Misplaced Pages:Third opinion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:58, 19 July 2006 editWalkingStraight (talk \| contribs)3 edits →Active disagreements: Internal Spam← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:20, 28 December 2024 edit undoCallmehelper (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users668 edits →Active disagreements: WP:UNDUE issue related problemTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude>{{Short description\|Informal dispute resolution process}}
	{{Shortcut\|]}}
			{{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}}
			}}
			{{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.
	The '''Third Opinion''' is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute.
	Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and require a tiebreaker—a third opinion.

			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 ].
	This page is for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. More complex disputes should be worked out on article talk pages, or by following the dispute resolution process.

			== How to list a dispute ==
	The third-opinion process requires good faith on all sides. If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith, do not request a third opinion.

			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 ].
	{{dispute-resolution}}

			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.
	=== Listing a dispute ===
	* List a controversy involving '''only two editors.'''
	* Use a '''short, neutral''' description of the disagreement, and provide links to appropriate talk pages or specific edits in question. '''For example:''' Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive ]s.
	* Sign the listing with "<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>" (five tildes) to add the date without your name.
	* '''Do not discuss on this page.''' Leave the discussion to the linked talk page.
	* Provide a third opinion on another item on the list, if one exists.

			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.
	Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.

			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 ===

	* Only provide third opinions on the relevant article's talk page, not on this page.
			=== Instructions ===
	* While this page is meant to provide a swift procedure, do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in many of these cases, you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.

	* Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
			'''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.
	* 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.
			Follow these instructions to make your post:
	* After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page.
			* 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 ==		== 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\|
	<!-- please add new entries to the bottom of this list -->
			<!-- ALL CURRENT REQUESTS MUST BE PLACED BELOW THIS LINE. ADD YOURS BELOW ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT ARE OPEN. -->
			# ]. Disagreement over relevance of extension of the speech or not. (it's over 3 days , no one replied after my response).

			<!-- 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>}}

	] - is a blog being sued by the individual in the article a rbanned primary source of information about the lawsuit? Relevent policies are ] and ] 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages community}}
	] - Discussion about whether posting notices to other users is a violation of the SPAM guideline or not. For a long time the Guideline has said "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." which states it is allowed. The problem is some Admins block users for doing just that. Is it a violation or not? 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
			]

			]
	<!-- new entries above this line -->

	]
	]

Latest revision as of 07:20, 28 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
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

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)

Talk:B. R. Ambedkar § One Discussion. Disagreement over relevance of extension of the speech or not. (it's over 3 days , no one replied after my response).

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:

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 WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution 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 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>

v t e 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	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Misplaced Pages Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Misplaced Pages assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Category:

Misplaced Pages dispute resolution