Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

What happens next?

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

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

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

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

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

Just two editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3o template

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

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

Restored box

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

My first 3rd opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinions for COI affected editors

I am working on an essay and need to provide suggestions to COI affected editors who have organizational conflicts. The essay already suggests posting comments to an article talk page (as does WP:COI). Additionally, I am going to recommend that COI affected editors who want to write about themselves, their company or their clients do so in their own user space, and then get an experienced editor to review their work for neutrality, edit if necessary, and possibly copy the article to main space. Would this page be an appropriate place for COI affected editors to seek help as a first step, before going to WP:RFC? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 08:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good, but I'm hardly an expert on SEO. The points you made in your post here are excellent. I'm less clear on the essay itself. Does "this page" mean the essay page or WP:3O? — Athænara ✉ 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it fits all the requirements for a third opinion request (see page), yes. --User:Krator (t c) 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Temporary backlog

We have a backlog, which is unusual here. I've tried to make sense of what's there but, except for citing the Civility policy on one, I haven't been able to address any of the remaining reports. WP:3O contributors' attention would be particularly welcome now. — Athænara ✉ 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Belay that alert—Seraphimblade handled most of them. — Æ. ✉ 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Third opinion, WP:POINT ?

• DIFF. It appears from this DIFF, at least from my opinion, that User:Lsi john may be somehow upset that Third opinions from neutral un-involved editors did not go his way, and he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, thus obviously violating WP:POINT. Thoughts, comments from others, regarding this action  ?? Thank you all for your time and patience with this. Yours, Smee 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

There's really not enough information here for me to see any wrongdoing on the part of this editor. If you're seriously concerned about this take it to WP:AN/I. i kan reed 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Further question then, you see no problem with a single editor adding (7) entries at a time to Wikipedia:Third opinion ?? Smee 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

I think all this LGAT stuff should head for an official dispute resolution thing, like the Mediation Committee/Cabal, and stop spamming Third Opinion requests. --User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of WP:TE, WP:BOX and WP:SPA where one editor constantly reverts any edits which demonstrate the pejorative usage of the category and label. At this point, using third-party opinions is the only way I know of and appears to be wiki-proper. She words her third-party requests to get the answer she wants and then applies that very liberally to WP:TE

Asking if we should cite reliable sources is then used to include extraneous and irrelevant references as long as they are cited. Lsi john 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator: we are already in mediation. She has declared that I will never be happy and shows no sign of WP:FAITH Lsi john 13:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have escalated to the point that you are in mediation, you are already past the purview of Third Opinion. Perhaps you should take it to Community Enforceable Mediation, and if that doesn't work, take it to the Arbitration Committee. Snuppy 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Again, User:RogueNinja is doing a great job as Mediator at this point, and we are making progress. I was just pointing out here that I think adding (7) entries at a time to WP:THIRD is a bit excessive and smacks of WP:POINT. Smee 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Random Note on giving Third Opinions

I just finished re-reading Asimov's The Robots of Dawn, and in the second last chapter, the character The Chairman made me think of this Third Opinion process without a moment's doubt. I wonder if any of you has the same associations with that particular chapter of the novel. --User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the book, but I hadn't put 2 & 2 together until I read your comment. I can see parallels between the two processes, Asimov's & ours. --Ssbohio 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think

Here's my first attempt at 3O. Please tell me what you think. The page is Talk:C1 Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 15:43, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

Question on usage of this page

• Should the Third Opinion page be utilized for disputes about editors' actions, or just disputes about articles' content? Smee 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC).