Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 1


 * Wikipedia talk:Third opinion Archive 1 :  February 2005 — February 2007

Initial discussion copied from Village pump (proposals)
I've just had an idea. Say two Wikipedians are arguing over some obscure page, watched by no one but them. (This has happened to me.) All they need is a third opinion - someone to break the tie. Hence, Third opinion. This will be a constantly changing page on which controversies involving only two Wikipedians are listed, so that a tiebreaker may be found. If a third opinion is provided otherwise, the controversy should be delisted. If a user decides to provide such a third opinion, he should remove the controversy from the page. This will ensure that the page will not be cluttered, and will allow for third opinions to be delivered with haste. What do you think? &mdash; Itai (f&t) 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely this is just the same as mediation? GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, mediation is more complex and takes more time, and other steps are supposed to be taken first. I like this this idea a lot. It's like a streamlined version of WP:RFC. Maurreen 05:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, more like small-claims court. Neutralitytalk 16:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter just what it is, but yes, the idea is to allow conflicts to be resolved quickly. "Controversy", by the way, is maybe too strong a word. I was thinking more along the lines of "content dispute". &mdash; Itai (f&t) 21:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested formatting
I've put a suggested formatting up on the project page. The content should probably be rephrased entirely - I did my best - but I just want to get a feel on whether people find this formatting appropriate. If you disagree with the formatting or the content, simply modify the project page. Once formatting and content are decided upon, we can see if this can be integrated into the Wikipedia dispute-solving procedures. In the meanwhile, hack away. &mdash; Itai (f&t) 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC
We might want to eventually link this from wp:rfc. Maurreen 08:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes. &mdash; Itai (f&t) 08:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that redirects back to here. Do you think this is ready to go? I don't see why anyone would object. I think we might also want to link it from a general dispute resolution page. Maurreen 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I was confused earlier. Anyway, I've linked Third opinion from the project page at Resolving disputes and asked at WP:RFC about linking from there also. Maurreen 02:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
I was going to merge this into WP:RFC but then it struck me that this procedure seems to be working well for 'smaller' disputes and that the two complement each other quite nicely. Please tell me if I'm right? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer to keep this separate. Maurreen (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First-to-report bias?
I'd like it to be understood, first, that I'm not criticizing the idea of having a page to get third opinions on disputes. I think it's an excellent idea. The problem I have is that by its current structure, the first person who decides to report the dispute gets to present his/her side of the dispute -- and silence the other side, it seems from those who try to reply being told "This is not the place for this discussion." There would be no problem if people abided completely by the instructions to provide one-line, unsigned, neutral summaries, but a quick look at the page shows how many people fail to follow even the first two non-subjective parts of the instruction. Taking it as a given, then, that people are and will continue to provide biased summaries of the disputes, allowing the dispute to be characterized solely by the first side to bring it to WP:3O seems rather unfair.

An example is one of the disputes which has just been brought to WP:3O for the second time, where the nominator tries to draw a connection between a disputed sentence in one article and a number of VfDs that have been brought against other articles he feels are "his". From my perspective, the problem is exactly that he is publicly declaring that these VfDs are being brought because there is some sort of campaign against him, rather than because they are POV forks and personal essays -- not to mention that he is calling me a thought policeman, a vandal, a deletionist on behalf of the drug industry, etc.

Currently there is no requirement that an editor who lists a dispute on Third opinion must notify the other editor involved in the dispute, no matter how serious the allegations being lodged against that second editor. Even if that second editor becomes aware that the dispute has been listed there, he or she appears to have no recourse: since the first party is presumed (often falsely) to have followed the instructions to describe the dispute neutrally, the second party is not allowed to point out any facts the first editor left out or any different viewpoint on the matter. The second editor is either blindsided or left with nothing to do but merely hope that whoever steps in to give a "third opinion" actually takes the time to review the dispute in detail and glean from what could be a complicated history of the dispute the viewpoint of the second editor, which he has been barred from giving directly by the decisions of the first editor. These seem like structural flaws of the current set-up that severely limit its ability to resolve rather than exacerbate disputes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but how would you improve it? Possibly the "third opinion" will take into account the fact the person listing the disagreement doesn't follow instructions at least. Maurreen (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, someone may see flaws with this idea that elude me, but how about simply requiring that the editor who reports the dispute on WP:3O notify the editor he is disputing with and that editor gets the right to provide their version of the dispute if it differs from that of the first editor? If the first editor fails to notify the second, or if the second editor declines to respond, both of these can be taken into account. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't object to requiring notification. But in my view, this page isn't the place to actually discuss the issues. That fragments the discussion.
 * For example, I think people should just say "Disagreement about foobar," and not go into any detail here. For one thing, that keeps everything streamlined. Maurreen (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree -- this should not be the place for full-scale discussion. But since even editors disputing in good faith may have different ideas what the dispute is "about", it can harm the chances for getting the dispute actually resolved to take only one side's opinion what it's about.  One editor may believe and state that the debate is about whether the information he's adding is correctly cited and referenced.  If you ask the second editor, however, to him it's about whether the article needs more lengthy quotations from the article subject when they already outweigh objective information about the subject by a factor of eight to one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Maurreen (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anything anywhere to get info on staulking? Scott 23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Settle Current sports events formatting, please
Can we get someone to settle the Current sports events pages, please. Zoe and I are in disagreement on how the page should look. NoseNuggets 11:41 US EST Jan 12 2006.

3rd opinion on Crime against humanity
As the page clearly says, discussion needs to be made here rather than there. As we already discussed at the article talk page, there are only three editors involved in discussion there, and as Swatjester had listed me as a vandal a couple of days ago, which was quickly removed by an administrator, I do not regard him as a neutral third party. No fourth editor has edited on the article since the 3rd opinion was asked for. Get-back-world-respect 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Urm
Why only put the date stamp when you can see who wrote something by looking at the history? Slizor 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It gives a veneer of anonymity at least, which I think is a useful thing. The user who actually posted the request is clearly identifiable but isn't at the center of it when you read it. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But sometimes the person who does bring it sometimes asserts himself into the center of it, by either removing references or merging before consensus (State Road 4081 (Florida), for example). There is now a dispute at State Road 913 (Florida), State Roads in Florida, and Rickenbacker Causeway in which neither editor is willing to accept the validity of the references the other has made in an attempt to make his point, and the two (one of whom is a colleague of mine) are at an impasse. 147.70.242.39 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I'm right, but I'm being tag-teamed. I will continue to revert your bull. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems ) 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, you picked a fight with two editors who work together at a Miami-area college. Your refusal to consider anything beside one self-conflicting source and a probable misinterpretation of facts landed us here. But you are not correct on either count - and the Wikipedia editors who read the articles and follow the histories (including at least two articles that you are trying vehemently to hide after putting one up for WP:3O) can make up their independent minds. It's time for common sense to reign on this matter, and clearly we cannot rely on either "combatant" to have much common sense here. 147.70.242.39 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report
Just wondering why was that listing inapropriate? --Zr2d2 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because "third opinion" implies that only two opinions currently exist, and the rules specify that it's for small conflicts involving only two editors (usually on obscure pages not getting much public scrutiny). The listing on the 9/11 Commission report already had many editors involved in the discussion. Those types of conflicts aren't likely to be helped by Third Opinion anyway, so they should go straight to mediation if civil discussion breaks down. Fagstein 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo
A recent dispute started in this article, recently, due to a revert war started, because of the intro-part of the article. A certain user User:Osli73 kept insisting on a definition which violates the most important UN Resolution nr 1244 in force in Kosovo. The abovementioned law does NOT mention in any part of it, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, but instead refers to it as a legally a part of Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo is administered by and interim UN administration, according to that Resolution. The current version of the introduction in the article is consistent, and refers to the current facts on the ground. The compromise on that version was reached after a couple of months of negotiating of parties involved in the dispute, until the user above re-started inserting his pushy POV. Third opinion on this would be appreciated. It is advisable to followo the talk page on the article, where the discussion on the introduction part took place, to get a better picture of the dispute. Thanks in advance, ilir_pz 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Layout
I've changed the layout back for two reasons: Those are my two cents. Fagstein 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The warning template is a bit jarring, especially on a page that in my opinion is already far too much of a howto, which pushes the important part (the list) farther down the page.
 * The subheadings by month are unnecessary, since items are listed chronologically with their dates, and there shouldn't be more than a few entries in the list at any time anyway.


 * Ok, sounds great! Perhaps we can reduce the how-to then? (and thanks for not getting upset over my changes... I just thought that some attention needs to be paid to the layout of this page. There are somethings wrong... some instructions are stated more than once, and it looks like a english proffesor wrote it. Suggestions:


 * 1) Reduce the overall number of instructions. The person posting should not have to read through multiple wordings of the same thing.
 * 2) Reduce the length of each instruction. State them short and brief.
 * I will post my suggested revisions here now:). They will be rewordings.Eagle talk 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes
1. Drop this statement:
 * In the context of disagreements—related to policy or content—sometimes these disputes involve only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, which not many people watch. To me that is a waste of words.

And reword the first paragraph to contain the infomation in the above: Like so...
 * The Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. Sometimes a dispute between two editors cannot be brought to a compromise and a nuetral third opinion is needed.
 * Notice the addition of two editors. (state that requirement from the start), and the addition of nuetral-- which should point to the un-biased 3rd party required, also another requirement stated from the start). this was edited in after original post: Eagle talk 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One paragraph is better than two in this case, as it is easier to read and uses fewer words to communicate the same meaning.

--Eagle talk 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Move the category links:
 * Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution
 * pt:Wikipedia:Opinião de terceiro
 * These can be moved to the bottom of the page under the links. Doing this will cut down the clutter at the top of the page. All that is really needed below the opening paragrah is the tag. The others can go at the bottem of the page.

--Eagle talk 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Infomation in ==Guidelines==: --Eagle talk 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all the infomation in this section into the other sections. All we are doing here is restating the purpose of the page. If there is unique infomation, lets move it to other sections.

Mock Up
I am going to rewrite the instructions in a mockup page. --Eagle talk 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Mockup1--- give me about an hour after this message to get started.


 * I've edited the new mockup to simplify and organize things better, and keep the "Active disagreements" section empty of instructions. It should now be much clearer what people should do when they add disagreements and respond to them. Fagstein 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do it... lets put the mockup on the page... :)Eagle talk 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Fagstein 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've probably screwed that by a reversion to an older state by Eagle, see below why, at least one pending request so far got no 3O. --&#160;Omniplex 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate nature of 3O disputes
Over the last few days, this dispute has repeatedly popped up:


 * A user, User:MiamiDolphins3 consistently and inappropriately removes "stub" status from several pages including Marilyn Milian and others. Request to keep a watch on these pages as this user either has a very low learning curve or is a silent vandalizer. Drdr1989 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this dispute suggests that we may want to clarify what sort of disputes are appropriate for the 3O mechanism, so that people don't get frustrated with it.

The current instructions allow for "any controversy involving only two editors". From looking at some past 3O disputes, it looks like the 3O mechanism works quite well for content disputes pursued in reasonably good faith by both editors involved. But when one or both editors are bound and determined to have their way, the third opinion rarely seems to solve the problem. And when people are suggesting continual monitoring or disciplinary action, as the user submitting this dispute seems to be doing, the 3O mechanism seems completely inappropriate; the 3O provider isn't in any better position than the 3O submitter to force their way on a recalcitrant editor.

I might suggest adding a new paragraph to the instructions, something like this:


 * Note: The third-opinion process works best in resolving content disputes pursued in good faith by both editors involved. The third-opinion provider will simply provide another view on the dispute that the parties may find helpful; he or she will not act as a mediator and cannot discipline either side.  If you suspect that either editor involved in a dispute will not accept a third opinion constructively, or if you feel that disciplinary action is called for, a third opinion is unlikely to be effective; you should instead pursue a more formal dispute resolution process, such as a request for mediation.

Kickaha Ota 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I further suggest that the page refer to "exactly two editors" rather than "only two editors". --Takeel 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate and abide by a third opinion on whether the Marilyn Milian article is a stub. As I described on the talk page and in edit comments, the article may have further development potential, but it contains the person's name, date of birth, place of birth, detailed information on two educational degrees, educational awards, professional positions held, information on her current professional role, information on her spouse, parents, and minor children (including the names of both), along with a succession box, a photo, nine categories, and even information on her professional travel schedule (she lives in Florida but periodically commutes to New York City, in case anyone cares).  If this is a stub, the vast majority of bios on wikipedia would be deemed stubs.  And nothing prevents further additions, as needed.  But this is not a stub, and it would be helpful if user User:Drdr1989 was instructed that this does not meet the threshold for a "stub," particularly because it draws editors' attention away from bios that are legitimate stubs and worthy of much more urgent attention that this article.  Thanks.  I believe I am correct on this, but I will abide by whatever third opinion is issued on this matter.  MiamiDolphins3 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to 'rule' on the 3O in question, or to state that either editor involved was in bad faith; I just thought that it made a good example of the sort of dispute that might not be appropriate for 3O, especially because of the request for continued monitoring. Kickaha Ota 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a third opinion would be useful and hopefully settle this matter before this User:Drdr1989 (who seems very emotional and persistent, as evidenced by the absurd request for "continual monitoring") unjustifiably escalates the matter further. Nothing about this article Marilyn Milian spells "stub".  It contains all necessary encyclopedic information and some info that even goes beyond that.  Thanks, and I hope a 3O will settle it to both of our satisfaction.  MiamiDolphins3 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just provided a third opinion on the Talk:Marilyn Milian page. Kickaha Ota 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea behind the notice, and it should probably be included. However, we're currently looking to simplify the page, so a shorter and more to-the-point sentence might be useful, and/or splitting it up and incorporating the ideas into the instruction lists on our mockup. Fagstein 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of request without 3O
What's the point of removing requests which never got a 3rd opinion? --&#160;Omniplex 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Eagle 101 thought that the request was old enough that a third opinion would no longer be useful. I don't think that requests should be removed for that reason. Obviously, you agree. :) Eagle 101 removed a bunch of other requests on June 14 as well, though from the looks of things most of them were for the much more ironclad reason that third parties had already entered into the dispute (thus effectively rendering a third opinion, even though it wasn't in response to the 3O request).


 * When you returned your 3O request to the queue, you undid a large number of changes to the wording of the 3O page that have been made over the last few months. So I reverted your change, but I did re-add your 3O request to the queue. I'll try to look at it later today if I have time. Note: Never say "I'll try to look at it later today if I have time." Fate will make sure that you don't have time. :) Kickaha Ota 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct 2-3 of the articles had requests for third opinions on material that was moved to the talk page archives of that article. These were the ones that were 2-3 months old and disscusion on the talk page had ceased for about 3 weeks. (I am willing to go back and find those articles and re-paste them on this list if consensus wants me to.) I am not sure if removing them was the proper thing to do as per policy, but... removing old entries has made this page look better. Now it gives fellow wikipedians more hope that issues brought here will be dealt with in a timely manner. Eagle talk 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the other removals from that time period, and they looked genuinely dead. So I think this one is the only one that needs to be reopened. With any luck someone will provide a 3O soon and we'll have a nice clean list again. Kickaha Ota 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm patient with this one pending entry, I just didn't want it to vanish silently. But I saw the section here too late. If you're waiting for a 3O you're probably watching the page in question and the 3O page. For the latter it would be nice to have (dummy) sections, because that would show up as "@topic xyz: 30 given, removed, list not empty". With a bullet list as it was and is the edit summary is only "3O given, removed, list not empty", and I often checked if this was by chance about my entry. Probably stupid, because then it would also show up on the page in question, but sometimes I miss stuff in my watchlist. --&#160;Omniplex 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or has no one commented on this disputed since March? --Hetar 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the dispute listed about Categories, series and list boxes? It has a March date stamp, so I guess it's not just you. Fagstein 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was originally removed, and only recently re-added. I'm too lazy to provide diffs though, just check the history :) --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for third opinions
wp:rfc is better. There's no point to a separate third opinion page. Any dispute in which a third opinion would help would be better solved with more opinions. Better to have just one section where people interested in giving their input could go to see where it's needed. I'm currently in a dispute with one person here, over an infobox, and it seemed like this is the place to go, but I think a RFC is better. I don't want to trust just one person to break the tie. In fact, I'd probably take it to the next level of dispute resolution even if more people were against me. -Barry- 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For a lot of things, yes, RFC is better, but in some cases, it's far simpler and quicker to just get a third opinion - especially in cases where it's just a matter of pointing the relevant guidelines to the parties. Perhaps we should make it clearer, though, that the third opinion can be to recommend an RFC. --Scott Wilson 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

3O is just that, an opinion
I recently posted a third opinion request (for this discussion) and this resulted in input from two other editors being added. However after their input a number of other editors got involved in the discussion... Thing is the first person who offered the third opinion seems to be of the belief that his 3rd opinion is what should be done - it's the casting vote (see & ) even though the discussion has grown since then.

What do you think can be added to the project page to prevent this sort of misunderstanding? Thanks/wangi 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't interpret that discussion the same as you. Maurreen 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me there - the discussion itself still isn't resolved, there's still no consensus. However the editor who gave a third opinion seems to be of the view that his third opinion holds sway over all others (see the comments in the diffs above). Thanks/wangi 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the discussion. I disagree that "the editor who gave a third opinion seems to be of the view that his third opinion holds sway over all others". Maurreen 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't intending to disect the issue, just come up with some wording for the page to clarify that you're offering an opinion, not a decision. Anyway from the two diff above:
 * : "WP:3O brought not just a third but a fourth opinion, from people completely uninitiated into the ongoing dispute, and the consensus was that the link was not spam, did not violate WP:EL, and should stay. Those guidelines and procedures were put there for a reason, and that reason was not for you to ignore it. That's the end of it! Do not keep reverting it." — this was after other editors (previously uninvolved) had also offered their opinion (and I wasn't the one reverting the link, although that comment was directed at me)
 * : (from edit summary) "Readd disputed link per WP:3O consensus, see talk" — there's no consensus in the discussion, a 3O opinion doesn't overrule other peoples opinions.
 * So, back to the original point - do you think we need to clarify anything on the project page, or is this a one-off misunderstanding? Thanks/wangi 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that I just now changed the second sentence. See what you think. Maurreen 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) That is, I changed the intro. Maurreen

Is there a place to get a second opinion?
I have a question, and want a second opinion on it. 3O doesn't seem appropriate as it isn't a "dispute between exactly 2 editors" (I appear to be the only editor involved), and RFC seems to be a more formal dispute resolving step. Anyone have suggestions? ONUnicorn 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Village Pump or talk pages of related articles, or finding an interested person from one of the various lists and categories of Wikipedians. Maurreen 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd normally post a question to Help desk or one of the Village pumps... Or the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article talk pages involved don't seem to get much traffic (I've already posted there)... so maybe I'll try Village pump. Thanks. ONUnicorn 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests for feedback, or, in case of "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", Peer review. &mdash; Itai (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is good, I used it once and I got some very good advice. Remember to be specific when you ask for advice there to maximize the benifit. HighInBC 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Copied from my talk page: "HighInBC and Luna Santin are making up policy as they go along to justify harassing other editors like Pco.

Show me where in WP:3O it says that a lack of neutrality is grounds for removing a dispute. Actually, better yet, show me a single dispute listed on WP:3O that has been neutral in its description of the dispute. They were right to remove the dispute only on the grounds that more than two editors were involved, but neither of them noticed that. KazakhPol 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * It says:
 * "Use a short, neutral description of the disagreement"
 * "Sign the listing with "19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" (five tildes) to add the date without your name."
 * "Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed."
 * You are welcome to add an opinion to the page concerned if you feel it deserves one. Grouse 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not welcome to engage in historical revisionism. Non-neutral disputes that were answered and not removed from this page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Should I list a few more? KazakhPol 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because other people got away with it is no reason to think you are allowed. If you see someone doing that, enforce the rule, but don't say because it was not enforced in the past that it cannot be enforced now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would like to point out, your the third opinion request I was refering to on your talkpage was far less neutral than any on that list. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My what? Are you referring to a third opinion request in the past that was answered instead of removed? Did you notice that one of the above disputes was one you listed? For someone who is willing to enforce the rule on neutrality, the dispute you listed was hardly done in with an NPOV. KazakhPol 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or wait, no, you thought I was listing my own dispute when I reverted Luna Santin.... which means you did not even look at Pco's entry... why am I even talking to you then..? KazakhPol 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I realize now that it was not your request that you were reverting, however my point stands that is was not acceptable for the site. Secondly you are talking to me because we had a disagreement about what should be included, please be civil. Thirdly I don't see how my request was in violation of any of the rules. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize now that the article says non-npov entries can be removed. Somehow I kept missing that. I should not have been as confrontational with Luna Santin. However, you have hardly been civil, and it strongly appears as though you and Luna Santin have failed to assume good faith in dealing with Pco, and your removal of his dispute entry was not due to its lack of neutrality. I would appreciate it if you would stop using pronouns and be more specific, as I do not know what you are referring to when you say "my request." Please explain. KazakhPol 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Get rid of the entire section on "Listing a dispute." It's completely pointless. The emphasis on shortness and neutrality can be moved to the introduction. The rest is needless. KazakhPol 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it is fine as it is. Grouse 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree, those rules are there so people know this a place for requesting a neutral party, people should not be trying to push one side of the argument when recruiting a neutral party. This system has been working well for some time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider occasional enforcement of a rule so as to prevent certain editors from getting a third opinion to not be "working well." KazakhPol 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anybody other than you worried about this. I was not trying to stop a certain editor from getting a third opinion, nobody was. The user simply did not seem to understand how to use the third opinion, and was attempting to campaign his point of view there, contrary to the stated rules. It is working wonderfully. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, this disagreement is moot. I have this page on my watchlist. So you go ahead and remove the disputes you dont like. I'll just go through the page history and provide third opinions for them. KazakhPol 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I have made it very clear that I have not removed anything because I don't like it but in accordance with existing rules of the page. Please do not insinuate otherwise. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked here if we wanted to remove that section, and the consensus is not to, please do not remove parts of that section against consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, I asked about that section, not about whether entries must be neutral to be discussed. Please refrain from distorting consensus. KazakhPol 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is much of a distortion to say that removing part of a section is contrary to the discussion that indicated it is fine as it is. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: "I'm having increasing difficulty taking either of you seriously. You said in your edit summary that I should stop removing this entire section. Unfortunately, if you had actually looked at my edit, you would have seen I removed a single sentence, not the multiple paragraphs that make up that section. The entire issue over whether the entries need to be neutral has not previously been discussed. I also now have the admission from HighInBC that he did not look at my previous edits. KazakhPol 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * No, I never said you should stop removing "this entire section" (although if you had, I would request that you not do that either). You should know that the single sentence you removed is contentious and should not remove it before agreement here. Grouse 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no reason not the take Grouse seriously, please be civil. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "please do not remove this section again unless there is a consensus to do so on the talk page" KazakhPol 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a perfectly reasonable request, considering you did it twice already. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What planet are you editing from? KazakhPol 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Section, as in a portion, please be civil, it is obvious which planet I am editing from. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: All three of you, stop it now. Let it go for a few weeks and then, if you still feel like it, bring it up again. It's not a too big deal. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-neutral descriptions
Perhaps the easiest way out of this problem would be to not require descriptions at all? More often than not, descriptions are biased - even when that is not intended. Whatever the case, a provider of a 3O must look up the article, so the description is actually quite redundant. I therefore suggest we remove that requirement and just require " article ", the article in question and a timestamp.

If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I mildly object. It doesn't really matter to me if the description is biased. I can look at the description, look at the talk page, look at the article's edit history, and form my own opinion. The bias of the plaintiff doesn't affect me, and I doubt it affects anyone else when the plea is clearly biased. The description is helpful to me. I don't have enough time as it is, and I would prefer to see a summary of the dispute so that I can determine if I want to spend my time getting involved.
 * I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =Axlq 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that editors often fail to do so, sometimes causing vigilant 3O-providers to simply de-list them, without looking into the matter, such as and  . Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at those two examples, it seems to me the primary reason for removing the second one was that no dispute existed on the article's talk page. That's reason enough to delete the plea regardless of what else might be wrong with the wording of the dispute summary.
 * The first example, on the other hand, was deleted for non-neutral language. Personally I think this is a good thing because (a) it serves as a lesson for the future, and (b) it indicates that the plaintiff wasn't interested in a neutral opinion to help resolve the dispute, but wanted to sway the opinion instead. If the plaintiff isn't interested in neutrality, why bother offering an opinion? Better to delete the plea. =Axlq 06:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a line up there I've wanted to emblazon in large type, about the description requirement:
 * → it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral.
 * — Athænara  ✉  09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of posted dispute
My post of an Active disagreement was as follows:
 * "Talk:Que Será Será (House episode). Dispute: whether the name of the Wikipedia article should or should not have accent marks. Pertinent article talk page sections: "Accent marks" and "Titles: Episode & Article." 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)"

Three minutes later (03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)), it was removed with the edit summary "rv, dispute must be between two editors only." I did not know until after I clicked "Save page" to post the Active disagreement that a third editor (for the first time in over ten days) had posted. I still do not know whether he intends to be involved or was merely expressing momentary exasperation.

I have been a registered user for only two months. The processes described in Resolving disputes are still unfamiliar to me. May the existence of the active disagreement be aired/restored longer than three minutes on Third opinion or must it go to Requests for comment? Athænara  ✉  03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As being the user that you are alluding to, I am not involved in the dispute. I just said a word in hopes of ending the conversation. Please ignore my comment if need be. I have since relisted the request and notified the delister. Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops—it happened again. I clicked "Save page" here at 03:51, then discovered when I checked my watch page that the original Active disagreement had been restored at 03:49.   Thanks, PullToOpen.   –Æ.   ✉  04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Clear instructions
I have noticed that the simple, clear instructions in 'Listing a dispute' on the W:3O project page are ignored by many users who avail themselves of it. In the hope of improving the situation, I indented, italicised, and added a model timestamp to For example to draw more attention to the form, and bolded the words description, link to a specific section in a talk page , and add the date without your name. If this seems to have been excessive, please feel free to revert. Athænara   ✉  00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good to me. =Axlq 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox or Wikiproject?

 * Is there a Userbox or Wikiproject that involves editors who regularly monitor this page and provide third-party opinions on topics that they have a neutral interest in? Smee 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * So far as I know (I first knew of this project last month) there are none, but your idea drew me into playing with a WP:3O userbox; here's a first try at it. Athænara    ✉     09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * → (Second sample userbox added 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)) — Æ.   ✉


 * Looks cool. Maybe it could be made into an official userbox and template, so we could list it on the userbox pages, create a wikiproject, and not have to repeat all that code on userpages?  Would be an interesting idea... Smee 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I created the Userbox and associated category! Woo hoo!    .  Now to test if it works... and then to explain it on this article's main page...  Smee 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Here again is the new userbox:  , and the category that it outputs to is Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. Smee 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Wow, you work fast—maybe the box itself will be spiffier some day, or perhaps simplicity's best. I'm now in the category.   Athænara    ✉     10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Hopefully it will populate with interested Wikipedians...  Smee 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I'd like to see a userbox with the opposite message: "This editor provides third opinions and occasionally makes use of them" or some such message. That would describe me more accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The text in my first draft userbox above can be edited to use on your page, but it doesn't add the category and is not as easy to use as a template. Hope this helps.  Athænara    ✉   03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the description on the WP:3O page, there's no harm in specifying both options: add Category:Third opinion Wikipedians to one's own page or use the template. Contributors who want no userboxes on their pages might want to be in the category. That matters more than a userbox. —Æ.   ✉     11:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with specifying both options on the WP:Third opinion page. Smee 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Great idea with that category/user box, I will probably join. A have a small gripe with the box design though, as the text appears in no less than four lines in my browser (Firefox on Ubuntu Linux), due to the linebreak after "Third Opinions". Would there be any harm in removing that break? - Cyrus XIII 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Smee 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Cool! - Cyrus XIII 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The gold colourful one is currently in the template, and does output to the category. Smee 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as I drew it ;-D  I meant the ones on this page.  Your current template, however, does, though it's not on the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians page itself.   — Æ.   ✉  15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it is. :)  Smee 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

When to delist requests
I've recently noticed that some third opiners, particularly those using the template will leave the dispute listed while they wait for response from those already involved (which is perfectly in line with the current instructions, which say that the dispute should be delisted when the third opinion has been given). I feel that everyone should remove the listing as soon as they pick it up, even if things aren't totally settled (whether because you're waiting for the parties to fill in the template or you think you may need to go back and clarify what you've said), as the dispute no longer needs the attention of another third opiner. It's a bit of a pain to look at the active disagreements, click on one, and find it's already halfway to being sorted out. Would anyone object to me modifying the instructions to this effect? --Scott Wilson 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object. The current instructions are out of date now, since they were written before this new template was created. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm sorry I left the 3O I was dealing with on the request page... PTO 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no; please don't take this as a criticism in any way: firstly, what you were doing totally follows the instructions, and secondly, it could be argued that the dispute should be left listed until it's resolved, as it is for RfCs and so on, although I - and I am evidently not alone - feel that that would defeat the 'quick and dirty' ethos of the third opinion. --Scott Wilson 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't take it as criticism. Rather, as my 3O was still on the request board when this message appeared, I feel that my actions were the driving force of this comment :). Cheers, PTO 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object, although my practice (in the couple of opinions I've given) is to leave the request listed until I have answered it. Only then do I de-list the request.  I think it's silly to wait until things are resolved, because that can take days or weeks, especially if the dispute is headed for arbitration. =Axlq 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I developed the habit of navigating the WP:3O history diffs to see requests which have been removed very quickly after posting, then checking the links to see if there has been any progress or resolution. When requests remain visible a little longer, this circuitous route isn't so often needed.  — Athænara   ✉  06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you, Athaenara. You look at pages which have already had a third opinion given to check if the dispute has settled down? Surely that isn't a third opinion; it's a fourth (if it's needed). Third opiners should be hanging around to clarify their position anyway; I don't think we really need oversight. If the third opinion didn't solve things, then another type of dispute resolution (an RfC, for instance) has to be pursued, and that's for the participants in the dispute to decide. If I did misinterpret you, please ignore the above paragraph entirely! --Scott Wilson 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bit off more than I could chew?
I took a 3O request yesterday, thinking it was just a simple content dispute....but the 3O ended up getting quite heated. My request here is for a peer review of how I handled the scenario, so that I don't repeat any mistakes that I made (and I probably made a few). The dispute itself is at Talk:Rocky Marciano, with a few comments on user talk pages (User talk:BoxingWear). The user in question left a note on my talk page (User talk:PullToOpen) shortly after I left the 3O template on the page, but says that I formulated an opinion before he told his side of the story. Comments? (Also, I'm looking for true criticism, so please tell it like it is.) Thanks in advance, PTO 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the new template is unfortunate in that it formalizes something that has worked very well informally. Here one of the users seems to have the expectation that this is some formal mediation process, which it is not. Claiming that posting his version of the dispute on your talk page is not sufficient to tell his side of the story is ridiculous. Grouse 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The template was introduced without consensus and has only caused problems (see above discussion). Reading the existing discussion on an article's talk page has always been sufficient for 3O purposes. I'm tempted to put the template up for a deletion vote. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you handled that dispute well, PTO, and I don't think it was easy, either—as in "Tips for the angry new user" (linked on Jossi's page), I was astounded at how nice you were to a complete maniac. As for the template, though it was undoubtedly well intended, WP3O works much better without it.  I have never used it, I never will use it, and I will vote for its deletion, Simões, if that is proposed.  — Athænara   ✉  10:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * → Postscript: That bulleted line should, I think, be removed from the project page for discussion (or neglect) here. The key concept ("the informal and speedy nature of the third opinion process is its advantage over more formal methods of dispute resolution") is obstructed by the template itself.  — Æ.   ✉  10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PTO, I don't think there was anything you could have done in this case that would have brought about a different outcome. The fact is, if someone believes they WP:OWN articles, edits, etc, they will not be able to accept criticism, editing, etc.  Well Done.  Pastordavid 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Template
The template itself is a good job, in its structure and purpose, and some may want to use it, but it can be counter-productive to apply it specifically to WP3O. …you can use the Third opinion [template] to create a new section in the article's talk page and request a summary of the dispute. Use  username . Only do this if you cannot understand the dispute otherwise… For now, I've moved the template line here because WP3O's key advantages, informality and brevity, are obstructed by it. ("If the nature of the dispute is not immediately apparent to you" is already addressed by "Read the arguments of the disputants.")  — Athænara   ✉  14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? I think it is very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it robs third opinions of their greatest strength; their speed and informality. A third opiner can go in, read up on the dispute, say their piece, and we're done (hopefully). The template, although a very good idea, make things too formal and slow in my opinion, requiring the third opiner to wait for the involved parties to reply. It could also halt proceedings entirely if someone was looking for a third opinion to consolidate their position against a user who will not participate in discussion. Nonetheless, I think third opiners should be free to use the template if they wish, especially in the more complicated disputes, or where discussion is on user talk pages, although I personally haven't been and won't be using it. --Scott Wilson 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it has potential utility, somewhere, but specifically not for the informal processes which give WP3O its unique effectiveness.  — Æ.   ✉  18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it very useful. In most, if not all cases, it is quite difficult to make heads from tails of a dispute, in particular if the subject is obscure and the editors involved have been going at each other for a while with arguments back and forth. Asking them to summarize, is also helpful for them. It actually helps to keen the process swift and efficient. If TO editors do not want to use it, they don;t have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Simoes: I strongly object to your reversion of the template info. Why are you edit warring about this? It is a useful template, and if editors want to use it, that is fine, and if they do not want to use it tat is fine too. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A sense of proprietorship is understandable, but repeatedly adding it to the project page in the absence of a consensus supporting it is more than inconsiderate and defies WP:OWN. Repeated reversions (16:49) (17:03) (21:49) (23:27) on the project page are not good.  Do stop, jossi.  You cannot force a consensus which does not exist; neither can you park the responsibility on another user's doorstep.   — Athænara   ✉  00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you object, but you added it without consensus. You also appear to be only one in favor of it being there, making the consensus against the template's inclusion. The template isn't just a handy option for those who choose to use it: it disrupts the process for other 3O providers (see the above sections). Additionally, those requesting third opinions may not want to deal with it, either: they might have gone the 3O route in order to make possible a quick resolution. Again, I'm sorry, but I can't support the template being on the project page. Unless you can muster up a consensus, it will have to stay this way. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This borders on the ridiculous. The template is an option. Why not to allow an option such as this one? "No consensus" is not an argument that can be addressed. Explain why it is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an option being discussed here, not on the project page.  — Æ.   ✉  00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe I gave reasons for my own position. Scott Wilson and Athaenara have also given similar reasons. There is also, again, the above two sections. I leave the rest to you. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to "See also" section. Let those that want to use it, do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unreasonable. A "see also" section, is a compromise that I would have hoped it would be accepted as such. And before your warn others of 3RR, you should not be edit warring yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you two, lets not have an edit war on a dispute resolution page. Jossi is one revert away from breaching 3RR, and a couple other users are also very close. Lets not edit the page anymore until we work something out, OK? So, does anybody have any objections or concerns about the proposed "see also" section? PTO 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I object to it being anywhere on the project page. Its existence has only disrupted an already-working process and is an instance of needless instruction creep. I recognize and respect that Jossi will disagree with both of these points, but he has only begun participating in this project this week and is working against experienced people in the 3O project. I recommend abandoning this template idea per WP:SNOW.Simões ( talk/contribs ) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think that WP:SNOW is applicable here. I believe that a discussion would be more productive instead of snowballing the template. (Also, I was under the imperession that WP:SNOW is only for processes.) PTO 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be using an overly rough interpretation of WP:SNOW, but I think the spirit of the idea is applicable here (call the process "consensus-building"). I, personally, am steadfast against the template idea (though I grant the possibility of some unexpectedly persuasive argument being presented by Jossi), and I don't see anyone else budging on this issue, either. From the very beginning, the template has had a lone supporter--its creator--and this does not appear to be changing. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood that the template was not welcome by some editors on this project. Fair enough. I was surprised by the ownership, but well, it happens. But to remove it from the "See also" section, is to me being unreasonable. If editors in this project cannot be open to suggestions from newcomers, then the whole idea of having a Third Opinion project falls flat on its face. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To those that are asking me avoid violating 3RR, I would say this: With more than 32,000 edits in Wikipedia, I have never breached 3RR knowingly. And I do not intend to do so in this article either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing the page and hoping that no one will object (after similar edits have received objections) is not the way to usher in a compromise. And making changes without first proffering them on the talk page does not constitute making a suggestion: it is forcing your idea on everyone else. I think all of us are open to suggestions, but this does not mean that anyone will necessarily agree with them. The most productive procedure here is to pitch your idea and see how it takes. You can modify it if few people like it, but even this will not guarantee acceptance among other editors. Finally, the 3O project isn't falling flat on it face: it's been working wonderfully for a long time now. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong in WP:BOLD and offering a useful template for those that may want to use it. Obviously, we have an obvious case of WP:OWN, inasmuch as a good faith edit is immediately reverted, and a subsequent compromise offered reverted again without any discussion about its merits or lack therof. You can keep your project to yourself with that attitude. I am removing this page from my watch list and removing myself from the project. I will not use it again either. Good luck with your project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Non neutral postings
In re "clearing list of two non-neutrally-described disagreements" (diff) —Simoes beat me to it by one minute :-D  — Athænara   ✉  19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the collective rush to do list maintenance. ;) <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So where's the right place to ask for comments when you think another wikipedian is completely disruptive? I looked at all the procedures and each seemed like the wrong place for one reason or another.  I tried to be as kind as possible in my description, but the base of the problem is that another editor is reverting and insisting on their version being the version despite displaying poor article writing skills and a lack of basic understanding of the topic.  Expressing that neutrally is hard :-/  So where do I go? Gronky 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are other frequent or semi-frequent editors of the article, you might call their attention to the problem by posting on their talk pages. If that is not an option, you could try contacting the mediation cabal. If the disruptive editor violated the 3RR, you should report him/her. I've been in your situation before and understand the frustration of it, but this page is mainly for disagreements where there is at least a minimal mutual acknowledgment of the involved editors' knowledge, abilities, and good faith. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the cabal, I hadn't seen that before. Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gronky, Wikiquette alerts can be a good place to post it if you don't want to use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) (backlog there) or Requests for comment (WP:RFC). — Athænara   ✉  23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette alerts seems suitable, thanks. I'll try it or the cabal if the problem persists (it has been quite for a few hours now, which is nice). Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project
I wonder if it might be helpful if Neutrality Project and Third opinion listed each other in See also sections on their project pages. — Athænara  ✉  14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're okay with it, I don't see why not. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Clinical psychology
I responded to this dispute the first time out, but backed away when it seemed to involve more than two editors. Someone else is welcome to respond, or check the situation out, but I probably should stay out entirely because I responded the first time. Frankly, I think it would be better of as a Mediation. -- Pastordavid 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UT


 * Thanks for clarifying what happened. It is true that separate discussions have ended up overlapping, and in that sense involved 3 editors. Help is still needed to bring this together into a consensus that isn't dominated by any one editor. Since you suggest mediation, I will read up about that, and if go down that route I'll remove the 3rd op request from here. Thanks for your input in any case. EverSince 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So, do you just "do it"?
I have been asked to provide a 3rd opinion on an article currently involved in an edit war. I am fairly conversant on the topic (arguably better than most of the parties involved) and I believe my opinion would be useful. However I have had previous dealings with two of the three editors involved, and I'm wondering if that means I should recuse myself? If not, can I simply post my opinion on the matter without a formal request being made here? It appears that is the case, but I'd like to be sure. I'm also curious about the comments about more than two editors, which is the case in this example. This being the case, does it go straight to RfC or such? I'd like to avoid that if possible. Maury 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I say jump in. If they haven't asked for a 3O, you're under no obligation to call it a formal Third Opinion - but neither are you constrained by your personal contacts with these editors from being involved. The question is, will your presence there help with the edit war or escalate it to a problem that requires mediation? Snuppy 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're actually involved in the edit war, you definitely need to recuse yourself. If you're know these users, I suggest you offer your opinion. It will be easier to converse with those two if you are familiar with them, and they are familiar with you.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I did this, and suggested that one part of the debate seemed "undebatable" to me, and that the second part of the debate could likely be solved with a new paragraph instead of the constant back and forth edits. I haven't checked back yet, fingers crossed... Maury 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, it worked! Talk:Amelia_Earhart Maury 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job!  Smee 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC).