Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What happens next?

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

Due to the obvious edit war, it would be best to have the article fully protected for a while. This sometimes helps to let a situation cool down and a troll lose interest. - Cyrus XIII 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree. I think it would be better to just wait until the user violates WP:3RR which will probably be very soon and then block him for it. Grouse 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a tough call. Maybe listing an RFC on the article's talk would be a good idea - but in the general spirit of WP:THIRD, the individual providing the opinion should be able to just state their view and have that be that... Smee 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
So the feuders don't mistake you for a troll, I suggest putting it under a separate section. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just two editors?

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

  • Hrm, if more than two editors are involved, I think WP:RFC is the better way to go. As other have stated, this does fill a niche... Smee 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Sure, why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

  • I like the notice you put at the top of the page. Is there a way to put than in some sort of box, instead of being bolded? Smee 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Sure. You can do that, would you, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I did. Please let me know what you think... Smee 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:3O is a small-scale project, a niche project which is rather effective in its small way.
I think editors who are looking for a a bit more to sink their teeth into, as it were—something with more scope, something more challenging—will find what they seek by participating on WP:RFC, WP:RFC/USER, WP:ANI and the like, rather than by trying to change the character and function of WP:3O itself. — Athænara ✉ 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe the changes would make 3O comparable to the scope or "challenge" of RfC or ANI. It would still retain the informality it currently does. It would still retain the same format of submission and participation it currently does. The only thing that would change is that it would explicitly allow conflicts with more than two editors to be posted. People already post conflicts here with more than two editors*. The change would simply be reflecting that usage and explicitly allowing it. I just don't understand how such a change would be as drastic as you imply. Vassyana 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Just one thing I guess. Don't fix things that aren't broken - the current 3O page works fine. --User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is being used for disputes with more than two editors, both by requestors and WP:3Oers, as acknowledged by Athaenara below. This at the very least indicates a disconnect between the stated limitations/purpose of 3O and its actual usage. One could easily argue such a disconnect means it is "broken". Vassyana 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree that this page should not be changed unnecessarily. It ain't broke. Heck, I'm still opposed to the big new banner at the top of the page, which jossi came back to add after storming out of here earlier. The longer and more complicated this page gets, the less likely people will read the instructions. Grouse 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If people do it, what is wrong with modifying the page to reflect the usage? As for Athaenara's links, they are simply not applicable to the discussion. I am not proposing that we add additional features or instructions, which means that the problems of instruction creep and feature creep are excluded by their basic definitions. Athaenara, I'm not comprehending the substance of your objection to the proposed change. Could you please explicitly state why you feel the change is a bad idea? How would it harm the project? If the change is bad and/or harmful, should we do more to discourage more than two editor disputes from being listed on 3O? If not, why not? Vassyana 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it works fine now. I don't think you have identified a good reason to change it. Grouse 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

3o template

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

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

Restored box

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

My first 3rd opinion

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

Whoa, you write twenty times as much as I do when I give a third opinion. If you are an expert of the subject matter this is good, but try to be concise.
"I am not either for or against the article's points - that is why it is called a Third Opinion. " - not true. A third opinion can be for or against any of the two parties involved. In all third opinions I've written (only been doing this for a week or so, btw) I chose a side, and supported my choice with some arguments. In rare cases I just summed up the wrong points and left.
Still, well done, no 'screwing up' happened. Don't worry, and you don't have to spend an hour on each opinion you give. Good luck with future Third Opinions.
--User:Krator (t c) 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. However, I do consider the rendering of a Third Opinion the weighing of both opinions presented, and plotting the correct course, which may be in favor of one or another. However, i don't think it can be approached that one guy or the other is just plain wrong. It's gotten to the point of needing a 3rd Opinion because both folks won't budge. Telling one person they are wrong doesn't fix the long-term issue. Charting where folks are right and wrong and then pointing to the right way to go (usually somewhere in between the two viewpoints) tends to work best. Maybe I am misinterpreting the purpose here. Arcayne 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We all have different styles. Different situations call forth different approaches from each of us, as well, and many permutations are possible. It's not always the case that one view is entirely correct and the other entirely mistaken.
Personally, Arkayne, I think your response to this one was excellent :-)   Brevity can be a virtue, too, but I don't think it would have been as effective in this dispute as your detailed exposition.
One of the best lines: "While this topic can be incendiary, the editors contributing to this article do not need to be." — Athænara ✉ 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary backlog

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

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

Abuse of Third opinion, WP:POINT ?

  • DIFF. It appears from this DIFF, at least from my opinion, that User:Lsi john may be somehow upset that Third opinions from neutral un-involved editors did not go his way, and he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, thus obviously violating WP:POINT. Thoughts, comments from others, regarding this action  ?? Thank you all for your time and patience with this. Yours, Smee 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
There's really not enough information here for me to see any wrongdoing on the part of this editor. If you're seriously concerned about this take it to WP:AN/I. i kan reed 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Further question then, you see no problem with a single editor adding (7) entries at a time to Wikipedia:Third opinion ?? Smee 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

If you have escalated to the point that you are in mediation, you are already past the purview of Third Opinion. Perhaps you should take it to Community Enforceable Mediation, and if that doesn't work, take it to the Arbitration Committee. Snuppy 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, User:RogueNinja is doing a great job as Mediator at this point, and we are making progress. I was just pointing out here that I think adding (7) entries at a time to WP:THIRD is a bit excessive and smacks of WP:POINT. Smee 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Question on usage of this page

  • Should the Third Opinion page be utilized for disputes about editors' actions, or just disputes about articles' content? Smee 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Both, as long as it is a dispute between two editors. --User:Krator (t c) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Alrightay then. Smee 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Question on inappropriate use of this page

Don't forget - be nice! --User:Krator (t c) 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget - be nice! --User:Krator (t c) 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it a conflict of interest (inappropriate) for an editor involved in a dispute to remove a 3O request that was added by the other editor? Lsi john 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
An interesting question, however unrelated to the first question. Smee 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
I would say so, yes. - hmwithtalk 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have apologized to User:Lsi john regarding this issue, on his talk page. Smee 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Third opinions for COI affected editors

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

I think it's good, but I'm hardly an expert on SEO. The points you made in your post here are excellent. I'm less clear on the essay itself. Does "this page" mean the essay page or WP:3O? — Athænara ✉ 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If it fits all the requirements for a third opinion request (see page), yes. --User:Krator (t c) 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Note on giving Third Opinions

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

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

Please tell me what you think

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

Putting sample requests in the page?

It seems like users have a hard time writing a good neutral request, one that avoids prejudicing the issue. Would it be worth putting in a couple of fictional sample requests as models? If so, what might those requests look like? Thanks, William Pietri 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps use some recursive examples?
--User:Krator (t c) 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Smee 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Looks good to me too. Anomie 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been one example on the project page for many months:

"Example: "Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

Users seeking third opinions apparently don't notice it, so I'm in favour of improving this situation. — Athaenara 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Smee 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Proposed for more formal discussion.

I have proposed {{proposed}} This article for more formal discussion, here on the talk page. Smee 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

What exactly do you want to discuss? --User:Krator (t c) 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Advancing the status of this page to guideline or proposal. Smee 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
An interesting point, of which I am an opponent. My main two arguments for this position are:
  1. Third Opinion as a guideline or process would make it essentially a formal process. A formal process of requesting uninvolved outside opinions already exists, WP:RFC. Redundancy is to be avoided.
  2. Keeping Third Opinion informal as it currently is has its merits, because the process is clear and simple. This results in a relatively low threshold for people to come here and list a dispute. Other dispute resolution processes are regarded as more formal, and thus, more drastic measures indicating an escalated conflict. Listing a dispute early is a good thing. From the project page:
The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.
User:Krator (t c) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This is good, this is why I proposed it, to get some healthy, positive feedback, and polite dialogue going. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. It will be interesting to hear what others think. Smee 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
3O helps defuse (or, if you prefer, diffuse) small conflicts before they become major. It also provides a less formal venue for users who are unfamiliar with the processes and policies of Wikipedia to seek help. This keeps the larger, formalized venues cleaner and ready for disputes that are serious, long lasting, or otherwise irremediable. Snuppy 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite and clear response. Any comments/thoughts from others? Smee 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
There's no need for this; Wikipedia isn't formal. A forum where people can ask outside information is, by definition, not a guideline. This page works quite well without requiring tags at the top. >Radiant< 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3O

As I understand it, 3O is for opinions when two users are involved. The question related to Cults/reports is an ongoing discussion between multiple users and is not limited to two individuals. I'm not sure that question is properly asked on this 3O. Lsi john 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the prior intention, but this was discussed further, and determined that it is okay to use 3O for disputes with more than 2 editors. Smee 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
The page still says 2 users. And your question, with all due respect, a) is not worded neutrally and b) is not an accurate representation of both sides of the debate.
Furthermore, we are on break from that discussion. Attempting to get a 3O here, would seem a rather improper end-run to get a decision before the group has had time to cool off. Lsi john 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion can still continue, and neutral editors may weigh in. This may be yet perhaps the best time for a neutral, previously un-involved editor to provide a comment, because the comment itself may be taken at face value. Smee 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Again, all due respect, but your question does not properly reflect both sides and is worded in a biased way. Your counterparts are not claiming any report represents the entire goverment. I'm just giving my opinion that I believe your 3O request is biased, not-neutral, and inappropriate, given that people are taking a cooling off break. Lsi john 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please suggest politely here on the talk page how I should revise the 3O request? Smee 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I have revised it to say imprimatur of the federal government, as opposed to use of "entire", as you had objected to. This now does accurately sum up the issue at hand. Smee 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I cannot speak for the rest of the group and I believe it would be presumptious for me to attempt it. They are on wiki break and I am not authorized to speak on their behalf.
If I were asking, in a dispute between you and me, I would ask something like "In the title List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, a) What does government reports imply? - or - b) Do the words government report suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report written by anyone in the government in the official capacity of their work? -or- c) Does government report imply that the report has any official standing with the government?
But, as I said, asking it at all, while people are on break, I feel is inappropriate. Lsi john 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Modified as per suggestion, to: Does the title of the article Groups referred to as cults in government reports suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report published by a federal government agency? Smee 03:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
And, I repeat, I do not speak for anyone else. Jossi has used other wording in his objections. The CRS already sent an email stating they do not consider themselves to write official government reports and are not authorized to do so without legislative mandate. So getting a 3O is picking nits, in my opinion. I'm on break. Best Regards. Lsi john 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, an even better wording would be :Should the email, sent by the CSR, regarding their opinion of their reports, be applied to items in this list. Specifically should reports written by the CSR be excluded from Lists of groups referred to as cults in government reports? Lsi john 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But that is not the issue. It would be, if the article implied that lowercase "government reports" meant "official government reports". But it does not. It simply implies reports that have been published by a federal government agency. Smee 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
And I would agree with you, except for the original opening paragraph in that article. Although it has been removed, it still goes to demonstrate the original purpose of the list.

"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria,[1] Belgium,[2] Canada,[3] France[4](in 1995), Germany,[5] and the United States.[6]"

Now, please respect my request for a break. thank you. Lsi john 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from... That is the definition of the article originally intended - "government reports", lowercase. Smee 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
government - lower case - implies official government report, not a congressional briefing paper written by an agency that already gave an email opinion. Lsi john 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that would be uppercase "Government Report". lowercase "government report", implies any government report produced by an agency of the federal government. Smee 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
To which I would respond, that would be an 'agency report' or a 'government document', and voila we're having the debate here instead of the article talk page. .*still on break* Lsi john 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is labeled a "government report", does not mean that it is a report with the full faith and backing of an entire branch of the federal government, just a particular federal agency of that branch. Smee 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Or single researcher? There is no indication that the CRS reports/briefings/documents carry any backing of an entire agency. They are simply (private) research reports/briefings/documents, prepared on behalf of someone in Congress. They are RS but there is no reason to believe or claim or suggest that they represent any branch, agency, or department's view. They are merely documents, some of which contain the word report. Why are we having this discussion here? Lsi john 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Try RfC. --User:Krator (t c) 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, still waiting for a 3O as per the WP:3O page. Smee 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Editors or parties?

Why is this process limited to just two editors? Wouldn't is just be as useful for factions or parties of editors on two sides of one issue? --Aarktica 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an integral part of how this works in comparison to RFC. With two editors in dispute, a single impartial opinion is usually enough to sort the issue. I have dealt with 3O requests in which other parties emerged from the woodwork and weighed in with an opinion that goes against the 3O, which has hints of meatpuppetry about it. Such situations can get messy, drag on long after the mediator has got involved, and undermines the ethos of 3O. I am not prepared to work in that kind of situation, which should be dealt with by a more formal form of mediation or comment from more than one mediating editor. The practical difference between two-editor disputes and two-party disputes may appear small on paper but is very significant in reality. 3O provides a very worthwhile option for fairly straightforward two-editor disputes, and it has a very high success rate in my experience – it should never be weighed down by the added complexity and problems of multiple-editor/two-party disputes. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! --Aarktica 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3Os are not a panacea

I can see that some editors ask for 3rd opinions very often. IMO, 3rd Opinions are useful when editors get stuck and need some outside assistance from time to time. If an editor keeps coming back for 3rd Opinions on every dispute, that editor may need to re-consider the way he is contributing to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do. Smee 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
    • If an editor needs help so often with content disputes, the editor may need to re-assess why. Dispute resolution process is there to help us when we need it, not to do the work for us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It takes two to have content disputes. And unfortunately, in many cases, certain other editors like to frame the issues not about the content in dispute, but about personal issues they have with certain editors. This is not in the spirit of WP:NPA, and is rude, inappropriate, and most unfortunate. Smee 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I have observed this as well. Is there a time when it crosses from a reasonable engagement of resolution into tendentious and disruptive practices?
I also notice that some editors have a difficult time framing the 3O in a neutral way which accurately reflects both sides of the question. I've seen this neutrality problem come up here in this discussion before.
Perhaps it would be worth looking into a history of 3O rulings to see if any editors have both an abnormal number of 3O requests in combination with a high percentage of 3O rulings against their position? Lsi john 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We have been through this before. And neutral editors stated here, that if one or the other editor feels the 3O was phrased improperly, the neutral 3O editor will most likely look past this anyway. Smee 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
I know I don't really care if the plea isn't phrased neutrally. I can look past it and judge the issue on its own merits. In any case, the pleas posted now are much better than they were a few months ago, now that the guidelines are clear, with a clear example given. -Amatulic 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to interpret a biased request as indicative of the nature of the dispute (a controversial topic, for example) and nothing more than that. Some degree of bias is quite natural in disputes and that will sometimes show itself in the request. It is easily put aside. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking for a Third Opinion on related subjects might exhaust the number of available neutral editors to actually write that opinion. For example, I will no longer write a 3O on anything related to cults or Afrocentrism.

@ Lsi john 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC). The only thing I have noticed in Third Opinions is that the requesting party is less likely to be right. This is not a reliable statistic though - my latest opinion was in favour of the requesting party.

--User:Krator (t c) 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that bias is exactly the term that I would use. Bias in the question, or implying the value of one side over the other, can be seen for what it is and is generally easy to overlook. The more significant part of my comment was 'accurately reflects both sides of the question'. What I'm referring to is more of an inadvertent misrepresentation of actual question. A straw-man question, if you will, which asks the question in a way to get an obvious answer but doesn't necessarily accurately reflect the opposing argument. This can happen in good faith, if one editor has not taken time to understand the objection, or if the other editor is unable to articulate well.
Say, for example, that I want to include a citation that 'ants have legs', in an article on motorcycles. I find 20 reliable zoology sources, written by well respected zoologists, which clearly state that 'ants have legs'. A fellow editor objects both that the 'zoologists are not reliable sources for motor cycle articles' and that the 'material is not relevant'. I misunderstand his objection, and I then open a 3O asking "Is it proper and acceptable to include relevant material from reputable and reliable published sources in the article?".
Clearly this example is blatant and the misunderstanding would easily be spotted for what it is. However, in more complex situations, with an inexperienced editor who is unable to articulate his objections, a good-faith straw-man 3O could easily go unrecognized and a good-faith 3O could be misused.
I realize that this is simply part of the process, that no system is perfect, and that 3O editors are sharp enough to see through the bulk of emotional wording and viewpoints. However, in the context of my statement above, I was pondering, in general, how often this happens and at what point would AGF no longer apply if any individual editor routinely had difficulty posing an accurate 3O request. Lsi john 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to above neutral Third Opinioners User:Krator, User:Adrian_M._H., User:Amatulic -- thank you all for providing such politely worded responses to this issue, in your comments above.
  • User:Amatulic -- I am glad to see that you can look past however others feel that a request is worded, and go investigate the issue itself. This shows that the 3O process is working correctly.
  • User:Adrian_M._H. -- Your statements that you can put aside whatever degree of bias may be present in disputes, is also reassuring and also goes to the success of this process.
  • User:Krator -- The very fact that your latest opinion was in favor of a requesting party - shows that you yourself are able to provide fair opinions on different issues, and this also goes to the success of the current nature of the process.
I think that lots of 3O requests on certain topics - perhaps "cults or Afrocentrism", as suggested above - simply goes to the contentiousness of these topics, and they certainly are even in scholarly academic settings off-Wikipedia, and not immediately to faults of any individual editor or editors. Smee 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Having given a few third opinions of the sort Jossi refers to, I'm going to give an unsolicited one here. Smee and Lsi john, you guys both seem like pretty reasonable people who have strong and very different points of view on a number of issues. I think you guys could be much better editors if you could learn to work better together. I think Jossi's right; an occasional third opinion is a good way to get past a hump. Regularly needing them is a sign that you two are missing chances to discover and solve the root problem. Please take another swing at it! And feel free to ask if you want suggestions on how to do that. With sincere regards, William Pietri 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with jossi 100%. And with your's as well. I'll leave it to whomever is interested, to dig up the statistics of the situation. Also, for the record, I was not consulted about, or prior to, the 2 recent 3O requests where were asked for, and given. I did, however, specifically object to the wording on one, which is why it was discussed here. Like Jossi, I feel 3O's are being used to avoid the personal responsibility involved in compromise (my extra wording, not his). Lsi john 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And I was not asked about this new one either. Lsi john 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Smee (talk · contribs) should take a two or three month vacation from the 3O project and its talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting, and what of the comments above by User:Krator, User:Adrian_M._H., User:Amatulic? Smee 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Diplom

Hi, I need a third opinion on Diplom. Basically the original article was about comparing the old academic degree (Diplom) with the new European Degrees (Bachelor/Master). Another person wants to add the US Bachelor to the comparison. I don't think this is a benefit to the article. Firstly, It is very hard to compare those degrees (even impossible it differentiates between the university), because the whole educational system is different. There are agreements between the countries how to compare degrees but they are subject to change and the universities have the "last word". That is why I think adding US Bachelor or any other Bachelor from other countries to this comparison gives the reader wrong information and should not be included in wikipedia (I added a link where interested readers can get more official information). Sacrumi 09:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Try first posting at request at the main page of Third Opinion, not the talk page, at Wikipedia:Third opinion, and someone should be by the article's talk page to help out. Good luck! Yours, Smee 09:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Big Horn Sheep

I worked in a Utah Park for the season. It was an area where they had planted big horn sheep. We rode around in the park in a Kawasaki mule because it was 55 acres, which went directly up the mountain. The big horn sheep would stand on a ledge above us and watch us walk or ride around.

In early morning, they would trail down the mountain to some condominiums which had automatic sprinklers. They would always find their way back up the mountain.

There was a young female sheep that would come down the mountain while we were working. She would come close and watch all activities. I walked up to her and told her she needed to go back up the mountain before something happened to her. She turned around and I herded her up the mountain by walking beside her and talking to her. I leaned down and pulled some grass and she mimicked me. I told her what beautiful brown eyes she had because she really wasn't beautiful in any other way.

The next day she came down the mountain again. This time the wild life worker was there. I told him that I would walk her up the mountain, which I did. He said that if I hadn't done that then he would have had to tranquilize her. He said it was strange she would come down because she had a lamb on the mountain.

It was a once in a life time experience, and she enjoyed it also.

P. Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.196.64 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether to WP:BJAODN this or.. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for editor review

Hi there. I'm looking for some feedback and suggestions on dispute resolution. I've therefore put myself up for Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers and was wondering if anybody here could comment, as the review centers on areas contributors to this page will be familiar with. Tim Vickers 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, placing this on the project page rather than on the talk page would be better. --User:Krator (t c) 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion for The Diplomats page

The page for The Diplomats ...

Thank you. --BaRiMzI 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please format the above in a short, neutral way, and include it in the appropriate section of the Third Opinion project page, without your signature. (Note: not this page. This is the talk page for discussion on 3O itself) The above is essentially what is to be avoided: one of the parties going to 3O with his arguments, and asking for a confirmation, essentially. This promotes bias, and therefore I have hidden a part of your note above. --User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to 3O layout and wording

In an effort to make the 3O page and its instructions a bit easier to read and understand, I have been working out a few changes, mostly fairly minor, in my sandbox. Let me know what you think and feel free to make or suggest any further changes that you would like to see. I'll update the project page when it's ready. Adrian M. H. 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we would like to include some templates that can be used in the article to know that a third opinion has been requested. I've drawn up some examples in my sandbox. —  Scottjar  → Talk 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That might be useful, I suppose, but you will see it on your watchlist. It's not a very high-traffic page, so most additions should be spotted before the next removal occurs. I have updated the page now. Adrian M. H. 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I have trimmed the shortcuts down to two (chosen as probably the most used) just for neatness and clarity; the other two still exist for anyone who uses them. Adrian M. H. 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, having viewed the templates, I have just twigged what you were talk about. Bit tired! The wording needs a tweak, but these will make a useful addition to the project. When they're ready, upload them to the relevant templates page (talk page templates or disputes, I suppose) and we can "tl" them to the project page. Adrian M. H. 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hah, I was just responding to see if maybe you misunderstood what I meant when you gave me an edit conflict ;) Ok, I'll move them to a template and post them back here. —  Scottjar  → Talk 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The template is at {{3O}}. I've added it here, to be able to add to an article top or section top. See Template_talk:3O for how to use. Hopefully you can write a little how-to for people that are requesting third opinions, Adrian, on how to place this on the article pages under the correct section or at the top. Cheers —  Scottjar  → Talk 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a template on the article is appropriate, if the dispute is so major as to require a template then {{disputed}} or something more specific should be added instead. Even for a banner on the talk page, I don't think it's such a good idea. The whole point of 3O is that it's informal; having template banners to announce the request seems counter to that informality. Anomie 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That does make sense. I wonder if there are enough specific templates, however, for all the matters that 3O covers, if templates were to be placed on some of the pages. Recently there was a discussion over the inclusion of a gallery of images; things like this might not have a template. But if it would ruin the informality of the process, then maybe it shouldn't be used. —  Scottjar  → Talk 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The question is "Is this something important enough to the casual reader that it should be plastered into the article text?". NPOV, reliability, and such are definitely that important. Cleanup and references are iffy. Just a general "some people disagree about something here" IMO isn't that important. Anomie 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Make it a talk page template for inclusion only in the relevant section. Do not make it mandatory to use, but request its use when providing a third opinion. Useful because it helps those editors who are looking over past discussions to see that a third opinion has been requested (and provided). Do not underestimate the number of these editors. A parameters could be "provided=Krator", which would add the italic text in: "A third opinion has been requested and provided by Krator on this article". Wording is an example, not what I intend/request it to be. --User:Krator (t c) 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, this talk page is not appearing on my watchlist even though it is being watched. Anyway, Anomie makes a good point; I had not realised that you had intended these to be article templates as opposed to talk page templates, otherwise I would have suggested that modification. I like Krator's suggestion; that would tie in well with using this template in the relevant section, which I think would be better (it will get archived eventually) than having it at the top. I have swapped the Active Disagreements section back to where I had placed it in my move, with the rationale that I think it should be right below the usage instructions, not shoved at the bottom below the instructions for us lot. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Anomie's edit link is a nice idea. Looks OK, too. Adrian M. H. 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the redesign, although I think there should be something in the "Active disagreements" section so it doesn't get lost when there are no active disagreements. How does this look to you? (edit conflicted: Thanks!) I still don't really see the need for a banner about third opinions, even on the talk page section; if someone is looking for discussion about the issue, the banner isn't likely to help them find it. Anomie 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that edit link is a very good addition, and I like the way in which you added the instructions via template to the edit window. I didn't know that this was possible. I'm open minded about the talk page templates, so I really don't mind either way. They have pros and cons. Adrian M. H. 10:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice User:Krator removed the __NOEDITSECTION__, which was there to try to force listers to click on the link that reiterates the instructions. Did you know that you can click on the "add your dispute" link to edit only the Active disagreements section? Anomie 11:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The addition of __NOEDITSECTION__ made sound sense, I thought. Adrian M. H. 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
NOEDITSECTION makes things more difficult in general. People editing the instructions, and not the disagreements, will be forced to edit the whole page. Those who do not read instructions at all will be forced to edit the whole page or (more likely) do not ask for a third opinion. Furthermore, being able to edit sections is a Wikipedia standard, and moving away from it will cause confusion. --User:Krator (t c) 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Transcluding instructions

The best thing about transcluding Wikipedia:Third opinion/Instructions, I think, was that it could be edited without editing the main project page. The project page history is more meaningful when it is predominantly a record of additions and removals of disputes, without being obscured by a tangential/tandem record of WP:3O'ers trying to tighten things up. Nu? — Athaenara ✉ 11:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally transcluded the instructions because I added the "Add your dispute" link that includes the instructions as the editintro, and by transcluding them into the main page they would only have to be edited once. But others have decided that the ones in the editintro should be more concise, and I don't have any opposition to that. Anomie 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it was Krator that made that change, and I think he was right. It keeps the reminder short so that it takes up less screen space without compromising the main instruction set. The instructions probably won't need to be edited very much. Adrian M. H. 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for a third party editor

Restoring Flugpo Article I am trying to create an article on a website which has been deleted under the context of advertisment and lack of nobility. After further researching Wikipedia's policies, my userpage contains the latest version of the article and I was interested in recieving further information how I can look into restoring the article. If you could either assist me in this or point me in the right direction, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks.Saracity123 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a 3O issue and even if it was, this is the project's talk page. You could make a request at EAR. Adrian M. H. 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Saracity123 contribs indicate that it is a conflict of interest single purpose account with the usual issues which are frequently posted for attention on WP:COI/N. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Requests

I've my interpretation is correct, two requests were recently deleted when the current request was posted. I have copied those two requests from the history and will paste them in now.

My apologies if I've misinterpreted this. I though it possible that someone had selected them for review, but the summaries did not suggest that.

Burkander 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you have not provided specifics, I can only make a general observation that we remove posts that do not adhere to the guidelines of 3O. I had to remove a lengthy non-neutral request just now. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To add to Adrian's comment, no deleted request cannot be reposted. In fact, we (i.e. the regulars over here) very much like that, because it would be a shame to see the dispute unsolved. User:Krator (t c) 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

Hello,

I'm an administrator trying to deal with a particularly difficult editor who is actively working on getting himself blocked. He is abusive towards another editor and is completely ignoring my warnings about blocks and recommendations on different procedures to follow. I've attempted to communicate with him in the most effective manner I know and have failed. I would like a third opinion on this mater for a few reasons:

  1. So we don't lose an editor because I wasn't able to communicate with him well.
  2. To introduce this editor to the larger Wikipedia dispute process which will help him interact with other editors better.
  3. To help me learn how to more effectively communicate all of this with the particular editor I'm having a hard time communicating with.

To follow my interactions with him, read the following pages:

  1. User_talk:Kevinp2#Your_conduct_on_the_Gitmo_page - My first warning
  2. User_talk:Triddle#Your_conduct_on_the_Gitmo_page - his response to that warning
  3. User_talk:Kevinp2#Formal_block_warning_-_your_behavior_must_change - next warning about 1.5 to 2 weeks later

Please advise. Triddle 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to be a complaint about Kevinp2 (talk · contribs). I've found no verification that Triddle (talk · contribs) is a wikipedia administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This should help: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suva (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I continued searching. He is listed:
According to the admin links, he has performed almost no administrator actions since 2005. (The edit summary with ‘changed rights from none to none’ in the link Suva posted is puzzling). — Athaenara ✉ 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From "(none)" to "(none) (+sysop)". If the log doesn't contain modechange to "(sysop) (-sysop)" he is still admin. The category is added when user adds Category:Wikipedia administrators on his user page or the admin userbox. It's not really obligatory to add it either way. Suva Чего? 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Found his July 2005 self-nom on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triddle.
Opinion: I think he should leave Kevinp2 alone. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The easiest way to verify admin status is to check Special:Listusers. Anyone with a special status will have that status displayed in parens after their username, c.f. Triddle's entry. --Darkwind (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless comments?

Just a question: if a user is leaving third opinions that are useless and/or do not contribute anything to the conversation, is there anything that can be done? I ask this because 64.26.98.90 has now left two opinions on pages, both of which are fairly worthless. The first, on here, was commented on by another user as to how it did not help. The other, on here, was entirely off-topic as to what was written on the 3O page. Anyone else have thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're fortunate that what you described has not been a ongoing problem. I agree that it deserves some attention. (Sorry I didn't see this until today). — Athaenara ✉ 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it happened points up the fact that following the progress of third opinions which we haven't given, ourselves, is also very helpful to the project. — Athaenara ✉ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd mentor people if needed. User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution slowdown

There is a discussion brewing about an apparent slowdown in at least some area of dispute resolution. (This discussion may be found here.) I thought that the regular contributors to this area might be interested in joining the discussion. Cheers! Vassyana 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, it sure has been quiet around here. Kind of weird.. is it just that people aren't having issues, or that they're not looking for help as much? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion barnstar?

After such great work recently from Amatulic, Axlq, HelloAnnyong, SilkTork, and others, I'm beginning to think a Third Opinion Barnstar is called for. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Just glad to lend a hand around here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What about a third of a barnstar? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Or three little stars? — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Why are third opinion cases confined to situations involving only two people? What should I do if the clear results of an Rfc are being ignored by a single editor? Mrshaba (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The first is the nature of the project. The second sounds like disruptive editing. Depending on the specific problem, posting on WQA or ANI may help, or on COIN for an editor conflict of interest, or on BLPN for a biography of a living person. — Athaenara ✉ 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this may have been a misunderstanding about what 3rd opinion means. When two people can't agree, you go out to get a 3rd opinion, an opinion from someone other than the two involved. I think that what Mrshaba thought was a 3rd opinion was if you got two other opinions but you didn't like them, so you sought out a 3rd opinion. The issue at hand was succinctly summarized at [2], but Mrshaba didn't like the opinion, so he sought a 2nd and a 3rd opinion. I have objectively printed out the article and showed it to random people and most liked the image, and thought that it was a good image for the article. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Active Disagreement

Hi I would like to refer to this page: Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Assumtions are unethical and a disgrace to acedemics which use wikipedia

After reading the discussion I had here about the validity of the articles statements I was shown the door. I would like a thrid opinion on this, am I out of place to expect academic accuracy in this regard? Trek mambo (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Sorry. User:Krator (t c) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: “There has been no court case to prove the guilt of Al Qaeda so please do not add this to the wikipedia page.” I’m afraid what you’re asking for is not academic accuracy, but rather legal accuracy. Inasmuch as bin Laden is on record claiming responsibility on behalf of al Qaida – which no other leader of al Qaida has denied, and for which no other entity has contested the claim – the issue is rather moot. If we could claim nothing as “true” – or as “accurate” (see WP:V) – in history, then we cannot claim to know much, even if evidentiary standards were uniform globally and across time. Hitler could not be guilty for the deaths of millions of Jews, since he died before he could be brought to justice, so the issue became legally moot. Carried out to the point of ad absurdum, we could not say “2 + 2 = 4” without a legal writ. Indeed, under your proposed standard, most works of history by academic historians would have to be recalled. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quake II reverts

Hi,

I've been editting the Quake II page for a while now, and after a recent edit, user:Xihr came along and reverted to one of my previous edits. He gave no explanation, until I asked for one on his talk page. However, as I noted on his talk page, the things he's criticized really don't apply to contents of the last edit I made before the reverting started. He doesn't seem wiling to discuss this so I thought I'd ask for a third opinion here, if anyone can help. Maybe I'm wrong in some of the stuff I've editted, I'm not saying I'm certain I'm right. But it would be nice for someone to take the time to explain why, considering the points I've made. Thanks. Ben 2082 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The other user provided an explanation on User talk:Xihr#Quake II Revert. — Athaenara ✉ 12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: Somehow I doubt that my observation was helpful — perhaps someone else will have a more useful response. — Athaenara ✉ 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
They provided an explanation but like I said, I don't really think it's an adequate one. There were clear points I laid out in response to the revert, explaining why I think it's unjustified, but none of these were even considered. Anyway thanks for the help with this. Ben 2082 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
By looking at your edit history, Ben, I can see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. In future, when something like this happens, post your concerns on the article's talk page instead of going straight to the other editor's talk page. That way, your concerns are brought more into the open (and in the end, more open than they would be here at Third Opinion) and then more people who are involved with the article can give their input. If that doesn't get you anywhere, try get relevant WikiProjects involved, in this case WikiProject Video games. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Ben 2082 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Best little project

I haven't been offering many third opinions in the past month or two, but I have been following the progress of the disputes which have been listed and observing the effects of Third opinions given by other project members. I think we're the best little project in Texas, I mean, on Wikipedia. — Athaenara ✉ 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go team 3O! Woo! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Athaenara's removal of WP:3O Request

Athaenara, whom I have bumped heads with briefly last year, removed my request for WP:30 with a somewhat misleading edit summary here. The Killian Documents article along with the related Killian documents authenticity issues article are embarrassments in terms of encyclopedic quality and have remained so due apparently to their being "owned" by a small cabal of editors and rotating IP's who show up with a burst of "interest" when anyone tries to even fix some of the more blatant issues like adding missing refs or removing uncited nonsense. This only leads to endless gaming on their part and the end result is that nothing gets done, including even resolving lonely "Citation Missing" tags that have been around for ages. If nobody tries to improve the articles, that burst of interest very quickly disappears altogether and the articles are left fallow. All my blocks have all come from my dealing with this cabal. After my last ban, I decided to stay clear of touching the article pages and try my best to work things out on the Talk pages, and if that didn't work, then try Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. One common method of obstruction has been to repeatedly disrupt any attempt of discussion by ad infinitum violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the provision in WP:CIVIL that goes "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others". I've gone well, WELL beyond the call of duty in trying to getting anything at all accomplished via the Talk pages, so now it's dispute resolution time. It was suggested that I try WP:3O first, but Athaenara's actions seem to suggest that even my attempts at dispute resolution are going to face obstruction.

So what's an honest editor to do? Just walk away and let the bad guys win? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits and edit summaries:
Padillah restored Callmebc's request. — Athaenara ✉ 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Related discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 7#What to do about user circumventing WP:DR. — Athaenara ✉ 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [Updated link. 05:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)]
BTW, a brief discussion on User talk:Callmebc#Puzzled clarified what "bumped heads with briefly last year" meant in CallmeBC's first post here. — Athaenara ✉ 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New Killian Documents Section -- Demonstration

I know it's a complex situation (even I get get derailed at times dealing with the mess) for a 3rd opinion to get a handle on, but I just created a new section called Problems with the current introduction and I deconstructed the current intro to the article section by section to list what I consider their faults. I heartily recommend that the likely ensuing "discussion" be observed to better gauge the nature of what happens when one tries to get anything fixed, never mind actually improved regarding the article. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly didn't take too long for that "discussion" to become another unreadable mess. One recurring issue is that certain "editors" never respond on point, and instead repeatedly offer up unrelated opinions or such. And if you try to get a straight answer on a particular issue, that will usually quickly devolve into a complexly indented mess. I tried to keep things on track by maintaining the same indents for editors and bolding who is saying what, but there wasn't exactly much cooperation with that idea, to say the least. In any case I'm going to abandon the "discussion" since I've been down that road too many times before, and it really was mostly meant as a demonstration of what happens when someone tries to even discuss improving the Killian articles. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Killian Documents

I'm wondering what we should do with this page. It's clearly a lengthy edit war, and I don't know that a third opinion is going to help. There's also at least four editors that have posted on there in the past few days, and I'm wondering if that technically makes it ineligible for 3O. At the very least, I know my hands are full enough that I don't really have time to read through and fully understand the discussion there. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of that new section I created was to demonstrate what happens when an attempt is made to actually improve the article, starting with a single short paragraph with a few, shall we say, "issues". All I'm asking is that some neutral 3rd parties observe the sequence. As far as the "four editors" go, that was mostly in regards to a couple of vandalistic entries by an IP and one very minor word change. I know getting a third opinion in this situation is really just a first step, and it's likely more an issue for ArbCom, but I do want to follow recommended procedures, and one recommendation was to try WP:30 first. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

Aftermath I

Amatulic sent a message to the article talk page and removed the request (→Active disagreements: deleted 28 Feb request - too many editors involved ... ). — Athaenara ✉ 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath II
Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely blocked.
See also: Talk:Killian documents‎#Callmebc. — Athaenara ✉ 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
...Well then. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)