >Radiant< 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Then it's controversial for other reasons, as non-crats shouldn't be closing RfAs. It still doesn't mean WP:SNOW is correctly cited, or has any relevance in an RfA. Meanwhile, don't accuse me of amking incorrect statements, I haven't been wrong yet. Your misunderstanding of how we do things is the problem at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You say you haven't been wrong yet? How's that for hybris? Your misunderstanding of how we do things has been a problem for a long time. >Radiant< 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I assure you, that hasn't been my problem. WP:KETTLE, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Jeff, I have repeatedly gotten the impression that you believe Wikipedia to be a bureaucracy, in which everything has to be done by rule-bound processes. I would agree with Radiant that this is a fundamental misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Then you've repeatedly and fundamentally gotten the wrong impression. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • Jeff, I'm open to that. Can you help me understand better where you're coming from? I hope you know I'm open minded and willing to listen, and please note that I didn't characterize my impressions as anything more objective than my impressions. I just don't understand your use of the WP:KETTLE above. It seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that you're saying that Radiant misunderstands how we do things here. Can you say how? It seems to me that Radiant has a pretty good grasp of how policy is actually developed here, and it seems to me that you have an excellent grasp of how you think policy should be developed, but that you are prone to asserting that what you want to be is, in fact, what is. Now, apparently I'm wrong. I would be delighted if you'd help rectify that by saying something more constructive than "you're wrong". Like, please teach me how I can be right instead. Where are you coming from, if not from a desire that Wikipedia be more rule-bound? I'm all ears. Can we please communicate? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (New indent) My use of WP:KETTLE is an admitted dig at Radiant - he's used it toward me before, and I used it toward him because of his allegation that I don't know how things work around here, which is patently false and probably the reverse. He doesn't understand how policy is developed. I'm interested in what is, and Wikipedia is somewhat bound by the policies and guidelines we've set forth. They're fluid and ever-changing, but we do look to them for guideance, we do appeal when they're not followed, and we often reprimand people who do not follow them, IAR be damned. It is what is. Now, this specific essay? Completely useless, totally divisive, advanced mainly, before Radiant decided to rock the boat, by two people who have since relinquished their bit due to abuse, and this essay not only allows for, but promotes, abuse. We've been through this a million times by now, and there's no community consensus for this to be a guideline or policy, and the essay tag stayed here for months with no complaint. Add it back and move on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if we both claim the other does not understand how policy/guideline works and/or how it's developed, we could easily find out which one is right by comparing how many policy/guidelines were created or effectively amended by the two of us. Seems fair, no? >Radiant< 09:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • We could, but it wouldn't say much. I'm usually busy writing articles rather than policies/guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT black.... WP:NOT white....

• • • • • • Ok, I'm hardly the most outside observer, but I've worked with both of you enough to have noticed some stuff. Radiant has ideas about how policy is created here, Jeff has ideas about how policy is created here. There are examples supporting both. It's clear to me that the "truth", as usual, lies somewhere in between. Is a zebra black with white stripes, or white with black stripes? Our policies and guidelines are somewhat prescriptive and somewhat descriptive. Wikipedia is somewhat rulebound, and it's somewhat laissez-faire. When we state that it is one way or the other, we're stating an ideal, and ignoring the negative space where our ideal is not (yet?) attained. I do it, too. Radiant and Jeff are clearly two valuable Wikipedians, whose contributions - to articlespace and to projectspace - would be sorely missed if they vanished.
          • I submit that arguing over who understands Wikipedia better is at least two steps removed from the constructive topic at hand, which is.... at least two steps removed from writing an encyclopedia. Can we have a truce? Can someone create a .gif that just changes from a guideline tag to an essay tag to a custom tag to no tag at all every thirty seconds, and all walk away? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I think everyone is being way too friendly in this topic. I'm disappointed in you all; I would have expected for the participants to be bickering and tossing cute shortcuts at each other by now. Perhaps all parties involved should take a break; hopefully after everyone takes a few deep breaths, we can resume this conversation with some hostility simmering just under the surface. I think if we can stop addressing the issue in a neutral and non-emotional way, we'll finally make some headway on this particular issue. Sound like a good idea? EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC) (sarcasm? what's that?)

What is this?

This may seem like a stupid question, but what is this? I was not aware that this was yet offical policy, and as such should it not have a proposed policy tag on it? Could someone who know what this is mark it so new editors, and some more experienced ones too, do not get confused with whatever it's not. Thanks, --Flying Canuck 20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You've just arrived at a point of minor turmoil. Check back in a week or two. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is mu. It's not a stupid question, but I don't think there's an answer to it. Not every page has to be pigeonholed as "policy", "guideline", "essay", "proposed policy", etc. I would even suggest that focusing on the "status" of such pages is misguided. Others will disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. To make an ironic statement, there is no policy that indicates that all pages in the Wikipedia namespace need some kind of tag on top. If we cannot agree on the tag, we don't use a tag. It's not an essay since it's actionable (WP:POL). It's not a guideline because some people disagree with it. It's not policy because we already have WP:IAR. And it's not a proposal because it isn't new and has been here for a year. If it isn't any of those, that's not a problem, since we're not a bureaucracy. We can call it a "clause" or a "corollary" or a "page" or an "idea" or somesuch, none of which needs a tag. >Radiant< 10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We apparently agreed on a tag before you came along. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please point to evidence of where this agreement was reached. >Radiant< 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The complete lack of wikidrama for the three months the tag was there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that silence implies assent? >Radiant< 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on how long a silence we're talking about, I would think. If you don't show up at a hearing about your house being demolished to build a mall; you can't complain three months later that you weren't given a chance to voice your side. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite clear to me what this is by ruling out what it is not. It is not a policy or a guideline as it has not been autorised by consensous. So really, it depends on the fundamental question of would you like this to become offical guideline or policy to decide whether it is an essay or a proposal. I don't see how it is "actionable" since it's not a policy or a guideline then you can't enforce it or refer to it in your edits. (as I understand the process, if someone has an alternate definition of "actionable" please explain) Consensous is needed, and as I see it it has not been obtained. There may be cases where a "thing" does not fit one of the pre-set categorys but this does not appear to be a case where that is the case.Radiant, could you explain how it actionable under WP:POL I don't see anything there that says that. P.S. I will add something to the page saying it is not an offical policy or guideline until this discussion concludes. --Flying Canuck 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Flying Canuck, you seem to be assuming that it must either be policy, guideline, proposal, or essay. I'm not sure why it has to be one of those. Why can't it just be a page in the wikipedia namespace?

You also seem to be assuming that a concept must be an official policy or guideline in order to be "actionable". I just think of actionable as meaning that it makes sense to act based on it. That makes it different from WP:NCR, for example, which doesn't imply any particular action, except maybe coming down off the Reichstag. It makes grammatical sense to say, "closing discussion per WP:SNOW," but not, "closing discussion per WP:NCR". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands at present, it looks like it has been worded up to look like a policy, when it is not. It doesn't state that it is a policy, but more implies that it is (weasel words), by inherently linking itself to WP:IAR and "stemming" from it. Far better to avoid confusion and state this with the essay tag. Or, maybe simpler, reword the opening paragraph severely. --PopUpPirate 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It may look that way from where you're standing, but not everybody's standing there, and we do encourage people not to stand there, in the place where everything looks like a "rule" or a "violation". It's a bureaucratic way to think, and not necessarily the most appropriate way to think of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however if anyone wishes it to be policy a means to do so should be allowed. It seems it was origanly meant to be policy through being a clasue of WP:IAR. It seems to me that this doesn't really work. It's such a spin off and new idea that it isn't really a clause but a new idea based on IAR. Cheers, --Flying Canuck 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't originally meant to "be policy", but was created by people who weren't hung up on whether or not something is "official policy". There is certainly a set of people at Wikipedia who prefer to think of our "rules" as simply being recordings of the best common practice. Noting that Snowballing is, according to many, sometimes the right thing to do, someone wrote it down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet this argument is occurring, and with regularity, so I see no reason to avoid clearing up the status now by making a proposal. Dekimasu 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a bad thing that this argument is occurring. This talk page reflects the true state of Wikipedia: we're suspended in a dynamic tension between different ideas of Wikipedia's relation to policy. Our arguing here is just Wikipedia thinking aloud, chewing on this particular idea and helping people develop their ideas about how policy should work here. Because of this argument, nobody can use WP:SNOW as a trump card, but people can try it out, and other people can argue against it in various contexts. That all strikes me as quite ideal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anyone changing their minds. We have a page that is protected because people can't decide if it is an essay or a policy. At the end of the chewing, there will still not be a way to resolve the dispute unless SNOW is proposed. That would also draw many more voices to the discussion. In the meantime, people are able to use WP:SNOW as a sort of trump card - it allows them to avoid saying IAR (see my comment at the bottom). Dekimasu 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

O

u

t

d

e

n

t

...ing. Ok, I think you mistook where I'm coming from. I'm saying, first of all, that dynamic tension is a Good Thing. You seem to be assuming that the question of how it's to be tagged needs to be "resolved" by adding some tag. What I'm suggesting is that it gets resolved by people agreeing that it's a silly argument, agreeing to live without a tag, or with some custom tag, and then arguing each case based on its merits. I don't see that people are allowed to use SNOW as a trump card. Can you cite an example of that? If someone cites SNOW and you think they're wrong, explain why it's a bad idea. Argue your case well, and people will listen to you, not to some acronym. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Argue your case well" ...that is true in some contexts. However, people who cite SNOW are usually acting to summarily end debate, and thus are not interested in hearing your reasons for disagreeing with them.

My belief that there is something that needs to be resolved stems from the fact that the page is protected. Edit warring isn't the same as dynamic tension.

As for the trump card... I look at the archived deletion debate above, the one that was SNOWed at 3-0, and wonder what the reaction to it would have been if it was IARed at 3-0. Individually we may want to express opinions that are similar to SNOW. However, for an administrator to cite SNOW instead of explaining the merits of the case seems contrary to the epistemological argument you are making about things being what they are. Dekimasu 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, you'll notice, advocating that administrators cite SNOW. In a year of admin actions, I don't think I've ever used it, and when someone does use it, if I'm involved I'll generally argue aloud against it. Administrators, if they're going to cite SNOW, shouldn't expect such citation to stand without justification, simply based on the fact that they're using an acronym to state their rationale. In such cases, their having cited SNOW simply provides a jumping-off point for debating the merits of early closure - as long as people aren't blinded by arguing from a procedural perspective, and forget to argue from merit.

You're right about edit warring being different from dynamic tension, which is why I'm bothering to type right now. I think the edit war should be resolved by people agreeing that we don't need to worry about templates, because Wikipedia isn't template chess. Then we can unprotect the page and people will be happy with no tag at all, or with some custom tag, or whatever.

Finally, for every person trying to summarily end a debate, there are generally six demanding an explanation, and if those six include people who don't fethisize rules, then they'll argue back based on the merits of the case, and they'll be heard by someone. The best way to deal with stubborn people at Wikipedia is to go get more people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Thread-wise, is there any way you could please leave that whitespace just under this post? Whitespace before outdents makes these convos much easier to deal with in the edit box. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Trying to make a policy based on Ignore All Rules (which is a meta-policy at best) is a bit like trying to discover the state of Schrödinger's cat by using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You end up back-to-front and no better than when you started, IMO. The snowball clause is an essay elaborating on a principle that deigns to be addressed as a policy. -- nae'blis 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting this is, or should be, policy or guideline. It is was never intended as policy (to my knowledge), and it clearly isn't policy, because everything that is policy clearly indicates it is policy. However, essays these days include many arbitrary pages that are just some random user's opinion, and "essay" has gained the connotation that such pages are irrelevant. Not everything fits in the pigeonhole, and there is no reason why we should think every single page in Wikipedia namespace is an essay, guideline or policy. >Radiant< 09:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What is it then? Because if it isn't an encylopedic article, then it should be tagged --PopUpPirate 11:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever gives you the idea that everything that isn't an encyclopedic article should be tagged? Certainly we have no policy indicating such. >Radiant< 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a nothing page then, nonsense that should be deleted --PopUpPirate 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So everything must either be tagged or deleted? If we don't have a category for it, then it's nil, noting, nonsense? What a strange idea. Why not just let it be a page that we sometimes argue about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't understand your edits. You say this should not be policy or guideline but the way it is currently written strongly implies that it is policy so it is important that something be added saying that it is not policy so new editors are not confused and people stop citing it in there edits. Why did you remove my template which didn't even say what is was just what is wasn't and referred to the talk page and the few words in the opening paragraph saying it is not policy added by Popup Pirate? [1]If you agree that it is not policy, why can it say that it is not policy in the article? I also don't understand your reason for this not being an essay. Are you arguing you don't want it to be an essay only because "essay" has a negative connotation? I, and possibly others, do not disagree, (or agree), with your saying "Not everything fits in the pigeonhole" but it has not being proven that this does not. --Flying Canuck 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I quite fail to see how this page implies it is policy, considering that all our pages that are policy have that fact written down in bold clear letters at the top of the page, and this one does not. >Radiant< 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this, I see no harm in restating the obvious (especially if not everybody agrees it is obvious), and have put back a statement to this extent. >Radiant< 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay

My biggest reason for believing the {{essay}} tag is appropriate is that this was the accepted tag for quite a long while. My own personal reason is that readers of this page need to understand that this is in no way a routine practice (or at least, it's not something that should be routinely practiced with this page being cited as an excuse). The essay tag communicates this in an easy to understand way. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this once on this talk page before, people would use this rational and even the phrase "a snowballs chance in hell" even if this page never existed. Do you understand that? It's basically a page that says "use common sense" and does so very well. This is so bizarre, to think people are pissed off because a page does not have a tag. A tag, any tag, will have zero effect except fuel more pointless debate on this talk page. A tag will not change whatever past discussion that caused you people to get pissed off at this page. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Without a tag, this page looks kinda policy, but it's not - you term it a rationale. (It's vague enough that one can't apply it to anything without elaborating on the whole idea.) And saying that "snowball's chance in hell" is an obvious non-policy doesn't make sense - "ignore all rules" may well look like an obvious non-principle from a newcomer's standpoint. There needs to be something to keep this from being "cited" as if that would be sufficient for anything but the most obvious cases. —AySz88\^-^ 08:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I fail to see this need. Putting a tag on this won't stop people from citing things incorrectly. Like I said, putting a tag on this page has little to no actual effect on it's use. I can recall situations where people have incorrectly cited this, and it had little impact or someone explained to that user how WP:SNOW didn't actually apply. Will this really solve anything? -- Ned Scott 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• To Locke, I should point out that the page was "stable" with no tags for a longer while. People above say they want to use the tag "essay" to prevent this page from being used. First, that doesn't actually work; second, it's not what the "essay" tag is for. CAT:E contains a lot of arbitrary opinions by whomever wanted to write one. This page is not somebody's opinion. >Radiant< 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop them, no? Discourage it, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to discourage incorrect use of WP:SNOW is to respond to it when you see it, explaining why, in that particular situation, early closure is a bad idea. Arguing that it's a procedural gaffe is likely to get you ignored by many, but explaining from the facts of the particular case why early closing is actually a bad idea in that reality will probably (a) convince more people that you're right in that particular case, and (b) make them think twice the next time they think of applying WP:SNOW.

I can't think of any reason that it's better to argue against SNOW from a procedural point of view (it's not an "official policy"; it's "out of process"), than from a common-sense point of view ("An early closure of this controversial debate is likely to generate more controversy than it will quell, per these examples, etc.") -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that applying WP:SNOW always results in the generation of more controversy than it quells. What is a more clear consensus: a debate that ran 5-1 and was SNOWed before someone with a good point could join the minority, or a debate that ran 25-1 in which no valid objections to the majority viewpoint were raised over the full length of the debate? Dekimasu 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you don't have to convince me of this. I'm generally the one arguing that early closure is a bad idea. I just don't argue it based on what I think is the "status" of some page. I argue it based on reality.

Cases where SNOW comes up don't tend to look like 5-1 versus 25-1. It's more like deleting something after 2 days, with 42 people saying "delete" and 26 saying "keep", or after 5 days, with 71 saying "delete" and 58 saying "keep", where most of the keeps are socks and meats brought in from some posting elsewhere on the 'net. The amount of heat generated on such pages is, in itself, a bad thing.

In such cases, which are generally clear policy-wise, but involve some popular topic and a bunch of people who just don't care about policy, SNOW is invoked as a way to end the nonsense. I'm not saying that's a good thing - just that it's the reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know we are more or less in agreement, but it still seems to me that people who actually close debates have a greater responsibility than other editors to maintain the boundaries of policy, even when they disagree with the policy. Architects may enjoy painting in their free time, but they can't paint their blueprints. Dekimasu 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Strikethru because you've made it clear that we aren't talking about administrator use. Dekimasu 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion behind the discussion?

Thinking about it and after taking a break for a day, I think that there may be an argument behind the argument. Could it be that the real discussion is whether this 'thing' is policy or guideline because it is an extension (in some people's views, an interpretation in other's) of WP:IAR. Those who think this is an extension/interpretation the view it as actionable, but not policy or guideline because it was never reached through consensus ans stems from another policy. Then there are those who feel that making extensions of policies is a slippery slope, or that this is not a valid extension of WP:IAR and therefore want an essay tag. Below please find a table I tried to create to give this idea a visual feel. Please not that not everyone may fit perfectly into one of these categories, I just made it to explain what I am trying to say visually. Feel free to edit the table if you have something to add. But if it isn't what I am trying to say please don't be offended if I separate it from the original table.

Valid Extension	Extensions should not be allowed	Extensions should be allowed, this one goes to far	"Extension" and "No Extension" are just words
This is not a policy or guideline. (not reached through consensus) Is a clause/idea/thing built into WP:IAR so, is actionable/citable/policy. Is not an essay because of above point and does not fit into one of the categories.	This is someone's interpretation of WP:IAR and should not be actionable/citable/etc. Is an essay. May not agree with the idea of SNOW.	This is someone's interpretation and application of WP:IAR, but detracts too far from the original thus is an essay. Feel free to change this argument into anything else.	This simply is what it is. Sometimes people cite it. Sometimes, others argue against them.
Shows up in "tag argument" as: No category	Shows up in "tag argument" as: Essay	Shows up in "tag argument" as: Essay	Shows up in "tag argument" as: Mu

So, we should really be talking about this than about the stupid tag. Oh, and I fit into the "no interpretations/extensions" camp. OK, Happy New Years everybody!--Flying Canuck 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Still protected, I see. However, this can reach consensus. My personal feeling is that there isn't a problem when editors call WP:SNOW in deletion debates. It's like kids asking for dessert. The problem is that grandma is giving it to them. Administrators know that this is not current policy, and yet some still close deletion debates with "per WP:SNOW". It reinforces the idea that SNOW is policy, and it is itself policy creep. Why open the door to policy creep?

If this is just an essay, it should be labeled an essay. However, if there's anyone who thinks it should be policy (and it's clear that they exist), it should be made into a proposal. That is, basically, propose it, and discussion of the proposal can end this debate.

As it stands, this is whitewashing of terminology. Of course WP:IAR has its applications, but there is a perception that pulling the IAR card in Wikipedia debates is similar to pulling the Hitler card in other contexts. IAR is often a fallback for editors who have lost an argument outright, but really wish they could have their way. WP:SNOW doesn't carry that baggage. How soon would we start to hear extra complaints about cabals and administrator bias if admins routinely closed debates early with "per Ignore All Rules"? Dekimasu 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how calling it a "proposal" is accurate. I don't know who's proposing that it be made into a policy. It's just a page describing a rationale that some people act upon, without care for how their rationale is labelled on some shelf somewhere. That's Ned Scott's point, I believe. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point was just to clarify its role. If it is widely applicable, and really foolproof when applied properly, why shouldn't it be policy? Conversely, if voted down, then wouldn't that make it clear it shouldn't be cited? At any rate, I believe that was my first post on the page and I may have been fuzzy on the scope of the debate. Dekimasu 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy: either it's "widely applicable and really foolproof when applied properly" or else "it shouldn't be cited". The first is a tautology - of course it's foolproof when applied "properly" - and the second implies a misunderstanding of what's going on when it's "cited". If someone cites WP:SNOW, they're not deriving authority from its "status"; they're just explaining "this is what I'm doing now". It has nothing to do with official status. It's an informal rationale for an action. IAR says that we can go ahead and do things that make sense, whether or not there's appropriate red tape in place. This is just one way that people do that. It doesn't need red tape.

To "clarify its role" - it's a reason that people sometimes cite for what they're doing, and as always, you can disagree with that reason, if you think it's wrong. If you disagree on procedural grounds ("SNOW isn't policy"), you're likely to be ignored, but if you provide real-life reasons that early closure is a bad idea ("closing early will create more drama") then you're likely to be heard. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, Flying Canuck, I dispute the idea that things that aren't "official" policies and guidelines aren't "actionable". People act, based on reasons. Sometimes, WP:SNOW is a good description of the reason they used, and then it gets cited. Not all reasons have to be grounded in some "official" so-and-so - Wikipedia is not that kind of activity. If you disagree with a person's reasons, argue against those reasons, not against the supposed official status of those reasons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"This simply is what it is" sounds a lot like the pre-November wording of the essay tag. "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline." Dekimasu 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of, except "essay" carries its own raft of connotations around here. If it's tagged as an essay, then people will respond to it by arguing about essays in the abstract, and how they're "just someone's opinion", and we'll be two steps removed from reality, again. Without a tag, or with some custom tag, those involved can forget about tags and get back to the merits of the case in question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You all still miss the point, completely. This won't help you, at all. You could delete this page and people will still be asking for speedy closes in obvious situations. I don't see how doing something here helps that at all. When I reference WP:SNOW, I do so because it contains an idea explained that I agree with and that I think can be applied to the current situation. It's the phrase "A snowballs chance in hell" explained when applied to Wikipedia. I'm also shocked at how many people don't give credit to closing admins to use their brains. There's almost always someone who uses some absurd argument in a deletion debate, but that doesn't mean the closing admin is dumb enough to let that screw with the outcome (it might happen, but in a minority and would apply to all incorrectly used arguments, not just SNOW). Go ahead, put whatever tag you want on this page, it doesn't matter. What a waste of time this has all been. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in adding a tag, beyond trying to resolve the current dispute. My point is that one user's opinion about the location of the snowball is not relevant. If one user thinks the debate is resolved, that is not grounds for the debate to end.

The problem is that people do not use SNOW simply to mean "a snowball's chance in hell". In reality it is often used preemptively to mean "my side is winning, so end the debate early". Can you find me one example of a time when someone has said "I disagree, but this is SNOW"? Dekimasu 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've actually disagreed with the majority but supported a close. I'll try to find some links if you want. You are trying to solve a bigger problem by doing something here. While this was tagged with "essay" did the use of WP:SNOW decrease at all? If there's a problem, ok, but you're putting bandaids in the wrong places. This won't help anything, because the problem lies with those incorrectly using arguments, not which arguments they are using. A tag is not a solution, because it won't do anything. -- Ned Scott 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ned is entirely correct. People were doing what this page describes before this page was written. People should base their arguments on what this page actually says, not on how it is allegedly abused. It is fact that Wikipedia doesn't follow bureaucratic procedures when that is not necessary. You can disagree with that fact, but you cannot change it by changing a description of that fact. >Radiant< 10:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that evreyone agrees this is an essay. (pre November tag, see above) However, some people don't want to add it because it carries negative connotations. But, it also seems to me that evreyone agrees that the tag won't change the use of SNOW. So, why don't we add something like an essay tag (or an essay tag? Cause, if the tag won't change the use, then why do connotations matter? --Flying Canuck 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest with you, I don't give a crap if it's called essay or not. Like I said, I'll still use it the same way I've always did, and so will everyone else. However, we shouldn't be using the essay tag to address a problem that isn't here. I'm so tired of people trying to discourage ideas and basic concepts by tagging the pages that describe those ideas. All sorts of bad things happen then, like instructions creep and nitpicking at statements endlessly, totally missing the point. It gives the wrong impression about where the real issue is, and validates incorrect assumptions. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're using it at all, there's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to prove that? I cannot speak for the misuse by others, but I can speak for myself. We don't have to wait and waste time because someone might find some slight possible reason for some piece of shit article to be kept. We should not come to a crawling stop every time some fanboy says "I think this 50k article about Batman's collection of decorative toilet seats is notable". You are trying to fight an idea by attacking this page, it won't work. No one will be discouraged from using WP:SNOW by putting an essay tag on it, but we shouldn't do it because you demand it. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not an uncontroversial use of this. There may be times it snuck through without people commenting, but that doesn't make it uncontroversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping my eye out for an example of what I think is good use of WP:SNOW, and I almost forgot one so recently that it's an AfD still in progress, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Naruto. As you can see the argument for speedy started on the 3rd, but the AfD is still up and... oh surprise, no new arguments. Thank-goodness we let this one sit through process, I'd hate to think we'd be missing a precious Naruto article. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to speedy it. That would be controversial if it closed before tomorrow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're shitting me, right? You're saying it would be bad to speedy delete something where a fan just pulled some word out of his ass and wrote an article for it? We're volunteers, and we don't have all the time in the world. If we stopped and had some full bureaucratic discussion every time someone wanted to do something, then Wikipedia would not work. I'm sorry, but I think I've lost all respect for your position on this matter. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be bad. And no, we don't have all the time in the world, but we don't have a deadline, either. No one's saying have a "bureaucratic" discussion every time someone wants to do something, I'm saying that if it doesn't meet a consensual standard to do something faster, then you don't do it. The principles behind WP:SNOW when it comes to AfD discussions in particular have been soundly rejected when specifically proposed, and I'm sure that's for a reason. Otherwise, why have CSD limits, for instance? Lose respect for my position if you must, but at least show a basic understanding of it if you're going to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"I'm saying that if it doesn't meet a consensual standard to do something faster, then you don't do it. " the only keep support was from the author, in the example I gave. Whenever I have used WP:SNOW it's been in a situation where consensus is pretty much clear, but just not reestablished for that exact situation. Of course, controversial AfDs should run a full course regardless of support, but that does not mean all uses of WP:SNOW are bad. You are taking a totally unnecessary extreme position on this situation that does not reflect the actual situation. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As consensus can change, and the community has been rather clear as to when a discussion period should be cut short/avoided altogether, I don't think I'm being extreme at all, nor am I misrepresenting any actual situation. There is no such thing as a good use of this essay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll quickly repeat my stance, which I don't think fits in this framework of focusing on SNOW's connection to IAR. I think there needs to be something that prevents people from citing this as if it were self-encapsulating - as opposed to things like the speedy deletion criteria. CSDs, for example, are mostly self-explanatory, while this needs some extra explaining (since people tend to cite this where it doesn't apply). The "essay" tag makes it obvious that citing SNOW isn't sufficient to apply to specific instances; some custom tag might work too. The page's connection to IAR doesn't really come into my particular argument. —AySz88\^-^ 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Per - people citing something doesn't in any way imply it is self-encapsulating. >Radiant< 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about....?

Okay, I don't think we are getting anywhere with the above discussion. I've tried to make a template that respects the views of evreybody. Feel free to make any suggestions/changes. I just used a standard {{notice|}}template with text inside since I can't do magic with templates like some. If you don't care what goes tag on the article, then please don't restate that here, then no one can tell if consensous for a template has been agreed upon by people who do care.

("talk page" is actually a link to here so it's bold) What do you think? --Flying Canuck 06:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still take issue with using any message to attack this page, just because some editors are upset about a basic and fundamental idea. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I'm not trying to attack the page but solve the problem with something evreyone agrees on. If you don't like it then, please, change it. --Flying Canuck 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to repeat myself: "any message" and "All sorts of bad things happen then, like instructions creep and nitpicking at statements endlessly, totally missing the point. It gives the wrong impression about where the real issue is, and validates incorrect assumptions." The harm doesn't necessarily come from the wording of the message. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does an essay tag count as "any message"? A guideline tag? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The page as it is now states it's not policy (which is restating the obvious, imho, since it doesn't say anywhere that it is policy). The point is that both an "essay" tag and a friggin' big "OMG this is not policy!!1!" tag have either the purpose or the net effect or warning users not to do this. I'm sure that some people will see a guideline tag as the opposite, of encouraging people to do this.
• Now to compare the two we should look past all the unsourced allegations of abuse, and look at what the page actually says. It says that process isn't always needed. Well that's a no-brainer. You can edit pages without process. You can move pages without RM. You can (un)protect pages without invoking RFPP. None of that is problematic. It is alleged that this page is used to shut people up, but apart from the fact that the page doesn't anywhere near say that, it's not actually possible to shut people up on a wiki (except by blocking, and then they go sock). Ned Scott is entirely correct that this is simply a basic idea. Why encourage bureaucracy? >Radiant< 10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, since we will never get consensus to add any tag. Will people consider making it a proposal. Then it can either reach consensus and it's clear what it is or it's rejected and it doesn't matter. (This is actually Dekimasu's idea, I agree with them completely, see above) It would be helpful if people were open to compromises as well, obviously nothing is going to work out 100% for you, so please settle for 50%, not being open to a middle ground just stalls the discussion and gets us nowhere. I will try to be open to a middle ground too, OK? --Flying Canuck 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as it is now, with the non-policy statement in place. I'm also happy with IAR as it is now :D Happy days! --PopUpPirate 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since we will never get consensus to add any tag, the easiest answer is to not add a tag. >Radiant< 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• When did the consensus for the tag disappear, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mu. >Radiant< 12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Exactly my point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Per WP:SNO.. oh wait.. -- Ned Scott 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • *puff of logic* nae...