Wikipedia:Sanity checks
 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. Use WP:3O instead. |
 | This page in a nutshell: When conduct issues arise on talk pages, it's sometimes helpful to have someone uninvolved give an opinion on the situation. |
A sanity check 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 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.
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 WP:SPI or WP:3RR. In order to prevent any dispute about a user's conduct, however, the opinion-giver must not engage in an argument or discussion with editors about their conduct other than to answer any question the recipient might have about the opinion that was given.
Sanity checks should ordinarily be provided on the talk page in question, not on this project page.[discuss] 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 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.[further explanation needed] This should be done in a conciliatory manner, without pointing fingers. (Note: there's no consensus yet whether this should take place on article or user talk. See discussion)
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 initially 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 warning.)
Frequently asked questions edit
- Wouldn't talk pages overflow with {{sanity check}} templates? 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 2012 saw an average of 1 thread every 2 days - so masses of uncontrollable traffic is unlikely.
- Why would anything change from WQA? 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 this escalation of tension, and keeps conduct issues from appearing in a vacuum, removed from any underlying content issues.
- Why can't we just use 3O? - 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 Template:DRN case status or categories.
How to list a dispute edit
This process is retained for historical reference only.
No discussion 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.
Follow these instructions to make your post:
- 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 # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
- Your entry should contain the following:
- a section link to a section on the article's talk page where the sanity check was requested.
- a brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two and please try to be as dispassionate as possible
- a four tilde signature (~~~~).
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 history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion.