Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Shortcut: WT:3O

Archive 1 - February 11, 2005 to December 18, 2006

Contents 1 Non-neutral descriptions 1.1 Clear instructions 2 Removal of posted dispute 3 Userbox or Wikiproject? 4 When to delist requests 5 Bit off more than I could chew? 6 Template 7 Non neutral postings 8 Neutrality Project 9 Talk: Clinical psychology 10 So, do you just "do it"? 11 What happens next? 12 Just two editors? 13 3o template 14 Restored box 15 My first 3rd opinion

[edit] Non-neutral descriptions

Perhaps the easiest way out of this problem would be to not require descriptions at all? More often than not, descriptions are biased - even when that is not intended. Whatever the case, a provider of a 3O must look up the article, so the description is actually quite redundant. I therefore suggest we remove that requirement and just require "[[article]] ~~~~~", the article in question and a timestamp.

If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I mildly object. It doesn't really matter to me if the description is biased. I can look at the description, look at the talk page, look at the article's edit history, and form my own opinion. The bias of the plaintiff doesn't affect me, and I doubt it affects anyone else when the plea is clearly biased. The description is helpful to me. I don't have enough time as it is, and I would prefer to see a summary of the dispute so that I can determine if I want to spend my time getting involved.

I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =Axlq 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that editors often fail to do so, sometimes causing vigilant 3O-providers to simply de-list them, without looking into the matter, such as [1] and [2]. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those two examples, it seems to me the primary reason for removing the second one was that no dispute existed on the article's talk page. That's reason enough to delete the plea regardless of what else might be wrong with the wording of the dispute summary.

The first example, on the other hand, was deleted for non-neutral language. Personally I think this is a good thing because (a) it serves as a lesson for the future, and (b) it indicates that the plaintiff wasn't interested in a neutral opinion to help resolve the dispute, but wanted to sway the opinion instead. If the plaintiff isn't interested in neutrality, why bother offering an opinion? Better to delete the plea. =Axlq 06:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a line up there I've wanted to emblazon in large type, about the description requirement:

→  it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral.

— Athænara ✉ 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear instructions

I have noticed that the simple, clear instructions in 'Listing a dispute' on the W:3O project page are ignored by many users who avail themselves of it. In the hope of improving the situation, I indented, italicised, and added a model timestamp to For example to draw more attention to the form, and bolded the words description, link to a specific section in a talk page, and add the date without your name. If this seems to have been excessive, please feel free to revert. Athænara ✉ 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. =Axlq 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of posted dispute

My post of an Active disagreement was as follows:

• "Talk:Que Será Será (House episode). Dispute: whether the name of the Wikipedia article should or should not have accent marks. Pertinent article talk page sections: "Accent marks" and "Titles: Episode & Article." 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)"

Three minutes later (03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)), it was removed with the edit summary "rv, dispute must be between two editors only." I did not know until after I clicked "Save page" to post the Active disagreement that a third editor (for the first time in over ten days) had posted. I still do not know whether he intends to be involved or was merely expressing momentary exasperation.

I have been a registered user for only two months. The processes described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes are still unfamiliar to me. May the existence of the active disagreement be aired/restored longer than three minutes on Wikipedia:Third opinion or must it go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Athænara ✉ 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As being the user that you are alluding to, I am not involved in the dispute. I just said a word in hopes of ending the conversation. Please ignore my comment if need be. I have since relisted the request and notified the delister. Cheers, PullToOpen^Talk 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops—it happened again. I clicked "Save page" here at 03:51, then discovered when I checked my watch page that the original Active disagreement had been restored at 03:49. Thanks, PullToOpen. –Æ. ✉ 04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox or Wikiproject?

• Is there a Userbox or Wikiproject that involves editors who regularly monitor this page and provide third-party opinions on topics that they have a neutral interest in? Smee 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

So far as I know (I first knew of this project last month) there are none, but your idea drew me into playing with a WP:3O userbox; here's a first try at it. Athænara ✉ 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

→ (Second sample userbox added 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC))— Æ. ✉

• Looks cool. Maybe it could be made into an official userbox and template, so we could list it on the userbox pages, create a wikiproject, and not have to repeat all that code on userpages? Would be an interesting idea... Smee 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I created the Userbox and associated category! Woo hoo! {{User Third opinion}}. Now to test if it works... and then to explain it on this article's main page... Smee 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Here again is the new userbox: {{User Third opinion}} , and the category that it outputs to is Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. Smee 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow, you work fast—maybe the box itself will be spiffier some day, or perhaps simplicity's best. I'm now in the category. Athænara ✉ 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Hopefully it will populate with interested Wikipedians... Smee 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to see a userbox with the opposite message: "This editor provides third opinions and occasionally makes use of them" or some such message. That would describe me more accurately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The text in my first draft userbox above can be edited to use on your page, but it doesn't add the category and is not as easy to use as a template. Hope this helps. Athænara ✉ 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the description on the WP:3O page, there's no harm in specifying both options: add Category:Third opinion Wikipedians to one's own page or use the template. Contributors who want no userboxes on their pages might want to be in the category. That matters more than a userbox. —Æ. ✉ 11:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with specifying both options on the WP:Third opinion page. Smee 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Great idea with that category/user box, I will probably join. A have a small gripe with the box design though, as the text appears in no less than four lines in my browser (Firefox on Ubuntu Linux), due to the linebreak after "Third Opinions". Would there be any harm in removing that break? - Cyrus XIII 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Smee 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Cool! - Cyrus XIII 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The gold colourful one is currently in the template, and does output to the category. Smee 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not as I drew it  ;-D I meant the ones on this page. Your current template, however, does, though it's not on the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians page itself. — Æ. ✉ 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is.  :) Smee 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] When to delist requests

I've recently noticed that some third opiners, particularly those using the {{Third opinion}} template will leave the dispute listed while they wait for response from those already involved (which is perfectly in line with the current instructions, which say that the dispute should be delisted when the third opinion has been given). I feel that everyone should remove the listing as soon as they pick it up, even if things aren't totally settled (whether because you're waiting for the parties to fill in the template or you think you may need to go back and clarify what you've said), as the dispute no longer needs the attention of another third opiner. It's a bit of a pain to look at the active disagreements, click on one, and find it's already halfway to being sorted out. Would anyone object to me modifying the instructions to this effect? --Scott Wilson 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. The current instructions are out of date now, since they were written before this new template was created. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm sorry I left the 3O I was dealing with on the request page... PTO 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no; please don't take this as a criticism in any way: firstly, what you were doing totally follows the instructions, and secondly, it could be argued that the dispute should be left listed until it's resolved, as it is for RfCs and so on, although I - and I am evidently not alone - feel that that would defeat the 'quick and dirty' ethos of the third opinion. --Scott Wilson 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't take it as criticism. Rather, as my 3O was still on the request board when this message appeared, I feel that my actions were the driving force of this comment :). Cheers, PTO 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, although my practice (in the couple of opinions I've given) is to leave the request listed until I have answered it. Only then do I de-list the request. I think it's silly to wait until things are resolved, because that can take days or weeks, especially if the dispute is headed for arbitration. =Axlq 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I developed the habit of navigating the WP:3O history diffs to see requests which have been removed very quickly after posting, then checking the links to see if there has been any progress or resolution. When requests remain visible a little longer, this circuitous route isn't so often needed. — Athænara ✉ 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, Athaenara. You look at pages which have already had a third opinion given to check if the dispute has settled down? Surely that isn't a third opinion; it's a fourth (if it's needed). Third opiners should be hanging around to clarify their position anyway; I don't think we really need oversight. If the third opinion didn't solve things, then another type of dispute resolution (an RfC, for instance) has to be pursued, and that's for the participants in the dispute to decide. If I did misinterpret you, please ignore the above paragraph entirely! --Scott Wilson 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit off more than I could chew?

