Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion/Archive 7

4309:

bunch of people at once. We have limits on the complexity of the dispute, just as I wouldn't want to ask someone on their talk page to wade into a complicated dispute and spend hours puzzling it out. We have rules about framing and accepting the dispute neutrally, which are analogous to rules on canvassing for requests on others' talk pages (it's not a perfect analogy, yeah I know, but the basics are still there). But we don't have any rules about asking others on their talk page for opinions on a user's conduct, so I don't really see why we should have a rule about that here. I would imagine that 3O is more conducive to content disputes than conduct disputes, which is what I thought the basis of that rule was before, and that's probably a reasonable basis for such a rule. But I'm not sure we shouldn't at least

393:. Let me hasten to tell you that the only one of the templates that I regularly use is the very first one, the opinion one, and even then I use the cut-and-paste code because trying to subst it frequently does not work if there's certain kinds of links (not sure which) in the body of the opinion. Using the second one, the removal notice, got me criticized here as being too unfriendly and abrupt, and I just didn't have enough occasion to use the other ones. I recommend the standards, paradox, and history essays to you FWIW. Feel free to use as much, if any, as you may like, but I'd ask that you copy the code to your own subpages rather than linking or subst'ing to mine (and my username may be hard coded into some of them, too, so watch out for that, too). Regards, 4547:. I believe there are existing venues for conduct disputes that are more likely to produce meaningful results. In some cases I could see the involvement of a well-intentioned 3O person nevertheless escalating a confrontation rather than reducing it. Additionally, whereas it's my understanding that the goal of becoming involved in a content dispute is to help form a consensus, in the case of a conduct dispute I find it far less likely that one additional editor chiming in, on either side of the dispute, will successfully defuse the situation. Lastly, while arguments can be made either way, I prefer that dispute resolution have discrete conduct versus content paths where possible. 1350:

at places like ArbCom, policy or guidelines. No one can be sanctioned for not following them. We enforce them through social pressure, just as I gave up removing listings for having more than two editors or for being uncivil after the 3O community jumped on my rear about it (quite properly, I now feel). I've successfully spoken to a few newcomers about it since then when they started displaying the same habits and looked like they were going to keep doing it. We don't need to change the standards because, if for no other reasons than because, first, this project has been quite successful as DR goes (see

3611:

simply a matter of asking them a question and letting them respond while telling them that their response will be posted to the appropriate discussion page. What we are asking for is simply an option to get an expert third opinion rather than just the third opinion of a pseudonymous internet user who may or may not know what they're talking about. This wouldn't be a matter of demanding qualifications or saying who qualifies as an expert or not (that would be left to the petitioner), rather a response would be requested and then evaluated on the basis of the dispute that's happening.

941:

upon a completely untenable argument (and, I suspect that's being driven by a heavy dose of bias by that editor on the subject matter.) Still, with that one exception, I have found that serving as a mediator works well for these requests. Regardless of what Wiki policy is on what should or should not be considered part of "consensus," the reality is that most editors tend to recognize that when you have two people on opposing sides, and a third party comes in and doesn't side with them, that's a pretty good reason for them to rethink their position (or, at least, give up.)

1444:. You may be handling, but you are not acting as 3O editor then. The mentality "we'll try, and when we fail, OK then" is something very wrong in dispute resolution: ongoing conduct dispute involved more and more stress for participants, so definitely time is a pressing factor. There is no room for filing another request and waiting until 3O editor desires to take this under these circumstances, specifically as the proposal involves making 3O a first required step. If it isn't known to be effective in most conduct disputes, it has nothing to deal with conduct disputes. — 1552:" is insane. The discussion on how to handle everything after the close of WQA has been all over the map. We don't even have a good outline of how resolving conduct disputes without enforcement should even work, or if it will work. WQA was closed because it was ineffective and possibly harmful, not because we wanted to create some process out of it. We would have had a plan in that event, which we clearly don't. So aside from the problem of radically changing one of DRs most successful fora, the entire idea of creating a potential merger is completely premature. 3566:

reveal their real identities to do so)? How do you get enough experts to opine on the varieties of topics that would be asked, and how do you keep them? Where do you keep the list? Who will maintain it? As Orangemike says on Jimbo's talk page, whom do you classify as an expert on a given field? Academics are quite often in opposition to each other. Which side do you choose? Do you choose both, and invite them both in? That would probably escalate the conflict, not resolve it. What are the qualifications you'd demand?

5236:

after the 3O, still in exactly the same position, outcome-wise, as they were before the 3O and the 3O is intended to only be advice, nothing more. Perhaps I'm more persnickity than is absolutely necessary, but if I see a dispute listed at 3O and want my opinion to "count" towards consensus, I make it clear at the article talk page that I'm not giving a 3O and am not removing the 3O listing, but am entering the discussion as just another editor (even though my entry into the discussion may give rise to the

31: 3708:

input an e-mail address ask the question and it is sent and saved to a wikipage. But I suppose you are right, I could just start out with the "poor man's" version of this system. I was just hoping that Knowledge (XXG) had one in place since someone at the Administrator's Noticeboard told me to get an expert third opinion and I thought that this would be a good idea. Do you think I should start the

1824:"Streamlining" to me entails redesigning a system with its efficiency in mind. Making people wait in a queue to be told they need to go somewhere else, even though this is where they had been sent, is not efficient. What I would call it is "blinkered downsizing". New editors in particular will feel frustrated and confused. More experienced editors will feel confused and frustrated. 337: 1898:

other editors have suggested such a split, and I have followed-up on their suggestions in some of my comments. My personal preference would be that we proceed as follows: (1) close WQA; (2) continue to use 3O as-is (conduct & content); (3) later on, way down the road, if some editors want to split 3O into two sub-processes, we cross that bridge when we come to it. --

1073:"Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages" would be clearer as "Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute." This would clarify 1) that the opinion needs to go in the right section and 2) that the opinion should follow the discussion (as opposed to appearing at the top, where the 5005:

seems to be watching the page. So I thought maybe you guys would just make a tiny exception to the rule and somebody would just offer an opinion. I guess I'll just sit on it for a bit longer and then maybe revert it once more in a few days. Thanks for the goodwill on the ArbCom thing, I really have no idea what my chances are, it's a pretty diverse field this year.

4720:

talk page where it does no real good and the other half the 3O'er who gives an opinion (or removes the listing) forgets to remove or deactivate the tag. While it does give some notice to the other disputants that a 3O has been requested, it doesn't even serve that purpose very well because of the few times it is used (or used properly). Best regards,

4821: 2030: 2761:

significant number of mentions of 3O there. It could be very confusing to rename 3O while that discussion is ongoing. I guess there is no harm in tossing around some candidate names, as long as it is understood that it is best to wait a couple of months to actually pull the trigger (presuming that there is consensus for a new name). --

2624:

wording limits the parties in a dispute to two is appropriate. A higher number of editors need to go for a more formal dispute resolution process. I fear that we'll see an increasing number of cases where the 3O opinion is rejected by the disputants and a resulting decrease in interest amongst the set of 3O providers. --

1649:

compared to other forums. If we were to shuttle people off to a board that concentrated on conduct just because there was some conduct element to a dispute (as there almost always is), we would be narrowing the scope of 3O, and losing valuable opportunities to resolve disputes by refocusing them on the content aspects.

4502:. We're here to solve problems, and conduct & content issues often overlap (or fuel one another). If we can help with conduct-related problems, and if somebody wants to bring a conduct problem to us, then sure - let's try it. If individual 3O editors don't feel comfortable taking a conduct problem, they're not 1883:

focus off of content and put it on conduct, an ultimately counterproductive thing to do. If anything, we should discard the entire idea of content vs conduct disputes, and replace it with an overarching directive that all dispute resolution should focus on content as much as possible, rather than conduct.

1694:

it would be reasonably possible to have a content but not conduct dispute. Maybe it's a hopeless ideal, maybe not, but my point is that they're not, IMO, inextricably linked. That being said, I'll be the first to acknowledge that this may not be pertinent to the larger issues being discussed presently.

5220:

Hello. I read the page and seriously, I am dumbfounded: How could you possibly get "not consensus" out of those? (Not binding = not consensus?) I feel a group of people at some point in time exhibited certain behavior that made you write that but I do not know what was it. (Harassing the 3O volunteer

4607:

I fully concur with that reservation and did not mean to suggest otherwise. We should not reject listings because there are conduct issues which are incidental to the conduct issue which is the focus of a request. To say it in a different way, the third paragraph of the lede as it exists right now is

4308:

Like I said, for me the question is a non-issue, really. As long as we have no actual authority in conduct disputes (and we don't, just like we don't in content disputes), I don't really see why we shouldn't. I see 3O as equivalent to asking on a random person's talk page for an opinion, but asking a

4082:

handle "pure" conduct disputes (a position to which I was opposed, but "lost"). I'm not finding anything in the more recent discussion which would indicate a new consensus changing that position. I find some agreement for not having the closing notes on WQA not point here, but nothing more. What am I

3336:

may take on some of WQA's former duties. That could change the nature & character of 3O. For example: a special sub-process may be created to handle behavior-only disputes (I'm not endorsing that: I'm simply mentioning it as a possibility). That could be a pretty big change to 3O which could

1897:

I agree with you. I have no objection to leaving 3O as a single, organic forum, rather than splitting it into content & conduct sub-processes. Many, perhaps most, issues in WP are a mixture of conduct & content issues. A lightweight process like 3O doesn't need to split hairs. Of course,

1765:

Sending all behavior issues directly to ANI has been vociferously objected to by many, for the obvious reasons. The reason I support sending behavior disputes to 3O is that it is the right thing to do in light of the DR streamlining effort that is underway: User S. Zhang is trying to improve the DR

1425:

As I pointed out elsewhere, 3O already handles simple disputes that involve conduct. Sometimes people just need a neutral third party coming in to tell them they are out of line, since they've completely shut out anything the person they are in a dispute with says. If that doesn't help, then that's

1376:

So your position is that our documentation shouldn't reflect our practice, and we should let newcomers trying to help out fall into the trap of believing what our documentation says, when we really mean something else entirely? We aren't talking about changing the standards really here, we are just

650:

get the scenario where, with the 3O, it's 2 against one and then 2 more editors chime in on the same side the 3O was on. 3 against 1 generally will not be regarded as consensus, but 4 against 1 often will be (presuming, of course, that both sides have some degree of merit to their arguments). In that

483:

Actually this project can give 3O's on just about anything. Since 3O's are not binding, and do not even contribute to consensus, they're just evaluation and advice. Moonriddengirl has been known to give a 3O or two, so perhaps she'll give one here (and I'll drop her a note, in case she's not watching

5087:

Hello, Beeblebrox. I must say I share your concerns. Generally speaking, it seems it is very easy to for a more established editor to simply stonewall a recently joined editor, preventing him from both achieving any consensus and having any luck with any form of dispute resolution. Bureaucracy seems

5004:

Thing is, I've reverted them twice. Although it has been well over 24 hours since the first time I make it a personal policy never to revert more than twice without some discussion in between to establish a consensus. I can't get them to even explain why they prefer the other version and nobody else

4340:

I agree that it may not make much difference, except for the issue of whether or not people will be subject to criticism for removing conduct-only listings. Even then, it may not make much difference since some folks have expressed the opinion that listings ought not to be removed even if they don't

4287:

But there was no update stating specifically that conduct disputes are now allowed in the instructions, so few people realised that the change had occurred. That many editors still believe that 3O is restricted to content disputes is testament to that fact. And the current instructions still exclude

3726:

Nah, I wouldn't. Unless the people you're emailing already have Knowledge (XXG) accounts (with email enabled), there's no way to email them through the MediaWiki software, and even if they did, there's no way to make it public. So, it would require developer resources to make, and they wouldn't be

3644:

I think you are proposing more to this idea than I have in mind. I don't want a binding arbitration mediated by an expert. I just want the ability to ask a third party who is an acknowledged expert through Knowledge (XXG). Since the internet allows us this access, it should be pretty low overhead to

3487:

That doesn't make any sense. Why do we need it to be proof-of-credentials or with anonymity? Could we not just set up a system where we ask people who are acknowledged experts in the field? The internet provides us with such capability, after all. All I'm asking for is the ability to write an e-mail

2970:

I'm not arguing that this wording carries this connotation under all circumstances; in my opinion it does so out of context. Also note, that this question is not about content, but about a name of the process many Wikipedians already know and use. The particular name "Third opinion" (or "3O") is not

2122:

That's pretty much what our policy on incivility says. "...be understanding and non-retaliatory", "make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue", "Consider ... ignoring isolated examples". The last thing we should do is provide editors with easy forums to retaliate against

1840:

I think my predomninant concern is that we'll see a massive traffic increase here without necessarily a corresponding increase in support, and that for editors who feel comfortable addressing one type of dispute but not the other, or who aren't in a position to monitor a heavily-trafficed board, the

1774:

creating yet another DR forum. Also; a significant portion of behavior disputes that get sent to 3O may find successful resolution because (a) it turns out that there is an underlying content dispute; or (b) a party may not be aware of a certain WP policy; or (c) the "wrong" party may give up after

1354:

in which 3O had a higher "happy outcome" result than any other formal DR process except RFC; while 25% doesn't seem all that great, you've got to remember that the "loser" is never going to be happy with the result) and, second, if we do then there's even less difference between this and DRN (though

1349:

I think it works fine as it is, with the understanding developed on this talk page long ago (at least long ago in Wiki-years, which are similar to dog-years) that we're not going to be real tight about enforcing the standards. Rules set up in projects such as this are not, with only a few exceptions

5169:

is considered a consensus but not 3O, when both are dependent on seeking external input? Most important of all, we all know what is the meaning of consensus. There can be a consensus when there is no 3O and there can also be no consensus in presence of hundreds of participants. Seems to me a 3O can

4331:

I agree that text has been added, and that's why I asked the question that I did at 20:01 yesterday: In short, was there an express consensus for it? I kinda don't think that there was, and I was surprised that it was added without objection. Perhaps the addition arguably was, or is now at least, a

2890:

I see no reason to do so. Actually, the implication of equality of "third opinion" has some value, which is completely lost with proposed wording. Same goes for implication of small disputes. Also note, the number of opinions doesn't necessarily equal to the number of participants; in most cases we

2779:

Yeah, but in most instances, the editor commenting via this process will share one of those two opinions (more or less), not introduce a new one. So "third opinion" makes sense only if the intended connotation is "third person's opinion" (which doesn't apply if more than two people are involved in

1693:

It seems to me that the only reason those are also conduct disputes is because the involved editors decided to make them so (i.e. nobody forced anyone to throw around charges of article ownership). I would think that if you had editors addressing each other respectfully and assuming good faith that

438:

Ths is just my personal perspective, but I don't really like the idea of using templates in my own 3Os; it seems to me that the primary advantage of 3Os is its unstructured, informal nature (that's certainly what I like most about it), and it seems to me that a response template detracts from that.

4673:

Agree with TransporterMan. Conduct only disputes are better resolved with many sets of eyes rather than just one, albeit independent, set. Content disputes where conduct is also an issue are fine though because, often, solving the underlying content dispute addresses (or makes moot) the underlying

4158:

For the first time I heard that 3O handles conduct disputes at least somehow in discussion about WQA closure, and it sounded rather strange, as within my year of service here I saw several requests declined per lack of content dispute and no conduct dispute actually resolved. Thus in my assessment

2864:

I like "outside opinion". It's accurate. It's neither too bureaucratic nor too idiomatic. It's compatible enough with the old name, so people would understand if you said "third opinion" and you meant "outside opinion" or vice versa. I think it's the best possible name. But third opinion isn't too

2741:

That's what I thought initially - and I'd support such a change - because "third" opinion is somewhat now inaccurate - it's possible for there to be three or more different opinions on a article talk page. I understand that this project has been called third opinion for some time, and there may be

2643:

per regentspark. There's a difference between, on the one hand, responders having the leeway to use their judgement in picking up cases with more than two parties and, on the other, advertising 3O as a service that can do things it actually can't do very effectively. It's only likely to lead to an

2475:

was a draft I made, but at this point we've made other changes to the main page, so consider it as a potential model rather than exact verbiage. To be clear, I don't want to change the nature of 3O in any serious way with this, I just want our documentation to more correctly convey that we aren't

1971:

Yeah, I think it's VERY rare that you'd have a pure conduct issue without any kind of content attached to it. Conduct comes up in the heat of battle over content. If someone were to offer a third opinion suggesting that someone stop engaging in personal attacks, I think that would often be just as

1952:

Reply regarding all the above. Noleander, yep, on that account I'm currently a WMF employee, but this primarily gives me technical, design and research support, making it a lot easier. I proposed the sanity checks idea because I never thought 3O would take on that role. This approach means we'd be

1742:

I'm sure 3O responders will, within reason, do what is best to help resolve anything that comes their way. However, 3O is not much use as a process where conduct is the issue. It can say "yes I agree that using the word cocksucker is uncivil", it can signpost to a more appropriate venue or, if the

1392:

I would note that there is another aspect that is worth consideration: in content dispute resolution we deal mostly with issues when both editors believe that their causes are righteous and their actions are in line with policies, guidelines or at least essays (though occasionally, particularly in

1237:

I don't think we need to expand very much. I would say we should put less emphasis on the "only two editors" in the instructions, since we often do accept disputes that tangentially involve a third (or more) editor. Instead of having the instructions focus on the count of participants, it should

5235:

Nope, it was just pure analysis attendant to discussion here on the 3O talk page. Remember that 3O's are only supposed to have two disputants involved. The "not binding / not consensus" rule prevents the 3O from being argued to be a tiebreaker and creating consensus. The two disputants are to be,

5140:

For the record I take the involved admin policy pretty seriously and would never block someone I was in a content dispute with even if I thought I could get away with it. I have even been known to undo blocks made in violation of it and have blocked other admins who do not respect once or twice.

4939:

having a dispute. It is probably too minor for a full blown RFC, but I, on't want to just slo-mo edit war with them as that is just mot the way we do things here. I was hoping a third opinion could help to establish some sort of consensus, but instead it was just rejected. I had not realized this

4719:

tag conveys more benefit than trouble? Despite the tag's admonitions against it, we still get people trying to request a listing by merely tagging the article or the article talk page without listing the dispute here. When it is used with a listing here, half the time it's stuck at the top of the

4564:. I believe that the best way to resolve conduct disputes is to resolve the underlying content dispute; allowing conduct disputes here weakens our ability to do that, as Dmitrij said above. If we're going to have conduct 3O's, a separate project ought to be put together for that purpose. Regards, 4107:

years ago, which was before my time. First I've heard of it, to be honest. If that's the consensus, then that's the consensus, so I guess we should leave it as is. I don't particularly have a problem with conduct disputes going down here, but an editor had objected to Czarkoff's removal of a pure

2143:

the discussion at Village Pump reaches a consensus to delete WQA (so far, it looks like it will ... but you never know). I agree with you that 3O already includes conduct issues, so that "expanding" 3O is not an accurate phrasing (I've changed that word in my original comment above). Would you

1882:

Once someone considers a dispute conduct-related, the chances of it ever being resolved non-administratively go down to nearly nil. 3O encourages people to focus on content, not conduct. Giving people a 3O "peer" for "conduct disputes" will funnel off some of the disputes from here and take the

1648:

My point is that there is really not a such thing as a "content dispute" that doesn't involve some disputed conduct (if such a thing exists, it's rare). Here we try to get people to focus on the content and not the conduct, and that's a good thing, and part of the reason that we are so successful

940:

Yea, I tend to try to act as a mediator, simply because it tends to make sense for most of the 3O requests I've dealt with. However, I am dealing with one now where I have felt forced to begin acting more as an advocate than a moderator, in that one of the editors is pushing for an addition based

861:

answers the third opinion request. Everyone has their own take on something, other people might look back at the third opinion given and disagree with the decision made. A third opinion, for me, is just a way to get an outside opinion on the matter, and yes, I agree that sometimes when that third

811:

Well, it just seems weird to me that that should be true. I had always understood that the whole idea of 3O was to just get another editor to look at a problem, no more, no less. 3O responders aren't mediators, tiebreakers, or anything else; they're just normal Wikipedians who, being uninvolved,

172:

the champion 3O requester, having made about thirty 3O requests if I read your contrib log correctly and since no 3O'er is supposed to give a 3O to the same person twice, it's not surprising that you've just about used up the pool of experienced Third Opinion Wikipedians. Under the circumstances,

4174:

and above on this talk page) neither give impression of accepting pure conduct disputes; furthermore, the most common argument in support for conduct disputes is the assumption that these two are closely related, which seats well with current 3O wording about focusing on content element in mixed

3707:

If it were done through the wiki software, then one could guarantee it actually came from the e-mail address in question. Otherwise, you just have to believe me that I'm not making it up. Since the software already exists, I think it would be much more straightforward to develop a form where you

3565:

Yes, but if they're not volunteers, how do you get them to respond? Why should they care? If they're not already invested in the project, how can we expect them to deal with the trolling, harassment, and general abuse that will undoubtedly follow their efforts (especially since they will have to

2307:

I think it works well, I made a few tweaks though. In regards to the to-do list, I think we should just put a write-up on the WQA page detailing its closure, point them to WP:DR, rewrite WP:DR to offer more guidance so people can resolve more of their own problems, and remove WQA from all the DR

2215:

True, but focusing on 3O's text: if several veteran editors are confused about the charter of 3O, we really should add some clarifying text near the top of 3O. It could be something like "3O accepts all issues, whether content-related or conduct-related or both". Or "3O is primarily aimed at

1458:

A content dispute is a conduct dispute. Always. If one editor didn't disagree with some aspect of the other editors conduct, then there would not be a dispute. This idea that there are "conduct disputes" and "content disputes" that exist as two distinct entities is completely contrived. I've

756:

Exactly. No matter how you comment, or from what forum or from whatever official matter you are commenting on, participation in this Knowledge (XXG) project/exercise is an exercise in creating consensus. There are issues where only 2 people are participating in an issue. It would be unfair to

5093:

In the meantime, however, I am surprised why you have such a concern. After all, you are an admin and you have the power to block non-cooperative parties for non-cooperation. Apart from the fact that it would be a legitimate block, I don't see how it would have made any difference if it was not

3610:

We can't compel anyone to respond, but I have e-mailed experts in various subjects for years now and most of the time I get some sort of response. I'm surprised that you don't think that this would happen. The point is that these experts have already revealed their e-mail addresses online, it's

355:

is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not

318:

I realised that there are elements in 3O's that I repeat that I wanted to expedite, and thus have made a boilerplate style text insert template to make things easier. It's by no means fantastic, but addresses key points I personally want to convey to people I help out with 3O's and feel perhaps

2623:

I don't think this is a good idea. To the extent that WP:3O works, it does so because the likelihood that an informal opinion will be accepted by the parties in a dispute is higher when only two editors are involved and decreases as the number of editors increases. The current system where the

2234:

Something more like your latter suggestion. Maybe something like: "Third opinion is content-focused; disputes should be framed in terms of content, even if the conduct of an editor is in dispute as well. Those offering third opinions will primarily focus on content, but may comment on editor

1576:

The "one thing" that 3O does well is handle small, uncomplicated, disputes. It has never made a distinction between conduct and content disputes, and we do accept disputes that have elements of both (though we would most likely reject a pure conduct dispute unrelated to any content). The few

4454:(if they require administrator's action), or should not go anywhere, as the outcome can't be enforced. If a lightweight unenforceable process for resolving conduct disputes is needed, it should be a separate process, so that people who don't want to deal with such requests won't be scared off 2760:

I have no objection to renaming it, although "third opinion" still makes some sense since 99% of the time there are 2 opinions being brought to 3O. In any case, it would be best to wait a month or two until the WQA issue is resolved. The WQA discussion is still rather active, and there is a

1878:

A false dichotomy is being presented here. You are saying "either 3O has to take over for WQA or we need to create a new board". Those aren't our choices. We can keep 3O pretty much the same as it's always been, and not create a new board. One of the fundamental problems with our dispute

258:

I don't know how thoroughly I've been check up on re: my previous 3O requests, but it should be clear that I can take "no" for an answer and have thanked those 3O helpers too. 3O is English WP's most helpful tool by far. In this case, Shii could have replied that Andejons is right, the modern

1241:

Sometimes we have 3Os that expire untaken because two editors have 35 different points of dispute regarding the nature of protozoan reproduction and its political implications. Whether it's only two editors or not doesn't really speak to whether it's a dispute appropriate to 3O or not. The

4523:

This is OK in theory, but in practice I envision the situation when I provide an opinion about a content dispute, and will be eventually blamed for not commenting on conduct element of the dispute. The very possibility of this situation will bar me from volunteering at 3O; sure, it's not a

2663:

Upon further consideration, I find RegentsPark's and FormerIP's arguments compelling. It's one thing to make an occasional exception when the circumstances dictate, but I'm inclined to agree that advertising the process in this manner obfuscates its intended application and the value

3467:

Generally speaking, no. There's no established way on Knowledge (XXG) to prove whether people have authentic academic credentials without giving up their anonymity, so such a place would be near impossible to administer. You can try posting to a related Wikiproject, such as perhaps

2190:

My understanding is that 3O allows conduct disputes, but it's not part of the conduct dispute resolution process in the same way that WQA and RfC/U are. Editors aren't directed to 3O for conduct disputes, but conduct-related requests, if they are posted, are not rejected. The text on

1855:

That is a valid concern. I think several editors have suggested dividing 3O into two sub-processes: content vs behavior (comparable to the way RFCU is separate from RFC). In my mind, that decision comes later, after it is agreed to use 3O to take over the WQA role. Also, user

1667:(Worse, and more embarrassing for me, is the fact that though I was opposed to the change which allowed them, I was the one who started the discussion about it and had subsequently totally forgotten about that discussion.) The consensus discussion for allowing conduct disputes is at 4010:(od) No. There are too many issues with the term expert. Even in the relatively well structured sciences you can have a multiplicity of opinions from experts and the choice of expert will determine the answer you get. Better to go to established secondary sources for information. -- 3521:

The idea is not to put what they say into the article. We don't want them writing the article. We just want them to offer an opinion on a dispute. They need to have enough expertise to understand the relevant field and be able to make a judgment about who is right and who is wrong.

2512:, this change needs to be advertised to a larger audience. Simplicity is actually the arbitrary criterion that you propose to be used as the criterion for listing here. 2 editors is a minimum threshold to have a dispute so it is logical whereas your implementation is not logical. 1302:

I think 3O already has quite a strong brand. We don't necessarily have to change it; we just have to be a bit more pragmatic about enforcing the 3 bit. I believe there's already some variation in how strictly 3O people enforce it (I've seen a dispute where there were basically two

2144:

agree that several DR guidance pages should be changed if WQA were deleted? Specifically, would you agree that the 3O page should more explicitly state that conduct issues are within its scope (based on the fact that several editors have expressed confusion on that issue)? --

1473:

I don't see how that's true. Two editors could be perfectly reasonable individuals with no conduct issues who are interpreting a policy differently, leading to a content dispute but not a conduct dispute. Heck, it would be nice if every content dispute had no conduct issues.

812:

bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. Beyond the assumption of uninvolvement, we are the same as any other Wikipedian, and I don't understand why we wouldn't have the rights and responsibilities of such. Indeed, at first glance, I would've thought that every means of DR

2692:

Sure there is. If no one is willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole and it expires off the list, it was probably not a simple dispute. That's one of the great things about 3O, our non-messageboard format makes it easier to avoid being dragged into inappropriate disputes.

356:

thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page! <your response: -->

1279:

Looks good. Call me adventurous, but maybe we should rename Third opinion to something else, like Outside Opinion? (if the emphasis on a fixed number goe, which it should - (3O works well for small disputes, bigger stuff boot to DRN) then a nanechange would be in order :)

286:

in a way it was not supposed to be used. You just chose the wrong tool for the job. Your problem is the long standing conflict with two editors and the inability of all three of you to move towards a consensus. (I won't even try to judge on whose fault it is.) That said,

4955:

Well, this is how I see it: what good does a third person do in this situation? We can't force the other guy to come to the table or agree with the consensus, 2vs1 is a pretty weak measure of consensus, and third opinions are supposed to "not count" for consensus anyway

173:

you're bound to get one every now and then that you don't like. Since no one has to qualify to be a 3O'er, or even put their name on a list, there's really no one to complain to. Since there was no resolution, for additional DR help, consider making a request at the

606:

Yes, these opinions are non-binding. It's not as if we decide that 'it's 2 against 1, therefore there's consensus'. In any case, I took this case and commented on the page, but welcome Moonriddengirl's input (or whomever) if my suggestion doesn't fly w/ the parties

788:, but each of us pays our money and takes our choice. Incidentally, 3O is the only form of DR which has this "nonbinding" element in its guidelines; the opinions and positions of those who work at DRN, MedCab, and MedCom do "count" towards consensus. Best regards, 741:

Bogus rationale: 3O will get noted by other editors as unbiased opinion and thus will influence their decisions and the development of the discussion. 3O editors can use this factor to influence the result anyway, so there still is motivation for biased opinion. —

718:@Writ Keeper: In my opinion, it supports the neutrality of the opinion-giver and makes the opinion more persuasive. By coming from a neutral editor and not counting, the opinion-giver has no stake in the outcome and has no reason to give a biased opinion. Regards, 4508:(Some seem concerned that RfC/U is futile and has become an irksome formality before they're allowed to follow some other process which might actually be effective; meanwhile AN/I is a hybrid of courtroom, legislature, police station, and bar-brawl; and so on). 1426:

it for 3O, we can't do much more about conduct. But it does help sometimes, and that's what 3O is all about, cleaning out the "low hanging fruit" of disputes that don't need anything more than a fresh voice that doesn't have a vested interest in the dispute.

862:

person "rules" in favor of one person, that person will use that against the other person. For that reason, oftentimes after I provide a third opinion, I stay and work with the parties to resolve the dispute. My inner mediator always comes out of me. Regards,

2932:

Note, that "opinion" here is not on content, but on dispute. This is exactly the goal of 3O — to help resolving content dispute by focusing on applicable policies and guidelines, MOS, or whatever is important there. In other words, 3O editor gives opinion on

2258:

Some disputes may involve both a content issue as well as issues about the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor also at issue. For disputes that are

2494:- The 2-editor limit is a bit arbitrary. Agree that the documentation should updated to permit more flexibility. The essence of 3O is that it is simple, fast, and takes place on the article talk page: the number of involved editors is not critical. - 5094:

legitimate. Blocked people nowadays are a common sight in Knowledge (XXG); all of them appeal for unblock and all the appeals are usually denied. From where I am standing, admins have wide latitude to exercise their administrative judgment. Best regards,

3289:

Note that many prominent Knowledge (XXG) processes (including most of the deletion fora) have been renamed. I don't recall any major problems arising. The old names are retained as redirects, so nothing is broken and no one ends up in the wrong place.

1841:

combined weight will prove discouraging. Personally, I'd prefer a clean separation...Content Issues to the White Zone, Conduct Issues to the Yellow Zone...but...well...if this is the way people think it should go, I hope it doesn't blow up in our faces.

3691:

Well...if that's really all you're asking for, you already have that. What's stopping you from doing that now? I mean, if you want an official process, that can't be done, but if you just want to post an email from an expert, then what's stopping you?

2088:

the scope of 3O, since 3O already includes disputes with conduct elements. Getting editors to focus on content rather than conduct should be our goal, and giving them the option to focus a dispute on conduct rather than content is counterproductive.

1577:

editors who are trying to frame the discussion as an "expansion" of 3O have either misunderstood the current practice of 3O, or are eager to frame the discussion that way in order to push for the "sanity check" proposal. To be absolutely clear here,

3119: 3735:

first, which I'd guess is the place to get consensus. I strongly doubt you'll get anywhere with it, but you're certainly welcome to try (I am very far from infallible on such matters). Things can then proceed from there if a consensus develops.

4587:, but only partially. 3O should not reject content disputes that also involve problems with conduct. But conduct disputes that are purely conduct disputes are better off handled at ANI, or a separate project as per TransporterMan and Czarkoff.-- 3410:

I added a space before the signature in Template:3OR and completely revamped Template:3ORshort to actually make it short, and to make it autosign the way 3OR does. 3ORshort was actually way longer than the other one, the way it was before.

3351:

That's a good point. As you stated above, there's no harm in discussing possibilities, but I agree that a decision shouldn't be made until the outcome of that discussion (and its impact on the scope and format of this process) is known.

2107:

by telling editors "don't worry about how incivil they were, focus on the content", if that's what you're suggesting. Editors who exercise incivility should be called on it, lest they're led to believe that their behavior is acceptable.

637:

If you'll look at the history page I linked, in its earliest incarnation 3O's were tiebreakers and were, at least in theory, binding (see the very first section on the very first archived talk page for a discussion, too) and, indeed, it

3891:

is an expert winemaker. He knows things about his art that you can't find in published sources. He is personally a reliable source, since he is an acknowledged expert in his field. But he doesn't publish. If he tells me something about

1789:

This doesn't feel like streamlining, it feels like trainwrecking. If ANI really needs a reception desk for civility issues, then that just means that WQA is useful. If it's got rid of, there's no good reason to make that 3O's problem.

1106:

tag in the relevant section of the article's talk page. Be sure to remove this tag (but do not remove tags in other sections unrelated to the dispute for which you have offered an opionion)." This would clarify that only the relevant

2123:

minor incivility and turn the focus of a content dispute toward conduct. That's why I think WQA can go away with nothing replacing it. If cases are particularly egregious, all the standard options of ANI, RFC/U, etc, still exist.

1635: 1393:

RfCs, we may deal with POV pushing); in conduct dispute resolution either there is no conduct issue or the offender is well aware of his misconduct (eg. it's difficult to perform a personal attack without understanding that it

2928:

Name "third" places editor coming via 3O process to the same category as other editors in discussion — no special powers, no decisive supervote, etc. "Outside opinion", on contrary, separates 3O editor, making him an auditor,

2960:

I wouldn't describe the current name as "broken", but that doesn't mean that it can't/shouldn't be improved. (Imagine how many improvements to the encyclopedia would be prevented if only "broken" articles could be edited.)

4984:. An RFC can work, too, but all regular DR forums — 3O, DRN, and MedCom — fairly strictly require discussion first (and have done so for some considerable period of time). Good luck on your ArbCom bid, by the way. Regards, 167:

the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "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?'." You are

783:

True, no one in this weary world is ever wholly free of bias and, true, the purpose of 3O is to encourage consensus. All we can do is to get as close as we can to neutrality. For myself, I've tried to further that by my

3145:

simply to make it "longer". It's perfectly reasonable for you to express disagreement/opposition, but I don't see why your self-described sarcasm is warranted (and I'm particularly surprised to encounter such mockery

4175:

disputes. Overall, I see no discussion supporting the instruction to file pure conduct disputes to 3O anyway, and I see no responses to this thread defending it, so I'll just replace it with an instruction to go to

4058:

is a means to request an outside opinion in a content dispute between two editors." I don't think we need to be more restrictive than that, to be honest, but saying it a littl ebit more explicitly might be helpful.

699:

My 2¢: the 3O is only appropriate when both involved editors are not sure about the right answer. As I see it, the request for 3O should be mainly motivated by the will of both editors to get persuaded; thus, 3O

3007:

As I noted below, many prominent Knowledge (XXG) processes (including most of the deletion fora) have been renamed. The old names are retained as redirects, so nothing is broken and no one ends up in the wrong

2572:- This seems like a very useful suggestion, and there has been no objection the the last couple of days, so I went ahead and implemented it. Feel free to revert or tweak the wording if you have any concerns. -- 1017:, and if necessary, report it to the necessary forums (such as, the edit warring noticeboard, requesting for full protection, or the administrators' noticeboard) whilst dealing with the content issues. Regards, 2783:

I guess there is no harm in tossing around some candidate names, as long as it is understood that it is best to wait a couple of months to actually pull the trigger (presuming that there is consensus for a new

2471:, since we do sometimes accept simple disputes that involve a slightly larger number of editors. I'd like to put emphasis on "simple disputes" rather than the numerical number of participants in the dispute. 4159:

the consensus is that 3O handles only content disputes (conduct disputes with content dispute element are accepted, but dealt with as content disputes anyway). This is consistent with the most part of current

2605:

seems like this process would work fine for even 4 or 5 people, so long as people knew what they were trying to achieve with an outside opinion (not a tiebreaker so much as a voice of reason / best practice).

1720:

RfC/U for conduct disputes (not always in that order). Making 3O "officially" part of the conduct dispute resolution process means that 3O will receive more conduct related disputes than it did previously.--

4960:

not sure how that makes sense but whatevs), so at the end of the day, nothing changes, and the slow-mo edit war continues, because if the other guy refuses to even participate, 3O is utterly toothless. :/

4787:

If we got a bot to make the tag work as some people expect it to, that would be fine. We'd have to make it transclude only instead of subst, and clean up the current things that transclude it improperly.

2466:

This got kind of bogged down and tangled up in the discussion regarding WQA, but really it's a separate issue. I'd like to de-emphasize the "two editors" limitation of 3O in our documentation here and at

1038:

PERSIAN GULF is a historical name.no one is going to change it.please do not change the history. PERSIAN GULF is never a-r-a-b gulf.please correct this big mistake in the Arabic translation. best regards

2235:

conduct as well. For disputes that involve the conduct of an editor over a wide range of content, or conduct disputes not related to content, other forums may be more appropriate. (link to RFC/U, ANI)"

1808:) is overwhelming. New editors especially must feel frustrated & confused. The proposal would eliminate one of the dozens of processes that editors have to deal with. Is that not streamlining? -- 3159:

You missed the point: this six characters addition doesn't change the meaning of the title, so it just make the title longer. And the unnecessary characters are not wanted regardless of their number. —

1397:

personal attack), so there is no sense in giving opinion or persuading, specifically over the network (as oppose to eye-to-eye conversation). Thus the essential element of conduct dispute resolution is

4980:. Once you've clearly made a request to discuss, if the other editor continues to revert then report them to ANI for disruptive editing. The secret is not to EW or 3RR first so you have to worry about 955:

So, I guess it's pretty clear that we're all ignoring the rules in our own ways? I know I end up being a so-called "mediator" more often than not. I guess that is one of the things I like about 3O.

4341:

meet the listing criteria. That's one of the reasons the "staleness" language is there: it's a bright-line test for removing listings without reference to any of the other criteria. Best regards,

3084:. It's similar enough to the current name that there will be no confusion over whether this is the still the same process (although now it's also a venue for disputes with over two editors).-- 2789:"Outside opinion" seems like a natural choice, as it's a common term (and the process already is described as "a simple means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between editors"). — 4267:

now be such a restriction is a different question. Until the closing of WQA, I would have !voted in favor of a content restriction, but now I'm not quite sure how I feel about the issue. —

2940:

Overall, the whole thing is just a search of solution for non-existing problem, and this itself doesn't leave the room for supporting proposal. "If something isn,t broken, don't fix it." —

3177:

Obviously, I disagree. That's why I've suggested, in good faith, that the name be changed. As I noted above, you're entitled to express your opinion, but there's no need to mock mine. —

4313:. (As an aside, the conduct dispute that brought this about seems to have resolved itself rather well as a result of answering it, so it's probably not doomed to failure from the start). 3852:

I'm thinking of something where there would be a subpage of the article that had expert comments on it or something. It was almost like a featured article review thing except not that.

3388:

With all the idiomatic jargon and words that don't mean what they normally mean around here, I think it's a minor issue. As well, a lot of our cases will still be between two editors.

816:

3O would have the noncounting clause, since every other means of DR involves determining consensus, which is where a conflict of interest would arise if the decider's vote also counts.

4288:

disputes that are purely conduct disputes: "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate."--

1761:

You've got a good point there: and that is one of the reasons WQA was perceived as ineffectual by many editors. But, if WP did not have a lightweight entrypoint for behavior issues,

2349:

The changes to the main page look good to me as well. That's the good thing about people who work in dispute resolution, we are pretty good at working things out. Thanks Noleander.

1512:

have rules prohibiting conduct disputes, it's officially listed as a venue for content disputes, and receives mostly content disputes. Expanding the scope of 3O would mean that 3O is

3791:

Well, good luck! Given a good definition, implementation, and participation, it could certainly be a useful tool, and this is one of those times where I might prefer to be wrong. :)

3595:

I'm not trying to just stomp all over your idea; it looks like a good one at first glance. But in practice, there are many many problems with it that I'm not sure are surmountable.

2172:

Agree with that. What do you think of adding text near the top of the 3O page that explicity makes it clear that both content & conduct issues are welcome (particularly because

3506:

We can't e-mail people who do not have a Knowledge (XXG) account through Knowledge (XXG). And even if we did, we'd still need reliable sources to put what they say in the article.

1516:

listed as a process for conduct disputes. That means that 3O will have to deal with a lot more conduct disputes, including all the disputes that would have been directed to WQA.--

1743:

responder chooses, it can pass the matter to ANI. But actively sending peopled on a detour through 3O just so they can be signposted would be a waste of time for all concerned.

4229:

Actually, that's not correct. Immediately prior to that discussion, the word "content" was in the 3O instructions as a restriction, having last been added on 22 December 2009 (

4977: 3870:

The biggest problem I see with the above proposal is that third opinions, in the context of dispute resolution, should be grounded in Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines,

533:, consensus is determined by the viewpoints of everyone so if you still feel there an issue is unresolved after a 3rd opinion is given, it can be resolved through other means. 5131:

Hello, Writ Keeper. Okay, I change my "non-cooperative parties" to "99% of non-cooperative parties" to exclude those who do not cooperate with the admin in role of an editor.

651:

and similar situations, it needs to be understood that the 3O does not "count" and that it's not 4 to 1 but still 3 to 1 with the 3O opinion not being considered. Regards,

5237: 4209:

page still lists Third Opinion as a content only venue. Like you, I didn't realise it until recently, when Gigs linked to the prior discussion during the WQA discussion.--

3849:

tag for articles. I don't know if anyone actually pays attention to it, though. We've also had Knowledge (XXG) users who faked their credentials pretending to be experts.

2011:. Going on the assumption that the community consensus is to go forward with that, what specific changes would be needed to implement the proposal? Tasks could include: 5221:

for an appeal?) Still, exhibition of certain bad behavior cannot bring about policies that defeat the purpose of the founding pillars of Knowledge (XXG). Best regards,

3950:

Right, but given that this proposal is envisioned as a rung in the dispute resolution ladder, it is unlikely to be used for anything that's not going to be challenged.

3932:

about winemaking...." As others stated below, the context here is about content in hypothetical dispute, not uncontroversial statements told in private by an expert. ~

4805:. Although it seemed it would be useful when it was initiated five years ago, I don't recall any demonstrations of the real utility of this template in practice. – 1351: 4646:@TransporterMan. Understood. My position on the issue, as I understand it, is the same as yours. I've mostly agreed with everything that you've said thus far. :) -- 571:

in coming to consensus (hopefully), but they cannot be "counted" in coming to a determination as to whether consensus has been reached on an article. Best regards,

3120:

Knowledge (XXG):Third-party, outside, completely independent and fair opinion by fellow Wikipedian willful to help resolving content (and related conduct) disputes

5300:

I also just noticed that I ,participated in the discussion pointed to above... Apparently I already knew at least part of the answer. Must be getting old...

1644:

Handled well by Czarkoff, who asserts that we don't handle conduct disputes at all. Dispute involved accusations of article ownership, "angry editing", etc.

3011:

The particular name "Third opinion" (or "3O") is not a title of a page any more, it is the name of a process, and shouldn't be changed without good reason.

2728: 2373:

about enhancing 3O to include behavior. Please comment there, not here, to keep things co-located. Very similar to the related Village Pump discussion. --

1619:

The distinction between "content" and "conduct" is artificial and almost meaningless. By way of illustration in the current backlog and recent disputes:

1216:

gets shut down (which judging by the current consensus, seems likely). Comments on the proposal by active Third Party participants are highly welcomed.--

94: 1176: 4075: 2250: 2103:

I'm a little confused. Could you please clarify how you would wish for cases of incivility to be handled? I don't think it's appropriate to downplay

1668: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 646:

however, it's true that 2 against 1 cannot generally form consensus in a disputed matter (well, it can in theory, but in practice will not) but you

299:'s feedback. And this situation occurs in nearly every dispute you bring here. You indeed should think of some other way to address this problem. — 2776:

I have no objection to renaming it, although "third opinion" still makes some sense since 99% of the time there are 2 opinions being brought to 3O.

2056: 164: 5197: 4365:. The text was proposed by Noleander in August, and there seemed to have been consensus for it, with the other editors supporting its inclusion.-- 2912:

Also note, the number of opinions doesn't necessarily equal to the number of participants; in most cases we deal with 2 opinions from 2-5 editors.

785: 548: 464:- 3O is not the appropriate venue to investigate or decide on copyvios. I've suggested that Herkus ask someone with experience in the area like 259:

political movements are relevant to the king's biography. I would have thanked h for such a clear and helpful opinion, even if I didn't agree.

3896:(either in person or in email) that I can't find published anywhere, can I use it in an article? I think the answer is an unequivocal "no". ~ 2915:

I addressed this point above. Under that connotation, the person commenting via this process is unlikely to introduce a third opinion. The

4754: 2787:

That seems reasonable. This also would provide enough time to ensure that the change discussed above hasn't caused any unforeseen problems.

2000: 1205: 4883: 4201:@Writ Keeper. The problem is, although there was a discussion on the scope of Third Opinion two years ago, no one bothered to update the 1377:

talking about changing the page to reflect what we already do, which is often accept simple disputes that involve more than two editors.

4652: 4593: 4371: 4294: 4215: 3432: 3090: 3053: 2537: 2201: 1726: 1522: 1222: 4163:

page (except for the sentence saying that requests about conduct disputes should not be filed, but would be somehow answered if filed).

3426:

That's my fault, I couldn't come up with a better name for the template. It was meant as an alternative to the current 3OR template.--

2724: 2666:

3O fills a specific niche very well and should continue to do so instead of becoming a smaller (and less effective) version of RfC. —

224:

gave a 3O. The problem is that neither you, nor your opponents actually needed the opinion of uninvolved editor. Instead you seek for

3912:

That's pretty strong language. If the material isn't challenged or likely to be challenged, then there's no problem with adding it.

3469: 1213: 5123: 4968: 4491: 4320: 4150: 4115: 4066: 3957: 3831: 3798: 3743: 3699: 3602: 3543: 3513: 3479: 1046: 962: 823: 690: 446: 129: 4170:, and I see no consensus neither for nor against the change. The recent discussions about re-purposing 3O for conduct disputes (at 2308:

templates. No need to say "Well, we're closing this forum, feel free to act the exact same way at this new forum"', in my opinion.

4524:

significant loss for 3O or Knowledge (XXG), but I believe that there may be other volunteers (or potential volunteers) like me. —

3551:

Someone shouldn't have to sign-up to be a volunteer just to offer an expert opinion. If this capability doesn't exist, it should.

1129: 292: 107:

Is there a forum to report editors who take on 3O requests but don't actually give any third opinion and do more harm than good?

4241:. When that happened, and because of it, I then asked the question, in effect, whether or not the content restriction should be 2958:, it probably shouldn't appear in the first sentence of the description.) And it's only one of several possibilities suggested. 2472: 1258: 3337:

take up to a year to implement. In light of that, it may be premature to assess what name is best or most accurate for 3O. --

4935:

that was just removed because there was " no discussion". I tried to open one, the other party involved won't join in, but we

4854: 4460:

It is a particular concern for me, as I won't participate in any DR process where I'll be expected to act upon conduct issues.

4362: 4206: 4202: 2370: 2192: 2021: 2008: 2004: 1711: 47: 17: 4648: 4637: 4589: 4533: 4471: 4441: 4411: 4367: 4290: 4211: 4188: 4044: 3978: 3452:

Is there a place to request expert third opinion? I cannot find it. I asked it in the FAQ to see if someone knew the answer.

3428: 3174:

You missed the point: this six characters addition doesn't change the meaning of the title, so it just make the title longer.

3086: 3049: 2533: 2197: 1722: 1518: 1218: 1117:

tag should be deleted, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that there were to be more than one disputes in the same talk page.

1023: 930: 879: 5283:

count toward a consensus. After reading the above remarks I do see the logic behind it, it could be easily gamed otherwise.

3882:. Unless that expert publishes the opinion in a reliable secondary source that anyone can verify, we can't use that opinion. 2994:

I'm not arguing that this wording carries this connotation under all circumstances; in my opinion it does so out of context.

4753:

tag from the project page (and the FAQ, if there are mentions there) and then, and only then, nominate it for deletion at

3472:, but that will only be guaranteed to get you people who are interested in the topic, rather than subject matter experts. 3004:

Also note, that this question is not about content, but about a name of the process many Wikipedians already know and use.

559:, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an unbiased third party." 3105: 3081: 2435:

Sure, but don't forget the "Talk:" part of page name. And I would also warn against stylistically strange instances like

2084:

I challenge that there is even consensus that WPA needs to be "replaced". And I really don't see anyone here supporting

291:

is an instrument to probe for opinions' relevance in case when all participants are not entirely sure. The discussion on

3874:

anyone's personal expertise. Using an expert's emailed opinion to affect the content of an article flies in the face of

2975:

name of a process, and shouldn't be changed without good reason. In this case the rationale is bogus, and proposals are

2906:

Actually, the implication of equality of "third opinion" has some value, which is completely lost with proposed wording.

757:

assume that a 3O does not contribute to consensus, if the 3O argues on policy and guidelines or even essays. Consider

2173: 2015: 2954:

I'm familiar with the process. I disagree that "outside opinion" carries the connotation that you describe. (If it

2716: 5028: 2062: 155:

Serge, remember that there are no experience qualifications needed to give a 3O and, indeed, one particularly wise

38: 3709: 2919:

connotation ("third person's opinion") applies, but not when the dispute already involves more than two people. —

1767: 1209: 1066: 1548:. I don't really care for the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but "if something else is broke, fix 319:

others may benefit by a somewhat universal declaration to include when entering into a third opinion discussion.

5020: 4108:

conduct dispute, and as I thought we didn't do those, I supported him in it (while also answering the request).

3536:

And they have to be a Knowledge (XXG) volunteer, which is where we run into the anonymity/verifiability issues.

2531:. Makes sense. 3O is for small disputes. The number of editors shouldn't matter, only the size of the dispute.-- 5257: 5209: 4993: 4913: 4870: 4837: 4773: 4729: 4617: 4573: 4350: 4276: 4254: 4132: 4092: 2263:

about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as

1680: 1364: 1188: 1009:

You still could. As a mediator, you would monitor the page in question to ensure that the parties aren't using

797: 727: 660: 580: 493: 424: 402: 390: 190: 5023:

is considered disruptive. I've seen that, if it repeatedly happens, administrators will block editors for it.

3492:

who could then help resolve a dispute over whether baryonic matter follows dark matter in simulations or not.

5226: 5175: 5099: 3846: 2870: 2611: 2425: 1977: 264: 204:

Oh, please don't send people with such topics to RfC. In this case it would be a scorched earth solution. —

146: 112: 2661:

I initially saw no obvious problems with the change (and even proposed renaming the process to reflect it).

1636:

Talk:Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States#Bill_Clinton.27s_height_-_Again

1410:

least appropriate tool, as it is particularly designed to be as lightweight and unobtrusive as possible. —

1050: 1042: 4506:

to. 3O is unlikely to handle all conduct disputes perfectly, but hey, none of the alternatives do either.

3987:

I think you were referring to me. Don't take my comments as comments on this proposal. I'm against it.

3141:

characters (one of several possibilities suggested), intended to make the name clearer and more accurate,

2749: 2558: 2315: 1960: 1287: 704:

generate the consensus when requested appropriately, and if it doesn't, then it wasn't the case for 3O. —

5162: 4981: 4054:

I'd support merely adding the word "content" into the first sentence of the page, so that it would read "

3225:

Can you cite some real-world examples of non-literal usage? (I'm not implying that they don't exist.) —

526: 5120: 5112:. Even if it is par for the course, I'd like to think that at least some of us have enough integrity to 5024: 4965: 4680: 4488: 4317: 4147: 4112: 4063: 4016: 3954: 3828: 3795: 3740: 3696: 3599: 3540: 3510: 3476: 2866: 2630: 2607: 2402: 1973: 1419: 1370: 1231: 959: 820: 687: 551:

and the information box at the top of the project page, which reads: "This process is neither mandatory

525:

Actually, 30's are binding in the way they to help to achieve consensus. Consider this: When achieving

443: 379: 362: 126: 5109: 4336:

addition that has resulted in a consensus by silence for it being there, or maybe just no one noticed.

4179:

instead (of course unless an army of conduct dispute lovers will intervene and conquer this thread). —

3017:

In this case the rationale is bogus, and proposals are at very least worse then the current name, so...

295:

reveals no changes after 3O. Effectively no one of you three tried to reconsider the opinion based on

5305: 5288: 5146: 5065: 5039: 5010: 4945: 2742:

some resistance to the change, but the process has outgrown its name, so we should really change it.

2683: 2591: 2517: 1710:

It's true that 3O allows conduct disputes, but currently the steps in dispute resolution, as per the

1146: 975: 915: 848: 774: 538: 512: 469: 3965:

Writ Keeper, you are softening the issue. This process is proposed to be used for something that is

3208:

The phrase "third opinion" is pretty standard outside of WP, and it doesn't imply "2 and only 2." --

1860:(a paid worker for WikiMedia?) is doing a lot of work to get volunteer editors to help out, e.g. at 5249: 5201: 4985: 4905: 4891: 4862: 4829: 4809: 4765: 4721: 4697: 4609: 4565: 4514: 4342: 4268: 4246: 4124: 4084: 4074:

I lost track of this issue while I was off-wiki for almost a month. The last thing I knew was that

3781: 3717: 3682: 3556: 3527: 3497: 3457: 3342: 3304: 3274: 3269:

But this is silly. 3O is already a brand. Can't we call it slightly idiomatic and call it a day? --

3242: 3213: 2855: 2766: 2577: 2499: 2378: 2336: 2283: 2225: 2181: 2149: 2074: 1903: 1869: 1813: 1780: 1672: 1600: 1567: 1557: 1356: 1312: 1180: 1160: 1125: 789: 719: 652: 572: 485: 465: 416: 394: 182: 2715:

Given the implementation of the change discussed above, it would make sense to rename the process

1953:

using a tried and tested process to resolve the disputes and streamline DR. Two birds, one stone.

5222: 5171: 5095: 4633: 4529: 4467: 4437: 4407: 4184: 4040: 3974: 3938: 3902: 3164: 3128: 2984: 2945: 2896: 2649: 2448: 2421: 2371:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Sanity checks#Proposal to enhance 3O process to also address behavior issues

1941: 1829: 1795: 1748: 1449: 1415: 1018: 925: 895: 873: 865: 747: 709: 304: 260: 237: 209: 142: 108: 5309: 5292: 5263: 5230: 5215: 5179: 5150: 5126: 5103: 5074: 5048: 5014: 4999: 4971: 4949: 4919: 4895: 4876: 4843: 4812: 4797: 4779: 4735: 4700: 4685: 4661: 4641: 4623: 4602: 4579: 4556: 4537: 4518: 4494: 4475: 4445: 4415: 4380: 4356: 4323: 4303: 4282: 4224: 4192: 4153: 4138: 4118: 4098: 4069: 4048: 4021: 3996: 3982: 3960: 3943: 3921: 3907: 3861: 3834: 3815: 3801: 3785: 3746: 3721: 3702: 3686: 3605: 3560: 3546: 3531: 3516: 3501: 3482: 3461: 3441: 3420: 3397: 3381: 3372: 3356: 3346: 3308: 3294: 3278: 3257: 3246: 3229: 3217: 3181: 3168: 3154: 3132: 3112: 3099: 3075: 3062: 3024: 2988: 2965: 2949: 2923: 2900: 2874: 2859: 2793: 2770: 2755: 2735: 2702: 2687: 2670: 2653: 2635: 2615: 2595: 2581: 2564: 2546: 2521: 2503: 2485: 2452: 2429: 2382: 2358: 2340: 2321: 2287: 2244: 2229: 2210: 2185: 2167: 2153: 2132: 2117: 2104: 2098: 2078: 1981: 1966: 1945: 1907: 1892: 1873: 1850: 1833: 1817: 1799: 1784: 1752: 1735: 1703: 1686: 1658: 1604: 1590: 1571: 1531: 1497: 1483: 1468: 1453: 1435: 1386: 1334: 1316: 1293: 1270: 1251: 1194: 1164: 1150: 1054: 1028: 979: 965: 950: 935: 919: 889: 852: 826: 806: 778: 751: 736: 713: 693: 669: 616: 589: 542: 520: 502: 477: 449: 433: 383: 366: 351:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The

308: 268: 253: 241: 213: 199: 150: 132: 116: 2139:@Gigs: Perhaps I worded my thoughts poorly: I was simply asking what the next steps would be 1355:

there's still the neutrality requirement and the non-contribution to consensus). Best regards,

4552: 2744: 2553: 2413: 2310: 2113: 1955: 1846: 1699: 1479: 1282: 946: 612: 5108:

Blocking someone with whom he is in a content dispute would likely be considered a breach of

4333: 4176: 3489: 2268: 1307:, and a request for a 3O was simply rejected due to headcount... that seems unhelpful to me) 1138: 530: 229: 5117: 4962: 4675: 4485: 4314: 4245:

The consensus was that it should not be restored so no update, per se, was needed. Regards,

4144: 4109: 4060: 4011: 3951: 3825: 3792: 3737: 3693: 3596: 3537: 3507: 3473: 2625: 2271:. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out. 2253:, and based on that, tweaked the text a bit, and put it in the lead section of 3O. It was: 1879:

resolution system is that we do force people to classify disputes as "content" or "conduct".

1857: 956: 817: 684: 440: 375: 358: 160: 123: 5245: 5166: 4451: 4171: 4143:

Eh, I do that all the time; it took me a minute to realize the dates weren't adding up. :)

4123:

Sorry about that, it's going be 2013 before I can remember that it's 2012... Best regards,

3773: 3732: 3329: 2264: 2043: 1861: 1805: 1212:

to include civility and conduct disputes or to create a 3O-like process for civility, once

884: 803: 733: 666: 586: 499: 430: 408: 228:, which is quite another issue. There is only one place where you can solve your problem – 196: 178: 174: 156: 5301: 5284: 5142: 5058: 5032: 5006: 4941: 4628:

Sure, we should take the disputes over content. Still we should not promise conduct DR. —

3378: 3353: 3291: 3254: 3226: 3178: 3151: 3109: 3072: 3021: 3014:

Agreed. And I believe that a good reason exists. I respect your opinion to the contrary.

2962: 2920: 2790: 2732: 2679: 2667: 2587: 2513: 1623: 1204:

Notification for any interested 3O volunteers: There's currently an ongoing discussion at

1142: 971: 911: 844: 770: 534: 5241: 4858: 4455: 4160: 3879: 3772:

Since it was causing a lot of confusion, I wrote the page as a proposal. I'll post it to

3333: 3067:

Why not simply adopt an accurate name (instead of retaining a name that's linguistically

2720: 2509: 2468: 2037: 1770:

as an entry point for behavior issues. To keep WP simple, we should first try using 3O

1403: 1014: 1010: 903: 899: 840: 832: 766: 762: 758: 342: 288: 283: 5279:

That is what has happened here, I did get an "unofficial" third opinion so I guess that

4035:

disputes (with no particular content issue to be resolved) should not be posted here. —

1804:

Why do you say it is not streamlining? The list of noticeboards for WP (see the top of

4887: 4806: 4793: 4694: 4510: 3992: 3917: 3857: 3811: 3777: 3713: 3678: 3552: 3523: 3493: 3453: 3416: 3393: 3368: 3338: 3300: 3270: 3238: 3209: 2851: 2762: 2698: 2573: 2495: 2481: 2440: 2374: 2354: 2332: 2279: 2240: 2221: 2177: 2163: 2145: 2128: 2094: 2070: 1899: 1888: 1865: 1809: 1776: 1654: 1596: 1586: 1563: 1553: 1493: 1464: 1431: 1382: 1330: 1308: 1266: 1247: 1206:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)#Side discussion: replace/redirect WQA to what?

1156: 1121: 250: 3875: 3234: 1936:

conduct dispute? The core of a dispute is absolutely straightforward content issue. —

1096:

tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the talk page." would be clearer as "Check for a

352: 4629: 4525: 4463: 4433: 4403: 4180: 4036: 3970: 3933: 3897: 3237:. Usually it has a medical connotation, but sometimes it's business or just opinion. 3160: 3124: 2980: 2941: 2892: 2645: 2444: 2436: 2409: 1972:

valuable as offering a third opinion about the content itself. Let's give it a shot.

1937: 1825: 1791: 1744: 1445: 1411: 1242:

complexity of the dispute does. We should change the instructions to reflect this.

743: 705: 300: 282:

Serge, you seem to miss the point: yes, you can take "no" for an answer, but you use

233: 205: 4548: 2109: 1842: 1695: 1475: 942: 608: 4363:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion#What steps would be needed to take on WPA role?

3928:

What's strong language? Perhaps I should have clarified "if he tells me something

2195:

will have to be altered, along with the template. DRN is, however, content only.--

2018:

sidebar navbox - Remove WQA & make it clear 3O can be used for conduct issues

5161:

By the way, who says 3O does not constitute a consensus? So far as I understand,

3806:

A long time ago didn't we have an "expert review" process that kind of died out?

1864:. If he continues on that track, he could help recruit editors to help here. -- 4748: 4714: 3888: 3040: 1111: 1100: 1090: 1077: 293:

Talk:Charles XII of Sweden#Swedish politics today part of Carl XII's life story?

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3969:

challenged, so there is no room for lack of reliable source, even in theory. —

1632:- More accusations of article ownership, in a content dispute over some dieties 336: 3893: 2158:

I would not hatnote WQA to only here. Give them a list of DRN, here, or RFC.

1179:

which affects DR and in which this community may be interested. Best regards,

1177:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversion_after_failure_to_discuss

2678:

Simple is subjective and there are no criteria to determine a simple dispute.

389:

Bash, I've created a lot of templates and analysis about 3O that you can see

4789: 3988: 3913: 3853: 3807: 3412: 3389: 3364: 2694: 2508:

It is critical. Thus, I have reverted the implementation and being part of

2477: 2350: 2236: 2159: 2124: 2090: 1933: 1884: 1650: 1641: 1629: 1582: 1489: 1460: 1427: 1378: 1326: 1262: 1243: 322:

The template can be inserted into the usual template by nesting as follows:

296: 247: 221: 3221:"Doctor, can I get a third opinion?" "No, your wife is here." *blank stare* 2216:

content-related issues, but conduct-related issues will also be heard".

2046:

page - Clear it and replace with a historical comment and a pointer to the

415:

Though directed to Bash, the foregoing offer extends to all Wikipedians. —

3118:

Oh guys, while you are at throwing in more words, what do you think about

2278:

Feel free to adjust it more if you think that doesn't capture it right. --

970:

We shouldn't be a mediator when a party is egregiously breaching policy.

5165:

lists 3O amongst valid ways of gathering consensus. Besides, how comes

4076:

Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_5#Alleged_restrictions_on_disputes

3821: 3488:

to someone who is a known expert through Knowledge (XXG). For example,

2251:

Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion/Archive_5#Alleged_restrictions_on_disputes

1669:

Wikipedia_talk:Third opinion/Archive 5#Alleged restrictions on disputes

1638:- A dispute over the height of Bill Clinton, accusations of incivility. 1459:

always liked 3O because it does not make that artificial distinction.

549:

History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding

122:

Here's as good a place as any, I suppose. What do you need to report?

4205:

or the Third Opinion page. The 3O page was updated recently, but the

835:

and know cognizantly that when I am giving an opinion, and the issue

5057:

and the article talk page. Hopefully, he'll be willing to discuss.--

2220:

should be added so more editors don't get confused in the future. --

5088:

to have plagued the dispute resolution process in Knowledge (XXG).

4233:). During the course of that discussion, however, it was removed ( 3253:

In the medical connotation, for example, how is it non-literal? —

3043:

opinion, and not a literal third opinion like it used to. If it's

2937:

of dispute, and this opinion is indeed third in most if not cases.

3287:, yes. I just don't believe that it's the best course of action. 3047:, we can mention in the lead that third stands for third party.-- 2249:

That sounds good. I took your text, read the 2010 discussion at

1665:

Gigs is right and I am wrong: 3O already allows conduct disputes.

1579:

what is being proposed is actually a narrowing of the scope of 3O

3727:

committed to it without a clear community consensus. If you're

1581:, if we limit 3O to disputes that don't involve conduct at all. 1508:

I'm ambivalent about expanding the role of 3O. While 3O doesn't

3299:

No biggie. Honestly, I'm more ambivalent for nostalgia's sake.

2331:

Sure, having WQA's new text point primarily to DR is fine. --

567:

of consensus by being influential or persuasive and aiding the

529:, everyone is able to contribute. Because we don't operate on 5019:

Seconding what Writ Keeper and Transpoterman have said. Being

3731:

serious about this, you should start a discussion about it on

2462:

Re-proposal - de-emphasize "only two editors" in documentation

1992:

There are at least three discussions underway on the topic of

1671:. I apologize to the community for my poor memory. Abashedly, 642:"it's 2 against 1, therefore there's consensus" at that time. 25: 4757:

with pointers to this discussion and its subsequent removal.

2850:

But I still maintain that "third opinion" is not too bad. --

4882:

I suggest centralizing discussion about the new section at

4425:

Should the 3O accept requests about conduct-only disputes?

4402:

OK, so to make the issue clear let's have a straw poll. —

1595:

Yeah, I was maybe a little quick with the edit button ;-)

2176:

may suggest to some editors that 3O is content-only)? --

1626:- Content dispute, with accusation of article ownership. 1615:

Artificial distinction: We already do "conduct disputes"

5054: 4933: 4234: 4230: 3262:

Now that I think about it, usually you're asking for a

1065:

I have a few suggestions to clarify the guidelines for

462: 138: 5248:

do, however, "count" towards consensus. Best regards,

4884:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Dispute resolution#Ethics section

5240:). Opinions given by dispute resolutionists at other 4855:

ethic principles for dispute resolution practitioners

4166:

FWIW the link you, TransporterMan, provided contains

2997:

I don't perceive that connotation. But again, if it

1488:

I will create a new section to illustrate the point.

246:

I have a sneaking suspicion that Dmitrij is correct.

2040:

instructions - Make behavior/conduct role more clear

468:

for an opinion instead. This isn't the way to do it.

325:{{subst:3OR | {{subst:3Odec}} <your response: --> 4239:

for the purpose of removing the content restriction

4168:

proposal to keep the focus on content disputes only

3080:If there is consensus for a rename, I would prefer 3001:

a problem, other possibilities have been suggested.

2024:

page - Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place

3122:? The longer is better, isn't it?</sarcasm: --> 3039:There's no need to. Third opinion now refers to a 2865:bad, even if it's more like a 4th or 5th opinion. 563:They do, of course, potentially contribute to the 5170:establish a consensus pretty well. Best regards, 3363:I think we can leave it named "third opinion". 4904:Guy's right and I'm sorry I didn't say that. — 4861:. Your review would be welcomed. Best regards, 4693:as per RegentsPark (ltns) and others above. – 4237:) by one of the participants in the discussion 2256: 1988:What steps would be needed to take on WPA role? 1717:MedCom for content disputes and Talk page : --> 1060: 5200:of it not contributing to consensus. Regards, 4940:process had gotten so rigid and beuracratic. 3251:Thanks, but I'd already performed that search. 2729:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy 2065:- Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place 2059:- Remove WQA & perhaps put 3O in its place 1624:User_talk:Masem#Complaint_of_article_ownership 314:Declaration: Uninvolved, impartial, voluntary. 5053:I've reverted the edit and left a comment on 3328:- A thought: There is a proposal to shutter 1061:Clarifying 'Providing third opinions' Section 8: 2441:Talk:Brainfuck § WTF??? Children here!!!111 2057:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution requests 177:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a 4031:I propose to make it perfectly clear that 4853:I have boldly added a set of non-binding 2891:deal with 2 opinions from 2-5 editors. — 1402:, AKA administratorship. In this context 906:or simply because I want to, in the name 374:Hope this helps someone somewhere. <3 4755:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion 2408:in my 3O requests? It is more readable. 1238:focus on the complexity of the problem. 3173: 3016: 3010: 3003: 2993: 2911: 2905: 2782: 2775: 2476:too strict about the two editor rule. 1714:policy and navbox, are Talk page : --> 902:, I too could come in anyways, out of 831:I take a wholly different approach to 769:is a mechanism which builds consensus. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4450:Conduct disputes should either go to 3470:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy 2979:worse then the current name, so... — 1214:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiquette assistance 1086:"Check the article's talk page for a 786:personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian 7: 1325:I don't think we need to rename it. 843:, that they are breaching consensus. 137:Thanx! To be, perhaps, overly brief 3106:Knowledge (XXG):Third-party opinion 3082:Knowledge (XXG):Third party opinion 2586:I have reverted the implementation. 2473:Knowledge (XXG):Third_opinion/draft 1775:an uninvolved editor weighs-in. -- 1544:- 3O does one thing and it does it 1440:3O doesn't handle conduct disputes 1259:Knowledge (XXG):Third_opinion/draft 5029:User talk:Yongle the Great#Blocked 4207:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 4203:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 4078:about a year ago resolved that 3O 2971:a title of a page any more, it is 2265:administrator incident noticeboard 2193:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 1712:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 839:escalates into one of the parties 24: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion 4976:You might want to take a look at 4711:Does anyone really feel that the 1562:struck-out per discussion below. 4819: 4103:Well, those timestamps are from 3137:We've discussed the addition of 2731:, so it could be reassigned.) — 2028: 1999:3O to take on the role of WQA: 335: 29: 3733:the Village Pump proposals page 3377:Would you care to elaborate? — 2717:Knowledge (XXG):Outside opinion 4259:) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 3997:20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3983:19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3961:19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3944:20:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3922:19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3908:17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3862:19:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3835:17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3816:17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 3802:20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3786:19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3747:19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3722:19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3703:19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3687:19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3606:19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3561:19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3547:18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3532:18:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3517:18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3502:18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3483:18:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3462:18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3442:15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 3421:14:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 3398:14:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 2703:14:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 1763:one would have to be invented. 1352:this analysis by Shooterwalker 1: 4920:21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 4896:20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 4877:20:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 4745:Remove all references to the 4361:The discussion is located at 3710:Knowledge (XXG):Ask an expert 3382:19:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 3373:19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 3357:17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3347:15:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3309:06:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3295:04:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3279:04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3266:opinion in a medical context. 3258:04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3247:03:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3230:03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3218:03:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3182:18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3169:17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3155:17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3133:10:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3113:04:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3100:04:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3076:03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3063:03:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 3025:18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2989:17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2966:17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2950:10:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2924:03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2901:02:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2875:01:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2860:00:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2794:00:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2771:00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2756:00:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2736:23:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 2688:02:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 2671:01:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 2654:21:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 2636:03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2616:23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 2596:02:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 2582:22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 2565:21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 2522:02:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 1982:23:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 1605:11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 1572:11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 1560:) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 1210:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion 910:of contributing to consensus. 555:. Rather, it is a voluntary, 309:13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 269:11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 254:01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 242:21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 214:21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 200:21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 151:20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 133:20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 117:20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5310:20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5293:20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5264:15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5231:04:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5216:01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5180:01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5151:02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 5127:15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 5104:15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 5075:08:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 5049:08:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 5015:03:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 5000:01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 4972:18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 4950:17:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 4844:14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 4813:10:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 4798:19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 4780:18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 4736:18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 4701:14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 4686:14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 4662:12:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 4642:22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4624:18:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4603:16:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4580:14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4557:13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4538:14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4519:12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4495:12:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4476:14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 4022:14:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2644:increase in disappointment. 2365:Discussion about enhaning 3O 4785:Either do this or get a bot 4446:22:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4416:22:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4381:18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4357:18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4324:17:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4304:17:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4283:17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4225:11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 4193:20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4154:20:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4139:20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4119:20:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4099:20:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4070:18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 4049:17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 3104:Yeah, that's what I mean. 2547:20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 2504:17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 2486:17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 2453:20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 2430:19:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 2383:14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 2359:13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 2341:13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 2322:04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 2288:18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2269:request for comment on user 2245:17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2230:16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2211:15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2186:15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2174:Template:Dispute-resolution 2168:15:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2154:15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2133:15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2118:15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2099:15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2079:17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 2016:Template:Dispute-resolution 1967:04:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1946:18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 1908:16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 1893:14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 1874:21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1851:19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1834:22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1818:19:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1800:18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1785:17:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1766:processes, and he proposed 1753:16:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1736:16:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1704:15:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1687:14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1659:14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1591:13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1532:04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 1498:14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1484:14:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1469:13:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 1454:04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 1436:02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 1420:17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1387:02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 1371:16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1335:14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1317:14:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1294:14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1271:14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1252:13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1232:23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 329:It produces the following: 5328: 4741:Proposal by TransporterMan 2063:Template:Noticeboard_links 1208:on expanding the scope of 1029:20:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 980:07:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 966:19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 951:19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 936:19:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 920:05:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 890:01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 853:20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 827:13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 807:13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 779:04:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 752:00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 737:23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 714:21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 694:21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 670:21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 617:20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 590:20:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 543:20:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 521:19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 503:14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 478:05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 411:01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 5163:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 4859:Dispute Resolution policy 4707:Discontinue use of 3O tag 2909:Can you please elaborate? 2818:Uninvolved editor opinion 1400:power to enforce decision 1195:15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 857:To me, it all depends on 450:18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 434:18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 384:00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 367:00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 4608:perfectly fine by me. — 3490:e-mailing someone at MPA 1175:There's a discussion at 1165:11:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 1151:09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 1130:09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 1067:Providing third opinions 683:Why shouldn't it count? 157:Third Opinion Wikipedian 4083:missing? Best regards, 3847:Template:Expert-subject 3645:have such a capability. 1406:is the best example of 1055:15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 924:Yes, that's true, too. 484:3O any more). Regards, 2273: 894:Note also that say if 5238:Third Opinion Paradox 5025:User:Yongle the Great 4263:Whether or not there 3332:... if that happens, 2842:Troubleshooting forum 2812:Disinterested opinion 2022:WP:Dispute resolution 1199: 886:DR goes to Wikimania! 804:DR goes to Wikimania! 734:DR goes to Wikimania! 667:DR goes to Wikimania! 587:DR goes to Wikimania! 500:DR goes to Wikimania! 458:Inappropriate request 431:DR goes to Wikimania! 409:DR goes to Wikimania! 353:third opinion process 343:third opinion request 197:DR goes to Wikimania! 42:of past discussions. 4027:Conduct-only dispute 3887:To give an example, 3448:Expert third opinion 2570:Proposal implemented 1200:Expanding 3O's scope 1083:template was placed. 5027:is an example (see 4630:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4526:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4464:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4434:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4404:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4181:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4037:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3971:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3161:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3125:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2981:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2942:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2893:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2845:Impartial opinion 2445:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1938:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1858:m:User:Szhang_(WMF) 1446:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1412:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1171:Refusals to discuss 744:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 706:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 466:User:Moonriddengirl 301:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 234:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 206:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4978:this AN discussion 3406:Templates heads up 3108:seems sensible. — 2780:the disagreement). 2437:Criminal code § 18 2369:See discussion at 4932:I made a request 4684: 4674:conduct issue. -- 4509: 4020: 3942: 3906: 3222: 2634: 2414:User:FleetCommand 2069:Anything else? -- 1045:comment added by 1027: 934: 882: 561:(Emphasis added.) 372: 371: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5319: 5260: 5254: 5212: 5206: 5072: 5063: 5046: 5037: 4996: 4990: 4916: 4910: 4873: 4867: 4840: 4834: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4776: 4770: 4752: 4732: 4726: 4718: 4678: 4659: 4620: 4614: 4600: 4576: 4570: 4507: 4461: 4378: 4353: 4347: 4301: 4279: 4273: 4257: 4251: 4222: 4135: 4129: 4095: 4089: 4014: 3936: 3900: 3439: 3220: 3117:<sarcasm: --> 3097: 3060: 3045:really necessary 2754: 2752: 2747: 2725:virtually unused 2628: 2563: 2561: 2556: 2544: 2407: 2401: 2391: 2390:{{Section link}} 2320: 2318: 2313: 2208: 2036: 2032: 2031: 1965: 1963: 1958: 1768:WP:Sanity checks 1733: 1683: 1677: 1529: 1367: 1361: 1292: 1290: 1285: 1261:Here's a draft. 1229: 1191: 1185: 1116: 1110: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1089: 1082: 1076: 1057: 1021: 1011:personal attacks 928: 887: 878: 872: 868: 800: 794: 761:to be a part of 730: 724: 663: 657: 583: 577: 518: 515: 511:Alright, thanks. 496: 490: 475: 472: 427: 421: 405: 399: 339: 332: 331: 193: 187: 103:Complaint forum? 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5327: 5326: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5258: 5250: 5244:forums such as 5210: 5202: 5066: 5059: 5040: 5033: 5021:WP:UNRESPONSIVE 4994: 4986: 4930: 4914: 4906: 4871: 4863: 4851: 4838: 4830: 4820: 4818: 4774: 4766: 4764:as proposer. — 4746: 4743: 4730: 4722: 4712: 4709: 4653: 4618: 4610: 4594: 4574: 4566: 4459: 4423: 4372: 4351: 4343: 4295: 4277: 4269: 4255: 4247: 4216: 4133: 4125: 4093: 4085: 4029: 3450: 3433: 3408: 3091: 3054: 2815:Neutral opinion 2809:Outside opinion 2806:Some thoughts: 2750: 2745: 2743: 2713: 2559: 2554: 2552: 2538: 2464: 2405: 2399: 2393: 2389: 2367: 2316: 2311: 2309: 2202: 2029: 2027: 1990: 1961: 1956: 1954: 1727: 1681: 1673: 1617: 1523: 1365: 1357: 1288: 1283: 1281: 1223: 1202: 1189: 1181: 1173: 1114: 1108: 1103: 1097: 1093: 1087: 1080: 1074: 1063: 1040: 1036: 885: 876: 866: 798: 790: 728: 720: 661: 653: 581: 573: 562: 516: 513: 494: 486: 473: 470: 460: 425: 417: 403: 395: 316: 191: 183: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5325: 5323: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5252:TransporterMan 5204:TransporterMan 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5154: 5153: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5090: 5089: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 4988:TransporterMan 4929: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4908:TransporterMan 4899: 4898: 4865:TransporterMan 4850: 4847: 4832:TransporterMan 4816: 4815: 4800: 4782: 4768:TransporterMan 4742: 4739: 4724:TransporterMan 4708: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4688: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4644: 4612:TransporterMan 4582: 4568:TransporterMan 4559: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4497: 4483:Sure, why not. 4480: 4479: 4478: 4422: 4419: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4345:TransporterMan 4271:TransporterMan 4249:TransporterMan 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4164: 4127:TransporterMan 4087:TransporterMan 4028: 4025: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3884: 3883: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3407: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3385: 3384: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3288: 3267: 3252: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3176: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3020:I disagree. — 3019: 3015: 3013: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2996: 2959: 2938: 2930: 2914: 2910: 2908: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2839:Neutral advice 2837: 2834: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2821:Sounding board 2819: 2816: 2813: 2810: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2788: 2786: 2781: 2778: 2758: 2719:. (Note that 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2673: 2665: 2662: 2656: 2638: 2618: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2567: 2549: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2456: 2455: 2420: 2416:use it often. 2392: 2386: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2067: 2066: 2060: 2054: 2041: 2025: 2019: 2009:this Talk page 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1969: 1949: 1948: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1880: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1756: 1755: 1739: 1738: 1707: 1706: 1690: 1689: 1675:TransporterMan 1646: 1645: 1639: 1633: 1627: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1390: 1389: 1359:TransporterMan 1347:Oppose change: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1320: 1319: 1297: 1296: 1274: 1273: 1255: 1254: 1239: 1201: 1198: 1183:TransporterMan 1172: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1153: 1119: 1118: 1084: 1062: 1059: 1035: 1032: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 792:TransporterMan 722:TransporterMan 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 655:TransporterMan 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 575:TransporterMan 560: 523: 506: 505: 488:TransporterMan 459: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 419:TransporterMan 397:TransporterMan 370: 369: 348: 347: 315: 312: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 218: 217: 216: 185:TransporterMan 165:succinctly put 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5324: 5311: 5307: 5303: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5282: 5265: 5261: 5255: 5253: 5247: 5243: 5239: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5223:Codename Lisa 5219: 5218: 5217: 5213: 5207: 5205: 5199: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5181: 5177: 5173: 5172:Codename Lisa 5168: 5164: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5152: 5148: 5144: 5139: 5138: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5125: 5122: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5096:Codename Lisa 5092: 5091: 5086: 5076: 5073: 5070: 5064: 5062: 5056: 5055:his talk page 5052: 5051: 5050: 5047: 5044: 5038: 5036: 5030: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5003: 5002: 5001: 4997: 4991: 4989: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4970: 4967: 4964: 4959: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4938: 4934: 4927: 4921: 4917: 4911: 4909: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4874: 4868: 4866: 4860: 4856: 4848: 4846: 4845: 4841: 4835: 4833: 4826: 4814: 4811: 4808: 4804: 4801: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4786: 4783: 4781: 4777: 4771: 4769: 4763: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4756: 4750: 4740: 4738: 4737: 4733: 4727: 4725: 4716: 4706: 4702: 4699: 4696: 4692: 4689: 4687: 4682: 4677: 4672: 4669: 4663: 4660: 4657: 4651: 4650: 4645: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4621: 4615: 4613: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4601: 4598: 4592: 4591: 4586: 4583: 4581: 4577: 4571: 4569: 4563: 4560: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4505: 4501: 4498: 4496: 4493: 4490: 4487: 4484: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4420: 4418: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4382: 4379: 4376: 4370: 4369: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4354: 4348: 4346: 4339: 4338:@Writ Keeper: 4335: 4330: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4322: 4319: 4316: 4312: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4302: 4299: 4293: 4292: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4280: 4274: 4272: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4252: 4250: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4223: 4220: 4214: 4213: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4162: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4136: 4130: 4128: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4117: 4114: 4111: 4106: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4090: 4088: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4065: 4062: 4057: 4056:Third opinion 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4026: 4024: 4023: 4018: 4013: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3959: 3956: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3940: 3935: 3931: 3930:controversial 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3904: 3899: 3895: 3890: 3886: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3868: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3850: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3836: 3833: 3830: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3800: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3739: 3734: 3730: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3604: 3601: 3598: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3545: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3481: 3478: 3475: 3471: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3447: 3443: 3440: 3437: 3431: 3430: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3405: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3355: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3256: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3183: 3180: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3098: 3095: 3089: 3088: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3052: 3051: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3012: 3005: 3000: 2995: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977:at very least 2974: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2936: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2913: 2907: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2888:Strong oppose 2886: 2885: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867:Shooterwalker 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2841: 2838: 2836:Neutral input 2835: 2833:Outside input 2832: 2829: 2826: 2824:Honest broker 2823: 2820: 2817: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2795: 2792: 2785: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2710: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2672: 2669: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2619: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608:Shooterwalker 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2551:Sounds good. 2550: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2536: 2535: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2470: 2461: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422:Codename Lisa 2419:Best regards, 2417: 2415: 2411: 2410:User:Czarkoff 2404: 2396: 2387: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2255: 2254: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2017: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2010: 2006: 2005:Sanity checks 2002: 1998: 1995: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1974:Shooterwalker 1970: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1731: 1725: 1724: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1678: 1676: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1614: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1521: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1362: 1360: 1353: 1348: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1291: 1286: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1186: 1184: 1178: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141:and do it!:-) 1140: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1113: 1102: 1092: 1085: 1079: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1068: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1033: 1031: 1030: 1025: 1020: 1016: 1012: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 964: 961: 958: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 939: 938: 937: 932: 927: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 896:User:Whenaxis 893: 892: 891: 888: 881: 875: 871: 870: 869: 860: 856: 855: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 829: 828: 825: 822: 819: 815: 810: 809: 808: 805: 801: 795: 793: 787: 782: 781: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 740: 739: 738: 735: 731: 725: 723: 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 703: 698: 697: 696: 695: 692: 689: 686: 671: 668: 664: 658: 656: 649: 645: 641: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 618: 614: 610: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 591: 588: 584: 578: 576: 570: 566: 558: 554: 550: 546: 545: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 522: 519: 510: 509: 508: 507: 504: 501: 497: 491: 489: 482: 481: 480: 479: 476: 467: 463: 457: 451: 448: 445: 442: 437: 436: 435: 432: 428: 422: 420: 414: 410: 406: 400: 398: 392: 388: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 368: 364: 360: 354: 350: 349: 345: 344: 338: 334: 333: 330: 327: 323: 320: 313: 311: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 285: 270: 266: 262: 261:SergeWoodzing 257: 256: 255: 252: 249: 245: 244: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 202: 201: 198: 194: 188: 186: 180: 176: 171: 166: 162: 158: 154: 153: 152: 148: 144: 143:SergeWoodzing 140: 136: 135: 134: 131: 128: 125: 121: 120: 119: 118: 114: 110: 109:SergeWoodzing 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5280: 5278: 5251: 5203: 5113: 5068: 5060: 5042: 5034: 4987: 4982:WP:BOOMERANG 4957: 4936: 4931: 4907: 4864: 4852: 4831: 4824: 4817: 4802: 4784: 4767: 4761: 4744: 4723: 4710: 4690: 4670: 4655: 4647: 4611: 4596: 4588: 4584: 4567: 4561: 4544: 4503: 4499: 4482: 4429: 4424: 4401: 4374: 4366: 4344: 4337: 4328: 4310: 4297: 4289: 4270: 4264: 4260: 4248: 4242: 4238: 4218: 4210: 4167: 4126: 4104: 4086: 4079: 4055: 4033:conduct-only 4032: 4030: 4009: 3966: 3929: 3871: 3845:We have the 3771: 3728: 3451: 3435: 3427: 3409: 3325: 3284: 3263: 3205: 3201: 3200: 3147: 3142: 3138: 3093: 3085: 3068: 3056: 3048: 3044: 2998: 2976: 2972: 2955: 2934: 2916: 2887: 2827:Advice forum 2727:shortcut to 2714: 2675: 2658: 2640: 2620: 2602: 2569: 2540: 2532: 2528: 2491: 2465: 2457: 2418: 2403:Section link 2397: 2394: 2368: 2306: 2260: 2257: 2217: 2204: 2196: 2140: 2085: 2068: 2050: 2047: 2033: 2001:Village pump 1996: 1993: 1991: 1929: 1771: 1762: 1729: 1721: 1674: 1664: 1647: 1618: 1578: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1525: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1441: 1407: 1399: 1394: 1391: 1358: 1346: 1345: 1304: 1225: 1217: 1203: 1182: 1174: 1135: 1120: 1064: 1041:— Preceding 1037: 1015:edit warring 1008: 907: 864: 863: 858: 836: 813: 791: 721: 701: 682: 654: 647: 643: 639: 574: 568: 564: 556: 552: 527:WP:CONSENSUS 487: 461: 418: 412: 396: 373: 341:Response to 340: 328: 324: 321: 317: 281: 225: 184: 169: 106: 78: 43: 37: 5196:Here's the 5118:Writ Keeper 5110:WP:INVOLVED 4963:Writ Keeper 4676:regentspark 4486:Writ Keeper 4315:Writ Keeper 4145:Writ Keeper 4110:Writ Keeper 4061:Writ Keeper 4012:regentspark 3952:Writ Keeper 3889:Mike Grgich 3826:Writ Keeper 3793:Writ Keeper 3738:Writ Keeper 3694:Writ Keeper 3597:Writ Keeper 3538:Writ Keeper 3508:Writ Keeper 3474:Writ Keeper 3071:to one)? — 3041:third party 2935:instruments 2830:Fresh input 2626:regentspark 2261:exclusively 1928:Sorry, but 1510:technically 1047:50.98.115.2 957:Writ Keeper 818:Writ Keeper 685:Writ Keeper 553:nor binding 531:a democracy 441:Writ Keeper 376:BaSH PR0MPT 359:BaSH PR0MPT 181:. Regards, 170:undoubtedly 161:RegentsPark 124:Writ Keeper 36:This is an 5302:Beeblebrox 5285:Beeblebrox 5143:Beeblebrox 5061:xanchester 5035:xanchester 5007:Beeblebrox 4942:Beeblebrox 3894:winemaking 3379:David Levy 3354:David Levy 3292:David Levy 3255:David Levy 3227:David Levy 3179:David Levy 3152:David Levy 3110:David Levy 3073:David Levy 3022:David Levy 2963:David Levy 2921:David Levy 2791:David Levy 2733:David Levy 2680:Curb Chain 2668:David Levy 2588:Curb Chain 2514:Curb Chain 2398:Can use I 1719:AN/I : --> 1514:officially 1143:Curb Chain 972:Curb Chain 912:Curb Chain 845:Curb Chain 771:Curb Chain 569:disputants 557:nonbinding 535:Curb Chain 95:Archive 10 5116:do that. 4888:Guy Macon 4807:Athaenara 4695:Athaenara 4511:bobrayner 4504:compelled 4243:restored. 3820:You mean 3778:Junjunone 3714:Junjunone 3679:Junjunone 3553:Junjunone 3524:Junjunone 3494:Junjunone 3454:Junjunone 3339:Noleander 3301:Xavexgoem 3271:Xavexgoem 3239:Xavexgoem 3210:Xavexgoem 2929:outsider. 2852:Noleander 2763:Noleander 2574:Noleander 2496:Noleander 2375:Noleander 2333:Noleander 2280:Noleander 2222:Noleander 2218:Something 2178:Noleander 2146:Noleander 2086:expanding 2071:Noleander 1994:enhancing 1934:talk:mIRC 1900:Noleander 1866:Noleander 1810:Noleander 1777:Noleander 1718:WQA : --> 1716:DRN : --> 1642:Talk:MIRC 1630:Talk:Roog 1597:Xavexgoem 1564:Xavexgoem 1554:Xavexgoem 1309:bobrayner 1157:Coastside 1122:Coastside 765:so, yes, 607:involved. 565:formation 514:Volunteer 471:Volunteer 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 3934:Amatulić 3898:Amatulić 2664:thereof. 2646:Formerip 2105:WP:CIVIL 1826:Formerip 1792:Formerip 1745:Formerip 1715:3O : --> 1043:unsigned 1034:Untitled 1024:contribs 1019:Whenaxis 931:contribs 926:Whenaxis 880:contribs 867:Whenaxis 837:escalate 5198:history 4857:at the 4803:Support 4762:Support 4681:comment 4549:Doniago 4545:Weak No 4177:WP:AN/I 4017:comment 3967:already 3822:Nupedia 3326:Comment 3206:Neutral 3069:similar 2711:Rename? 2659:Oppose. 2631:comment 2603:Support 2529:Support 2492:Support 2110:Doniago 1932:is the 1843:Doniago 1696:Doniago 1476:Doniago 1139:be bold 1136:Support 943:JoelWhy 898:gave a 841:warring 609:JoelWhy 230:WP:AN/I 226:support 220:Serge, 163:, once 39:archive 5167:WP:RFC 4849:Ethics 4452:WP:ANI 4329:@SGCM: 4265:should 4172:WP:VPR 3774:WP:VPR 3729:really 3712:page? 3330:WP:WQA 3264:second 3235:Google 3202:Oppose 3008:place. 2784:name). 2746:Steven 2676:Oppose 2641:Oppose 2621:Oppose 2555:Steven 2388:Using 2312:Steven 2044:WP:WQA 1957:Steven 1862:WP:DRN 1806:WP:ANI 1772:before 1542:Oppose 1442:at all 1284:Steven 1155:Done! 814:except 702:should 251:(tock) 175:WP:DRN 4958:still 4638:track 4534:track 4472:track 4456:WP:3O 4442:track 4412:track 4189:track 4161:WP:3O 4080:would 4045:track 3979:track 3880:WP:RS 3334:WP:3O 3150:). — 2917:other 2751:Zhang 2723:is a 2721:WP:OO 2560:Zhang 2510:WP:DR 2469:WP:DR 2317:Zhang 2038:WP:3O 2007:and 1997:using 1962:Zhang 1404:WP:3O 1305:sides 1289:Zhang 904:WP:3O 833:WP:3O 767:WP:3O 763:WP:DR 759:WP:3O 517:Marek 474:Marek 289:WP:3O 284:WP:3O 16:< 5306:talk 5289:talk 5281:does 5259:TALK 5227:talk 5211:TALK 5176:talk 5147:talk 5100:talk 5031:).-- 5011:talk 4995:TALK 4946:talk 4928:sigh 4915:TALK 4892:talk 4886:. -- 4872:TALK 4839:TALK 4825:Done 4794:talk 4790:Gigs 4775:TALK 4731:TALK 4656:talk 4649:SGCM 4634:talk 4619:TALK 4597:talk 4590:SGCM 4575:TALK 4553:talk 4530:talk 4515:talk 4468:talk 4438:talk 4432:. — 4421:Poll 4408:talk 4375:talk 4368:SGCM 4352:TALK 4334:BOLD 4298:talk 4291:SGCM 4278:TALK 4256:TALK 4235:diff 4231:diff 4219:talk 4212:SGCM 4185:talk 4134:TALK 4094:TALK 4041:talk 3993:talk 3989:Gigs 3975:talk 3939:talk 3918:talk 3914:Gigs 3903:talk 3878:and 3876:WP:V 3858:talk 3854:Gigs 3812:talk 3808:Gigs 3782:talk 3718:talk 3683:talk 3557:talk 3528:talk 3498:talk 3458:talk 3436:talk 3429:SGCM 3417:talk 3413:Gigs 3394:talk 3390:Gigs 3369:talk 3365:Gigs 3343:talk 3305:talk 3275:talk 3243:talk 3214:talk 3165:talk 3148:here 3129:talk 3094:talk 3087:SGCM 3057:talk 3050:SGCM 2985:talk 2956:does 2946:talk 2897:talk 2871:talk 2856:talk 2767:talk 2699:talk 2695:Gigs 2684:talk 2650:talk 2612:talk 2592:talk 2578:talk 2541:talk 2534:SGCM 2518:talk 2500:talk 2482:talk 2478:Gigs 2449:talk 2426:talk 2412:and 2395:Hi. 2379:talk 2355:talk 2351:Gigs 2337:talk 2284:talk 2241:talk 2237:Gigs 2226:talk 2205:talk 2198:SGCM 2182:talk 2164:talk 2160:Gigs 2150:talk 2129:talk 2125:Gigs 2114:talk 2095:talk 2091:Gigs 2075:talk 2053:page 2034:Done 1978:talk 1942:talk 1904:talk 1889:talk 1885:Gigs 1870:talk 1847:talk 1830:talk 1814:talk 1796:talk 1781:talk 1749:talk 1730:talk 1723:SGCM 1700:talk 1682:TALK 1655:talk 1651:Gigs 1601:talk 1587:talk 1583:Gigs 1568:talk 1558:talk 1550:this 1546:well 1526:talk 1519:SGCM 1494:talk 1490:Gigs 1480:talk 1465:talk 1461:Gigs 1450:talk 1432:talk 1428:Gigs 1416:talk 1383:talk 1379:Gigs 1366:TALK 1331:talk 1327:Gigs 1313:talk 1267:talk 1263:Gigs 1248:talk 1244:Gigs 1226:talk 1219:SGCM 1190:TALK 1161:talk 1147:talk 1126:talk 1051:talk 976:talk 947:talk 916:talk 874:talk 849:talk 802:) | 799:TALK 775:talk 748:talk 732:) | 729:TALK 710:talk 665:) | 662:TALK 644:Now, 613:talk 585:) | 582:TALK 547:See 539:talk 498:) | 495:TALK 429:) | 426:TALK 407:) | 404:TALK 391:here 380:talk 363:talk 305:talk 297:Shii 265:talk 248:Shii 238:talk 232:. — 222:Shii 210:talk 195:) | 192:TALK 147:talk 139:this 113:talk 5246:DRN 5114:not 4937:are 4671:No. 4500:Yes 4311:try 4261:PS: 4105:two 3872:not 3285:can 3283:We 3143:not 3139:six 2973:the 2439:or 2267:or 2003:, 1930:how 1408:the 1013:or 859:who 648:can 640:was 413:PS: 326:}} 179:RFC 5308:) 5291:) 5262:) 5242:DR 5229:) 5214:) 5178:) 5149:) 5102:) 5013:) 4998:) 4948:) 4918:) 4894:) 4875:) 4842:) 4828:— 4810:✉ 4796:) 4778:) 4751:}} 4749:3O 4747:{{ 4734:) 4717:}} 4715:3O 4713:{{ 4698:✉ 4691:No 4640:) 4622:) 4585:No 4578:) 4562:No 4555:) 4536:) 4517:) 4474:) 4462:— 4458:. 4444:) 4430:No 4414:) 4355:) 4281:) 4191:) 4137:) 4097:) 4047:) 3995:) 3981:) 3920:) 3860:) 3824:? 3814:) 3784:) 3776:. 3720:) 3685:) 3559:) 3530:) 3500:) 3460:) 3419:) 3396:) 3371:) 3345:) 3307:) 3277:) 3245:) 3216:) 3167:) 3131:) 3123:— 2999:is 2987:) 2948:) 2899:) 2873:) 2858:) 2769:) 2701:) 2686:) 2652:) 2614:) 2594:) 2580:) 2520:) 2502:) 2484:) 2451:) 2443:— 2428:) 2406:}} 2400:{{ 2381:) 2357:) 2339:) 2286:) 2243:) 2228:) 2184:) 2166:) 2152:) 2141:if 2131:) 2116:) 2097:) 2077:) 2051:DR 2048:3O 1980:) 1944:) 1906:) 1891:) 1872:) 1849:) 1832:) 1816:) 1798:) 1783:) 1751:) 1702:) 1685:) 1657:) 1603:) 1589:) 1570:) 1496:) 1482:) 1467:) 1452:) 1434:) 1418:) 1395:is 1385:) 1369:) 1333:) 1315:) 1269:) 1250:) 1193:) 1163:) 1149:) 1128:) 1115:}} 1112:3O 1109:{{ 1104:}} 1101:3O 1098:{{ 1094:}} 1091:3O 1088:{{ 1081:}} 1078:3O 1075:{{ 1069:. 1053:) 978:) 949:) 918:) 908:on 900:30 883:| 851:) 777:) 750:) 712:) 615:) 541:) 382:) 365:) 346:: 307:) 267:) 240:) 212:) 159:, 149:) 141:. 115:) 64:← 5304:( 5287:( 5256:( 5225:( 5208:( 5174:( 5145:( 5124:♔ 5121:⚇ 5098:( 5071:) 5069:t 5067:( 5045:) 5043:t 5041:( 5009:( 4992:( 4969:♔ 4966:⚇ 4956:( 4944:( 4912:( 4890:( 4869:( 4836:( 4792:( 4772:( 4728:( 4683:) 4679:( 4658:) 4654:( 4636:• 4632:( 4616:( 4599:) 4595:( 4572:( 4551:( 4532:• 4528:( 4513:( 4492:♔ 4489:⚇ 4470:• 4466:( 4440:• 4436:( 4410:• 4406:( 4377:) 4373:( 4349:( 4321:♔ 4318:⚇ 4300:) 4296:( 4275:( 4253:( 4221:) 4217:( 4187:• 4183:( 4151:♔ 4148:⚇ 4131:( 4116:♔ 4113:⚇ 4091:( 4067:♔ 4064:⚇ 4043:• 4039:( 4019:) 4015:( 3991:( 3977:• 3973:( 3958:♔ 3955:⚇ 3941:) 3937:( 3916:( 3905:) 3901:( 3856:( 3832:♔ 3829:⚇ 3810:( 3799:♔ 3796:⚇ 3780:( 3744:♔ 3741:⚇ 3716:( 3700:♔ 3697:⚇ 3681:( 3603:♔ 3600:⚇ 3555:( 3544:♔ 3541:⚇ 3526:( 3514:♔ 3511:⚇ 3496:( 3480:♔ 3477:⚇ 3456:( 3438:) 3434:( 3415:( 3392:( 3367:( 3352:— 3341:( 3303:( 3290:— 3273:( 3241:( 3212:( 3163:( 3127:( 3096:) 3092:( 3059:) 3055:( 2983:( 2961:— 2944:( 2895:( 2869:( 2854:( 2765:( 2697:( 2682:( 2648:( 2633:) 2629:( 2610:( 2590:( 2576:( 2543:) 2539:( 2516:( 2498:( 2480:( 2447:( 2424:( 2377:( 2353:( 2335:( 2282:( 2239:( 2224:( 2207:) 2203:( 2180:( 2162:( 2148:( 2127:( 2112:( 2093:( 2073:( 1976:( 1940:( 1902:( 1887:( 1868:( 1845:( 1828:( 1812:( 1794:( 1779:( 1747:( 1732:) 1728:( 1698:( 1679:( 1653:( 1599:( 1585:( 1566:( 1556:( 1528:) 1524:( 1492:( 1478:( 1463:( 1448:( 1430:( 1414:( 1381:( 1363:( 1329:( 1311:( 1265:( 1246:( 1228:) 1224:( 1187:( 1159:( 1145:( 1124:( 1049:( 1026:) 1022:( 974:( 963:♔ 960:⚇ 945:( 933:) 929:( 914:( 877:· 847:( 824:♔ 821:⚇ 796:( 773:( 746:( 726:( 708:( 691:♔ 688:⚇ 659:( 611:( 579:( 537:( 492:( 447:♔ 444:⚇ 423:( 401:( 378:( 361:( 357:— 303:( 263:( 236:( 208:( 189:( 145:( 130:♔ 127:⚇ 111:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Third opinion/Archive 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index