Illerai:Snowball clause

This is an essay.

It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Old School RuneScape Wiki contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

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 Old School RuneScape Wiki 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 Requests for deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. In the case of "controversial" speedy deletions, creating a single RfD for the page may be the better course of action, as opposed to having two or more editors war over the page.

What the snowball clause is not

An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Old School RuneScape Wiki 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 wiki is not a bureaucracy.

The snowball test

Hell. Note the complete absence of snowballs.

These "tests" can be applied to an action only after it is performed.

• 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 the wiki to make a point.

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).