Misplaced Pages

talk: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 20:20, 23 May 2007 editAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits →3Os are not a panacea: I think Special:Contributions/Smee should take a 2 or 3 month vacation from the 3O project & its talk page.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:15, 16 December 2024 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators20,302 edits →Premature AOC request: replyTag: CD 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tmbox | type = content | text = <center><big>'''''Please do not list Third Opinion requests on this page.'''''</big><br/>''Instead'' list them in the ] of the ]<br/>after reading the instructions at the top of that page.</center>}}
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader|WT:3O}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{shortcut|WT:3O}}
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}

}}
{{archive box|
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*]
|maxarchivesize = 250K
*]
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive =Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== User FAQ ==
__TOC__
* ''See ]''

== Third opinions for COI affected editors ==
I am working on an ] and need to provide suggestions to COI affected editors who have organizational conflicts. The essay already suggests posting comments to an article talk page (as does ]). Additionally, I am going to recommend that COI affected editors who want to write about themselves, their company or their clients do so in their own user space, and then get an experienced editor to review their work for neutrality, edit if necessary, and possibly copy the article to main space. Would this page be an appropriate place for COI affected editors to seek help as a first step, before going to ]? ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 08:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's good, but I'm hardly an expert on ]. The points you made in your post here are excellent. I'm less clear on the essay itself. Does "this page" mean the essay page or WP:3O? ] ] 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:If it fits all the requirements for a third opinion request (see page), yes. --] (] ]) 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

== Random Note on giving Third Opinions ==
I just finished re-reading ]'s ], and in the second last chapter, the character ''The Chairman'' made me think of this Third Opinion process without a moment's doubt. I wonder if any of you has the same associations with that particular chapter of the novel. --] (] ]) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:I read the book, but I hadn't put 2 & 2 together until I read your comment. I can see parallels between the two processes, Asimov's & ours. --] 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Please tell me what you think ==
Here's my first attempt at 3O. Please tell me what you think. The page is ]. {{unsigned|JodyB|15:43, May 1, 2007 (UTC)}}

== Putting sample requests in the page? ==
It seems like users have a hard time writing a good neutral request, one that avoids prejudicing the issue. Would it be worth putting in a couple of fictional sample requests as models? If so, what might those requests look like? Thanks, ] 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps use some recursive examples?

:*] - disagreement over including examples in the project page of the third opinion dispute resolution process. Do examples have to be fictional, or can previous requests be used as examples? 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:--] (] ]) 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*Sounds like a great idea. ] 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

::Looks good to me too. ] 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been one example on the project page for many months:
<blockquote>
"Example: "]: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive ]s. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"
</blockquote>
Users seeking third opinions apparently don't notice it, so I'm in favour of improving this situation. — ] 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*Done. ] 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

== Proposed for more formal discussion. ==

*I have proposed {{tl|proposed|]}} This article for more formal discussion, here on the talk page. ] 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

What exactly do you want to discuss? --] (] ]) 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*Advancing the status of this page to guideline or proposal. ] 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:An interesting point, of which I am an opponent. My main two arguments for this position are:
:#Third Opinion as a guideline or process would make it essentially a formal process. A formal process of requesting uninvolved outside opinions already exists, ]. Redundancy is to be avoided.
:#Keeping Third Opinion informal as it currently is has its merits, because the process is clear and simple. This results in a relatively low threshold for people to come here and list a dispute. Other dispute resolution processes are regarded as more formal, and thus, more drastic measures indicating an escalated conflict. Listing a dispute early is a good thing. From the project page:
::''The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.''
:] (] ]) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*This is good, this is why I proposed it, to get some healthy, positive feedback, and polite dialogue going. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. It will be interesting to hear what others think. ] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


== clarification on third opinion request ==
*3O helps defuse (or, if you prefer, diffuse) small conflicts before they become major. It also provides a less formal venue for users who are unfamiliar with the processes and policies of Misplaced Pages to seek help. This keeps the larger, formalized venues cleaner and ready for disputes that are serious, long lasting, or otherwise irremediable. ] 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
**Thank you for your polite and clear response. Any comments/thoughts from others? ] 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
*There's no need for this; Misplaced Pages isn't formal. A forum where people can ask outside information is, ], not a guideline. This page works quite well without requiring tags at the top. ] 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


@] When I made my third opinion request, I was specifically referring to only my dispute with Mason.Jones. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
==3O==
As I understand it, 3O is for opinions when two users are involved. The question related to Cults/reports is an ongoing discussion between multiple users and is not limited to two individuals. I'm not sure that question is properly asked on this 3O. ] 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*Yes, that ''was'' the prior intention, but this was discussed further, and determined that it is okay to use 3O for disputes with more than 2 editors. ] 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:*The page still says 2 users. And your question, with all due respect, a) is not worded neutrally and b) is not an accurate representation of both sides of the debate.
::Furthermore, we are on ''break'' from that discussion. Attempting to get a 3O here, would seem a rather improper end-run to get a decision before the group has had time to cool off. ] 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:::The discussion can still continue, and neutral editors may weigh in. This may be yet perhaps the ''best'' time for a neutral, previously un-involved editor to provide a comment, because the comment itself may be taken at face value. ] 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
::::Again, all due respect, but your question does not properly reflect both sides and is worded in a biased way. Your counterparts are not claiming any report represents the '''entire''' goverment. I'm just giving my opinion that I believe your 3O request is biased, not-neutral, and inappropriate, given that people are taking a cooling off break. ] 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please suggest ''politely'' here on the talk page how I should revise the 3O request? ] 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
*I have revised it to say ''imprimatur'' of the federal government, as opposed to use of "entire", as you had objected to. This now does accurately sum up the issue at hand. ] 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
::::::I cannot speak for the rest of the group and I believe it would be presumptious for me to attempt it. They are on wiki break and I am not authorized to speak on their behalf.
::::::If I were asking, in a dispute between you and me, I would ask something like "In the title ''List of groups referred to as cults in government reports'', a) What does '''government reports''' imply? - or - b) Do the words '''government report''' suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report written by anyone in the government in the official capacity of their work? -or- c) Does '''government report''' imply that the report has any official standing with the government?
::::::But, as I said, asking it at all, while people are on break, I feel is inappropriate. ] 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*Modified as per suggestion, to: ''Does the title of the article ] suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report published by a federal government agency? '' ] 03:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:*And, I repeat, I do not speak for anyone else. Jossi has used other wording in his objections. The CRS already sent an email stating they do not consider themselves to write ''official government reports'' and are not authorized to do so without legislative mandate. So getting a 3O is picking nits, in my opinion. I'm on break. Best Regards. ] 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::On second thought, an even better wording would be :''Should the email, sent by the CSR, regarding their opinion of their reports, be applied to items in this list. Specifically should reports written by the CSR be excluded from ''Lists of groups referred to as cults in government reports''? ] 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*But ''that is not the issue''. It ''would'' be, if the article implied that lowercase "government reports" ''meant'' "official government reports". But it does not. It simply implies reports that have been published by a federal government agency. ] 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:*And I would agree with you, except for the original opening paragraph in that article. Although it has been removed, it still goes to demonstrate the original purpose of the list.
::<blockquote>"''Since ], some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either ]s, ], or ]s - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from ],<ref name="unhcr" /> ],<ref name="belgium1997" /> ],<ref name="canadianintelligence" /> ]<ref name="france1995" />(in 1995), ],<ref name="germany1997" /> and the ].<ref name="crs1979" />''"</blockquote>
::Now, please respect my request for a break. thank you. ] 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''''Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from...''''' That is the definition of the article originally intended - "government reports", lowercase. ] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
::*''government'' - lower case - implies official government report, not a congressional briefing paper written by an agency that already gave an email opinion. ] 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:::*Nope, that would be ''uppercase'' "Government Report". ''lowercase'' "government report", implies any government report produced by an agency of the federal government. ] 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
::::*To which I would respond, that would be an 'agency report' or a 'government document', and viola we're having the debate here instead of the article talk page. .*still on break* ] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Just because something is labeled a "government report", does not mean that it is a report with the full faith and backing of an entire ''branch'' of the federal government, just a particular federal agency ''of that branch''. ] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
::::::*Or single researcher? There is no indication that the CRS reports/briefings/documents carry any backing of an entire agency. They are simply (private) research reports/briefings/documents, prepared on behalf of someone in Congress. They are RS but there is no reason to believe or claim or suggest that they ''represent'' any branch, agency, or department's view. They are merely documents, some of which contain the word report. Why are we having this discussion here? ] 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


:That wasn't clear (to me) from your filing, as the section you linked to unambiguously had more than two editors involved. You're welcome to relist, but I might suggest breaking off the pertinent dispute into its own section first so that it's more clear where the specific dispute with only two involved editors lies. If/when you've done that and wish to relist, I'm happy to strike my comment from the Talk page. ] (]) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Try RfC. --] (] ]) 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::I have created the subsection. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds good, still waiting for a 3O as per the ] page. ] 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:::I wish to relist also. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. ] (]) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've recently removed my 3O request, I'm conceding this dispute now because I honestly do not have the capacity to continue it. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


== Editors or parties? == == Two difficulties ==


Intermittently I have been sharing my third opinion. I find following difficulties.
Why is this process limited to just two editors? Wouldn't is just be as useful for factions or parties of editors on two sides of one issue? --] 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:It is an integral part of how this works in comparison to RFC. With two editors in dispute, a single impartial opinion is usually enough to sort the issue. I have dealt with 3O requests in which other parties emerged from the woodwork and weighed in with an opinion that goes against the 3O, which has hints of meatpuppetry about it. Such situations can get messy, drag on long after the mediator has got involved, and undermines the ethos of 3O. I am not prepared to work in that kind of situation, which should be dealt with by a more formal form of mediation or comment from more than one mediating editor. The practical difference between two-editor disputes and two-''party'' disputes may appear small on paper but is very significant in reality. 3O provides a very worthwhile option for fairly straightforward two-editor disputes, and it has a very high success rate in my experience &ndash; it should never be weighed down by the added complexity and problems of multiple-editor/two-party disputes. ] ] 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! --] 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


1) We do not have system of getting notified when a 3O request comes.
== 3Os are not a panacea ==
I can see that some editors ask for 3rd opinions ''very'' often. IMO, 3rd Opinions are useful when editors get stuck and need some outside assistance ''from time to time''. If an editor keeps coming back for 3rd Opinions on every dispute, that editor may need to re-consider the way he is contributing to this project. ] <small>]</small> 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do. ] 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
** If an editor needs help so often with content disputes, the editor may need to re-assess ''why''. Dispute resolution process is there to help us when we need it, not to do the work for us. ] <small>]</small> 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
***It takes two to have content disputes. And unfortunately, in ''many'' cases, certain other editors like to frame the issues ''not'' about the ''content'' in dispute, but about personal issues they have with certain editors. This is ''not'' in the spirit of ], and is rude, inappropriate, and most unfortunate. ] 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
*I have observed this as well. Is there a time when it crosses from a reasonable engagement of resolution into tendentious and disruptive practices?
:I also notice that some editors have a difficult time framing the 3O in a neutral way which accurately reflects both sides of the question. I've seen this neutrality problem come up here in this discussion before.
:Perhaps it would be worth looking into a history of 3O rulings to see if any editors have both an abnormal number of 3O requests in combination with a high percentage of 3O rulings against their position? ] 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::We have been through this before. And neutral editors stated here, that if one or the other editor feels the 3O was phrased improperly, the neutral 3O editor will most likely look past this anyway. ] 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
::I know I don't really care if the plea isn't phrased neutrally. I can look past it and judge the issue on its own merits. In any case, the pleas posted now are much better than they were a few months ago, now that the guidelines are clear, with a clear example given. -] 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I tend to interpret a biased request as indicative of the nature of the dispute (a controversial topic, for example) and nothing more than that. Some degree of bias is quite natural in disputes and that will sometimes show itself in the request. It is easily put aside. ] ] 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


2) Other than few exceptions most users do not provide reasonable enough summary -at the article talk page dispute section- as has been suggested. Practically for us it becomes ] issue


I suppose two of above reasons may cause some ] requests going unattended. Idk if these issues have been discussed previously and also do not know, can there be any solution to it?
Repeatedly asking for a Third Opinion on related subjects might exhaust the number of available neutral editors to actually write that opinion. For example, I will no longer write a 3O on anything related to cults or Afrocentrism.


Thought sharing is better than not sharing it. ] (]) 08:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ ] 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC). The only thing I have noticed in Third Opinions is that the requesting party is less likely to be right. This is not a reliable statistic though - my latest opinion was in favour of the requesting party.
:On 1), I find watchlisting works well. 2) is an occasional problem, but if you ask the involved editors for a summary they normally give it (maybe with some arguing). ] (]) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've also found watchlisting works, particularly when the "xxx remaining" convention is used on edit summaries. –&nbsp;] (]) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::], ] - I just read this. I haven't been active in ] recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. ] (]) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed that watchlisting tends to be sufficient for seeing new notifications and that, if you want to weigh in on a dispute but aren't sure you understand it, there's nothing wrong with asking for a summation, and that, as noted, the editors simply providing such may move them toward a resolution. ] (]) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)


== Help! ==
--] (] ]) 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Help me-helped}}
::I'm not sure that bias is exactly the term that I would use. Bias in the question, or implying the value of one side over the other, can be seen for what it is and is generally easy to overlook. The more significant part of my comment was 'accurately reflects both sides of the question'. What I'm referring to is more of an inadvertent misrepresentation of actual question. A straw-man question, if you will, which asks the question in a way to get an obvious answer but doesn't necessarily accurately reflect the opposing argument. This can happen in good faith, if one editor has not taken time to understand the objection, or if the other editor is unable to articulate well.
I tried to request a third opinion on the project page but probably made some mistake and so, what I typed is not visible. Please correct it.-] (]) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::Say, for example, that I want to include a citation that 'ants have legs', in an article on motorcycles. I find 20 reliable zoology sources, written by well respected zoologists, which clearly state that 'ants have legs'. A fellow editor objects both that the 'zoologists are not reliable sources for motor cycle articles' and that the 'material is not relevant'. I misunderstand his objection, and I then open a 3O asking "Is it proper and acceptable to include relevant material from reputable and reliable published sources in the article?".
:Fixed, but the request has been removed because there was no attempt at discussion at the relevant talk page. ] (]) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::Clearly this example is blatant and the misunderstanding would easily be spotted for what it is. However, in more complex situations, with an inexperienced editor who is unable to articulate his objections, a good-faith straw-man 3O could easily go unrecognized and a good-faith 3O could be misused.
::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} There has been a discussion so please add my request back.-] (]) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::I realize that this is simply part of the process, that no system is perfect, and that 3O editors are sharp enough to see through the bulk of emotional wording and viewpoints. However, in the context of my statement above, I was pondering, in general, how often this happens and at what point would AGF no longer apply if any individual editor routinely had difficulty posing an accurate 3O request. ] 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ganeemath}} A discussion?! You have replied to each other ''once'', and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to attempt to resolve disagreements ''yourself''. Seeking ] to do that job is the last resort. ] (]) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-] (]) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Ganesmath}} No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called ''talking'' with them? ] (]) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} We have ''talked'' on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-] (]) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} Now, he is removing more text from ]. See , and edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-] (]) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page {{u|Ganeemath}}? ] (]) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} Please do. {{noping|IntGrah}} is removing text from the ] article. See , and edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here. He is even defending the removals . He has even reverted sourced content with edit. Then, when I propose what can be added with sources, he doesn't bother to respond!-] (]) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


== Disagreement on whether there is an issue of reliable sources (and several others) leading to the (un)deletion of a section of the article ==
;Thank you to above neutral Third Opinioners
], ], ] -- thank you all for providing such politely worded responses to this issue, in your comments above.
*] -- I am glad to see that you can look past however others feel that a request is worded, and go investigate the issue itself. This shows that the 3O process is working correctly.
*] -- Your statements that you can put aside whatever degree of bias may be present in disputes, is also reassuring and also goes to the success of this process.
*] -- The very fact that your latest opinion was in favor of a requesting party - shows that you yourself are able to provide fair opinions on different issues, and this ''also'' goes to the success of the current nature of the process.


I see the editor is blocked for edit warring, in any case there were 3 other editors involved including me. Sorry about signing, ] ] 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that lots of 3O requests on certain topics - perhaps "cults or Afrocentrism", as suggested above - simply goes to the contentiousness of these topics, and they certainly are even in scholarly academic settings off-Misplaced Pages, and not immediately to faults of any individual editor or editors. ] 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).


:I wouldn't worry about it too much. The editor being blocked is secondary to the fact that there were already more than two involved editors. I'm also not sure an RSN dispute is really appropriate for filing here (though I'm not sure it does any harm either). ] (]) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:No worries. I agree noticeboard disputes should not be listed here since 3O is a different form of article dispute resolution. ] (]/]) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


== Premature AOC request ==
Having given a few third opinions of the sort Jossi refers to, I'm going to give an unsolicited one here. Smee and Lsi john, you guys both seem like pretty reasonable people who have strong and very different points of view on a number of issues. I think you guys could be much better editors if you could learn to work better together. I think Jossi's right; an occasional third opinion is a good way to get past a hump. Regularly needing them is a sign that you two are missing chances to discover and solve the root problem. Please take another swing at it! And feel free to ask if you want suggestions on how to do that. With sincere regards, ] 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:For the record, I agree with jossi 100%. And with your's as well. I'll leave it to whomever is interested, to dig up the statistics of the situation. Also, for the record, I was not consulted about, or prior to, the 2 recent 3O requests where were asked for, and given. I did, however, specifically object to the wording on one, which is why it was discussed here. Like Jossi, I feel 3O's are being used to avoid the personal responsibility involved in compromise (my extra wording, not his). ] 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::And I was not asked about this new one either. ] 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


It appears that the current request involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's placement in ] has not been discussed to a greater extent than two talk page messages. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I think {{user|Smee}} should take a two or three month vacation from the 3O project and its talk page. — ] ] 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:You can remove it from the list and leave a note on the discussion that the request is premature. ] (]/]) 00:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:15, 16 December 2024

Please do not list Third Opinion requests on this page.
Instead list them in the Active Disagreements section of the main project page
after reading the instructions at the top of that page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third opinion page.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

User FAQ

clarification on third opinion request

@Doniago When I made my third opinion request, I was specifically referring to only my dispute with Mason.Jones. ―Howard • 🌽 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't clear (to me) from your filing, as the section you linked to unambiguously had more than two editors involved. You're welcome to relist, but I might suggest breaking off the pertinent dispute into its own section first so that it's more clear where the specific dispute with only two involved editors lies. If/when you've done that and wish to relist, I'm happy to strike my comment from the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have created the subsection. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I wish to relist also. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I've recently removed my 3O request, I'm conceding this dispute now because I honestly do not have the capacity to continue it. ―Howard • 🌽 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Two difficulties

Intermittently I have been sharing my third opinion. I find following difficulties.

1) We do not have system of getting notified when a 3O request comes.

2) Other than few exceptions most users do not provide reasonable enough summary -at the article talk page dispute section- as has been suggested. Practically for us it becomes WP:TLDR issue

I suppose two of above reasons may cause some WP:3O requests going unattended. Idk if these issues have been discussed previously and also do not know, can there be any solution to it?

Thought sharing is better than not sharing it. Bookku (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On 1), I find watchlisting works well. 2) is an occasional problem, but if you ask the involved editors for a summary they normally give it (maybe with some arguing). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I've also found watchlisting works, particularly when the "xxx remaining" convention is used on edit summaries. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Bookku, User:AirshipJungleman29 - I just read this. I haven't been active in Third Opinion recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that watchlisting tends to be sufficient for seeing new notifications and that, if you want to weigh in on a dispute but aren't sure you understand it, there's nothing wrong with asking for a summation, and that, as noted, the editors simply providing such may move them toward a resolution. DonIago (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Help!

check-markThis help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I tried to request a third opinion on the project page but probably made some mistake and so, what I typed is not visible. Please correct it.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, but the request has been removed because there was no attempt at discussion at the relevant talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: There has been a discussion here so please add my request back.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Ganeemath A discussion?! You have replied to each other once, and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to attempt to resolve disagreements yourself. Seeking another volunteer editor to do that job is the last resort. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Ganesmath No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called talking with them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: We have talked on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Now, he is removing more text from Abdullah Azzam. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-Ganeemath (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page Ganeemath? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Please do. IntGrah is removing text from the Abdullah Azzam article. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here. He is even defending the removals here. He has even reverted sourced content with this edit. Then, when I propose what can be added here with sources, he doesn't bother to respond!-Ganeemath (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement on whether there is an issue of reliable sources (and several others) leading to the (un)deletion of a section of the article

I see the editor is blocked for edit warring, in any case there were 3 other editors involved including me. Sorry about signing, Doug Weller talk 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The editor being blocked is secondary to the fact that there were already more than two involved editors. I'm also not sure an RSN dispute is really appropriate for filing here (though I'm not sure it does any harm either). DonIago (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I agree noticeboard disputes should not be listed here since 3O is a different form of article dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Premature AOC request

It appears that the current request involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's placement in 2028 United States presidential election has not been discussed to a greater extent than two talk page messages. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You can remove it from the list and leave a note on the discussion that the request is premature. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)