Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 8

Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)
Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new DR process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#protects vs concerns disputed listing
I have twice attempted to remove this due to the parallel listing pending at Dispute resolution noticeboard and due to the fact that there are multiple editors involved. The listing editor insists on it remaining listed for reasons discussed here and in edit summaries here at 3O. Rather than edit war over the listing, I have left it listed for action or response by other volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look, and agree that this dispute is beyond the scope of 3O for several reasons. If nothing else, from a practical perspective it seems unlikely that a third opinion will be productive in that particular discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 55 removal, other 3O regulars review requested
I've removed and re-removed this dispute. While there has been several acres of discussion about these and similar edits in general at the two users' talk pages and at ANI, the discussion has continuously focused on conduct, not content. Once that settled down, the listing editor made a good faith request for discussion on the articles' talk pages without response in the last two months. I've let the other editor know that this is happening so he can discuss the issues if he cares to. If any other 3O regular feels that the listing should remain, please feel free to restore the listing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:3O
As copied from User talk:Plastikspork:

I was just about to create a new template called Template:3O in the spirit of Help me, Admin help, Edit semiprotected, Edit protected, and so-forth when I noticed there was a template there previously deleted. When I visit the TfD discussion, I notice there wasn't a lot of discussion as TransporterMan and an IP user were the only ones to comment on it at all. I was wondering what the previous template was and if it would be alright to recreate the template in the spirit I mentioned above as a companion to a userbox I would like to create similar to User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder and User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Admin help responder. I've echoed TM in this query as well and hopefully he will reply as well. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is to be used in conjunction with WP:Third opinion, you should start a thread at WT:Third opinion. The reason why this template was deleted was per the discussion on that talk page.  The discussion at TfD was more limited than the discussion on the project page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So here I am here proposing that this tag be instituted in the spirit of other similar tags that are intended to attack assistance from a more experienced 3rd party ( Help me, Admin help, Edit semiprotected, Edit protected, and so-forth ). Thank you for your time to consider this. Technical 13 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm a bit slow this morning. Can you explain what it would do, and how? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking the template would look like below and would put the talk page into Category:Wikipedians looking for a third opinion which could be added to the bot that detects if there are any entries in Category:Wikipedians looking for help and would speed up the response time for people getting their 3Os as I saw just today you removed some listings that went "stale", this will reduce those as people would be alerted to them instead of having to check. There would also be a userbox counterpart available (as seen below).

I'm hoping you can see what benefit this would have. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At the time the last template was removed someone proposed that it might could be made to work using a bot. I'm not at all opposed to that idea, though the devil is in the details, of course. I foresaw big problems if the template worked off the listings posted at the 3O page, since they're frequently malformed, but the other way round might indeed work quite well, i.e. that you list a dispute at 3O by putting a template on the talk page, which has the effect of listing it on the 3O page (sort of like the way that a RFC works), which also perhaps has the effect of notifying volunteers, rather than manually listing it on the 3O page.


 * In the volunteer-notification respect, I have to say that I don't believe the problem with items going stale is that they're going unnoticed. I would think that most of us who work here watchlist the 3O page. The reason they go stale, more often than not, is that no one wants to take them or, alternatively, thinks that they should be taken. If you'll look back through this talk page, you'll see that the staleness standard was set up to keep people from being too aggressive about removing listings which do not strictly conform with the listing guidelines. With the staleness standard, marginal cases — especially cases marginally not meeting the simplicity or number of editor standards — can be left listed to see if someone will do a "mercy take" on them, but be removed under a bright–line standard if no one does.


 * If this is going to become the principal method of listing a case, however, something will need to be done to allow manual listing of cases at the 3O page as well (since people, especially newcomers, will inevitably do that).


 * Overall this is a big enough change, however, that the 3O community really needs to weigh in on it and some may feel that it makes the process of listing a case too complicated for what is supposed to be the most "lightweight" of the DR processes. Let's see what everyone else says before going forward. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: You might also want to talk to Steven Zhang who has for several months been working on a way to provide centralized automated listing of all content DR requests. I understand that effort to be well along, though not yet ready for implementation. If the listing method changes here, it might well result in a need to change some things there, too. I'll him to this discussion. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I look forward to hearing 's opinions as well, and anyone else that wants to voice concerns or offer improvements.  Like I tried to make clear above, this is a very preliminary suggestion based on other "help group" methods that seem to work.  Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this proposal overlap somewhat with WP:RfC?Curb Chain (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with what you are asking. How would it overlap with WP:Requests for Comment? That page describes 3O as an "alternative process" so I'm not sure what the overlap is that you are talking about.  I'm heading to bed now, and look forward to your response in the morning. :) Technical 13 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A change to the 3O process here may make things a bit tricky for the universal DR wizard, but it shouldn't be impossible. If y'all think the above idea is a good one, run with it. I can always tweak the wizard :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion going on at WP:VPT
Just want to make sure the 3O team is aware of and has an opportunity to weigh in on the "WP:VPT" discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisting after removal for insufficient discussion
(Copied from main page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

I have re-removed the listing. I have, just yesterday, created a userspace help page to assist with this kind of situation. It also explains why dispute resolution procedures require talk page discussion before allowing listings. Please refer to that. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem would be solved by now if both of you used half the time spent here in addressing the issue. :-| Please do not take any offence, none intended at all, instead I thank your calm effort to explain the procedures at wp:3O and I agree with following procedure in general. So no problem with you, quite the opposite. I am instead thinking about the process, because it sounds too far from optimal, at least for a simple case like this one. Maybe the problem is that the only thing I want is to have someone else's opinion on a subject - a *second* opinion - and this is no wp:2O Maybe one of you, personally, not a a wp:3O volunteer, could drop a line?... Anyway, thank you for your time, enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rushed third opinion by a new member
The third opinion at ] did not allow for any discussion and skipped the whole point of seeking such an opinion. It seems that the new editor failed to see that the source provided by the other editor (the first source in the list) did NOT in fact state a blood relationship. I requested that the family tree be commented out for the time being a while back. I do, in fact have the full probate records of one of the estates that shows the correct bloodlines as petitioned by each member of the family at that point, but I am also collecting more sources and doing a great deal of research. I had simply commented out the tree for now as current primary sources are clear that Pauli was the son of Kalaniʻōpuʻu. Other RS that I am finding show Pauli was simply the Hanai of Kamehameha. He adopted him. Very common through Hawaiian history. I request that the family tree be commented out until better sources can be provided.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No discussion
I don't volunteer here because I have no clue how this process is supposed to work, but apparently the page actually says there is supposed to be a discussion, not just an editor saying basically, "Do what you want as I don't see a problem" and then leave with no discussion at all, and ignore the fact that the source doesn't support the claim being questioned. At any rate, I try to steer clear of this area of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow I just came across this four months after the fact. Hey, I was a new editor and messed up badly (Anyone feel like WP:TROUT'ing me for it?). Doesn't mean 3O is a bad way to go, just means sometimes people make mistakes. A few hundred Wiki-edits later, I have a bit more of an idea how to handle things :-) GRUcrule (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What's "stale"?
Any policy on what's "stale" or is that just a way of skipping some requests because they don't look interesting enough, or because difficult editors (who probably need more help that anyone else) are involved? Just asking.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See the explanation on your talk page from October, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just datestamped both of those reinstated posts according to the time it was first added. I don't think that was the right to do but wouldn't it be more better if those who view the list, be able to see the really old posts which have been left unanswered/re-added...so that they could focus first on those instead? Maybe besides adding the old datestamp, we could instead add an indication saying "2nd time posted" or something? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done something of that sort. In the past some volunteers (now mostly inactive) have objected to annotating listings with anything on the notion that all the action about a listing should be at the article talk page and I largely agree with that so as to avoid this becoming a noticeboard, but I personally think that this kind of limited administrative annotation is fine (obviously). If I'd been doing it entirely myself, I would have probably done it the other way around for simplicity's sake on the part of the requester, i.e. so that the relisting requester could simply sign the relist with five tildes and we'd note the original listing date in the annotation. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting...what you did seems like the best solution; maybe it'll be a bit confusing but should we consider adding this to the instructions at WP:3O (last para) for future posters? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog
We have a considerable backlog. Just sayin'. I've also posted a note about it at a couple of other places. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Stale" at 6 days anyway? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion "only" on the article talk page a requirement?
After I saw this post getting declined, I noticed that both the main page and the User FAQ don't emphasize on having the discussion only on the article talk page. Personally, I once answered a post where the discussion occurred on one of the disputant's talk page, all I did was give a disclaimer linking to that and gave my 3O on the article talk page, thereby shifting the discussion. I found the dispute quite civil and in dire need of one, plus this was a rather obscure article, so in this case it seemed fine.

In the link above, I agree with Stfg's reasoning that it needs to be more open for any chance of more users intervening and removing the need for a 3O; luckily, the exact thing did happen there once the discussion was brought to the article talk page. So now, this seems like something to go on a case-by-case basis. Do we need to reword anything on the instruction page? Or we could instruct them to first put a notice on the article talk page linking to the discussion and wait for someone to take part, before actually posting here? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good point that we can afford to be flexible if it helps us to help the encyclopedia. Perhaps that's more for us than for requesters, though. Imo best practice is that any discussion about article content should take place on the article talk page, and user talk should be used only for minor heads-ups. Even if there's no dispute, it's good if the agreement is visible to other watchers, otherwise it's hard to call it a consensus. When there is a dispute, it's far better that watchers get the chance to chip in as early as possible, before any escalation. And the owner of a user talk page can delete anything they don't like, so the record becomes even harder to access.


 * I don't see much need to reword the project page. It tells requesters what we're asking of them ideally. And then we can still be flexible in applying it. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been known to copy the discussion from the users' talk pages onto the article talk page (with a note that I've done it at both ends — and the note at article talk page, at least, is required in order to avoid an in-wiki copyvio) if I think that they may not be watching the article talk page adequately or if I need to round all the discussion up into one place so that my opinion makes sense in context. Moreover, the fact that discussion has taken place is the important part for giving the 3O, but we do the encyclopedia service if we can nudge it back to the article talk page so the discussion about the article is all in the same place. On the other hand, I don't think that we should ordinarily wait to see if additional editors chime in before giving the 3O, if we're considering giving one at all. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

3O Service Award
About five years ago I began awarding a faithful–service award to volunteers who have accumulated more than 50 edits on the main 3O page, using. I've been doing that as a personal project up until now, but have decided to institutionalize it so that anyone can give the award and so it can continue if I retire, die, or otherwise disappear. I've added language to the main 3O page to formalize the practice, updated the template documentation to set out the standards I've been using, and have created a subpage here to log the awards so as to prevent duplicates and also to record (on that page's talk page) the reason I did not give the award to a few early volunteers who might otherwise qualify for the award. If anyone thinks any of that should work differently than it does now, please feel free to propose changes. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A good move, this sort-of reminds me of the WP:STiki/milestones page. On the main page, I've further elaborated about it and provided a link to the log page--hope it's fine. I think this minor process might help in attracting or keeping volunteers to this project. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the second disputant's disagreement a valid case for removal?
From this recent edit, I'm wondering whether the IP had the right to remove it. I was also thinking of adding something like "It is recommended that you notify/ask permission from the second editor about your 3O post before adding it here" on the main page. True, 3Os require observance of good faith by both the disputants to work, but can one just reject one post outright, or are we still oblidged to answer it whether the disputant listens or no? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP had absolutely no right to remove it and I don't think anyone who wants a 3O should have to ask the other one. 3O's are non-binding and editors are free to simply disregard them if they don't want them or don't like them. On the other hand, when taking a case and removing it from the pending cases list, volunteers are free to ask both editors if they're willing for the volunteer to give an opinion (which has the added benefit of not only saying that they're okay with the process, but with the individual volunteer). If one says no, then simply relist the request (even if the naysayer has objected to the process; a different volunteer might just give an opinion without asking) and inform the parties that you've relisted it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again as always. I've modified the page to reflect whatever you said. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute involves both content and user conduct--seek help here or elsewhere?
Hi. I'm involved in a multi-editor dispute (five longstanding, three current) that's been going on for months. Most of the parties involved have been within the bell curve of reasonable, but one guy is a real problem: He's written some biased noticeboard filings and refused to change them, undermined attempts to resolve the dispute, and demanded to see precedents, sources and policies only to ignore or denigrate them once they were found to be contrary to his position. None of that's specifically against the rules, though. He also has his complaints about me. While this is primarily a content dispute, I feel that I and other editors could have come to a mutually acceptable solution by now if not for his efforts (or at least proceeded toward one in a less dramatic manner). Again, he probably feels similarly about me. Should I seek resolution here or elsewhere? Like I said, most of the stuff he's doing isn't specifically against the rules, so this isn't about reporting anyone for an infraction. I want someone who can help me work with this guy, more like a moderator or referee.

EDIT: Here's an example: This guy threw a fit when I changed a header that he picked out, accusing me of altering his post and threatening to report me for it. Now he keeps changing one of mine; it's only been days. I offer compromises and third options and explanations, and he just keeps going. That, in miniature, is what's been happening for months. Imagine stuff like that over and over, except about sourcing and article content. At this point, I have to think he just wants drama. Someone please help me find a way to work with this guy because I do not think he's going away on his own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, As I understand it, if a dispute has more than two editors involved, then 3O is not the appropriate forum. The Village pump, or an Request for comment, or the dispute resolution noticeboard, might be more appropriate. If the conduct issue is very serious, then the administrator's noticeboard is the best place to go. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. I'm not confident that AN/I is appropriate because I can't identify any specific rule that any of these actions break.  Also, AN/I really puts people on the spot.  I want this guy to work with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We could recommend a specific location for resolving your case if you provide us with a sample link to the said dispute. I don't mind glancing through and telling whether the ANI or anywhere else is recommended or not. ANI is about general user behaviour (so strictly, no specific rules have to be pointed out but I commend your willingness to work with the other editor); while the rest of the dispute resolution methods are strictly content-based. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Oathkeeper, though there's historically been spillover, off the top of my head, ANI, 3RN, DRN, and others. A review of DF's contribution history should readily show some of the venues where they've brought this matter, though granted in some cases they appear to have only been seeking an appropriate discussion venue. DonIago (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't recall receiving a notification as to a discussion to which I am the topic. I'm sure it must have gotten lost in the mail, or the dog ate the invite or something. I'm sure it was an oversight.
 * I see this situation (and interpret the events therein) very differently than Darkfrog24. Over four months ago, she wanted to re-add some information(1) about a comparison/connection between chapters of a book and a tv series based upon the books. It was a fairly explicit claim (made by an SPA) and there was little in the way of sourcing to back it up. When pressed, Darkfrog24 noted that the book itself was a good enough source for the comparison (despite the inherent problems with synthesis). A subsequent RfC confirmed that the book was not a suitable source, and that the arguments for inclusion did not outweigh those did not outweigh the arguments against (2, 3, 4). DF misinterpreted this to mean that all she needed was a better source to back up the book, based upon a follow-up answer by FormerIP. This created a longer-ranging problem in that Darkfrog24 appears to misunderstand that secondary sources must also fulfill our citation criteria. We were presented with fansite references, fanblog and fan forum reviews and - in at least one case, a completely falsified reference. This constant barrage of unsuitable sources and distraction filings at RfC, DRN, RSN and AN/I led many of us to a suspicion that Darkfrog24 not only did not respect the clear consensus against inclusion arrayed in discussion, but subsequent behavior of either 'I don't get your resistance to the inclusion' or thinking there was some grand WP:IDLI conspiracy against her adding this information.
 * I am not sure what 3O can do for the situation, as Darkfrog24 has not seen fit to listening to anyone for over 4 months. As 3O has no teeth by which to enforce its findings, I am not eager to waste any more time on what appears to be diversionary tactics. I am of the opinion tha tshe feels that if she throws enough mud at the wall, something might eventually stick. I and others are tired of this. I am tired of her. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors aren't required to notify when they post a 3O filing as the point of 3O is for uninvolved editors to contribute a third opinion at the location where the dispute is occurring. That said, a 3O filing in this case would fail anyway as there are more than two involved editors. 3O is explicitly for offering a third opinion. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, Thanks for explaining it, Donlago. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to "add your dispute here"
Is there some reason why the link to "add your dispute here" goes to the "instructions" section rather than the "active disagreements" section? Kingsindian (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain why an editor overwrote the instructions a day or two ago. The problem was that the code in there doesn't use the normal kind of section link, but something of the form section=X. Fixed now. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been that way, since the first time I used 3O, a couple of months ago. I always thought it weird, but never brought it up till now. Kingsindian (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants."
I'm confused by this, particularly by the use of "seem". Does this mean you should seek a consensus that a third opinion would be useful before asking for one here? Or does it mean be neutral, and make sure the request is in the interests of all participants? Or what? Popcornduff (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I read this as meaning you should treat the request as though either side could be right in their arguments. That is, rather than writing "another doesn't realise my opinion is right!" say "We disagree on this issue". This goes along with the request to only date the message, not sign it. I'd assume this is to reduce bias in the editor who helps with the disagreement. Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doesn't "a brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two, and without trying to argue for or against either side" already cover that more clearly? I think we should just delete the point in question, as it only confuses. Popcornduff (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mostly, though the request "I think this statement is incorrect, and the other editor thinks its correct" doesn't argue for either side, yet it is obviously written by a particular editor. I don't know exactly if/when there was discussion about adding this line as I'm not overly familiar with this process, but I assume it's to avoid statements like that one. Sam Walton (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for making the instructions simpler to read. I've merged those two statement to prevent confusion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd still find that a little confusing. The word "seem" sounds like you're supposed to either get the other participant's consent or use deception (??). If the point is to avoid colouring the third party's judgement as Samwalton9 suggests, how about "Ideally, the editor who provides the third opinion should not be able to tell from the edit text who requested the opinion, as this might colour their judgement"? Popcornduff (talk)
 * Hmm, I feel like that's what "seem" implies at the moment, to me at least. Would writing "added by either participant" instead of "added by both participants" solve that confusion? I can see how it could be interpreted that somehow the request should be from two people simultaneously. Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's better. It's not a big deal though. Popcornduff (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Template:3OR
Today Template:3OR misbehaved as follows: omitting the  parameter and launching straight into the   put the response in bold, as if it were the text of opinion requested; the d=yes parameter no longer did anything. As the template hasn't been edited since September 2012, I suspect this must be a side-effect of something done somewhere else, but anyway I'm not good enough at templates to figure out what's going on. Can anyone see what gives? --Stfg (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)




 * Have a limited experience with templates too, but what you did seems like a fluke. Let's pretend that didn't happen and see if it misbehaves again. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt it was a fluke -- how do flukes like that happen? You have tested rather different conditions, since you've used the  parameter. But a test in a sandbox just now proved OK, so I suppose something must have been done to the wiki code and then corrected. --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)