Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean, in all cases, or are you thinking of a particular example? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This deletion of this page, I assume. —Ashley Y 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I wouldn't go quite as far as Gene Nygaard, but I suppose there was an argument for letting the snowball melt specifically for the self-reflexivity of the case. On the other hand, it was a second nomination and the first one had run properly. —Ashley Y 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Singlemindedly proved why it would make a terrible policy. --PopUpPirate 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abuse of process

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
Please vote as you see fit, thank you! --PopUpPirate 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do things like this, all it does is waste people's time.--SB | T 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Note that IAR can be done without consensus as well (eg. a majority consensus forms at Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: I don't see how any of Jimbo's actions could fall under IAR. —Nate Scheffey 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: One could argue that the Rdsmith edit section above shows BDJ supporting IAR. OMG! -- nae'blis 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Listed for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (17th nomination).  --Interiot 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SK #5. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of a recently added codicil

message: Closing discussions that have a patently obvious outcome, or declining to run things through process simply for the sake of process are uses of SNOW that I can support. Ending controversial discussions because Tony Sidaway has decided that the people who disagree with him are "jerks", "dicks", "trolls" or part of a small "rump" I do not support. SNOWing a controversial discussion will make things worse every single time. Whether there is one person or five in the minority view, they are going to be pissed off that the discussion was ended early. The resultant personal attacks, ANI posts, "cool down" blocks, and general drama will greatly outweigh the benefits of an early close (whatever those are). Sorry to personalize things, but I believe Tony has a knack for inflaming situations, and I think that disregard for diplomacy is what we are seeing here. If we want to fix SNOW and streamline it into the useful tool it should be, we need to firmly agree that it is not to be used for ending debate.  —Nate Scheffey 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, that exact reasoning, was what motivated me to create Wikipedia:Reduce confusion by following policy, not as an antithesis to this page, but as a way of avoiding the ruckus that ensues when this page is used in non-unanimous discussions. Ansell 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two wrongs don't make a right though --PopUpPirate 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Then, quite frankly, you're not paying attention to Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 >Radiant< 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: The point is, SNOW lends itself to abuse. This week it's Tony, next week it's someone else. —Nate Scheffey 11:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: re 'Go open an RFC or something' - would only get reverted per SNOW.--PopUpPirate 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Is this another attempt to force it into being policy, which of course it isn't? --PopUpPirate 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get this straight 

message: *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 >Radiant< 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The point is, SNOW lends itself to abuse. This week it's Tony, next week it's someone else. —Nate Scheffey 11:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: re 'Go open an RFC or something' - would only get reverted per SNOW.--PopUpPirate 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Is this another attempt to force it into being policy, which of course it isn't? --PopUpPirate 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: : 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)
replies: text: Tony, are you a dadaist, by chance? -- nae'blis 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have?  That's a new one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Then you haven't really been paying attention to my objections.  Read back a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitrary subheader 1

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have not described meaningful discussion as "filibustering". You are aware of this.  --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitrary subheader 2