Forum:I like Wikipedia's Snowball Clause

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > I like Wikipedia's Snowball Clause

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6196 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I just came across something beautiful on wikipedia, the Snowball Clause. I'm not suggesting we explicitly implement it, mainly because I already follow a less stringent version of it, one that's a lot like wikipedia's Ignore all rules rule. Actually, I probably should have titled this article, "I like Wikipedia's Ignore all rules rule". So yeah, rules are for suckers and people with poor judgment. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see kind of what you're saying. What think you're getting at here is not having to throw total vanity crap articles on VFD and take them straight to QVFD. If im wrong there, maybe the power to take a failure of an article off of VFH right after its nommed because it will never get featured on Uncyclopedia. But then again you could be talking about having this years annual snowball fight in Hell. I'n not entirely sure which.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but then you have to be prepared to have someone else do exactly the same thing, ignore all the rules and undo what you just did. I think it's more of a "when the rules wouldn't work or apply for this particular case, use common sense". When you find an old VFDable article, it's a rare case that VFD wouldn't do the job, so skipping it should only be in exceptional circumstances (old attack article, say).

I don't actually see much use for IAR that here though, seeing as our only rules are "don't be a dick" and "be funny and not just stupid". Everything else is just an established procedure most people are happy with, that you can be expected to not have to follow if the situation needs it. Some crazy people might call that a rule, but we don't, so that's okay. Snowball is mostly just an excuse to decide something with the illusion of democracy before more people can have a say. So basically, we should do what we always did: do what we always did, unless common sense says we shouldn't. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:23, 28 Nov 2007

Actually, I was pretty much saying that I'm going to keep on doing the right thing. The rest of you should probably abide by the rules unless you are sufficiently certain that an admin will have your back on a decision (if it's crap removal, you've probably got me behind you). --Sir gwax (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the whole Idea is to speed up the deletion process and save peoples time voting on articles which have no chance of surviving in VFD. My comment on the matter would be that if something like this were to be done (sending something straight to QVFD rather than sending it to VFD) then the person doing it should be obliged to "Take additional measures". By additional measures I would suggest things such as:

1. It would need to be VERY bad before being considered.
2. The user should have a really good look at the article history. If it's not been edited for ages its probably not going to be, so would be more of a candidate for QVFD.
3. If a currently active user has made significant contributions to the article then they should be contacted, and given a chance to fix it up.
4. If it still looks like it's a "Snowball QVFD" then a decent comment should be put on the QVFD tag stating what was done to attempt to "save" the article. (perhaps signed by the person who put it there?)
5. The admin could then judge if a "fair" effort had been made to save the article before huffing.
6. Using QVFD for "Obviously" inappropriate articles, and not doing the above (or similar) should be treated harshly by the admin who could act accordingly.

I guess this might mean more effort for admins (perhaps), but would hugely (I think) speed up the deletion process. Because of the extra effort involved in the "Snow Ball" QVFD it would deter those not bothered to do the required homework. Those who did not follow correct procedures could be dealt with accordingly. Just my 0.5 pence... MrN  Fork you! (02:06, Dec 5 2007)

I like those guidelines. BTW, thats normaly what I do before listing an old article on QVFD. Well, not the tag saying save the article, but the rest of it seems right. If we impliment this, or start alowing it in some way, which we have, these should be the rules used, carved into stone and read aloud to all the users in an ancient roman esque way. --General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel like this is a good time to mention my incredibly deep, relaxing, melodic voice. In elementary school I was voted "most likely to narrate a documentary". Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much how we already handle QVFD or, at least, pretty much how I handle it. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)