Meta talk:Snowball

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Allow 'snowball' closures for obviously unsucceeding requests[edit]

The discussion that was carried out at makes me think that we should maybe amend this policy in the sense of allowing snowball closures for requests that are obviously and undoubtedly not going to pass. Putting up for discussion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely should be allowed. --Herby talk thyme 10:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the need for this. --MF-W 10:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd first see if there is a way to separate some requests as spurious, therefore invalid, therefore closed not under SNOW but instead under other rules. I've used that approach on RFL requests. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meta is a space used for many different processes with different audiences, some of which may not be used to "snowball closures". I don't think it's possible to identify any clear-cut criteria in general for which to allow snowball closures. As StevenJ81 notes, this still leaves room for more specific processes to have other ways to close requests. --Nemo 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. The point is that the rigorous interpretation of this rule makes it difficult for me or other bureaucrats to close obviously nonsensical or not-going-to-happen-like RfAs and the like as StevenJ81 mentions. Perhaps common sense, but that is always controversial. In any case, I don't think this is a priority right now. Fortunately there are not many instances of having to early close, which I'd say could be covered by IAR if not happening too often. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, part of the issue with many of these things is that so many processes on Meta are defined extremely softly. That's probably not a bad idea, usually, given the nature of what happens at Meta. Still, consider that the notional policy for global RFCs says, "Requests for comment that are inactive for more than 2 years [emphasis added] can be marked as closed due to inactivity." There must be something available that's slower than SNOW, but faster than 2 years. In my view ...
  • If a discussion is so egregious we can't suffer it to stay open even for seven days, then there will almost surely be some legitimate grounds on which to close it earlier.
  • If a discussion is at least a month old,[1][2] closing it cannot be considered in any way a "snowball closure". Even in situations where we would generally keep things open a long time here to make sure everyone gets a chance to comment, one (or two) month(s) is plenty of time for people to have looked. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Stipulation: it has been publicly announced appropriately.
  2. Or two months, if you want to consider that some people disappear on vacation for a month at a time.