Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball clause

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. — May. 23, '06 [00:48] <freak|talk>

[edit] Wikipedia:Snowball clause

This page is consistently used and abused all over the wiki at this point. The essay lacks any sort of consensus support, yet it is consistenty invoked in deletion discussions, RfAs, and among DRV as having any sort of weight in the discussion. On a personal note, I believe it a) insults and belittles those of us who'd like to make an effort at improving things, regardless of an early "snowball's chance in hell" of anything changing, b) violates, semi-ironically, our typical reluctance to engage in so-called "crystal ballism" in articles by predicting the future in situations that would otherwise be governed by policy, and c) ditches policy in an attempt at a quick fix, as opposed to working toward a workable consensus in many areas of the wiki, such as working together to help articles meet various guidelines in a deletion debate instead of invoking WP:SNOW since it, allegedly, doesn't have a snowball's chance. I know I'm making absolutely no friends by adding this to MfD, but I don't think that's the point here. Enough of this. If it passes, the wiki is better off. If not, no one will hear me bitch about WP:SNOW again. badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The policy has intentions that are good if followed. It promotes Be bold, however, it should never be referenced in a deletion debate or review as any sort of reason. It will be clear in the relevant cases whether it applies or not. Ansell Review my progress! 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Policy? Essay? Guideline? Proposal? This would be easier to discuss if it didn't change (it seems like) every day. But that's Wikipedia for you. --W.marsh 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that this really just restates WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Historically those involve some personal responsibility. Rather than blaming the page they cite, perhaps we should deal with people who ignore process and hurt the project... because that's not WP:SNOW at all to cause damage by skipping process. But calling for responsibility is easier said than done. This is a complicated issue that I fear will turn into a pile-on vote any second now, sadly. --W.marsh 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can honestly say I've seen absolutely no possibility of good coming from this, even though I have little doubt that intentions are pure. It's divisive and it promotes preordained results over consensus-building. That's dangerous, and when cited as a rationale for action, is even moreso. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a shame that the debate about WP:SNOW could turn into an ironic statement of wikipedian ideas. Disclaimer: I am not saying this inflame any currently existing tensions. Ansell Review my progress! 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I just hope no one cites WP:SNOW to close this mfd early. I think that would just cause the servers to explode. --W.marsh 02:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes yes... how would an artificial intelligence be programmed to be able to accept its existence as its reason for its demise. Ansell Review my progress! 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My reasoning has been laid out clearly many times on the talk page of WP:SNOW, but I'll try to summarise it briefly here: as W.marsh says, this is a restatement of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. The difference is that the page (as it stands) lays out limits on the application of WP:SNOW. I find it perturbing that we might not take terrible issue with one who cites WP:IAR or WP:BOLD as a rationale for their actions, but that we ought to with a person who cites a page telling you point-blank that if you're reverted, you ought to let process take precedence. If the issue is with people abusing the snowball clause, then the remedy is to take them aside and talk about it. As the page itself points out, if nobody is willing to undo your action, you did the right thing. Most decisions I've seen carried out under WP:SNOW (or at least the principle behind it) have not been undone; badlydrawnjeff either seems to look only at the wedge cases where people abused WP:SNOW, or just has a personal vendetta against the idea of people citing WP:SNOW. Either way, there is no real reason to delete this page. There is no substantial evidence that it is in the aggregate detrimental to Wikipedia, or that it forms the basis of a slippery slope which might lead to such a demise. Johnleemk | Talk 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Travb.2FTactics_of_some_admins_regarding_copyright] shows what happens when people pile on votes solely using this criteria, leading to a total agreement with people ignoring the consensus model of XfD's. Because of this it should not be allowed on deletion discussions, pulling every one of the people who use it as their reason in a deletion review is not practical. Ansell Review my progress! 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I can ascertain, a good number (~2/3rds?) of those arguing that it be kept deleted aren't citing WP:SNOW or anything close to it. And as for those who do, I'm not convinced that they're in the wrong. This isn't a pile-on; it's people giving their own personal interpretation of events. Without WP:SNOW, the same people would still say pretty much the same thing in such debates, while those of us who apply WP:SNOW to other things would lose a page that explains our views very well. I remember people saying something along the lines of "Maintain the status quo, even if we redo process the result will be the same" (perhaps with less bombastic diction) before WP:SNOW became popular. Also, remember that DRV, etc. is just one page; we can't let the 1% of wedge cases define policy or convention for the 99% of ordinary and uncontroversial ones. Johnleemk | Talk 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  It may seem like a strange thing to say, but in this particular case, are the 1% worth people using this policy as a reason in the other 99% of cases, or would the other 99% simply sit on the table for their deletion debate period and be peacefully deleted at the end without the policy ever having an influence. Without the policy we could reduce the confusion that comes from the false positive deletions, or rushed deletions. What is the rush to get things deleted in less time than policies state. Ansell Review my progress! 03:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly reasonable non-policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm still undecided about whether the essay is a good idea or not. It is certainly popular but it does seem to be used as a replacement for actual thought at times. And the process wonk in me gets very uncomfortable whenever it's used. But whether it's a good idea or not, it's too widely linked to be deleted. If we ultimately decide that it's a bad idea, tag the page as {{rejected}} or {{historical}} but it must be kept. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd hate to think its unfortunate citation in a number of discussions it didn't belong would be a roadblock to removal, honestly. My two cents, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided. I wonder if the creator ever intended people to war over whether it was a policy or not... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 04:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an essay describing a current practice. --Carnildo 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an essay, not even a guideline. The essay itself can not be held accountable for its abuses. Loom91 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet there seems to be no avenue for taking those who use it falsely to task. The problem, unfortunately, is the essay. No essay, less of a reason to continualle act out of process. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Procedurally, Speedy Keep, it should be kept historically - too many links in past discussions would become nonsense. On the question of content, I think the content has value, so keep on that level as well. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. On basic principle, I never cite WP:SNOW because it is usually used as a way of circumventing process when there should be an open hearing where people should be given a chance to voice their opinions and be heard. But this is an essay, is frequently cited, and as such, should not be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW (sorry, I just had to).  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A useful essay; if others mistake it for policy, that mistake is theirs. Certainly, like any respected wiki-essay, it may be cited in discussions; however, because it is neither guideline nor policy, it carries little weight when rebutted. Xoloz 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I will note that no one has really addressed the crux of the issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, this is well grounded into policy: How to create policy states that ideal policies should "have sprung up organically, not imposed from the top down". If it is being cited that much, it must mean that it is an idea that resonates with many individuals. Additionally, this is a restatement of WP:BOLD, and most of all, WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If users restricted its usage with a bit of common sense, there wouldn't be any problems; if they don't, well, go after them, not after the idea. Perhaps the fact that there's broad usage of the essay mean that there is some sort of consensus behind it? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable essay; really it's something of a guideline as it describes a lot of existing (correct) practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Christopher Parham. Computerjoe's talk 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and invoke WP:SNOW for reasons of self referential irony and the fact that this is a useful essay and anyone who mistakes this as policy or even a guideline is mistaken. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sometimes Gordian knots need cutting. Sometimes process should be bypassed. The lines keep moving (as is perfectly right and natural), and admins who mindfully and judiciously apply WP:SNOW help keep track of where they move. If admins abuse this clause, that's an argument for dispute resolution with those admins, not for killing the essay. Especially since it says: "If the action is undone, then the original assumption [of no controversy] was wrong, and process should take precedence." -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't violate WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kelly Martin. --TantalumTelluride 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. As with everything that relies on human judgement for an apropriate application, the proper use of WP:SNOW assumes a rational element and a will not to overstep the rights of others. Therefore, the fact that this clause is sometimes abused lies in those that make such abuse it, not in the clause itself. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per WP:SNOW. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.