Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 1

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

message: We might want to eventually link this from wp:rfc. Maurreen 08:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes#Wikipedia:Third opinion. — Itai (f&t) 08:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that redirects back to here. Do you think this is ready to go? I don't see why anyone would object. I think we might also want to link it from a general dispute resolution page. Maurreen 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was confused earlier. Anyway, I've linked Third opinion from the project page at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and asked at WP:RFC about linking from there also. Maurreen 02:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: I was going to merge this into WP:RFC but then it struck me that this procedure seems to be working well for 'smaller' disputes and that the two complement each other quite nicely. Please tell me if I'm right? Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I prefer to keep this separate. Maurreen (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

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

message: Why only put the date stamp when you can see who wrote something by looking at the history? Slizor 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urm 

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

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

message: I am going to rewrite the instructions in a mockup page.
*Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Mockup1--- give me about an hour after this message to get started.
--Eagle talk 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the new mockup to simplify and organize things better, and keep the "Active disagreements" section empty of instructions. It should now be much clearer what people should do when they add disagreements and respond to them. Fagstein 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it... lets put the mockup on the page... :)Eagle talk 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fagstein 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've probably screwed that by a reversion to an older state by Eagle, see below why, at least one pending request so far got no 3O. -- Omniplex 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mock Up

message: Over the last few days, this dispute has repeatedly popped up:
* A user, User:MiamiDolphins3 consistently and inappropriately removes "stub" status from several pages including Marilyn Milian and others. Request to keep a watch on these pages as this user either has a very low learning curve or is a silent vandalizer. Drdr1989 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I further suggest that the page refer to "exactly two editors" rather than "only two editors". --Takeel 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate and abide by a third opinion on whether the Marilyn Milian article is a stub.  As I described on the talk page and in edit comments, the article may have further development potential, but it contains the person's name, date of birth, place of birth, detailed information on two educational degrees, educational awards, professional positions held, information on her current professional role, information on her spouse, parents, and minor children (including the names of both), along with a succession box, a photo, nine categories, and even information on her professional travel schedule (she lives in Florida but periodically commutes to New York City, in case anyone cares).  If this is a stub, the vast majority of bios on wikipedia would be deemed stubs.  And nothing prevents further additions, as needed.  But this is not a stub, and it would be helpful if user User:Drdr1989 was instructed that this does not meet the threshold for a "stub," particularly because it draws editors' attention away from bios that are legitimate stubs and worthy of much more urgent attention that this article.  Thanks.  I believe I am correct on this, but I will abide by whatever third opinion is issued on this matter.  MiamiDolphins3 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to 'rule' on the 3O in question, or to state that either editor involved was in bad faith; I just thought that it made a good example of the sort of dispute that might not be appropriate for 3O, especially because of the request for continued monitoring. Kickaha Ota 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a third opinion would be useful and hopefully settle this matter before this User:Drdr1989 (who seems very emotional and persistent, as evidenced by the absurd request for "continual monitoring") unjustifiably escalates the matter further.  Nothing about this article Marilyn Milian spells "stub".  It contains all necessary encyclopedic information and some info that even goes beyond that.  Thanks, and I hope a 3O will settle it to both of our satisfaction.  MiamiDolphins3 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just provided a third opinion on the Talk:Marilyn Milian page. Kickaha Ota 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea behind the notice, and it should probably be included. However, we're currently looking to simplify the page, so a shorter and more to-the-point sentence might be useful, and/or splitting it up and incorporating the ideas into the instruction lists on our mockup. Fagstein 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate nature of 3O disputes 

message: wp:rfc is better. There's no point to a separate third opinion page. Any dispute in which a third opinion would help would be better solved with more opinions. Better to have just one section where people interested in giving their input could go to see where it's needed. I'm currently in a dispute with one person here, over an infobox, and it seemed like this is the place to go, but I think a RFC is better. I don't want to trust just one person to break the tie. In fact, I'd probably take it to the next level of dispute resolution even if more people were against me. -Barry- 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for third opinions 

message: I have a question, and want a second opinion on it.  3O doesn't seem appropriate as it isn't a "dispute between exactly 2 editors" (I appear to be the only editor involved), and RFC seems to be a more formal dispute resolving step.  Anyone have suggestions? ONUnicorn 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the Village Pump or talk pages of related articles, or finding an interested person from one of the various lists and categories of Wikipedians. Maurreen 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, or, in case of "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", Wikipedia:Peer review. — Itai (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a place to get a second opinion? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: No, I never said you should stop removing "this entire section" (although if you had, I would request that you not do that either). You should know that the single sentence you removed is contentious and should not remove it before agreement here. Grouse 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not the take Grouse seriously, please be civil. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "please do not remove this section again unless there is a consensus to do so on the talk page" KazakhPol 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: My post of an Active disagreement was as follows:
*"Talk:Que Será Será (House episode). Dispute: whether the name of the Wikipedia article should or should not have accent marks. Pertinent article talk page sections: "Accent marks" and "Titles: Episode & Article." 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As being the user that you are alluding to, I am not involved in the dispute. I just said a word in hopes of ending the conversation. Please ignore my comment if need be. I have since relisted the request and notified the delister. Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops—it happened again.  I clicked "Save page" here at 03:51, then discovered when I checked my watch page that the original Active disagreement had been restored at 03:49.   Thanks, PullToOpen.   –Æ.  ✉ 04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of posted dispute

message: I have noticed that the simple, clear instructions in 'Listing a dispute' on the W:3O project page are ignored by many users who avail themselves of it.  In the hope of improving the situation, I indented, italicised, and added a model timestamp to For example to draw more attention to the form, and bolded the words description, link to a specific section in a talk page, and add the date without your name.  If this seems to have been excessive, please feel free to revert.  Athænara   ✉ 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks pretty good to me. =Axlq 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear instructions

message: *Is there a Userbox or Wikiproject that involves editors who regularly monitor this page and provide third-party opinions on topics that they have a neutral interest in?  Smee 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know (I first knew of this project last month) there are none, but your idea drew me into playing with a WP:3O userbox; here's a first try at it.  Athænara    ✉     09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: → (Second sample userbox added 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I have no problem with specifying both options on the WP:Third opinion page.  Smee 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  Smee 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! - Cyrus XIII 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The gold colourful one is currently in the template, and does output to the category.  Smee 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not as I drew it  ;-D  I meant the ones on this page.  Your current template, however, does, though it's not on the :Category:Third opinion Wikipedians page itself.   — Æ.    ✉   15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is.  :)  Smee 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox or Wikiproject? 

message: I've recently noticed that some third opiners, particularly those using the  template will leave the dispute listed while they wait for response from those already involved (which is perfectly in line with the current instructions, which say that the dispute should be delisted when the third opinion has been given). I feel that everyone should remove the listing as soon as they pick it up, even if things aren't totally settled (whether because you're waiting for the parties to fill in the template or you think you may need to go back and clarify what you've said), as the dispute no longer needs the attention of another third opiner. It's a bit of a pain to look at the active disagreements, click on one, and find it's already halfway to being sorted out. Would anyone object to me modifying the instructions to this effect? --Scott Wilson 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object. The current instructions are out of date now, since they were written before this new template was created. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I'm sorry I left the 3O I was dealing with on the request page... PTO 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no; please don't take this as a criticism in any way: firstly, what you were doing totally follows the instructions, and secondly, it could be argued that the dispute should be left listed until it's resolved, as it is for RfCs and so on, although I - and I am evidently not alone - feel that that would defeat the 'quick and dirty' ethos of the third opinion. --Scott Wilson 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't take it as criticism. Rather, as my 3O was still on the request board when this message appeared, I feel that my actions were the driving force of this comment :). Cheers, PTO 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't object, although my practice (in the couple of opinions I've given) is to leave the request listed until I have answered it.  Only then do I de-list the request.  I think it's silly to wait until things are resolved, because that can take days or weeks, especially if the dispute is headed for arbitration. =Axlq 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I developed the habit of navigating the WP:3O history diffs to see requests which have been removed very quickly after posting, then checking the links to see if there has been any progress or resolution.  When requests remain visible a little longer, this circuitous route isn't so often needed.  — Athænara   ✉  06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand you, Athaenara. You look at pages which have already had a third opinion given to check if the dispute has settled down? Surely that isn't a third opinion; it's a fourth (if it's needed). Third opiners should be hanging around to clarify their position anyway; I don't think we really need oversight. If the third opinion didn't solve things, then another type of dispute resolution (an RfC, for instance) has to be pursued, and that's for the participants in the dispute to decide. If I did misinterpret you, please ignore the above paragraph entirely! --Scott Wilson 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to delist requests 

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

text: → Postscript: That bulleted line should, I think, be removed from the project page for discussion (or neglect) here.  The key concept ("the informal and speedy nature of the third opinion process is its advantage over more formal methods of dispute resolution") is obstructed by the template itself.  — Æ.   ✉  10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PTO, I don't think there was anything you could have done in this case that would have brought about a different outcome.  The fact is, if someone believes they WP:OWN articles, edits, etc, they will not be able to accept criticism, editing, etc.  Well Done.  Pastordavid 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit off more than I could chew? 

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

text: A sense of proprietorship is understandable, but repeatedly adding it to the project page in the absence of a consensus supporting it is more than inconsiderate and defies WP:OWN.  Repeated reversions (16:49) (17:03) (21:49) (23:27) on the project page are not good.  Do stop, jossi.  You cannot force a consensus which does not exist; neither can you park the responsibility on another user's doorstep.   — Athænara   ✉  00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: To those that are asking me avoid violating 3RR, I would say this: With more than 32,000 edits in Wikipedia, I have never breached 3RR knowingly. And I do not intend to do so in this article either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Editing the page and hoping that no one will object (after similar edits have received objections) is not the way to usher in a compromise. And making changes without first proffering them on the talk page does not constitute making a suggestion: it is forcing your idea on everyone else. I think all of us are open to suggestions, but this does not mean that anyone will necessarily agree with them. The most productive procedure here is to pitch your idea and see how it takes. You can modify it if few people like it, but even this will not guarantee acceptance among other editors. Finally, the 3O project isn't falling flat on it face: it's been working wonderfully for a long time now. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong in WP:BOLD and offering a useful template for those that may want to use it. Obviously, we have an obvious case of WP:OWN, inasmuch as a good faith edit is immediately reverted, and a subsequent compromise offered reverted again without any discussion about its merits or lack therof. You can keep your project to yourself with that attitude. I am removing this page from my watch list and removing myself from the project. I will not use it again either. Good luck with your project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: In re "clearing list of two non-neutrally-described disagreements" (diff)—Simoes beat me to it by one minute :-D   — Athænara   ✉  19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the collective rush to do list maintenance. ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So where's the right place to ask for comments when you think another wikipedian is completely disruptive?  I looked at all the procedures and each seemed like the wrong place for one reason or another.  I tried to be as kind as possible in my description, but the base of the problem is that another editor is reverting and insisting on their version being the version despite displaying poor article writing skills and a lack of basic understanding of the topic.  Expressing that neutrally is hard :-/  So where do I go? Gronky 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are other frequent or semi-frequent editors of the article, you might call their attention to the problem by posting on their talk pages. If that is not an option, you could try contacting the mediation cabal. If the disruptive editor violated the 3RR, you should report him/her. I've been in your situation before and understand the frustration of it, but this page is mainly for disagreements where there is at least a minimal mutual acknowledgment of the involved editors' knowledge, abilities, and good faith. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link to the cabal, I hadn't seen that before. Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gronky, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts can be a good place to post it if you don't want to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) (backlog there) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (WP:RFC).  — Athænara   ✉  23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiquette alerts seems suitable, thanks.  I'll try it or the cabal if the problem persists (it has been quite for a few hours now, which is nice). Gronky 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non neutral postings

message: I wonder if it might be helpful if Wikipedia:Neutrality Project and Wikipedia:Third opinion listed each other in See also sections on their project pages.   — Athænara   ✉  14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're okay with it, I don't see why not. Simões (talk/contribs) 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Project

message: I responded to this dispute the first time out, but backed away when it seemed to involve more than two editors.  Someone else is welcome to respond, or check the situation out, but I probably should stay out entirely because I responded the first time.  Frankly, I think it would be better of as a Mediation.  -- Pastordavid 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UT
:Thanks for clarifying what happened. It is true that separate discussions have ended up overlapping, and in that sense involved 3 editors. Help is still needed to bring this together into a consensus that isn't dominated by any one editor. Since you suggest mediation, I will read up about that, and if go down that route I'll remove the 3rd op request from here. Thanks for your input in any case. EverSince 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk: Clinical psychology 

message: I have been asked to provide a 3rd opinion on an article currently involved in an edit war. I am fairly conversant on the topic (arguably better than most of the parties involved) and I believe my opinion would be useful. However I have had previous dealings with two of the three editors involved, and I'm wondering if that means I should recuse myself? If not, can I simply post my opinion on the matter without a formal request being made here? It appears that is the case, but I'd like to be sure. I'm also curious about the comments about more than two editors, which is the case in this example. This being the case, does it go straight to RfC or such? I'd like to avoid that if possible. Maury 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say jump in. If they haven't asked for a 3O, you're under no obligation to call it a formal Third Opinion - but neither are you constrained by your personal contacts with these editors from being involved. The question is, will your presence there help with the edit war or escalate it to a problem that requires mediation? Snuppy 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're actually involved in the edit war, you definitely need to recuse yourself. If you're know these users, I suggest you offer your opinion. It will be easier to converse with those two if you are familiar with them, and they are familiar with you. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Great job!   Smee 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, do you just "do it"?