Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Complaint forum?

Is there a forum to report editors who take on 3O requests but don't actually give any third opinion and do more harm than good? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's as good a place as any, I suppose. What do you need to report? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanx! To be, perhaps, overly brief this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Serge, remember that there are no experience qualifications needed to give a 3O and, indeed, one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." You are undoubtedly the champion 3O requester, having made about thirty 3O requests if I read your contrib log correctly and since no 3O'er is supposed to give a 3O to the same person twice, it's not surprising that you've just about used up the pool of experienced Third Opinion Wikipedians. Under the circumstances, you're bound to get one every now and then that you don't like. Since no one has to qualify to be a 3O'er, or even put their name on a list, there's really no one to complain to. Since there was no resolution, for additional DR help, consider making a request at the WP:DRN Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, please don't send people with such topics to RfC. In this case it would be a scorched earth solution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Serge, Shii gave a 3O. The problem is that neither you, nor your opponents actually needed the opinion of uninvolved editor. Instead you seek for support, which is quite another issue. There is only one place where you can solve your problem – WP:AN/I. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Dmitrij is correct. Shii (tock) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how thoroughly I've been check up on re: my previous 3O requests, but it should be clear that I can take "no" for an answer and have thanked those 3O helpers too. 3O is English WP's most helpful tool by far. In this case, Shii could have replied that Andejons is right, the modern political movements are relevant to the king's biography. I would have thanked h for such a clear and helpful opinion, even if I didn't agree. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Serge, you seem to miss the point: yes, you can take "no" for an answer, but you use WP:3O in a way it was not supposed to be used. You just chose the wrong tool for the job. Your problem is the long standing conflict with two editors and the inability of all three of you to move towards a consensus. (I won't even try to judge on whose fault it is.) That said, WP:3O is an instrument to probe for opinions' relevance in case when all participants are not entirely sure. The discussion on Talk:Charles XII of Sweden#Swedish politics today part of Carl XII's life story? reveals no changes after 3O. Effectively no one of you three tried to reconsider the opinion based on Shii's feedback. And this situation occurs in nearly every dispute you bring here. You indeed should think of some other way to address this problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Declaration: Uninvolved, impartial, voluntary.

I realised that there are elements in 3O's that I repeat that I wanted to expedite, and thus have made a boilerplate style text insert template to make things easier. It's by no means fantastic, but addresses key points I personally want to convey to people I help out with 3O's and feel perhaps others may benefit by a somewhat universal declaration to include when entering into a third opinion discussion.

The template can be inserted into the usual template by nesting as follows:

{{subst:3OR | {{subst:3Odec}} <your response> }}

It produces the following:

Response to third opinion request:
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page! <your response>—BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps someone somewhere. <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bash, I've created a lot of templates and analysis about 3O that you can see here. Let me hasten to tell you that the only one of the templates that I regularly use is the very first one, the opinion one, and even then I use the cut-and-paste code because trying to subst it frequently does not work if there's certain kinds of links (not sure which) in the body of the opinion. Using the second one, the removal notice, got me criticized here as being too unfriendly and abrupt, and I just didn't have enough occasion to use the other ones. I recommend the standards, paradox, and history essays to you FWIW. Feel free to use as much, if any, as you may like, but I'd ask that you copy the code to your own subpages rather than linking or subst'ing to mine (and my username may be hard coded into some of them, too, so watch out for that, too). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC) PS: Though directed to Bash, the foregoing offer extends to all Wikipedians. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ths is just my personal perspective, but I don't really like the idea of using templates in my own 3Os; it seems to me that the primary advantage of 3Os is its unstructured, informal nature (that's certainly what I like most about it), and it seems to me that a response template detracts from that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate request

[1] - 3O is not the appropriate venue to investigate or decide on copyvios. I've suggested that Herkus ask someone with experience in the area like User:Moonriddengirl for an opinion instead. This isn't the way to do it.VolunteerMarek 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually this project can give 3O's on just about anything. Since 3O's are not binding, and do not even contribute to consensus, they're just evaluation and advice. Moonriddengirl has been known to give a 3O or two, so perhaps she'll give one here (and I'll drop her a note, in case she's not watching 3O any more). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks.VolunteerMarek 19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, 30's are binding in the way they to help to achieve consensus. Consider this: When achieving WP:CONSENSUS, everyone is able to contribute. Because we don't operate on a democracy, consensus is determined by the viewpoints of everyone so if you still feel there an issue is unresolved after a 3rd opinion is given, it can be resolved through other means.Curb Chain (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
See History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding and the information box at the top of the project page, which reads: "This process is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an unbiased third party." (Emphasis added.) They do, of course, potentially contribute to the formation of consensus by being influential or persuasive and aiding the disputants in coming to consensus (hopefully), but they cannot be "counted" in coming to a determination as to whether consensus has been reached on an article. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, these opinions are non-binding. It's not as if we decide that 'it's 2 against 1, therefore there's consensus'. In any case, I took this case and commented on the page, but welcome Moonriddengirl's input (or whomever) if my suggestion doesn't fly w/ the parties involved.JoelWhy (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
If you'll look at the history page I linked, in its earliest incarnation 3O's were tiebreakers and were, at least in theory, binding (see the very first section on the very first archived talk page for a discussion, too) and, indeed, it was "it's 2 against 1, therefore there's consensus" at that time. Now, however, it's true that 2 against 1 cannot generally form consensus in a disputed matter (well, it can in theory, but in practice will not) but you can get the scenario where, with the 3O, it's 2 against one and then 2 more editors chime in on the same side the 3O was on. 3 against 1 generally will not be regarded as consensus, but 4 against 1 often will be (presuming, of course, that both sides have some degree of merit to their arguments). In that and similar situations, it needs to be understood that the 3O does not "count" and that it's not 4 to 1 but still 3 to 1 with the 3O opinion not being considered. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it count? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2¢: the 3O is only appropriate when both involved editors are not sure about the right answer. As I see it, the request for 3O should be mainly motivated by the will of both editors to get persuaded; thus, 3O should generate the consensus when requested appropriately, and if it doesn't, then it wasn't the case for 3O. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: In my opinion, it supports the neutrality of the opinion-giver and makes the opinion more persuasive. By coming from a neutral editor and not counting, the opinion-giver has no stake in the outcome and has no reason to give a biased opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Bogus rationale: 3O will get noted by other editors as unbiased opinion and thus will influence their decisions and the development of the discussion. 3O editors can use this factor to influence the result anyway, so there still is motivation for biased opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. No matter how you comment, or from what forum or from whatever official matter you are commenting on, participation in this Wikipedia project/exercise is an exercise in creating consensus. There are issues where only 2 people are participating in an issue. It would be unfair to assume that a 3O does not contribute to consensus, if the 3O argues on policy and guidelines or even essays. Consider WP:3O to be a part of WP:DR so, yes, WP:3O is a mechanism which builds consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
True, no one in this weary world is ever wholly free of bias and, true, the purpose of 3O is to encourage consensus. All we can do is to get as close as we can to neutrality. For myself, I've tried to further that by my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian, but each of us pays our money and takes our choice. Incidentally, 3O is the only form of DR which has this "nonbinding" element in its guidelines; the opinions and positions of those who work at DRN, MedCab, and MedCom do "count" towards consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it just seems weird to me that that should be true. I had always understood that the whole idea of 3O was to just get another editor to look at a problem, no more, no less. 3O responders aren't mediators, tiebreakers, or anything else; they're just normal Wikipedians who, being uninvolved, bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. Beyond the assumption of uninvolvement, we are the same as any other Wikipedian, and I don't understand why we wouldn't have the rights and responsibilities of such. Indeed, at first glance, I would've thought that every means of DR except 3O would have the noncounting clause, since every other means of DR involves determining consensus, which is where a conflict of interest would arise if the decider's vote also counts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I take a wholly different approach to WP:3O and know cognizantly that when I am giving an opinion, and the issue escalateescalates into one of the parties warring, that they are breaching consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
To me, it all depends on who answers the third opinion request. Everyone has their own take on something, other people might look back at the third opinion given and disagree with the decision made. A third opinion, for me, is just a way to get an outside opinion on the matter, and yes, I agree that sometimes when that third person "rules" in favor of one person, that person will use that against the other person. For that reason, oftentimes after I provide a third opinion, I stay and work with the parties to resolve the dispute. My inner mediator always comes out of me. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Note also that say if User:Whenaxis gave a 30, I too could come in anyways, out of WP:3O or simply because I want to, in the name on of contributing to consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, too. Whenaxis (contribs) 19:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I tend to try to act as a mediator, simply because it tends to make sense for most of the 3O requests I've dealt with. However, I am dealing with one now where I have felt forced to begin acting more as an advocate than a moderator, in that one of the editors is pushing for an addition based upon a completely untenable argument (and, I suspect that's being driven by a heavy dose of bias by that editor on the subject matter.) Still, with that one exception, I have found that serving as a mediator works well for these requests. Regardless of what Wiki policy is on what should or should not be considered part of "consensus," the reality is that most editors tend to recognize that when you have two people on opposing sides, and a third party comes in and doesn't side with them, that's a pretty good reason for them to rethink their position (or, at least, give up.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So, I guess it's pretty clear that we're all ignoring the rules in our own ways? I know I end up being a so-called "mediator" more often than not. I guess that is one of the things I like about 3O. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't be a mediator when a party is egregiously breaching policy.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You still could. As a mediator, you would monitor the page in question to ensure that the parties aren't using personal attacks or edit warring, and if necessary, report it to the necessary forums (such as, the edit warring noticeboard, requesting for full protection, or the administrators' noticeboard) whilst dealing with the content issues. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

PERSIAN GULF is a historical name.no one is going to change it.please do not change the history. PERSIAN GULF is never a-r-a-b gulf.please correct this big mistake in the Arabic translation. best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.115.2 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying 'Providing third opinions' Section

I have a few suggestions to clarify the guidelines for Providing third opinions.

  • "Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages" would be clearer as "Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute." This would clarify 1) that the opinion needs to go in the right section and 2) that the opinion should follow the discussion (as opposed to appearing at the top, where the {{3O}} template was placed.
  • "Check the article's talk page for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the talk page." would be clearer as "Check for a {{3O}} tag in the relevant section of the article's talk page. Be sure to remove this tag (but do not remove tags in other sections unrelated to the dispute for which you have offered an opionion)." This would clarify that only the relevant {{3O}} tag should be deleted, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that there were to be more than one disputes in the same talk page.

Coastside (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Refusals to discuss

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversion_after_failure_to_discuss which affects DR and in which this community may be interested. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding 3O's scope

Notification for any interested 3O volunteers: There's currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Side discussion: replace/redirect WQA to what? on expanding the scope of Wikipedia:Third opinion to include civility and conduct disputes or to create a 3O-like process for civility, once Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance gets shut down (which judging by the current consensus, seems likely). Comments on the proposal by active Third Party participants are highly welcomed.--SGCM (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to expand very much. I would say we should put less emphasis on the "only two editors" in the instructions, since we often do accept disputes that tangentially involve a third (or more) editor. Instead of having the instructions focus on the count of participants, it should focus on the complexity of the problem.
Sometimes we have 3Os that expire untaken because two editors have 35 different points of dispute regarding the nature of protozoan reproduction and its political implications. Whether it's only two editors or not doesn't really speak to whether it's a dispute appropriate to 3O or not. The complexity of the dispute does. We should change the instructions to reflect this. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Call me adventurous, but maybe we should rename Third opinion to something else, like Outside Opinion? (if the emphasis on a fixed number goe, which it should - (3O works well for small disputes, bigger stuff boot to DRN) then a nanechange would be in order :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think 3O already has quite a strong brand. We don't necessarily have to change it; we just have to be a bit more pragmatic about enforcing the 3 bit. I believe there's already some variation in how strictly 3O people enforce it (I've seen a dispute where there were basically two sides, and a request for a 3O was simply rejected due to headcount... that seems unhelpful to me) bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose change: I think it works fine as it is, with the understanding developed on this talk page long ago (at least long ago in Wiki-years, which are similar to dog-years) that we're not going to be real tight about enforcing the standards. Rules set up in projects such as this are not, with only a few exceptions at places like ArbCom, policy or guidelines. No one can be sanctioned for not following them. We enforce them through social pressure, just as I gave up removing listings for having more than two editors or for being uncivil after the 3O community jumped on my rear about it (quite properly, I now feel). I've successfully spoken to a few newcomers about it since then when they started displaying the same habits and looked like they were going to keep doing it. We don't need to change the standards because, if for no other reasons than because, first, this project has been quite successful as DR goes (see this analysis by Shooterwalker in which 3O had a higher "happy outcome" result than any other formal DR process except RFC; while 25% doesn't seem all that great, you've got to remember that the "loser" is never going to be happy with the result) and, second, if we do then there's even less difference between this and DRN (though there's still the neutrality requirement and the non-contribution to consensus). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So your position is that our documentation shouldn't reflect our practice, and we should let newcomers trying to help out fall into the trap of believing what our documentation says, when we really mean something else entirely? We aren't talking about changing the standards really here, we are just talking about changing the page to reflect what we already do, which is often accept simple disputes that involve more than two editors. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note that there is another aspect that is worth consideration: in content dispute resolution we deal mostly with issues when both editors believe that their causes are righteous and their actions are in line with policies, guidelines or at least essays (though occasionally, particularly in RfCs, we may deal with POV pushing); in conduct dispute resolution either there is no conduct issue or the offender is well aware of his misconduct (eg. it's difficult to perform a personal attack without understanding that it is personal attack), so there is no sense in giving opinion or persuading, specifically over the network (as oppose to eye-to-eye conversation). Thus the essential element of conduct dispute resolution is power to enforce decision, AKA administratorship. In this context WP:3O is the best example of the least appropriate tool, as it is particularly designed to be as lightweight and unobtrusive as possible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out elsewhere, 3O already handles simple disputes that involve conduct. Sometimes people just need a neutral third party coming in to tell them they are out of line, since they've completely shut out anything the person they are in a dispute with says. If that doesn't help, then that's it for 3O, we can't do much more about conduct. But it does help sometimes, and that's what 3O is all about, cleaning out the "low hanging fruit" of disputes that don't need anything more than a fresh voice that doesn't have a vested interest in the dispute. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
3O doesn't handle conduct disputes at all. You may be handling, but you are not acting as 3O editor then. The mentality "we'll try, and when we fail, OK then" is something very wrong in dispute resolution: ongoing conduct dispute involved more and more stress for participants, so definitely time is a pressing factor. There is no room for filing another request and waiting until 3O editor desires to take this under these circumstances, specifically as the proposal involves making 3O a first required step. If it isn't known to be effective in most conduct disputes, it has nothing to deal with conduct disputes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A content dispute is a conduct dispute. Always. If one editor didn't disagree with some aspect of the other editors conduct, then there would not be a dispute. This idea that there are "conduct disputes" and "content disputes" that exist as two distinct entities is completely contrived. I've always liked 3O because it does not make that artificial distinction. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how that's true. Two editors could be perfectly reasonable individuals with no conduct issues who are interpreting a policy differently, leading to a content dispute but not a conduct dispute. Heck, it would be nice if every content dispute had no conduct issues. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I will create a new section to illustrate the point. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about expanding the role of 3O. While 3O doesn't technically have rules prohibiting conduct disputes, it's officially listed as a venue for content disputes, and receives mostly content disputes. Expanding the scope of 3O would mean that 3O is officially listed as a process for conduct disputes. That means that 3O will have to deal with a lot more conduct disputes, including all the disputes that would have been directed to WQA.--SGCM (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 3O does one thing and it does it well. I don't really care for the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but "if something else is broke, fix this" is insane. The discussion on how to handle everything after the close of WQA has been all over the map. We don't even have a good outline of how resolving conduct disputes without enforcement should even work, or if it will work. WQA was closed because it was ineffective and possibly harmful, not because we wanted to create some process out of it. We would have had a plan in that event, which we clearly don't. So aside from the problem of radically changing one of DRs most successful fora, the entire idea of creating a potential merger is completely premature. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) struck-out per discussion below. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The "one thing" that 3O does well is handle small, uncomplicated, disputes. It has never made a distinction between conduct and content disputes, and we do accept disputes that have elements of both (though we would most likely reject a pure conduct dispute unrelated to any content). The few editors who are trying to frame the discussion as an "expansion" of 3O have either misunderstood the current practice of 3O, or are eager to frame the discussion that way in order to push for the "sanity check" proposal. To be absolutely clear here, what is being proposed is actually a narrowing of the scope of 3O, if we limit 3O to disputes that don't involve conduct at all. Gigs (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Artificial distinction: We already do "conduct disputes"

The distinction between "content" and "conduct" is artificial and almost meaningless. By way of illustration in the current backlog and recent disputes:

My point is that there is really not a such thing as a "content dispute" that doesn't involve some disputed conduct (if such a thing exists, it's rare). Here we try to get people to focus on the content and not the conduct, and that's a good thing, and part of the reason that we are so successful compared to other forums. If we were to shuttle people off to a board that concentrated on conduct just because there was some conduct element to a dispute (as there almost always is), we would be narrowing the scope of 3O, and losing valuable opportunities to resolve disputes by refocusing them on the content aspects. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the only reason those are also conduct disputes is because the involved editors decided to make them so (i.e. nobody forced anyone to throw around charges of article ownership). I would think that if you had editors addressing each other respectfully and assuming good faith that it would be reasonably possible to have a content but not conduct dispute. Maybe it's a hopeless ideal, maybe not, but my point is that they're not, IMO, inextricably linked. That being said, I'll be the first to acknowledge that this may not be pertinent to the larger issues being discussed presently. Doniago (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's true that 3O allows conduct disputes, but currently the steps in dispute resolution, as per the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy and navbox, are Talk page > 3O > DRN > MedCom for content disputes and Talk page > WQA > AN/I > RfC/U for conduct disputes (not always in that order). Making 3O "officially" part of the conduct dispute resolution process means that 3O will receive more conduct related disputes than it did previously.--SGCM (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sure 3O responders will, within reason, do what is best to help resolve anything that comes their way. However, 3O is not much use as a process where conduct is the issue. It can say "yes I agree that using the word cocksucker is uncivil", it can signpost to a more appropriate venue or, if the responder chooses, it can pass the matter to ANI. But actively sending peopled on a detour through 3O just so they can be signposted would be a waste of time for all concerned. Formerip (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got a good point there: and that is one of the reasons WQA was perceived as ineffectual by many editors. But, if WP did not have a lightweight entrypoint for behavior issues, one would have to be invented. Sending all behavior issues directly to ANI has been vociferously objected to by many, for the obvious reasons. The reason I support sending behavior disputes to 3O is that it is the right thing to do in light of the DR streamlining effort that is underway: User S. Zhang is trying to improve the DR processes, and he proposed WP:Sanity checks as an entry point for behavior issues. To keep WP simple, we should first try using 3O before creating yet another DR forum. Also; a significant portion of behavior disputes that get sent to 3O may find successful resolution because (a) it turns out that there is an underlying content dispute; or (b) a party may not be aware of a certain WP policy; or (c) the "wrong" party may give up after an uninvolved editor weighs-in. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't feel like streamlining, it feels like trainwrecking. If ANI really needs a reception desk for civility issues, then that just means that WQA is useful. If it's got rid of, there's no good reason to make that 3O's problem. Formerip (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do you say it is not streamlining? The list of noticeboards for WP (see the top of WP:ANI) is overwhelming. New editors especially must feel frustrated & confused. The proposal would eliminate one of the dozens of processes that editors have to deal with. Is that not streamlining? --Noleander (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"Streamlining" to me entails redesigning a system with its efficiency in mind. Making people wait in a queue to be told they need to go somewhere else, even though this is where they had been sent, is not efficient. What I would call it is "blinkered downsizing". New editors in particular will feel frustrated and confused. More experienced editors will feel confused and frustrated. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think my predomninant concern is that we'll see a massive traffic increase here without necessarily a corresponding increase in support, and that for editors who feel comfortable addressing one type of dispute but not the other, or who aren't in a position to monitor a heavily-trafficed board, the combined weight will prove discouraging. Personally, I'd prefer a clean separation...Content Issues to the White Zone, Conduct Issues to the Yellow Zone...but...well...if this is the way people think it should go, I hope it doesn't blow up in our faces. Doniago (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a valid concern. I think several editors have suggested dividing 3O into two sub-processes: content vs behavior (comparable to the way RFCU is separate from RFC). In my mind, that decision comes later, after it is agreed to use 3O to take over the WQA role. Also, user m:User:Szhang_(WMF) (a paid worker for WikiMedia?) is doing a lot of work to get volunteer editors to help out, e.g. at WP:DRN. If he continues on that track, he could help recruit editors to help here. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A false dichotomy is being presented here. You are saying "either 3O has to take over for WQA or we need to create a new board". Those aren't our choices. We can keep 3O pretty much the same as it's always been, and not create a new board. One of the fundamental problems with our dispute resolution system is that we do force people to classify disputes as "content" or "conduct".
Once someone considers a dispute conduct-related, the chances of it ever being resolved non-administratively go down to nearly nil. 3O encourages people to focus on content, not conduct. Giving people a 3O "peer" for "conduct disputes" will funnel off some of the disputes from here and take the focus off of content and put it on conduct, an ultimately counterproductive thing to do. If anything, we should discard the entire idea of content vs conduct disputes, and replace it with an overarching directive that all dispute resolution should focus on content as much as possible, rather than conduct. Gigs (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. I have no objection to leaving 3O as a single, organic forum, rather than splitting it into content & conduct sub-processes. Many, perhaps most, issues in WP are a mixture of conduct & content issues. A lightweight process like 3O doesn't need to split hairs. Of course, other editors have suggested such a split, and I have followed-up on their suggestions in some of my comments. My personal preference would be that we proceed as follows: (1) close WQA; (2) continue to use 3O as-is (conduct & content); (3) later on, way down the road, if some editors want to split 3O into two sub-processes, we cross that bridge when we come to it. --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply regarding all the above. Noleander, yep, on that account I'm currently a WMF employee, but this primarily gives me technical, design and research support, making it a lot easier. I proposed the sanity checks idea because I never thought 3O would take on that role. This approach means we'd be using a tried and tested process to resolve the disputes and streamline DR. Two birds, one stone. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it's VERY rare that you'd have a pure conduct issue without any kind of content attached to it. Conduct comes up in the heat of battle over content. If someone were to offer a third opinion suggesting that someone stop engaging in personal attacks, I think that would often be just as valuable as offering a third opinion about the content itself. Let's give it a shot. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What steps would be needed to take on WPA role?

There are at least three discussions underway on the topic of enhancing using 3O to take on the role of WQA: Village pump, Sanity checks and this Talk page. Going on the assumption that the community consensus is to go forward with that, what specific changes would be needed to implement the proposal? Tasks could include:

  1. Template:Dispute-resolution sidebar navbox - Remove WQA & make it clear 3O can be used for conduct issues
  2. WP:Dispute resolution page - Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place
  3.  Done WP:3O instructions - Make behavior/conduct role more clear
  4. WP:WQA page - Clear it and replace with a historical comment and a pointer to the 3O DR page
  5. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests - Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place
  6. Template:Noticeboard_links - Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place

Anything else? --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I challenge that there is even consensus that WPA needs to be "replaced". And I really don't see anyone here supporting expanding the scope of 3O, since 3O already includes disputes with conduct elements. Getting editors to focus on content rather than conduct should be our goal, and giving them the option to focus a dispute on conduct rather than content is counterproductive. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Could you please clarify how you would wish for cases of incivility to be handled? I don't think it's appropriate to downplay WP:CIVIL by telling editors "don't worry about how incivil they were, focus on the content", if that's what you're suggesting. Editors who exercise incivility should be called on it, lest they're led to believe that their behavior is acceptable. Doniago (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much what our policy on incivility says. "...be understanding and non-retaliatory", "make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue", "Consider ... ignoring isolated examples". The last thing we should do is provide editors with easy forums to retaliate against minor incivility and turn the focus of a content dispute toward conduct. That's why I think WQA can go away with nothing replacing it. If cases are particularly egregious, all the standard options of ANI, RFC/U, etc, still exist. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Gigs: Perhaps I worded my thoughts poorly: I was simply asking what the next steps would be if the discussion at Village Pump reaches a consensus to delete WQA (so far, it looks like it will ... but you never know). I agree with you that 3O already includes conduct issues, so that "expanding" 3O is not an accurate phrasing (I've changed that word in my original comment above). Would you agree that several DR guidance pages should be changed if WQA were deleted? Specifically, would you agree that the 3O page should more explicitly state that conduct issues are within its scope (based on the fact that several editors have expressed confusion on that issue)? --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not hatnote WQA to only here. Give them a list of DRN, here, or RFC. Gigs (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with that. What do you think of adding text near the top of the 3O page that explicity makes it clear that both content & conduct issues are welcome (particularly because Template:Dispute-resolution may suggest to some editors that 3O is content-only)? --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that 3O allows conduct disputes, but it's not part of the conduct dispute resolution process in the same way that WQA and RfC/U are. Editors aren't directed to 3O for conduct disputes, but conduct-related requests, if they are posted, are not rejected. The text on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution will have to be altered, along with the template. DRN is, however, content only.--SGCM (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
True, but focusing on 3O's text: if several veteran editors are confused about the charter of 3O, we really should add some clarifying text near the top of 3O. It could be something like "3O accepts all issues, whether content-related or conduct-related or both". Or "3O is primarily aimed at content-related issues, but conduct-related issues will also be heard". Something should be added so more editors don't get confused in the future. --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Something more like your latter suggestion. Maybe something like: "Third opinion is content-focused; disputes should be framed in terms of content, even if the conduct of an editor is in dispute as well. Those offering third opinions will primarily focus on content, but may comment on editor conduct as well. For disputes that involve the conduct of an editor over a wide range of content, or conduct disputes not related to content, other forums may be more appropriate. (link to RFC/U, ANI)" Gigs (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I took your text, read the 2010 discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_5#Alleged_restrictions_on_disputes, and based on that, tweaked the text a bit, and put it in the lead section of 3O. It was:

Some disputes may involve both a content issue as well as issues about the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as administrator incident noticeboard or request for comment on user. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Feel free to adjust it more if you think that doesn't capture it right. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it works well, I made a few tweaks though. In regards to the to-do list, I think we should just put a write-up on the WQA page detailing its closure, point them to WP:DR, rewrite WP:DR to offer more guidance so people can resolve more of their own problems, and remove WQA from all the DR templates. No need to say "Well, we're closing this forum, feel free to act the exact same way at this new forum"', in my opinion. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, having WQA's new text point primarily to DR is fine. --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The changes to the main page look good to me as well. That's the good thing about people who work in dispute resolution, we are pretty good at working things out. Thanks Noleander. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about enhaning 3O

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sanity checks#Proposal to enhance 3O process to also address behavior issues about enhancing 3O to include behavior. Please comment there, not here, to keep things co-located. Very similar to the related Village Pump discussion. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Using {{Section link}}

Hi.

Can use I {{Section link}} in my 3O requests? It is more readable. User:Czarkoff and User:FleetCommand use it often.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but don't forget the "Talk:" part of page name. And I would also warn against stylistically strange instances like Criminal code § 18 or Talk:Brainfuck § WTF??? Children here!!!111 — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Re-proposal - de-emphasize "only two editors" in documentation

This got kind of bogged down and tangled up in the discussion regarding WQA, but really it's a separate issue. I'd like to de-emphasize the "two editors" limitation of 3O in our documentation here and at WP:DR, since we do sometimes accept simple disputes that involve a slightly larger number of editors. I'd like to put emphasis on "simple disputes" rather than the numerical number of participants in the dispute. Wikipedia:Third_opinion/draft was a draft I made, but at this point we've made other changes to the main page, so consider it as a potential model rather than exact verbiage. To be clear, I don't want to change the nature of 3O in any serious way with this, I just want our documentation to more correctly convey that we aren't too strict about the two editor rule. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - The 2-editor limit is a bit arbitrary. Agree that the documentation should updated to permit more flexibility. The essence of 3O is that it is simple, fast, and takes place on the article talk page: the number of involved editors is not critical. -Noleander (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    It is critical. Thus, I have reverted the implementation and being part of WP:DR, this change needs to be advertised to a larger audience. Simplicity is actually the arbitrary criterion that you propose to be used as the criterion for listing here. 2 editors is a minimum threshold to have a dispute so it is logical whereas your implementation is not logical.Curb Chain (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense. 3O is for small disputes. The number of editors shouldn't matter, only the size of the dispute.--SGCM (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal implemented - This seems like a very useful suggestion, and there has been no objection the the last couple of days, so I went ahead and implemented it. Feel free to revert or tweak the wording if you have any concerns. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    I have reverted the implementation.Curb Chain (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support seems like this process would work fine for even 4 or 5 people, so long as people knew what they were trying to achieve with an outside opinion (not a tiebreaker so much as a voice of reason / best practice). Shooterwalker (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is a good idea. To the extent that WP:3O works, it does so because the likelihood that an informal opinion will be accepted by the parties in a dispute is higher when only two editors are involved and decreases as the number of editors increases. The current system where the wording limits the parties in a dispute to two is appropriate. A higher number of editors need to go for a more formal dispute resolution process. I fear that we'll see an increasing number of cases where the 3O opinion is rejected by the disputants and a resulting decrease in interest amongst the set of 3O providers. --regentspark (comment) 03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per regentspark. There's a difference between, on the one hand, responders having the leeway to use their judgement in picking up cases with more than two parties and, on the other, advertising 3O as a service that can do things it actually can't do very effectively. It's only likely to lead to an increase in disappointment. Formerip (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I initially saw no obvious problems with the change (and even proposed renaming the process to reflect it).
    Upon further consideration, I find RegentsPark's and FormerIP's arguments compelling. It's one thing to make an occasional exception when the circumstances dictate, but I'm inclined to agree that advertising the process in this manner obfuscates its intended application and the value thereof.
    3O fills a specific niche very well and should continue to do so instead of becoming a smaller (and less effective) version of RfC. —David Levy 01:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simple is subjective and there are no criteria to determine a simple dispute.Curb Chain (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure there is. If no one is willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole and it expires off the list, it was probably not a simple dispute. That's one of the great things about 3O, our non-messageboard format makes it easier to avoid being dragged into inappropriate disputes. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Given the implementation of the change discussed above, it would make sense to rename the process Wikipedia:Outside opinion. (Note that WP:OO is a virtually unused shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, so it could be reassigned.) —David Levy 23:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • That's what I thought initially - and I'd support such a change - because "third" opinion is somewhat now inaccurate - it's possible for there to be three or more different opinions on a article talk page. I understand that this project has been called third opinion for some time, and there may be some resistance to the change, but the process has outgrown its name, so we should really change it. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to renaming it, although "third opinion" still makes some sense since 99% of the time there are 2 opinions being brought to 3O. In any case, it would be best to wait a month or two until the WQA issue is resolved. The WQA discussion is still rather active, and there is a significant number of mentions of 3O there. It could be very confusing to rename 3O while that discussion is ongoing. I guess there is no harm in tossing around some candidate names, as long as it is understood that it is best to wait a couple of months to actually pull the trigger (presuming that there is consensus for a new name). --Noleander (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    I have no objection to renaming it, although "third opinion" still makes some sense since 99% of the time there are 2 opinions being brought to 3O.
    Yeah, but in most instances, the editor commenting via this process will share one of those two opinions (more or less), not introduce a new one. So "third opinion" makes sense only if the intended connotation is "third person's opinion" (which doesn't apply if more than two people are involved in the disagreement).
    I guess there is no harm in tossing around some candidate names, as long as it is understood that it is best to wait a couple of months to actually pull the trigger (presuming that there is consensus for a new name).
    That seems reasonable. This also would provide enough time to ensure that the change discussed above hasn't caused any unforeseen problems.
    "Outside opinion" seems like a natural choice, as it's a common term (and the process already is described as "a simple means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between editors"). —David Levy 00:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Some thoughts:
  • Outside opinion
  • Disinterested opinion
  • Neutral opinion
  • Uninvolved editor opinion
  • Sounding board
  • Honest broker
  • Advice forum
  • Fresh input
  • Outside input
  • Neutral input
  • Neutral advice
  • Troubleshooting forum
  • Impartial opinion [added later at time 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC) ]
But I still maintain that "third opinion" is not too bad. --Noleander (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I like "outside opinion". It's accurate. It's neither too bureaucratic nor too idiomatic. It's compatible enough with the old name, so people would understand if you said "third opinion" and you meant "outside opinion" or vice versa. I think it's the best possible name. But third opinion isn't too bad, even if it's more like a 4th or 5th opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I see no reason to do so. Actually, the implication of equality of "third opinion" has some value, which is completely lost with proposed wording. Same goes for implication of small disputes. Also note, the number of opinions doesn't necessarily equal to the number of participants; in most cases we deal with 2 opinions from 2-5 editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, the implication of equality of "third opinion" has some value, which is completely lost with proposed wording.
    Can you please elaborate?
    Also note, the number of opinions doesn't necessarily equal to the number of participants; in most cases we deal with 2 opinions from 2-5 editors.
    I addressed this point above. Under that connotation, the person commenting via this process is unlikely to introduce a third opinion. The other connotation ("third person's opinion") applies, but not when the dispute already involves more than two people. —David Levy 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Name "third" places editor coming via 3O process to the same category as other editors in discussion — no special powers, no decisive supervote, etc. "Outside opinion", on contrary, separates 3O editor, making him an auditor, outsider.
    Note, that "opinion" here is not on content, but on dispute. This is exactly the goal of 3O — to help resolving content dispute by focusing on applicable policies and guidelines, MOS, or whatever is important there. In other words, 3O editor gives opinion on instruments of dispute, and this opinion is indeed third in most if not cases.
    Overall, the whole thing is just a search of solution for non-existing problem, and this itself doesn't leave the room for supporting proposal. "If something isn,t broken, don't fix it." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with the process. I disagree that "outside opinion" carries the connotation that you describe. (If it does, it probably shouldn't appear in the first sentence of the description.) And it's only one of several possibilities suggested.
    I wouldn't describe the current name as "broken", but that doesn't mean that it can't/shouldn't be improved. (Imagine how many improvements to the encyclopedia would be prevented if only "broken" articles could be edited.) —David Levy 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing that this wording carries this connotation under all circumstances; in my opinion it does so out of context. Also note, that this question is not about content, but about a name of the process many Wikipedians already know and use. The particular name "Third opinion" (or "3O") is not a title of a page any more, it is the name of a process, and shouldn't be changed without good reason. In this case the rationale is bogus, and proposals are at very least worse then the current name, so... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing that this wording carries this connotation under all circumstances; in my opinion it does so out of context.
    I don't perceive that connotation. But again, if it is a problem, other possibilities have been suggested.
    Also note, that this question is not about content, but about a name of the process many Wikipedians already know and use.
    As I noted below, many prominent Wikipedia processes (including most of the deletion fora) have been renamed. The old names are retained as redirects, so nothing is broken and no one ends up in the wrong place.
    The particular name "Third opinion" (or "3O") is not a title of a page any more, it is the name of a process, and shouldn't be changed without good reason.
    Agreed. And I believe that a good reason exists. I respect your opinion to the contrary.
    In this case the rationale is bogus, and proposals are at very least worse then the current name, so...
    I disagree. —David Levy 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no need to. Third opinion now refers to a third party opinion, and not a literal third opinion like it used to. If it's really necessary, we can mention in the lead that third stands for third party.--SGCM (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why not simply adopt an accurate name (instead of retaining a name that's linguistically similar to one)? —David Levy 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    If there is consensus for a rename, I would prefer Wikipedia:Third party opinion. It's similar enough to the current name that there will be no confusion over whether this is the still the same process (although now it's also a venue for disputes with over two editors).--SGCM (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's what I mean. Wikipedia:Third-party opinion seems sensible. —David Levy 04:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    <sarcasm>Oh guys, while you are at throwing in more words, what do you think about Wikipedia:Third-party, outside, completely independent and fair opinion by fellow Wikipedian willful to help resolving content (and related conduct) disputes? The longer is better, isn't it?</sarcasm> — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    We've discussed the addition of six characters (one of several possibilities suggested), intended to make the name clearer and more accurate, not simply to make it "longer". It's perfectly reasonable for you to express disagreement/opposition, but I don't see why your self-described sarcasm is warranted (and I'm particularly surprised to encounter such mockery here). —David Levy 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    You missed the point: this six characters addition doesn't change the meaning of the title, so it just make the title longer. And the unnecessary characters are not wanted regardless of their number. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    You missed the point: this six characters addition doesn't change the meaning of the title, so it just make the title longer.
    Obviously, I disagree. That's why I've suggested, in good faith, that the name be changed. As I noted above, you're entitled to express your opinion, but there's no need to mock mine. —David Levy 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral The phrase "third opinion" is pretty standard outside of WP, and it doesn't imply "2 and only 2." --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "Doctor, can I get a third opinion?" "No, your wife is here." *blank stare*
    Can you cite some real-world examples of non-literal usage? (I'm not implying that they don't exist.) —David Levy 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Google. Usually it has a medical connotation, but sometimes it's business or just opinion. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, but I'd already performed that search.
    In the medical connotation, for example, how is it non-literal? —David Levy 04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Now that I think about it, usually you're asking for a second opinion in a medical context.
    But this is silly. 3O is already a brand. Can't we call it slightly idiomatic and call it a day? --Xavexgoem (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    We can, yes. I just don't believe that it's the best course of action.
    Note that many prominent Wikipedia processes (including most of the deletion fora) have been renamed. I don't recall any major problems arising. The old names are retained as redirects, so nothing is broken and no one ends up in the wrong place. —David Levy 04:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    No biggie. Honestly, I'm more ambivalent for nostalgia's sake. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - A thought: There is a proposal to shutter WP:WQA ... if that happens, WP:3O may take on some of WQA's former duties. That could change the nature & character of 3O. For example: a special sub-process may be created to handle behavior-only disputes (I'm not endorsing that: I'm simply mentioning it as a possibility). That could be a pretty big change to 3O which could take up to a year to implement. In light of that, it may be premature to assess what name is best or most accurate for 3O. --Noleander (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    That's a good point. As you stated above, there's no harm in discussing possibilities, but I agree that a decision shouldn't be made until the outcome of that discussion (and its impact on the scope and format of this process) is known. —David Levy 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we can leave it named "third opinion". Gigs (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 19:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • With all the idiomatic jargon and words that don't mean what they normally mean around here, I think it's a minor issue. As well, a lot of our cases will still be between two editors. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates heads up

I added a space before the signature in Template:3OR and completely revamped Template:3ORshort to actually make it short, and to make it autosign the way 3OR does. 3ORshort was actually way longer than the other one, the way it was before. Gigs (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's my fault, I couldn't come up with a better name for the template. It was meant as an alternative to the current 3OR template.--SGCM (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Expert third opinion

Is there a place to request expert third opinion? I cannot find it. I asked it in the FAQ to see if someone knew the answer. Junjunone (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. There's no established way on Wikipedia to prove whether people have authentic academic credentials without giving up their anonymity, so such a place would be near impossible to administer. You can try posting to a related Wikiproject, such as perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, but that will only be guaranteed to get you people who are interested in the topic, rather than subject matter experts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Why do we need it to be proof-of-credentials or with anonymity? Could we not just set up a system where we ask people who are acknowledged experts in the field? The internet provides us with such capability, after all. All I'm asking for is the ability to write an e-mail to someone who is a known expert through Wikipedia. For example, e-mailing someone at MPA who could then help resolve a dispute over whether baryonic matter follows dark matter in simulations or not. Junjunone (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We can't e-mail people who do not have a Wikipedia account through Wikipedia. And even if we did, we'd still need reliable sources to put what they say in the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The idea is not to put what they say into the article. We don't want them writing the article. We just want them to offer an opinion on a dispute. They need to have enough expertise to understand the relevant field and be able to make a judgment about who is right and who is wrong. Junjunone (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
And they have to be a Wikipedia volunteer, which is where we run into the anonymity/verifiability issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone shouldn't have to sign-up to be a volunteer just to offer an expert opinion. If this capability doesn't exist, it should. Junjunone (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but if they're not volunteers, how do you get them to respond? Why should they care? If they're not already invested in the project, how can we expect them to deal with the trolling, harassment, and general abuse that will undoubtedly follow their efforts (especially since they will have to reveal their real identities to do so)? How do you get enough experts to opine on the varieties of topics that would be asked, and how do you keep them? Where do you keep the list? Who will maintain it? As Orangemike says on Jimbo's talk page, whom do you classify as an expert on a given field? Academics are quite often in opposition to each other. Which side do you choose? Do you choose both, and invite them both in? That would probably escalate the conflict, not resolve it. What are the qualifications you'd demand?
I'm not trying to just stomp all over your idea; it looks like a good one at first glance. But in practice, there are many many problems with it that I'm not sure are surmountable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We can't compel anyone to respond, but I have e-mailed experts in various subjects for years now and most of the time I get some sort of response. I'm surprised that you don't think that this would happen. The point is that these experts have already revealed their e-mail addresses online, it's simply a matter of asking them a question and letting them respond while telling them that their response will be posted to the appropriate discussion page. What we are asking for is simply an option to get an expert third opinion rather than just the third opinion of a pseudonymous internet user who may or may not know what they're talking about. This wouldn't be a matter of demanding qualifications or saying who qualifies as an expert or not (that would be left to the petitioner), rather a response would be requested and then evaluated on the basis of the dispute that's happening.
I think you are proposing more to this idea than I have in mind. I don't want a binding arbitration mediated by an expert. I just want the ability to ask a third party who is an acknowledged expert through Wikipedia. Since the internet allows us this access, it should be pretty low overhead to have such a capability.
Junjunone (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well...if that's really all you're asking for, you already have that. What's stopping you from doing that now? I mean, if you want an official process, that can't be done, but if you just want to post an email from an expert, then what's stopping you? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If it were done through the wiki software, then one could guarantee it actually came from the e-mail address in question. Otherwise, you just have to believe me that I'm not making it up. Since the software already exists, I think it would be much more straightforward to develop a form where you input an e-mail address ask the question and it is sent and saved to a wikipage. But I suppose you are right, I could just start out with the "poor man's" version of this system. I was just hoping that Wikipedia had one in place since someone at the Administrator's Noticeboard told me to get an expert third opinion and I thought that this would be a good idea. Do you think I should start the Wikipedia:Ask an expert page? Junjunone (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't. Unless the people you're emailing already have Wikipedia accounts (with email enabled), there's no way to email them through the MediaWiki software, and even if they did, there's no way to make it public. So, it would require developer resources to make, and they wouldn't be committed to it without a clear community consensus. If you're really serious about this, you should start a discussion about it on the Village Pump proposals page first, which I'd guess is the place to get consensus. I strongly doubt you'll get anywhere with it, but you're certainly welcome to try (I am very far from infallible on such matters). Things can then proceed from there if a consensus develops. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it was causing a lot of confusion, I wrote the page as a proposal. I'll post it to WP:VPR. Junjunone (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, good luck! Given a good definition, implementation, and participation, it could certainly be a useful tool, and this is one of those times where I might prefer to be wrong. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A long time ago didn't we have an "expert review" process that kind of died out? Gigs (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean Nupedia? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
We have the Template:Expert-subject tag for articles. I don't know if anyone actually pays attention to it, though. We've also had Wikipedia users who faked their credentials pretending to be experts.
I'm thinking of something where there would be a subpage of the article that had expert comments on it or something. It was almost like a featured article review thing except not that. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The biggest problem I see with the above proposal is that third opinions, in the context of dispute resolution, should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not anyone's personal expertise. Using an expert's emailed opinion to affect the content of an article flies in the face of WP:V and WP:RS. Unless that expert publishes the opinion in a reliable secondary source that anyone can verify, we can't use that opinion.
To give an example, Mike Grgich is an expert winemaker. He knows things about his art that you can't find in published sources. He is personally a reliable source, since he is an acknowledged expert in his field. But he doesn't publish. If he tells me something about winemaking (either in person or in email) that I can't find published anywhere, can I use it in an article? I think the answer is an unequivocal "no". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty strong language. If the material isn't challenged or likely to be challenged, then there's no problem with adding it. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What's strong language? Perhaps I should have clarified "if he tells me something controversial about winemaking...." As others stated below, the context here is about content in hypothetical dispute, not uncontroversial statements told in private by an expert. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, but given that this proposal is envisioned as a rung in the dispute resolution ladder, it is unlikely to be used for anything that's not going to be challenged. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, you are softening the issue. This process is proposed to be used for something that is already challenged, so there is no room for lack of reliable source, even in theory. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you were referring to me. Don't take my comments as comments on this proposal. I'm against it. Gigs (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(od) No. There are too many issues with the term expert. Even in the relatively well structured sciences you can have a multiplicity of opinions from experts and the choice of expert will determine the answer you get. Better to go to established secondary sources for information. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Conduct-only dispute

I propose to make it perfectly clear that conduct-only disputes (with no particular content issue to be resolved) should not be posted here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support merely adding the word "content" into the first sentence of the page, so that it would read "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a content dispute between two editors." I don't think we need to be more restrictive than that, to be honest, but saying it a littl ebit more explicitly might be helpful. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I lost track of this issue while I was off-wiki for almost a month. The last thing I knew was that Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_5#Alleged_restrictions_on_disputes about a year ago resolved that 3O would handle "pure" conduct disputes (a position to which I was opposed, but "lost"). I'm not finding anything in the more recent discussion which would indicate a new consensus changing that position. I find some agreement for not having the closing notes on WQA not point here, but nothing more. What am I missing? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, those timestamps are from two years ago, which was before my time. First I've heard of it, to be honest. If that's the consensus, then that's the consensus, so I guess we should leave it as is. I don't particularly have a problem with conduct disputes going down here, but an editor had objected to Czarkoff's removal of a pure conduct dispute, and as I thought we didn't do those, I supported him in it (while also answering the request). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it's going be 2013 before I can remember that it's 2012... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I do that all the time; it took me a minute to realize the dates weren't adding up. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
For the first time I heard that 3O handles conduct disputes at least somehow in discussion about WQA closure, and it sounded rather strange, as within my year of service here I saw several requests declined per lack of content dispute and no conduct dispute actually resolved. Thus in my assessment the consensus is that 3O handles only content disputes (conduct disputes with content dispute element are accepted, but dealt with as content disputes anyway). This is consistent with the most part of current WP:3O page (except for the sentence saying that requests about conduct disputes should not be filed, but would be somehow answered if filed).
FWIW the link you, TransporterMan, provided contains proposal to keep the focus on content disputes only, and I see no consensus neither for nor against the change. The recent discussions about re-purposing 3O for conduct disputes (at WP:VPR and above on this talk page) neither give impression of accepting pure conduct disputes; furthermore, the most common argument in support for conduct disputes is the assumption that these two are closely related, which seats well with current 3O wording about focusing on content element in mixed disputes. Overall, I see no discussion supporting the instruction to file pure conduct disputes to 3O anyway, and I see no responses to this thread defending it, so I'll just replace it with an instruction to go to WP:AN/I instead (of course unless an army of conduct dispute lovers will intervene and conquer this thread). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper. The problem is, although there was a discussion on the scope of Third Opinion two years ago, no one bothered to update the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or the Third Opinion page. The 3O page was updated recently, but the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page still lists Third Opinion as a content only venue. Like you, I didn't realise it until recently, when Gigs linked to the prior discussion during the WQA discussion.--SGCM (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's not correct. Immediately prior to that discussion, the word "content" was in the 3O instructions as a restriction, having last been added on 22 December 2009 (diff). During the course of that discussion, however, it was removed (diff) by one of the participants in the discussion for the purpose of removing the content restriction. When that happened, and because of it, I then asked the question, in effect, whether or not the content restriction should be restored. The consensus was that it should not be restored so no update, per se, was needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC) PS: Whether or not there should now be such a restriction is a different question. Until the closing of WQA, I would have !voted in favor of a content restriction, but now I'm not quite sure how I feel about the issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
But there was no update stating specifically that conduct disputes are now allowed in the instructions, so few people realised that the change had occurred. That many editors still believe that 3O is restricted to content disputes is testament to that fact. And the current instructions still exclude disputes that are purely conduct disputes: "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate."--SGCM (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, for me the question is a non-issue, really. As long as we have no actual authority in conduct disputes (and we don't, just like we don't in content disputes), I don't really see why we shouldn't. I see 3O as equivalent to asking on a random person's talk page for an opinion, but asking a bunch of people at once. We have limits on the complexity of the dispute, just as I wouldn't want to ask someone on their talk page to wade into a complicated dispute and spend hours puzzling it out. We have rules about framing and accepting the dispute neutrally, which are analogous to rules on canvassing for requests on others' talk pages (it's not a perfect analogy, yeah I know, but the basics are still there). But we don't have any rules about asking others on their talk page for opinions on a user's conduct, so I don't really see why we should have a rule about that here. I would imagine that 3O is more conducive to content disputes than conduct disputes, which is what I thought the basis of that rule was before, and that's probably a reasonable basis for such a rule. But I'm not sure we shouldn't at least try. (As an aside, the conduct dispute that brought this about seems to have resolved itself rather well as a result of answering it, so it's probably not doomed to failure from the start). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM: I agree that text has been added, and that's why I asked the question that I did at 20:01 yesterday: In short, was there an express consensus for it? I kinda don't think that there was, and I was surprised that it was added without objection. Perhaps the addition arguably was, or is now at least, a BOLD addition that has resulted in a consensus by silence for it being there, or maybe just no one noticed. @Writ Keeper: I agree that it may not make much difference, except for the issue of whether or not people will be subject to criticism for removing conduct-only listings. Even then, it may not make much difference since some folks have expressed the opinion that listings ought not to be removed even if they don't meet the listing criteria. That's one of the reasons the "staleness" language is there: it's a bright-line test for removing listings without reference to any of the other criteria. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#What steps would be needed to take on WPA role?. The text was proposed by Noleander in August, and there seemed to have been consensus for it, with the other editors supporting its inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so to make the issue clear let's have a straw poll. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Poll

Should the 3O accept requests about conduct-only disputes?

  1. No. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Conduct disputes should either go to WP:ANI (if they require administrator's action), or should not go anywhere, as the outcome can't be enforced. If a lightweight unenforceable process for resolving conduct disputes is needed, it should be a separate process, so that people who don't want to deal with such requests won't be scared off WP:3O. It is a particular concern for me, as I won't participate in any DR process where I'll be expected to act upon conduct issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Sure, why not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Yes. We're here to solve problems, and conduct & content issues often overlap (or fuel one another). If we can help with conduct-related problems, and if somebody wants to bring a conduct problem to us, then sure - let's try it. If individual 3O editors don't feel comfortable taking a conduct problem, they're not compelled to. 3O is unlikely to handle all conduct disputes perfectly, but hey, none of the alternatives do either. (Some seem concerned that RfC/U is futile and has become an irksome formality before they're allowed to follow some other process which might actually be effective; meanwhile AN/I is a hybrid of courtroom, legislature, police station, and bar-brawl; and so on). bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    This is OK in theory, but in practice I envision the situation when I provide an opinion about a content dispute, and will be eventually blamed for not commenting on conduct element of the dispute. The very possibility of this situation will bar me from volunteering at 3O; sure, it's not a significant loss for 3O or Wikipedia, but I believe that there may be other volunteers (or potential volunteers) like me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. Weak No. I believe there are existing venues for conduct disputes that are more likely to produce meaningful results. In some cases I could see the involvement of a well-intentioned 3O person nevertheless escalating a confrontation rather than reducing it. Additionally, whereas it's my understanding that the goal of becoming involved in a content dispute is to help form a consensus, in the case of a conduct dispute I find it far less likely that one additional editor chiming in, on either side of the dispute, will successfully defuse the situation. Lastly, while arguments can be made either way, I prefer that dispute resolution have discrete conduct versus content paths where possible. Doniago (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. No. I believe that the best way to resolve conduct disputes is to resolve the underlying content dispute; allowing conduct disputes here weakens our ability to do that, as Dmitrij said above. If we're going to have conduct 3O's, a separate project ought to be put together for that purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. No, but only partially. 3O should not reject content disputes that also involve problems with conduct. But conduct disputes that are purely conduct disputes are better off handled at ANI, or a separate project as per TransporterMan and Czarkoff.--SGCM (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    I fully concur with that reservation and did not mean to suggest otherwise. We should not reject listings because there are conduct issues which are incidental to the conduct issue which is the focus of a request. To say it in a different way, the third paragraph of the lede as it exists right now is perfectly fine by me. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sure, we should take the disputes over content. Still we should not promise conduct DR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    @TransporterMan. Understood. My position on the issue, as I understand it, is the same as yours. I've mostly agreed with everything that you've said thus far. :) --SGCM (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  7. No. Agree with TransporterMan. Conduct only disputes are better resolved with many sets of eyes rather than just one, albeit independent, set. Content disputes where conduct is also an issue are fine though because, often, solving the underlying content dispute addresses (or makes moot) the underlying conduct issue. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  8. No as per RegentsPark (ltns) and others above. – Athaenara ✉ 14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discontinue use of 3O tag

Does anyone really feel that the {{3O}} tag conveys more benefit than trouble? Despite the tag's admonitions against it, we still get people trying to request a listing by merely tagging the article or the article talk page without listing the dispute here. When it is used with a listing here, half the time it's stuck at the top of the talk page where it does no real good and the other half the 3O'er who gives an opinion (or removes the listing) forgets to remove or deactivate the tag. While it does give some notice to the other disputants that a 3O has been requested, it doesn't even serve that purpose very well because of the few times it is used (or used properly). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by TransporterMan

Remove all references to the {{3O}} tag from the project page (and the FAQ, if there are mentions there) and then, and only then, nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion with pointers to this discussion and its subsequent removal.

 Done — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethics

I have boldly added a set of non-binding ethic principles for dispute resolution practitioners at the Dispute Resolution policy. Your review would be welcomed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest centralizing discussion about the new section at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution#Ethics section. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Guy's right and I'm sorry I didn't say that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

sigh

I made a request [2] that was just removed because there was " no discussion". I tried to open one, the other party involved won't join in, but we are having a dispute. It is probably too minor for a full blown RFC, but I, on't want to just slo-mo edit war with them as that is just mot the way we do things here. I was hoping a third opinion could help to establish some sort of consensus, but instead it was just rejected. I had not realized this process had gotten so rigid and beuracratic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is how I see it: what good does a third person do in this situation? We can't force the other guy to come to the table or agree with the consensus, 2vs1 is a pretty weak measure of consensus, and third opinions are supposed to "not count" for consensus anyway (still not sure how that makes sense but whatevs), so at the end of the day, nothing changes, and the slow-mo edit war continues, because if the other guy refuses to even participate, 3O is utterly toothless. :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this AN discussion. Once you've clearly made a request to discuss, if the other editor continues to revert then report them to ANI for disruptive editing. The secret is not to EW or 3RR first so you have to worry about WP:BOOMERANG. An RFC can work, too, but all regular DR forums — 3O, DRN, and MedCom — fairly strictly require discussion first (and have done so for some considerable period of time). Good luck on your ArbCom bid, by the way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thing is, I've reverted them twice. Although it has been well over 24 hours since the first time I make it a personal policy never to revert more than twice without some discussion in between to establish a consensus. I can't get them to even explain why they prefer the other version and nobody else seems to be watching the page. So I thought maybe you guys would just make a tiny exception to the rule and somebody would just offer an opinion. I guess I'll just sit on it for a bit longer and then maybe revert it once more in a few days. Thanks for the goodwill on the ArbCom thing, I really have no idea what my chances are, it's a pretty diverse field this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Seconding what Writ Keeper and Transpoterman have said. Being WP:UNRESPONSIVE is considered disruptive. I've seen that, if it repeatedly happens, administrators will block editors for it. User:Yongle the Great is an example (see User talk:Yongle the Great#Blocked).--xanchester (t) 08:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit and left a comment on his talk page and the article talk page. Hopefully, he'll be willing to discuss.--xanchester (t) 08:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. I must say I share your concerns. Generally speaking, it seems it is very easy to for a more established editor to simply stonewall a recently joined editor, preventing him from both achieving any consensus and having any luck with any form of dispute resolution. Bureaucracy seems to have plagued the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia.
In the meantime, however, I am surprised why you have such a concern. After all, you are an admin and you have the power to block non-cooperative parties for non-cooperation. Apart from the fact that it would be a legitimate block, I don't see how it would have made any difference if it was not legitimate. Blocked people nowadays are a common sight in Wikipedia; all of them appeal for unblock and all the appeals are usually denied. From where I am standing, admins have wide latitude to exercise their administrative judgment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocking someone with whom he is in a content dispute would likely be considered a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Even if it is par for the course, I'd like to think that at least some of us have enough integrity to not do that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Writ Keeper. Okay, I change my "non-cooperative parties" to "99% of non-cooperative parties" to exclude those who do not cooperate with the admin in role of an editor.
  • For the record I take the involved admin policy pretty seriously and would never block someone I was in a content dispute with even if I thought I could get away with it. I have even been known to undo blocks made in violation of it and have blocked other admins who do not respect once or twice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, who says 3O does not constitute a consensus? So far as I understand, Wikipedia:Consensus lists 3O amongst valid ways of gathering consensus. Besides, how comes WP:RFC is considered a consensus but not 3O, when both are dependent on seeking external input? Most important of all, we all know what is the meaning of consensus. There can be a consensus when there is no 3O and there can also be no consensus in presence of hundreds of participants. Seems to me a 3O can establish a consensus pretty well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's the history of it not contributing to consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I read the page and seriously, I am dumbfounded: How could you possibly get "not consensus" out of those? (Not binding = not consensus?) I feel a group of people at some point in time exhibited certain behavior that made you write that but I do not know what was it. (Harassing the 3O volunteer for an appeal?) Still, exhibition of certain bad behavior cannot bring about policies that defeat the purpose of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, it was just pure analysis attendant to discussion here on the 3O talk page. Remember that 3O's are only supposed to have two disputants involved. The "not binding / not consensus" rule prevents the 3O from being argued to be a tiebreaker and creating consensus. The two disputants are to be, after the 3O, still in exactly the same position, outcome-wise, as they were before the 3O and the 3O is intended to only be advice, nothing more. Perhaps I'm more persnickity than is absolutely necessary, but if I see a dispute listed at 3O and want my opinion to "count" towards consensus, I make it clear at the article talk page that I'm not giving a 3O and am not removing the 3O listing, but am entering the discussion as just another editor (even though my entry into the discussion may give rise to the Third Opinion Paradox). Opinions given by dispute resolutionists at other DR forums such as DRN do, however, "count" towards consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what has happened here, I did get an "unofficial" third opinion so I guess that does count toward a consensus. After reading the above remarks I do see the logic behind it, it could be easily gamed otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed that I ,participated in the discussion pointed to above... Apparently I already knew at least part of the answer. Must be getting old...Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_7&oldid=1136056273"