Misplaced Pages

:Third opinion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:42, 25 November 2005 editJosefu (talk | contribs)414 edits →Active disagreements← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:45, 14 January 2025 edit undo93.37.212.37 (talk) →Active disagreements 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Short description|Informal dispute resolution process}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
{{redirect|WP:3}}</noinclude>

{{ombox
The '''Third Opinion''' is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute.
| text = '''The third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding.''' This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party.
Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and require a tiebreaker—a third opinion.
| imageright = {{ombox/shortcut|WP:3O|WP:THIRD}}

}}
In the context of disagreements—related to policy or content—sometimes these disputes involve only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, which not many people watch.

{{dispute-resolution}} {{dispute-resolution}}
]


'''Third opinion''' ('''3O''') is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of ] and ] from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.
== Reasoning ==


The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the ] process such as the ] or ].
Some things can only be done one way or another. Despite good will on both sides, some disagreements cannot be solved without outside help. When only two people are involved, this may lead to a deadlock. This page is meant to provide a streamlined process for solving disagreements involving only two editors.


== Guidelines == == How to list a dispute ==


Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been '''thoroughly discussed''' on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and '''only two editors''' are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the ] process such as the ] or ]. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in ].
=== Listing ===
* Any editor may list any controversy involving only two editors. If you are not one of the participants in the disagreement, however, you are encouraged to provide a third opinion yourself.
* This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people. If more are involved, try convincing—or coming to a compromise with—the other people. If that fails, try other Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures.
* If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it from the list below (regardless of whether you listed it in the first place). If you provide a third opinion in any disagreement below, please remove it from the list.


It is recommended that the <u>filing editor notify the second editor about the post here</u>. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.
=== Providing Third Opinions ===
* Only provide third opinions on the relevant talk pages, not on this page.
* While this page is meant to provide a swift procedure, do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in most cases listed on this page, you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.
* Consider watching pages on which you state your opinion for a week or so, to ensure your opinion is not ignored. Articles listed on this page are frequently watched by very few people.
* You are, of course, entirely free to provide a third option—that is, to disagree with both disputants. If you do this, as in all cases in which a third opinion has been provided, remove the article from the list below.


In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, <u>editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute</u>, in ] and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.
== Active disagreements ==
'''Add new conflicts at the bottom. Use short (one line), neutral descriptions''', and provide links to locations where more information is available. Do not sign your name, but add a date (using "<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>" - five tildes). Please do not discuss the disagreement on this page.


Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are ''exclusively'' about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the ]. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.
It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another disagreement.


=== Instructions ===
'''Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed.'''


'''No discussion of the issue should take place here'''—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.
*] ], (apparently also uses 4.227.249.130) keeps Americanising this article. I'll copy the story so far to my talk page, since he blanks his. ] 05:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Follow these instructions to make your post:
* ] first editor added a new section to discuss the legacy of Bektashi as a humor character in Turkish culture, including two sample jokes. The second editor deleted the jokes with the accusation of racism. The first editor insists on including the jokes arguing that it is an important aspect of Bektashi culture, while the second editor claims there is no place for a joke in an article about religion. First editor believes culture is an important aspect of religion, being indispensable for Bektashi tradition. 22:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
* Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a ''']''' symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
* Your entry should contain the following:
** a ''']''' to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
** a brief neutral description of the dispute—'''no more than a line or two'''—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
** a '''date, but no signature'''. You can add the date without your name by using '''five tildes''' (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
* Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.


Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the {{History|Misplaced Pages:Third opinion|history}} to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.
* ] This article is part of "History of Croatia" series and first editor argues that it should be removed from the series and that new article "Croatia during WWII" should be created, which would equaly treat both Independent State of Croatia and ], a state proclaimed by anti-fascists and which envolved to todays Croatia. The second disagrees and denies any state other than Independent State of Croatia existed at the time on Croatian soil. See ] 16:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.
* ] There is a dispute in the Criticism section. 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


== Active disagreements ==
* ] There is a dispute over the meaning of the term, with a group reverting the page back to one like the 2003 version over a dispute. Caused two page protections over reverts and several 3rr and sockpuppet allegations. 15:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
{{ombox|text='''After reading the above instructions, <span class="plainlinks"></span> to this section, below this message.''' '''If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list.''' ''Example entry'':<br><nowiki># ]</nowiki>. Disagreement about relevance of section and sources. 12:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)}}<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Active disagreements}}}|Active disagreements|{{expand wikitext|{{#invoke:String|replace|

<!-- ALL CURRENT REQUESTS MUST BE PLACED BELOW THIS LINE. ADD YOURS BELOW ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT ARE OPEN. -->
* ] We are currently in a dispute as to whether "Taiwan, Province of China" should be listed at the disambiguation page or not, and whether Taiwan's international name that the People's Republic of China prefers, ] should also be listed on the Taiwan disambiguation page. ] 18:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

* ] Dispute over basic definition. 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

*] intense edit war over phrasing and whether certain facts should be included or omitted. The parties cannot communicate. See how attempt of one of the parties (ie me) was responded to by the other party . ] 10:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

* ] - whether or not to include a section on Ballmer's personality, with cited examples. -- 04:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


# ] Disagreement whether rogue planets can be an exoplanet extreme and whether stellar remnants/compact objects (neutron stars/white dwarfs) are stars. 03:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*] (]) - this page is currently engaged in mediation, it has been suggested that we move to arbitration, the editors would appreciate a third opinion on the best way forward from here. ie. Page protection, arbitration, section protection.


# ] Disagreement whether having the <nowiki>{{Infobox waterfall}}</nowiki> in the Falls of Clyde article is useful for wikipedia readers. 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*] is currently the article of the week at the Article Improvement Drive. One user wishes there to be large paragraphs of information on a documentary that was scheduled to air on the Discoveryt Channel but didn't called '']''. A couple or few other users (myself included) don't believe the information fits in the ] article itself, though '']'' is currently listed as a see-also. ]</font><sup> ] 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


<!-- ALL CURRENT REQUESTS MUST BE PLACED ABOVE THIS LINE.
*] is an article I wrote quite some time ago about several defunct minor-league Canadian hockey teams that had used that name over the years. After many contributions and improvements, one user has limited the article to one of these historical teams, and has also included factually inaccurate information regarding the last team's dismantlement. I've attempted to include this user's information, while correcting his errors and returning the deleted information back to the article, but he's reverted to the truncated version, providing either bogus or non-supportive references. I don't want to keep doing rv's, so I'd appreciate some neutral third-parties (perhaps ones with an interest in sports or Canadian history) to add their commentary. 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)~
: Yes, please, someone come over. Nice '''neutral description''', BTW. ] 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
THERE MAY BE SEVERAL OR NONE. ADD YOURS BELOW ANY OTHERS.
CAREFUL—DO NOT ALTER (OR REMOVE) ''THESE'' FOUR LINES!!! -->
|%%]|{{format linkr{{!}}%1}}|plain=false}}}}}}</onlyinclude> <!-- DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE ---->


== Feedback ==
*] seems to have difficulties maintaining a NPOV in football articles, turning a blind eye to bias against teams other than that which they support and altering objective articles so that they conform with their own partisan views. ] 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{mono|<nowiki>{{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}}</nowiki>}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see ] and ].


== Providing third opinions ==
*] Debate over use of text that is/isn't Verifiable, Neutral, Notable/Important. Use of legal threats and harassment to try and stop the editing process. User also going by "Investigator" to try and influence the process. 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
{{anchor|Remove answered entry and summarize on how many are left}}
When providing a third opinion, please ''remove the listing from this page'' before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the ] ''how many disputes remain.'' Example of summary message: {{code|5 items remain on the list}}


* Third opinions must be ]. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
*]. Possible revert war evolving. Only one party discussing issue. No response from other party. 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
* Read the arguments of the disputants.
* Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Misplaced Pages works by ], not a ]. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
* Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: <nowiki>~~~~.</nowiki>
* Write your opinion in a ] way.
* Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
* Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your ] for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
* If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{tls|third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
* For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{tl|uw-3o}}.


=== Use template ===
*(Dispute is summed up here: ]) — ] believes that while ] and the ] are guidelines, my edits removing unnecessary/duplicate internal links and fixing presentation are somehow out of line, since guidelines aren't meant to be inflexible and we're "technically" not required to follow any rules/guides. I don't want to get into an editing war with anyone, let alone an actual Wiki admin like him, but this listing stems from a batch of reverts of presentation/formatting edits made to several Coldplay ] & ] pages that were, in my belief, in accordance with consensus at both WikiProject Albums and the Manual of Style. I believe he is improperly reverting/editing against consensus for his own individual preference, especially since he created the majority of these articles, and I'd appreciate other assessments of the situation. - 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
* The {{tl|3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{tl|3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):
{{tls|3OR | <your response> }}
{{tls|3ORshort | <your response> }}


== Declining requests ==
*] - dispute over whether he was born in 1966 or 1969, and which years(s) the article should include.] 06:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:
* ] - User Zelos has repeatedly attempted to add his own ALife simulator to the list. Problem is that his simulator IMO is not noteworthy (being neither done nor demonstrating an interest beyond himself), and its inclusion on this list amounts to little more than vanity (again, IMO). He wrote a wiki article on it which was deleted, so I'm assuming I'm not alone in thinking this. I've posted some guidelines for inclusion I think are appropriate on the talk page, I'd just appreciate someone else telling me if I'm way off base or not. --] 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
* It should be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
* It should explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
* It should suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try ], the ], the talk page of a ] or one of the other ] options.")


==Volunteers==
* ] - A couple of reverts over what is and what isn't an encyclopedic article, primarily bouncing along between and version. Note that another user was tempted to change this page into a simple redirect. &mdash; 01:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
'''Active contributors''' who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the ]. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{tl|User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.


Adding {{t|Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links:
*] The article has been locked because of a slow edit war between two editors. The two editors have not been able to agree and the dispute has widened to a dispute on the legitimacy of the article itself. 22:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
{{mono|<nowiki>Third opinion disputes {{Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion}}<small>, {{purge}}</small></nowiki>}}


*] Featured article had content from a persistent anonymous IP (who I think is now registered as ]) which included very wild speculative accusations about the company's financial future, as well as other original research and POV. Attempts have been made both to NPOV the content and to discuss on the Talk page, but the user seems to have little interest in obeying policy, and furthermore has tried to delete comments from the Talk page. 09:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages community}}
*] is down to a two-versions issue. One side says the old version was "a piece of trash&hellip; begging the question&hellip;" The other says the new version is "an uncited POV near-stub". Among the differences between the two are: the old version talked at length about the relation between fascism and right-wing politics (which the new one dismisses in two sentences) and (both sides seem to agree) at too much length about the Right and the War on Terror. The question at this point is which of these versions makes a better starting point to move forward. -- 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
]


]
*] page proposed improvements have fallen into a "stall and revert" deadlock. Improvements proposed are for page coherency, content accessibility, removal of redundant info (appearing on other pages) and factual context (veracity), yet none have made it permanently online to date. Would much appreciate some unbiased critique. 17:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:45, 14 January 2025

Informal dispute resolution process "WP:3" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:3 (disambiguation).
The third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding. This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party.Shortcuts
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.

The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

How to list a dispute

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Instructions

No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

  • Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
  • Your entry should contain the following:
    • a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
    • a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
    • a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
  • Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute to this section, below this message. If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list. Example entry:
# ]. Disagreement about relevance of section and sources. 12:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. Talk:List of exoplanet extremes § Recent changes Disagreement whether rogue planets can be an exoplanet extreme and whether stellar remnants/compact objects (neutron stars/white dwarfs) are stars. 03:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. Talk:Falls of Clyde (waterfalls) § Third opinion request about the utility of using the infobox in this article Disagreement whether having the {{Infobox waterfall}} in the Falls of Clyde article is useful for wikipedia readers. 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Misplaced Pages:Third opinion/Service award log.

Providing third opinions

When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list

  • Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
  • Read the arguments of the disputants.
  • Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
  • Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
  • Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
  • Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
  • Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
  • If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
  • For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.

Use template

  • The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):
{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}

Declining requests

If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:

Volunteers

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.

Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links: 

Third opinion disputes {{Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion}}<small>, {{purge}}</small>


Misplaced Pages community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal.
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community
topics
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Category: