Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggestion

• The providing third opinions section reads like additional instructions, so wouldn't it make more sense for it to be above the active disagreements section? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea has always been that what's above that section are instructions to folks seeking a 3O, while what's below are instructions for volunteers. Other forums like DRN put the volunteer instructions on a subpage, but I think that discourages new volunteers from reading them. I think this is fine as we have it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Contemplating removing Wikipedia:Independent sources as one of the "You may also be looking for" at the top of the page. I don't see the similarity to this particular page. The others listed there are very similar, and I can see the possibility of that being what the reader is looking for. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I second that proposal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I third that proposal and went ahead and did it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

30 template

(copied from template talk page because I'm not sure if that page is watched at all) Using a link to a diff, old version of a page, or an exterior link seems to cause a problem with template {{3O}}. See [1] and [2]. Can someone fix it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've experienced this too and am not sure whether it happens to other templates which are used like this. Do you know of any or have you tried putting an external link in them? I just assumed that this happens to all templates. -Joel Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

revised edit-window instructions for editors adding a request

Hi, i just revised the instructions for editors adding a request, that appear in the edit window once they start.

There are about 11 lines of message box code, and then what appears now is:
<code> <!---PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ( Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Instructions ) BEFORE ADDING A REQUEST. AFTER READING INSTRUCTIONS, ADD YOURS BELOW ... BELOW ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT ARE OPEN A REQUEST LOOKS LIKE THIS EXAMPLE: # [[Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up]]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~ ----ALL CURRENT REQUESTS APPEAR BELOW -- THERE MAY BE SEVERAL OR NONE -- ADD YOURS BELOW ANY OTHERS ---> <!-- ADD YOUR REQUEST ABOVE THIS LINE -- RIGHT ABOVE HERE -- REMEMBER TO USE 5 TILDES ~~~~~ IN YOUR SIG ---> <nowiki></code> <br/> Previously, after the 11 or so lines of message box, there was: <br/> <code><nowiki> <!-- NOTE: PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE ADDING TO THIS SECTION.--> <!-- ADD YOUR DISPUTE ABOVE THIS LINE RIGHT ABOVE HERE--> </code>

Aaargh, I see in preview mode that what appears above looks garbled. Between "code" and "nowiki" or whatever tags, I don't know how to make the above display properly. (Please fix the display above, anyone!) Anyhow I was then going to say:

I think the top one here is better, although it is longer. Its length gives more visual weight to these instructions, relative to the 11-line message box code that the editor is supposed to ignore. And I think it is simply clearer. I think it works better especially for times when there are no other requests outstanding.

Feel free to change it back or do anything else, i won't mind, this is just my 2 cents. Cheers, --doncram 22:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment and Question

Sometimes only one of the editors wants a third opinion, because the other editor ignores the third opinion. Should the instructions for offering a third opinion include a mention that sometimes the editor offering the third opinion winds up getting attacked? (Therefore, the editor offering the third opinion needs to be ready to stay cool, and may need to be ready to remind the other editors to be civil.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to clarify that sometimes only one editor is interested in following the 3O process, or to remind volunteers that sometimes the dispute leading to 3O may be heated or that an editor may be entrenched in their position; but I'd hesitate to say the person offering the opinion may get attacked. I don't want to scare people away from offering 3rd opinions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem for me because part 3.b. of my personal 3O standards say that I just give an opinion and walk away, which I almost always do (there have been a couple of exceptions). 3O isn't for the purpose of mediating disputes, it's for the purpose of giving an opinion and that's it. As my standards say, I'll explain it or clarify it if needed but I won't expand it or argue about it. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." That's all a 3O needs to be and both parties are free to accept or reject a 3O since 3O's aren't tiebreakers (and thus don't "count" towards consensus), they're just opinions, nothing more or nothing less. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC) PS: You can see here the history of 3O not being a tiebreaker. — TM 21:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC) PPS: All of that's not to say that a 3O volunteer cannot choose to use the listings at 3O as a springboard to provide mediation at a talk page, but doing so is outside the scope of the project and is fraught with considerable perils besides just having someone become angry with you. The very first step of such an effort should be to obtain the consent of all warring parties for you to mediate the dispute and, if you have that intent, it's probably better to do that before offering a 3O since once you've done so you're probably going to be seen as partisan. — TM 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. I learnt the "walk-away" thing only after giving many 3Os. Now whether anyone reacts positively or negatively, I just walk away, though I keep it in my watchlist just to see their initial responses. A few times, I did try to mediate, especially in situations like 3RR violations or COI etc. The only time I feel we need to respond is when we make a big mistake in our 3O, and need to clarify. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who might be interested, I worked up this draft for a proposal for a new dispute resolution process in which a neutral party would provide mediation on article talk pages. I solicited comments from a few folks, but then got busy on other stuff and never got back around to it (as well as having some reservations about my own idea, revolving in part around complexity). If anyone is super-interested in it moving forward — and please read the talk page before deciding — let me know and maybe I can drag myself out of the barcalounger long enough to reconsider it. If you're interested in it, however, please comment there, not here, as it's off-topic here beyond vaguely relating to 3O's-as-mediation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What do I do when an editor refuses to accept a 3rd opinion?

On Talk:Unseen character I and another editor disagreed about whether Rosaline should be included as an example of an unseen character. There were only two of us in the discussion and it seemed clear we would not come to an agreement so I asked for a 3rd opinion. Another editor responded to that request and agreed with me. The editor who disagreed with me first accused the 3rd party of just being me in disguise pretending to get a 3rd opinion and then accused the 3rd party of being biased because he actually took a side on the question at hand (which is exactly what a 3rd opinion editor is supposed to do). So now he is refusing to accept the result of the 3rd opinion and repeatedly re-editing the Unseen character page to reflect his preferred version. At this point I am not sure where I should go for further assistance. It would seem that another 3rd opinion request would not be the right move and perhaps someone on an administrative level is needed to step in. If anyone can direct me to where I should request further assistance I would greatly appreciate that. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

WP:Dispute resolution offers several options available when a 3rd opinion has failed to resolve a dispute. My personal recommendation, assuming you consider this a content issue, would be the Dispute resolution noticeboard. However, you may want to ask the editor you're disagreeing with whether they'll agree to whatever decision is reached at DRN, as they are non-binding.

Based on your claim that the editor is repeatedly re-editing, though, if you believe they are exercising bad faith and edit-warring, you may want to warn them appropriately and consider raising the matter at the edit-warring noticeboard if they ignore the warning...but at that point you are turning this into a conduct rather than content dispute.

Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the several comments by User:Doniago. There is no requirement that a user accept the third opinion, and another third opinion request would be tendentious. I see that both the Original Poster and the other editor are engaged in slow-motion edit-warring, having not approached WP:3RR, although it is more obvious with the other editor, because the unregistered editor's IP address keeps changing. Both editors should stop edit-warring. If they both actually want to resolve this, moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard would be a good idea. If they don't want to resolve this, as said above, it becomes a conduct issue, and can be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard, but boomerang blocks are common there. Also, the Original Poster would do well to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, our official answer to this question is 3O User FAQ: What happens next? Oh, and another 3O is not just perhaps tendentious, but impossible: It would be a Fourth Opinion and we don't give those. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. There is a conduct issue as well as a content issue (the other editor has problems with civility) but I am trying my best not to get into that as the content issue is the one I ultimately care about more. I agree that the slow motion edit war should stop, but previously the other editor would not even reply to my comments on the talk page unless I changed the content on the article page, since he was happy so long as it read what he preferred. But I will refrain from re-editing the page again until getting further input. The suggestion of going to moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard sounds good. I will look into that option. Thanks again. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

• Make an RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Third Opinion Requests

If it isn't clear to a volunteer what the question is in a Third Opinion request, and I say that on the article talk page, should the Third Opinion request be deleted as answered, or left standing so that another volunteer might provide a third opinion? In the cases of both active Third Opinion requests, the lack of civility is more obvious than what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not sure what the dispute is, or even I do know what it is but want a calmer and clearer statement from the disputants, I'll usually put a message on the talk page that says I'm willing to provide a third opinion but I don't understand the dispute; then I wait. I do remove the dispute as answered since I'm going to answer it as soon as I get a response. {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} is a good template for that and it produces:

Example (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Example

....

Notice that it says "Example wants to offer a third opinion." When I use that I watchlist the page and wait. In one instance I'm still waiting. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In the case in point, one of the editors did restate the question, and I offered an opinion, and will remove the request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And if they don't clarify, the request is likely to time out under the six-day rule and be removed for being stale; that's one of the reasons that we have that rule. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:TransporterMan replied to a third opinion request by asking what the question was. A lot of third opinion requests don't make it clear what the question is. Making an unclear third opinion request is at least better than incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not at all opposed to asking for clarification because you can't figure out what the issue is (or don't care to dig through a lot of churning to do so). My experience is that such a request is only occasionally needed — perhaps 5% of the time or less — and I can usually figure out what the dispute is about from looking at the talk page discussion and the article history. You'll note, I addressed the inquiry to which you refer to both parties, not just to the requesting party, and in that case what they were actually talking about was not at all clear from the talk page and I didn't care to dig all the way through the 15 edits over the last couple of days to try to get one to match up with what was being said on the talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience differs from yours in that I think that more than 5% of third opinion requests are not clear as to what the question is. I agree that the clarification can come from either editor, although often only one editor wants a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think sometimes the questions are very technical or require a certain knowledge base to effectively answer. If a thorough discussion has taken place, what the dispute is about can generally be deduced. Looking at article diffs can help determine this as well. A lot of times if the issue isn't clear, it's mixed with possible conduct issues. Adding a space for editor's to summarize the dispute ({{subst:third opinion|''username here''}}) is never a bad idea. If one side doesn't participate, it's not likely the third opinion would help anyway, as it is informal and non-binding. They can then be directed to another form of dispute resolution.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes what is clear to me is that two editors do not like each other, and the incivility and hostility make it hard to see what the content issue is. In that case, the request to ask the question may be more important than the answer, in that one of them then will at least ask a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Multi-Part Third Opinion Request

There is an open third opinion request which asks five questions about the article. I have replied, asking whether they want one of the questions answered or all five. If they want one question answered, either I or another respondent will probably answer it. If they want to discuss five questions, a different mechanism such as formal mediation might be better. Are there any other suggestions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Would Like to Add Text to Instructions

I would like to add text to the instructions on the article page, saying that, if the nature of the question about which the third opinion is being requested isn't clear from the discussion on the article talk page, it would be useful for the filing editor to state the question on the article talk page. Often it isn't clear exactly what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That kind of interferes with our premise that the 3O-giver shouldn't know who asked for the opinion. If the question isn't clear, it's better to ask both parties for a clarification or summary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that the third-opinion giver wasn't supposed to know who asked for the opinion. Okay. Often it isn't clear what the question is, just that there has been extended discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How to successfully cirumvent 3O

Here is a good example of how this very helpful tool can be circumvented, not to say sabotaged. It's like a textbook case of how to incapacitate and destroy this conflict resolution option.

One editor for reasons of personal POV does not want an image in an article, so s/he removes it, twists the issue so that the caption is ignored, which clearly stated what the image was to illustrate and made it relevant to the article.

• Caption: 17th century expert drew coins issued by this monarch (that's what was there).

versus

• Caption: These coins were issued by this monarch (that's what the remover wants to discuss).

It is pointed out to the remover several times what was in the caption s/he removed, but this is ignored.

3O is requested, but the request is ignored for 3 days.

By then a third user, obviously recruited by the remover, and just as unwilling to discuss the actual image caption - the actual issue - comments in full agreement with the remover who doesn't want that image there.

A 3O editor then dismisses the request, purporting that there already has been a 3O given, whereas the only thing given was the chime in by someone without the neutrality which is the main pillar of a conflict tool we want and need to rely on to be neutral and helpful.

I'm starting a new very precise section on the article's discussion page, reinstating my 3O request and asking for neutral input this time. The help we get from you ladies and gentlemen is vital to the rest of us. Please be fair! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing:To clarify, stating a "third opinion has been given" could simply mean another user has joined the discussion. This makes it ineligible for a Third Opinion anyhow. Secondly, I have a question about your statement "By then a third user, obviously recruited by the remover". I checked the contribution history of the user you were originally involved in the dispute with, and it didn't appear that they had contacted the third user that joined the discussion. Couldn't they simply have noticed the dispute listed on this project page, or been watching those articles, or am I missing something? Perhaps I'm overly assuming good faith, but it doesn't seem to be clear-cut canvassing or whatnot, as they both seem to be reasonably established users.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you (1) know how easy it is to e-mail a user for support or (2) have read the discussion, but I'd think it might be obvious that the support at least is questionable, given the fact that my repeated efforts to try to focus on the caption have been ignored (even by you?).

It is true that it is easy to email a user, therefore canvassing the user. However, to make that claim is a failure to assume good faith and amounts to casting aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My point is that when a 3O request is ignored for 3 days, that invites input by non-neutral (even recruited) editors, which tends to sabotage 3O. It's help from neutral, non-recruited editors we need. Am I wrong in that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

PS I'm now trying to restart the discussion, focused on captions, here Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde#Caption makes image relevant. The principle issue is important to my continued contributions to these projects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To say I've ignored the caption issue, when I haven't commented on the content issue on that page at all is a mischaracterization. My comment concerned the third opinion process and possible conduct issues. Secondly, I'm simply trying to have a civil conversation here. I thank you for your concern about my knowledge of the email feature, I understand how it works. I'm also going to apply that same principal to the third user. Until evidence is presented to the contrary, I'll assume their actions were benevolent.

All that aside: If another user decides to chime in before the request is answered, the content in question probably has enough watchers or interest, not to need a Third Opinion. A more formal process (another branch of dispute resolution) would be better. The third opinion process is voluntary, informal, and non-binding. As stated on the third opinion page, "The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes." In those things lie the beauty of the process. If two editors are involved in a disagreement, and no one else has shown interest after thorough discussion, they can request a third party. It isn't really for more complex matters, with more involvement, "articles listed here are [often] watched by very few people". The maximum time a dispute can be listed is six days. The process is voluntary. No one may choose to, have the time, or feel equipped to deal with the issue. It's out of the control of this process if someone else chooses to comment. Short of implementing a new participant "lock out" when a 3O is requested until it is delisted or answered (against the informal spirit of the process), not much can really be done.

If a user had given a "true" third opinion, identifying themselves as being from the project, their opinion wouldn't count toward consensus. In this case it does count that way. If they (pinging as not to assume their intention) did intend to give a third opinion it should really be stated that it is one. Perhaps it should be clarified on the 3O process page that this needs to be done.

On a final note: I'd personally suggest an RFC at this point in this particular case. I'm intentionally not weighing in on the "caption mak[ing] the image relevant" which you brought up on the article's talk page, as I don't wish to become involved or give my opinion at this time.

Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the whole concept of "circumventing" or "sabotaging" a request for a third opinion. Since the third opinion process is inherently voluntary and non-binding, it can also be ignored. It also is only applicable when only two editors are involved, and, as noted above, when a third editor is involved, this process is no longer applicable. As noted above, this issue may be better suited to a Request for Comments. Any issue where at least one of the editors has a strong inflexible opinion is probably better suited to RFC, which is the only dispute resolution process that is binding. (In my estimate, not based on quantitative data, about half of the disputes brought here involve at least one editor with a strong inflexible opinion, and so are better suited to RFC. However, that does not mean that such issues should not be brought here, only that this board does not always resolve issues.) (Unfortunately, a few issues where one of the editors has a strong inflexible opinion wind up going to ANI because the inflexible editor is tendentious or disruptive. It is almost always better to try content dispute resolution before treating an issue as a conduct issue.) The concept of circumventing or sabotaging the third opinion process is a stretch. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Serge, we've been over some of this before. I largely agree with Godsy and Robert. Even if the third editor had been directly and openly solicited to comment on the article and was a well-known partisan on the subject matter of the article with a long block list for edit warring on that subject, once s/he entered the discussion it no longer qualifed for a 3O here and needed to be removed. A somewhat different situation might be the case if the third editor also held himself out as giving an opinion under the auspices of the 3O project, but even then the result would be the same for the 3O project: the request should be removed. That editor might have subjected himself to a complaint that could be filed at ANI for editing under false pretenses. The remedy for a disputant who has received a 3O that he thinks is incorrect is very simple: ignore it. Since 3O's are not binding on anyone, they're just opinions and opinions can be ignored. If you still feel that you need dispute resolution, take the dispute to dispute resolution noticeboard, formal mediation, or RFC. The other editors can frustrate the first two of those by simply declining to participate, but if they refuse to participate in a RFC then their position will simply not be considered. Finally, you say, "My point is that when a 3O request is ignored for 3 days, that invites input by non-neutral (even recruited) editors, which tends to sabotage 3O." I'm not sure to whom that comment is directed or what you think the remedy to be. Requiring Third Opinion Wikipedians to "take" cases within 24-48 hours after they're listed? We're all volunteers here, Serge, no one has to do anything they don't want to do. While there's ordinarily a group of editors serving as volunteers here at 3O (and even that's an exaggeration: there's no volunteer list or sign-up or anything like that: the editors "serving as volunteers" at any moment are simply those who regularly or occasionally issue an opinion), as I mentioned in our prior discussion that group ebbs and flows and comes and goes and none of them are required to ever take a particular case. (The same's true at DRN and MEDCOM, I might add.) If we had that requirement, I rather doubt that we'd have any volunteers at all. On the other hand you might be saying that listings should be removed for staleness — staleness being something you and I have spoken about before here and here — the staleness period ought to be reduced from 6 days to something less than 3 days, but I don't think that's what you mean since that would make getting a 3O even less likely. Perhaps what you're really raising here is the two-editor only requirement but, again, I can't figure out what you're attempting to raise here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Godsy. Wow. Serge, I wasn't recruited by Andejons. Eric the Victorious is on my watchlist, and that's how I noticed a post by FoCuSandLeArN at Talk:Eric_the_Victorious#Coin_image. It was through that talkpage that I followed the link to Talk:Ragnvald_Knaphövde#Coin_design. I'm not involved in a conspiracy against you, and I doubt Andejons is either. It's too bad you imagine otherwise. When someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they're out to get you.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I recuse myself from commenting on this particular issue due to the fact I'm completely unqualified to comment. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Brianann MacAmhlaidh: The reason I suspected canvassing was explained there, I hope understandably. Thank you for explaining! I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended. However, let's not exaggerate! I never alluded to any "conspiracy" or claimed that anyone was out to get me. The discussion at hand became unbalanced when people showed up to agree with my opponent while ignoring the essential matter of the wording of the image's caption. I will continue to react naturally under such circumstances. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Godsy: Thank you for your extensive input! Sad that no one seems willing to take a stand on the issue as it actually is. I will consider the RfC option. Re: consensus - I think you stated that the opinion of a declared 3O editor does not count toward consensus, whereas anybody else's opinion does. Did I misunderstand you? If that's really so, why would any of us want to use 3O? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, you didn't misunderstand me. I've responded to your other inquiry below.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear TransporterMan (TALK: I'm sorry if you really took it as my demanding that 3O requests be handled immediately. Do you think it ever happens that one of you who answer a lot of 3O requests sees certain editors involved pass and then on helping even though you have a definite pro-WP oinion to give as per clear guidelines? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"[W]hy would any of us want to use 3O?". If the third opinion giver agrees with one side of the disagreement (especially in less complicated issues) or even takes an entirely different position (or a combination of both users views), the users involved may simply go along with the third opinion. This is especially probable/possible if the opinion given is particularly good. In a reasonably civil discussion, especially ones with no conduct issues and perhaps little or no edit warring has taken place where both sides are open to ideas and willing to participate, it is reasonable for users to take the opinion into consideration. A lot of times disagreements aren't polarized. This less formal process is for disagreements that are less contentious, there are other forms of dispute resolution to handle those that lean the other way. This instance is a good example of what I've described above regarding how the process can work and why it would be wanted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Good example. I have also withdrawn like a gentleperson and accepted 3Os with grace, when they addressed the actiual issue, not something else, and when they had time to be given without the kind if interference several of us have described here, some of us describing it as fine and dandy and some uf us (i.e. me) trying to object to it, somehow.... Interference is all that has kept me from being successful a number of the latest times times I've tried to use this helpful tool, and I do feel sincerely that some people (mentioning no names, for Goodness sakes!) know how to sidestep it by urgent confidential cavassing. With a weak POV-based case and expendable ethics to have one's way, why wouldn't one? Let's not pretend that many users aren't primarily interested in having one's way at the expense of constructive, collaborative, reasonable WP work! I've always hated pretending.

Anyway, I've taken the constructive and much appreciated advice of a few of you and started the RfC here. I hope, though I'm now very tired (out), that I've made the principally important (to all of us) image caption issue clear enough there that it cannot be ignored this time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"many users [are] primarily interested in having one's way at the expense of constructive, collaborative, reasonable WP work." I agree, this is often the case unfortunately. All the best,
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Serge, I'm afraid I didn't understand your last question to me, especially the part that says, "one of you who answer a lot of 3O requests sees certain editors involved pass and then on helping". Would you mind rephrasing it? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I was way too sleepy and should have gone to bed before I wrote that mess. Terrible!

Do you think it ever happens that one of you who answer a lot of 3O requests sees certain editors involved and then pass on helping, to stay out of sticky debates, even though you have a definite pro-WP oinion to give as per clear guidelines? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

First, on something of a tangent, I won't take a request in which I see "certain editors involved" if I have an opinion about those editors which I think would bias my response, either in general or in the particular facts of that dispute, and I would hope that no one else here would do so, either, since that's one of our requirements here. As for the larger question I can only answer for myself: One good thing about 3O is that "stickiness" doesn't much matter. You give an opinion and you're done and you're not going to get caught up in whatever follows. What can matter to me, which is often directly proportional to stickiness, is the question of whether a dispute is so complicated or involved or unfamiliar to me that I don't feel that I have the time (or simply don't care to) puzzle it out and come up with an opinion which I can be confident is right for the encyclopedia. There are also some kinds of disputes I just dislike so much that I usually don't want to handle them. (For example, many if not most disputes over the content of infoboxes and most disputes over article tags usually fall into that category for me.) Other folks may have different standards, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion is Light-weight

Third opinion is an extremely light-weight process. For that reason, I don't think that we should worry about its misuse. It is voluntary and non-binding, and does not require much time on the part of either the parties or the volunteer editors. In my opinion, most requests that are filed here will not be resolved by the third opinion. Third opinion only works if there are only two editors and both are flexible. It is, in my observation, more common that at least one editor has a strongly held opinion and will not be swayed by the third opinion. In that case, it may be that only the binding process of a Request for Comments will work. Nonetheless, getting the third opinion was cheap and harmless, and may provide input to the community. Sometimes neither proposed version of the article text is ideal, or the question was poorly phrased. In that case, moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard is more appropriate. Nonetheless, getting the third opinion was cheap and harmless, and may provide background for the moderator. Sometimes one editor has a strongly held opinion and is disruptive or tendentious, and the topic has to do with a real battleground area, such as the Middle East or the Balkans, and the case should go to Arbitration Enforcement. Nonetheless, getting the third opinion was cheap and harmless, and may provide information for the enforcing admins. Sometimes one editor has a strongly held opinion and is disruptive, and discretionary sanctions are not available. In that case, WP:ANI is necessary. Nonetheless, getting the third opinion was cheap and harmless, and may provide information for the community. Because third opinion is so light-weight, I don't think it is necessary to worry about the process being defeated. The process may be the next step to another process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first started working at 3O, I kept track of all the cases in which I gave an opinion and the outcome. It's been awhile and I quit keeping and deleted that record shortly after I gave my 100th opinion a couple or three years ago, but in about 75% of those cases the dispute ended — I won't say "was resolved" or "settled" but only "ended" — within a few days after I gave my 3O. Some of those endings can be put down to post hoc ergo propter hoc and, indeed, in some the dispute ended with a result opposite to what I advised in my opinion (but ended, nonetheless), but I offer that statistic just FWIW and to suggest that as lightweight as 3O might be that it appears to be pretty effective in a lot of cases. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that if a question waits more than three days or so for an answer, it may not get a neutral answer. However, that isn't worth worrying about, because there are always binding alternatives, either RFC or occasionally Arbitration Enforcement. Any effort to make it harder to "circumvent" this process would simply reduce its ease of use. It is better to let it be misused than to prevent its misuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! Your comments have been very helpful to me. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing a Questioned Statement

A Third Opinion request was posted about whether a particular statement should be in an article. It should not, because it has the nature of original research. The problem is that the editor who wants the statement removed can't do it for 24 hours, because that would be WP:3RR. (The editor who posted the Third Opinion request was right in going to dispute resolution to stop the edit-war.) Can a Third Opinion volunteer remove the statement, or would that be non-neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally, a 3O volunteer should not directly edit the article along the lines of whatever opinion they've given because the 3O is an opinion and is not necessarily representative of consensus. In a situation of the above type, I'd suggest either waiting out the the 24 hours or, with lower preference, making the change with a clear edit summary stating the reasons behind the edit along with a 'no objection to reverts' rider. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with the thoughts of regentspark, above, w.r.t inclusion of information about which there is a legimate discussion. I would, however, suggest that there are some inclusions which are beyond the pale and require removal. I suggest that violations of WP:BLP should be addressed by any editor, regardless of the existence of a WP:3O request; and would be comfortable with an extension of this to inclusions similar poorly sourced, contentious information (not necessarily about persons). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I request 3O for a dispute that has no talk page?

I'm having trouble with someone on the Manual of Style FAQ, and I'm thinking of calling in a third opinion if it gets worse. How would I go about doing this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

From prior postings it would appear that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is being used for that purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Acting on a 3rd Opinion you gave

I know it's generally discouraged to give a third opinion and then involve yourself in editing the article to conform to the opinion you gave. However, several months ago I gave an opinion on a page where an editor was inserting massive amounts of original research into an article. The editor who had been trying to remove the OR has not edited since. Likewise, the editor who added the OR has not edited much in the intervening time (though they did return to vigorously dispute that what they were adding was OR). I am concerned about the amount of OR in the article, but am hesitant to involve myself further by removing it myself. Does anyone have any suggestions? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: I'd personally advise staying out of it, if it concerns the exact thing and parties you gave the opinion on. I've given an opinion in the past and had the same type of thing occur (though it wasn't concerning WP:OR specifically): I gave an opinion; editor 1 continued implementing changes against the spirit of my opinion and the opinion of the editor 2; editor 2 backed off or lost interest in the discussion. I really wanted to get involved and edit the page, but I had restraint and did not. Of course it's up to you, that's just my personal "standard". If the possible OR content is really bad perhaps an alternative to getting explicitly involved in editing the article would be a post expressing concern (as neutrally as possible) at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard along with a note about the situation would be appropriate. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like all you us have come across this at one point. Seeing your situation (ONUnicorn), I think of being bold and fixing it yourself. In my case, I confess that mine wasn't even as serious as BLP or OR, just something I liked working on. Though I made my stance clear that I was going to be directly involved and my 3O wouldn't be counted anymore. Good luck. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I did something like this on the Shudra page. After my initial 3O, which one editor cavilled at a lot, I was interested in the topic, and made some additions, which resolved the matter more or less, including to the satisfaction of the editor in question. I however, made it clear that I was acting as a participant then, instead of a neutral outside editor. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

3O requests disappearing too fast!

Every time I check 3O page now, someone else has already taken the requests and the list is empty. You guys are doing too much work! Just kidding, great job to all those who help out. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion requires editor with specific background

What should a third opinion volunteer do if they look at a dispute and conclude that it requires an editor with a particular background? There is an open question about Judaism which, I think, would benefit from a third opinion from another editor with a background in Judaism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally, if I look at a dispute and think that I haven't the knowledge or background to properly evaluate the dispute, I just ignore it an leave it for another volunteer. In other words, I don't do anything. That said, if it's been hanging out for a while and no one has taken it, it might be a good idea to try to attract a wider audience by asking at relevant wikiprojects or suggesting that the disputants file a RFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with ONUnicorn w.r.t directing the participants in the content dispute to relevant WikiProjects; especially given the non-binding nature of the process. I have explicitly mentioned seeking wider consensus at WikiProjects in the third opinions I have provided. I have also reviewed this particular dispute, and believe that I would be sufficiently qualified to provide an opinion. I will look to do in the next day. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. If it remains for long and yearns for a 3O with you thinking of doing it, don't hesitate to answer yourself; give them the usual disclaimer about it being non-binding and try RFC, DR etc. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't offer an opinion, but did suggest that they take it to WP:WikiProject Judaism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether to Remove Requests

There are two open third opinion requests. I have tried to address both of them and am unable to answer either of them in a way that I think is a proper use of Third Opinion. My question is whether I may remove them from the listing here, after having already given my advice, or whether I should leave them for another volunteer to try to address. The tennis question is definitely a content dispute, in which the participants are civil and just disagree about neutrality of wording. However, in view of the length of the material about which there is disagreement, I think that moderated discussion is appropriate, and would like the parties to request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. On the other issue, which appears to have to do with a fringe think tank and a fringe thinker, I don't see a content issue, although maybe the content issue is hidden among the conduct allegations. What I see is allegations of conduct issues. Unfortunately, those need either to be forgotten or to be taken to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. May I remove these requests, or should I let the disputants try to state a content issue that can be addressed within this forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The only reasons to remove a request are:

• Less than thorough discussion.
• Conduct dispute with little or no content dispute.
• More than two editors (and I won't usually remove one for that unless there are at least 5 editors, per prior discussion here).
• Staleness (listed more than 6 days).

In theory you might also add two different kinds of "no dispute" removals:

• Editor arguing against a clear recent consensus. (This would be extremely rare for only two people to be involved.)
• No dispute at all, just a help request.

Unlike DRN, 3O doesn't have a referral function, nor do we have the right to remove because the dispute is unclear and/or the parties won't clarify. You can recommend that they move on to DRN or Formal Mediation and withdraw their 3O request, but unlike DRN and Medcom, where a referral recommendation is a legitimate reason to close a case it's not a reason for removal here. The thought has always been here to just leave cases like that listed and someone may choose to take them and give an opinion, but if no one does then they can be removed for staleness. Staleness also works for cases which have legitimate content issues but which also have so much misconduct that no one wants to take them. (So, I'd leave the first case to see if anyone wants to puzzle it out and, as for the second one, no one — including me — would probably object if you removed it as a conduct dispute, but I looked at it when it was first listed and thought that there was at least enough of a scrap of content that it ought to survive.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice to go to WP:RSN

Am I correct that if I recommend that an issue be taken to the reliable source noticeboard, I should not remove it from the third opinion request list? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Removal

To follow up on the question about removal of questions, I have not removed a Third Opinion that I can't answer, because maybe another editor can answer it or the parties can restate it. It is the question about the War of the Pacific. One of the editors claims that some of the material is synthesis constituting original research, but, due to the length of the discussion, I can't give a straightforward opinion in that regard. As I said, I am leaving it to see if it gets answered within six days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had to non-answer another request for a Third Opinion. The list of issues about Comics looks to me to be too long and general for Third Opinion. Would someone please give me a fourth opinion as to whether my suggestion that they go to a WikiProject to get more editors was reasonable? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone has taken both of those, so they're moot, but I'll comment that seeking advice at WikiProjects is, like much here, a maybe-so-maybe-not proposition. Many projects have little or no activity and many others are almost entirely populated by enthusiasts who have little or no interest in living up to proper Wikipedia standards. I don't refer folks to them unless I'm very certain that they can get good, sound Wikipedia-standard advice there. When in doubt, suggesting an RFC or pointing them to the proper noticeboard is much more likely to obtain neutral advice. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. There is a particular type of Third Opinion request that we occasionally see, and that is the case where an article has a history of two editors who have a long history of civil disagreement, and the Third Opinion request is a little hard to figure out because the history is long. Sometimes it appears to me that what the article needs is a third editor. Since WikiProjects are a mixed bag, is there any specific advice about articles that have only two editors with a history of civil disagreement? Is the best thing to do, then, to ask them to summarize a question that can be given a short answer, or should they be instead directed to WP:DRN, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that you (TransporterMan) and I think that a third opinion is supposed to give neutral advice. Some editors don't want neutral advice. Some editors don't want advice. Et cetera. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, you'll have to forgive me. I'd written a long answer to your comments but when I clicked "Save page" my browser crashed and I lost it. I'm sorry, but I now don't have time to recreate it. Let me just say this, instead: Most filers don't want justice or neutrality, they want to win and I don't feel the need to assist that kind of filer beyond the minimum needed to not seem churlish or uncivil-by-silence. Those who really seem to want help, I help in various ways: if I've not touched the DR filing then I'll sometimes take off my DR hat and wade into the discussion as just another party (but usually only if there's a clear policy solution which is being ignored or overlooked; I won't try to do private mediation on the article talk page because I think it's too complicated in most cases to make work right), I'll point them at a relevant noticeboard (but only those which are fairly responsive; we have a lot of noticeboards that have so little activity that you're unlikely to get a response), or as the ultimate default recommend or file an RFC. Here at 3O, if there's been sufficient discussion and it's really a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, and the only reason that it's removed is too many participants then I might certainly recommend that they move to DRN or MEDCOM. Disputes that are too complicated to understand, I do what you've been doing and ask them to summarize; if they don't or can't I follow the advice given in Lavalier's lament in Bored of the Rings: "U canleada horsta wata, bwana, butyu canna makit drinque!" Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Like: and that's why I use text-editors when making an edit taking longer than a few minutes. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a different but somewhat related reason for normally using text editors, not browser crashes, which are rare and unpleasant, but edit conflicts, which are common and tedious. On re-reading TransporterMan's post, I agree that most filers don't want justice or neutrality, but to "win", I agree. I had misread it as most editors, and many editors do want justice and neutrality, but filers at any dispute resolution forum are a subset of editors, and many filers are contentious, and the hardest part of DRN is dealing with contentious editors. (I know; this isn't DRN.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You refer to a few noticeboards that have too little activity to be useful. In your experience, which specialized noticeboards are reasonably productive, and which are not? The noticeboards that typical 3O disputes could go to, I think, are RSN, BLPN, NORN, COIN, and FTN. Which ones are useful and which ones are too slow? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

A third opinion request came in about the addition and removal of a category, based on a questioned source. I didn't offer a third opinion, but referred the editors to the reliable source noticeboard. I also warned both of the editors for edit-warring, and requested page protection. I am asking for verification that these actions are not a misuse of the third opinion process, since I didn't offer an opinion, but that any uninvolved editor may caution edit-warriors? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CAIR

User:TransporterMan replied to a dispute about the addition of some questionable material to Council on American-Islamic Relations by entering as an experienced editor rather than a Third Opinion volunteer and removing the material as contrary to WP:BLPCRIME and as synthesis amounting to original research. Since there are now three editors involved, I deleted the Third Opinion request. I didn't suggest an alternate forum, since I agree that the deleted material was contrary to policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutralization

Sometimes an editor notes in an edit summary that they have neutralized a request. What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that they offered an opinion, so that the request can be deleted, or that they took it down without offering an opinion, or that they are neutral and so didn't offer an opinion. I know what neutralization is in chemistry, and I know what neutrality is under the laws of war, but what is it here? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing complicated here. hehe. It just means that I trimmed the dispute post to a "brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two, and without trying to argue for or against either side" and to make "it seem as though the request is being added by both participants." ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can reduce any of the long tedious exchanges into a concise question, thank you. All too often, the talk page has a long exchange, and it is very hard for a volunteer to figure out what the question is (except sometimes that two editors don't like each other). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

When two editors don't like each other, maybe neutrality under the laws of war is what is applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

For me, it most often means that I've remove the signature from the request. It may also mean that I have restated it so it doesn't clearly come from one side of the dispute or the other. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion in progress case

I had to decline and remove a request for a Third Opinion which pointed to a user talk page where two users were discussing an article that had been nominated for deletion. There were already multiple editors who had taken part in the AFD, and I said that this placed it out of the scope of Third Opinion. I have looked to see if there is a rule (as there is at DRN) not to request a Third Opinion when a matter is already being discussed in another forum, and I don't see one. While the only-two-editors rule did apply, should there be advice not to come here if there is discussion in another forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The rule here is in the FAQ, not on the main page, but it's also part of the dispute resolution policy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How Many Editors?

This has happened to me in the past, and again today. A Third Opinion request was posted. Going to the talk page, I notice that there appear to be more than two editors, and that the discussion has been lengthy and inconclusive. I ask two questions. First, can one of the editors state concisely what the question is? (By the way, many of the Third Opinion requests that I see are lengthy but uncivil, and it is hard to see a concise question, so I have to ask what the question is.) Second, am I correct that there are more than two editors? One editor said that there were three editors. I removed the request, and suggested DRN or an RFC. Another editor said that his dispute is only with one of the other editors, and so third opinion is applicable after all. I said that I had already removed the request, and they were free to repost it, but it would probably be removed again. Am I correct that Third Opinion should generally avoid cases where one editor thinks third opinion is applicable and others do not? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably. In that situation, the dissenting editor isn't likely to give much credence to a 3O given under those circumstances, so the effort would seem to be futile, simply as a practical matter. Do remember, however, that most of the old timers here generally won't remove/refuse a request simply because there are three editors*. Four, maybe, five almost certainly, but not usually three. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC) *Unless the third one comes along after the 3O request has been posted and, especially (but not only), if it looks like they're coming in to offer a neutral third opinion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Added para about summarising long disputes

I've added a para in the instructions regarding long and technical disputes. I find that often poor Robert McClenon has to post on the dispute talk page for the editors to do it. Hope this helps reduce your workload. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The other problem with lengthy disputes is often that they are uncivil, and it is hard for the volunteer to see the content issue with all of the commenting on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The addition is fine by me, but I do think that we should have an understanding — at least here on the 3O talk page — that failure to comply with that paragraph is not a reason to remove/reject a case. It may be a cause for no one no one taking the case, and thus the cause of it being removed for being stale (i.e. on the list more than 6 days), but not for removing it in less time than that. (And the same is true, for that matter, for cases in which a volunteer specifically requests a clarification on the article talk page but no one, or only one editor, responds to it.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that we all agree on that. If a volunteer can't parse a dispute, because it is lengthy and technical or because it is lengthy and uncivil, they can either ignore the request or post a request for a civil and concise explanation. If there isn't a civil and concise explanation within six days, then the request becomes stale. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

30 volunteer in need of a 3O

I would say that one of the downsides of volunteering here would be forfeiting one's eligibility for a 30. Personally, I thought of volunteering here after this little project helped me once; I think of myself as a WikiHobbit and rarely get into disputes so I didn't mind helping others. Of course, it isn't engraved in stone that we lose our right for a 30, it's just that a regular volunteer here would find it hard to get a willing editor who hasn't interacted with them before to provide a 30. Just curious, what does everyone think about this? Has this happened before? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's happened, but can usually be resolved by a newcomer volunteer taking the case. But it's true that one does give up some rights when one becomes involved here, especially if you are active and become well-known. It's happened to me more often over at DRN, but my usual practice is that if a dispute in which I am involved goes to dispute resolution, I withdraw from the dispute and editing the article and let the others involved slug it out. I can envision situations in which I would not be willing to do that, but they haven't come up yet. If it really came to a situation where I felt that I had to be involved as a disputant but DR couldn't go forward because everyone was conflicted out, I would probably take solace in the fact that participation in DR is always voluntary and never mandatory. I'd also give serious consideration to filing an RFC to avoid the problem. Hopefully that will never come up. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes answer 3Os and ask for 3Os myself - never had much of a problem there. "Uninvolved" does not mean "never heard of them before". Also, your "opponent" sometimes does not mind that the 3O volunteer knows you - it's an informal opinion after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth

There are currently two listed requests for third opinion. On both of them, the discussion had been lengthy and confusing. I requested a concise question, and there was more back-and-forth. If any other editor wants to try, I will thank them. Otherwise, as I notified them, the requests will be pulled after six days, and then they can request WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)