Misplaced Pages

:Snowball clause: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:57, 9 April 2008 editLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,894 edits definitely an essay :P← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:40, 1 November 2024 edit undoRandy Kryn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users284,584 edits Moved a section detailed what the snowball clause is not (since the page is about the snowball clause the first section probably shouldn't be what it isn't) 
(232 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:SNOW|the snow sports WikiProject|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding}}
{{essay|]|WP:SNOWBALL}}
{{Supplement|interprets=] and ] policies|shortcut=WP:SNOW|shortcut2=WP:SNOWBALL|shortcut3=WP:SNOWCLAUSE|shortcut4=WP:SNOWCLOSE|shortcut5=WP:SNOWCLAUSE|shortcut6=WP:SNOWCLAUSE}}
]
{{Nutshell|If a process only has a ''snowball's chance in hell'' of success, use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake. But if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.}}
The "'''snowball clause'''" states:
⚫ ]. Note the complete absence of ].]]
The '''''snowball clause''''' is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise ] and avoid ]y, ] behavior. The snowball clause states:


:''If an issue doesn't even have a ] of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.'' {{quote|If an issue has a ] of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.}}


The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the ]), but the article has no chance of surviving the ], it would be pointless to ] the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again.
The snowball clause is not policy, but it is designed to prevent editors from using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as a ].


The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.<ref> (Dilbert comic strip 2003-07-05)</ref> The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.
For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the ] but it would almost certainly be deleted via the ] process anyway, there's little sense in ] it. In the case of speedy deletions, it may be observed that a single AfD may ] confusion instead of a unilateral decision not to obtain the traditional sample of community input on the issue.


==Avalanche==
⚫ ==What the snowball clause is not==
{{shortcut|WP:AVALANCHE|WP:SNOWPRO}}
⚫ ]
Sometimes the support for a proposal is so overwhelming or so obvious that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing. Such proposals may also be suitable for SNOW closure, with the same care and considerations that apply to that of failing proposals.
⚫ 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, ].


==The snowball test== == The snowball test ==
This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as the lack of snowballs in hell is not an absolute,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aip.org/png/html/snowballs.html |title=Snowballs in Hell |website=Physics News Graphics |quote=reported by Schwegler et al., in Physical Review Letters, 13 March 2000 |publisher=American Institute of Physics |url-status=dead|archive-date=27 September 2012 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20120927150144/http://www.aip.org/png/html/snowballs.html}}</ref><ref> David A. Paige, , ''Nature'' '''369''', 182 (19 May 1994); {{doi|10.1038/369182a0}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Toynbee|first=Paget Jackson|authorlink=Paget Toynbee|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2MoNAAAAYAAJ&q=bottom+of+hell%2C+where+it+forms+the+frozen+lake+of+Cocytus&pg=PA535 |title=A dictionary of proper names and ...|publisher=The Clarendon Press|year=1898}}</ref> and is thus useful for learning from experience.
This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, 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 ].

== A cautionary note ==
] to be conducted in full.]]
The snowball clause '''may not always be appropriate''' if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are ]; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.

The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous.
⚫ == What the snowball clause is not ==
{{shortcut|WP:NOTSNOW}}
⚫ 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, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. However, ].


==See also== ==See also==
⚫ * ]
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages-Snowball clause.ogg|2007-02-01}}
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] (A satirical essay lampooning the snowball clause) * ], an RFA-specific application of the snowball clause
] * ]
] * ]
* ] (a satirical essay lampooning the snowball clause)
⚫ ]
* ], antithetical Meta policy on Snowball
{{clear|left}}


==References==
]
{{reflist}}
]

]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 09:40, 1 November 2024

"WP:SNOW" redirects here. For the snow sports WikiProject, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding.
This is an explanatory essay about the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules policies.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcuts
Explanatory essay
This page in a nutshell: If a process only has a snowball's chance in hell of success, use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake. But if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.
Hell. Note the complete absence of snowballs.

The snowball clause is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states:

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.

The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again.

The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks. The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.

Avalanche

Shortcuts

Sometimes the support for a proposal is so overwhelming or so obvious that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing. Such proposals may also be suitable for SNOW closure, with the same care and considerations that apply to that of failing proposals.

The snowball test

This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as the lack of 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.

A cautionary note

Sometimes, the fate of the snowball may not be immediately obvious and predictable until it has actually been placed in the infernal conditions. This calls for an experiment to be conducted in full.

The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.

The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous.

What the snowball clause is not

Shortcut

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, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Misplaced Pages policy.

See also

References

  1. A Lucky Snowman (Dilbert comic strip 2003-07-05)
  2. "Snowballs in Hell". Physics News Graphics. American Institute of Physics. Archived from the original on 27 September 2012. reported by Schwegler et al., in Physical Review Letters, 13 March 2000
  3. David A. Paige, "Chance for snowballs in hell", Nature 369, 182 (19 May 1994); doi:10.1038/369182a0
  4. Toynbee, Paget Jackson (1898). A dictionary of proper names and ... The Clarendon Press.
Categories: