Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fagstein (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 15 June 2006 (Layout). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Initial discussion copied from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

I've just had an idea. Say two Wikipedians are arguing over some obscure page, watched by no one but them. (This has happened to me.) All they need is a third opinion - someone to break the tie. Hence, Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. This will be a constantly changing page on which controversies involving only two Wikipedians are listed, so that a tiebreaker may be found. If a third opinion is provided otherwise, the controversy should be delisted. If a user decides to provide such a third opinion, he should remove the controversy from the page. This will ensure that the page will not be cluttered, and will allow for third opinions to be delivered with haste. What do you think? — Itai (f&t) 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely this is just the same as mediation? GeorgeStepanek\ 00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, mediation is more complex and takes more time, and other steps are supposed to be taken first. I like this this idea a lot. It's like a streamlined version of WP:RFC. Maurreen 05:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, more like small-claims court. Neutrality 16:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter just what it is, but yes, the idea is to allow conflicts to be resolved quickly. "Controversy", by the way, is maybe too strong a word. I was thinking more along the lines of "content dispute". — Itai (f&t) 21:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested formatting

I've put a suggested formatting up on the project page. The content should probably be rephrased entirely - I did my best - but I just want to get a feel on whether people find this formatting appropriate. If you disagree with the formatting or the content, simply modify the project page. Once formatting and content are decided upon, we can see if this can be integrated into the Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures. In the meanwhile, hack away. — Itai (f&t) 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC

We might want to eventually link this from wp:rfc. Maurreen 08:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Resolving disputes#Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. — Itai (f&t) 08:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that redirects back to here. Do you think this is ready to go? I don't see why anyone would object. I think we might also want to link it from a general dispute resolution page. Maurreen 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I was confused earlier. Anyway, I've linked Third opinion from the project page at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes and asked at WP:RFC about linking from there also. Maurreen 02:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

I was going to merge this into WP:RFC but then it struck me that this procedure seems to be working well for 'smaller' disputes and that the two complement each other quite nicely. Please tell me if I'm right? Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to keep this separate. Maurreen (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First-to-report bias?

I'd like it to be understood, first, that I'm not criticizing the idea of having a page to get third opinions on disputes. I think it's an excellent idea. The problem I have is that by its current structure, the first person who decides to report the dispute gets to present his/her side of the dispute -- and silence the other side, it seems from those who try to reply being told "This is not the place for this discussion." There would be no problem if people abided completely by the instructions to provide one-line, unsigned, neutral summaries, but a quick look at the page shows how many people fail to follow even the first two non-subjective parts of the instruction. Taking it as a given, then, that people are and will continue to provide biased summaries of the disputes, allowing the dispute to be characterized solely by the first side to bring it to WP:3O seems rather unfair.

An example is one of the disputes which has just been brought to WP:3O for the second time, where the nominator tries to draw a connection between a disputed sentence in one article and a number of VfDs that have been brought against other articles he feels are "his". From my perspective, the problem is exactly that he is publicly declaring that these VfDs are being brought because there is some sort of campaign against him, rather than because they are POV forks and personal essays -- not to mention that he is calling me a thought policeman, a vandal, a deletionist on behalf of the drug industry, etc.

Currently there is no requirement that an editor who lists a dispute on Third opinion must notify the other editor involved in the dispute, no matter how serious the allegations being lodged against that second editor. Even if that second editor becomes aware that the dispute has been listed there, he or she appears to have no recourse: since the first party is presumed (often falsely) to have followed the instructions to describe the dispute neutrally, the second party is not allowed to point out any facts the first editor left out or any different viewpoint on the matter. The second editor is either blindsided or left with nothing to do but merely hope that whoever steps in to give a "third opinion" actually takes the time to review the dispute in detail and glean from what could be a complicated history of the dispute the viewpoint of the second editor, which he has been barred from giving directly by the decisions of the first editor. These seem like structural flaws of the current set-up that severely limit its ability to resolve rather than exacerbate disputes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but how would you improve it? Possibly the "third opinion" will take into account the fact the person listing the disagreement doesn't follow instructions at least. Maurreen (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone may see flaws with this idea that elude me, but how about simply requiring that the editor who reports the dispute on WP:3O notify the editor he is disputing with and that editor gets the right to provide their version of the dispute if it differs from that of the first editor? If the first editor fails to notify the second, or if the second editor declines to respond, both of these can be taken into account. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to requiring notification. But in my view, this page isn't the place to actually discuss the issues. That fragments the discussion.

For example, I think people should just say "Disagreement about foobar," and not go into any detail here. For one thing, that keeps everything streamlined. Maurreen (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- this should not be the place for full-scale discussion. But since even editors disputing in good faith may have different ideas what the dispute is "about", it can harm the chances for getting the dispute actually resolved to take only one side's opinion what it's about. One editor may believe and state that the debate is about whether the information he's adding is correctly cited and referenced. If you ask the second editor, however, to him it's about whether the article needs more lengthy quotations from the article subject when they already outweigh objective information about the subject by a factor of eight to one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Maurreen (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anything anywhere to get info on staulking? Scott 23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Settle Current sports events formatting, please

Can we get someone to settle the Current sports events pages, please. Zoe and I are in disagreement on how the page should look. NoseNuggets 11:41 US EST Jan 12 2006.

3rd opinion on Crime against humanity

As the page clearly says, discussion needs to be made here rather than there. As we already discussed at the article talk page, there are only three editors involved in discussion there, and as Swatjester had listed me as a vandal a couple of days ago, which was quickly removed by an administrator, I do not regard him as a neutral third party. No fourth editor has edited on the article since the 3rd opinion was asked for. Get-back-world-respect 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Urm

Why only put the date stamp when you can see who wrote something by looking at the history? Slizor 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• It gives a veneer of anonymity at least, which I think is a useful thing. The user who actually posted the request is clearly identifiable but isn't at the center of it when you read it. (ESkog) 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• But sometimes the person who does bring it sometimes asserts himself into the center of it, by either removing references or merging before consensus (State Road 4081 (Florida), for example). There is now a dispute at State Road 913 (Florida), State Roads in Florida, and Rickenbacker Causeway in which neither editor is willing to accept the validity of the references the other has made in an attempt to make his point, and the two (one of whom is a colleague of mine) are at an impasse. 147.70.242.39 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know I'm right, but I'm being tag-teamed. I will continue to revert your bull. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, you picked a fight with two editors who work together at a Miami-area college. Your refusal to consider anything beside one self-conflicting source and a probable misinterpretation of facts landed us here. But you are not correct on either count - and the Misplaced Pages editors who read the articles and follow the histories (including at least two articles that you are trying vehemently to hide after putting one up for WP:3O) can make up their independent minds. It's time for common sense to reign on this matter, and clearly we cannot rely on either "combatant" to have much common sense here. 147.70.242.39 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report

Just wondering why was that listing inapropriate? --Zr2d2 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "third opinion" implies that only two opinions currently exist, and the rules specify that it's for small conflicts involving only two editors (usually on obscure pages not getting much public scrutiny). The listing on the 9/11 Commission report already had many editors involved in the discussion. Those types of conflicts aren't likely to be helped by Third Opinion anyway, so they should go straight to mediation if civil discussion breaks down. Fagstein 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

A recent dispute started in this article, recently, due to a revert war started, because of the intro-part of the article. A certain user User:Osli73 kept insisting on a definition which violates the most important UN Resolution nr 1244 in force in Kosovo. The abovementioned law does NOT mention in any part of it, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, but instead refers to it as a legally a part of Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo is administered by and interim UN administration, according to that Resolution. The current version of the introduction in the article is consistent, and refers to the current facts on the ground. The compromise on that version was reached after a couple of months of negotiating of parties involved in the dispute, until the user above re-started inserting his pushy POV. Third opinion on this would be appreciated. It is advisable to followo the talk page on the article, where the discussion on the introduction part took place, to get a better picture of the dispute. Thanks in advance, ilir_pz 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Layout

I've changed the layout back for two reasons:

• The {t|warning}} template is a bit jarring, especially on a page that in my opinion is already far too much of a howto, which pushes the important part (the list) farther down the page.
• The subheadings by month are unnecessary, since items are listed chronologically with their dates, and there shouldn't be more than a few entries in the list at any time anyway.

Those are my two cents. Fagstein 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)