Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.137.6.28 (talk) at 00:14, 30 June 2009 (→Active disagreements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This process is neither official nor mandatory. Rather, it is a non-binding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an unbiased third party.

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.

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.

You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article. List of tagged articles.

Active disagreements

1. User talk:GaryColemanFan#Warning and User talk:Justa Punk#Note. Dispute about notability of content, edit warring on Professional wrestling in Australia article (page history). 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Talk:Deford, Michigan and Talk:Deford Area and Talk:Cass City High School Disagreement about a number of issues such as population of Deford, actual pictures of Deford, student enrollment at the high school, class status, and so forth. 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Talk:International Society for Science and Religion. Disagreement over inclusion/exclusion of earlier editor's (circa early 2007) contribution that Granada, Spain was "until the late 15th century was the center of peaceful discourse between scholars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam". 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Talk:Arcee Disagreement over inclusion of Chromia. 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Talk:List of PHP accelerators#merge - Disagreement on whether List of PHP accelerators should be merged in PHP accelerator. 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Talk:Lyme disease#ELISA least sensitive of tests Should any unsourced statement be made as to either the sensitivity or the diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA test in the Lyme disease article? 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thomas_Andrews_(shipbuilder)&diff=298639251&oldid=298638997

This editor (User:Canterbury Tail) claims "vandalism" in the Thomas Andrews article where spelling of words were reverted from the change to American English from British English; this 2plus month block on anonymous editing users appears to be petty and appears also be an abuse of his editorial function in that contributor has the right to remain anonymous and this block removes that right, the change was CLEARLY not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia00:14, 30 June 2009 (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. 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 reasoning behind your argument.
• 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.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} in a new section on the talk page of the article.
• 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.
• Check the article for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the article and/or talk page.

If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page.

Active contributors (those who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries) may add themselves to the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians.

• Third opinion Wikipedians
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution