Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:46, 10 April 2008 editNewbyguesses (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 edits move wikilink upp from see also sectt.← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:50, 10 April 2008 edit undo75.57.165.180 (talk) →The snowball test: RS Scientific citation supporting the possibilityNext edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	==The snowball test==		==The snowball test==
	This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience.		This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed as snowballs in hell is not an absolute, and is thus useful for learning from experience.
	*If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.		*If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
	*If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to ].		*If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to ].

Revision as of 16:50, 10 April 2008

Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

]
WP:SNOWBALL

The "snowball clause" states:

If an issue doesn't even 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.

The snowball clause is not policy, but it is designed to prevent editors from using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as a filibuster.

For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. In the case of speedy deletions, it may be observed that a single AfD may reduce confusion instead of a unilateral decision not to obtain the traditional sample of community input on the issue. (See also: Speedy keep)

What the snowball clause is not

An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Misplaced Pages community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Misplaced Pages policy.

The snowball test

This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed as snowballs in hell is not an absolute , and is thus useful for learning from experience.

If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point.