103:
142:
neutral and uninvolved position. If multiple users are involved in a sanity check, the responder may post a brief reminder at the location of the dispute reminding all parties of the importance of civility, in an attempt to cool down the conflict. This should be done in a conciliatory manner, without pointing fingers.
39:
184:- 3O is used for content disputes between two users. A sanity check may work if a particular discussion on an article has got out of hand and needs someone to de-escalate the issue. 3O also works with a listing of all requests - which may work - but initially requests could be tracked with a template similar to
177:
At present, WQA moves a discussion from an article/user talk page to a noticeboard, where a requestor "reports" another editor for civility problems - potentially increasing the tension between editors. Keeping things at a talk page and requesting an assessment of the situation in general may reduce
121:
is an opinion from a neutral third party about the conduct of editors involved in a dispute. Its purpose is to make editors aware of conduct issues which are making consensus-based discussion difficult, and which may otherwise end in blocks, bans, or other sanctions. A sanity check may merely let an
170:
It's all about educating users on the purpose of this forum - it's not a first point of call, but something to be used if talking it out has been unsuccessful. WQA will direct to self help methods at WP:DR, and then direct here as necessary. Additionally, the predecessor (if it's closed) WQA in May
141:
Sanity checks should ordinarily be provided on the talk page in question, not on this project page. The opinion should state that it is being given in response to a request made on this page and should also state that the opinion-giver has been asked to evaluate the recipient's behavior from a
157:
providing the sanity check and sanity checks may not be deemed to be a substitute for required warnings. (Appropriate warnings may, however, be given by a sanity check provider if improper behavior continues after the sanity check has been given and if the provider is qualified to give such a
122:
editor know that the quality of his or her argument is being weakened by their conduct. Any editor may apply for a sanity check, but editors who are in a dispute must be aware that a volunteer may give an opinion about the conduct of all involved, including the initial requester.
125:
Ordinarily, a neutral editor providing a sanity check opinion should monitor the conduct of the recipient of the critique and be prepared, if the conduct justifies it, to report that conduct to a proper noticeboard for administrator attention, such as
152:
Sanity checks do not impose sanctions or warnings. In situations in which sanctions may not be imposed (or are not ordinarily imposed) without warnings being first given, the provider of a sanity check should not give such warnings as part of
28:
246:
Requests are subject to removal from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the
205:
of the issue should take place here – this page is only for listing the dispute. If the opinion-giver needs clarification, he or she will request it on your user talk page.
212:
Begin a new entry in the Active
Disagreements section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a
264:
61:
46:
145:
57:
178:
this escalation of tension, and keeps conduct issues from appearing in a vacuum, removed from any underlying content issues.
111:
When conduct issues arise on talk pages, it's sometimes helpful to have someone uninvolved give an opinion on the situation.
56:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
233:
a brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two and please try to be as dispassionate as possible
185:
252:
to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion.
53:
77:
218:
symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
171:
2012 saw an average of 1 thread every 2 days - so masses of uncontrollable traffic is unlikely.
136:
the opinion-giver must not engage in an argument or discussion with editors about their conduct
138:
other than to answer any question the recipient might have about the opinion that was given.
144:(Note: there's no consensus yet whether this should take place on article or user talk. See
131:
127:
67:
17:
258:
226:
214:
230:
to a section on the article's talk page where the sanity check was requested.
27:"WP:SANITY" redirects here. For the essay about notability of drafts, see
134:. In order to prevent any dispute about a user's conduct, however,
29:
Knowledge (XXG):Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
97:
33:
168:
Wouldn't talk pages overflow with {{sanity check}} templates?
198:
This process is retained for historical reference only.
248:
85:
208:Follow these instructions to make your post:
8:
221:Your entry should contain the following:
7:
175:Why would anything change from WQA?
25:
265:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals
101:
37:
1:
281:
162:Frequently asked questions
75:
26:
182:Why can't we just use 3O?
186:Template:DRN case status
109:This page in a nutshell:
60:or initiate a thread at
18:Knowledge (XXG):SANITY
193:How to list a dispute
240:signature (~~~~).
115:
114:
96:
95:
16:(Redirected from
272:
251:
105:
104:
98:
88:
62:the village pump
41:
40:
34:
21:
280:
279:
275:
274:
273:
271:
270:
269:
255:
254:
247:
199:
195:
164:
102:
92:
91:
84:
80:
72:
38:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
278:
276:
268:
267:
257:
256:
244:
243:
242:
241:
234:
231:
219:
197:
194:
191:
190:
189:
188:or categories.
179:
172:
163:
160:
113:
112:
106:
94:
93:
90:
89:
81:
76:
73:
52:
51:
42:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
277:
266:
263:
262:
260:
253:
250:
239:
235:
232:
229:
228:
223:
222:
220:
217:
216:
211:
210:
209:
206:
204:
203:No discussion
200:
192:
187:
183:
180:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:
161:
159:
156:
150:
149:
147:
139:
137:
133:
129:
123:
120:
110:
107:
100:
99:
87:
83:
82:
79:
74:
71:
69:
63:
59:
58:the talk page
55:
50:
48:
43:
36:
35:
30:
19:
245:
237:
227:section link
225:
213:
207:
202:
201:
196:
181:
174:
167:
154:
151:
143:
140:
135:
124:
119:sanity check
118:
116:
108:
65:
44:
238:four tilde
158:warning.)
146:discussion
45:This is a
155:initially
86:WP:SANITY
54:Consensus
49:proposal.
259:Category
78:Shortcut
70:instead.
249:history
132:WP:3RR
128:WP:SPI
47:failed
68:WP:3O
66:Use
130:or
261::
236:a
224:a
117:A
215:#
148:)
64:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.