Wikipedia talk:Sanity checks

Location of Sanity Checks

At present, the draft states

"Sanity checks should ordinarily be provided on the recipient's user talk page, not on this project page and not on the talk page of any article or project where the conduct issue has arisen."

Are we sure we want these discussions to be here? I'm a tad worried that this will make Sanity check too much like finger-pointing, instead of a more neutral process like 3O. In particular, I'm worried that this will turn Sanity check into a less-formal, shinier version of a civility warning. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I thought the plan was to use them on article talk, where "sanity check" wouldn't appear as loaded (adding "sanity check" on another user's page seems like a really bad idea) and doesn't assign blame or even civility problems to a particular editor. Also, the conduct is at least around content on article talk, giving it some context. As I'd said, the point is to funnel civility issues back into content issues, so article talk seems natural.

Cases where it's outside of article talk, sure, add them there. But in general? No. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this proposal is still in development, I've changed that particular sentence to the following:

"Sanity checks should ordinarily be provided on the talk page in question, not on this project page."

Thoughts? If I'm not mistaken, the original justification for the user's talk page bit was to remove the dispute from the original focus point, to better address the civility issues. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I just noticed we won't be using templates a la WP:GMN. That's just as well; I only thought it would be a cool feature.

Re: Zaldax, yeah, I think that's the plan. In my mind, we want conduct contextualized so that we can direct people towards actual discussion. If we keep discussion here, we'll just get another WQA or AN/I. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create two templates, though: one to be placed on the talk page when a check has been requested (as a way of notifying all involved users, à la Template:3O), and one for our response (à la Template:3OR). Something to designate when WP:SANITY has been invoked is a necessity, in my opinion. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although at 3OR is an option over there, not a necessity. It should be sufficient for volunteers to say that they're providing the opinion.

Also, Transporterman has a good point in one of the comments on the project page: should we do this at article talk, where our input potentially makes things less stable? Or should we try and contain it to user space and mitigate the whole problem? I think I'm starting to like the latter. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I have with user space is that there's a chance it'll be seen as an accusation of sorts, just like WQA was. On whose user space does the sanity check occur? What's to stop that user from ignoring/deleting our input from their talk? (an action which would probably be within their rights.) What if multiple users are involved? We'd also be considering the conduct in a vacuum again, which has both its advantages and disadvantages. Ideally, the purpose of our input is to stabilize, not make a situation less stable; if a sanity check destabilizes an article talk, it was either handled badly, or escalation was inevitable. In any case, we should make it clear that the purpose of a sanity check is to calm things down, not to point fingers. In other words, it's a "Sanity check" for all those involved. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sold. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) On your rationale, I mean.[reply]

I still think it ought to be at the user talk pages on the parental model. When the kids are fighting, you don't jump in and start trying to criticize one while the others are watching. That just feeds oneupmanship and allows them to continue to yell over you, which increases the risk that you will be drawn into the fight. You send them all to their rooms and deal with them one at a time. It can be done with them all standing there, but you have to have iron self-control to maintain your neutrality and we're trying to design a process that any editor can use. This process benefits most from neutrality (gives authority), non-caught-up-idness (avoids escalation), and "I'm watching you and I'll tell on you" (provides a deterrent). Putting the reality check on the user talk page maximizes those benefits. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't know what to buy! :-)

Seriously though, you're probably right. Usertalk was designed for this sort of thing. Most disputes you can't mete out the cluebat equally on both sides. Accusations of unfairness ("he started it", "he's doing it too!", "what about that one thing he did?") are contained in userspace; in mainspace the discussion could easily devolve into discussions about conduct-about-conduct:

== Why are we using source X? ==

Well reasoned argument, --Bob

Counter argument, --Alice

You're a poopiehead, --Bob

No, you're a poopiehead, --Alice, who goes to WP:SANITY

Guys, stop it. Alice, don't call Bob a poopiehead. Bob, don't call Alice a poopie-head. --Volunteer

But Alice wouldn't listen to my well-reasoned argument. She started it. --Bob

No, Bob started it by calling me a poopiehead. --Alice

The point is that you both should stop. --Volunteer

Alice is being very stubborn, as you can plainly see. --Bob

That was underhanded. I plainly saw you both calling each other poopiehead. We should focus on the content of the article. --Volunteer

How am I supposed to work when blahblahblahblahblahblah --Whatever

And so on and so forth. This isn't as much of a problem on userspace, but there are still problems over there too which we'd need to consider. --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale behind the current idea to have opinions given on the respective user talk pages - but I'd rather it not be listed here in the fashion that a third opinion is listed - I'd prefer it's just flagged with a template and a very very brief explanation (kinda like how the RFC template does it). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

How is this different than WP:3PO? And further, if there are differences, can they be merged to WP:3PO? - jc37 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O is between two and only two people in a content dispute. This is conduct. --Xavexgoem (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That subject also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Closing_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance, especially in the last two subsections. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the link there which is what brought me here : )

And "third party" doesn't necessarily need to merely mean "2 people", it could be two or more "sides" in a dispute. (Which is how I've always deemed it.) - jc37 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patron saint

It is also to be noted that any reference to Sanity checks on Wikipedia may be referred to as a "sanity clause." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to enhance 3O process to also address behavior issues

User SZ posted a note on my Talk page pointing to this page. A few thoughts:

It looks like Sanity Check (SC) has a lot of overlap with 3O. 3O is currently dedicated to content disputes, but it could be expanded to handle behavior issues also.
It looks like SC has a lot of overlap with RfCU. RFCU is a bit clunky, but it could be streamlined. Why invent a new process?
It looks like SC has a lot of overlap with WQA. If SC is better because discussions happen within Talk pages, why not simply change WQA so its discussions happen on Talk pages?
SZ has said he is coming up with a master plan on DR. He is still finalizing it, pending more data collection, which makes sense. But it is impossible to endorse or oppose a new process like SanityChecks in the absence of the master plan. For example, if the master plan said "A new lightweight gateway process for behavior disputes will be created, with the goal of taking over much of ANI and WQA and RFCU workload" (in other words, a behavioral version of DRN) then it would be easier to support the SC. But if the master plan said "WP DR will have 3O and WQA and AN and ANI and SC and DRN and RfCU" then I would object to the creation of SC.
The idea of yet another WP DR process is daunting. We already have tons of processes. We should be focusing on streamlining existing processes, not making new ones. Our near term efforts would be better spent, for example, figuring out if/how ORN, POVN, and RSN should get consolidated into DRN.
In summary: I like the goal of SC, but I think WP would be much better off if we just changed WQA, 3O, or RFCU to meet the need.

My 2 cents. --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WQA/3PO/SC could all easily be combined, I think. - jc37 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When DRN was created, that was an additional process. But MedCab faded away soon after: so there was no net increase in the number of processes. That is why it would be better to implement SC by evolving 3O or WQA or RFCU: the number of DR processes would not increase. Of those 3 candidates for evolving into SC, RFCU is probably the most cumbersome; WQA would have to be revamped to happen on talk pages; so 3O seems to be the best candidate. Jc37's suggestion of combining WQA and 3O (and SC) really gets my attention in a positive way! --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How we could possibly do this, close WQA, and morph 3O into two varieties, content and conduct. Maybe? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove them from the "direct line" of the WP:DR conduct queue (RFCU/MED/ARBCOM). Just consider this merged process of 3PO an adjunct process. so we can remove the "behaviour" and "content" division/strictures, which also frees up the 3PO person in what they can opine... - jc37 01:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The thought of whether to have a conduct 3O a separate or combined process is up for dispute at present - I think having them at the one page may be of benefit but as long as they're clearly defined as two different requests. I dunno. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose behaviour/conduct being separate. But I don't see a "need" to keep them separate. so I guess that leaves me somewhere as non committal : ) - jc37 02:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sort-of compromise. Close WQA and do nothing. See how that goes. If it's a problem, change the process. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SZ's suggestion above: "close WQA, and morph 3O into two varieties, content and conduct." There is no problem with 3O performing both behavior and content roles, because RfC already set that precedent. Plus, 3O is already set up to happen on article Talk pages. The amount of effort to implement SZ's suggestion is very, very small. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I think it might be prudent to move the SC page to a subpage of the 3O project, as the "conduct" version of 3O. However, we should probably OK this with the folks over at 3O before we make that change. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC and RFC/U may both start with "RFC" but they are actually two very different processes: compare WP:RFC and WP:RFC/U. While I have a great deal of concern about 3O as it currently exists being expanded to include conduct, I don't suppose I have much problem with sanity checks becoming a same-name-but-different-process subtype of 3O. As the Bard said, "What's in a name?" (Except maybe what Shooter brings up, just below.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that RfC treats content and behavior with different subprocesses. My point is that the RfC umbrella has included both behavior and content for many years, and it has posed no problems; thus that duality (alone) is not a legitimate objection to enhancing 3O to include behavior. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaldax: Yes, the SZ proposal is a major change to 3O and WQA, so those pages need to notified. I'll post a note there now. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted notes at both 3O and WQA about this thread. As I went to post the notes, and I see there is a thread at Village pump on a similar train of thought: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Closing_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance. There is some overlap with this thread, so editors may want to go visit that an weigh in there. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the Village Pump discussion contains a link back to this SC proposal. So, I guess discussion should continue here, focusing on the details of if/how to enhance 3O (because the village pump discussion focuses on closing WQA). --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely misleading. 3O already handles content-related behavior issues. It doesn't make distinctions between content and behavior disputes. A big trout for you for misleading people in this way. Gigs (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that 3O was primarily for content issues, and that WQA was for behavior issues. If 3O handles behavior issues, that is great. But I don't think that alters this proposal much: this whole discussion started because of the proposal to eliminate WQA, and the question was: where could editors initially go for behavior issues, without overwhelming ANI? An entirely new process "Sanity Check" was proposed. This section here is simply suggesting that 3O be used, rather than creating a new process. If 3O already is equipped for behavior issues, it sounds like we are home free. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the name

I realize that a "sanity check" has some history in the real world, even in software. But when I imagine two people are involved in an increasingly incivil, confrontational dispute, a "request for sanity" wouldn't go over very well. Especially in the age of wikilawyering. "How can you criticize my civility when you're asking someone to check my sanity? YOU'RE incivil!" If this proposal goes forward, can we name it something that's a little more neutral and less likely to inflame a dispute? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Sanity Check" is not a great name: it seems too informal, and also a bit slangy (would non-native speakers of English understand it?). If somehow a new process is created for this purpose, I would suggest another, more professional and accurate name, like "Behavior Noticeboard" or "Editor Behavior Feedback" or something. On the other hand, as discussed in the section above, I'm hoping that an existing process can just be enhanced to meet this need, so I'm not going to spend too much time brainstorming new names. If an existing process does take on this new role, then perhaps after the dust settles, a new name could be adopted afterwards which covers both the old role and new role (e.g. the original roles of 3O and WQA, plus the new role). --Noleander (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making it a subtype to 3O only makes sense if we call this something like "Third Opinion/User" or "Third Opinion/User Conduct", otherwise, why do it?. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Behavior" sounds way too clinical and degrading, imo, and makes the requester seem like a guidance counselor. Even "conduct" has a certain policing aspect to it, which I hope to avoid. The point of "sanity check" is that's it for all involved. It's not wise to create a situation where the requester gets an advantage. But I agree it may be too idiomatic.

When you think about it, we're applying WP:COOL. Maybe we can work on that ;-) (WP:WETBLANKET? Naah...) Just that it doesn't need to be overly formal. We can get away with that with content much more easily, because the focus is on the content and not on editors. Labeling or insinuating is a really bad idea here.

I'm also really upset by this whole 3O thing. 3O serves a very specific function, and well. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "behavior" does have some mental-health connotations that are not good; I like ~~Xavexgoem's suggestion of~~ "conduct" as in:

"conduct review"
"conduct feedback"

And if it ends up merged with 3O, then TransporterMan's suggestions are great:

"Third Opinion/User"
"Third Opinion/User Conduct"
"Third Opinion/Conduct" (paired with "Third Opinion/Content")

--Noleander (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, sounds pretty good. I think the process should be kept fairly informal (as Xacvexgoem mentioned); imagine we're telling everyone to "Chill out", so to speak. In my mind, this'll serve as a Third Opinion/Conduct, to 1) try to resolve any civility issues, and 2) as an aside, note that someone's watching the conversation, and "isn't afraid to tattle" if it gets out of hand. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't like conduct, for the same reason I don't like "behavior", but whatevs :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct sounds more encompassing than what WQA covered. Why not just 3OCIVIL? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Third Opinion/Bridge Inspection" (to see if there's a troll present)?

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Emergency civility police unit :>". Third Opinion/Civility indicates it covers the same ground as WQA. Issues outside of civility usually qualifies for ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "Civility" be too narrow? My impression is that this new Conduct/Sanity forum not only replaces WQA, but also is a lightweight "first stop" for all behavior issues. Recall, one of the defining attributes of this new Conduct/Sanity process (at least as SZ proposed it) is that the discussion happens on the article Talk page, not on a new page (such as ANI) which might have the effect of increasing the tension. Only after this new lightweight Conduct/Sanity process fails to resolve the issue would the issue then get escalated to another forum (which could be any of AN, ANI, or RFCU). --Noleander (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't want to talk about conduct or behavior, "moderation" would work. Especially for newbies, they don't talk in terms of civility or conduct policy, but they do know what a moderator is. Plus, requesting "moderation" might have a double entendre. (PS: not saying I support adding yet another DR process. But we may as well try to design the best possible DR process for low level incivility before we decide that.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What steps would be needed to enhance 3O to perform this job?

I'm collapsing this discussion because a better forum for it is the 3O Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion about steps to improve 3O

For the sake of argument, if the community were to adopt the proposal to "enhance 3O to perform the WQA & SanityCheck jobs", what steps would be involved to make it happen? It could be something like this:

Enhance 3O's documentation to describe two sub-process: Content (its current role) and Conduct (new role)
Convert any active 3O disputes into the 3O/Content subprocess
Update various Dispute Resolution documents (e.g InfoBoxes) to mention 3O/Conduct and 3O/Content
Close WQA and replace with redirect to 3O/Conduct - (I don't think we should outright redirect it...instead add a notice, point to guidance to resolve conduct disputes on WP:DR, and there a listing can be made for the new 3O, if it gets consensus. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
[long term] Update 3O to use better processes & perhaps some automation, as approved by the community

.... just brainstorming ... --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 Replace this discussion with one of the various others that is currently open on the same topic. Formerip (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the discussion at Village Pump regarding eliminating WQA. Is there another discussion happening somewhere? If there is, perhaps a WP:Centralized discussion should be considered so that all interested editors could collaborate & avoid duplication of effort? --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised issues, since 3O already handles conduct

Based on the discussion above, 3O already handles conduct/behavior, so there really are no steps necessary to enhance it take-on the responsibility of WQA (or any other behavior/conduct topics). On the other hand, there are some inquiries that we could think about, such as:

Should 3O be divided into two sub-processes: content & conduct? Or just leave a single process handling everything?
Should 3O be renamed to a more descriptive name? Or is the current name fine?
Should 3O be enhanced so that multiple uninvolved editors can respond? Or should it stay with a single editor, and multiple editors are reserved for other venues such as DRN and ANI?

But those are all long-term, optional inquiries that could be undertaken later. For the short term, it looks very feasible to just evolve 3O to assume the role that WQA played, plus the "sanity check" role. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, one near-term job that will need to be done is update the DR sidebar InfoBox to include 3O as a path for conduct issues. --Noleander (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O already allows conduct disputes by community consensus

I totally forgot that there has already been a community discussion at 3O, about two years ago, when I tried to restore a content-only restriction which had once been there and had subsequently been removed. The discussion and consensus decision is here: Wikipedia_talk:Third opinion/Archive 5#Alleged restrictions on disputes. I apologize to the community for my bad memory. Abashedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize also: I'm not familiar with 3O (I've never participated in it) but I should have checked it's guidelines before I made the assertion that it was for content only. Fortunately, as far as this WQA/Sanity Check discussion goes, the fact that 3O already handles conduct/behavior issues is good news. --Noleander (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem was that 3O doesn't say that it can be used for conduct disputes, it simply doesn't say that it can't, and the October 2010 consensus discussion was about adding back in a content restriction which was once there (it actually had flip flopped in and out of the guidelines several times, see the history, with the final removal happening here after I posted that history; my mistake was failing to remember that final flop). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another user pointed out one possible source of this confusion: the DR sidebar InfoBox is laid-out in a way that suggests that 3O is content-only. --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a list of potential tasks (located on the 3O talk page) that could be appropriate if the proposal to eliminate WQA & replace with 3O is carried out. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what problem is this trying to solve?

Why do we need this? Not trying to be rhetorical. What's missing from DR currently that creating a new process will solve?

WQA has been called ineffective because it has no teeth. But it seems that the main reason that we're setting up a new process is because we don't want to send every civility complaint to a process that DOES have teeth, namely AN/I.

It's a bit of a contradiction.

But let's say hypothetically that we DO want to separate the disputes that need "teeth" (say, a block, a ban, a topic ban) from those that don't need "teeth".

What would be considered a successful outcome from a "toothless" process, that would make it suitable for disputes that don't make sense for AN/I? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanity Check (SC) process was initially proposed by user S. Zhang (who, I believe, is on vacation for the next few days) who is attempting to improve the WP dispute resolution process in a global fashion. I cannot speak for SZ, but based on what I've seen, the motivation for this was to replace WQA with a lightweight behavior-issue resolution process that was more effective. SZ has statistics showing that WQA is not effective, and he had some ideas on how a new process (Sanity Check) could be organized to be more effective. Additionally, the WQA process may have been perceived as limited to civility issues, and SC could be viewed as broadening the scope to all behavior related issues. The SC proposal acknowledges the 3O process ("Why can't we just use 3O? - 3O is used for content disputes between two users.") but that statement appears to not recognize that 3O can also handle behavior disputes (it appears that many editors are under that misapprehension). --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a good idea?

I note there has been no widespread community discussion of whether this is even a good idea; lacking anywhere else to place my opinion, allow me to state here that I think this looks like WQA in a shiny new wrapper, and fail to see the benefit of starting a retread before the old, failed version is even closed. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this Talk page is the community discussion (and is linked-to from the Village pump discussion). Sanity Checks is merely in the proposal phase (note the banner at the top of WP:Sanity checks). The process won't get established if the community doesn't get behind it. Also, note that many comments in the Village pump discussion suggest that WQA should not be terminated until a replacement is up and running. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. I should have probably said discussion anywhere else meaning for example the discussion on ANI which led to RM being created. I believe WQA was also created as a result of an ANI discussion. That said, I stand by my view that this is WQA in a shiny new wrapper, and will have precisely the same problems as WQA had. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KillerChihuahua. It seems that the only change is changing a puny name to a possibly insulting name. See "name" section above. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 10:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2

"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."

The neutral editor should monitor the 2 parties. "Sanity check" should have some teeth, and show them, not just on WP:3RR "User:A has been edit-warring on page B while a sanity check has been going on." Sanity checks must be strong to get the parties to be civil. Also, I think that discussion with any party should be allowed, although no arguments. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 11:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mark this proposal failed

The 3O discussion seems to be more active and has more consensus. There are worries that this will be WQA in a new wrapper, the implementation remains fuzzy, and we're having trouble with the name.

Any takers? I'll start:

Support Xavexgoem (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks - I agree that enhancing 3O seems to be a better way to fill the WQA void. But I would like to thank S. Zhang and others that initiated this proposal: it takes some courage to put forward bold ideas like this. --Noleander (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, kill it. It was an idea I had because I didn't think the 3O thing would go ahead - now that seems to be viable, we won't need this. (I still hope that WQA does gets closed...opposers be opposing and all...) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the proposers no longer see any merit. I guess we'll work on 3O. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]