Wikipedia:Snowball clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended as a guide to a specific application of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

Some people do what is described below rather often. Other people aren't always happy with that.
Think carefully before you take actions described on this page and please explain the thoughts behind your actions when you do.

Shortcuts: WP:SNOW WP:SNOWBALL

Snowballs

The "snowball clause" is an interpretation of the Ignore all rules policy that stems from the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the desire that editors exercise common sense. 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.

For example, if an article is speedily 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.

[edit] What the snowball clause is not

Hell. Note the complete absence of snowballs.

An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy.

[edit] The snowball test

This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as snowballs in hell is not an absolute[1][2],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 Wikipedia to make a point.