I took a 3O request yesterday, thinking it was just a simple content dispute....but the 3O ended up getting quite heated. My request here is for a peer review of how I handled the scenario, so that I don't repeat any mistakes that I made (and I probably made a few). The dispute itself is at Talk:Rocky Marciano, with a few comments on user talk pages (User talk:BoxingWear#Re:Problem). The user in question left a note on my talk page (User talk:PullToOpen#Mkill_problem) shortly after I left the 3O template on the page, but says that I formulated an opinion before he told his side of the story. Comments? (Also, I'm looking for true criticism, so please tell it like it is.) Thanks in advance, PTO 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the new template is unfortunate in that it formalizes something that has worked very well informally. Here one of the users seems to have the expectation that this is some formal mediation process, which it is not. Claiming that posting his version of the dispute on your talk page is not sufficient to tell his side of the story is ridiculous. Grouse 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The template was introduced without consensus and has only caused problems (see above discussion). Reading the existing discussion on an article's talk page has always been sufficient for 3O purposes. I'm tempted to put the template up for a deletion vote. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you handled that dispute well, PTO, and I don't think it was easy, either—as in "Tips for the angry new user" (linked on Jossi's page), I was astounded at how nice you were to a complete maniac. As for the template, though it was undoubtedly well intended, WP3O works much better without it. I have never used it, I never will use it, and I will vote for its deletion, Simões, if that is proposed. — Athænara ✉ 10:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

→ Postscript: That bulleted line should, I think, be removed from the project page for discussion (or neglect) here. The key concept ("the informal and speedy nature of the third opinion process is its advantage over more formal methods of dispute resolution") is obstructed by the template itself. — Æ. ✉ 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PTO, I don't think there was anything you could have done in this case that would have brought about a different outcome. The fact is, if someone believes they WP:OWN articles, edits, etc, they will not be able to accept criticism, editing, etc. Well Done. Pastordavid 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The template itself is a good job, in its structure and purpose, and some may want to use it, but it can be counter-productive to apply it specifically to WP3O.

…you can use the {{Third opinion}} [template] to create a new section in the article's talk page and request a summary of the dispute. Use {{subst:third opinion|username}}. Only do this if you cannot understand the dispute otherwise…

For now, I've moved the template line here because WP3O's key advantages, informality and brevity, are obstructed by it. ("If the nature of the dispute is not immediately apparent to you" is already addressed by "Read the arguments of the disputants.") — Athænara ✉ 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? I think it is very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it robs third opinions of their greatest strength; their speed and informality. A third opiner can go in, read up on the dispute, say their piece, and we're done (hopefully). The template, although a very good idea, make things too formal and slow in my opinion, requiring the third opiner to wait for the involved parties to reply. It could also halt proceedings entirely if someone was looking for a third opinion to consolidate their position against a user who will not participate in discussion. Nonetheless, I think third opiners should be free to use the template if they wish, especially in the more complicated disputes, or where discussion is on user talk pages, although I personally haven't been and won't be using it. --Scott Wilson 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it has potential utility, somewhere, but specifically not for the informal processes which give WP3O its unique effectiveness. — Æ. ✉ 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I found it very useful. In most, if not all cases, it is quite difficult to make heads from tails of a dispute, in particular if the subject is obscure and the editors involved have been going at each other for a while with arguments back and forth. Asking them to summarize, is also helpful for them. It actually helps to keen the process swift and efficient. If TO editors do not want to use it, they don;t have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Simoes: I strongly object to your reversion of the template info. Why are you edit warring about this? It is a useful template, and if editors want to use it, that is fine, and if they do not want to use it tat is fine too. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A sense of proprietorship is understandable, but repeatedly adding it to the project page in the absence of a consensus supporting it is more than inconsiderate and defies WP:OWN. Repeated reversions (16:49) (17:03) (21:49) (23:27) on the project page are not good. Do stop, jossi. You cannot force a consensus which does not exist; neither can you park the responsibility on another user's doorstep. — Athænara ✉ 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you object, but you added it without consensus. You also appear to be only one in favor of it being there, making the consensus against the template's inclusion. The template isn't just a handy option for those who choose to use it: it disrupts the process for other 3O providers (see the above sections). Additionally, those requesting third opinions may not want to deal with it, either: they might have gone the 3O route in order to make possible a quick resolution. Again, I'm sorry, but I can't support the template being on the project page. Unless you can muster up a consensus, it will have to stay this way. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This borders on the ridiculous. The template is an option. Why not to allow an option such as this one? "No consensus" is not an argument that can be addressed. Explain why it is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an option being discussed here, not on the project page. — Æ. ✉ 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe I gave reasons for my own position. Scott Wilson and Athaenara have also given similar reasons. There is also, again, the above two sections. I leave the rest to you. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to "See also" section. Let those that want to use it, do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unreasonable. A "see also" section, is a compromise that I would have hoped it would be accepted as such. And before your warn others of 3RR, you should not be edit warring yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you two, lets not have an edit war on a dispute resolution page. Jossi is one revert away from breaching 3RR, and a couple other users are also very close. Lets not edit the page anymore until we work something out, OK? So, does anybody have any objections or concerns about the proposed "see also" section? PTO 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to it being anywhere on the project page. Its existence has only disrupted an already-working process and is an instance of needless instruction creep. I recognize and respect that Jossi will disagree with both of these points, but he has only begun participating in this project this week and is working against experienced people in the 3O project. I recommend abandoning this template idea per WP:SNOW.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that WP:SNOW is applicable here. I believe that a discussion would be more productive instead of snowballing the template. (Also, I was under the imperession that WP:SNOW is only for processes.) PTO 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be using an overly rough interpretation of WP:SNOW, but I think the spirit of the idea is applicable here (call the process "consensus-building"). I, personally, am steadfast against the template idea (though I grant the possibility of some unexpectedly persuasive argument being presented by Jossi), and I don't see anyone else budging on this issue, either. From the very beginning, the template has had a lone supporter--its creator--and this does not appear to be changing. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood that the template was not welcome by some editors on this project. Fair enough. I was surprised by the ownership, but well, it happens. But to remove it from the "See also" section, is to me being unreasonable. If editors in this project cannot be open to suggestions from newcomers, then the whole idea of having a Third Opinion project falls flat on its face. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To those that are asking me avoid violating 3RR, I would say this: With more than 32,000 edits in Wikipedia, I have never breached 3RR knowingly. And I do not intend to do so in this article either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing the page and hoping that no one will object (after similar edits have received objections) is not the way to usher in a compromise. And making changes without first proffering them on the talk page does not constitute making a suggestion: it is forcing your idea on everyone else. I think all of us are open to suggestions, but this does not mean that anyone will necessarily agree with them. The most productive procedure here is to pitch your idea and see how it takes. You can modify it if few people like it, but even this will not guarantee acceptance among other editors. Finally, the 3O project isn't falling flat on it face: it's been working wonderfully for a long time now. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in WP:BOLD and offering a useful template for those that may want to use it. Obviously, we have an obvious case of WP:OWN, inasmuch as a good faith edit is immediately reverted, and a subsequent compromise offered reverted again without any discussion about its merits or lack therof. You can keep your project to yourself with that attitude. I am removing this page from my watch list and removing myself from the project. I will not use it again either. Good luck with your project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non neutral postings

In re "clearing list of two non-neutrally-described disagreements" (diff)—Simoes beat me to it by one minute :-D — Athænara ✉ 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the collective rush to do list maintenance. ;) Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So where's the right place to ask for comments when you think another wikipedian is completely disruptive? I looked at all the procedures and each seemed like the wrong place for one reason or another. I tried to be as kind as possible in my description, but the base of the problem is that another editor is reverting and insisting on their version being the version despite displaying poor article writing skills and a lack of basic understanding of the topic. Expressing that neutrally is hard :-/ So where do I go? Gronky 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are other frequent or semi-frequent editors of the article, you might call their attention to the problem by posting on their talk pages. If that is not an option, you could try contacting the mediation cabal. If the disruptive editor violated the 3RR, you should report him/her. I've been in your situation before and understand the frustration of it, but this page is mainly for disagreements where there is at least a minimal mutual acknowledgment of the involved editors' knowledge, abilities, and good faith. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the cabal, I hadn't seen that before. Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gronky, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts can be a good place to post it if you don't want to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) (backlog there) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (WP:RFC). — Athænara ✉ 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts seems suitable, thanks. I'll try it or the cabal if the problem persists (it has been quite for a few hours now, which is nice). Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Project

I wonder if it might be helpful if Wikipedia:Neutrality Project and Wikipedia:Third opinion listed each other in See also sections on their project pages. — Athænara ✉ 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're okay with it, I don't see why not. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Clinical psychology

I responded to this dispute the first time out, but backed away when it seemed to involve more than two editors. Someone else is welcome to respond, or check the situation out, but I probably should stay out entirely because I responded the first time. Frankly, I think it would be better of as a Mediation. -- Pastordavid 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UT

Thanks for clarifying what happened. It is true that separate discussions have ended up overlapping, and in that sense involved 3 editors. Help is still needed to bring this together into a consensus that isn't dominated by any one editor. Since you suggest mediation, I will read up about that, and if go down that route I'll remove the 3rd op request from here. Thanks for your input in any case. EverSince 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, do you just "do it"?

I have been asked to provide a 3rd opinion on an article currently involved in an edit war. I am fairly conversant on the topic (arguably better than most of the parties involved) and I believe my opinion would be useful. However I have had previous dealings with two of the three editors involved, and I'm wondering if that means I should recuse myself? If not, can I simply post my opinion on the matter without a formal request being made here? It appears that is the case, but I'd like to be sure. I'm also curious about the comments about more than two editors, which is the case in this example. This being the case, does it go straight to RfC or such? I'd like to avoid that if possible. Maury 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I say jump in. If they haven't asked for a 3O, you're under no obligation to call it a formal Third Opinion - but neither are you constrained by your personal contacts with these editors from being involved. The question is, will your presence there help with the edit war or escalate it to a problem that requires mediation? Snuppy 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're actually involved in the edit war, you definitely need to recuse yourself. If you're know these users, I suggest you offer your opinion. It will be easier to converse with those two if you are familiar with them, and they are familiar with you. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I did this, and suggested that one part of the debate seemed "undebatable" to me, and that the second part of the debate could likely be solved with a new paragraph instead of the constant back and forth edits. I haven't checked back yet, fingers crossed... Maury 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, it worked! Talk:Amelia_Earhart#The ongoing debate Maury 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job! Smee 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What happens next?

So I provided my opinion on a third-opinion request (Talk:Frank Ticheli) the other day. One of the parties involved (specifically, User:71.51.41.2 (talk • contribs)) accused me of being a troll and vandal, and reverted the edit made in accordance with that opinion. I reverted it once again, and provided a clarification of my opinion on the Talk page in question. The angry user has declared this vandalism and restored the article to its highly questionable state. In fact, that's pretty much the sum total of this user's contributions to Wikipedia: adding this dubious paragraph and then reverting edits that try to remove or improve it. I'm not invested nearly enough in the subject to want to get into an edit war, and it's clear the user isn't interested in discussion of the issue. If someone else can take over from here and guide it to the next stage, I'd be greatly appreciative. Snuppy 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the obvious edit war, it would be best to have the article fully protected for a while. This sometimes helps to let a situation cool down and a troll lose interest. - Cyrus XIII 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I think it would be better to just wait until the user violates WP:3RR which will probably be very soon and then block him for it. Grouse 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a tough call. Maybe listing an RFC on the article's talk would be a good idea - but in the general spirit of WP:THIRD, the individual providing the opinion should be able to just state their view and have that be that... Smee 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

So the feuders don't mistake you for a troll, I suggest putting it under a separate section. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just two editors?

Should 3O really be limited to just conflicts involving two editors? Those sorts of conflicts are very rare. Additionally, many of the articles that get listed here involve more than two editors in a dispute. Why shouldn't 3O just be for soliciting an outside opinion? Very often, one outside editor is all that is needed to help disputants get some perspective on the conflict. I propose changing 3O to reflect this and the usage of the page. What do others think? Vassyana 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hrm, if more than two editors are involved, I think WP:RFC is the better way to go. As other have stated, this does fill a niche... Smee 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Sure, why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a big change. Let us please discuss this here for a bit before changing it. Smee 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • There is a related thread and a different opinion on this from User:Durova, at User_talk:Durova#Your_input_would_be_appreciated. Smee 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

This is a non-binding, non-policy process, that was started by well meaning editors wanting to lend a hand in disputes. As such, it is pliable and adaptable, and should remain such. It is simply a way to ask other editors to take a look and offer some help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like the notice you put at the top of the page. Is there a way to put than in some sort of box, instead of being bolded? Smee 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Sure. You can do that, would you, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. Please let me know what you think... Smee 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Moving a few comments here to centralize discussion and more clearly provide my reasoning.

3O is just providing an outside opinion. Mediation is a coordinated effort to reach consensus. RfC is intended to bring in a broad variety of views and assistance on an article after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. I do not think there would be any danger of obfuscating the distinction between the three. I understand the 3O's intended purpose was for the two-editor niche, but it is widely used simply to solicit an outside opinion to bring perspective to articles and I see no harm in revising 3O to reflect, and encourage, that.

I think altering 3O to include simple requests for an outside opinion, regardless of the number of disputants, would be more encouraging. Instead of being geared towards a very narrow niche, it can be presented as a place to simply solicit an outside opinion. This would not prevent or interfere with the niche it already serves, it would simply expand its scope. It provides an avenue for editors simply seeking an outside opinion rather than mediation or a full outside review. It would be less discouraging to novices because it would be more broadly useful. Novices may also be intimidated with mediation and RfCs, but they could still get an outside opinion if they're unsure about a conflict or involved in a content dispute without the "formality" of mediation and RfC. Notably it is much simpler to ask for a third opinion, than to file a mediation case or open an RfC. Of course, this is all just my opinion. You're more than welcome to a few grains of salt. ;) Vassyana 07:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Provided the person coming in providing the Third Opinion can still give their 2 cents, and pop in and pop out, as it were, I think your points make sense. Smee 07:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I see some advantages toward doing it when more than two parties are involved, mostly laid out by Vassyana. (If there were consensus to do that, probably best to move the page to something besides "third opinion", since we wouldn't necessarily be providing a third one). However, I see some disadvantages too. In many cases that I've provided a third opinion, it's effectively settled the matter (especially since much of the time I don't agree entirely with one side or the other, and can synthesize a solution incorporating the good points of both sides' arguments.) In the case it's only two editors (or even three or four, and at some points if I feel I have a suggestion that might be helpful I'll provide an opinion in those cases anyway), an outside, largely neutral voice can be helpful to ending the dispute. However, I think the niche this fills is minor "brushfire" disputes, in which neither editor can come to an agreement but neither side wishes to engage in protracted dispute resolution. Those are most likely to occur with a small number of editors-once you've got several editors on two or more "sides", one additional opinion may add fuel to the fire rather than putting it out. In those cases, we probably would be doing more of a service to the involved editors and the project as a whole by pointing the disputants to RFC or mediation rather than here. (<rant>This being said: The other thing that would be tremendously helpful is if more people would participate in article RFC's. Everyone here is probably very used to giving outside opinions, there's nothing more frustrating than when both sides can agree to file an RFC, only to get few or no C's!</rant>) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made a draft version to illustrate the proposal User:Vassyana/3O. I think it addresses the reservations and concerns expressed. This draft assumes a rename/move. Complications to consider:

1. Moving a widely linked page
2. Redirecting existing shortcuts for continuity
3. Choosing new shortcuts
4. Renaming/moving categories
5. Renaming/updating userbox
6. Other pages mentioning 3O as two-editor would need updating

Anyone should feel free to tinker with the draft. More comments and criticisms are always welcomed as well. We need more community input before we decide one way or the other, but I figured a draft version of the proposed changes and an honest assessment of the complications would be helpful to the discussion. Thoughts? Vassyana 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O is a small-scale project, a niche project which is rather effective in its small way.

I think editors who are looking for a a bit more to sink their teeth into, as it were—something with more scope, something more challenging—will find what they seek by participating on WP:RFC, WP:RFC/USER, WP:ANI and the like, rather than by trying to change the character and function of WP:3O itself. — Athænara ✉ 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the changes would make 3O comparable to the scope or "challenge" of RfC or ANI. It would still retain the informality it currently does. It would still retain the same format of submission and participation it currently does. The only thing that would change is that it would explicitly allow conflicts with more than two editors to be posted. People already post conflicts here with more than two editors*. The change would simply be reflecting that usage and explicitly allowing it. I just don't understand how such a change would be as drastic as you imply. Vassyana 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Any further feedback, or input? Vassyana 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing I guess. Don't fix things that aren't broken - the current 3O page works fine. --User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is being used for disputes with more than two editors, both by requestors and WP:3Oers, as acknowledged by Athaenara below. This at the very least indicates a disconnect between the stated limitations/purpose of 3O and its actual usage. One could easily argue such a disconnect means it is "broken". Vassyana 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

People sometimes do* and WP:3Oers sometimes address them. See also: Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep (including non-creepy instructions), Scope creep and Featuritis. — Athænara ✉ 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should not be changed unnecessarily. It ain't broke. Heck, I'm still opposed to the big new banner at the top of the page, which jossi came back to add after storming out of here earlier. The longer and more complicated this page gets, the less likely people will read the instructions. Grouse 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If people do it, what is wrong with modifying the page to reflect the usage? As for Athaenara's links, they are simply not applicable to the discussion. I am not proposing that we add additional features or instructions, which means that the problems of instruction creep and feature creep are excluded by their basic definitions. Athaenara, I'm not comprehending the substance of your objection to the proposed change. Could you please explicitly state why you feel the change is a bad idea? How would it harm the project? If the change is bad and/or harmful, should we do more to discourage more than two editor disputes from being listed on 3O? If not, why not? Vassyana 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it works fine now. I don't think you have identified a good reason to change it. Grouse 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smee "Hrm, if more than two editors are involved, I think WP:RFC is the better way to go. As other have stated, this does fill a niche..." --Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'd go to Guerrilla mediation, by now, though that's just starting. If it's ok for people in 3O to give opinions in a wider scope, then perhaps Guerrilla mediation could be made redundant (because the same/similar function could be served here)? :-) --Kim Bruning 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3o template

I made a {{3o}} template because I was sick of typing the same boilerplate everywhere. Feel free to be bold and use it/edit it/add it as an optional bit to the main page here. I'm not doing the latter myself because of the controversy over the last template. Grouse 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just use a Third opinion subsection heading. Good thinking in re that other controversy. Simplicity seems to work best on this project :-) — Athænara ✉ 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restored box

I restored the "informal" notice box. While WP:DR is official policy, the individual components are not necessarily official guidelines or policies. WP:MEDCAB is part of WP:DR, yet entirely informal by design. 3O similarly depends on volunteers and has no defined official process, which to me would make it an informal process by definition. Thoughts? Vassyana 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My first 3rd opinion

I performed my first 3rd opinion here, and I would like to get some feedback on how I handled it. I would like to know if I screwed up. Arcayne 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, you write twenty times as much as I do when I give a third opinion. If you are an expert of the subject matter this is good, but try to be concise.

"I am not either for or against the article's points - that is why it is called a Third Opinion. " - not true. A third opinion can be for or against any of the two parties involved. In all third opinions I've written (only been doing this for a week or so, btw) I chose a side, and supported my choice with some arguments. In rare cases I just summed up the wrong points and left.

Still, well done, no 'screwing up' happened. Don't worry, and you don't have to spend an hour on each opinion you give. Good luck with future Third Opinions.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. However, I do consider the rendering of a Third Opinion the weighing of both opinions presented, and plotting the correct course, which may be in favor of one or another. However, i don't think it can be approached that one guy or the other is just plain wrong. It's gotten to the point of needing a 3rd Opinion because both folks won't budge. Telling one person they are wrong doesn't fix the long-term issue. Charting where folks are right and wrong and then pointing to the right way to go (usually somewhere in between the two viewpoints) tends to work best. Maybe I am misinterpreting the purpose here. Arcayne 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We all have different styles. Different situations call forth different approaches from each of us, as well, and many permutations are possible. It's not always the case that one view is entirely correct and the other entirely mistaken.

Personally, Arkayne, I think your response to this one was excellent :-)   Brevity can be a virtue, too, but I don't think it would have been as effective in this dispute as your detailed exposition.

One of the best lines: "While this topic can be incendiary, the editors contributing to this article do not need to be." — Athænara ✉ 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)