Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

User FAQ

• See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

Template request

Can the following decline options be added to the templates (or maybe just {{3ORshort}}):

• Your request for a third opinion has been declined because more than two editors are involved in this discussion.
• Your request for a third opinion has been declined because there has not yet been a discussion about the topic for which you are requesting a third opinion.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Since you're good with templates, is this something you'd be able to do? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to do whatever folks here want. Since I'm probably the least familiar of anyone what it ought to say, and it seems like it's in flux to an extent, maybe there should be a discussion among the regulars to work out what you all agree on, and as soon as that has stabilized we can implement it. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Providing 3Os - mentioning dispute in edit summary?

I was this many days old when I realized that the instructions for providing a 3O mention that when you remove it from the project page that your edit summary should name the dispute. I don't know that I've ever seen an editor say which dispute they were taking. Does that instruction still serve any meaningful purpose? Should we be chiding editors for taking disputes without saying which ones in the edit summary? DonIago (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Numbers remaining are useful but if someone wants to know which one is being taken it's obvious from the diff. Polyamorph (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph I agree. People can look at the diff. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've edited the instructions to remove that portion. DonIago (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for neutral other-editor notification template

 Courtesy link: Draft:3O-notice

I've just been going through the instructions for adding a 3O request for the first time afaicr, and I just added one. Now, I'm at the step for notifying the other editor about the conversation. I assumed I'd find a template, something like {{ANI-notice}}, {{Tfd notice}}, {{Proposed deletion notify}}, or {{DRN-notice}}, but no luck. It would make everybody's life easier if we had a template that would deal with it.

I don't see a noticeboard for 3O, so what should we point the other user to? They already know the way to the discussion that got deadlocked, so is it a new 3O discussion at the same page? Or just a continuation of the existing one? I've taken a shot at a proposed new template at Draft:3O-notice, but I'm not sure I understand the process or what it should say exactly, so please suggest improvements to it, or just update it directly. In the meantime, I need to notify the other user about the listing I posted at 3O. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the main reason no such template has existed is because if you're requesting a 3O then you should already be involved in a dispute at an article Talk page, so all that would be necessary is to say something to the effect of, "As we don't appear to be resolving this on our own, I've requested a third opinion.", which is usually what I see has been done when I review disputes. Making a template for it, and one that would involve the other editor's Talk page rather than the page where the dispute is occurring, seems to me like making more of the situation than it merits. DonIago (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The motivation for a template comes directly out of the WP:3O § Instructions section, which says:

"Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the other editor's Talk page."

Otherwise, I would not have bothered. I know that in the case of ANI, for example, there is a requirement to notify at the talk page and not merely via ping in the discussion, because apparently a user can turn off ping notifications and not see them. ANI covers rather more serious issues than 3O does, of course and whether 3O should follow that method or not is not for me to say, but apparently the instructions do call for that. Perhaps they shouldn't, in which case, there would be little need for a template. Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should just delete the green text. There's no reason to notify someone at their talk page since everything is done on article talk and most of the time 3O is mutually invoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 3O is typically done by mutual agreement, but I concur with your view that the green text should be deleted, or perhaps changed to something like, ""Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring." DonIago (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, and I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

DonIago (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, does the new wording go too far in the other direction? The new wording doesn't mention the other user, or a ping:

Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.

I assume by provide a notification, you mean, using the WP:NOTIFication system, i.e., pinging the other user, right? Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Be sure to note your request on the page where the dispute is occurring and ping the other involved editor"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I question whether pinging is really necessary? If you're in a one-on-one dispute, presumably the other editor is already paying attention to the Talk page in question. In such circumstances, pinging can be at best redundant and at worst come off as somewhat trolling behavior. DonIago (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there are times when a ping would be unhelpful, but I think it's good general practice. Given how infrequently I see the current guidance followed, I'm doubtful we'll see overpinging as a major issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• What about notifications for 3PO requests that are removed without giving an opinion? I have left a message on the requesting editor's TALK in that situation explaining why. Shouldn't that be standard practice? Nemov (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  More recently I've tended to respond on the page where the dispute was occurring to explain why I wasn't providing an opinion...though at times I'd also provide an opinion while making it clear that my opinion was as a generic editor, not as a 3O respondent, if that makes any sense. (e.g. "This didn't really belong at 3O as there's already more than two involved editors...that said, my opinion is...) DonIago (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I usually post a user talk page notice. It would help to have a template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think I have some canned text that I created for personal use when I've reached out directly to editors in the past regarding 3O declines. It never really occurred to me to create a template, partly because there are multiple reasons for declines and I'm not sure one is more prevalent than the others (too many editors already, not enough discussion has occurred, no evidence of dispute, etc.). I suppose there could be a template series, but maybe for this sort of thing a personal response is a better option? DonIago (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I also find myself going back to old replies. An example is:

  Hi USER, and thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I declined your recent request related to Talk:ARTICLE, as there has not yet been thorough discussion. Please engage the other involved editor at the talk page. If local consensus does not develop, and if no other editors get involved in the dispute, feel free to post again at WP:3O.

  In my experience, the most common decline reasons are too many editors already and not enough discussion yet. A template with standard intro language with a parameter for choosing one of those two reasons or entering something custom would cover us pretty well. It's not so onerous to copy and paste, so this is only worth pursuing if others would find it helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that would world. The one I declined there was no discussion at all. Nemov (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I requested this be added to the template above in December. Nobody fulfilled the request. If somebody with template chops could do it, that would be great. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, heh, I was surprised to see so many responses; this went off in an unexpected (to me) direction. If my question prompted some improvement to the instructions or process, then I am glad of it. Iiuc, this means the Draft template is a dead letter, and can be abandoned, as it is no longer the guidance to message the user at their UTP.

I'm a 3O newbie, but an experienced editor and template writer, so if this discussion finds a need for a template that would provide a decline reason (or an accept message, with what happens next) then I'm happy to create it/them. The reason I like templates is that it makes things faster and gives me some security of using approved messaging; i.e., it saves me a few moments of thinking or worrying about, for example, how to devise wording to decline gently and in a neutral manner and not have to worry about my wording, as the text has already been vetted at least by the local community. So, the template is kind of a security blanket and time-saver. I do a certain amount of warning users about potential vandalism with the escalating user warning message series {{uw-v1}} (and -v2, -v3, and-v4) and I'm very glad I don't have to think of wording each time I do. That said, sometimes I skip the canned message because I feel that some user in a particular situation needs a more customized message, and then I do that; the uw-v1 to uw-v4 templates are an option, not a requirement, and if one wished to have templates here, I imagine the same thing would apply. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

decline template

 Courtesy link: Draft:3O-decline

In response to various suggestions in the discussion above, I've created template Draft:3O-decline. It is testable at sandboxes and at Special:ExpandTemplates, but not yet ready for use as it is not fully tested, and is not subst-protected (i.e., do not subst for now). Here's an example:

Sample use of Draft:3O-decline

Note: because this is a draft template and not substed, the "I'm USERNAME" intro at the beginning keeps changing names to whatever user last edited this section. That won't happen with the substed version if the template is adopted and finalized. {{Draft:3O-decline|reason=editors|talk=Template talk:Protection table|addl=Yadda, yadda.}} ⟶ Your WP:3O request Hello, Third opinion, and thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I'm Alaexis, and I wanted to let you know that your recent request for a third opinion related to Template talk:Protection table has been declined, because there are more than two editors involved. Yadda, yadda. Please engage the other involved editors at the article talk page. If local consensus does not develop, and if no other editors get involved in the dispute, ; other avenues of dispute resolution are also open to you. Thank you! Another example: {{Draft:3O-decline|reason=discussion|addl=What discussion there was, was behaviorally focused, instead of about the content.|talk=Talk:Miss_Porter's School#User:Megadesk edit warring}} ⟶ Your WP:3O request Hello, Third opinion, and thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I'm Alaexis, and I wanted to let you know that your recent request for a third opinion related to Talk:Miss_Porter's School#User:Megadesk edit warring has been declined, because there has not been enough discussion. What discussion there was, was behaviorally focused, instead of about the content. Please engage the other involved editor at the article talk page. If local consensus does not develop, and if no other editors get involved in the dispute, feel free to post again at WP:3O; other avenues of dispute resolution are also open to you. Thank you!

Feel free to update it directly or request changes below or at its Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, if it's already been declined for too many editors, we don't want to invite them to post again, right? That invitation should be suppressed if the reason is too many editors, I think. What else should it say, in that case? Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The decline should be on the article talk page, not on the requester's talk page. 3Os aren't requested with user signatures, so we shouldn't be scouring through the page history to see who added the request to the 3O page. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm confused; is it the convention that the user who had a 3O request declined should be notified about it? If so, at a minimum, you would have to ping them from the article talk page, right, and then their name would be evident. Or is the idea not to mention their name after a decline? Should anything happen at all following a declined 3O request, other than just removing it from the active list? Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in the instructions: Your entry should contain the following: ... a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, when one places the request, it is spelled out. I'm wondering what happens when it is declined. That used to be clear until yesterday: leave a message on the user's talk page. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have gone with user talk page notices, since it's the requesting user that needs to know more about what they did wrong. I haven't found it difficult to find the requester's user name. Mathglot, I haven't checked out the template yet, but thank you for pulling a draft together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You beat me to it; I just noticed that the WP:3O § Feedback section, right under the Instructions, says:

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page.

so there definitely seems to be support for that approach. Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I kind of prefer the idea of the decline notice being placed on the page where the dispute is occurring:

• It gives the filing editor as well as other involved editors an explanation as to what happened.
• If appropriately worded it's instructive to everyone involved, not just the filing editor.
• It lets both currently involved and potential future editors know that yes, there was a 3O request. (a log of the request, if you will)
• I don't really think posting the decline to the Talk page runs the risk of 'embarrassing' the filing editor as long as it's reasonably worded.

On the contrary, if an editor notes on the Talk page that they intend to file a 3O request and there's no follow-up from a 3O editor, to me that just seems awkward and puts it in the hands of the filing editor, who may already be volatile due to being involved in the dispute, to explain what happened. DonIago (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a good reason, but why aren't requests followed by the editor's name? Nemov (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking why when someone requests a 3O they're not supposed to include their name? I presume that's an attempt to avoid biasing the respondent. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the reason, I can't imagine it makes a difference. Nemov (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's possible there would be something in the archives here about it, but I don't really care enough to look. DonIago (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion template

Since we're already talking about templates, I might as well add a note about Template:Third opinion, as I just had my first experience with it. I actually did not realize a template was involved—it was just the following text:

UserName wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

So, I added a neutral summary in one sentence. Turns out, what was wanted, was not a neutral summary, but argumentation in support of my view of things, but I didn't know that. If it were up to me, I would change the template and swap out the words "summarize the dispute" for something like, "summarize your position on the dispute" instead. Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I'm not sure whether the intention of the template is to ask the disputing editors to attempt to provide a general overview of the dispute, or whether the intention is for the editors to provide their perspective on the dispute. They're not quite the same question, as you noted. The documentation indicates it's to request a summary of the dispute though, not the perspectives of the editors. Interestingly enough, the creator of the template was blocked for sockpuppetry in 2009 and the template itself hasn't been edited since 2012, while the only other editor who seems to have been actively involved with the template was blocked for same in 2019. Given the nature of the template, I guess I'm not sure whether there's really a need for it. Editors who want to provide a 3O can surely ask for either objective or subjective perspectives on the dispute they're reviewing without needing to invoke a template? DonIago (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point of having a formal- or semiformal process at a project like 3O (or Afd, or Rfc, or you-name-it), and to me, it makes sense to have both requesters and responders know what to expect, and for repeat requesters to feel like they have some experience, and know what is going to happen this time. I believe templates are helpful for that, because it standardizes the terminology, and next time, the request is the same. If everyone wrote whatever they wanted each time, with some asking for neutral descriptions, others asking for argumentation, it feels like I'd lose my footing, or even respond the wrong way. So, I'm in favor of the templates—I just don't know what they should say. I'm good with either interpretation: a) provide a neutral description, b) provide your position, or indeed anything else. It's like if I'm going to join your pickleball game, since I have no idea what pickleball is, I just want someone to explain the rules so if I come back again next week, hopefully they will still be the same rules and I can join right in. If it gets explained differently each time I show up, that's kind of discouraging. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I support changing the wording of the template to summarize your position on the dispute. If I can't provide a 3O based on the discussion as-is, and require clarification, the clarification I'm usually looking for is a position on the dispute, since the dispute itself is usually clear. However, I disagree that there should be a formal or semiformal process. Editors should feel free to mediate disputes in ways that might not be reducible to a template. For example, in situations where multiple issues are disputed, it might be helpful to first get a neutral statement of what exactly is in dispute before getting views on those issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think there might be some benefit in asking editors to summarize the dispute in a neutral manner to the best of their abilities, as it ideally forces them to reconsider the situation and their position in it (even if it doesn't result in any change), and it may even be that seeing the first editor's 'objective' view on the dispute will empower the second editor to make a better effort to reach a resolution with them.

As a wildly bad example, if you think my concern is over your source being unreliable, but my concern is actually that the source you're using doesn't support the exact wording you're inserting into an article, then putting me in a position where I clearly articulate my concern can shift the entire scope of the discussion.

I also have reservations about becoming too reliant on templates with regard to 3O. 3O is by its very nature an informal process that may be more prone to being invoked by newer editors, and while canned responses can be good for things like Talk page warnings, which occur under different cirumstances, I feel that maybe when offering third opinions editors should be encouraged to apply a more personal touch to the mediation process and keep it organic. Put another way, maybe 3O shouldn't follow a consistent style each time, because disputes can be so wildly different in nature (never mind the temperament of the editors involved, etc.). DonIago (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How to proceed

I've responded to a third opinion request here [1] but I don't feel able to resolve it. How should I proceed at this point? Can I just relist it and let someone else provide the third opinion?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a tutorial or instructions page for future responders?

I'm thinking about monitoring several 3O discussion to see how they develop, with a view to perhaps becoming a 3O responder at some future point. Is there an instructions page or tutorial where I can read up on best practices for 3O responders? I'm thinking of something like the instructions for New Page Patrol reviewers, or the Articles for creation reviewing instructions. Anything like that exist here? It would be great to have a page summarizing the collective advice of regular 3O folks here distilled into a Project page about best practices in 3O, to encourage other editors who might want to volunteer to help out here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Other than the instructions provided on the main page, I don't believe there is such a thing. I understand how it might be helpful in theory, but in my experience, every dispute is so different that it would be difficult to provide advice that could reasonably be broadly applied, though perhaps more experienced 3O editors might feel differently.

That said, perhaps a 3O mentorship program, where interested 3O editors have the opportunity to observe disputes, might be useful, but by the same token, everyone can already see the disputes that get listed and nothing's stopping anyone from lurking on the discussions. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

General advice: Read up on policies and guidelines, and especially the gamut of dispute resolution pages (including essays). You can't know every guideline but get a feel for what's out there and what to search for when needed. Follow discussions at the Teahouse, here, RfCs, etc., look at the initial posts and think of how you'd resolve it, then see how other editors approached the issue. Keep in mind that 3O is non-binding so solutions at this level have to be agreeable to both parties. Sometimes that means talking editors through the guidelines and why they exist. Other times it means coming up with a third approach that neither of the initial parties considered. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not abiding by third opinion

Is it edit warring for a user in a 1v1 dispute to overturn and not abide by a provided third opinion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Read the big information box on the project page. Third opinions are not binding. Edit-warring is a matter of an editor persistently reverting to their preferred text and is independent of any offered opinions. Without more specifics, difficult to know whether this shoudld be handled as a content or conduct matter though. DonIago (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

UX feedback

Since the editors are supposed to remove active disagreements before providing a third opinion, there is no indication how many disagreements have been handled and to a casual observer the project could appear inactive. Possibly it would help to provide some statistics (e.g., X requests for 3O, Y requests answered in the last 365 days) on the project page. Alaexis_¿question? 06:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)