This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A third opinion request was made concerning Talk:Răchitoasa. I requested clarification because the original discussion had been lengthy and not very civil, and I don't find it easy to separate incivility from the underlying content issue. On having it explained that it had to do with merging/redirecting villages in a particular commune into the article on the commune, I declined to provide a third opinion because there is already an open Merge Request that has not been formally closed, and I didn't think third opinion was the right venue for getting more input on a merge. I suggested that if more input was needed, a Request for Comments could be used. A respected administrator, User:Drmies, then replied on the talk page: "sorry, but I don't understand why there has to be some formal step taken for this to be handled by the folks at 3O--from what I can tell, it's not busy there right now. The question, it seems to me, is clear: should there be separate articles for villages or should these one-liners be merged back into the communes? The advantage is that one 3O discussion can help answer the general question, whereas an individual merge discussion probably draws no interest at all. We're not a bureaucracy--you can help settle this. Thanks,"
I replied that third opinion is meant to be an extremely light-weight process and is not really suitable for anything requiring consensus. Would other Third Opinion volunteers care to comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an open Third Opinion request where I requested a civil concise restatement of what the question is, and the answer is just a comment on the other contributor. Is it appropriate to just leave the request standing as unclear, in which case it will become stale in six days? I think this is a case of two editors who are allowing their dislike for each other to interfere with getting the content dispute addressed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that I may remove a Third Opinion request if one of the two editors has been blocked? (I did this with to a request yesterday.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked for clarification but offered an opinion. One of the editors argued with my third opinion. I suggested an RFC and deleted the Third Opinion request because I had offered an opinion. If it comes to DRN, which is not what I suggested, I will recuse. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I offered a Third Opinion, and was asked to explain my reasoning. First, does a Third Opinion volunteer have any obligation to explain it? (I think I know the answer. No. Third opinion is a lightweight process.) Second, is it useful for a Third Opinion volunteer to explain or defend their reasoning? I don't know the answer, but I think it isn't helpful, because it delays taking the matter to RFC or a specialized noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
For the reasons I explain in my Personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I believe that we have an obligation not to become parties to the dispute after offering an opinion or appearing to do so since it makes it appear that our initial opinion was biased. Thus, the best course is to offer a well-supported and well-explained opinion and then ride off into the sunset (perhaps with a hardy "Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!" if you like; perhaps you'll hear someone calling "Shane! Come back!", but don't heed that call any more than Shane did). However, if you mess up and your well-supported and well-explained opinion wasn't as well ... well as you had planned, it's okay to come back to explain or clarify it. But I don't think that it's okay to defend it, since that makes it look like you're a party. For the same reason, I don't think that it's okay to change it or correct it unless you do so before either of the parties has responded. If you think that you were wrong, then withdraw the opinion, relist it at 3O, and say why you're doing it without offering so much explanation that you're actually giving a new opinion, but don't change it. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I had to remove the Greene's Tutorial College question because, first, it doesn't appear to involve article content, and, second, it appears to be almost entirely about conduct. One editor blanked the talk page, claiming that they were removing trolling. Either it was trolling, which is a conduct issue, or, if there wasn't trolling, it was improper blanking of a talk page, which is a conduct issue. Does anyone care to comment? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I declined a third opinion request at
Talk:Super Bowl 50#Most watched U.S. TV broadcast in history as there were four editors who had contributed to the discussion. My decline was contested by one of the editors, who quoted 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation
. I suggested that the editor relist the discussion.
Was this the correct course of action—both declining the request and suggesting it be relisted? I've not seen a request relisted, but I didn't want to "cheat" the parties out of a possible third opinion merely because I tend to interpret "third opinion" restrictively. Thanks everyone, /wiae /tlk 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
On looking at the contested edit in the NTSB request, it was a clear matter of policy. The contested text included an external link, and that isn't permitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the policy of this noticeboard if one of the two editors involved in a talk page dispute objects to requesting a third opinion, and says that the other editors, watching and editing the article, but not in the immediate dispute, should be involved? Should the Third Opinion volunteer close the request as involving multiple editors (which seems wrong if only two were on the talk page), suggest a Request for Comments, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
First, let me say that we're all free to do what we want within the rules that we set for the project, and that's the way it should be, so I wouldn't presume to tell you or any other volunteer what they should do on something that's clearly allowed by our rules. Having said that, I can tell you what I do and what I think is the best thing to do, but your mileage may vary, you pays your money and you takes your choice, and [enter cliché of choice for "it's your call"]. The distinction I make is between "hard" and "virtually impossible" (and I realize that's largely subjective and may vary somewhat depending on my then-current level of fatigue), but the ones which are merely hard I either take them or leave them for someone else to take or to fall off the list as stale if no one does. The ones which are virtually impossible, and I don't find many of those at all, I'll ask for clarification, but generally only if I'm pretty sure — sure enough that I'll usually take them off the list when I ask for the clarification — that I'm going to be willing to give an opinion if the clarification comes through. But that's all in keeping with my view, perhaps my idiosyncratic view, that the way 3O should ordinarily work is for a volunteer to drop in with an opinion and then ride off into the sunset. Or as RegentsPark, succinctly put it here, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." The more back-and-forth involved, the less it looks like that. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor SummerPhDv2.0 has been around for quite awhile, so I believe he should know better than what he is doing. The editor's works on vandalism patrol has been excellent so his desire for vandalizing here is a bit disconcerting. The editor is from Philadelphia and appears to have a personal issues with both Jim's and Dalessandro's. Given his actions I believe he is attempting to delete both articles by lowering the quality over time in order to have them deleted when others have their head turned.
Jim's Steaks is a national landmark and consider the "big three" cheesesteaks location in America. From June 2015 to March 2016 he slowly vandalized the article from this version to this version on March 4, 2016. Each source has given the subject significant coverage. Instead of looking for additional sources he removes notable sources such as Philadelphia Magazine Ice Cube and Kevin Hart Giving out Free Cheesesteaks at Jim’s, and then refused search for other sources such as A TASTE OF PHILADELPHIA; In Hoagieland, They Accept No Substitutes (New York Times), and Business Journal readers name best cheesesteaks in Philly, and 10 Philly cheesesteaks worth crossing the bridge for. A cursory search will bring over 100 sources in the news alone (not counting book sources) Google News.
The same situation occurred at Dalessandro's he reduced to quality of the article from this version to this. He removed 7 of the 8 sources and then tagged it for a single source. On the talk page Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks#Justification requested he admits to doing this over a period of time. He removed, Klein, Michael (25 October 2013). "Jimmy Fallon does a steak-out at Dalessandro's" from Philly.com, "Best Places to Eat a Philly Cheesesteak" from Visit Philadelphia, Best Cheesesteaks from The Daily Meal, CBS Local top cheesesteaks, and the New York Times source Beyond Cheese Steaks: A Tour of Philadelphia Restaurants. These are sources which any editor acting in good faith would never remove. I even provided him with more sources he could add ( here) the discussion is provided here. I believe a topic ban may be in place. Valoem talk contrib 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Any volunteer is welcome to provide a Third Opinion, but there is also edit-warring way over 3RR, and I have requested page protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Great work Moxy. I've been wondering how to do this for long time. For those of you who don't know, by adding this ONLYINCLUDE to the main project page, we can now transclude only the disputes to any dashboard we watch at our user space rather than visiting this page every time. In fact, I've just added it to mine here for a sample view. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 05:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of verbiage in the article before it becomes clear that on the article page itself is where requests are to be placed. Please make it clear right at or near the start that the page "third opinion" is actually where requests should be put. (Yes, I know, editors need to be aware of the caveats, exceptions, explanations, rules, dangers etcetc. -- but they can be referred to en masse after simply saying that "Yes, dear editor, it is down below on this page that you should put the request, assuming it is appropriate.) Kdammers ( talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Both {{ 3OR}} and {{ 3ORshort}} will have this problem. As posted /Archive_9#30_template by ONUnicorn, this happens when trying to put an external link in the text argument--a frequently done thing in any discussions. Now, I was busy working on creating another template when this occurred to me. I was planning to put this if I succeeded in fixing the template but looks like an issue beyond just these templates.
I'm a dabbler in template magic but here what I think causes this: external link is the only markup which uses a space--this causes it to break. Template expert Godsy, can you elaborate on this? I can't think of any other template which takes normal wikitext at its argument besides {{ xt}} which does break when you try an EL.
Here's a simple workaround: Don't put the external link label. So instead of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion this link]", use " [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion] this link" which works perfectly fine. Furthermore, difflinks and specific article revision links can use
Special:Diff (even {{
diff}}) or
Special:PermaLink.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 12:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC) struck by me 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
1=
seems to work. Let's see if anything comes up in the future.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Note to everyone. From my discussion at WikiProject Templates, I've made some changes to the 3OR template. While they are minimal, they still might affect your use of it; check the change and see my update to its doc. The broken link problem is solved as mentioned above. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a user previously involved in disputes with myself, to revert my addition of a request for 3rd opinion here [1] ?
Is that an involved action by an involved user ?
Is that appropriate to revert and disrupt a page, whose very nature is meant to help solve conflicts? Sagecandor ( talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Everyone involved in dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The page states: 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.
Should this also include neutrality with respect to the topic? This is not explicitly stated.
Thanks Dig deeper talk 21:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
We've recently had a couple of listings removed by parties to the dispute other than the original listing party. I would have restored those listings, had it not been for the fact that in both cases, the removal was "good" in the sense that the request did not comply with our requirements. Still, it should not have been done by a party to the dispute. I have added a paragraph to our instructions making that clear and instructing them to post non-compliance complaints to this talk page instead of removing the listing. That instruction doesn't include parties who just don't want a 3O: Since 3O's are non-binding they can just ignore the 3O if it is given, but they shouldn't have the right to prevent it from being given just because they don't want one. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the third opinion request by Nov3rd17. It makes false allegations of an edit war when in fact it is a trivial discussion about the style of two sentences that has just started (not thoroughly discussed) and I don't have any plans to insist on my version of the article. I couldn't care less about such a triviality. Nov3rd17 is blowing this out of proportion. It will just waste other user's time who could focus on more important issues. -- TheRandomIP ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the issue no longer exists right now, the discussion is closed. Can you remove it? -- TheRandomIP ( talk) 07:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
-- Elephanthunter ( talk) 15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi 3O participants. recently a new user handled my 3O request [3]. Looks like an account specially made to handle this request, I have restored my request back, Can some 3O mod take a look and handle this request again. Thanks. -- DBig Xray 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable idea but lets discuss. After giving a 3PO opinion, if conversation keeps going on for weeks or months, should the provider continue to refrain from making changes? What about changes that have nothing to do with the question at hand for example fixing the format for citations? I think this deserves some clarifications through consensus. -- Work permit ( talk) 16:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: to section "Providing third opinions", after "Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." add (without bold type):
User:Display name 99 requested a third opinion regarding a long-running dispute on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick here: Diff of third opinion request.
I object to this request because the dispute involves more than two editors. User:Display name 99, User:Manannan67 and I have already weighed in heavily on the dispute, and other editors have commented as well.
Please remove this third opinion request. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I need third opinion On article Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri Faster than fairies ( talk) 21:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit to the Project page by Blueboar ( talk · contribs) which changed the wording from "two editors" to "two editors (or two groups of editors)". My understanding has always been that this Project is for disputes literally between two editors, not between two sides regardless of number of editors on each side. Happy to be reverted or revert myself if my understanding of this is flawed. DonIago ( talk) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
And our FAQ allows for some flexibility as well:"If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. ... 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." (Bolding as in original.)
I've always considered this to be a matter in the discretion of the individual volunteer, either as a case-taker or a case-remover, not to be second-guessed by other volunteers except perhaps in the most egregious of cases."What if my dispute has two viewpoints but multiple editors? This may be suitable for a third party request but should be negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use. A third party may recommend an alternative process (such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or a RFC) unless the issue is unambiguous and specific. This process may also be suitable if there are two principal editors involved in the dispute and other editors have contributed only a few technical clarifications."
Hi, a user keeps reverting my corrections and adding false information to a page. I have explained extensively, and multiple times, in the talk page why what they are adding is wrong, but they will not respond to me in the talk page. What am I meant to do in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.4.6 ( talk) 19:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Text from this page has been substantially copied at Draft:Fourth opinion. Please see this section on the draft talk page if you have concerns. MrSwagger21 ( talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fourth opinion has been moved into the project namespace and is now in a trial phase as a dispute resolution process. Feel free to use it, improve it, comment on it, add links to it, or add your username to Category:Wikipedians willing to provide fourth opinions. MrSwagger21 ( talk) 00:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I rather liked the inside joke of TransporterMan's 2009 barnstar, which takes a cropping from The Death of Socrates – my inference being that 3O volunteers would drink poison to keep the peace. I was thinking of cleaning it up using the high-resolution featured picture File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg, but then I noticed there was already the Socratic Barnstar, another Socratic Barnstar, and the Barnstar of Wisdom (featuring Socrates). So I thought I'd try something else.
My proposal basically uses the Opinion Barnstar with a handshake icon, to suggest a third-party opinion attempting to bridge consensus. It isn't very inspired but I thought I'd give it a try (plus I wanted to try using Inkscape). I'm willing to tweak it or to try something else. Please let me know what you think. (If there is support, I would add this as an alt image in Template:The Third Opinion Award.) – Reidgreg ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan: Thank you for starting the WP:cycle. There are two benefits to {{ format linkr}}: (a) it automatically puts a § sign, and, more importantly, (b) it automatically corrects for underscores, which many people put in their requests, as they just copy it from URL bar. Kindly see also Template talk:Please see § Template-protected edit request in re {{format linkr}}. Your revert made me notice the existence of {{ section link}}, and now I also found a bug in it, so I'll be opening another template-protected WP:ER thanks to you. Thanks! Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan and Reidgreg: Your points are well taken. We just needed ever so slightly more magic, is all. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose to remove {{format linkr}} altogether. It is impossible to include a link to a specific edit within this template and attempts to do so result in cryptic Lua error. People shouldn’t need to learn about regular expressions or a programming language just to ask for a third opinion. Using a template just to correct spaces to underscore is an overkill. A bot is better for this purpose. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder: The instructions to volunteers state that when you remove a case for any reason that you state in your edit comment how many cases are left in the list. That way people don't have to come here to check the list as often. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Admin, I need advice for the subject matter, I am not sure if I am on the right page. Kindly guide me. I have also posted the below at the DRN talk page[ [4]]. Copying here for an opinion---
One user @ Roxy the elfin dog . is continuously bothering me. He is always policing me and revert the edits. He always leaves the discussions incomplete on article talk pages. May I request you to see and resolve this case? As per him, I am illiterate, harmful to the project and Wikipedia, and many more. He is self-obsessed. He always tries to discourage me. My objective here is not to fight but to contribute constructively and positively. I am not putting here all examples but the recent one is [ [5]]. "Making mistakes is better than faking perfection" I am learning and very much committed and can never harm the community and the projects. Kindly advice. Thanks, RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 11:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Please remove this item from the list of active disagreements. There is no active disagreement because I have left the article and the talk page. I am no longer prepared to edit that article or its talk page. James500 ( talk) 08:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to put the 30 request in the page multiple times but I don't know code. I have copied the instructions and attempted to follow them but not working. Can this page be made into visual edits for the new editors who don't know code? And if you can fix my mistakes, please tell me here what I did wrong so I can learn. Thanks! Truthfactsmatter ( talk) 02:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one providing a 3O on the disagreements. That doesn't seem right. I could back away for a while, but I don't see much activity here and it would be great if there was a way to promote more use. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to use the tool for the first time and was told here I cannot use it for my purposes as more than two editors are involved on the talk page (see here). I felt that the main disagreement was between exactly two editors (me and User:אלכסנדר סעודה) and the others were just adding peripheral comments but so be it. My suggestion now would be to change the first sentence of the description of the tool which currently says: "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." It doesn’t say “exactly two editors”. Later it says: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." We could make it even clearer by saying "do not attempt to use this tool if more than two editors have written on the talk page" or something like that? EMsmile ( talk) 10:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49:, I don't understand the rationale of your revert. You stated, "the previous order was more friendly for people listing disagreements. it gave them instructions and then the section to add." The reason I made the edit was literally to have all the instructions before the section to add. Therefore, I don't understand why you reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Do other editors feel that it might be a net benefit to 3O to add a handful of example requests? In my experience, editors who are new to 3O tend to get overly detailed and oftentimes non-neutral in the process; perhaps providing some samples with things like "Disagreement about whether source supports content" would be helpful? DonIago ( talk) 19:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:Third Opinion#Providing third opinions states that "Third opinions must be neutral", but opinions are by definition not neutral. I think that rule should be rewritten. Megalogastor ( talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a template to be used when notifying a user of a 3O request? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it
would be good if the Third Opinion project would also mediate in exclusively editor conduct issues. I think only having the administrator's noticeboard and arbitration for that is not enough and in many situations may be overkill. Also, contacting a specific editor to provide opinion in said disputes may look like
WP:CANVASS.
According to
WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL, If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.
Regards,
Thinker78
(talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
( refactored from Active disagreements )
Please thoroughly read all of the relevant talk page to see all arguments, and the existence or lack of citations/sourcing. Particularly whether there are direct sources of testimony for De Sade’s conduct, versus invalid secondary sources that don’t cite direct testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNople ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A third opinion request was made concerning Talk:Răchitoasa. I requested clarification because the original discussion had been lengthy and not very civil, and I don't find it easy to separate incivility from the underlying content issue. On having it explained that it had to do with merging/redirecting villages in a particular commune into the article on the commune, I declined to provide a third opinion because there is already an open Merge Request that has not been formally closed, and I didn't think third opinion was the right venue for getting more input on a merge. I suggested that if more input was needed, a Request for Comments could be used. A respected administrator, User:Drmies, then replied on the talk page: "sorry, but I don't understand why there has to be some formal step taken for this to be handled by the folks at 3O--from what I can tell, it's not busy there right now. The question, it seems to me, is clear: should there be separate articles for villages or should these one-liners be merged back into the communes? The advantage is that one 3O discussion can help answer the general question, whereas an individual merge discussion probably draws no interest at all. We're not a bureaucracy--you can help settle this. Thanks,"
I replied that third opinion is meant to be an extremely light-weight process and is not really suitable for anything requiring consensus. Would other Third Opinion volunteers care to comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an open Third Opinion request where I requested a civil concise restatement of what the question is, and the answer is just a comment on the other contributor. Is it appropriate to just leave the request standing as unclear, in which case it will become stale in six days? I think this is a case of two editors who are allowing their dislike for each other to interfere with getting the content dispute addressed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that I may remove a Third Opinion request if one of the two editors has been blocked? (I did this with to a request yesterday.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked for clarification but offered an opinion. One of the editors argued with my third opinion. I suggested an RFC and deleted the Third Opinion request because I had offered an opinion. If it comes to DRN, which is not what I suggested, I will recuse. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I offered a Third Opinion, and was asked to explain my reasoning. First, does a Third Opinion volunteer have any obligation to explain it? (I think I know the answer. No. Third opinion is a lightweight process.) Second, is it useful for a Third Opinion volunteer to explain or defend their reasoning? I don't know the answer, but I think it isn't helpful, because it delays taking the matter to RFC or a specialized noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
For the reasons I explain in my Personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I believe that we have an obligation not to become parties to the dispute after offering an opinion or appearing to do so since it makes it appear that our initial opinion was biased. Thus, the best course is to offer a well-supported and well-explained opinion and then ride off into the sunset (perhaps with a hardy "Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!" if you like; perhaps you'll hear someone calling "Shane! Come back!", but don't heed that call any more than Shane did). However, if you mess up and your well-supported and well-explained opinion wasn't as well ... well as you had planned, it's okay to come back to explain or clarify it. But I don't think that it's okay to defend it, since that makes it look like you're a party. For the same reason, I don't think that it's okay to change it or correct it unless you do so before either of the parties has responded. If you think that you were wrong, then withdraw the opinion, relist it at 3O, and say why you're doing it without offering so much explanation that you're actually giving a new opinion, but don't change it. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I had to remove the Greene's Tutorial College question because, first, it doesn't appear to involve article content, and, second, it appears to be almost entirely about conduct. One editor blanked the talk page, claiming that they were removing trolling. Either it was trolling, which is a conduct issue, or, if there wasn't trolling, it was improper blanking of a talk page, which is a conduct issue. Does anyone care to comment? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I declined a third opinion request at
Talk:Super Bowl 50#Most watched U.S. TV broadcast in history as there were four editors who had contributed to the discussion. My decline was contested by one of the editors, who quoted 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation
. I suggested that the editor relist the discussion.
Was this the correct course of action—both declining the request and suggesting it be relisted? I've not seen a request relisted, but I didn't want to "cheat" the parties out of a possible third opinion merely because I tend to interpret "third opinion" restrictively. Thanks everyone, /wiae /tlk 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
On looking at the contested edit in the NTSB request, it was a clear matter of policy. The contested text included an external link, and that isn't permitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the policy of this noticeboard if one of the two editors involved in a talk page dispute objects to requesting a third opinion, and says that the other editors, watching and editing the article, but not in the immediate dispute, should be involved? Should the Third Opinion volunteer close the request as involving multiple editors (which seems wrong if only two were on the talk page), suggest a Request for Comments, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
First, let me say that we're all free to do what we want within the rules that we set for the project, and that's the way it should be, so I wouldn't presume to tell you or any other volunteer what they should do on something that's clearly allowed by our rules. Having said that, I can tell you what I do and what I think is the best thing to do, but your mileage may vary, you pays your money and you takes your choice, and [enter cliché of choice for "it's your call"]. The distinction I make is between "hard" and "virtually impossible" (and I realize that's largely subjective and may vary somewhat depending on my then-current level of fatigue), but the ones which are merely hard I either take them or leave them for someone else to take or to fall off the list as stale if no one does. The ones which are virtually impossible, and I don't find many of those at all, I'll ask for clarification, but generally only if I'm pretty sure — sure enough that I'll usually take them off the list when I ask for the clarification — that I'm going to be willing to give an opinion if the clarification comes through. But that's all in keeping with my view, perhaps my idiosyncratic view, that the way 3O should ordinarily work is for a volunteer to drop in with an opinion and then ride off into the sunset. Or as RegentsPark, succinctly put it here, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." The more back-and-forth involved, the less it looks like that. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor SummerPhDv2.0 has been around for quite awhile, so I believe he should know better than what he is doing. The editor's works on vandalism patrol has been excellent so his desire for vandalizing here is a bit disconcerting. The editor is from Philadelphia and appears to have a personal issues with both Jim's and Dalessandro's. Given his actions I believe he is attempting to delete both articles by lowering the quality over time in order to have them deleted when others have their head turned.
Jim's Steaks is a national landmark and consider the "big three" cheesesteaks location in America. From June 2015 to March 2016 he slowly vandalized the article from this version to this version on March 4, 2016. Each source has given the subject significant coverage. Instead of looking for additional sources he removes notable sources such as Philadelphia Magazine Ice Cube and Kevin Hart Giving out Free Cheesesteaks at Jim’s, and then refused search for other sources such as A TASTE OF PHILADELPHIA; In Hoagieland, They Accept No Substitutes (New York Times), and Business Journal readers name best cheesesteaks in Philly, and 10 Philly cheesesteaks worth crossing the bridge for. A cursory search will bring over 100 sources in the news alone (not counting book sources) Google News.
The same situation occurred at Dalessandro's he reduced to quality of the article from this version to this. He removed 7 of the 8 sources and then tagged it for a single source. On the talk page Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks#Justification requested he admits to doing this over a period of time. He removed, Klein, Michael (25 October 2013). "Jimmy Fallon does a steak-out at Dalessandro's" from Philly.com, "Best Places to Eat a Philly Cheesesteak" from Visit Philadelphia, Best Cheesesteaks from The Daily Meal, CBS Local top cheesesteaks, and the New York Times source Beyond Cheese Steaks: A Tour of Philadelphia Restaurants. These are sources which any editor acting in good faith would never remove. I even provided him with more sources he could add ( here) the discussion is provided here. I believe a topic ban may be in place. Valoem talk contrib 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Any volunteer is welcome to provide a Third Opinion, but there is also edit-warring way over 3RR, and I have requested page protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Great work Moxy. I've been wondering how to do this for long time. For those of you who don't know, by adding this ONLYINCLUDE to the main project page, we can now transclude only the disputes to any dashboard we watch at our user space rather than visiting this page every time. In fact, I've just added it to mine here for a sample view. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 05:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of verbiage in the article before it becomes clear that on the article page itself is where requests are to be placed. Please make it clear right at or near the start that the page "third opinion" is actually where requests should be put. (Yes, I know, editors need to be aware of the caveats, exceptions, explanations, rules, dangers etcetc. -- but they can be referred to en masse after simply saying that "Yes, dear editor, it is down below on this page that you should put the request, assuming it is appropriate.) Kdammers ( talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Both {{ 3OR}} and {{ 3ORshort}} will have this problem. As posted /Archive_9#30_template by ONUnicorn, this happens when trying to put an external link in the text argument--a frequently done thing in any discussions. Now, I was busy working on creating another template when this occurred to me. I was planning to put this if I succeeded in fixing the template but looks like an issue beyond just these templates.
I'm a dabbler in template magic but here what I think causes this: external link is the only markup which uses a space--this causes it to break. Template expert Godsy, can you elaborate on this? I can't think of any other template which takes normal wikitext at its argument besides {{ xt}} which does break when you try an EL.
Here's a simple workaround: Don't put the external link label. So instead of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion this link]", use " [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion] this link" which works perfectly fine. Furthermore, difflinks and specific article revision links can use
Special:Diff (even {{
diff}}) or
Special:PermaLink.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 12:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC) struck by me 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
1=
seems to work. Let's see if anything comes up in the future.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Note to everyone. From my discussion at WikiProject Templates, I've made some changes to the 3OR template. While they are minimal, they still might affect your use of it; check the change and see my update to its doc. The broken link problem is solved as mentioned above. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a user previously involved in disputes with myself, to revert my addition of a request for 3rd opinion here [1] ?
Is that an involved action by an involved user ?
Is that appropriate to revert and disrupt a page, whose very nature is meant to help solve conflicts? Sagecandor ( talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Everyone involved in dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The page states: 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.
Should this also include neutrality with respect to the topic? This is not explicitly stated.
