Forum:CT Archive/Two weeks for TC discussions?

One of the suggestions in Forum:Disputed Trash compactor closing was that we should discuss the rules for the "Trash Compactor", formerly the "Votes for deletion" page, more clearly. One rule some of us have been following was that admins should wait two weeks before declaring no consensus and closing a TC thread. However, the closest we can come to a policy defining this is Wookieepedia talk:Trash compactor, which Darth Culator points out isn't much of a foundation for a binding policy, since there were only six people speaking on the issue, two of whom wanted less than two weeks, and two of whom haven't been editing lately.

Personally, I like two weeks as a guideline, but we frequently close TC threads earlier than that when (a) consensus is reached early (like when a questionable article gets ten users speaking for deletion within 24 hours), or (b) multiple options have been suggested (e.g. "delete", "keep", or "merge"), no consensus is formed around any one of them, but one option is clearly the least popular choice. In the (b) case, I personally think we are best served by closing the TC thread, then quickly starting a new one to see if consensus can be built after eliminating the least popular options. We also often let TC threads go on for more than two weeks, but I think this is more due to forgetfulness than anything.

Anyway, I'll write a proposal below. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly Dan's proposed "two week" policy
Trash compactor discussions should, in general, last two weeks.

An admin may close a TC discussion earlier, if clear consensus has been reached in favor of keeping the article in question, deleting the article, merging two or more articles, or any other proposal advanced in the discussion.

If consensus is unclear, admins should wait at least two weeks before closing the discussion with a result of "no consensus." A "no consensus" result will default to keeping the article.

Admins may also close a discussion with a result of "no consensus" after less than two weeks, providing that the admin closing the discussion quickly starts a new TC discussion with a different or more clearly defined set of options which, based on the first discussion, are more likely to lead to a consensus.

Agree with Silly Dan's "two week" proposed policy

 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Perhaps there's something I'm missing from this. If so, this space can be used to propose alternate policies. Please note, first off, that I have not attempted to define consensus. This is still something left to the individual admin, plus any other admins or users who the closing admin might consult on IRC or on talk pages. In the past, though, I haven't run into anyone complaining when an admin interprets "approximately 2/3rds in favour" as "consensus or near-consensus." &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)