Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

How strict on "only two editors"?

I'd like to use the "third opinion" option, but there are three editors involved. There are, however, only two "sides" - any thoughts on whether "third opinion" is appropriate? The discussion in question is here; things get difficult in relation to the single-sentence in italics several paragraphs into the discussion. Thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've got an RfC for that article, and I think that will prove more useful than a 3O. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

about deletion and redirect of AL-kitab as per Qur'an.

Editor2020 has changed the page name. islamic holy books has not the same text even then first atttatched to that. replied about knwledge research even hang template was also placed by me even then that article has been deleted. is ther any body who can check and control Editor2020 attitude along with talk pages of editor2020 and Al-kitab as per Qur'an talk pages. he moved the pagege to islamic hjlybooks but the relevent pages are also not there. i replied all his acguments that i have to change the page name , i changed the name . he said that it seems like Islamic Holy book, i told that text is not same because Al-kitab as per text of quran has only references of Qur'ani ayats to tell that Al-kitab doesnot reffer to gospels or torah or zabur whici struth of Qur'an it looks that wikipedea is a place to write about some thing and not as per that thing. like Qur'an related articles are as per people arguments and not as per text of quran it self. better wikipedea should write " wikipedea is a place to tell about Qur'an what ever they like butdonot write as per text of Qur'an.

no control here on administrator Farrukh38 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 attitude please come and check the details on farrukh38 talk page and try to justify. why did he do that? is there anybody who can help in this dispute.thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Um.. I'm not quite sure what's going on, but it looks like the main discussion is over at Talk:Al-kitab (Quran), so you should discuss your problems there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Crossin

Hi, please look at the warning user Steve Crossin issued me! I just edited a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France, which said the country France signed an armistice with a person, Hitler. Which is an anomaly. Countries normally go to war against countries or groups of individuals, not single persons. So I corrected the heading. And this guy Steve is warning and threatning me.

Could somebody please evaluate his judgement, competence, ability to think in a rational manner or whatever would qualify him as an editor for Wikipedia? And hopefully reinstate my edit if it is not asking for too much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.155.10 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note- I have commented on the users talk page, and I reverted my mistake almost instantly. Steve Crossin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Are they all like this?

I thought I might like to help out at 3o so I took a look at Talk:List of road-related terminology#What a neologism is. Wow! Is that typical? I don't have the energy to deal with something like that. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. Sometimes I've offered a 3rd opinion and it resolved the dispute instantly, and others generate discussion that drags on for weeks.

That one you referenced doesn't even qualify for a 3rd opinion request, because there are more than two editors involved in the bickering.

If you don't want to deal with one plea, look for another. That's what I do. There isn't any requirement to deal with them in order, although personally I try to give more weight to pleas that have been sitting there a while. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I generally look for topics that I have a chance of being able to constructively contribute to the conversation.Lazulilasher (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded post

The following was posted (diff) on my user talk page:

Wikipedia:Third opinion
"The ip had a rationale, he was reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user, it is obvious as the user User:Gregs the baker attempted to solve the geordie dispute and got banned for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker‎, and his new account User:Waterwater212‎ is attempting to solve the same dispute claiming to be a "new user", since when did new users jump into solving wikipedia disputes . Dr Nat (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"
      → ["Dr Nat" is in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Molag Bal. — Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)]

I have forwarded it here for attention from other project volunteers.

This relates to edit warring on List of Geordies and Talk:List of Geordies ...

[Interjected: The article and its talk page were deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies. — Athaenara ✉ 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)]

See also: WP:3O page history for recent reverts. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user about 3RR; until the sockpuppetry case is approved, I think that good faith needs to be observed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The user reverted my addition; the diff is here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be typical of these edit warriors. At least three were blocked:

• Dr Nat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.129.31.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.148.189.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found the whole thing rather nightmarish :-/ By the way, the article has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies. — Athaenara ✉ 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I restored (diff) your post. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. I guess it's all worked out now... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly not though, it is now at Afd, if you guys (without prejudice) who think it is worth saving could include your comments at the Afd it would be appreciated, details of the socks would be useful, this to me is a very bad listing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

what is third opinion

Is it the abuse of good will of mediators when a user asks for third opinion if he is the only one complaining versus consensus reached by other editors (many of them who were strongly against each other in the past so it required a lot of effort to reach a common position). Specifically user who failed to receive any support at talk page came here to ask for support. And Athaenara directed him at the article talk page but he reverted Athaenara's edit again pushing those things where he failed to receive any support from other editors. Is it OK to ask for a third opinion if it's not two users who fail to reach an agreement but rather one user who feels current article state is not good and wants it changed? --Avala (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Two? editors

Would this qualify for 3O? At this point, the dispute is primarily between myself and one other editor, but there are two other editors who are somewhat involved. The original dispute was between A and B, a beginner. The beginner didn't know what to do so asked a question at WP:EAR where I picked up. Since then I have been tying to persuade editor A to stop his reverts. The beginner is not directly involved right now because, well because she is a beginner and doesn't know policy. I'm acting on her behalf, so at the moment the dispute is primarily between myself and editor A. There is also editor C, who supported my position on A's talk page. I don't know whether C will continue to be involved. So currently it is just two editors actively involved in a dispute. But you could also say that there are three or four editors. If editor A won't listen to my latest note on his talk page, would it be appropriate for me to come here, or should I take it back to EAR, or perhaps ANI, or RFC/U? I don't want to make a bigger deal than necessary but editor A has to back off. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it's less of a content dispute and more of an editor's actions. Have you considered WP:WQA? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Transformer Film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_film

The editor there will not include how the the models were created for the film.

This is very relevant , yet he seems to think it's not.

Couple of persons edits have been removed by him.

Please remove the editor for that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Problematic

Anon IP 67.49.8.228 (12:31, 1 April - 08:49, 2 April 2008 UTC contribs), who is apparently user Pedant, [yes. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)] has twice added a WP:3O listing about disputes on a 9/11 talk page, linking the following:

• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Appropriateness Of Subject Heading "Conspiracy Theories."
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Can we move towards unprotection?
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Please edit this:
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposed edit
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#arbitrary subsection to make editing easier for all (Proposed edit)
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The United Nations Resolution
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposal to unprotect and act
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Signed
• User talk:Pedant#Troll
• User talk:Tarage#Troll
• User talk:Tarage#WP:NPA

There are many editors involved on the article talk page and it is clearly beyond the scope of this project.

One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox...

I've removed the listing itself, but I haven't got whatever it takes to explain to this user what several other editors have already explained. — Athaenara ✉ 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the same as the first complaint. This is between me and Tarage, who has asserted that he can call me a troll all day long with impunity. I just want an opinion on whether it is within any policy that it is not a personal attack to call me a troll. Tarage is a single-purpose account, edits almost exclusively on talk:911, and I have thousands of good edits to hundreds of articles. I'm not a troll, but Tarage keeps calling me one. If by "One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research" you are talking about me, you are wrong. I firmly believe in the policies, am very aware of them, and have even substantially edited some of them. Im FOR facts, sources, verifiability, neutrality and consensus. I'm against stating unfounded assertions as fact without a reliable source. I'm against stating as fact assertions which are impossible to know the truth or falsity of' . But my only purpose here is a deliberate and measured escalation of dispute resolution procedures, re: Tarage calling me a troll. WP:DR suggests I ask for a third opinion. WP:30 is the proper place for this, no? If several other editors have already explained to me that it's ok for me to be repeatedly attacked by Tarage, please just point that out to me? 67.49.8.228 (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam

An involved editor just pointed out to me that the wide-ranging issues under discussion at Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam are all interconnected and actively involve more than two editors. I will therefore be offering merely an opinion rather than a full-blown 3O. Despite this lack, I do not think that this issue should be relisted here, so I am offering this explanation instead. Regards. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Persian Mesopotamia#THIRD OPINION

It is now the oldiest one listed among the active third opinion request. Can we have volunteers taking a quick look at the issue and give their opinion? Chaldean (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my own view is that Persian Mesopotamia, the present article name, is more useful than any of the others proposed, including Achaemenid Assyria. Because there are so many editors involved in the discussion (see the Requested move section as well) I think that the WP:3O request should simply be withdrawn. — Athaenara ✉ 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted (diff) as requested. — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently (diff) it wasn't what he wanted ... — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New to 3O

I'm pretty new to providing Third Opinions, just wondering whether a couple of more experienced folk might keep an eye on me for a bit, just to make sure I'm not screwing up. Cheers, Eve Hall (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sure. One thing I'd say about your comment on Talk:North Korea is that it's not really obvious where the third opinion actually is. I usually bold mine, or make them into a separate subsection. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your WP:3O was a good contribution, Eve Hall. I added a Third opinion subsection heading. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Eve Hall (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving target

We need a third opinion or maybe admin intervention in stopping the movement of articles relating to Catholicos of the east which are being moved around by editors to various renamed articles without discussion. You may have to browse for it!  :( One of today's versions is at Catholicos of The East and Malankara Metropolitan. Yesterdays was at Catholicos of the East or the "east" whenever you happened to sign on. The prime editors seem to include User talk:Arunvroy, User talk:Lijujacobk and User talk:Stifle. My request for a third party got lost during one of the moves. No point in attaching it to the article. It may not be there tomorrow! Student7 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong. Located request intact. Still may need help with movers though. Student7 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do about a process fork?

Dario D (talk · contribs · logs) has just added a "fourth opinion" request[1] in his long-running battle to defame the Webby Awards. This is a process fork / forum shop of an AN/I case, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on Webby Awards. He seems to be energized by a poorly-considered opinion coming from this page (itself a fork of a bogus arbitration case he started) and is coming for another dip in the well. I would delete or comment his request but I would rather not be so aggressive in dealing with him. All I can do is urge anyone who would think this is a simple request to be very careful about responding. Probably best to leave it to AN/I. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with this article

Hello. I am presently trying to implement Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The article in question is on the telescope. Can I request a third opinion? The conflict is in respect to another user disputing the justifications of my "claims" (contribution). I have provided a reference from the NY Times and several other lower-grade references, but that doesn't seems to be enough. The main arguement in his (their) respect is in relation to UNDUE weight. I really don't see the point of disputing an edit regarding person who is referenced by the NY Times as being an inherent part of the telescope (indeed, he made the 1st magnifying device: a magnifying glass). I hope I can be helped here. I just want to contribute. The discussion can be found in the article's talk-page.InternetHero (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a listing on the main project page at WP:3O. Someone should be by soon to help out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. InternetHero (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay

I would appreciate some more comments on Talk:Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay#This article is inappropriately constructed and I intend it of being split, as the discussion has been removed from the 3O list. SharkD (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sense of time.

Hi, could you help with this article? I pretty much just want to have a truce. Maybe we all can add to the article in a consensus? InternetHero (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement about the need to include a co-official language in the infobox

Talk:Valencian Community#Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox. Disagreement about the need to include a co-official language in the infobox. I would appreciate some third opinions. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added these to the list on the project page. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As there are six or more editors involved in the Talk:Catalonia#Legal Status with Spain dispute, I have removed the project listing as per the "primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors" aspect of this project. — Athaenara ✉ 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Legal Status within Spain" section in Catalonia article

Talk:Catalonia#Legal Status with Spain. Disagreement about where to place this section in the articulate. Under the lead paragraph or inside the politics section. I would appreciate some third opinions --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This one also has been added to the list of disputes on the project page. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are four or more editors involved in the Talk:Valencian Community#Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox dispute. It has since moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox, where at least five editors are participating in the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted active disagreement

User Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk · contribs) offered a personal rather than encyclopedic third opinion a few hours ago on Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima#POV again (diff diff) and delisted the dispute (diff). I posted on the talk page and relisted the dispute.

It was the first 3O from this user. I don't know if he will continue to offer third opinions. If he does, it will reflect on the WP:3O project. Anyone want to offer him some guidance? — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome :-)   — Athaenara ✉ 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, he blanked everything but a welcome message.

Oh well, at least he was told. — Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline clarification requested

→ Diffs: removal of entry yesterday and its re-addition 3 hours later.  [Added by Athaenara.]

One particular editor ( User:Hrafn ) and I are involved with content disputes. When it can be shown that the main dispute is really between two editors--yet other partisan editors commented and took actions after the WP:3 request--can that still reasonably be considered a two party dispute?

To make this request concrete, the dispute listed on WP:3 is Talk:Religion and science community#Why is this article in existence?. The article content is completely unique [2], none of it was taken from the Relationship between religion and science article. User:Eldereft claims that this dispute has since been settled outside the WP:3 process. But that doesn't make sense to me, because the WP:3 process could then be too readily disrupted. If such process pertubations can bring a WP:3 request to a halt, then this process would seem to have large regions of unstable and unusable situations: a large class of what are essentially two-party disputes would be out of reach, but are still essentially two-side disputes. Hypothetically, if other third editors outside WP:3 comes along and essentially writes editor A is the dispute is wrong and editor B in the dispute is right, but these editors are not impartial to the topic or the editors involved per WP:3 guidelines nor are their comments using much judicial judgement/discernment per WP:3. Such editors are just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT to one editor and ILIKEIT to the other. That is what happened in the case involving User:Eldereft. ( It happens when one editor focused on content generation finds themself all alone, while other editors focused merely on content validation find themselves together more on opposite mind-set than on an opposite side. The content generation side is routinely in the minority, while the content validation side in the majority.)

Just how robust is the two party guideline to potential editors who later comment, but aren't offering a WP:3 or following WP:3 guidelines? --Firefly322 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC) revised --Firefly322 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ‎ revised again --Firefly322 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

Firefly322, your request read "Dispute over the existence of talk page's main-space article."; this page was Religion and science community. Discussion at Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Merge proposal indicated an unopposed consensus to merge the two pages; this proposal was four days old when I removed your (though of course until I checked yesterday I did not know who had entered the request) posting. The question of whether Religion and science community should exist independently of Relationship between religion and science had unquestionably been addressed by multiple outside parties. I even explained myself on your talkpage when I noticed that you had re-added the request. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And now you list that as a dispute? Please. I removed that. However, for the sake of argument, you may consider this my third opinion: The third opinion is not an official policy and there is no official process. The editor handling a 3O request will do that without obligation and will just make a judgement call on how to proceed. Note that Eldereft didn't remove your request because of a technicality. He removed it because the dispute was over and a third opinion would have made no sense any more. If you want to request a third opinion on a different dispute, feel free to do so, but be specific about what you want. Averell (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With all do respect, I strongly believe Averell23 has at least confused me with Eldereft. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The thinko is fixed now (thanks, Averell). - Eldereft (cont.) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional disputes needing help

Hi all! I notice that there are only 2 disputes left on WP:3. Just to let you know the list on WP:MEDCAB has a couple also. It's the same sort of thing as WP:3 but with more people involved. Take a look :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gustafson dispute

Hi all! I took a look a the dispute here Talk:Paul_Gustafson#Article_requires_some_attention. They have also opened it up for RfC and at least one person has seen it there and responded. It might be better now for that to continue now that it's open. Up to the person who decides to take it, I'm not going to bother. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "anniversary" on WWE Wrestlemania 25 page

Please forgive my syntax and such as I'm not a very experienced editor here. I posted a nugget over on the Wrestlemania XXV page about WWE's advertising goof in which they bill next year's Wrestlemania as being the "25th anniversary" when it is actually the 24th anniversary (first one was in 1985). There is another editor that is continuosly deleting the updates I make, leaving comments like "who cares" about pointing out the goof. At first, he argued against the edit, but after I cited Wikipedia's own definition of the term anniversary he switched his arguments to 'who cares' and technical errors I was making in the posting process. I'm not sure how to link to the talk section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_XXV) and he may delete my talk edit about this, but it's currently there at that URL. Sorry again for the weak posting skills that I have, but I'm a stickler for stuff like this so I'd like it if somebody can sort it out (I get super annoyed at movie theatres that make similar time goofs and play 'midnight' movies at 12:01am instead of midnight... lame!). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philliplybrand (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(Talk:WrestleMania XXV#Date listed.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted an opinion to the talk page. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3O on AfDs

A new dispute has been posted to the main page AfD.

Is this something we should involve ourselves in. I say, no because a 3O would not be needed due to an admin making a decision on consensus of the AfD discussion. A 3O would only get in the way and may make the debate last longer? Thoughts Fr33kman^{talk APW} 07:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. An AfD between two people would never be closed by an admin--it'd be relisted. Thus, any disputed AfD will already have three or more participants. Not only would it be a procedural bump, it would also be outside the 3O charter. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just adding another voice of agreement. I have done this before using similar reasoning regarding an editor accusing another of being an SPA. The closing admin will weigh the opinions given in the discussion, there is no reason for a 3O in AfDs. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

3O on Gaogouli

Hi! I'd like to seek Third opinion. Talk:Gaogouli#Why remove the note about another use of 高句麗: 高句麗縣 Disagreement on note about another use of the name of the article and related issues. -Dicting (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)}} Have I added the Third opinion template successfully? -Dicting (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

I respectfully request assistance at the Ulster Defence Regiment to resolve a potential edit war over content and deletion of content. The Thunderer (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Third opinion on the article and you decided not to listen. Rockpocket has been doing a great job, and although I'm not overly happy about everything they have done, I've gone along with it. You have decided to drag this onto other articles now, and it has to stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB & WP:3O streamlining

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) _{message also posted at MEDCAB and dispute resolution}

This is a pretty good idea. It seems like I missed the boat on discussion though....Lazulilasher (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "suggestion on the WP:3O page" is simply the transclusion of the {{dispute-resolution}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for mediator school

→ See also: User talk:Fr33kman/New mediator school (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi all! I wondered what people thought to the idea of a new dispute resolution and mediator school? I have started a draft of some stuff here. It is only a draft suggestion but I think a place to start from and to at least show the idea. If people wanted to take a look and then comment here of the validity of the idea and/or the content of the school, that'd be great. Thanks! :-) fr33kman -s- 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Added user talk links above.) — Athaenara ✉ 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the request of another user

I've removed a post from DYK that the poster admits was meant to derail it until his personal interpretation of an article was redone to fit their view. After having asked them to remove it more than twice, he suggested that I could do it. I have.

Comment: - There's a bit of a neutrality concerns issue with the article and I invite external perspective -- here -- before it gets featured as a DYK. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. While Jaak is entitled to feel that there are concerns (which are, for the most part wrong), the substance of the DYK is not incorrect and is heavily cited. Furthermore, DYK is designed to bring editors to the article. All the better to deal with any perceived neutrality issues, right? That is, unless Jaak is suggesting that the DYK is somehow false? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I finally grew tired of insisting the other user be the one to remove it, and decided to pull it myself, so as to not further delay the DYK with the artificial drama. As per the other user's request, I've posted it here. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Question About Reliability Of Sources

I am engaged in a dispute with another editor on this talk page about the reliability of sources for the article. Although I am not innocent for remaining calm in the discussion, the editor has responded in an aggressive attitude and removed these sources from the article on grounds that they are contentious material about a living person. He has also stated that some of the sources constitute original research, and do not bear direct relevance to the living person in question.

There are a few other editors involved in the dispute, and who have been accused of Meat Puppetry by this editor, of trying to sabotage or defame the article. Because I got involved in trying to reconcile the use of sources for the article, I have also been included in the Meat Puppetry report. Because the other editor appears to be very passionate and accusatory in his responses (despite having a good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines), I question the neutrality of the article. What we need is a neutral third party to weigh the arguments, to determine the reliability and relevance of sources, and to determine if there is NPOV in the article.

Thank you for your help. Rabicante (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you want WP:RS/N and/or WP:WQA. WP:3O is explicitly for disputes between just two editors, not two sides. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking back this talk page

Hi all,

This talk page, Third opinion; ie: the one you're reading now, has been taken over by editors involved in a listed dispute using it as a platform to use as a talk space for the actual dispute itself, or aspects of it. Now this is completely wrong and not what this page is for. This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page WP:Third opinion or for discussing the process of third opinion itself. It is not for editors in a disputeCan we have some suggestions for how to take this page back and stop it from being used in the actual disputes that we, the 3O volunteers, are trying to resolve? My first suggestion would be three-fold; 1) a big, bright, bold header template that informs visiting editors (whomever they may be) the purpose of the page (the talkheader as it is is not working), and 2) a set of {{uw-3o talk}} warning templates for putting on user talk pages who violate this, and 3) a policy that any editor can simply remove any posts here that are not for the purposes outlined above. Comments (welcome from ALL)? fr33kman -s- 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Other views

• Actually, as can be seen above and in the three archives for this page as well, it has been used in that way for quite awhile (from at least January 2006) with no particular harm. Archive 1 (hist) is ~ 75 kb, Archive 2 (hist) ~ 83 kb, and Archive 3 (hist) ~ 15 kb. I don't think allowing that to continue will harm the project in any way, although there is certainly room here for discussion about the degree to which the use of this talk page could be either encouraged or discouraged. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I merely wonder if sometimes other business gets lost in the dispute discussion? fr33kman -s- 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Csangos dispute has been listed since 17:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC): more than ten days with no response, and it can't be blamed on this talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I must be missing something, I don't see such a thing anywhere on this page. Every once in a while I see someone lost posting here instead of where they're supposed to, and I see one short conversation resembling that, but nothing even remotely resembling a "takeover".
  Anyway, suggestion #1 I oppose, if {{talkheader}} is insufficient a standard notice box could be made, but some hue blinking monstrosity is not needed. #2 I also oppose (these days I'm actually more active at WP:UTM than here), there is no need for such a narrowly focused series of standardized warnings. #3 may be covered under Wikipedia:TALK#How to use article talk pages, but a simple note "This is not the place to continue your dispute. Say what you need to at the relevant talk page, and someone will read it there and offer a third opinion." would be preferable to removing the comments as a first step. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Out of the 24 headings above I count 14 that are not to do with either the 3O process or the 3O page. I agree that perhaps "punishment" is inappropriate, but do feel that other stuff seems to get lost in the inappropriate posts. I wonder if this is a good use of this page, or if perhaps the addition of another page just for 3o volunteers would be better? [[WT:Third opinion/volunteers]] or similar might be good and then just leave this page to people who feel the need to comment on their dispute here. I've often found that people involved in a dispute take the dispute elsewhere, sometimes to the 3o volunteer's talk page, sometimes their own talkpage, here or elsewhere. Personally I do a lot of ADR in real life and have always found that communications outside of the dispute forum (in our case the talk page where the dispute is being held) tends to cause problems. Sometimes one side will contact the mediator via a side route, hoping for favour or hoping to explain without the other side knowing. Whilst I'm not saying that this is occurring here (although it may be), I do think that it is open to it. fr33kman -s- 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a problem. Compared to other talk pages, such as the MOS, this one is refreshingly on-task. Often even experienced editors do not know exactly where to post a question/concern/discussion, and accidentally use the wrong forum. I frequently am guilty of this, and have edited WP since 2006. No need to affix big, bold signs: this is a peaceful, coffeehouse/lounge; open for discussion (not AN/I). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Open disclaimer

To anyone offering 3rd opinions, hello! I'm trying to learn how to offer useful 3rd opinions, and you may see my input in various sections. I'm not very confident yet of my ability to be helpful, so I'm hesitant to delete topics I've commented on. If I haven't deleted it, it's because I'm not absolutely sure I've done enough to help resolve an issue. If you see a topic that I've commented on and you think I was able to resolve it as best as can be expected, please delete it on my behalf? Or for that matter, please feel free to chime in with additional help and/or let me know how you think I might be able to help better in the future. Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons template dispute listed

This is the first time this has happened, and I wonder what's the best way to deal with it.

WeHaWoe (talk · contribs) recently added a Wikimedia Commons dispute to the project page (it is discussed on commons:Template talk:Pink CC#CC-by or CC-by-sa? and commons:User talk:WeHaWoe#Pink CC + v.Gogh).

Commons may have dispute resolution processes, which may or may not include a Third opinion procedure similar to this one, but I was not able to find them. — Athaenara ✉ 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Giggy (talk · contribs) to take a look at it. Since he's an admin and a crat at Commons, he should know where to find everything. bibliomaniac15 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. — Athaenara ✉ 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved myself as I'm low on time and have had some interactions with some of the users involved. There is a Commons:Disputes noticeboard, though I'm not sure if it's that active; most discussions otherwise take place on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or Commons:Village pump (or a comment on either of those boards asking for attention at a certain talk page). Giggy (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we know (thanks, Giggy) that Commons does have dispute resolution processes, I posted (diff) on WeHaWoe's talk page, referred him to this discussion, and recommended that he post his dispute on Commons. I'll remove it from the active listings locally. — Athaenara ✉ 09:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War merged to RSN

The Iraq War request was a duplicate of one that already appears at WP:RSN#Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

National Broadband Network‎

A knowledgable, active 4th party has joined this article. While the personal friction that led to the 3O request has been addressed, it has not been explicitly resolved. I believe continued attention to the friction will only distract unhelpfully from attention to the good content proposals of the 4th party. I have excused myself from further comment and made a promise of adopting "lurk" mode for a while. I tentatively propose that this case is closed (courtesy of the excellent input from the 4th party). Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: a recent post by the party who asked for 3O involvement looks in line with the issue having been resolved. Well done by all involved imo. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox

This user contacted me on my talk page to let me know he was satisfied things (while unresolved) were as good as they were likely to get. I believe he was correct. He requested the 3O, I consider he has also closed it, despite the fact that I've heard nothing from the 2nd party. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I continue to watch Sparta, though I believe this is largely resolved. Triple goddess is taking time to understand. I'll report back on these cases later. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor dispute regarding policy.

In the article Adult Children of Alcoholics I removed unreferenced naming of people who are claimed to fall into this category, the list was re-inserted, I removed again with note on the talk page. Some of the names have been added again, although few of the WP articles of the relevant persons confirm they should be on the list, the only external link does not not confirm that the person should be listed - which makes me a little concerned with the book references. Can somebody look at the article and talk page and assure me there is not conflict with WP:BLP?. Many thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered posting on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now. I didn't go there first because strictly speaking it isn't a BLP. Thanks for advice.--Richhoncho (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

Black Sabbath has just sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. However the -Harout72 is still saying than it has sold only 50 million copies. I showed him claimed sources from MTV, the world's biggets Mmusic channel and amazon.com. Many other souyrces can be find here:

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42351&highlight=&sid=223ac726a08a0268d8a3012f70ab9ae1

http://geekzkrieg.com/top-10-influential-metal-bands/

http://www.discogs.com/popular_artists

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_albums_have_black_sabbath_sold

Only in US, Black Sabbath has sold 57 million copies here

Irs good to remeber thant Black Sabbath has 40 years, wich means than needed to sold only 2,5 million abuns per year to have today 100 million. Both MTV and amazon.com]] are realy good sources. Thank you and sorry for my english. Both MTV and amazon.com]] are realy good sources.

MainBegan (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The above apparently refers to Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Black Sabbath. I listed the dispute on the project page. — Athaenara ✉ 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How does we know than a source is reliable and another one is not? Isn't five sources enought? There is only one source against this fact... MainBegan (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this issue. Discussion should remain at Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Black Sabbath and a third opinion will hopefully be added soon. See our instructions at WP:3O. (EhJJ)^TALK 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Respondents feedback on Dunmanway Massacre Third opinion.

Let me start by saying I consider Third Opinion a very positive initiative and well worth supporting. It is for this reason, I would draw editors attention to my recent experience of WP:3 which in my opinion undermine the very role it sets out to achieve.

A report was filed here by User:Jdorney setting out what they considered to be the issues on the article talk page. However, prior to this they had also canvassed other editors for their views [3], [4] on the discussion. Having filed the request, Jdorney then approaches two editors, User:JeremyMcCracken and User:Calabraxthis who he said were listed on Third opinion though I can't see this list myself.

My first concern is, having filed the request why then got direcly to two editors talk pages making the same request. Selecting which editors you want to offer a third opinion will counteract the whole neutrality of the process. Jdorney by putting forward their view of the nature of the dispute in their request already colours the discussion before the opinion is given in my opinion. Is it the case, or should it be the case that editors listed at WP:3, should not be canvassed for their opinions? Having filed a request, it should be a case of pot luck of which editor you get, with the proviso that "if you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute."

My second concern is the Third opinion offered. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute, and presented in a civil and nonjudgmental way. In my opinion, the views did not measure up to the criteria outlined on WP:3. I would be reminded of a comment by Calabraxthis in their opinion later, "I appreciate that you are both serious editors making a genuine good faith attempt to improve this article". I offered a response to Calabraxthis thanking them first before offering some opinions of my own on the suggestions made. I received no response to any of the issues I raised and found the opinion very judgmental, examples would include "appears to have inflamed historic positions" "read like a piece of secondary school homework" "The so-called debate" "strikes me as POV sourced from POV masquerading vainly as objective analysis." This is not what WP:3 is all about in my opinion.

To follow up on this Calabraxthis then offers these opinions on an editors talk page, in the same section as the canvassed views already mentioned above. The comments can only be described as a personal attack and goes directly counter to the stated position of WP:3 not to mention WP:CIVIL and Assume good faith. This type of conduct can only have an adverse effect on the WP:3 process and the confidence of editors.

What I would suggest to address this issue is;

1. Participants in WP:3 should ignore attempts to canvass their views. User:JeremyMcCracken would be a good example. Editors who file for a third opinion should not approach individual participants in WP:3.
2. Participants having offered an opinion should follow this up by responding to issues they raise.
3. Participants in WP:3 who engage in the type of conduct cited above should be removed from the list of active Participants.

In conclusion, while I found this experience of Third Opinion less than pleasant, I still have confidence in the process and would not let this experience cloud my views or deflect me from using it in the future. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by EhJJ

For clarity, I will break my response into two sections, so that other editors can also reply in those sections, as it seems to be two independent issues that you have brought up. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvasing/Soliciting on User talk pages

We have links to a userbox and a category of users who provide third opinions on the main page. While I think this was intended to help the WP:3O "community" to be able to communicate with each other, it seems to me that most editors who are in that category are inactive and some editors who are active are not in the category. My suggestion is that

1. We do what most other Wikiprojects do, and that is to create a list of active editors at WP:3O/Active members, and
2. That the subpage (or current category) be linked with an expressed warning against soliciting third opinions.

I'm uncertain as to how we should deal with a solicited third opinion in the rare cases where it does happen. I'd like to avoid making the "Providing third opinions" list any longer, and it does seem to be covered adequately by the first bullet point. Perhaps someone else has a good idea. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks User:EhJJ, and on point 2 it is very important to the project's open nature, and the Third opinions must be seen to be neutral.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion provided on Talk:Dunmanway Massacre

I don't have time at the moment to look through all of the links provided, but I certainly believe all third opinions are open to scrutiny. Generally, the third opinion process is intended to be informal, but we do try our best to provide neutral opinions supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Generally, if you are displeased with a third opinion, it is best to seek additional avenues of dispute resolution. That said, there is a degree of quality assurance that we should try to maintain, so thanks for bringing this up. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that User:EhJJ, and could I suggest that WP:M as a possible guide and source of advice on how we provide neutral Third Opinions. For example thing to avoid when offering an opinion. This would help with offering a Third opinion in a neutral civil and nonjudgmental way. It's just a suggestion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Domer48's critique is thoughtful and reasonable. I've been canvassed a very few times and feel the only appropriate response is to point out the project's open nature and its accessibility to all uninvolved editors who check the active listings.

The "list" mentioned probably meant Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. Currently, more than 140 users (many of whom I've rarely or never seen active in the project page history during the past two years) are linked there.

I would very much like to see comments from others who are active in the project. I support the creation and maintenance of a [[:Wikipedia:Third opinion/Active members page]]. — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• (Re-thinking this, see "Simpler solution?" below.) — Athaenara ✉ 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Athaenara, as a member of a project I know the difference between putting your name to a list and being an active member. The creation and maintenance of a Wikipedia:Third opinion/Active members page would be a good idea, and each project I think should have one. The trouble is it will probably be left to one active member to look after.

I don't think the "list" mentioned meant Category:Third opinion Wikipedians, because Calabraxthis is not on that list, and User:Jdorney says they seen their name on "a" list]. So are you sure there is no other list? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know of no other such list. In the category, JeremyMcCracken is in the "J" section and Calabraxthis in the "U" section. (Categories are affected by {{DEFAULTSORT}}.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ye see it now Athaenara, I was scratching my head there for a minute. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found it a head-scratcher myself when checking the category during the past year or so! There is seriously almost no correspondence between the many listed in the category and the relatively few who actively participate in the project. That affects other users' perceptions and expectations and needs to be addressed. — Athaenara ✉ 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

Hi, I asked for the Third Opinion and I randomly messaged Third Opinion editors (with whom I had no previous contact) from the list and asked for their opinions [5] [6] [7]. I also previously asked a number of other users for their opinions [8] [9] [10].

At no time did I suggest which pov they should take. Nor did I influence thier views on this particular debate. This, therefore, was not canvassing but simply asking for neutral editors to comment. Domer's problem with them appears to be that they don't agree with him. I don't see what reason for complaint he could have.

Nor, despite his assertions has he been presonally attacked by TO editors. I personally have said some unkind things about his edits but have not attacked him presonally. The TO editors have done nothing but give their opinions on the article. As for uncivil, I suggest people look at Domer's own talk page antics. I'm sorry if he has found this unpleasant but I suggest he invest in a thicker skin if he wants to contribute to WP Jdorney (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On your request to the TO editors you IMO clouded the issue by stating that Domer wasn't acting in good faith, I can't see the reason why you had to ask these TO editors as you had already filed a request unless you felt they would have given the type of response you wanted. BigDunc^Talk

What Third opinion Editor[s] are you talking about? That you don't consider these comments a personal attack, and probable consider them to be simply "unkind" says a lot about how you view our policies. However, you may see it, they do breech a number of policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. It is also consider to be a personal attack, when you make an accusation and don't back it up. Now your on the righ page for a third opinion on WP:NPA, why not ask, or Third opinion editors might want to comment? You suggest I've been uncivil, why not provide a diff to support that accusation. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I couldn't be bothered fighting with you about rules Domer. I'm here to edit the articles. That's it. I've no interest in spending my time disputing WP policy with you. And that [11] is in no way a personal attack. It's a comment on your edits. There is a difference.

Re Big Dunc, I asked TO editors for a third opinion. They gave it. Simple as that. No conspiracy, no subterfuge. COuld it be that they gave their honest opinions? Jdorney (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't suggest otherwise, but IMO filling a report and then picking out a select few for personal messages leaves the opinion offered some what clouded and then when the editor making third opinion attacks an editor on the talk page of another editor voids the opinion as neutral, as is the idea not to be an impartial opinion? BigDunc^Talk 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But I picked the TO's completely at random. It was they, without prompting who thought Domer's edits were npov. They haven't attacked him. If you don't think they're impartial then please ask more TO's (again at random) and lets hear what they say. I would sugest the lack of impartiality is located elsewhere Jdorney (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And again I don't suggest otherwise but the comments by Calabraxthis after they offered a 3O have brought this up and IMO they are the cause of this little bit of drama and have made any opinion offered null and void. BigDunc^Talk 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say to that? You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you. Calibraxthis in both cases was stating his opinion. I repeat, I feel that most editors we consult will find a npov problem on behalf of one editor to be the source of the problem here. Lets ask some more. Jdorney (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of points, first, no diff for me being uncivil. Second that is a personal attack. Third, RedKing is not listed as a TO, and you did canvass them. Now the diff's I provided back this up. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Domer. Mods, check out Talk:Dunmanway Massacre and draw your own conclusions. Jdorney (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Without Diff's, editors do draw their own conclusions.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Active participants page

As EhJJ and Domer48 have pointed out as well, we need to distinguish between active participants in the project and "members" of the category. (See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 1#Userbox or Wikiproject? for the January 2007 discussion which resulted in the creation of the category and userbox.)

WP:3O is an informal mediation project, and it's category is even more informal in that any editor who adds the userbox to a userpage, for whatever reason, will be visible there. The vast majority of those editors don't actually participate in the project: in any average week there are perhaps a half dozen who are actively reviewing requests and responding to them, as compared to nearly one hundred fifty in the category.

Active participants (these have included Vassyana, HelloAnnyong, RegentsPark, Jclemens, Arimareiji, EhJJ, Bradv, Seraphimblade, Amatulic, Lazulilasher, Padillah, Eve Hall, Anaxial, AlekseyFy, and others) should probably discuss how a Third opinion/Active members or Third opinion/Active participants page may properly be maintained. (I'm not bold today, else I'd have created it.) — Athaenara ✉ 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Active participants are really the only ones who would know how a Third opinion/Active members or Third opinion/Active participants page may properly be maintained. There input is important as they are the ones who will be left to maintain it in my opinion. I suggest that only Active participants add the userbox to their userpage. It can be added and removed as the user has the time to give to the WP:3 project. A post to the current listed members outlining this would get the ball rolling, they can respond in two ways, A) display the userbox and respond to the post or B) remove it and ignore the post. If an editor ignores the post and still display the userbox remove them from the list. Thats just my suggestion. --Domer48_'fenian' 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's feasible for us to patrol the category and ask members who are not active to remove the userbox. For one, the wording of the box says "Values Third opinions and occasionally provides one" (emphasis added), so anyone who ever intends to provide one again "soon" would feel entitled to use it. (Of course, we could change the template to remove the last part and the automatic inclusion into the category; however, that would not address the second problem.) Second is that many of these users who are in the category may have left Wikipedia, requiring an administrator to remove the userbox(or [[Category: ]] tag) from their user page. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike WP:M which, for good reasons, is an exclusive bunch, I think our criteria should be the lowest reasonable standard. As such, my recommendation for inclusion is "provided at least two (2) third-opinions in the past two months." As such, a one-off third opinion would not count for inclusion, while members who have been absent from the project would be timely removed (of course, they wold be considered active again as soon as they provided more than one third-opinion.) The following tool will show which users have made at least two edits to WP:3O (which they would do when "taking" a listed dispute) in the past two months [12], but there is no way to just verify a single editor. Just a proposal, certainly open to alternatives. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(I just saw this.) I don't think an organized list will work. Technically, there are no members of the 3O project and anyone can drive by and give a 3O whether they sign up or not (the instructions 'encourage' but don't 'require' membership). Which seems to work reasonably well (I noticed several names on EhJJ's list who are not 'signed up' 3rd opinionators). The canvassing was, IMO, inappropriate, even without the last sentence. Perhaps we could add a Do not post messages about this 3O request anywhere other than here and on the article talk page at the bottom of the 'How to list a dispute' section. Finally, the message on User:Red King's talk page by User: Calabraxthis was not in the spirit of a third opinion. A third opinionator should keep a neutral tone even after giving the opinion to avoid any impropriety and should not consider editing the page (opinions, rather than action). I agree with User:BigDunc that the opinion (whatever its merits) is effectively compromised.

That said, 3O generally works well. I sometimes take a look at the opinions that others are giving and they generally conform to the spirit of neutrality in tone and content. So, I'm not particularly worried about the process. An additional restriction on canvassing, possibly a 'do not edit the page yourself' and a 'confine any follow-up remarks to explaining your opinion' should be sufficient for now. The one thing that is missing is some sort of analysis of the effectiveness of this process but that's beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.

--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the intention here is to:

1) make this project as it actually functions more transparent, and

2) clarify the distinction between:

a) those who participate in this project, and

b) other users who occasionally offer neutral opinions in disputes.

It's funny how a thing can assume the appearance of institutional validity merely by existing. Category:Third opinion Wikipedians was created two years ago. It grew from about fourteen active participants during the first few months to its bloated and relatively meaningless current condition which:

1) lends an appearance of transparency while having almost nothing to do with the project, and

2) obscuring any useful distinction between

a) project participants, and

b) generic support of the utility of neutral opinions in disputes.

Editors who add themselves to the category without

• watchlisting the project page
• regularly checking the list of active disagreements
• following their progress
• providing a neutral third opinion of their own from time to time
• updating the page with informative edit summaries

are not part of the project and don't keep it going. The category does play a rather distant auxiliary role, however, because in a general sense such users may contribute to dispute resolution. (This last statement does not apply to the specifics of the Dunmanway case discussed above, and I agree fully with RegentsPark and BigDunc about the improprieties there. The chief contributory factor: one user "randomly messaged" editors found in the category, which we do not oversee, to solicit opinions in support of his view.)

I do not support kicking people out of the category or denying legitimacy to the notion of "third opinions" in the generic sense, but I do support a simple construct whereby anyone who needs to know who is really pitching in here can learn that by looking at one page. The category is not that page. — Athaenara ✉ 10:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Simpler solution?

We could simply remove the category from the template and remove the userbox from the category page.

The project page currently reads:

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.

This might better read:

Active contributors to this project are in the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. If you support this project and find it useful, you are encouraged to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page.

Cutting to the chase, regulars may add the category to their pages and other users who simply want the userbox won't appear in it. Two changes, one straightforward update. — Athaenara ✉ 10:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Athaenara that's a practical solution, nice work. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the first step (removing the category link from the userbox) is a good idea. However, let's say I add the category to my user page and then stop providing Third Opinions (or even leave Wikipedia for a couple of years). The only way to remove me from the category will be to edit my user page. Generally, that is frowned upon. (EhJJ)^TALK 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can deal with that kind of thing on a case-by-case basis. For now, having revisited the January 2007 discussion in Archive 1 and the page histories of the template and the category, and as we've all seen here some of the problematic results of what they've invited, I followed through on this, citing this page in the edit summaries. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue

Currently, since the template was removed from the category (diff) and the category was removed from the template (diff), Template:User Third opinion links 128 userpages and there are 62 userpages (compared to more than 140) in Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. — Athaenara ✉ 01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now 133 (template) and 30 (category). — Athaenara ✉ 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As a late comer to this debate, I just thought I'd point out the following:

• 3Oers pick a dispute from #Active disputes, at any point they might be active or inactive, both on en.wp and at WP:3O.
• What value is there in a list of "active" 3Oers? Editors bringing disputes are told to list them at #Active disputes, not pick an active editor from a list availble. Again I would ask how a list of active 3Oers is useful?
• It requires a test. If I haven't offered an opinion for a week, 2 weeks, 2 months, when do I become inactive even if I still watch the page? What if I'm on a wikibreak?
• The process is billed as informal, so attempts to create these lists and alter the Cats and Templates look like ways of bringing more formality to the process, but for what gain?
• Active 3Oers are found by looking on the project page history, not a separately maintained list. I currently have no interest in labelling up the things I do at wikipedia. My user page is a bit of a mess with things I've found useful or might need again, but I'm currently quite active here.

So, mainly, what's the reason for wanting and going to the effort of maintaining such a list?

I've suggested a template be used in the discussion below, and maybe that would be useful here, too? Bigger digger (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Signpost item about dispute resolution

Editors who participate in WP:3O may find the Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-16/In the news "Law scholars analyze Wikipedia's dispute resolution system" item interesting. — Athaenara ✉ 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia national football team templates - edition war

Please, I'm in a edition war (what I don't like to do) with a IP user, probably MaIl1989, about the correct colors of Russia national football team templates.

These templates were white and blue until this user made the change to red and white. He explained his reasons in the templates talk. Disagreeing with him, I undid his changes and explained my reasons (better than his ones, I'm sure - see it) in the discussion.

After almost a month, a IP undid my changes. Another user undid his undid. The IP undid it, a third user undid the IP, and the IP undid again, apparently based only in his personal opinion: only because red is the new first kit of Russia national football team, he thinks red must be the color of the templates. But isn't so simple: see the discussion. I think my reasons are more rational and better explained than his.

Than, after the IP undid the change of the third user that undid him, I came back and undid the IP. Since this, I had to undid him twice. His simple justification, against all my rational ones? "Russia wears red, and thats it". He wants to force his personal opinion; I want to put what a set of facts, that I mentioned in the discussion, show not only to me, but to another two users who also had disagree with the IP.

I would like your opinion, and, if it's possible, to protect these templates against IPs.

Thank you

--Caio Brandão Costa (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To get the templates protected against IPs you would need to make a request at WP:RFP, although, in this instance, I wouldn't think it would be very likely to happen. If it's a debate between just you and him (as your link seems to indicate), then someone can provide a Third Opinion as a tie-breaker, which you can request through the usual method on the WP:3O page. I'd also ask you both to be careful about the three revert rule, since you're both on the limits of that at the moment. Anaxial (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think WP:DEW would be something for you two to read right now. I never thought I would ever reference that essay, until now. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a discussion on the same subject Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)