Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Cookie

Thanks for the cookie. I enjoyed it. I didn't even know about "third opinion" until a few days ago. I will watch this page and see what transpires. Deb (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The {{3O}} template

Can we reexamine the purpose and/or content of the {{3O}} template? On at least three recent occasions, I've encountered situations in which users apparently thought that inserting the template was enough to get their dispute listed here (or thought that removing the template was enough to remove it from the list here). I'm not sure that the template really serves much purpose as it is currently conceived. If it's to be retained at all, I'd suggest:

• That the instructions here be changed to tell the user to put it on the article's talk page, only, in the section where dispute is occurring,
• That the {{3O|article}} and {{3O|section}} parameters of the template be removed, and
• That the base text of the template be changed to make clear that merely adding or removing the template does not request a 3O, perhaps using something like the warning that is now only in the template documentation:

An editor has requested a third opinion regarding this dispute. [optional explanation text using the "text=" parameter] If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the talk page. (Note: You must list your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion in order for editors to respond. Merely inserting this template will not list it there.)

My real feeling is, however, that the template ought to be eliminated altogether, not just reworked, or — and I hate suggesting things that I don't have the skills to do myself — the programming should be done so that this works like {{rfctag|category}} so that posting/removing the tag automatically does automatically list/unlist it here. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the rfc templates have a bot that checks to see if the template is added anywhere and then creates a listing. shouldn't be too hard to modify it for 3O, but I think that's something that should be taken up at wp:bot requests (if there's a consensus here that it's a good idea). the other changes I'll implement (well, some of them, anyway - I want to think abit about removing the parameters). --Ludwigs2 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic but if we are tweaking format, perhaps we could have a more visible "Create a new request" type button in similar style to WP:SPI. Certainly the way SPI lists requests under its own sub-section is pretty neat and this could force some basic format plus the user might have a clear edit banner above the edit box reminding them to keep their entry anonymous (something constantly corrected here).—Ash (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the changes made by Ludwig2 — and many thanks to him for being bold — except for the "create a new section" concept in, "Create a section on the article talk page for the 3O discussion. Place the template {{3O}} in that section. Both people involved in the dispute should make clear statements of the issue under the template." I'm afraid that folks just won't do that and that it will make it more difficult to identify the exact extent of the dispute; I'd rather see the template put in the existing section where the dispute is occurring. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Plenty of people just have one section where they discuss, end up disagreeing, and then one person says "Fine, we'll get a 3O." There's no need for a separate section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

okay - this draft of revisions completed. I stole the link box from wp:ANI . anything else that needs to be done? --Ludwigs2 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

changed the phrasing to use the existing article talk page section - that does seem like a better idea. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given Ludwigs2 a Third Opinion Award for his work here today. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What about using it on articles? I don't think it's appropriate that people are posting it on article pages. What was the original reason that we allowed it to be placed in the article namespace? Gigs (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is someone posting it in article space? that's wrong - I'll modify the template so that it won't show there. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gigs. I think that the only time it ought to be used on an article page — which should never happen — is when the dispute is being carried out on that page through edit summaries, with no discussion on the talk page. IMHO (and I know that there are "anti-formalists" here who may well disagree with me on this - eh, ahem, Athaenara? ) the response to that should be a virtually–instant removal of the template and dispute with instructions to discuss it in good faith on the talk page before bringing it here. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Luds, FYI, the article space was the place the old instructions said you were supposed to put it. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I'm just figuring it out. I think the original idea was to put the template on the article page in case some wandering good soul decided to chip in, but I don't know that anyone has ever really used it that way. at any rate, I've changed the template to tmbox format, and I'm going to remove the (now pointless) talk page link and see what I can do to keep it out of article space. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I've revised the template and the docs. let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. if there's a problem with the template appearing in article space let me know and I'll add a restriction, but I don't think that will happen now that the instructions are revised.

The two editor requirement, redux and rethought

Having kidded Athaenara, above, about being "anti-formalist" and since this seems to be a day for theorizing, let me bring up this subject. We recently had a lengthy discussion arising from the clumsy way in which I removed a 2+ editor request. I've been thinking about the two–editor standard and, despite being an ardent "multieditor patroller," I think that I would like to suggest that we discuss — please no bold editing here, let's take this to a draft on a subpage if there's any interest in this idea — eliminating that requirement and making this a "third" opinion project in name only. I said during that discussion:

The two editors guideline is fundamental to the very nature of the 3O Project. There are only two things that makes the 3O Project different from RFC: first, the two editor requirement and, second, the fact that a 3O opinion cannot be "counted" towards consensus and be forced on the losing disputant as a tiebreaker.

After additional thought, I now think I was wrong on the first, but not the second, point. The essence of this project is the requirement that our opinions be neutral and unbiased; that's what makes this project different from WP:EA or WP:RFC. It's a value that's shared at our user–conduct sister project Wikiquette alerts. For anyone who's not aware of it, they do for user–conduct disputes what we do for article–content disputes, with the only substantial difference being that they don't have a two–editor requirement. If we were to go this way, I'd suggest:

• removing the two–editor requirement,
• retaining some kind of requirement that disputes be non-complex,
• making the 3O's–not–a–tiebreaker concept more explicit,
• making clear that the value of a (now so–called) 3O is in its neutrality, lack of bias, and speed.

I've not researched it, but I suspect that the original concept of 3O was to give opinions in cases in which the Magi Dilemma has been reached: two editors both think they're right, but WikiLove each other so much that they won't let the other one give up. If that was, indeed, the purpose, I suspect that it's not been served all that often, but what has given the WP community great service is the number of well–considered, neutral, unbiased "Mc3O" opinions that have been promptly served up in the last four years. And I think that we can do more. What do you think? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I need to disagree with this. The name 'third opinion' means that two differing opinions have been voiced, and so a third is needed. There are many different places where people can go to get further opinions. The Content Noticeboard is a good place, as is RFC and EA and any number of other noticeboards depending on what the problem is. The idea behind RFC is to get a number of outside opinions together to form a consensus of sorts. If people try to game an RFC, they get accused of canvassing and the biased users are discredited.

But honestly, I can't support gutting the premise behind this project.

As a side note, I'm growing increasingly concerned about a recent desire to make drastic changes to this project, either by adding or removing structure. Is there some reason why we can't leave it alone? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oppose, but make less rigid Hmm, this is a tough call. I concur with the fundamental basis of your proposal--the 2 editor stipulation is sometimes enforced too harshly, to the point where it can become restrictive. (for the record, I've given a few 3O's on disputes that already have more than 2 editors in them, sometimes a second third opinion) However, I disagree with your assessment that WP:3O is neutral in a way other dispute resolution is not; editors should always try to be neutral and objective, and use policy and WP:COMMONSENSE to solve disputes, regardless of the context or how they stumbled upon the article. WP:3O in my mind is essentially a WP:EA that is specifically aimed at small content disputes. So, I'm concerned that, with the total removal of the 2-editor restriction, WP:3O would essentially become a smaller, dark-corner-of-Wikiepdia (and ultimately unnecessary) version of WP:EA. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One idea that I've seen mentioned in the past is to make it so that it's not two editors in disagreement, but two sides. In other words, if you've got six editors on a page that basically fall into two groups (say, pro-X and anti-X), a 3O could be given to break the discussion. I can understand wanting to move to that sort of model, but I think that giving an opinion in that case would have little to no effect. For one, any issue that big is not going to be broken by an outsider either picking one side, or coming up with some third avenue. Cases like that would do better taking their issues to MedCab, which is also nonbinding but more structured. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Once you get past three people, it starts being an issue of consensus, and simple voting won't solve anything. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with my erudite colleagues above. Encouraging anything other than a simple third opinion between two editors is an entirely different beast, and would leave a gap that this once filled. By all means, if you or another editor wants to troll the list and give fourth opinions, fine, but as I said above simplicity is the key here. People seeking a 3O want a quick, concise, and clean solution - 4+ is a marathon. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One good thing has come out of this discussion: a great example of how to reach consensus. Okay, okay, okay, another lame idea from the TransporterMan, geez ... I've just got to quit analyzing this so much . TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

maybe what's needed is a change of focus: rather than limiting it to 2 editors, limit 3O to simple, irresolvable apples/oranges disputes (head-butting matches, more or less), where all that's needed is someone to make the choice. you could even expand it to 3 or 4 sides that way, so long as they are all simple, distinct, non-overlapping points. 3O then become a voice of choice for people who just can't reach a compromise on a simple issue. --Ludwigs2 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I could have agreed with that up to a point, but taking on more than two sides renders a 3O irrelevant. Assume 3 sides; that means at least three editors are involved. A fourth person coming in wouldn't help; at that point, you either want an RFC or MedCab or something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, WP:CREEP. I think what is basically being proposed is "Hey, more contributors contributing is a good thing," which doesn't really need rules. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The current user FAQ does contain a couple of scenarios where a 3O may be appropriate where more than 2 editors are involved but this would always be done with advance agreement. Only the common sense exceptions should apply, such as the scenario where there are 2 main editors holding opposing viewpoints with one or more others only contributing with a few technical points. If in doubt I would always check that all contributors are comfortable that my understanding of the scenario applies before expressing a 3O.

If no such obvious scenario seems to apply then we should remove the 3O request though perhaps for reasons of good etiquette we should be in the habit of leaving a note on the requester's user talk page explaining why, rather than leaving it for them to spot in an edit summary...—Ash (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this on the ground that it would make 3O redundant with the mediation cabal, which is where we should be sending more complex cases with many parties involved. If you want to take on those kind of cases medcab will be happy for the help! Gigs (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

thought(s)

just because I've been hanging around this page today, it occurred to me that it might be useful to change the 'Active discussions' section a bit. rather than removing items from the list as soon as someone takes the case, leave them on the list but mark them with an 'in progress' template (much like the small templates they use at wikiquette) so that other editors can see what 3Os are in progress and who is handling them. you could even set up a signaling system so that one 3O editor can ask for advice from others, or indicate that he wants to step down from a 3O, or wants someone to oversee, or anything else that might benefit from extra eyes. for what it's worth... --Ludwigs2 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean by adding  Doing... while working on it (removes duplications, still allows for other eyes), then only removing it once finished typing (or if you change your mind after reviewing the page)? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

something like that, yes. I was just thinking that if the active 3Os hung around a little bit longer it might make the page look busier and encourage a little more interaction between 3Oers, rather than the fairly detached and independent state of affairs that the project currently has. a bit of a community building effort. --Ludwigs2 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "How to list a dispute" section now has a quasi-duplicate edit link for adding an active disagreement. One has been there awhile; the second was added by Ludwigs2 (diff). I can't think of a good reason to have two (I think the original is preferable). — Athaenara ✉ 04:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, I missed that. I'll remove the one I added. I'm also going to move the "examples" box into the active discussions section, where I think it makes more sense. --Ludwigs2 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

fixed --Ludwigs2 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend taking

I can't take Talk:Another Gospel#Making this page more NPOV because I have a prior history with one of the editors, but let me recommend it. The editors are being pretty civil and have, at my request, tried to clarify the nature of their dispute. It's still pretty broad, but manageable, I think, and it's the kind of situation where a 3O might actually do some good. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Database outage?

Was there a database outage recently? I filled out the form a few days ago (the 7th or 8th of Feb), and the next day it was gone and I had to fill it out again. There was also no record of my having edited the page in the page history. (This is in regard to dispute #2, not the one I filled out on the 5th). Now it shows that I've only edited the page twice. SharkD  Talk  17:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On 03:35, February 5, 2010, you added Talk:HSL and HSV. It was later removed by Athaenara because 7 and SoCal L.A. both gave opinions on the page. I'm not sure why you relisted it here again. If you're still looking for dispute resolution, try a request for comment or MedCab. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, here's the diff. – Athaenara ✉ 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to a second dispute which has not been commented upon, hence the two listings. SharkD  Talk  08:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confirming my removal of the first one. The second one

# Talk:HSL and HSV#break - Two editors disagree on whether the term "color model" should be used instead of "color space" where explicitely [sic] needed, and whether the same color should be used throughout all the charts. 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

is in the page history as well (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but I tried to add the second one on the 8th, and it didn't appear. I must have filled everything out and just forgot to press the Submit button as opposed to a lapse in the database. ... Anyway, now that that's all cleared up, is there any way you can relist the second one? It hasn't been commented upon. SharkD  Talk  16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I offered a third opinion over there (diff) and recommended consulting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color if needed. – Athaenara ✉ 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SharkD  Talk  15:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. – Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute notes

(Here I go again, tampering with the status quo :) I would like to propose the following new bullet point in the Providing third opinions section, just after the bullet point mentioning the {{uw-3o}} template:

If you wish to provide information to other volunteers about a listed or removed dispute, put See 3O Talk Page at the end of the listing after the date, and put the information on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion|3O talk page.]]

Sometimes I look at a dispute and don't take it because of neutrality or bias issues or, more often, remove a dispute, and in either case think that others might like to know something about it. Currently, if you put that information in the dispute list someone is likely to delete it, but if you put it on this talk page or in an edit summary on the main page, they may not see it at all. I'd like to propose this as a method of keeping the list of disputes clean, but communicating with one another about specific disputes. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't get behind that. If listings are supposed to be anonymous and neutral, how can someone writing about bias on this page help at all? Honestly I would rather people explain information like that on the talk page where the dispute is; if nothing else, that would keep all the info on one page. Someone looking at a 3O request from six months back would have to reference this page as well, which would be a big mess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility as a requirement for 3O?

Hey everyone. I was just wondering why civility is a requirement for a third opinion. Suppose two editors are going back and forth and the issue gets really heated. Assuming one of them doesn't get banned, what's the harm in giving a 3O as a way to quell an argument? Personally I have no problem with coming in to settle an angry discussion if need be. It just seems to me that other places here don't really deal with civility, and WQA can be slow to act, so if people come here looking for resolution, we should provide it. And if some editors don't feel comfortable with taking a case that's particularly angry, then they don't have to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Civility is important, which is why it's specified on the project page, but a lack of civility is not an uncompromising barrier to listing requests. Nor is it a barrier to offering third opinions, at the discretion of independent editors. – Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also object to the impression of WP:3O which this conveyed. – Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you on that. That was actually what caused me to post about this. I'd like to remove the civility requirement, then, if no one has any major issues. I'll wait awhile to give other people a chance to respond. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been observing this page of late although I haven't yet offered a third opinion. I don't have a problem with civility being a requirement, because if editors are lobbing personal attacks about they're just as likely to shoot the messenger as each other. However, I don't agree with the interpretation that edit warring is de facto proof of incivility - perfectly reasonable editors who don't understand 3RR can easily get mired there, and 3O might be just the ticket to stop it in its tracks.

Having it as a requirement can (and does) lead to varying interpretations of when the dispute fails to meet that criterion, so perhaps it's just as well to make it clear that editors may feel free to not weigh in if they feel the dispute is too heated. That might lead to some requests growing stale, but I don't recall if there's already a mechanism to address that.--otherlleft 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason a civility standard is needed at 3O is the same reason that mediation (whether formal or MedCab) requires at least a token agreement from the disputants that they're willing to try to settle the dispute. If both parties aren't going to give due consideration to what the opinion or mediator has to say, which is usually the case when a dispute has deteriorated to the point that the editors have become uncivil, then trying to help is a waste of our time. The civility standard here is a substitute for that requirement. It, in part, allows us to act on the request of a single editor without waiting for the disputants to agree to the process. While I am an aggressive remover of listings for incivility, I don't do it unless I feel that the incivility has reached the level that I think that giving an opinion would be fruitless (and an edit war, especially — but not only — one with 3RR violations on each side, is in my opinion a clear indication that it has indeed reached that level). While I personally object to the removal of the civility standard, instead of it we could have a rule here (which would need to be stated on the project page) that disputes are not to be removed unless someone takes them to issue an opinion. But if we're going to do that we probably also need a rule that says that if a dispute is not taken within some fixed period of time — perhaps a week — that anyone can remove it from the list. In the alternative, we might use a process like some of the noticeboards (the request for page protection page does this, I think) that only a couple of day's worth of requests stay on the project page, after which they're either simply deleted or archived. Either way, we can't be accused of removing requests to favor one party's position or another, as I was, but as unanswered requests stack up we may be accused of being so unresponsive that asking for a 3O is not worth the effort. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Modified: 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to help in such a case where incivility has appeared might be a waste of our immediate time, but not in the long run. If the issues goes to higher places, like MedCab, Arbitration or wherever else, they like to see that attempts have been made at dispute resolution. If we decline a request, then, it makes us look bad, and may stop their case from being accepted. If it falls on deaf ears then it's not the fault of the 3O, but the people involved. As a side note, I would be okay with rolling off stale requests; I think we informally do that anyway. For example, I'm pretty sure that Talk:Pirahã language is going to go stale simply because it's a really, really intricate request that most people have no working knowledge of. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you're going to object, Athaenara, you might as well see them all. For the sake of full disclosure, let me note that you must have missed this one. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to drop the incivility standard, why not drop the two–editor standard, too, and just convert this into the Neutral–opinion project? What does the two–editor standard gain us that the incivility standard does not? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My grounds for supporting the mention of civility on the project page are the same for supporting neutral descriptions: encouraging good behavior while not ruthlessly disqualifying every listing which does not precisely comply. Both have been discussed at length since 2005 (see archive 1) and I sincerely doubt either will be scrapped. I must emphasize what HelloAnnYong [and Otherlleft] posted before: if any potential responder isn't comfortable with responding to a particular dispute, it's best simply to leave it for others. Some of the best third opinions (perhaps because they take longer to research and write?) have come from that. Leave it to others: this is a community dispute resolution project, not anyone's personal beat. – Athaenara ✉ 00:42 and 03:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we're so free that we're all free to just patrol the pending dispute list and offer third opinions (note the lower case) on the ones that interest us without removing them from the list at all. We can still point out that we "happened to see the dispute listed at 3O", that we're neutral and have had no dealing with the topic or the involved editors (or not, for that matter). We just become Independent Third Opinion Wikipedians who use the project to identify disputes in which we wish to opine, but for no other purpose. Not only will our opinions count for as much as they do if issued under 3O, they can be counted towards consensus or used as tiebreakers and we won't have to concern ourselves one way or another about the number of editors or civility or anything else imposed by the 3O project at all. (And, as we've discussed before, a third opinion is a Third Opinion for purposes of the 3O project.) Hey, formal mediation has the MedCabal for those who don't like the formality. How about it? Anybody want to join the Cabal of Independent 3O'ers? (Just kidding, I wouldn't organize such a thing ... and the Cabal doesn't exist.) TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Though my last comment was tongue–in–cheek, this one is entirely serious: If we're going to leave uncivil disputes on the list, because someone might take them despite the incivility, are we going to do the same with multiple–editor disputes? Someone might take them, too. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's absurd. They're two complete distinct things. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think, Athaenara? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: Reducing the number of bureaucratic steps people embroiled in a heated argument have to take might be a good thing, as they're likely to become even more irate otherwise. SharkD  Talk  21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to express my opposition of TransporterMan's emphasis on the civility "requirement" as well. If it's going to be used in that kind of wikilawyering style, then we should change it to say that "3O works best when editors carefully adhere to the civility policy". TransporterMan, it would have been more positive to refer them to MedCab or formal mediation. Normally I wouldn't pile on, but it really doesn't seem like you are getting it. Gigs (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and have decided to proceed in this fashion: I've re-read WP:IAR and WP:WIARM and have come to the conclusion that while boldly removing nonconforming listings from WP:3O is every Wikipedian's right, that I'm not going to do it any more. Whether multiple editors, incivility, conduct instead of content, or whatever, I'm not going to remove a listing unless I care to opine on it and remove it for that reason. I'm not taking this position out of pique, resentfully, or defiantly, it's just the choice that I care to make at this point. Frankly it will, very slightly, skew this project towards a de facto neutral–opinion project, rather than a third opinion project and I think that's a very good thing despite my "removalist" behavior up until now. (I admit that admission makes my removals appear to be — and probably be in fact — even more wikilawyerish than they have been up until now, but c'est la vie: It's not for no reason that I have a userbox that says, "This user tries hard not to be a Wikilawyer, but sometimes struggles with it.") Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable response, thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the 3O project perhaps create a new section where a 3rd opinion for "heated" debates are requested? Seems pretty simple to set up. I agree with an opinion above that allowing more options for resolution to a heated exchange between 2 editors could only improve Wikipedia ... and personally, I think the heated exchanges might even be the more interesting ones to opine upon. 3O is completely new to me, so ignore me if my suggestion is untenable for whatever reason. BigK HeX (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be needed. Since I stopped chewing listings off the list like a rabid beaver, most of the ones which I would have removed for incivility have been taken and opinions issued on them. ([[Talk:Nair#A_neutral_solution_for_dispute_resolution]], where there's a month–long (!) page protection in place being a notable exception. Perhaps even those who don't like the civility requirement have limits....) Of course some editors in an uncivil dispute may not list here because of the requirement, but there are enough who do list to make me think that most listers don't pay much attention to that rule to begin with. Though it's not just for two–editor disputes, the Mediation Cabal, might be what you're looking for. WP:RFC and WP:CNB are pretty close, too, though neither are exactly what 3O would be without the civility requirement. Regards — and thanks again for the nice words on my talk page — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Boldly added an expectation for reciprocation

Maybe I should have checked with others first, but I added a note that if you leave a request for a third opinion, you might consider giving one. I always find that when requesting a third opinion, it can be a long time coming. Making reciprocation built-in could expedite the system a bit and mean opinions get dealt out quicker. Just a thought. Please remove, restructure, or whatever if inappropriate. --Asdfg12345 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your addition was a good idea. – Athaenara ✉ 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it down, as I think the stuff at the top of the list is a higher priority. I don't advocate mandating that users pay it forward, but it's always nice if someone wants to help out. To be honest, though, some of the users who come here looking for help can be somewhat combative, and I'm not sure I would want them giving opinions on another battleground and potentially making things worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps they are combative in the articles which they are interested in, but would be more neutral in other contexts? I'm not sure. I do know, however, that it would be somehow good to get a higher turnover rate on certain disputes. I also would have thought that putting the idea out there would engender that civil spirit that sought to repay to the community the help the community had extended to that person (in providing a third opinion in a dispute). By the way, is this even the best forum to receive a third opinion, or is the RfC function better? I don't see a significant difference in terms of function. --Asdfg12345 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to respond to RfCtags unless they are also advertised somewhere else. It's not very effective. 3O is almost guaranteed to get a prompt response. As for reciprocation... I don't like the idea. The people who ask for 3O come here because they are having trouble reaching a polite consensus. Kind of an iffy audience to be soliciting. Sure some of them would be fine 3O volunteers but it's not like we have a shortage here. Our backlog stays small. Gigs (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me just add that I recently had Gigs respond to my 3O request and it was most helpful. Perhaps another option is a dedicated 3O team, the 'special forces' of Wikipedia... -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like that idea either. That's moving a little too much towards bureaucracy, and we'd have to come up with a whole infrastructure to nominate people for it and so on.

And yeah, RfC is sadly pretty broken. If two people have a dispute, I honestly believe that this is one of the best places around to get help for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I'm allergic to bureaucracy too. That said, (1) we do already have a hierarchy of editors to draw on... might be worth thinking about; also (2) we do already have specialist groups such as e.g. military history who are experts on content.. why not have experts on form as well? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

3Os aren't just about form; it's really a synthesis of Wiki etiquette, content, style and everything else. And actually, I actually just thought of another reason why not to do this - that of consensus. We're supposed to generate consensus within the wider community, right? Having a group of people who are trusted to give 3Os seems to violate the spirit of that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg, the primary difference between 3O and RfC (and indeed different from virtually every other source of advice at Wikipedia) is the neutrality of the opinion–givers, enforced by the fact that Third Opinions cannot be "counted" towards consensus and are not tiebreakers. As for the question of the get-one-give-one addition, I'm fairly neutral on it, having always presumed it to be the case since the text of the {{User Third opinion}} userbox that we promote on the 3O page says, "This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one." Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up ancient history re active 3O contributors

I was idly reading back through the archives and happened to notice the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_3#Active_participants_page about how to determine who is and who is not active here, and how active they might be, at any given time. Category:Third opinion Wikipedians seemed (and seems) to be fairly useless for that purpose. And, also, the conclusion drawn there seemed to be — I read it pretty fast and might be wrong — that there's no particularly good reason to know who is and who isn't active, since 3O is so informal and since any Wikipedian can give an opinion. Nonetheless, for those Curious Minds Who Want to Know, I thought that I'd point out that I've recently noticed this tool which counts and dates the edits to the WP:3O page. That would seem to give a good estimate of quantity and recency of participation in general. (And let me say "Holy moly!" to HelloAnnyong and particularly to Athaenara.) Just FYI. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I hadn't seen that page before, but that's.. fairly ridiculous. Didn't really I did quite that much, heh. Any idea what the two numbers in the parens are? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your wiki-q (sort of like an IQ). Atheanera is a brilliant 88, you're a middling 27, and I'm a lowly 4! (Just kidding - I think it is the number of minor edits.) BTW, the tool can be accessed from any history page using the "Revision history statistics" link at the left top of the history. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, I commented out the bloated category in the userbox. It took a few weeks to see the difference when it was removed from the userbox template last year, so I guess we're in for a wait again. – Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, was I wrong about that! The category showed 172 users before I edited {{User Third opinion}} (linked on about 150 pages) but now it shows 42. – Athaenara ✉ 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resuming deletions

Having taken a self–imposed contemplative break as set out here, I am going to resume taking listings off the project page on a restricted basis: I will not remove any listing:

• For having more than two editors, except when a third editor or Third Opinion Wikipedian has joined the debate after the listing was posted here and there is some indication that he or she intended to provide a third opinion (either under 3O or not) or
• For incivility, with no exceptions.

Other reasons for removal — for example, making a listing without adequate talk page discussion — will not be restricted.

If any regular participant in this project feels that any deletion I make after this announcement, or the manner in which I make it, is abusive or brings the project into disrepute, they are invited and, indeed, encouraged to {{whack}} me and I WikiAgree that I will revert to a no–deletions–at–all position until the matter is fully discussed here or on my talk page. I also WikiAgree to abide by these remaining restrictions unless and until I make an announcement here that I am abandoning them. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson#Criticism and BLP policy

This item has been at the top of the 3O list for a few days now, and I wanted to let editors know that it would still be very useful to get a third opinion, especially from an editor with BLP experience. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a third opinion that neither of the two parties will be happy with! Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion appropriate for this issue?

Resolved

Hello. I'm involved in a very long running dispute with another editor. The issue does not focus on any particular portion of the project, but is a sustained disagreement between myself and another editor. I am not terribly keen on the idea of starting an RfC, as I think it will lead to more heat than light, and I'd far prefer a lightweight process. I'm hoping that third opinion might be a place where one or more third parties could review the specifics and agree to a proposed solution or propose one or more solutions of their own design. Is third opinion a good place to bring this? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say from what you've just given us here, but one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." That's the kind of friendly dispute that 3O's are ideal for: the kind where both editors respect one another and could almost settle their dispute with a coin toss. In practice, I've seen 3O's settle disputes where I was pretty sure that the editors were going to crawl through the Internet and strangle one another. One thing you need to know for sure, however, is that Third Opinions are only for content disputes, not for conduct disputes. I hope this helps. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this dispute is a lot closer to the latter case then the coin toss case. That said, it definitely isn't about content but conduct, or rather continuing interaction between myself and another editor. I'd like to keep things as lightweight as possible. I.e., show things where they stand, have the other editor have their opportunity to comment, both of us put out suggested solutions, and have outside third parties weigh in saying one solution better than the other or coming up with their own solution(s). I really don't want to go to an RfC, with all its attendant diffs, arguments for review, etc. I just want to present the situation as it is and see if there's general agreement from third parties as to a solution. Looking through the various steps of WP:DR, there's much there but not much to do with specifically the interactions of two editors with each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that 3O isn't going to do what you're looking far. I have a few more things to say, but they're not relevant to 3O, so I'm going to move to your talk page. See you there. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. I've tagged this as resolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Listed my first 3O

Resolved

I hope I did it correctly, and won't get rejected. It seems a lot of these things get kicked for various reasons, so if anyone notices any problems with my "Austrian Business Cycle" submission, please let me know so that I can fix it. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess everything was kosher. Thanks, HelloAnnyong. Judging by this [1], you (and others here) volunteer effort that borders on heroic! BigK HeX (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Geisha#Geisha and Japanese Women merge discussion

There has been a merge discussion at Talk:Geisha#Geisha and Japanese Women merge discussion. After three months' discussion, a party to the discussion suggested that the consensus is to merge. I actually agree with him, but since both he and I argued for merger, and since there are four arguments against (from anonymous SPAs, but still) I thought it might be best to ask a third party to determine if there actually is consensus before carrying out any merge. This is not quite a 3OR, but if anyone could take a quick look at the discussion, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected is as an uninvolved editor. All the opposition was from people who thought that the article was going to be merged with Japanese women (which would indeed be horribly wrong). I've explained further on the relevant talk page. Brad 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

County Jail Page Notability issue

3O request in improper place sanitized and moved to main project page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion needed because of threats

I have asked for a third oppinion in this article: Talk:Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrucken. I have removed un-referenced information from it. Editor User:SergeWoodzing insists that the un-referenced information remained. He have now threthened to report me as a troll and a disruptive editor because of this dispute, and I therefore have no hope in solwing this without a third opinion. --85.226.47.210 (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the directions on the project page. Powers ^T 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This matter has now been solwed. Thank you very much!--85.226.43.194 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Young?

The article of Dr. Youngs' "Work" contains false and misleading material. The article under "Works" states that their are only "in vitro" or animal studies but no human studies validating Dr. Young's alkaline diet. This is not true. I have made numerous attempts to post these references and to take down the sentence that "there are no human studies."

The following are ten scientific published research studies in peer review journals validating Dr. Young's alklaine diet and that their are human studies on the health benefits of an alkalizing diet.

1) Diet-induced acidosis: is it real and clinically relevant? British Journal of Nutrition Cambridge University Press; Joseph Pizzornoa, Lynda A. Frassettoa and Joseph Katzingera

2) Acid-Mediated Tumor Invasion: a Mul...tidisciplinary Study; Cancer Research 66, 5216-5223, May 15, 2006; Robert A. Gatenby, Edward T. Gawlinski, Arthur F. Gmitro, Brant Kaylor and Robert J. Gillies

3) The Potential Role of Systemic Buffers in Reducing Intratumoral Extracellular pH and Acid-Mediated Invasion; Cancer Research 69, 2677, March 15, 2009; Ariosto S. Silva, Jose A. Yunes, Robert J. Gillies and Robert A. Gatenby

4) Alkaline Mineral Supplementation Decreases Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients; The Open Nutrition Journal, 2008, 2, 100-105; Regina Maria Cseuz, Istvan Barna, Tamas Bender and Jurgen Vormann

5) Treatment with Potassium Bicarbonate Lowers Calcium Excretion and Bone Resorption in Older Men and Women; The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 94, No. 1 96-102; Bess Dawson-Hughes, Susan S. Harris, Nancy J. Palermo, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Helen M. Rasmussen and Gerard E. Dallal

6) Minerals and Disease; Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 10, No. 3 & 4, 1995; Joseph D. Campbell

7) Preservative Effect of Electrolyzed Reduced Water on Pancreatic b -Cell Mass in Diabetic db/db Mice; Biol. Pharm. Bull. 30(2) 234—236 (2007); Mi-Ja KIM, Kyung Hee JUNG, Yoon Kyung UHM, Kang-Hyun LEEM, and Hye Kyung KIM

8) The Effect of Acid/Alkaline Nutrition on Psychophysiological Function; Int J Biosocial Res. Vol. (2); 182-202, 1987; Rudolf A. Wiley,

9) Severe Osteomalacia Associated with Renal Tubular Acidosis in Crohn’s Disease; Digestive Diseases & Sciences, Vol 31, No 3, March 1986; Rui MM Victorino, Margarida B Lucas, Miguel Carneiro de Moura

10) Metabolic acidosis of CKD: diagnosis, clinical characteristics, and treatment; American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Volume 45, Issue 6, Pages 978-993 J. Kraut, I. Kurtz11Lean Tissue: Alkaline diets favor lean tissue mass in older adults; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 3, 662-665, March 2008; Bess Dawson-Hughes, Susan S Harris and Lisa Ceglia

Please help me to add references validating an alkaline diet and to delete the sentence that there are NO human studies.

I would also like to see only one posting that Dr Young's graduate degrees are from an unaccredited school. This appears under "Education" and under "Work."

Regards,

Michale Dare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.216.70 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh.. which page does is this regarding? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Robert Young (author). – Athaenara ✉ 23:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Robert Young (author) seems the most relevant article, having done a Special:Search on 'dr young'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment has now been repeated on that article's talk page in the form of an edit proposal. I don't think that we need to do anything about it here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Whew, dodged that bullet...

I wondered how long it would take for a 3O Wikipedian to come along who was so new as to be able to claim neutrality in Talk:Canvas element#Recent IP edits. The IP editor did us all a favor — and I say this with tongue firmly in cheek — by getting all high–behind and storming off mad. Thanks to WCityMike for delivering the Coup de grâce. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I *could* have taken it, but I took one look at the discussion and went 'naaaah, don't want to get involved in *that*'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Me neither... *cough* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually had written up a third opinion for it ... but when I noticed that the argument was over and done with, didn't see a point to posting it, so I just noted that we were going to take it off the board and the parties could refile if it became an issue again. Can't recall the specifics of what the opinion was, now, but one way or the other it would have been taken off the board. WCityMike 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Crud

... I actually had some editors listen to my third opinion after they requested it, and apparently even settled their differences after hearing it! I thought that was only a mythical occurrence! :) WCityMike 04:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re stale requests

Back in February there was some mention about deleting stale requests. (Jump to here and search for "stale".) While it's usually possible to come up with some excuse to delete requests which have become stale, it would be more forthright just to be able to delete them because they're stale, per se. I'd suggest adding something like the following just before the "Active disagreements" subheading:

Requests are subject to being removed 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.

That turn of phrase would leave a request up at least for the day it is posted, then five days, and then until someone gets around to removing it on the seventh day. What do you think? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Might not hurt to add something that suggests common reasons people might've avoided giving an opinion -- i.e., if there's 23 acres' worth of exchanges, a brief one- or two-paragraph restatement of their views helps. WCityMike 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that, in effect, covered in large part by the FAQ? I'm going to boldly add this to the project text. Please revert or say here if you don't like it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is the point of this?

Isn't this just a more limited, bureaucratized fork of WP:RFC? What is the point of it? john k (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is more limited so that it is less bureaucratic and quicker. Yaris678 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I think this was based on the comment Weaponbb7 left at Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco#Relevant "Succession issues"?, where s/he said "I apologize but since their are more than two editors involved here i am unable to give a WP:3O". I somewhat disagree with that comment, and to that end I left my own opinion on that page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Having more than two editors does not prevent you from seeking or giving a 3rd opinion per se. Obviously, the more editors involved already, the less likely it is that an extra one will make much difference. I think it is a matter of judgement. Certainly, you should not say that a 3O is inappropriate purely because there are more than two editors involved. Yaris678 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the two editor guideline is a wise one. It helps to neatly define this project, and likely keeps the amount of argumentation that a 3O editor has to wade through down to acceptable levels. BigK HeX (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--if there are three or more editors already in discussions, this isn't the right process to help. I'd suggest WP:MEDCAB before an RfC, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The two-editor requirement has been discussed recently here, and continued here. My feeling, stated there (and by my observation) is that our real value is as neutrals who will give quick and dirty opinions without the administrative burden needed to go to mediation or even MedCab and that I'm weakly in favor of emphasizing the neutrality aspect of the project and dropping the two-editor requirement. My support is only weak because any 3O Wikipedian who wants to offer a 3O in a multiparty dispute is already free to do so. (The real question is whether multiparty disputes should always be shot off the pending dispute list on sight.) Someone once said that their rule of thumb is that they'll consider giving a 3O when there are 2-4 editors involved in a dispute, but with 5 or more they won't. I've found that to be pretty good advice and it's now what I (usually) do, especially if the 3rd and 4th editors are minor players in the dispute. What makes us different from RfC, BTW, is that - at least arguably - our opinions are not to be considered in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. 83.18.234.146 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) (Not logging in because I'm on an insecure computer while on vacation, but this is TransporterMan)

My position is essentially identical to that of TransporterMan. I think it would help if the lead on the project page were edited to reflect this. Something like...

Third opinion is a means to request an uninvolved opinion regarding a content discussion involving two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors in the discussion.

This page is for resolving relatively simple disputes. The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. If more than two editors have a significant involvement in a dispute then requesting a third opionion may not be helpful. For more complex disputes editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process.

Opinions?

Yaris678 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Before that sort of wording could be introduced, a new mechanism would have to be devised for removal of "complex" disputes or disputes with more than X participants. Right now, the criteria are well-defined and there's not much objection when someone goes through and remove 3O requests. BigK HeX (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We also need to be aware of other similar things like WP:EAR and WP:CNB. Taking the "third opinion" out of 3O leaves us with.. nothing. This project works exceedingly well because it's lightweight and not heavily bureaucratic like some of the other projects there. To start adding loopholes or other issues would be against the spirit of the project, I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On the project mission, I tend to agree with HelloAnnyong. BigK HeX (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your conception of what it means to be bureaucratic. We don’t need to worry about “creating loopholes” precisely because we are not bureaucratic. We don't need hard and fast rules. Someone can leave a message and say "I think this is too complicated for a third opinion. Five editors have already made significant input. I have removed it from the third opinion list. I recommend someone makes a WP:Request for Comment."

In practice, this will happen straight away for things which are obviously too complicated and borderline cases might hang around for a bit. If no one takes a dispute on after a few days then people might consider moving it on. We could give guidelines on this in the providing third opinions section.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with leaving a message like that. The problem is that just declining is unhelpful; there's still an issue that's unresolved, and editors there are going to be unhappy. To give an alternative solution, even if it's just pointing them to MedCab or RFC or something, is far more preferable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Glad we agree on that bit anyway. Yes... just declining is... acting like a faceless bureaucrat. We should act more like polite human beings and recommend a better way of resolving the dispute. Yaris678 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to "hog" a discussion to prevent the 3O process from working - in other words to get involved as a third editor to intentionally keep an actual Third opinion editor from giving a neutral opinion which one feels might go against one's own POV. I think anyone behaving like that would clearly be very disruptive and should be dealt with severely, because the process is a very good one if allowed to work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I might add that since a few editors keep track of and trace the contributions of other editors, with whom they seem to enjoy arguing, it is often a good idea to request a 3O as early as possible in a discussion, as soon as one sees that another editor and oneself aren't going to be able to compromise or solve what they are debating. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed such a behavior where someone is acting as a 3O where they shouldn't be? Issues like that should be reported here so we can figure out what to do about it. I haven't noticed that happening, but I could be missing something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lurker de-lurks... I can see it being an issue if they purport to represent 3O, but is it really a problem if a third-party helps two editors resolve a dispute? TFOWR 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely not. There have been plenty of times when a complete outsider has dealt with an issue and I've delisted a request for that reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Any and all constructive assistance must be appreciated.

It can pretty easily be disclosed if an illicit 3O editor, who actually would not be allowed to be one if not neutral, has had such doings before (positive or negative) with one of the parties, or with the issue, which are not appropriate. I haven't seen that yet and maybe that's why I feel this works so well. What I have seen is that a third editor - without shouldering the responsibility of being the 3O editor gets involved before a 3O editor has a chance to respond. In one case the editor who thus got involved, and scared away the 3O editor, was definitely not neutral. Another one felt he/she had a right to get involved and didn't care for the 3O "stuff". In another couple of cases it may have been that the template at the top of the section was not noticeable enough. In none of the cases can I claim that I know there was malicious intent, but that could happen. I am going to start putting Third opinion requested WP:3O at the bottom of a discussion, with the 3O template on top, to try to avoid that happening anymore when I have requested a 3O. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I've previously noted, I won't remove a listing for having more than two participants unless the third editor enters the dispute after the listing has been made here and it's pretty clear that the editor was trying to give a third opinion or help to settle the dispute, rather than just join in on one side or the other of the dispute, whether he entered under 3O or not. But I will remove it if that's the case, whether or not the opinion has been given under 3O.
• We do now have (see the last section, above) a "staleness" rule that says that disputes which aren't taken within 6 days after being listed can be removed. That rule removes, in large part, the necessity of removing disputes which have multiple editors or which are uncivil, while leaving them on the list for consideration by the 3O Wikipedians who will give opinions in multiparty or uncivil disputes rather than forcing them to patrol the 3O history page to find them.
• Let me note that if the two-editor rule were to be strictly enforced (either by rigorously removing listings or by sanctions on those who offer opinions under 3O in multiparty disputes or both) that the Third Opinion Paradox will be the result in the case where there are, in fact, only two editors involved in the dispute at the time it is listed here. Once a third editor weighs in, whether he represents himself to be a 3O Wikipedian, just another editor, or Jimbo Himself, his participation in the dispute is a third opinion even if it is not a Third Opinion, since by becoming a third party to the dispute the two–editor rule will cause the dispute to be disqualified for a Third Opinion.

On a secure computer for the moment. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

thanx for the information TransporterMan, I will watch that more now Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I like TransporterMan's point about stale requests. Given that, do you think it would help if people put comments after requests, if they have checked out a request but decided not to give a 3O? e.g.

• talk:Example - Disagreement about whether a statement is NPOV. 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • More than two parties involved. Yaris678 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• talk:Example 2 - Disagreement on the use of sources. 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • One party has become uncivil. Yaris678 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• talk:Example 3 - Disagreement over use of language thst could be considered obscene. 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There are pages of argument to read through on this one. Yaris678 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. Obviously people should try to avoid antagonising the disagreeing parties. Yaris678 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

I still don't really get it. If you want to seek additional opinions about an article, that's what RFC is for. If you want dispute resolution, then there's mediation. Third Opinion seems like it's an RFC disguising itself as a mini-mediation. I'd add that, so far as I can tell, this is an obscure project page that most people are unaware of (I've been around wikipedia a long time, and had never heard of this until a couple days ago). That creates problems - in particular, that the people requesting third opinions are often going to be people who are active on this page. That makes it kind of a place for cherry-picking. If you're involved in a dispute, why go to RFC and risk some editor you don't know coming and disagreeing with you, when you can go here and solicit the opinion of a bunch of people who know you, and are thus, perhaps, more likely to agree with you. I doubt there's too much of this going on consciously, but it still seems problematic. On the whole, I just find it silly to have a whole project page devoted to this. john k (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it might be pretty easy not to imagine the utility of the 3O project unless you're really trying to think of the various ways in which it can be useful. IMO, the biggest asset that 3O has going for it is a group of volunteers willing to delve into all manner of eclectic topics spanning the spectrum from the esoteric to the mundane. In my experience, RfC's generally attract people interested in the subject matter, while here, the volunteers seem largely only to be bound by the complexity of the dispute, with very little dependence on the subject matter. The somewhat low-profile of the project may even serve as a boon for editors in need, as simple requests for a 3O are generally handled with a good turnaround time. I guess that RfCs for less-popular topics can become lost in the shuffle, as I've had many that attract no response or very little attention. In any case, 3O's definitely perform a function that I've found quite useful, and sufficiently distinct from other avenues available. BigK HeX (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I think what John may have missed is that you are not supposed to give a 3O unless you are fully neutral re: the people involved and previous work on the article. As I tried to explain above, I have never seen any problem with that part of it (though I guess it has not been investigated), and I think that's why this works so well, as clearly documented. No one has ever complained, to my knowledge, that a 3O giver violated that neutrality requirement.

Come on! Why not celebrate an effective way of stopping arguments and furthering constructive work, rather than complain about it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this project is all that obscure. It's listed on WP:DR and is included in {{Dispute-resolution}}. We've dealt with plenty of requests (I've been here a long time) and I think we do help a whole lot of people. Again, the reason I think this project works is because of how lightweight it is. You don't have to go through a big ordeal of applying at MedCab and wait several days for everyone to give their sides of the issue and all that jazz, and you don't have to wait several days to get anything back from RfC (if you get any responses at all); it's just two people who are disagreeing on something, and a neutral third party comes through and helps to solve the problem. And I agree with what Serge and BigK said above. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an easy method when a dispute requires another opinion. I used it with good results, and decided to join up. Figureofnine (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh are we obsolete?

Third opinion used to be good, now what's happening -- we are getting fewer and fewer requests, suggest we loosen up the submission criteria. RomaC ^TALK 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We're definitely not getting fewer requests; twelve hours ago there were five requests pending. What we do have is a bunch of really active editors who give 3Os rather quickly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I suppose I missed that sorry. I believe in 3rd opinion will try to be more active here thanks HelloA for restoring my faith in grass-roots Wikipedia activity! RomaC ^TALK 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The requests are supposed to be removed when a 3O editor responds, so that might explain why there aren't many at any given time. Figureofnine (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On vacation?

It seems that several active contributors (including me, though I've been checking the list every day or two) have been on a sort of vacation from the project page recently. There are currently seven items listed; the oldest is five days old and the most recent has no discussion link. Are there any 3O-watchers around who feel like dealing with some of the backlog? – Athaenara ✉ 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been rather busy in the past few days so I haven't been doing all that much, and I sort of wanted to give other people a crack at some of the issues. But if no one else is around, I can step up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations (or condolences) in order

Congratulations to long–time 3O Wikipedians Amatulić and HelloAnnyong for being recently approved as administrators. Their yeoman's work here appears to have substantially contributed to their approval. Thanks again to both of them for all they do here and for Wikipedia in general. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for the support. I think Amatulic said it best on their talk page: "it is an honor to be demoted to janitor!" — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting, I think, that of the eight 3O Wikipedians who have (a) 50 or more edits in the project and (b) at least one edit in the last six months — that's the criteria I use to give general–service Third Opinion Awards — Amatulic, Anaxial, Athaenara, HelloAnnyong, Jclemens, RegentsPark, Seraphimblade (who hasn't had an edit here in the last six months, but who had at the time he was given the award), and myself, only two, Anaxial and myself, are not sysops. If nothing else, it would seem to speak to the high level of neutrality and professionalism practiced here (not to imply anything bad about Anaxial, who plainly seems to uphold those same standards). Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget me. But you know, I literally have not too many more than 50 edits. I'm fairly new, climbing the learning curve. I had no idea this was such a prestigious branch of the service. Figureofnine (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And we're really glad to have you here, too. Keep up the good work! Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. Figureofnine (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think 3O work is relatively highly regarded at RfA, because it's 1) high on dispute resolution, and 2) low on "drama". I certainly know that several of my RfA supporters reviewed my 3O work and cited it as a support reason, and I encourage administrator candidates to come and work here, too, even though now that I actually have the tools I've been busier actually using them than helping out here as much as I used to. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that I have the tools, I find myself still engaged in dispute resolution in a different way, trying to resolve talk page conflicts in protected articles where I now have the ability to make edits when the disputing parties come to agreement. I still intend to continue working on Third Opinions. I have generally tried to answer at least one per month, I have been averaging more than that in my history on Wikipedia, and I expect that trend to continue. I think it helped also in my RfA that I kept track of each of my opinions on my user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not listing requesting editor's name

The instructions say that Wikipedians who list disputes here should not sign their listing and should attempt "to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants." While neutrality is, as I have said many times before, the most important conceptual element of this project, the fact is that this requirement is mostly window–dressing and one in which any experienced Wikipedian will see the holes. Most of us, I suspect, watchlist the 3O page to be alerted when a new listing appears, and the most active of us pounce as soon as the page appears in our watchlist. The last listing editor's name is shown in our watchlist. We also see it if we have to go into the 3O page history for some reason. Are we doing our claim of neutrality more harm or good by engaging in this transparent conceit? Dropping it would eliminate most of the need to edit the listings to neutralize requests, too, and would save a tiny bit of WP storage space in the process. What do you think? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a more symbolic gesture than anything else: that we, as 3O givers, will try to be as impartial as possible. You're right that it's quite easy to see who the requester was. And yes, we all do jump on requests as soon as they come in. If we had a huge flood of 3Os and there was a considerable backlog, then neutralizing would make sense even more, if only because people are less likely to go back and see who requested. But having said that, I don't think it harms the process of requesting a 3O by asking people not to use their full signature. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of a friend who left the Roman Catholic Church over matters such as the worship of Mary and the saints. He'd been raised in an ethnic environment where Catholicism was predominant and no clear distinction was made between the worship of God and worship of Mary and the saints. When he became an adult and moved to the Bible Belt he learned that non–Catholic Christians in general, and evangelicals in particular, were appalled by the practice. He checked out their reasoning and left, feeling that if the RCC had "lied to him" — his words, not mine — about that, what else might they lied about. When he subsequently learned that strict Catholic doctrine makes a distinction between worship of God, on the one hand, and worship of Mary and the saints on the other (actually three hands are required, see a good critical discussion here if you're interested), he didn't feel any less betrayed, saying something like "if that's the way it was, why didn't they teach it to us that way"). I don't tell this story to grind any theological axe (and I'm not Catholic), but only to raise the question (also created with less at stake than there or here by the Santa Claus myth) of what is more damaging: being told the truth from the beginning or being told a beneficial falsehood. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know Protestant-Christian-raised people seem to have a real problem with prayers-to-Saints and so on, but as a Catholic-raised person I am often surprised at how "appalled" they can be about it. (I remember there was some vandalism/edit-warring at the Queen of Heaven article around that notion that I looked in on a while back.) I cannot recall any Catholic practice in my experience that seemed to me to be confusing Mary's theological status with that of God. I think it is just a lot like the belief many Protestants also have in "angels" -- their is a certain "hierarchy of being" that is understood to exist, but never any misunderstanding that "God" isn't always and singly (ie., triply?) at the highest level of that hierarchy by definition.

Anyhoo, I've just been lurking around 3O a few weeks now myself, but would think that having users who add to the queue sign their entries would probably help in a number of ways and wouldn't do any harm that I can see. Support. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't "mostly windowdressing" (see archive 1 for extensive discussions as far back as 2005). I use the WP:3O history page to find a listing's timestamp and follow the corresponding contribs link for the dispute page history because I want to know whether it's a page of reasonable size or a 100+ kb monster before I open it. I don't care who listed the dispute. – Athaenara ✉ 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation: often I can figure out from reading the argument who requested a third opinion. Either the article talk page includes someone saying "I'm going to request a 3O" or the request is phrased in a way that you can tell who made it after you read the discussion. Therefore, I don't think it matters in the least whether people hide their usernames or not, but I approve of the decorum of hiding them in requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To Athaenara's point, I'm not suggesting that they be unsigned and I wholly agree that the timestamp is very valuable. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (and I can see that I might not have been), but I was just wondering if it wouldn't be better just to have them sign with a normal four-tilde signature rather than just a timestamp. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

3O template?

I saw this 3O-response diff made by E. Ripley a few days ago. I thought that was a really good way to start a response to a 3O-request -- is there a 3O template for that or similar to that that could be used? Should there be...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess anybody could make one up. Personally, I'd rather not use a template (especially one like that example asking for a summary of each argument; if I can't figure it out, I'll just ask). I'd strongly object to any such standardization. I usually start my responses "I am here responding to a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion" or something similar, and just go on from there with my analysis and my opinion. Each one is different. I don't think my opinions would lend themselves well to templating, especially if the opinion generates a huge follow-on discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• (See Template:Third opinion.) – Athaenara ✉ 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, exactly, cool!

I guess I did see "{{subst:third opinion|your_username}}" on the project page, but had only used {{subst:3OR | <your response> }} the couple of times I have formally opined so far.

Resolved

Thanks for the replies! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you found the template! Sometimes I use it, and sometimes I don't. If the arguments are self-explanatory and not voluminous typically I don't use the template. But if the arguments have run on forever or if they are fractious, heated or confusing, then I might use it to help encourage disputants to summarize their positions in a concise and nonpersonalized way. — e. ripley\^talk 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've created a number of 3O templates which you should feel free to modify and use (please copy them into your own userspace if you do), they're here. Please note that I no longer use the "Third Opinion Request removed" one because there is some feeling that it is too harsh or abrupt. Just FYI, I've used a "summarize your positions" request a number of times and only find that it works about 10% of the time, with it being ignored by one or both disputants the rest of the time; others may have had better luck with it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I just started one with a combination of elements from the templates mentioned on the project page (and unfortunately both of the disputing editors there then promptly got blocked!). Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with dispute at Talk:List of countries by number of troops‎‎

Disputant User:Enok is starting to edit-war with me over the talk-page section headings. See User talk:Enok#"List of countries by number of troops" dispute and the talk-page history. Could someone with more experience with this sort of thing help me out here if you have a chance? Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on the project page. Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I may have mentioned this too soon. The latest edit was not a revision, just a slight alteration, and it works. So no "edit-war" on this right now. Seems a very sensitive situation, though. Things are fine for now; I'll come back here if it starts to go haywire. ;) Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where to take a request for assistance or advice on the implementation of an in-progress 3O, Anaxial. On the project page or in the the FAQ. The disputants in this case are both coming off a 24-hour-block for edit-warring given shortly after the 3O had already begun, so this seems perhaps a more sensitive case than usual (at least in my experience, all 3 or so cases of it;). Where should I go for help of this kind if I run into the need for it as I am learning the 3O ropes? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alleged restrictions on disputes

I object to the assertion in a recent third opinion (diff) that "a dispute over behavior, rather than a current dispute over what content ought to go or not go into an article" should be removed from the project page and sent to wikiquette alerts instead. I see that as mispresentation of WP:3O guidelines and a needlessly narrow restriction with respect to the dispute, which was about whether a completed poll should or should not have been commented out on a Wikipedia talk page. Comments? – Athaenara ✉ 00:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with asking for a third opinion on the poll issue. I think it would be unfortunate to restrict 3O to content issues only and leave WQA as the only recourse for a dispute involving behavior. A 3O request is much friendlier than noticeboarding someone. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If a third opinion is requested, I don't see why it cannot be given. The type of dispute should not matter. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to pile on here, but I don't see a reason why we would restrict 3O only to content. Having said that, TransporterMan did still comment on the issue in some capacity, so there was at least some attempt. In general, though, I would say that we should be open to (nearly) all disputes - certainly content and behavior included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not a misrepresentation of the project guidelines at all: the first sentence of the project page is:

"Third opinion is a means to request an uninvolved opinion regarding a content discussion involving two editors." (Emphasis added.)

The word "content" has been in that sentence since the very first version of this page (at which time it said "content or policy"). If the consensus is that the project ought to be open to other disputes, that can be changed, but as the project stands now, it's for content disputes. In my opinion, that makes sense, too. The wikiquette alerts project is virtually identical to 3O, except that they put their opinions on the project page rather on the talk page where the dispute is occurring, but is for conduct disputes. There is no need for an overlap. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, well played. You're right - it does say that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps we should tweak the wording. In the case pointed out above (which is about actions of a user rather than behavior issues), it appears that TM gave a third opinion (ok, an informal one!) and that it was well received. 'Content only' is too restrictive a condition and not all disputes fall cleanly into other noticeboards. For example, I'm not sure WQA was the right forum for the example at hand because I don't see any incivility (quite the contrary, really) that needs addressing and 3O was perhaps the best chance for preventing the dispute from escalating. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But on further examination, I am wrong about it always having been there. It was there at the beginning, but disappeared for awhile, and I'm in the process of tracking down the history of its coming and going. It was last reintroduced on 22 December 2009 in this edit, which I brought to the attention of the community here. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Looks like we let a major 3O policy change slide by. Thanks for pointing that out TransporterMan. Definitely needs fixing. (My excuse: I was on vacation!)--RegentsPark (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the complete history of the inclusion of the content restriction in the project guidelines, as far as I can find it:

• 26 March 2005 (diff) Was included when the project first went live; a distinction was made between "controversy" and "content dispute" by project proposer, Itai, Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_1#Initial_discussion_copied_from_Wikipedia:Village_pump_.28proposals.29
• 26 June 2006 (diff) all mention of content was removed; the removal of the sentence in which it appeared was characterized, however, as "a waste of words" by the editor proposing removal, Eagle_101, without discussion of any change in policy, Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_1#Layout
• 23 March 2007 (diff) A disclaimer was added at the beginning of the lede (it was soon thereafter moved into a box at the top of the page), reading "This page is not official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process by which editors interested in lending a hand on content disputes can meet those that need such help."; no discussion on talk page that I could find
• 21 January 2009 (diff) The disclaimer was reworded and, among other changes, the reference to content was dropped, resulting in once again there being no mention of content on the project page; no discussion on talk page that I could find
• 22 December 2009 (diff) Reference to content disputes is reintroduced in lede, I raised the changes on talk page, as noted above.

My reading of all the foregoing is that the limitation to content disputes has been a part of the project since the very beginning. Though the language restricting it to content disputes has been fumbled into and out of introduced and removed from the stated guidelines a number of times, there is no evidence that I've been able to find that there has ever been an express or silent consensus to remove that limitation. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that "content" has been removed. I think that's wise. If an editor wants help in resolving an interpersonal dispute, he or she certainly should have the ability to do so. As for Transportman, his behavior was perfectly correct, given the clear restriction in the page at the time. Figureofnine (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus–seeking discussion on content limitation

Proposal: The scope of the Third Opinion project should continue to be limited to content disputes and should not include disputes over editor conduct. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Responses (please consider saying more than just support or oppose, let's make this a discussion not just a !vote):

• Support (as proposer) — To change the scope of the project at this point is rule creep and there are other fora for behavioral disputes and the mission of this project has been from the beginning to help to resolve content disputes. 3O Wikipedians are free to issue "third opinions" (note the lower case) in conduct disputes listed here if they like, with or without removing the dispute as inappropriate. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  Note that there are reliable forums for content disputes as well. Also, rule creep applies more to a tendency to add constraints. In this situation, assuming that the mission of this project has been from the beginning to help to resolve content disputes, we are suggesting relaxing a constraint. I'm not sure 'rule creep' is an accurate statement here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no harm in expanding the scope of 3O, and encourage TransporterMan to list his view of why an expansion would be negative. I favor expansion because it would give users an avenue for resolving disputes that don't involve content, but are simply differences of opinion on other matters. The situation that gave rise to this is a good example. It falls into the cracks. Perhaps the most persuasive reason is that it's not set in stone. If it proves unworkable for any reason, we can discuss further and change it back to content only. Figureofnine (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support Feel free to prove me wrong here, but I can't really think of a scenario where a user would post a true behavior dispute on WP:30 that wouldn't be more at home at WP:WQA, or need to be bumped up to WP:AN. However, we need to be careful to distinguish between behavior disputes, and content disputes that have behavior issues (bad faith accusations, edit wars, etc). IMO, the Beeblebrox 30 that started this discussion falls in to the latter category. Similarly, I think we are sometimes too quick to remove a dispute from the list because "it's a behavior dispute"--the only circumstance this should happen is if there's a request like "User:xxx is edit warring". If the dispute is too far gone for a third opinion, editors should still strive to be as helpful as possible: we can at a minimum suggest other means of dispute resolution. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal Perhaps we could add some language like: "3O works best for content disputes, but third opinion Wikipedians can provide their input on any matter" Mildly Mad^T_C 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that. Figureofnine (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (in a slightly different way): (edit conflict) I think 3O's strength (and weakness) is its very lightweight unbureacratic nature, in that it's just a place to solicit another wikipedian's input; I think it should be open to other questions - or, rather, we should be reluctant to say "Sorry, the nature of your disagreement is beyond our remit, we won't facilitate another wikipedian answering that question, try forum XYZ instead". Especially if a dispute arises which doesn't neatly fit into existing categories - surely one of the better places to take such a dispute is the forum which is least burdened by established procedures based on existing categories of disputes. There are other fora for all kinds of disputes, including content, yet 3O is already here. However, I do think that content issues are 3O's strongest point, so could we perhaps have some kind of compromise that mentions "Content" in conjunction with a word like "Usually" or "Especially" or "Preferably"...? bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - With Mildly Mad's caveats. No need to shy away from content disputes because they involve questionable conduct, but considering pure conduct questions would be, I think, sufficiently redundant to WP:WQA to render an expansion of scope here inefficient and undesirable. As to Mildly Max's alternative, I think it's fine to unlimit a 3O's review to any issue related to a content dispute, including conduct, but I think the language proposed suggests that 3O may be used for any dispute (without relation to a content dispute necessary), which I wouldn't support. --Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is Wikipedia. Content disputes are usually behavior disputes and vice versa. You can't reach through wikipedia and punch someone or steal their money. If a behavior dispute is completely outside the realm of content, such as talk page harassment unrelated to article content, then we shouldn't handle it. But that's rare. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It just occurred to me that the supports and opposes are saying nearly the same thing. I think there's more consensus here than the polling format is letting on. Maybe a poll was premature. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That's true. Look at Max's alternate proposal. Maybe we should discuss in a non-poll format. Figureofnine (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) I disagree that "Content disputes are usually behavior disputes and vice versa." I'll give you that they frequently come hand-in-hand, but 3O should not be used specifically for comment on user conduct; that's what WP:WQA is for. However, again, the presence of behavior problems should not discourage us from commenting on the original dispute, and we also should not shy away from recommending improvements to behavior that occurred during said dispute. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. This question links back to the question of whether requests should be removed from the list for incivility (which I finally decided for my part at least that they should not), but I do note that in most cases a 3O probably isn't going to solve a dispute over behavior. That's why the guidelines say that the project works best for disputes not involving incivility, I'd think. Now we're going to directly address those disputes? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur. And conduct disputes absent content are not rare. --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion Perhaps we should retry the poll with a different question? Or perhaps a poll isn't the best approach at all (at this time). I'd agree with Gigs' point. I almost completely agree with bsherr, yet their vote was the polar opposite of mine... bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly open for a restatement if that's what's thought best. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on "works best for ..., but" proposal — While I'm still opposed to moving away from content disputes, let me note that if we do widen the scope, I think we're going to need to spend some time talking about possible limits on that. Do we really want to be giving 3O's in disputes at Articles for Deletion, Sockpuppet Investigations, Requests for Adminship, and places like that? Or, ad absurdum, at other stages in Dispute Resolution? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That doesn't worry me, because what you are mentioning are disputes that invariably involve three or more editors. 3O is mainly for "pissing matches" between two users. Figureofnine (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. 3O has a pretty nice niche, as-is. WQA is available for lightweight attention on civility issues, and -- though I'm a huge fan of 3O's -- I don't see any benefit in encouraging this project to actively duplicate (in part) the WQA function. BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal #2 3O editors can create WQA reports on behalf of editors as a courtesy, notify the editors, and then close the 3O request. The 3O editor can feel free to comment at the WQA, even. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you favor listing non-content disputes? That's implied in your alternate proposal. Before 3O editors can intervene as you suggest, they need to be informed of the existence of a dispute. Figureofnine (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really favor the listings, however accidents happen all of the time in trying to find the correct WP:DR and in the cases where the 3O request turns out to be a request to scrutinize behavioral issues, we could just defer to the procedure I've suggested. BigK HeX (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment: I'm not sure if a straw poll is the right step. Polls are always better when they follow a discussion, not when they are used as a substitute for discussion. That said, I kind of agree with most of what is being said here. A third opinion is a defusing mechanism and, if requested, and if there are only a couple of editors involved, I would tend to think it should be given, whatever the nature of the dispute. The situation that has lead to this poll/discussion is very illustrative. The 3O editor declined to give an opinion and gave an opinion while declining by referring the disputants to WQA, which was probably not the right venue anyway. Then, the 3O editor proceeded to give another 'informal' opinion which was apparently well received. Are we going to put our 3O editors in the position of declining to give an opinion and then giving a good one 'informally'? Seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me, something which is completely contrary to the spirit of 3O. My suggestion is to leave the language as general as possible and let individual 3O editors give their opinions (which could include a referral to another notice board). The outcome is just an opinion that happens to sit in a quasi-formal setting. It is neither a policy prescription nor is it a definitive judgement on content. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • So long as everyone who weighs in here says more than just "Support" or "Oppose", as has been the case so far, then isn't this really a discussion that looks like a straw poll? Just like my !3O informal opinion was a 3O that wasn't a 3O? Just like a non-3O Wikipedian entering a dispute listed at 3O, without reference to 3O, can create a !3O that is a 3O as described in my Third Opinion Paradox essay? ;-) Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that RegentsPark raises several good points and I concur in his remarks. Figureofnine (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - 3O allows editors to see a content dispute through a neutral pair of eyes. This doesn't work for conduct issues - you can't offer an opinion on a conduct dispute without becoming part of it. Thparkth (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Much the same can be said for content disputes, regrettably. Figureofnine (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if we should have an RfC on this? (It's gone too far for a 3O!) Serious request, may be a good thing to do. Figureofnine (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The RfC should be phrased to discuss changing the scope, if such an RfC is desired. An RfC proposing to keep the scope the same is not useful; it would be better discussed here. I think it would be best to determine here more specifically what the change could be before an RfC; again, if consensus is for a change. --Bsherr (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)2 cents - I think third opinions are beneficial wherever there is a disagreement between two editors where others are unlikely to weigh in. To that end, I would be against being too strict with limiting its application. There wasn't really a big argument in the situation above, and it was resolved amicably when someone else chipped in, which is surely the point. No editor is forced to undertake a 3O, so if one is left for a while then an editor can hopefully provide direction to more suitable fora/forums. The AfD, SPI, etc issue is a red-herring, as those are forums with plenty of visibility and opportunity for others to weigh in. Bigger digger (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perhaps it needs to be stated that the purpose of the active disagreement list is not to clear it as rapidly as possible but to air disputes in a neutral manner there in order to attract the attention of editors who are willing to help out with them. Alternative processes such as WQA and RfC are comparatively much more time-consuming and cumbersome. We have been and should continue to be helpful to many editors with many types of disputes, not solely article content disputes. – Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm trying to look at this from a practical standpoint. Suppose we got a listing for "User X is calling me names." Well, there's two ways that could go: one, User X is harassing a person just for the sake of harassment, so this isn't really the right venue (i.e. should go to ANI or something); or two, the user is doing it as the result of a failed discussion. In that case, we can dig a little deeper, find that, and then try to do dispute resolution on the issue. I think the point is that, while the average 3Oer can say "yes, User X was behaving inappropriately and should stop", perhaps they shouldn't. And obviously things that need administrative action like DRV and SPI should be off-limits. Disagreements on changing Wikipedia policy inherently require community support are also beyond the scope. But beyond all that, what's left - aside from articles and content-related disagreements? Now as to trying to help people as much as possible, of course I agree with that. There's a difference between downright removing a request, and declining a request but trying to help move editors towards the places where they can get the aid they need. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly then I partly agree with this :). I agree with the digging part but feel that if a 3O editor, after reviewing the situation, feels that user X has behaved inappropriately then saying so, tactfully, is probably a good thing. User X may end up seeing it the same way and the dispute won't wind its way into a broader venue (which is always a good thing). 3O is an informal venue for finding an editor who can give an outside opinion on a dispute. Editors come here when they want to find a way to defuse a situation and we should not put constraints on what kind of situation they seek to defuse. And, since any individual 3O editor can choose whether or not to give an opinion, I don't see why these constraints are necessary.--RegentsPark (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think 3O would be of value in situations that don't quite rise to the level of harassment or ANI, or perhaps the editors don't want to escalate it that far. There are a lot of situations that cry out for a totally neutral third perspective. 3O carries with it much less risk of sparking an all-out conflagration where blocks are handed out. Figureofnine (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Another idea. Though I'm not changing my position from "support", I do think that Athaenara's statements may imply something that needs to be discussed. I've long been an advocate for shifting 3O from an "x opinion project", fill in whatever limiter you like, to a "neutral opinion project". What if we were to leave the scope guidelines as they are (limitation to content, no more than 2 disputants, no incivility, etc.) but were to add a new guideline specifically prohibiting removing items from the dispute list for any reason other than giving an opinion, staleness, or withdrawal by the editor who listed it? If the silent consensus is that a request isn't appropriate for the project then no one will take it, it will become stale a week later, and someone will remove it. Just a thought. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  I appreciate the spirit behind this suggestion (which, unless I'm mistaken, is to make 3O more inclusive) but leaving a content only guideline in place will discourage other types of disputes. Many a disputant will see the content only guideline and move on to other venues and there will be some degree of arbitrariness in the arrival of non-content disputes. I'd much rather be open in our listing requirements from the start. However, I'm open to seeking a third opinion on this :) --RegentsPark (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  Often (I think) the boundaries can be blurred, or the two types of dispute can be interrelated; two people disagree over content and then start sniping at each other, or some grudge sparks a revert-war over otherwise uncontroversial text. bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with this. 30 is quick-and-dirty enough that, if a dispute is not suitable, removing it is simply a matter of someone "taking" that 30 and suggesting another means of dispute resolution. Whether a 3O Wikipedian wants to give an opinion is their personal preference; if nobody wants it, then the dispute becomes stale and the dispute is resolved through other means anyway. We don't need any hmm-ing and haw-ing about whether someone should take it; Just Do It! :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another proposal: I've not precisely counted !votes, but there does not seem to be much consensus for either extreme, that is, taking the content restriction out altogether or leaving it in, but there does seem to be some consensus for a middle ground. In an attempt to reach for that, what if we:

• remove the content restriction but
• insert the prohibition I mentioned above against removing items from the list for any reason other than giving an opinion, staleness, or withdrawal by the editor who listed it?

Though I'm in favor of the content restriction, I also like the idea of this becoming (I'm repeating myself here) a neutral opinion project without limitations on number of editors, civility, or the like. If 3O Wikipedians can't remove requests from the list because they don't fit the guidelines, then it really doesn't matter very much what the guidelines are or aren't so I don't suppose I much care in that case whether there is a content restriction or not. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. With the added caveat that items can also be removed if the dispute involves more than two editors. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assessment that there's no consensus here. There seems to be a pretty clear consensus:

• 3O should not be used for disputes that are only about behavior, completely unrelated to a content question
• We shouldn't be removing 3O requests on "technicalities".

Wikipedia does not have firm rules. It's one of our pillars. A desire to create strictly followed rules is misguided, just as rejecting 3Os for petty reasons is. Gigs (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

After studying in more depth what everyone has said, I agree that your first assessment is correct (and indeed, I also basically agree with that position; I never intended to imply that content disputes should be removed because they also involve conduct disputes). I'm not so sure about your second point, but it's more because I am uncertain what it means and/or implies, especially when combined with your closing remarks. I think that you're saying that there should be guidelines which determine which disputes should and should not be within the scope of 3O, but that there should not be any guidelines which either allow or restrict the removal of disputes which are, in fact, listed. (I suspect you would not extend that reasoning to mechanical guidelines such as those which say that disputes which are taken or — perhaps — are stale ought to be removed, but perhaps I'm wrong.) If I'm correct, then am I also correct that it would be your position that an editor who violates those "shoulds" ought to be subject to public criticism but not to warnings and blockings even if he/she is unrepentant and intransigent? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not writing an ISO standard here. If someone brings a dispute to us, we should make an effort to offer a third opinion unless it's completely inappropriate. Dispute resolution is already a bureaucratic maze. If people think they want a third opinion, we should usually give it to them. Gigs (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that, Gigs. – Athaenara ✉ 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say..! Bigger digger (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Me four. :) --RegentsPark (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility problems originate in content disputes. Only an idiot would prioritize the symptoms. 84.104.135.143 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for some headings

Sorry for the useless title. When I was more involved about 18 months ago, I'm sure there was a bit on the page that suggested that requests for a third opinion might benefit from summarising the situation on the article talk page, and there were headings for that. I could've done with them earlier today; have I been imagining these headings or were they deleted/moved? Bigger digger (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Third opinion is one. – Athaenara ✉ 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what I was thinking of, thanks Athaenara. Is this linked from the project page or somewhere else? Bigger digger (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on the project page under providing third opinions. – Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

3PO required at baptism page

Collapsed 3O request to neutralize, neutralized and copied to main page

At the Baptism page, User Esoglou keeps inserting sources published in 1911 and referencing them as published in 2009, along with a source from 1903 which he does not date at all (diff). Quite apart from the fact that these sources from 1911 are being misleadingly dated to give the impression that they are modern, none of these three sources meet WP:RS/AC, which I have proved using a dozen references from the current scholarly literature (diff, diff). User Swampyank is in agreement with me, but I would like another opinion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

3PO required at immersion baptism page

Collapsed 3O request to neutralize, neutralized and copied to main page

In a dispute related to that at the Baptism page, User Walter Görlitz claims that John Calvin is a WP:RS for the definition of the Greek words used in the New Testament for the act of baptism (diff). I have explained that John Calvin is not a recognized lexicographical authority, and that standard modern lexicographical scholarship (which I have cited), holds a very different view. I have also included John Calvin's view in the article referenced as John Calvin's opinion rather than as an authoritative lexicographical WP:RS (diff). User Walter Görlitz does not believe WP:RS applies here. I would like another opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

An editor named Leadwind has made a large number of edits to Gospel of Luke over the past couple of days. He has been pushing a POV, where he discounts the views of scholars who he labels "apologists" or "sectarian". There were many sources from widely published scholars and well-regarded publications that he just deleted because he said they were "apologists" (i.e. they are scholars who happen to be Christian). His edits fly in the face of wikipedia policy as he is trying to push what he thinks is the "true" view. He has one editor backing him up, so there isn't a whole lot I can do, although other editors have made comments on his inappropriate methods. They have also reverted some of his changes, only to find him or the other editor undoing their edits. He made so many changes that the page is now locked because of this dispute. Please see my comment on the matter (Talk:Gospel_of_Luke#Page_locked) and please comment.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian, thanks for your note. However, there are two problems with your request for a third opinion. First, you've added it to the talk page. Second, there are a number of other editors engaged at the article you refer to, so a third opinion is not really suitable. Finally, it's not clear to me how you are trying to improve the encyclopedia and build WP:CONSENSUS with the other editors on the page, you just seem to be involved in an WP:EDITWAR. Bigger digger (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More congratulations

Though the formal announcement has not yet been made by Jimmy Wales, it should be noted here that it appears that one of our most active Third Opinion Wikipedians, Jclemens, has been elected to the Arbitration Committee. Congratulations to Jclemens and thanks to him for his hard work both here at 3O and for Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No-removal guideline failure?

About 60 days ago, I added the following to the project guidelines:

Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action.

While I still think that it is a good idea, I'd like to suggest that it has proven to be a failure in practice, at least in its current formulation and position at the bottom of the article. What do you think? Should it be retained as is, reformulated, moved to the FAQ as a "consideration" rather than being a project guideline, repositioned to a more prominent location, given a longer trial, and/or something else?

My thoughts are that it's not going to have much effect unless it's moved to the first part of the project (or, perhaps, a sentence should be inserted in the lede saying something like, "Individuals wishing to help with this project should be sure to read the 'Providing third opinions' and 'Declining requests for third opinion' sections below."). Also, we either need to make some exceptions to it for some uncontroversial removals (e.g. for disputes with no discussion and disputes in which a 3O has been given but the listing has not been removed) or — and this goes to the discussion above — it should be limited to removals for multiple editors, incivility, and conduct/content.

Best regards, and season's greetings, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't notice your proposal to insert this wording at the time that you made it; if I had I would probably have argued against it. The most common reason for removing cases from the 3O list is that there are already lots of people involved in the discussion. I personally wouldn't be too strict about it; a fourth opinion is nearly as important as a third opinion. All the same, supplying commenter #19 for an already well-established and well-functioning discussion is not the mission of WP:3O. The other major reasons for declining 3O are that there is no clearly-evident dispute to comment on and no one involved is prepared to explain what the dispute is, and finally cases where the tag was used entirely in error. None of these situations are "technicalities". The outcome that occurs in practice - the 3O is declined with a polite note explaining why - is actually the best possible outcome in these cases, even though it somewhat contradicts your guideline wording. I appreciate the spirit and intention of your change, but I think it may be just one more Wikipedia guideline that only works as intended in a better and cleverer world than the one we actually occupy ;) Thparkth (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)