Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 16 April 2008

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.

Shortcuts WP:3O WP:THIRD

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 good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.

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 dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.

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.

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.

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. 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.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

1. Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
2. Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
3. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Active disagreements

1. Template talk:Command & Conquer series#Validity and relevance of the "three universes" angle anno 2008. Disagreement about speculative edits and unreletated links. 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Talk:Dan Willis There is disagreemment whether the sources cited can be used as evidence of notability, and if so, has notability been established? 09:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Talk:Gumstix#Neutrality Dispute Neutrality dispute on product description and user behavior 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Talk:National Republican Congressional Committee#Controversy Section. Article is basically a stub, with large negative controversy section. One editor supports merge to separate article, as section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is indication of a poorly written article. 07:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Talk:Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003#Edit dispute with User:-5-. Name change request turned into edit dispute. Re-listed: Please note that this request is for the edit dispute. Input on the page move is welcome, but please do not de-list this dispute without addressing the contents under the appropriate section. 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Talk:Pali Canon#reinstated. Disagreement about presentation of views on origins/authorship/date of Pali Canon. 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Talk:Alexander the Great‎#Alexander the great, "Ancient greek king of macedon" or "king of macedon" ? Disagreement about the introduction of the article about alexander the great, see the last post "Alexander the great, "Ancient greek king of macedon" or "king of macedon" ?" 17:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC). 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Talk:Publius Enigma#Publius Enigma Disagreement regarding an editor who is attempting to introduce changes and additions to the article bassed on Original Research with the claim of "This page WILL be kept up to date, properly organized, and accurate. Any continued attempts to impede this will be met swiftly and with prompt attention". I agree, as I would like a third opinion. Thank you. -- 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Talk:Eye dialect#Criticism. Disagreement on level of documentation necessary to support a section that describes the existence of criticism of the use of eye dialect and the rationales given for the criticism. 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Talk:Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings#POV section - dispute about whether a section violates NPOV or not. 11:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. 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.
• 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: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• 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.
• 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}}.
• When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.

• Third opinion Wikipedians
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution