Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

Draft User FAQ

I am feeling the lack of a user's FAQ on the main page (not the third opinion supplier). Here are some recent issues that might be turned into FAQ questions:

• How to prepare for a good third opinion request.
• Requests that have involved more than 2 users but there are only 2 sides in the dispute.
• Requests that are too wide in scope for a sensible opinion (by requesting "see detail on talk page" which turns out to have several parts or relate to earlier versions of the article).
• What happens next if the third opinion misses the point, needs clarification or is not accepted by one party.

Is it worth bashing something out and adding it to the main page or is it a bad idea?—Ash (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether on the main project page or as a subpage of it, it's an idea worth discussing here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, here's a draft talk subpage based on the above:

• /User_FAQ (draft, please contribute)—Ash (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This week's Signpost Discussion report says:

• " Build-your-own Signpost: Did any discussions happen this week? "

Anyone want to write a report on developing a WP:3O FAQ? — Athaenara ✉ 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work. This will be helpful towards resolving disputes in future. Although it may still need improvement before it's included in the main article. --Hm2k (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I move it to "Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ draft" with "Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ draft" for discussion during its development?

When it's ready to roll it could then be moved to "Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ" as a subpage to be linked on the project page. — Athaenara ✉ 07:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead with adding "draft" for reasons of clarity but keep the document in the talk namespace as recommended by current guidance for these sort of draft documents (this suggests that talk:Third opinion/User FAQ draft/talk* is the place for discussions on the suggested new draft name). I think it's not that far off from being reasonable to start using it for real. Any objections or a suggestion for an appropriate minimum time for comments on the draft?—Ash (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Ash fixed the link for Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ/talk* in the {{draft}} template.) — Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[now Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ* — Athaenara ✉ 21:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that protocol for drafts. That being the case, I now see no reason to move it; my motivation was to preserve the usual page:talkpage relationship. I think one week (flexible) is good without rushing anyone. — Athaenara ✉ 11:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Frequently asked questions" heading really needed, considering the overall article is an FAQ? I suggest removing this and sticking with the main headings. I would change it, but I wasn't sure if there was justification for it. --Hm2k (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Be bold, I suggest you go ahead and try reformatting. I have not found an existing guide for Wikipedia FAQ's so we can go with whatever seems to work best until someone points it out (with consideration for the good practices of MOS: of course). You might however feel than if this is formatted as a list of questions with responses then the guidance of WP:LIST could apply, in which case the introduction could say more about the justification for the list existing and define the criteria for inclusion.—Ash (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the FAQ now, it's very helpful. I see no reason not to make this official once the one week time frame is over. Good work. --Hm2k (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'm hoping there'll be some feedback from other active WP:3Oers (e.g. HelloAnnyong, Anaxial, RegentsPark, Jclemens?). — Athaenara ✉ 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I keep seeing messages pop up about this FAQ, but I haven't had a chance to really look at it; I've been too busy dealing with the fallout of two opinions I gave. But I happen to like the FAQ. It gets the point across without being too heavy handed. Personally it seems like a whole lot of writing for something that's supposed to be lightweight, but that's okay. I'm wondering if we should add in a clause that specifies whether you can ask for a 3O on someone's behavior. I don't think we should really allow for that sort of thing, but I could be wrong. I just added a line to the What happens next? section about looking to Wikiprojects for help. Feel free to move/edit/delete my addition if you think it's not right. But yeah, I can definitely support this FAQ. I'll take another look at it when I'm not so tired. Well done, all! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if Mediation Cabal is worth a mention for when 3O doesn't work and disputes escalate into heated debate. Not sure whether it's appropriate or where to add it, so just thought I'd suggest it for now. --Hm2k (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion not only as a next step but also as an alternative to 3O where the dispute is ongoing and active mediation (separate from the article talk page) may help. The precondition being that both parties agree to mediation. I think this should be added but I note that we should take care not to re-iterate the guidance of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if we can just link to it, so expanding the text of this FAQ should be, within reason, limited to addressing a typical 3O question directly about the 3O process.—Ash (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: abbreviate and trim rather than expand. WP:3O's greatest virtues are brevity, informality, and simplicity; the FAQ should have them as well. — Athaenara ✉ 12:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the FAQ to the main namespace after our agreed week in draft status (and a fair period of stability). This, of course, does not stop anyone from continuing to improve the FAQ or discuss it on the associated talk page. Thank you for your contributions.—Ash (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• [Discussion above moved here (diff) from WT:3O by Athaenara ✉ 07:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)]

Matters not subject to consensus not proper 3O requests

I have boldly added a bullet point to the What makes a successful third opinion request? section of the FAQ. For discussion of this change, please use the main talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion#FAQ_addition. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ addition

I have boldly added a bullet point to the What makes a successful third opinion request? section of the FAQ which reads:

• Subject to consensus: Copyright disputes, defamatory statements, and a few other serious matters are not subject to resolution through consensus and are not, therefore, proper subjects for a third opinion.

Whadda you thimk? —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I contend with the usage, in context, of the word "serious": Too dramatic. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I used "serious" because Wikipedia policy says <ahem> somewhere that no original research, copyright, NPOV, verifiability, and (by implication, at least) defamation are all not subject to consensus, but in practice NOR, NPOV, and VERIFY are settled by consensus all the time, except in the most egregious cases. By "serious" I was trying to fudge between the other bullet points at Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions, which almost never happen, while still allowing the possibility that 3O's can be okay on NOR, NPOV, and VERIFY. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as complete disclosure: I came up with this addition to the FAQ after doing this in regard to this dispute. Shoulda said that sooner, sorry. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps "Disputes that are not subject to resolution through consensus, such as copyright disputes, defamatory statements, and a few other serious matters, are not suitable subjects for a third opinion." or something along those lines. I'm ok with the serious (though it is unnecessary) but the 'therefore' in the original formulation is better avoided.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Section modified in accordance with RegentsPark's excellent suggestion. Any additional comments from anyone? —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Shimgray | talk | 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "may not be" is preferable to "are not" because it's not uncommon that one or both editors in a dispute just need a pointer to what applies, consensus or not. — Athaenara ✉ 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The FAQ, like this informal project, should be straightforward and simple rather than creating new complexities. If a dispute involves an issue which isn't subject to consensus, it will very likely be helpful if a WP:3O volunteer shows up and points that out. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But see the "No edit request" bullet point just above the "Subject to consensus" point we're discussing. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Historically (I've been a WP:3Oer for three years) the most common reason to remove a listing without a third opinion has been when it is a multi-editor dispute (often involving four or more). The reasoning for that is quite clear in the project page intro and the "How to list a dispute" section.

The FAQ was intended to help users who are unfamiliar with WP:3O. I don't like the impression I'm getting that intricacies in the FAQ are meant to be used as excuses to kick listings off the page for increasingly complex reasons. — Athaenara ✉ 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'may not be' is a better formulation because we are talking about subjective guidelines here (both as to what makes a good 3O as well as what is or is not subject to consensus). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have to get an <ahem> Third Opinion on this? <Grin> Seriously, let me suggest that we want the "Subject to consensus" point with "are not" for the same reason that the "No edit request" point is in the FAQ, i.e. to avoid mission creep. 3O must have parameters:

• to keep it from creeping over into the mission of the helpdesk and
• to distinguish it from a general solicitation of comments from additional users and
• to keep it within the gambit of Dispute Resolution.

When we just start giving help under the aegis of 3O, rather than trying to settle disputes, we're either stepping on the toes of the helpdesk's or RfC's mission; when we begin throwing out opinions about things that aren't subject to consensus, then we're stepping on the toes of other Dispute Resolution and violation-correction processes. Stating those parameters clearly and unambiguously — which "may not be" is not — doesn't do that, but I yield to consensus. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O doesn't try to settle disputes, it simply offers neutral opinions. Often, in part because of a self-selection process implicit in the listing guidelines, a neutral opinion is all that's needed for agreement to be reached. When it isn't, the disputants may proceed to other processes.

WP:3O isn't in competition with the help desk, RfC, or any other dispute resolution process. It fills its own niche. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm sort of concerned about having this much structure to 3O. Every situation is different, and I think we handle everything really well. I wouldn't want to turn away help to someone just because it doesn't fit some arbitrary rigid structure. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I too am uneasy about the structure. 3O is meant as a sort of sanity check and is not a consensus seeking mechanism. It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask "hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?". We don't want to turn people away before they even get to ask their question so some level of ambiguity in the FAQ is probably a good idea. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One of my custom userboxes says, "This user tries hard not to be a Wikilawyer, but sometimes struggles with it." Since consensus is not a vote and is not a contest, there can be no winners or losers. But I think I've lost this one, anyway, and the "Subject to consensus" bullet point ought to go, though I'll let someone else deliver the coup de grace. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further

Of the nine bullet points in the What makes a successful third opinion request? section of the FAQ, I've removed the following three:

• No edit request: This is not the place to request help with general formatting and copy editing issues, or editing tasks that have consensus. See the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the Tutorial, the Village Pump, or WP:HELP as appropriate.

• Subject to consensus: Disputes that are not subject to resolution through consensus, such as copyright disputes, defamatory statements, and a few other serious matters, are not suitable subjects for a third opinion.

• Not lame: If your dispute is whether eggs should be described as "ovoid" or "prolate ellipsoid" then this is not the process for you (though you are free to enjoy discussing the matter on the talk page, with consideration for the guidance of WP:TALK).

Copyediting questions and consensus exceptions may be addressed in third opinions. The "not lame" point is kind of amusing, but WP:3O has never suffered from an overabundance of such disputes and may certainly address them if and when they arise. — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the "objective" bullet-point? While I agree that requiring an objective opinion seems like a no-brainer, we should probably not discourage users from asking questions like "which photograph is aesthetically better?" if two users are just looking for a third 'aesthetic' opinion. Also, the language in the 'self-contained and descriptive section' needs tweaking (the 'is not attractive' phrase). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A "Description of the dispute" point could distill the best from what is now in four (Neutral, Keep it simple, Self contained and descriptive, Objective). — Athaenara ✉ 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Combined into a single point:

* Description of the dispute: the description should be neutral (if it is not, a WP:3O volunteer may re-word the listing for compliance). Keep it simple: few volunteers will want to take on a lengthy and complex request. Be clear: for example, "dispute on including Twitter feed links to live train timetable alerts in the External links section" is preferable to "dispute about South West Trains, see the talk page."

As three points:

* Description of the dispute: the description should be neutral (if it is not, a WP:3O volunteer may re-word the listing for compliance).
* Keep it simple: specify the main issue to be resolved. A lengthy or complex request is unlikely to to be resolved quickly, unlikely to be agreed between the parties and few volunteers will want to take it on.
* Be clear: for example, "dispute on including Twitter feed links to live train timetable alerts in the External links section" is preferable to "dispute about South West Trains, see the talk page."

Something along these lines? — Athaenara ✉ 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is perfect. I think this is much better because the remaining bullets (excepting the last one) address how to construct good 3O requests rather than addressing what is is or not allowed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (The single point version is preferable, IMO.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done thusly. — Athaenara ✉ 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't object to the rewrite, I think that it's worth noting that the notion that "copyediting questions and consensus exceptions may be addressed in third opinions" is correct only if they are the subject of a dispute. (Go back to the main 3O page and read the lede section and "How to list a dispute" section and notice that they only speak of disputes.) If they are the subject of a dispute, then I don't think that there's any question that they are a legitimate subject for an opinion. What's not proper for a 3O request is a request for help where there's no dispute involved, which is what the "No edit request" bullet point addressed. Having made that point, however, I think that the 3O page and process more or less automatically cull requests for help that aren't the subject of a dispute, and that the bullet point was useful only for that kind of user who skips over the main page and goes straight to the FAQ. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• [FAQ addition discussion above moved here from WT:3O (diff) by Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)]

Implied restriction in WP:3O User FAQ

One of the bullet points in Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ#What makes a successful third opinion request? currently says:

• No other active dispute resolution process: If there is a dispute resolution process (such as RFC) in progress for the article, even if a completely different issue, then it should be completed before requesting a third opinion.

Why "even if a completely different issue"? What's the point of telling people they can't ask for a third opinion on one issue while there's an active RfC on another? — Athaenara ✉ 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I would add that even the existence of an RfC should not necessarily preclude the request for a third opinion on the same matter. It's just another opinion after all.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you two. I'd recommend changing it to "If there is a dispute resolution process (such as RFC) in progress for the issue in question, then it should be completed"... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. I changed it to "If there is another dispute resolution process (such as RFC) in progress for the dispute, it should be completed before requesting a third opinion." Mildly Mad^T_C 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)