Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

Any 3O barnstars we can award both parties for compormise?

Hiya, working on Talk:Medical degree and wanted to see if there were any barnstars available? My 3O logbook Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar, Barnstar of Diligence, Barnstar of Good Humor, 2 Half Barnstars, Barnstar of Peace, or Anti-Flame Barnstar might each be appropriate, depending on the specific circumstances. I think it's great that you're taking the initiative as a 3O provider to give editors in conflict barnstars for their efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if people sow a spirit of compromise and learn from their prior behaviour, then it should be noticed and recognized! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. In my limited work on 3O (admittedly, I am not the most assiduous contributor..hehe), I have occasionally noticed editors who are extremely civil and willing to work with one another. But, I hadn't thought of the idea of rewarding that behavior. You definitely raise an interesting point, Fr33kman. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We might even want to think about creating some 3O specific templates? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it. I can see about tossing one together tomorrow. What would the picture be? The scales of justice? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Rodin's The Thinker?--Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsure, but I think that there should be something that visibly denotes it as a WP:3 barnstar (informal mediation rules!) and be oriented towards cooperation or compromise or civility under pressure; those kinds of values, you know? I read on a deletion reviewers subpage somewhere (and he probably nicked it too) "the goal always is to create a better encyclopedia", that says it all for me! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I gave em both a Half Barnstar, thanks for the suggestion! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I was thinking of the scales of justice image used in the userboxes, but for some reason I have a hard time rectifying it in my mind with the concept of "3". I'm going to put a draft one together and toss it up here and see what everyone thinks. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What a cool idea. Will use these barnstars if helpful and appropriate to celebrate mutually satisfying outcomes. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's ⁂ (subtle, but can be big ⁂ ). Or these:

(Commons:Category:Barnstars has over 900 barnstars.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 18 May 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 [1], [2] 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 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 [3] [4] [5]. I also previously asked a number of other users for their opinions [6] [7] [8].

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 [9] 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 [10], 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)

Why no signatures?

If I understand correctly, the idea is that who requests a third opinion does not sign himself in the interest of "neutrality". Why is it so? I have my own opinion and no reason to hide them, the other editor has his own, and a priori we are all civil people discussing civilly. So why anonymous requests? And furthermore, in the history all editors' names are visible. Am I missing something? [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, April 27, 2009.

You're correct on all points. The requests are anonymous to provide a modicum of protection against bias, however unintentional, on the part of s/he who will respond to the request. The idea is to avoid the responding editor forming an impression that the requestor is a troublemaker or is a victim of a pile-on. If all the responder sees is the request, and not who made it, it's easier to go in and give his or her views without bias. Sure, responders can go look at the history to see who made the request, but just because they can doesn't mean they do. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well put. It is very helpful to the 3O editor to not know who made the request; simply that one has been made. fr33kman -s- 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution

There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How to encourage removing listings before responding

Hello, fellow 3Oers! The section on providing third opinions reminds us—when adopting a dispute—to remove the listing from the page, noting in the summary how many disputes remain. After that, it currently says: If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort. This sentence is written so neutrally! Indeed, I'm not sure it's entirely clear from the sentence that we think it's a darn good idea to remove the listing from the page before actually responding to the dispute. It's very frustrating, of course, to spend time on a dispute only to realize that someone else has been working on it (but simply hadn't taken down the listing). I suggest we say something more affirmative. A suggestion: Please remove the listing before responding, so other volunteers will not duplicate your effort. What do others think? Happy 3Oing! GreenGourd (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We should include language asking that the request be restored if, for any reason, a response is not actually offered. Mishlai (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree. Yes, it's courteous to remove the posting before responding. But on the other hand, two people responding to a 3O just generates a little more consensus - or, failing that, discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That line originally read as follows:

• When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.

In early August 2007 (see archived Proposed changes to 3O layout and wording discussion) the page was changed (version link) from the previous format (version link) and a second sentence was added:

• This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.

More often than not, an additional response is a good thing (Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion is a recent example). I think the second sentence should be removed. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a second 3rd opinion (cough, cough, 4th opinion) can be valuable, I think that people who come here to offer 3rd opinions would also like to clear backlog, and that some people may not wish to offer a 4th opinion. If you do wish to do that, you can always look at a recent old version to see what's been removed. By not removing the article, we're sort of taking the choice away from our volunteers, and not everyone wants to offer a 4th. Some people would prefer to be working on articles, etc. or addressing an article that has not yet had a 3rd opinion and I think we should give them the information to make that choice themselves.

Besides, if 3O doesn't resolve, the dispute progresses to RfC, where 4th opinions and beyond are offered, so in this context of 3O I think we should give our editors the option to avoid duplication of work. Mishlai (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all! Since I proposed strengthening the second sentence, it will come as no surprise that I oppose the proposal to remove the second sentence entirely. I have to respect any 3Oer who doesn't mind taking the risk that someone else is diligently doing the same reading and the same research into editing histories and the same analysis and the same writing, but I'm not that 3Oer. Sometimes, of course, it takes—and should/must take—a fair amount of time to put together a good 3O. I'm unwilling to give up an hour of my time if there's a non-trivial chance that my effort is being duplicated. I once basically stopped giving 3Os when, repeatedly, after I'd spent time thinking about a dispute, I realized that another editor had been working on the problem but simply hadn't taken down the listing. It may be that a fourth or, egad, fifth opinion would be useful to a particular dispute. In my experience, however, additional opinions are usually duplicative. I can even imagine situations where a fourth or fifth opinion would exacerbate a dispute! In any event, I would not advocate setting up a system that encourages multiple responses to the same dispute—something that is more and more likely as the number of 3Oers increases. That's what we would be doing if we eliminated the second sentence.... Instead, we should set up a system that maximizes our assistance to the project by allowing us to divide up the disputes and spend our saved time doing other good work on the encyclopedia. Best wishes to all of you! I'm a big fan of the regular 3Oers. GreenGourd (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GreenGourd. This isn't called WP:40 for a reason ;) ... but seriously, these are supposed to be simply disputes that can be mediated by a 3rd party. If more opinions are needed, well that's what Request for Comment is for. If I am going to put a lot of effort into "solving" a dispute, I don't want to get spend a bunch of time only to find that someone has just rendered basically the same opinion making my work a waste of my time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously people should be removing the listing after giving a comment. But if it so happens that two people see a listing on this page and give comments at the exact same time, it's not really the end of the world. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- Hi all, I think this is my first time on this talk page, so nice to be reaching consensus without having to refer to a guideline or policy or point a new editor in the right direction! I think this is a bit of a tough one. Useful 3Os take some work, and it's a pain to see that wasted.

Some background first. The example of Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion is a good one here. I generally follow a link, have a look at what's going on and then decide if I want to get involved or not. I'd looked at Eddie Albert, looked at a few sources and it was clear what route the 3O would take, but it was also quite an undertaking and I didn't have the time. When I came back to it Mishlai had written a sterling 3O but I felt one editor might need it underlined to them, to emphasise where the consensus probably was, and to comment on Mishlai's work. At Talk:Rangers F.C., when I came across that it was again fairly clear what was going on but to write a considered 3O would take a chunk of time, so instead I left a note on the talkpage of one of the editors, which seemed to help. Leaving up the page at #Active disputes would have allowed another 3Oer to step in, but the dispute seemed to have dissolved.

Sorry for the long-winded way of doing this. Second, a few weeks ago, in my early 3Oing, I wouldn't remove the listing until after I'd contributed an opinion. I did this as I was unsure of my "convictions", but can now see that if I came across someone doing that I'd be a bit peeved if I was duplicating the effort. It is therefore important to make clear to fellow 3Oers that you are working on the dispute.

My final observation is that most 3Os start in a similar way. A bold Third opinion, a statement of neutrality on the article and a statement about dealings with the other two editors. Some choose to put a heading over the top, but I generally prefer to keep my 3O in the text.

So, my suggestion is that the sentence stay as it is, generally the editors who don't remove the listing are inexperienced or unsure of their work, so it's a self-selecting check. I think we should consider the use of a template to introduce the 3O in the article talk page. something like {{doing30|~~~~}} which produces

Third Opinon - a third opinion was requested at the project page. Please note that I haven't previously been involved in editing this article and have had no dealings with the two editors that would prejudice my opinion. I am here to provide an opinion in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines that will encourage the formation of consensus and help us all to produce a better encyclopedia. It takes some time to review your discussions, check for sources (if necessary), review the aforementioned policies and guidelines and write the opinion, so I will post it here soon, but in the meantime please continue a constructive debate. Signature, date and time

This has numerous benefits. First, it stops me writing something similar at the start of every 3O. Second, it plants a flag in the ground to "claim" the opinion, so even if someone forgets to remove it from #Active disputes, it is still obvious that someone is doing the work. Finally, it can also me tracked. I'm pretty sure the template or a category it creates could be read by a bot (sorry if this is wrong, I don't have a full understanding of this yet!) and that could maintain a list of 3Os and active editors. We do a lot of good work here that is buried in the history, if we had a list that was maintained based on the use of the template we would record all the articles we've worked on, a useful resource for old 3Oers checking up on others(!), new 3Oers wanting to see what's expected, editors bringing disputes to see what kind of opinion they'll get, the community to see the benefit we provide, and I'm sure there are other positives! You could also generate a list of opinion givers and their contributions, which would populate the active editors list discussed above.

In fact, I might try and create it now, in my user space!

Sorry for the ramble! Bigger digger (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want more volunteers to remove the listing first – instead of “learning the hard way” – you might consider better explaining why 4th opinions are not preferred (in terms of leaving additional opinions for RfC, should the dispute go to that). Simply saying it’s because “other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort” invites a shrug of the shoulders from novice 3O’ers who see no harm in extra neutral opinions – the more, the better, since that is how consensus is often achieved in non-mediated disputes on Wikipedia. Indeed, the expectation that there be only one more opinion goes against the norm on Wikipedia, so that means the “exceptional” WP:3O expectation deserves clearer explanation. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And my apologies, Bigger digger, for causing you to duplicate my work. It had not occurred to me to remove the entry before addressing it. Mishlai (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, woah, no apology needed! I'd looked at the debate and decided it could wait until the morning if no-one else did it. You did it while I was sleeping and gave an awesome opinion, so everyone wins!

template discussion

I've created {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3O}} if anyone wants to look at it / comment / use it. Bigger digger (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I removed the sentence about prior relationships with the article of the users because it is too onerous IMO, a third opinion is welcome :-).--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea overall & thanks for taking the initiative. I made it so the template start a new subsection and otherwise tweaked the wording & the formatting of the template a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I split them into two templates, one with headings, one without. You can click to view their output, or copy and paste to use them, they're self-signing but it's always best to preview them before saving the edit that introduces them:

• {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3O}}
• {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3Oheader}}

17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri

1. thanks User:Bibiki for not notifying me about this Cabal Case
2. User:Bibiki is a POV warrior, who wishes to denounce the Carabinieri with his POV, original research ideas
3. edits like these show that he came with an agenda [11], [12], [13]
4. interestingly there is a 3 year gap in his campaign... and he only edits the Carabinieri article
5. his edits are nonsense: he himself admits that there was no resistance to Mussolini before 1943, but insists to denounce the Carabinieri for falling to participate in it (difficult I think to be part of something that did not exist)
6. is wording is not encyclopedic at all: i.e. "The Carabinieri are not known to have been part of the Italian resistance movement" what else have they not been known for??? playing basketball comes to mind; also we would need to mention then that they are not known to have climbed Mount Everest as user:Jim Sweeney aptly observed; sources for this claim: a page listing the Military Operations of the Carabinieri... the conclusion is all his...
7. his referencing is ridiculous i.e this blog or this that doesn't mention the things he wishes to insert, but he uses it as evidence for the personal opinion he took from the aforementioned blog...
8. his knowledge of things like Cabal Cases and third opinions point to someone who is much more familiar with wiki-policy than a beginner - so the suspicion of User:Bibiki being a sock of some other POV warrior is high (compare with the extreme edits of another anti-Carabinieri POV warrior: [14], [15], [16])
9. further debate about the validity of this POV warriors imaginations, is a waste of time. --noclador (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think you posted in the wrong place. 3O isn't a "cabal case"; it's an informal way of breaking a deadlock between editors. I'm going to copy this text onto the Carabinieri page for whoever chooses to handle this one. Until then, please keep the discussion on that page. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

nope - the point is: User:Bibiki filed a Third opinion request and a Cabal Case at the same time - anything force his POV into the article... see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-27/Carabinieri, --noclador (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well then, the cabal case overrules a 3O. I'm going to remove the request for a 3O. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, --noclador (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Busy?

Is it normally this busy? WP:3O requests a week old? Phew! Bigger digger (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Disagreement

Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#New Comprised FFXIII Characters Image