Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Talk:Răchitoasa

A third opinion request was made concerning Talk:Răchitoasa. I requested clarification because the original discussion had been lengthy and not very civil, and I don't find it easy to separate incivility from the underlying content issue. On having it explained that it had to do with merging/redirecting villages in a particular commune into the article on the commune, I declined to provide a third opinion because there is already an open Merge Request that has not been formally closed, and I didn't think third opinion was the right venue for getting more input on a merge. I suggested that if more input was needed, a Request for Comments could be used. A respected administrator, User:Drmies, then replied on the talk page: "sorry, but I don't understand why there has to be some formal step taken for this to be handled by the folks at 3O--from what I can tell, it's not busy there right now. The question, it seems to me, is clear: should there be separate articles for villages or should these one-liners be merged back into the communes? The advantage is that one 3O discussion can help answer the general question, whereas an individual merge discussion probably draws no interest at all. We're not a bureaucracy--you can help settle this. Thanks,"

I replied that third opinion is meant to be an extremely light-weight process and is not really suitable for anything requiring consensus. Would other Third Opinion volunteers care to comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN and MEDCOM generally do not handle disputes arising in processes which have their own built-in resolution process. The poster-child example of that is that we don't get involved in discussions at AFD, but the same is true of requested move and probably a couple of others. At the end of the day, that position comes from the rule in those DR forums (as well as here at 3O) that we don't handle disputes for which other dispute resolution processes are pending. While AFD and RM are not generalized DR forums like 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, and RFC, they are still designed in a manner as to resolve any disputes which arise during discussion. That rule is intended to avoid forum shopping. (It also has the benefit at DRN and MEDCOM of avoiding conflicting results at different locations since those DR processes do not take place on the page where the dispute is under way.) I'm not very familiar with proposed mergers, but I've looked at a couple of recent ones and they seem to be being formally closed (largely due to diligent work largely being done by GenQuest). Additionally with 3O in particular, the fact is that a 3O does not "count" towards consensus and unless the 3O-giver is very careful to point that out, then their 3O may be taken into consideration in determining consensus when it should not be. So I think the same result should apply to PM's just as with AFD and RM and we ought to decline to engage in DR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't Get Civil Concise Restatement of Conflict

There is an open Third Opinion request where I requested a civil concise restatement of what the question is, and the answer is just a comment on the other contributor. Is it appropriate to just leave the request standing as unclear, in which case it will become stale in six days? I think this is a case of two editors who are allowing their dislike for each other to interfere with getting the content dispute addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Long ago here on this talk page we decided that we wouldn't remove requests merely because of conduct, which is where you're kind of going I think (I know because I was the one who was removing most of them for that reason and other 3O'rs objected). As for requests for clarification, a request should never be removed simply because they won't clarify; as you say, wait until it goes stale and then remove it for that unless another 3O'er takes it first. Remember, however, that it is perfectly legitimate to remove a request for insufficient discussion if, once the conduct allegations, comments, and discussions at the article talk page are filtered out, there's insufficient discussion about the content matter in dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Editor

Am I correct in assuming that I may remove a Third Opinion request if one of the two editors has been blocked? (I did this with to a request yesterday.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, especially if it's an indef. If they can get it lifted, the request can be refiled. I wouldn't do it if it was just a short block measured in hours, however, since the editor may come back. In between, it just depends on the circumstances. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an indef in this case. I would also remove it if it is a long block. I agree as to a short block. There can also be a situation where both editors are given short blocks (for edit-warring). Of course, editors who are given short blocks often ignore the third opinion when they come back, but sometimes they learn from the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Offered Opinion - Got Argued with

I asked for clarification but offered an opinion. One of the editors argued with my third opinion. I suggested an RFC and deleted the Third Opinion request because I had offered an opinion. If it comes to DRN, which is not what I suggested, I will recuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, your third opinion did not offer any useful guidance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that an RFC will offer useful guidance. It appears that both editors have strong opinions on the subject, and are free to disagree with each other, but not with consensus, which is established by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Offered Opinion - Asked to Defend It

I offered a Third Opinion, and was asked to explain my reasoning. First, does a Third Opinion volunteer have any obligation to explain it? (I think I know the answer. No. Third opinion is a lightweight process.) Second, is it useful for a Third Opinion volunteer to explain or defend their reasoning? I don't know the answer, but I think it isn't helpful, because it delays taking the matter to RFC or a specialized noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have always explained my reasoning, either in the initial opinion itself, or if asked. It helps if your reasoning is grounded in policies and guidelines that you can point out, or an analysis of sources. I find that doing so tends to settle things.

Also, in looking at a recent opinion you offered, it is clear that the people in the dispute expected you to do more than just glance through the summary and offer on opinion. Some opinions require me to perform actual work and research. If I don't have the time to perform due diligence in a dispute that requires it, I move on. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I did explain that the wording that I provided was more neutral. Maybe we should reword our description of Third Opinion to say that it is no longer a light-weight process, because it requires new research by the volunteer. I didn't think that was the case. I have often had to do a lot of work up front in just asking the editors for a concise civil summary of what is the question. Will another experienced volunteer comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You always have an obligation to provide a rational for an opinion. A Third Opinion is not helpful unless it is supported by a valid argument. It is not just about surfing into a discussion and settling it by siding with one side over the other, it has to be a meaningful input.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a basis for the opinion, which was that the particular version of the lede that I preferred read more neutrally than the other two. Providing Third Opinion is typically a thankless job, because typically at least one editor doesn't want a differing opinion, only vindication. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

My question was whether the Third Opinion volunteer, after offering the opinion, in accordance with the guidelines, should respond to demands by one of the editors to explain the opinion further. I think that is seldom useful, because what it is really needed at this point probably is to get to a DRN or an RFC, but, if one of the editors wants the third opinion to be justified at length, they are also likely to argue with the moderator, so that RFC is probably better than DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If an argument has been offered it is one's own decision whether one is interested in argueing further. The disputing parties can simply take the opinion or leave it. I think what I would do in most cases if I werent interested in pursueing the argument I would tell make it clear that the third opinion is not binding, and that any of the two parties are free to pursue a consensus through other means such as an RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, we participate in this Third Opinion project because we are interested in settling disputes. That sometimes takes an effort. If my initial opinion isn't enough, and I can't be bothered to elaborate further to support it when asked, then why did I bother? I have never assumed that this is a lightweight process. We shouldn't just do drive-by opinions or suggest RFC. In Robert's recent opinion I saw, I didn't see a rationale, it was just a statement that one of three proposed sentences sounded more neutral, without stating why. I've left a comment on that talk page offering a bit more of a rationale and referencing a guideline, but it is clear that the people involved wanted someone to look at the arguments posted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm the editor who's asking for rationale and further discussion. The goal is certainly not to make anyone do something that they don't want to do. We used the third opinion board as the next step in WP:DR whose ultimate aim is to build consensus in a dispute that involves subtleties of policy interpretation and evaluation of multiple RSs. I appreciate everyone's input and have no problem moving on to other forms of WP:DR if appropriate. Eperoton (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For the reasons I explain in my Personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I believe that we have an obligation not to become parties to the dispute after offering an opinion or appearing to do so since it makes it appear that our initial opinion was biased. Thus, the best course is to offer a well-supported and well-explained opinion and then ride off into the sunset (perhaps with a hardy "Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!" if you like; perhaps you'll hear someone calling "Shane! Come back!", but don't heed that call any more than Shane did). However, if you mess up and your well-supported and well-explained opinion wasn't as well ... well as you had planned, it's okay to come back to explain or clarify it. But I don't think that it's okay to defend it, since that makes it look like you're a party. For the same reason, I don't think that it's okay to change it or correct it unless you do so before either of the parties has responded. If you think that you were wrong, then withdraw the opinion, relist it at 3O, and say why you're doing it without offering so much explanation that you're actually giving a new opinion, but don't change it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's my thought also. If the Third Opinion volunteer is asked to engage further, and continues to do so, it will encourage one of the parties to think that they don't need to go to RFC, but they probably do need to go to RFC. (If one of the editors is stubborn, it is likely that DRN or RFM won't help.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been on both sides of a 3O more than once. I'd say that refusing to address legitimate questions about reasoning is detrimental to the process, which is why we're advised to keep the pages watchlisted for a while, but the 3O volunteer is certainly not obligated to become a full-time participant. People are different and discussions are different, so leave it to individual discretion. If you're interested and you want to continue, then do so. If you think you're helping, stay. One of the reasons I'm at 3O is to find new areas that may interest me. If you think you've become a distraction, tell them to seek further measures and remove yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Greene's College

I had to remove the Greene's Tutorial College question because, first, it doesn't appear to involve article content, and, second, it appears to be almost entirely about conduct. One editor blanked the talk page, claiming that they were removing trolling. Either it was trolling, which is a conduct issue, or, if there wasn't trolling, it was improper blanking of a talk page, which is a conduct issue. Does anyone care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As an editor, not as a Third Opinion volunteer, I then advised the blanking editor gently that completely blanking a talk page violates talk page guidelines and could be seen even as vandalism. The editor made only two edits, both of which were blanking the talk page as trolling, so that they may be an inexperienced clueless editor. In any case, there wasn't a question about article content, and Third Opinion is about article content and not about conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Further update: The user who blanked the talk page wasn't a new clueless user at all. They have been indeffed by Checkuser as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Oh well. In any case, it wasn't a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Relisted third opinion

Hi everyone, I declined a third opinion request at Talk:Super Bowl 50#Most watched U.S. TV broadcast in history as there were four editors who had contributed to the discussion. My decline was contested by one of the editors, who quoted 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. I suggested that the editor relist the discussion.

Was this the correct course of action—both declining the request and suggesting it be relisted? I've not seen a request relisted, but I didn't want to "cheat" the parties out of a possible third opinion merely because I tend to interpret "third opinion" restrictively. Thanks everyone, /wiae /tlk 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted third opinion restrictively and removed it. I think that your action was reasonable. I considered whether it was a dispute between two editors, and thought that saying that would be unfair to the other editors. Also, I would have had to ask someone to restate the question in a concise fashion, and I didn't make that request. Very often, the request for a third opinion has been preceded by so much back-and-forth that it is hard for the volunteer to know what the question is. This was such a case. I invited them to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where the moderator can get them to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NTSB

On looking at the contested edit in the NTSB request, it was a clear matter of policy. The contested text included an external link, and that isn't permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One of Two Editors Objects

What is the policy of this noticeboard if one of the two editors involved in a talk page dispute objects to requesting a third opinion, and says that the other editors, watching and editing the article, but not in the immediate dispute, should be involved? Should the Third Opinion volunteer close the request as involving multiple editors (which seems wrong if only two were on the talk page), suggest a Request for Comments, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As opinions solicited here are non-binding, the way I see it, whether the 2nd party objects to the opinion being requested is irrelevant. As I make a point of noting when I provide an opinion, if the editors don't find it satisfactory, they are always welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. I've also suggested contacting Wikiprojects relevant to the article if there was a feeling that additional opinions were needed. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, the second editor objected to my asking for a concise summary of what the issue was, and wanted other editors who already watched the page to answer. A fourth editor said, in my opinion correctly, that the objection was unreasonable, because maybe the other editors watching the page also wanted the issue clarified. My own case at this point is that the issue will pop up somewhere else, such as at WP:ANI, or maybe they will have the common sense to go to Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well, objections are irrelevant. The objecting editor can accept or ignore the 3O as he or she sees fit for exactly the reason Don said. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a difficult case, in that one editor was being very uncivil, but at least was collaborative enough to request Third Opinion, and the other editor was objecting to the Third Opinion on grounds that the other editors already watching the page should provide the opinion. Either one of them will take it to Request for Comments, which is binding, or it may go to WP:ANI, and, if it goes to WP:ANI, they may be told that it is a content dispute and go to WP:RFC. This is really one of those cases of two editors who don't like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, none of them have provided a summary of what they think the dispute is and their view of it. They are only in it for the fight, really. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That raises something of a different issue. Though we have templates and procedures for it — and I won't say that I've never done it — I'm not much of a fan of asking for summaries or clarification unless the talk page discussion is so utterly incomprehensible (and, usually, long, though I don't generally consider length alone to be enough to request a summary) as to be absolutely impossible to parse out. Asking for a summary or clarification raises the very issue that we're talking about here, that one or the other of them won't respond (and also kind of flies in the face of the intended simplicity of the 3O process, though that's a lesser concern), whereas just taking a shot at it and giving an opinion will often settle the dispute. On the other hand, going ahead without a clarification request risks missing the real point of the dispute, which I've certainly also been known to do on occasion (though, in all candor, that's been more often been the result of my myopia than their complexity). Still, I've seen cases where a volunteer has asked for a clarification — and I'm absolutely not pointing fingers at any volunteer in particular by saying this — where I thought the matters in dispute were pretty clear. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that in cases where it has hard to understand concisely what the question is, a volunteer should leave it alone? If that is your question, I can follow that advice. The problem is that, in my experience, very often the discussion has been a long back-and-forth where more heat than light is evident. In that case, if no one answers the question in six days, am I correct that it will be dropped from the noticeboard as stale? Maybe those issues should really be taken to DRN where the moderator can and should ask questions for clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

First, let me say that we're all free to do what we want within the rules that we set for the project, and that's the way it should be, so I wouldn't presume to tell you or any other volunteer what they should do on something that's clearly allowed by our rules. Having said that, I can tell you what I do and what I think is the best thing to do, but your mileage may vary, you pays your money and you takes your choice, and [enter cliché of choice for "it's your call"]. The distinction I make is between "hard" and "virtually impossible" (and I realize that's largely subjective and may vary somewhat depending on my then-current level of fatigue), but the ones which are merely hard I either take them or leave them for someone else to take or to fall off the list as stale if no one does. The ones which are virtually impossible, and I don't find many of those at all, I'll ask for clarification, but generally only if I'm pretty sure — sure enough that I'll usually take them off the list when I ask for the clarification — that I'm going to be willing to give an opinion if the clarification comes through. But that's all in keeping with my view, perhaps my idiosyncratic view, that the way 3O should ordinarily work is for a volunteer to drop in with an opinion and then ride off into the sunset. Or as RegentsPark, succinctly put it here, "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?'." The more back-and-forth involved, the less it looks like that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

TransporterMan, user OpenFuture has distorted what is going on at talk:Siouxsie and the Banshees: he told you here on 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC): "They are only in it for the fight, really." This is completely inaccurate. At that hour, The two users have already completely changed their attitude. User Robert McClenon realized that many users were following the article and stated he withdrew from the third opinion 23:12, 6 March 2016. A discussion with 5 users is now going on very well. There is no edit warring anymore. And yet, despite the fact that the third opinion is not requested anymore, Openfuture has just started to interfere in the discussion and worse, he cited a fanzine in his speech whereas a fanzine is not a wp:reliable source in any capacity. This is going to create troubles. I suggest he withdraws from the conversation. I'm thinking to ask an advice from an administrator. Sergecross73, is it normal that user OpenFuture keeps on interfering as a "third opinion" whereas he obviously doesn't even know what a reliable source is. Woovee (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I provided my "null" third-opinion, pointing out that it was pointless when the two involved aren't participating in the process. That doesn't stop me from being able to contribute to the discussion. I'd also ask you to read WP:CIVIL. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that this comment is not intended to reflect on or refer to, pro or con, OpenFuture or on what OpenFuture may have actually done at that talk page; I've not looked at it and thus have no opinion about it. I'm only commenting on the general principles bearing on what has been said here. There is absolutely no prohibition on a person giving a 3O and then continuing as a contributor to that discussion. Any editor at Wikipedia is free to give a 3O. Since 3O's are not in any way binding and do not even contribute to consensus, the risks attendant to getting a bad opinion are very small since the disputants are free to simply disregard it (and move on to more sophisticated forms of dispute resolution if they care to do so). Personally, I don't think that it's ordinarily a very good idea continue on (as is reflected in my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian but those are just my personal standards) because the more you weigh in to support one side or the other in a dispute the more it looks like you were biased coming in before giving the original opinion. However some opinion-givers do stick around to try to provide an ongoing neutral voice and do dispute resolution on the article talk page. So long as they don't become involved in page ownership there's no policy or guideline which prohibits that practice (though in my experience it only rarely works). Others simply become parties to the discussion or the dispute and that's not prohibited, either, as I noted above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sneaky vandalism from SummerPhDv2.0 regarding Jim's Steaks and Dalessandro's Steaks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The editor SummerPhDv2.0 has been around for quite awhile, so I believe he should know better than what he is doing. The editor's works on vandalism patrol has been excellent so his desire for vandalizing here is a bit disconcerting. The editor is from Philadelphia and appears to have a personal issues with both Jim's and Dalessandro's. Given his actions I believe he is attempting to delete both articles by lowering the quality over time in order to have them deleted when others have their head turned.

Jim's Steaks is a national landmark and consider the "big three" cheesesteaks location in America. From June 2015 to March 2016 he slowly vandalized the article from this version to this version on March 4, 2016. Each source has given the subject significant coverage. Instead of looking for additional sources he removes notable sources such as Philadelphia Magazine Ice Cube and Kevin Hart Giving out Free Cheesesteaks at Jim’s, and then refused search for other sources such as A TASTE OF PHILADELPHIA; In Hoagieland, They Accept No Substitutes (New York Times), and Business Journal readers name best cheesesteaks in Philly, and 10 Philly cheesesteaks worth crossing the bridge for. A cursory search will bring over 100 sources in the news alone (not counting book sources) Google News.

The same situation occurred at Dalessandro's he reduced to quality of the article from this version to this. He removed 7 of the 8 sources and then tagged it for a single source. On the talk page Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks#Justification requested he admits to doing this over a period of time. He removed, Klein, Michael (25 October 2013). "Jimmy Fallon does a steak-out at Dalessandro's" from Philly.com, "Best Places to Eat a Philly Cheesesteak" from Visit Philadelphia, Best Cheesesteaks from The Daily Meal, CBS Local top cheesesteaks, and the New York Times source Beyond Cheese Steaks: A Tour of Philadelphia Restaurants. These are sources which any editor acting in good faith would never remove. I even provided him with more sources he could add (here) the discussion is provided here. I believe a topic ban may be in place. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on but Summer's edits do not appear to be done in good faith. Does Summer have some personal issue against both places? Her edits look to me like she's trying to get both articles deleted. Caden ^cool 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Valoem, these edits aren't vandalism, and accusing Summer of editing according to her Cheesesteak bias is one of the lamest personal attacks I have ever seen. She has been discussing individual sources on the relevant talk pages, and responses have been minimal. Take for example This discussion, she points out that the source does not state that this place is frequented by celebrities. Yet you are using this source to reference that claim. Headshots on wall ≠ Celebrity hangout.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The link is dead, but it did say that exact claim. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is an archive link to the copyright violation link. As explained, repeatedly, speaking about cheesesteak places in general, it says, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then goes on to talk about Jim's. It does not say "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities." It does not say "Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall" at Jim's.

Incidentally, this talk page is neither for requesting a third opinion nor for discussing problematic editing or editors. You have requested a third opinion from Caden, the first editor you found I had had a dispute with on my talk page. He's now reverted my addition of maintenance tag and threatened me with AN/I of adding a failed validation tag. I've asked both of you to comment on the article's talk page. Please do so, take the issue to AN/I or both. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statuta Valachorum

Any volunteer is welcome to provide a Third Opinion, but there is also edit-warring way over 3RR, and I have requested page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Transcluding only the disputes on your dashboard with ONLYINCLUDE

Great work Moxy. I've been wondering how to do this for long time. For those of you who don't know, by adding this ONLYINCLUDE to the main project page, we can now transclude only the disputes to any dashboard we watch at our user space rather than visiting this page every time. In fact, I've just added it to mine here for a sample view. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

There is a lot of verbiage in the article before it becomes clear that on the article page itself is where requests are to be placed. Please make it clear right at or near the start that the page "third opinion" is actually where requests should be put. (Yes, I know, editors need to be aware of the caveats, exceptions, explanations, rules, dangers etcetc. -- but they can be referred to en masse after simply saying that "Yes, dear editor, it is down below on this page that you should put the request, assuming it is appropriate.) Kdammers (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Be bold and try adding something. Since you've experienced this, you'll know best when it comes what's good for the instructions--as an unfamiliar user visiting this page. I can't think of anything besides adding "Requests are added below" to the lead. But I'll admit I'm a bit hesitant about this as it might encourage people to skip the entire instructions section. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a section called "How to list a disupte" with a sub-section called "Instructions", both visible in the table of contents. At the risk of sounding condescending, it doesn't seem to me like we should need to somehow make it even more clear, and I share Ugog's concern that we'll be implicitly encouraging people to skip the instructions...a significant number of requests are already either filed incorrectly or closed summarily because the filing editor either didn't read or didn't understand the instructions. All that being said, I'm open to considering options. DonIago (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Project templates issue

Both {{3OR}} and {{3ORshort}} will have this problem. As posted /Archive_9#30_template by ONUnicorn, this happens when trying to put an external link in the text argument--a frequently done thing in any discussions. Now, I was busy working on creating another template when this occurred to me. I was planning to put this if I succeeded in fixing the template but looks like an issue beyond just these templates.

I'm a dabbler in template magic but here what I think causes this: external link is the only markup which uses a space--this causes it to break. Template expert Godsy, can you elaborate on this? I can't think of any other template which takes normal wikitext at its argument besides {{xt}} which does break when you try an EL.

Here's a simple workaround: Don't put the external link label. So instead of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion this link]", use " [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion] this link" which works perfectly fine. Furthermore, difflinks and specific article revision links can use Special:Diff (even {{diff}}) or Special:PermaLink. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC) struck by me 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: From my tests, equal signs within web addresses seem to be causing the breakage. Use one without them, and it works fine. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix it. WT:WikiProject Templates may be able to offer assistance.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, so that's the cause. Answered at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#External_links_in_arguments. Just explicitly naming the parameters like 1= seems to work. Let's see if anything comes up in the future. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to everyone. From my discussion at WikiProject Templates, I've made some changes to the 3OR template. While they are minimal, they still might affect your use of it; check the change and see my update to its doc. The broken link problem is solved as mentioned above. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ugog! This was a huge bummer when writing the third opinion statements.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Do test it out in whatever combination (with the parameters) you can. I think it's fully functional since hasn't failed any of my tests. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I get a 3rd opinion please about requesting 3rd opinions ?

Is it appropriate for a user previously involved in disputes with myself, to revert my addition of a request for 3rd opinion here [1] ?

Is that an involved action by an involved user ?

Is that appropriate to revert and disrupt a page, whose very nature is meant to help solve conflicts? Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 5 Third Opinion requests. Four of them are from you and related either to Malcolm Nance or his books. If IP editors are a persistent problem, that's what semi-protection is for. If there's some other issue, you should deal with it in some other way. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed after others addressed, and IP user was rangeblocked [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution RfC

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Long edit summaries

Everyone involved in dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral with respect to the topic?

The page states: Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.

Should this also include neutrality with respect to the topic? This is not explicitly stated.

Thanks Dig _deeper ^talk 21:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Other parties in a dispute removing requests

We've recently had a couple of listings removed by parties to the dispute other than the original listing party. I would have restored those listings, had it not been for the fact that in both cases, the removal was "good" in the sense that the request did not comply with our requirements. Still, it should not have been done by a party to the dispute. I have added a paragraph to our instructions making that clear and instructing them to post non-compliance complaints to this talk page instead of removing the listing. That instruction doesn't include parties who just don't want a 3O: Since 3O's are non-binding they can just ignore the 3O if it is given, but they shouldn't have the right to prevent it from being given just because they don't want one. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing requests

Please remove the third opinion request by Nov3rd17. It makes false allegations of an edit war when in fact it is a trivial discussion about the style of two sentences that has just started (not thoroughly discussed) and I don't have any plans to insist on my version of the article. I couldn't care less about such a triviality. Nov3rd17 is blowing this out of proportion. It will just waste other user's time who could focus on more important issues. --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the issue no longer exists right now, the discussion is closed. Can you remove it? --TheRandomIP (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove Third Opinion request for Khalistan Movement

1. As noted on our dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard, this dispute is between three editors
2. After our dispute failed, the moderator specifically noted that our next step would be to go to WP:RFC
3. The editor is creating unnecessary burden of proof by framing my position incorrectly as "resurgence" versus simply that the movement is still active

--Elephanthunter (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Even though I don't think third opinion is the correct avenue to resolve this dispute, I have no problem with another editor chiming in. And I am definitely planning on filing a RfC, so I am not attempting to postpone the issue. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• there is no third editor. in case you have not noticed, The third editor has already removed himself from this dispute, owing to busy schedule so we are just 2 here. --DBigXray 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

He never explicitly removed himself from the dispute, he simply said that he might not be able to reply promptly. Also, tt is not a matter of opinion that the moderator specifically told you our next step was to file a RfC. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You can verify with him if you are in doubt about his participation. No one told me to do anything, they shared their opinions on best course of action and I choose mine. I think 3O is a good idea, no harm. --DBigXray 19:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are misrepresenting our argument to game the stats in your favor. If the average editor would see things my way 70% of the time, a sample size of 1 would be favorable to you. But the larger sample size of an RfC would go my way.

And Adamgerber80 did not specifically bow out. So how are you so sure? In any case, Adamgerber80 appears to very recently be in the middle of an arbitration disagreement (diff) for allegedly disguising edits related to India-Pakistan relations as combating vandalism. It might soon just be the two of us. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Weirdly named Puppet handling 3O requests

Hi 3O participants. recently a new user handled my 3O request [3]. Looks like an account specially made to handle this request, I have restored my request back, Can some 3O mod take a look and handle this request again. Thanks. --DBigXray 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you can't just pull the slot machine lever until you get your way. You refuse to play ball and just bring this to RfC, where it would quickly become obvious that your stance is ridiculous. The person who responded was admittedly new, but the response was fair. You just didn't like to hear that your position is false. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Both of you need to cease this bickering and stop abusing mediation venues to push personal agendas. @RadicallyNeutral: Your participation at 3O is highly suspicious given the recent creation of your account. Your account can be construed to be a single-purpose account. I notice that EdJohnston has commented on RN's talk page. Further investigation on this matter could possibly be conducted at sock-puppet investigations.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Elephanthunter. You've mentioned using RfC to resove this. Sounds like a fine idea. Did I miss seeing you open an WP:RFC at Talk:Khalistan movement? Let me know if you need any assistance with that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Should I not have waited for the 3O to come in? --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

3O only works when both sides are willing to assume good faith and to be civil to each other. I'm declining the 3O request now, and encouraging both sides to start a neutrally worded RFC to settle this dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 17:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• OK thanks for the reply, as EH said, I was waiting for 3O mod respnse as well. User:Elephanthunter Lets start the draft RFC at Talk:Khalistan_movement/Rfc without the RFC tags and make it live when both sides agree. --DBigXray 17:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, feel free to CheckUser me, you will see that I live in Greece and have no personal interest in Indian politics. You'll also see that I made a minor edit on some very uncontroversial article a few weeks ago without having an account. Since the 3O request was opened by @DBigXray:, whose side I didn't end up taking, it would be a huge stretch to assume that my IP was procured weeks in advance by @Elephanthunter:, just in case he needed a sockpuppet for a potential third opinion request. I'd also like to add that since I'm an atheist and my ethnicity is Greek, I have absolutely no personal interest in the matter for religious or nationalistic reasons either. As for the reason I went to 3O to find something to do, I did start by looking at recommended wikipedia articles to improve, but -and I don't mean to insult Gnomes here, they are necessary-, I got bored of improving grammar very quickly. I believe that taking part in disputes is much more important, since it will, hopefully, lead to fixing logical or factual errors, rather than grammar errors, and those are much more dangerous when people are trying to use wikipedia to educate themselves on an issue, like I've been doing since I was a kid. And as for my "Weird Username", I had no idea what username to use, so I thought I'd use something funny.RadicallyNeutral (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not make changes of your own to article content while the discussion is ongoing

Sounds like a reasonable idea but lets discuss. After giving a 3PO opinion, if conversation keeps going on for weeks or months, should the provider continue to refrain from making changes? What about changes that have nothing to do with the question at hand for example fixing the format for citations? I think this deserves some clarifications through consensus. -- Work permit (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If I'm going to look at an article in detail as part of giving an opinion about a content dispute, I'm probably going to make some minor copyedits in the process. If people are arguing about if the article should say, "X is Y per John Smith" or "X is Z per Jack Daniels" I sometimes will suggest something like "Scholars differ about if X is Y or Z. John Smith says X is Y because of bippity boppity boo, but Jack Daniels says X is Z because of supercalifragilisticexpealidocuous." Sometimes I'll change it in the article and then in my third opinion give a dif and say, "I would suggest saying something like this. Feel free to revert if you don't think that's accurate." (although usually I don't change it in the article until after the discussion - but sometimes it's easier). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Good points, thanx. I suggest Do not make immediate changes of your own to article content which effect the ongoing discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: to section "Providing third opinions", after "Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." add (without bold type):

Do not make immediate article-content changes of your own which effect affect the ongoing discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - needed advice. --SergeWoodzing (talk)
• Support. In general, it's bad form for anyone to make a content change that is the subject of an ongoing discussion. Making an immediate change after giving a 3PO is counterproductive to faciltating that discussion. -- Work permit (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral with comments. My belief is that except for a few things where editing the article is near-mandatory (removing clear undocumented slander about a living person, legal threats, child sexual abuse advocacy, etc.), that a person should either choose to edit or choose to give the 3O, not do both, since any edit, however innocuous, makes you an editor not a 3O-giver and can be easily misunderstood or taken amiss. But that's just to best preserve the appearance of one's neutrality (which is all that we have to offer) and to avoid doing anything which might take the chance of weakening it. On the other hand, we're given a lot of latitude here and I'm somewhat uncomfortable with making what seems to me to be just a good idea and making it a rule. If this does go forward, however, it should be noted that proper usage is "affect" not "effect". Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sometimes (though not always) the best way of illustrating a proposed solution to a dispute is to actually make the edit. In accordance with WP:BEBOLD, if the edit is disputed, it can be reverted. Onunicorn describes this same method above. Obviously, where this would amount to edit warring, it should not be done, but in other circumstances, it's unclear to me why this would be considered problematic. --Bsherr (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, unclear? But you made this clearly inappropriate change while responding to a 3O request in the middle of a discuassion. What's unclear here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And so here we go. What you should know is that this proposal is really a personal attack against me by SergeWoodzing. I did exactly what I described above at Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. SergeWoodzing reverted it, in part by inappropriately using the Rollback tool. (To be clear, I've made no subsequent edit to the article, neither have I reverted SergeWoodzing's revert.) SergeWoodzing claimed that, by my actually making a demonstrative edit instead of just giving an opinion on the talk page, I contravened the 3O procedure. The only problem for him is that there is nothing in the 3O guidelines that makes what I did, a demonstrative edit, improper, because it's not. So he's proposing to edit those guidelines to conform them to his view that I did something wrong. Putting this aside, the question SergeWoodzing asks isn't unworthy, only his motive is, so I've tried to give my opinion that I think making an edit to demonstrate a 3O is often a good thing. --Bsherr (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I would regret it if this is turned into a mudslinging session with ingredients of WP:ASPERSIONS and an unwarranted, disparaging accusation of a personal attack thrown in as a repulsive distraction, contrary to guideline (Serious accusations require serious evidence. ... disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.). Can we proceed without that kind of stuff & stick to topic? The only Oppose here so far is by an editor who did what there seems to be consensus that we should not do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - There's some period of time after which your role as a neutral third party has ended and you could edit the article, but it's some period of time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that anyone entering a dispute should make every attempt to steer clear of editing. With emotions already running high, even a well-intentioned edit can make a bad situation worse. I might even suggest adding wording to that effect to the text to be added. My initial inclination was to agree with Bsherr, but I realized I couldn't think of an occasion where it wouldn't be better to simply provide the modified sentence/paragraph/section/etc. on the talk page for review. CThomas³ (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for removal of third opinion

User:Display name 99 requested a third opinion regarding a long-running dispute on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick here: Diff of third opinion request.

I object to this request because the dispute involves more than two editors. User:Display name 99, User:Manannan67 and I have already weighed in heavily on the dispute, and other editors have commented as well.

Please remove this third opinion request. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there's no need to make this kind of request. 3O requests are routinely reviewed and rejected if more than two editors are involved. I have rejected the request in question on that basis. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, the third editor declined to vote in the latest RfC on the article talk page. I pinged him and invited him to give an opinion before I requested a third opinion. He did not do so, despite making edits to other articles in between. As I side note, I suggested requesting a third opinion on the article talk page beforehand. PluniaZ voiced no objection and only waited until after it was done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That an editor declined to vote in the most recent RfC does not mean they are uninvolved. You're welcome to re-request a 3O, but I suspect it will be closed again. You may want to consider WP:DRN instead, or, as I suggested at your talk page, other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, yeah, but he still did not respond when I asked if he had anything to add before requesting the 3O. He's involved again now, so the issue is mute. Display name 99 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I need third opinion On article Muhammad Ajmal Raza QadriFaster than fairies (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Two editors, or two groups of editors?

I've reverted an edit to the Project page by Blueboar (talk · contribs) which changed the wording from "two editors" to "two editors (or two groups of editors)". My understanding has always been that this Project is for disputes literally between two editors, not between two sides regardless of number of editors on each side. Happy to be reverted or revert myself if my understanding of this is flawed. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That's always been my understanding, and what I've always seen. I don't know how it could possibly work with "groups". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

We talk a bit out of both sides of our mouth on that subject. The instructions say, at the top of the page:

"If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. ... 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." (Bolding as in original.)

And our FAQ allows for some flexibility as well:

"What if my dispute has two viewpoints but multiple editors? This may be suitable for a third party request but should be negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use. A third party may recommend an alternative process (such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or a RFC) unless the issue is unambiguous and specific. This process may also be suitable if there are two principal editors involved in the dispute and other editors have contributed only a few technical clarifications."

I've always considered this to be a matter in the discretion of the individual volunteer, either as a case-taker or a case-remover, not to be second-guessed by other volunteers except perhaps in the most egregious of cases.

My personal sentiment is that we ought to go one way or the other on this, but remove the ambiguity. Either make 3O an "NthO" project where an opinion can be requested regardless of the number of people involved in the dispute or, on the other hand, strictly limit it to two. Since the demise of the Arbitration Mediation Committee, dispute resolution options for multiparty disputes are down to DRN and RFC. While an NthO wouldn't serve the same function as ARBCOM did, it would at least give an additional degree of flexibility. But I don't think that moving from 3O to NthO is as simple as removing the two party limitation; due consideration would need to be given to whether other procedural changes would need to be made. Unless the 3O community has an appetite for that - and with tinkering with success, as it is my opinion that 3O is the most effective form of DR we have - then my second choice would be to eliminate the second sentence in the main page instructions and all of the FAQ provision. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Oops. Arbitration ==> Mediation and linked. TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful response TM. If it's a choice, my inclination is that 3O should be a literal 3O with the intention of trying to resolve disputes between two editors. As you noted, for more complicated or multi-party disputes, other options are available. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Just one more word. I said, above, "dispute resolution options for multiparty disputes are down to DRN and RFC". That's actually a bit misleading because even at DRN larger multiparty disputes - there's no fixed number but ones with more than 4-5 disputants start moving into the "large" category - are often closed simply because they're that large and DRN simply isn't designed or equipped (unlike MEDCOM was, grind, grind, grind that axe) to handle complex or, especially, lengthy disputes. And when they're not closed outright, they are rarely resolved. That really only leaves RFC for large multiparty disputes. I'm not sure how much bearing that has on what we're talking about here, but I just didn't want to leave a false impression. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

And one more note, there's also a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_'Fourth_opinion'_as_a_means_of_dispute_resolution. And I've raised the issue of reopening Mediation Cabal there as a way to fix the gap that we're discussiong. Sorry about the serial additions. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do if the other user does not respond to anything on the talk page?

Hi, a user keeps reverting my corrections and adding false information to a page. I have explained extensively, and multiple times, in the talk page why what they are adding is wrong, but they will not respond to me in the talk page. What am I meant to do in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.4.6 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've responded at the article talk page, but the short answer is WP:DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, apologies I did not see your response, thank you for the help.80.194.4.6 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Notification of text copying

Text from this page has been substantially copied at Draft:Fourth opinion. Please see this section on the draft talk page if you have concerns. MrSwagger21 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have some question about whether that is an appropriate use of the draft namespace. See this inquiry. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fourth opinion page created

Fourth opinion has been moved into the project namespace and is now in a trial phase as a dispute resolution process. Feel free to use it, improve it, comment on it, add links to it, or add your username to Category:Wikipedians willing to provide fourth opinions. MrSwagger21 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Alteration to Third Opinion Barnstar

2009 Death of Socrates version

Barnstar 2.0 proposal

Both images displayed at 111px width, which is the native resolution of the left image. They'd normally be bigger.

I rather liked the inside joke of TransporterMan's 2009 barnstar, which takes a cropping from The Death of Socrates – my inference being that 3O volunteers would drink poison to keep the peace. I was thinking of cleaning it up using the high-resolution featured picture File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg, but then I noticed there was already the Socratic Barnstar, another Socratic Barnstar, and the Barnstar of Wisdom (featuring Socrates). So I thought I'd try something else.

My proposal basically uses the Opinion Barnstar with a handshake icon, to suggest a third-party opinion attempting to bridge consensus. It isn't very inspired but I thought I'd give it a try (plus I wanted to try using Inkscape). I'm willing to tweak it or to try something else. Please let me know what you think. (If there is support, I would add this as an alt image in Template:The Third Opinion Award.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

{{format linkr}}

@TransporterMan: Thank you for starting the WP:cycle. There are two benefits to {{format linkr}}: (a) it automatically puts a § sign, and, more importantly, (b) it automatically corrects for underscores, which many people put in their requests, as they just copy it from URL bar. Kindly see also Template talk:Please see § Template-protected edit request in re {{format linkr}}. Your revert made me notice the existence of {{section link}}, and now I also found a bug in it, so I'll be opening another template-protected WP:ER thanks to you. Thanks! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what others have to say, but my first blush reaction is to somewhat prefer the standard (i.e. non-template) syntax. A very large percentage of folks who request 3O's are newcomers who will be familiar with the standard syntax (if even that), but might be scared off by the template since they won't entirely understand what it does. Volunteers can reasonably be relied upon to figure out clunky links. I certainly won't rail if a consensus here forms the other way, however. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and can see the aesthetic benefits (I'll probably use that template in my talk page discussions), but I feel that there matters of utility that are more important. Essentially, I feel that we should keep things simple. I agree with TransporterMan that 3O requesters may be newer editors and we don't want to make it too complicated for them, while responders tend to be more experienced and can generally handle a little messiness. These listings shouldn't be up for more than a week and they don't have to be pretty. Since the list is transcluded, we should try to avoid any coding that could go awry. Also, when responders remove a listing, it's nice to be able to cut and paste the discussion link into the edit summary (helps when back-tracing contributions) which is easier with the wikilink than the template. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Attempt №2

@TransporterMan and Reidgreg: Your points are well taken. We just needed ever so slightly more magic, is all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal

I would like to propose to remove {{format linkr}} altogether. It is impossible to include a link to a specific edit within this template and attempts to do so result in cryptic Lua error. People shouldn’t need to learn about regular expressions or a programming language just to ask for a third opinion. Using a template just to correct spaces to underscore is an overkill. A bot is better for this purpose. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Please state number of remaining cases in edit comment

Just a reminder: The instructions to volunteers state that when you remove a case for any reason that you state in your edit comment how many cases are left in the list. That way people don't have to come here to check the list as often. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dear Admin, I need advice for the subject matter, I am not sure if I am on the right page. Kindly guide me. I have also posted the below at the DRN talk page[[4]]. Copying here for an opinion---

One user @ Roxy the elfin dog . is continuously bothering me. He is always policing me and revert the edits. He always leaves the discussions incomplete on article talk pages. May I request you to see and resolve this case? As per him, I am illiterate, harmful to the project and Wikipedia, and many more. He is self-obsessed. He always tries to discourage me. My objective here is not to fight but to contribute constructively and positively. I am not putting here all examples but the recent one is [[5]]. "Making mistakes is better than faking perfection" I am learning and very much committed and can never harm the community and the projects. Kindly advice. Thanks,RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@ RAJIVVASUDEV, It's true that many many experienced wikipedians do have serious problem of wasting their own time in bothering new comers than adding enough encyclopedic contribution and no point expecting situation to change any time soon. It will sound pessimistic but I am sharing moment of truth with you so you can avoid wasting your own time.

Just avoid making dispute personal, in making dispute personal usually senior ones win since knowledge rules to be cited and majority connections are on their side. Keep dispute limited to content. If some one removes your content repetitively start 'Request for Comment' discussion on talk page of the article and leave it to wisdom of Wikipedians which is not necessarily perfect many times but there is no much better choice than that at least for new comers here.

I suggest ignore the ones who wish to bother you personally. but still if you want to raise personal issues then you will need to go to admin notice board. Wikipedia third opinion is not an admin notice board. Best luck next time.

Bookku (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable advice. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:County Palatine of Durham#Recent changes

Please remove this item from the list of active disagreements. There is no active disagreement because I have left the article and the talk page. I am no longer prepared to edit that article or its talk page. James500 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As the other party in the dispute, I would still appreciate a third opinion. Thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Learning code - new editor

I have tried to put the 30 request in the page multiple times but I don't know code. I have copied the instructions and attempted to follow them but not working. Can this page be made into visual edits for the new editors who don't know code? And if you can fix my mistakes, please tell me here what I did wrong so I can learn. Thanks! Truthfactsmatter (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

How to get more editors to contribute to Third Opinion?

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one providing a 3O on the disagreements. That doesn't seem right. I could back away for a while, but I don't see much activity here and it would be great if there was a way to promote more use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the call to action. I can pick up requests more frequently. I'm not sure about ways to promote more use, but I might keep an eye out for even-handed, thoughtful editors and suggest they might enjoy this work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just on a cosmetic note, the list of active disagreements blurs into the wider page for me. They don't look like items needing action. Could there be a blue bar or a differently coloured background box, similar to how things appear in Wikipedia:Dashboard? CMD (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Even just wrapping the box that's already there around the active entries. And its placement within the rest of the page seems a bit arbitrary and not really where I would expect to see the active disagreements, but that's just me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I answered one or two since coming back from wikivacation. I find the watchlist is pretty good for alerting me: "X remaining on list" or if the summary is something else you know there's at least one. You can also transclude the list to your user space – I think that's why the formatting is simple, that and so there isn't too much code to confuse new editors trying to add discussions (see above). As for encouraging more volunteers, I worked on {{The Third Opinion Award}} to recognize volunteers (see four sections up) but then I found that I was the only one not already listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log who qualified. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Reidgreg (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I wonder if the award could be modified to have a lower bar? Or maybe it's fine. Appreciate the thoughts. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Should the text be modified to say "exactly two editors"?

I recently tried to use the tool for the first time and was told here I cannot use it for my purposes as more than two editors are involved on the talk page (see here). I felt that the main disagreement was between exactly two editors (me and User:אלכסנדר סעודה) and the others were just adding peripheral comments but so be it. My suggestion now would be to change the first sentence of the description of the tool which currently says: "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." It doesn’t say “exactly two editors”. Later it says: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." We could make it even clearer by saying "do not attempt to use this tool if more than two editors have written on the talk page" or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• no change I'm not sure the changes suggested would lead to much improvement in compliance with the rules. Perhaps it's just that folk tend not to read all the rules before seeking 3O. Chumpih ^t 13:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert

@Barkeep49:, I don't understand the rationale of your revert. You stated, "the previous order was more friendly for people listing disagreements. it gave them instructions and then the section to add." The reason I made the edit was literally to have all the instructions before the section to add. Therefore, I don't understand why you reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78 there are two sets of instructions. Instructions for those looking to list a request and instructions for those looking to answer a request. I would like to make things as easy as possible for those looking to list a request. So "here are the instructions you need, here's where you do it" is quite friendly for them. Whereas I expect more competence from those looking to answer a request simply because some degree of wiki-competence is a prerequisite. So making it a bit harder for them should be OK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I guess we both have a different sense of what "quite friendly" is in this case. I have experience in the layout of other pages with similar requests, like noticeboards. When I came here (my first time), I instinctively looked for the list of requests at the bottom of the page, after all the instructions. Alas, it was not there.

Furthermore I expected a long list. So, when I quickly browsed through and didn't find a long list, I thought there was no list or it was elsewhere. When I read "Active disagreements" I thought it was an instruction, not the list.

Definitely, in my experience it was not a quite friendly layout, which is why I changed it. Your expectation of "wiki-competence" is quite subjective to your own opinion and in my opinion quite mistaken. But I understand that different editors may have different needs or views about the layout of a page. Thinker78 (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we we agree that it's not all that user friendly for someone looking to respond to a request. I am willing to live with that because I think the current layout offers advantages to people listing requests - and I believe in prioritizing those - and my expectations for who should be responding to a request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Examples?

Do other editors feel that it might be a net benefit to 3O to add a handful of example requests? In my experience, editors who are new to 3O tend to get overly detailed and oftentimes non-neutral in the process; perhaps providing some samples with things like "Disagreement about whether source supports content" would be helpful? DonIago (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There's already one in the box; are you proposing to add a couple more, rewrite it...? (genuine question) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. Maybe we need a couple more examples? Even looking at the main page now there's a request that I'd argue is overwritten. If people are making requests without reading the info first, more examples may not make any difference. Maybe we need a way to (further) emphasize that the requests should be kept brief and non-neutral, but I'm not sure what options we have there. DonIago (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For myself I can't say I've really felt it to be a problem. Maybe in principle you could say it's regrettable if they write non-neutral requests, but all the requests really exist to do is alert a potential 3Oer about the thread in question. I think anyone with the confidence to give a 3O ought to have their wits about them enough not to be swayed by such things. If anything, I think the way the request gives away the disposition of the requester a bit can be useful context to have going into the discussion, whatever impressions it might engender.

As for length, I think it would be more of a problem if this page was seeing really heavy traffic, but over the time I've been keeping up with it I haven't seen the number of requests rise above six. I'm a bit nervous about the prospect of adding extra text to this page in any case because I do think many people scarcely read what's already there, as you gesture towards. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 18:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Something else I want to note, too—I've felt that there's an unfortunate tendency overall among the 3Oers these days to apply maybe undue scrutiny to the requests/requesters, almost like people here are looking for an excuse to dismiss the request and not help sometimes. I think it's really worth remembering that this page exists as a dispute resolution mechanism and nothing else—it's not really a place for the requester to give a small performance and be judged for it or something like that. A request here is something of a plea for help and I think should be taken as such; often the author is writing it under some degree of emotional duress and so on.

The entry of a 3Oer into a vexatious discussion can have a really beneficial effect, I've found, simply because the parties to the discussion tend to assume the 3Oer is unbiased. Often that's exactly what everyone wants, and if you make a good entrance I think it can be remarkable how quickly people simmer down and start to talk constructively. We shouldn't underestimate the overall benefit to the community that can bring, I think. If we worry too much about whether the requester has crossed every t in their request or if maybe a third person has been involved a bit or whatnot, we miss opportunities to help people and improve the atmosphere here. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Third opinions must be neutral."

WP:Third Opinion#Providing third opinions states that "Third opinions must be neutral", but opinions are by definition not neutral. I think that rule should be rewritten. Megalogastor (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Third opinions must be provided by uninvolved editors"? Slight issue there in that that links to admins specifically, but the concept is kinda the same? DonIago (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think opinions can be "neutral" in the specific meaning Wikipedia gives it—as in, based in a fair summary of the reliable sources on the issue in question. For me that's been very good advice, as I often find that redirecting the disputes that show up here towards a discussion of the available evidence is all the conversation needs to come to an amicable resolution. I think the NPOV page is great reading for any prospective 3Oer on that basis, so I wouldn't want to leave that out of the page whatever was done with that section.

"Uninvolved" isn't quite the same thing—sources are an essential part of NPOV, in a way that "uninvolved" doesn't really touch on. If anything, I'd say the "If you have had dealings with the article…that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion" passage after "neutral" is closer to the spirit of "uninvolved" than it maybe ought to be for that bullet point. Since that point is supposedly about neutrality, I would like if it mentioned something about the importance of sources and basing your position in evidence. Maybe we should have a separate point for the "uninvolved" aspect. Something like:

• Third opinions should be neutral. Whenever possible, weigh the positions of the disputants in light of the evidence from reliable sources on the issue, even with questions about weight, framing, or article structure.
• If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.

I do kind of feel like the page could emphasize that first point a little better, since right now it barely gets touched on and in practice I've found it to be so helpful for doing 3O. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User talk notification template?

Is there a template to be used when notifying a user of a 3O request? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Use template. I'm not sure I understand the question. Editors requesting a third opinion are supposed to mention that in the relevant discussion thread. 3O responses will be provided at the Talk page of the dispute, where the disputants can see it and will know their request has been addressed. Why would respondents need to notify users about 3O requests? DonIago (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Conduct jurisdiction

I think it would be good if the Third Opinion project would also mediate in exclusively editor conduct issues. I think only having the administrator's noticeboard and arbitration for that is not enough and in many situations may be overkill. Also, contacting a specific editor to provide opinion in said disputes may look like WP:CANVASS. According to WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL, If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Your forum shopping has to stop! If you have an issue with an editor and are certain that your behaviour is irreproachable, then you take it to ANI where everyone's behaviour will be scrutinized. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a bit beyond the scope of the project. I think this would require the creation of a peer mediator project and some form of training. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Communication feedback noticeboard

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Request regarding dispute

(refactored from Active disagreements )

Please thoroughly read all of the relevant talk page to see all arguments, and the existence or lack of citations/sourcing. Particularly whether there are direct sources of testimony for De Sade’s conduct, versus invalid secondary sources that don’t cite direct testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNople (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)