Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Санта Клаус (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 3 January 2008 (ar interwiki). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. 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 wikilink to the article's talk page. Including the most significant diffs may be helpful, too.
• Use a section link to the specific section that contains the dispute.
• Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) 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 number sign/hash directly below the last entry and avoid any excessive cosmetic formatting.

Active disagreements

1. Talk:Muscle contraction#Eccentric, 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)
2. Template talk:Timeline of iMac models#Proposals. 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)

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.
• 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: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental 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}}.

• Third opinion Wikipedians
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution