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 10:37, 3 January 2008 editButterfly0fdoom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,085 edits →Active disagreements← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:13, 27 December 2024 edit undoSynorem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,828 edits →Active disagreements 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Short description|Informal dispute resolution process}}
{| class="messagebox"
{{redirect|WP:3}}</noinclude>
|-
{{ombox
|
| 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.
| ]
| imageright = {{ombox/shortcut|WP:3O|WP:THIRD}}
| '''This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project.'''
}}
| {{Shortcut|WP:3O|WP:THIRD}}
|}
{{dispute-resolution}} {{dispute-resolution}}
__NOTOC__
'''Third opinion''' is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires ] and ] on both sides of the dispute.


'''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.
This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the ] process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.


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 ].
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 and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.


== How to list a dispute ==
If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the ] (with the option of a {{tl|User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.


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 ].
==How to list a dispute==
Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process ''before'' making a request here. Follow these instructions to make your post:
*If, after discussion, '''only two editors''' are involved, you may list the dispute below in the '''Active Disagreements''' section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.
*Provide a '''concise''' and '''neutral''' description of the disagreement, with a ] to the article's '''talk page'''. Including the most significant ]s may be helpful, too.
*'''Use a ]''' to the specific section that contains the dispute.
*'''Sign with ''five'' tildes''' (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.
*'''No discussion''' on this page. Confine the discussion to the relevant talk pages.
*To preserve formatting, '''start your entry with a ]''' directly below the last entry and avoid any excessive cosmetic formatting.


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.
{| style="margin:15px 0 5px 0; padding:4px 12px 7px 12px; border:1px solid #A3B1BF; background:#f5faff; font-size:95%; line-height:1.6em;"
| '''An example entry before wiki-formatting:'''
|-
| <nowiki># ]. Disagreement about the existence of nonprescriptive ]s. ~~~~~</nowiki>
|-
| '''This will be displayed as:'''
|-
| 1. ]. Disagreement about existence of the nonprescriptive ]s. 17:54, 27 October 2004 (UTC)
|}


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===
{| class="messagebox"
|align="center"|'''After reading the above instructions, <span class="plainlinks"></span> here.'''
|}
<!-- NOTE: PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE ADDING TO THIS SECTION.
ADD YOUR DISPUTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST, NOT THE TOP.
USE FIVE (5) TILDES: TIMESTAMP WITHOUT SIGNATURE.
THE FIRST CHARACTER IN YOUR LISTING SHOULD BE A # SYMBOL FOR THE NUMBERED LIST.-->
<!-- Add your dispute BELOW THIS LINE.-->
# ], continued in the sections "Eccentric contractions and forces" and "Eccentric redux". A long dispute concerning the whether the opposing force in an "eccentric contraction" must necessarily be greater than the force exerted by the muscle (at all times, not just initially). Also on a comment to the effect that the term "eccentric contraction" is used in a sense contrary to the usual meanings of these terms, and also on a proposed sentence concerning whether less energy is consumed in "eccentric contractions" than in "concentric contractions" for the same amount of force. The proposed changes are summarized at the end of the discussion. This ''is'' an old dispute, but the involved editors have previously agreed to seek a third opinion to help break the deadlock. 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
#]. I know it's supposed to only be when two editors (I went to Editor Assistance to request a third opinion which yielded no change in the dispute). The argument centered on how to address the current revision of iMacs. Editor 1 opted to propose either the usage of the status quo (Early/Mid/Late 2007) or physical changes (Slot-Loading, Aluminum), two methods that the community has accepted and agreed upon through edit histories on related templates. Editor 2 opted to propose to use offered processors (Core 2 Duo/Extreme; C2D/E). After the third party from Editor Assistance gave his opinion, the argument has now changed to Editor 2 constantly objecting to Editor 1's proposal, which the initial third party agreed upon, without providing an alternative that conforms to evidence that Editor 2 provides as reasons against Editor 1's proposals and Editor 1 constantly addressing these objections, and a cycle developing from this. This has gone on since October, I believe, and a resolution for this conflict is long overdue. 08:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
#


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.
==Providing third opinions==
*Third opinions must be ]. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
*Read the arguments of the disputants.
*Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
*When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.
*Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four ''tildes'', like so: <nowiki>~~~~.</nowiki>
*Write your opinion in a ] way.
*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.
*For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{t1|uw-3o}}.


=== 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 ''']''' 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.

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 ==
{{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. -->

# ] Disagreement in edit history regarding removal of celebrity scandal - both editors reached ]. 05:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

<!-- ALL CURRENT REQUESTS MUST BE PLACED ABOVE THIS LINE.
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 ==
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 ==
{{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.
* 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 ===
* 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 ==

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:
* 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==
'''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:
{{mono|<nowiki>Third opinion disputes {{Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion}}<small>, {{purge}}</small></nowiki>}}


{{Misplaced Pages community}}
]


] ]
]

Latest revision as of 05:13, 27 December 2024

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:Maris Racal § Regarding removal of recent scandal. Disagreement in edit history regarding removal of celebrity scandal - both editors reached WP:3RR. 05:11, 27 December 2024 (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: