Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 1

message: Hmmm well. It's fine as an essay, an opinion. If it were to be a guideline... I would have an issue with the example of an article being speedied out of process not worth being restored if it has no chance in AfD... 
#That would create a de facto CSD of "Has no realistic chance of surviving an AfD, in my opinion". The problem with that is that the person's opinion is often right, but fairly often wrong. Happens a lot. 
#If this is happening, the solution is to reform CSD (as happened recently to include nn groups) rather than to speedy individual articles. 
#Subject to abuse by a disengenuous rogue deletionist. 
#Process shouldn't (usually) be ignored and if it is the consequence should not (usually) be that the person ignoring the process gets their way anyway. Herostratus 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older comment 

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

message: The term "has a snowball's chance in hell" is ambigious because the more common idiom in Britain, for instance, is "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell."  As a compromise I've inserted the following, which I think is less ambiguous:
: If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell 
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just in Britain; in fact, in America (or at least my corner of it), both has a snowball's chance in hell and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell are seen — with, amusingly, equivalent meaning: no chance at all. I've gone ahead and changed this (since it seems to have been changed back at some point). I don't think I've altered the intended meaning thereby.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idiom

message: This page belongs on the meta-wiki, if anywhere. 
-Ikkyu2 -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could almost say that it should be moved because it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming official policy? :) Turnstep 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki

message: Both the clasification and point of this article confuse me. As to classification, it's named as a Wikipedia: article, but its not policy or guideline or a proposed policy or guideline (at least, its not stated as such on the page). So what it is? I'm not making a point, I actually just don't know.
As to the point, it now has two small sections, each of which basically contradict the other. A minority rebuttal is OK, but this is basically two equal sections.So I'm not sure what purpose its serving.
Anyway, besides all that, I'm not seeing a huge amount of support for the whole thing... which makes sense to me. While the basic sentiment is unexceptionable, it's solving a problem that either doesn't exist or is minor -- after all, most people just stop voting on an RfA or AfD that that's running at or near 100% either way and has sufficient votes, so what's the problem with letting it sit a few days until closing. And on the other hand its just too subjective to be sitting out here, it could be misinterpreted or misused, especially when we are already having issues with some people accepting the need for a process at all...
All in all, I think this ought to go into userspace, or essay space. Does that make sense? Herostratus 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could almost say that it should be moved because it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming official policy? :) Turnstep 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now what? 

message: An editor added this:
:Attempting to cite this as if it were policy leaves you open to ridicule by those who can a) click a link and b) read.
I recast it into these terms:
:Citations of this essay should be taken as a shorthand expression of the citer's personal opinion and not be confused with citations of official or proposed policies or guidelines.
I don't really think that the passage is necessary, given that the preceeding paragraph basically says the same thing. I would not have added it and I (personally) wouldn't object to its removal, but at any rate the more formal tone is better, IMO. Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't becuase is misses the point. People are citing this as if it were policy and it is time they stopped.Geni 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they citing it as policy or as just shorthand, a pointer to a expression with which they agree. Also, everything that goes on this page should be mirrored on Wikipedia:Process is Important IMO. Herostratus 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP: extension, at least in my mind, implies policy or guideline.  A see it over at DRV a lot, where people mention WP:SNOW as if it has any sort of bearing on anything in reality. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then your interpretation of WP: is mistaken. People regularly create new essays, suggestions, hopeless proposals etc etc and give them a WP: shortcut. It is no way a statement of officialdom of any kind and never has been. -Splashtalk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

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

message: So, once again, this is being misinterpreted as policy.  It's happened over at WP:DRV a few times, I've seen it mentioned at WP:AFD, and it's slowly becoming an excuse to ignore process in relevant discussions.  This helps nothing, even though it's clearly stated that it's not policy.  Should we get rid of it so people don't refer to it as any sort of relevant guideline or policy, proposed or otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion as an alternative to education? No. -Splashtalk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Educating what, exactly?  That process isn't relevant?  That people see no need to achieve anything by consensus if they believe there's "a snowball's chance?"  This doesn't disturb anyone? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Educating people that, if they cite it as policy, they are mistaken. Making the link red won't stop people invoking the spirit of the page, nor in some cases the letter. -Splashtalk 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: *SNOW is unlikely to become policy for the reasons above. Anyway, speedy and prod seem to working OK, and every other article deserves its day in court. Articles which have 25 simple "delete" votes from experienced editors don't really need any more comment. However, something like:
"If, in the opinion of an admin, an AfD has been running for long enough to get a very clear idea of where the debate is headed, and that debate has been attacked, pushed off-topic or otherwise disrupted, that debate can be closed. Debates where the  template have been applied or where the creator and / or one or more users with a vested interest in the article have made multiple posts displaying a clear ignorance of WP procedures could be candidates for closure under this rule."
...would surely be useful and far less contentious. Deizio 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because this page is not a rule, policy, guideline or anything. Thus adding new rules to it (which we don't need anyway) would have no effect. I don't see the hurry to close such AfDs anyway. What's the point? It'll only result in a deletion review and a repeat performance over there. -Splashtalk 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is that such attacked / disrupted / off-topic / personal etc. AfDs (that are obviously heading for keep or delete) become divisive and get people worked up over nothing. They are also more likely to see newcomers bitten which can scare off new wikipedians. The "very clear" is to prevent this going to deletion review - as admins would probably not want to get dragged into something controversial at DRV by closing a truly contentious - rather than noisy - debate, then this would be kind of self-regulating. Obviously, SNOW is not policy or a guideline so I'm not advocating "adding" to it, just floating an idea on a talk page. Deizio 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about...? 

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

message: The featured essay tag is used in the most important and commonly cited wikipedia essays. The essay WP:SNOW is cited often in various discussions in Wikipedia and the mailing lists. It's even sometimes used at AfD. That's why I've used the featured essay tag. It does not claim universal consensus, so please don't remove it just because you personally disagree with the essay. Loom91 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup and things it has been used for have failed to be upheld at deletion review. If you want this as policy stop trying to do it through the back door.Geni 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Since no one except me seems to be bothered to discuss the matter at the talk page, I'm reinserting the template. Loom91 05:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't the only one who feels that this is not policy. Uses of this at AfD are not defacto policy by practice, no matter what people say, however, the use of the featured essay tags makes it look authoritative, which will make it harder to convince people of its lack of practical value particularly at deletion reviews, where it is totally out of scope to use. Ansell Review my progress! 06:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template explicitly states that it isn't policy and is informal. Moreover, it is not an assertion of whether or not the page is "right". You yourself say that the page is used a lot at Deletion Review, which means that IS quite popular. I personally disagree with its use in serious situations, but that doesn't stop it from BEING cited. The tag is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The only thing it reflects is that this page is a ppular one, for better ror for worse (for worse, I suspect). Do you still object to its inclusion? Loom91 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The template has been changed. Now it's  rather than . This is to remove any connotations of peer review or prescriptiveness. I hope this is sufficient to conclude the debate. Loom91 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is wrong with essay?Geni 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Like Ignore All Rules, the snowball clause is just common sense. There is indeed no absolute common sense, but common sense inside some given context *does* exist. Here the context is the software environment, as well as guidelines we've figured out ourselves. Kim Bruning 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People used to claim that "common sense" said wikipedia would not work. They now claim that "common sense" shows that wikipedia will colapse soon. Common sense is not a logicaly valid justifaction for anything.Geni 10:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does the distiction need to be made.Geni 11:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To piss people off. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not out to piss people off but provide an organisation for essays that are used frequently. I don't see why anyone needs to get pissed off about this, I'm not making this into a guideline process. Loom91 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured essay 

message: This is yet another in the long list of corollaries to Be Bold. Whatever happened to avoiding instruction creep? If somebody nominates a page that will never get deleted, just close it as speedy keep and redirect the discussion to the article's talk page. And, of course, let others be bold if they disagree. 
So, should we redirect this to WP:BOLD? Zocky | picture popups 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are... not so smart Kim Bruning 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this policy goes further than WP:BOLD, which mostly refers to simple edits. This page is focused narrowly on deletion decisions and their effect on the community. Ansell Review my progress! 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...although, a clause on this page about "not being reckless" would not do any harm. Ansell Review my progress! 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Am I the only one who can see the "Don't freeze yourself" section, which basically screams at editors not to abuse WP:SNOW as has been done so many times? Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I think not, it's a corrolary to existing rules, after all. Kim Bruning 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which one? IAR is not a rule, common sense has not place in logical approaches and it goes far beyond Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.Geni 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't quite parse that? Kim Bruning 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rule is it a corrolary to? I was just dealing with all the claimed cases in the opening sentance.Geni 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for one, Ignore all rules is a rule... but true to form, no one agrees under which header to put it. :-P  Let me think about the rest later. Kim Bruning 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this policy if used according to the boldness with which CSD is used will actually use more time and resources on useless debate than if it were not used as a justification at all. Notably, and perhaps I shall write an essay on this, the fact that non-admins cannot see content once deleted, causes one to act in ignorance to keep with WP:AGF. A higher level of transparency as to the exact nature of actions may infact avoid many DRV's, which will inevitably come from even slightly controversial SNOW deletions. Ansell Review my progress! 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Policy? 

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

message: In this edit I have changed the current formulation:
: If an issue raises no controversy, and therefore doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
to the earlier formulation:
: If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.
This is because there are certain proposals that, while they may not stand a chance of being accepted by a process (for instance, an attempt to revive the pedophilia userbox) would nevertheless cause a lot of controversy if the process were extended to its full length.  This is very much the kind of situation where we'd want to invoke the snowball clause, to prevent a forest fire. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we should never want to invoke the snowball clause, as it only acts as a divisive measure and often ends up stretching out a short process longer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have something to contribute to the discussion here or do you just enojoy complaining? As far as I can tell you haven't offered anything new for a while, and it doesn't appear that your argument has convinced anyone. At this point it appears to me that if you're looking for divisive you need look no further than yourself. --Gmaxwell 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's necessary.  Try being a little civil sometime, and assume some good faith.  I want to improve the encyclopedia, and this does not - "snowballed" actions by various admins this week, for instance (see Wikipedia:Conservative notice board) have only shown to prolong otherwise clear and relatively quick processes.  Maybe I should include a list of out-of-process snowballs that demonstrate how divisive the essay is and how it only seeks to extend a process that may very well get the same result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the wording on controversy.  While it is certainly tempting to try and avoid controversies by going straight for the inevitable outcome, it seems to me that it would rarely be wise to do so; controversies, even those of the tempest-in-a-teapot variety, aren't going to go away just because we short-circuit the processes that they've generated.  Invoking this clause in a case like that will only cause arguments that might otherwise have been resolved by letting their processes run to the inevitable result instead spill out onto userpages, WP:AN, and so forth. --Aquillion 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of original formulation

message: I've removed this because it doesn't seem to be particularly applicable to the snowball clause at all.
: Don't freeze yourself
: One of the major rationales for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong. If we had an infallible person, there might not be any need for process; as we don't, there is. Furthermore, potential contributors would like to know that their contributions were entering into a space where some rules and some process do exist. Aborting process may eventually send good contributors away.
: However, the snowball clause may prove to be helpful in delineating where process should and should not apply. The snowball clause does not necessarily (but often does) assume that an action is obviously the right one: rather, it assumes that nobody will undo that action if it is taken. If the action is undone, then the original assumption was wrong, and process should take precedence. However, if it is not undone, then the action taken must have been the right thing to do. In any case, the snowball clause — when applied rationally — may often prove to be helpful in determining when to be bold and when to wait. If interpreted in such a way, the snowball clause tends to be a good rule of thumb that should help increase discussion where necessary, while reducing time wasted in redundant discussions.
: It should be made clear that there is nothing wrong with making the wrong assumption. Rather, what is wrong would be making that same assumption again even if little has changed. The snowball clause is not equivalent to ignoring all rules. Instead, it is meant to encourage boldness in taking action where it appears that the course to be taken is clear or has been agreed upon, and meekness in the case that the action has been undone. Should an action you have made under the snowball clause be undone, take it as a sign that more discussion is needed and that the wiki process is working: after all, if we didn't expect people to make mistakes (and honestly admit them) once in a while, we wouldn't be using a wiki to build an encyclopedia.
: This spirit can perhaps be embodied in the following post from the English Wikipedia mailing list:
::The thing is, you've got to be prepared to accept that what you're doing may not be the Right Thing and, if so, be willing to apologise.  And Right/Wrong isn't binary: it's a spectrum from Wrong Thing to Right Thing and you can be 90% Right and still be causing legitimate editors to complain because you didn't get spot on.  That's where "my ideals were right, but it lacked something in the execution" comes in.
::And to make things more complicated, sometimes (but not as often as we're led to believe) the Right Thing can only be achieved by following process, lest we get 10% Wrong by pissing a legit editor off ...
The reason for this massive removal is that it doesn't seem to have anything useful to say about the snowball clause at all.  Radiant! introduced this clause, and it's seen its most productive use, as a way of short-circuiting pointless, slavish adherence to process to the detriment of the encyclopedia. To add to it a homily praising the use of process seems unproductive.  That homily can be placed in another essay, or added to "Process is important". This essay is too important and widely used to be freighted with duplications of other essays. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff that seems to have strayed in from another essay entirely

message: I have removed the following statement:
: Keep in mind as well that, often, the full process may take a shorter amount of time and less protest to produce the desired result than "snowballing" the process. 
To me, this is obviously untrue. It's a rather puzzling addition.  Could someone explain it? --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, Tony, I had you in mind when I wrote it.  Often, if you just let something go through an *fD, or actually find a legitimate speedy keep/delete process, the timetable for those processes take less time than the ensuing discussion, appeal, and gnashing of teeth that the out-of-process closing of a discussion can achieve.  So, instead of snowballing and then dealing with a week long appeal at DRV after an AfD has been open for a day or two, just let the AfD run its course and the offending article is gone faster than it would have been if you abandoned process.  Not always, of course, but often.  If we're going to keep this flawed, divisive essay intact, we may as well make it clear that the processes that are being considered for abandonment might actually be the better option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above is a good argument for truncating the review process.  It is not a good argument for avoiding the application of this clause to "no hope" matters such as the Conservative notice board". --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The review process is absolutely okay.  The abandoning of the review process because an admin thinks s/he's a psychic is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Even a single hostile and unreasonable editor can always cause a discussion to be drawn out needlessly.  This doesn't mean we should let them hold us to ransom. This clause can be invoked at any point to deal with such filibustering, and in practice it's proven very useful for just that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And every single admin action can easily be handled with the processes in place.  I don't get this response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While it may be annoying if a discussion goes on for a long time, I think it's mistaken to refer to this as a failure of the Snowball clause.  If our procedures really do take too long in the case of a challenged snowball then we  always have the option of agreeing to shorten them in such cases if that is really thought desirable. Whilst I haven't done a rigorous check of al invocations of this clause, in my experience it is rare to vanishing for the clause to be invoked and then, upon challenge, an end result opposite of that expected by the snowballer ensues.  This suggests to me that the clause is probably being properly used, so it would probably be unwise to put language into the essay that might deter its appropriate use or encourage inappropriate challenges by emphasizing the possibility of inflicting further delay. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely a failure of the clause.  Because the clause is invoked, it causes further strife, thus taking longer to accomplish.  Look at all your early closes this week, Tony.  Even if your desired result comes about, it's going to take longer because you felt that invoking this nonsense was more important than going along with policy.  It'd be a much more productive use of your time to help get the speedy keep criteria changed than to continue to use a clause that has absolutely zero chance of becoming anything more than what it is now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of a puzzling statement

message: This page has never been particularly stable over its six month history, I'm not sure saying it (or Process is Important, to be fair) has a "long tradition" at Wikipedia is very accurate. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so bad really, because any addition of such stuff automatically gets a placement in WP:PI to maintain parallelity. Herostratus 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, so it's an arms race? -- nae'blis (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, or a race to the bottom. Either way, it's only fair and right. Herostratus 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "long tradition" = 6 months? 

message: #When this article in invoked to justify a speedy close, the amount of time and effort saved can be measured with great precision: it is exactly zero. There is no gain - none - in closing an AfD early. Calendar time is free. There is no advantage in trolling recent AfDs looking for early close candidates when there is always a backlog of expired AfDs to close.
#When this article is invoked, at least in spirit, in speedying articles (usually articles that don't meet any CSD), the amount of damage done cannot be measured precisely, but is far from negligible. I would say from experience that about 10% of articles speedied and deleted are worthy of being kept, and thus their loss is a loss to the Wikipedia as whole.
#[redacted over-the-top comment (sorry)] It's Antwerp. Antwerp is an arrow pointed at the heart of the Wikipedia. Sorry.
That is all. Herostratus 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An arrow pointed directly at the heart of Wikipedia 

message: I don't consider speedy deletes to be easily undone, at all. A speedied article gets read by two people (in theory; sometimes only by one, I think) and its just gone. There's no AfD discussion to call attention to the deletion and to refer to. The article content can't be accessed so (with no AfD discussion) it's quite difficult to tell if the article actually met a CSD (as about 10% of articles nominated and deleted via speedy do not, in my estimation). You have to dig up an admin Assuming that the deleting admin properly removed all incoming redlinks, there's no easy way to tell if the article even ever existed. 
True, I haven't seen WP:SNOW explicitly cited in speedy nominations or deletions (although it certainly could be), but its spirit stalks the 'pedia and appears to have entered the the minds of some speediers. Herostratus 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to have a list - it's done often. There might actually be a few listed in the archives here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easily undone? 

message: Re "This is possible on Wikipedia because, unlike many other environments, most actions are almost as easily undone as they are done"... would it possible to make a list (for the article) of which actions are and which are not easily undone? This would be helpful in knowing how and when to invoke the article... So far I come up with:
*Easily undone: edits, moves, placing of cleanup tags, PRODding
*Not easily undone: speedy deletions, hurtful remarks
I'm not sure where other actions fit on this list... Herostratus 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "easily undone" came about the fact that we can click a button and it's done. In reality, the actions usually consist of the SNOWing admin not liking being questioned, and subsequent DRVs/AfDs and other things coming up, thus making it an uneasy undo. So yeah, it's tough to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List needed?

message: After the photo of snowballs, it would probably be informative to have a photo of hell, wouldn't you agree?  ;)  Kasreyn 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as you can see  in older versions, there was an image... but it got taken out at some point. The page is shorter now but perhaps the image would still fit.--W.marsh 02:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo needed 

message: You've seen WP:SNOW, now check out WP:STEAM :) Haukur 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you want your water frozen or boiled? 

message: Let's see... is this actionable? Yep. Is it endorsed by consensus? I'd say it is - despite having a few vocal detractors, it usually works when applied. I'd refer people to the essay at Product, Process, Policy for an explantion why "process wasn't followed" is not very convincing if used as a sole objection to anything.
I believe it would be reasonable to add a paragraph with some examples of when snowballing might not be appropriate. But other than that, it's a fair guideline. Endorse. >Radiant< 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I agree with a word of this, honestly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I'd like, if I may, to address the idea that, since WP:SNOW is invoked more often than WP:π (if it is, which I assume is so), therefore WP:SNOW reflects community feeling more than WP:π. Nothing could be further from the truth. WP:π is invoked by inference every time process is followed. One doesn't say "Per WP:π, I am now closing this AfD in the normal manner" "Per WP:π, I am allowing this DRv to run its normal course instead of closing it early in a fit of pique or impatience" ", and so forth. That would be unnecessary verbiage. 
But, you know, one could do that. If necessary, I could start droping a WP:π reference into my edit summaries and encourage other editors to do the same, as well as dropping in on random discussions to note "Per WP:π, I won't be cutting this discussion short, bye!" or whatever. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Herostratus 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to "enforce parity" by removing all tags from certain other project pages, I will not revert you. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever that means. I see that your response was to delete WP:π with an edit summary of "Process is an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia." I'd call you to task for this on your talk page, but of course as usual you'd delete it unread, so. Are you trying to start a revert war or something? Sheesh lighten up, will ya? Herostratus 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain your purpose in making this edit?  Your edit seems merely to be a sequence of minor personal complaints that don't seem to relate to this page at all. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wanted to express my dismay at your deletion of Wikipedia:Process is Important. I can't do it on your talk page with assurance that it won't just be erased out of hand with an insulting edit summary, so I have to do it somewhere public, this being as good a place as any. So: I'm dismayed! Don't do that! Herostratus 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humorously, you don't have a WP:SNOW of this discussion being relevant here. Or, seriously, WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Or, humorously, we can invoke WP:IAR and smack elec with a trout for excessive use of policy shortcuts. WP:WP. WHACK WHACK WHACK. Electrawn 11:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:WOTTA Kim Bruning 12:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put that trout down! Electrawn 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there 

message: Surely this is either an essay or a guideline? It used to be simply an essay, and there doesn't seem to be the necessary consensus to make it a guideline, so that would seem to keep it as an essay... —Ashley Y 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it's Wikpedia policy, but to avoid unproductive edit warring it's probably better not to tag it.  Let's just leave it as it is. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it Wikipedia policy? —Ashley Y 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR is, unfortunately, policy.  People like to use this asinine essay as a "corrollary," but this essay itself is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And where is the logic in demanding that we create more Official Rules in the name of Ignoring All Rules|? Seems bizarre. —Nate Scheffey 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak with intelligence.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes of course it is.  Wikipedia policy is what Wikipedia does. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought we had agreed to have no tags to avoid the pointless controversy, but then for who knows what reason, Tony decided to put it back up there. To calm things down I guess. —Nate Scheffey 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have done nothing of the sort. Please check the edit history. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did something of the sort. You should have taken the essay tag off if it offended you so much. Changing it back to guideline was not smart. —Nate Scheffey 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: You beat me to it, but the "consensus" was based on a different understanding. Since some people continue to refer to this as "de facto policy," it seems to me that an essay tag is necessary to clarify that it, in fact, is not. The agreement to have no tags came from the understanding that this wasn't going to be referred to as anything, from my point of view. Perhaps I was mistaken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag should stay imho. If a page is a "defacto" policy/guideline then there should be no pussyfooting around the issue. Tag it as such. (→Netscott) 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: De facto policy here means that people act in ways described in the document, whether or not it's marked as such.  We've been routinely closing processes on this basis for months, even when it was marked as an essay.  Thus it was then, and is now, de facto Wikipedia policy. Neutral point of view would still be policy even if it were marked as an essay.  --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you were doesn't mean it was correct or proper, thus the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipiedia policy is what works.  The written stuff is just an attempt to document it.  --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Opinions change over time.  Mine, for instance.  Indeed the latest nomination for deletion was closed as a keep...per WP:SNOW ! --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm aware of the result of the latest MfD, I voted Keep during the nine minutes it was open. It's absolutely fine that your opinion has undergone a complete and total reversal in two months, but that doesn't mean everyone's has. Let's see what others think, ok? —Nate Scheffey 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Let's try to make a guideline out of this. I think if we try to identify the main problems and possible abuses of this, and give appropriate weight to them in the text, we might be able to come up with something everyone can agree with.
Unless of course you think nothing should ever be snowballed. —Ashley Y 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe "nothing should ever be snowballed".Indeed, I think SNOW works well at what it's most commonly used for, closing deletion debates where the outcome is painfully obvious. However, as I've stated several times elsewhere on this page, I see no advantages in elevating it to a Guideline, only dangers. —Nate Scheffey 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Uh, there's a Guideline tag on this now? Gee, I didn't know if was even proposed... oh well. Naturally WP:PI has a guideline tag now also, so I guess its all the same. Herostratus 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline? (2) 

message: So should this be made a guideline?
* Don't know —Ashley Y 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it isn't one.  And it probably shouldn't be one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unofficial. How does labeling a specific example of Ignoring All Rules as an "official" rule make sense? —Nate Scheffey 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False dichotomy again.  First-time visitors don't necessarily have to get the impression that it's a separate rule, but they also shouldn't get the impression that SNOW has no basis in policy.  --Interiot 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: Whether or not this is a guideline cannot be feasibly decided in a straw poll. For now, everybody please lay off revert warring over the tag. >Radiant< 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't delete people's comments. I think we can at least see if there's consensus for adding a "guideline" tag to this. —Ashley Y 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to establish consensus, only to see if one already exists. —Ashley Y 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a noble attempt, but this entire talk page already does that; you can read people's opinions in their comments. By the way the question you poll for is slightly flawed (see above). >Radiant< 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've about had it with the voting-is-evil stuff. Look at the world around you. Who are the people against voting? Fascists and their bootlicking toadies. Dicatators and their simpering lackeys. Bullies and blackguards of all stripes. Granted that this is business, also an organization based partly on common good will and discussion and all that (but where voting certainly has a place also. Anyway I feel about the same reaction to seeing WP:EVILVOTE on my screen as I would to seeing WP:EVILJEWS or whatever. As a democratic republican they both stick in my craw. I'd suggest a less inflammatory shortcut name, at the least. Herostratus 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Godwin's law. >Radiant< 08:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheap shot. —Nate Scheffey 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non sequitur. >Radiant< 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? —Nate Scheffey 11:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony. >Radiant< 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a democracy. We make discisions based on discussion and consensus. The general consensus is that in most situations voting hinders rather than helps. You are free to create a different shortcut if you want, but that doesn't change anything. Thryduulf 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No straw poll