Thanks Dig deeper talk 21:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
We've recently had a couple of listings removed by parties to the dispute other than the original listing party. I would have restored those listings, had it not been for the fact that in both cases, the removal was "good" in the sense that the request did not comply with our requirements. Still, it should not have been done by a party to the dispute. I have added a paragraph to our instructions making that clear and instructing them to post non-compliance complaints to this talk page instead of removing the listing. That instruction doesn't include parties who just don't want a 3O: Since 3O's are non-binding they can just ignore the 3O if it is given, but they shouldn't have the right to prevent it from being given just because they don't want one. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the third opinion request by Nov3rd17. It makes false allegations of an edit war when in fact it is a trivial discussion about the style of two sentences that has just started (not thoroughly discussed) and I don't have any plans to insist on my version of the article. I couldn't care less about such a triviality. Nov3rd17 is blowing this out of proportion. It will just waste other user's time who could focus on more important issues. -- TheRandomIP ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the issue no longer exists right now, the discussion is closed. Can you remove it? -- TheRandomIP ( talk) 07:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
-- Elephanthunter ( talk) 15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi 3O participants. recently a new user handled my 3O request [3]. Looks like an account specially made to handle this request, I have restored my request back, Can some 3O mod take a look and handle this request again. Thanks. -- DBig Xray 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable idea but lets discuss. After giving a 3PO opinion, if conversation keeps going on for weeks or months, should the provider continue to refrain from making changes? What about changes that have nothing to do with the question at hand for example fixing the format for citations? I think this deserves some clarifications through consensus. -- Work permit ( talk) 16:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: to section "Providing third opinions", after "Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." add (without bold type):
User:Display name 99 requested a third opinion regarding a long-running dispute on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick here: Diff of third opinion request.
I object to this request because the dispute involves more than two editors. User:Display name 99, User:Manannan67 and I have already weighed in heavily on the dispute, and other editors have commented as well.
Please remove this third opinion request. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I need third opinion On article Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri Faster than fairies ( talk) 21:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit to the Project page by Blueboar ( talk · contribs) which changed the wording from "two editors" to "two editors (or two groups of editors)". My understanding has always been that this Project is for disputes literally between two editors, not between two sides regardless of number of editors on each side. Happy to be reverted or revert myself if my understanding of this is flawed. DonIago ( talk) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
And our FAQ allows for some flexibility as well:"If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. ... 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." (Bolding as in original.)
I've always considered this to be a matter in the discretion of the individual volunteer, either as a case-taker or a case-remover, not to be second-guessed by other volunteers except perhaps in the most egregious of cases."What if my dispute has two viewpoints but multiple editors? This may be suitable for a third party request but should be negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use. A third party may recommend an alternative process (such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or a RFC) unless the issue is unambiguous and specific. This process may also be suitable if there are two principal editors involved in the dispute and other editors have contributed only a few technical clarifications."
Hi, a user keeps reverting my corrections and adding false information to a page. I have explained extensively, and multiple times, in the talk page why what they are adding is wrong, but they will not respond to me in the talk page. What am I meant to do in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.4.6 ( talk) 19:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Text from this page has been substantially copied at Draft:Fourth opinion. Please see this section on the draft talk page if you have concerns. MrSwagger21 ( talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fourth opinion has been moved into the project namespace and is now in a trial phase as a dispute resolution process. Feel free to use it, improve it, comment on it, add links to it, or add your username to Category:Wikipedians willing to provide fourth opinions. MrSwagger21 ( talk) 00:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I rather liked the inside joke of TransporterMan's 2009 barnstar, which takes a cropping from The Death of Socrates – my inference being that 3O volunteers would drink poison to keep the peace. I was thinking of cleaning it up using the high-resolution featured picture File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg, but then I noticed there was already the Socratic Barnstar, another Socratic Barnstar, and the Barnstar of Wisdom (featuring Socrates). So I thought I'd try something else.
My proposal basically uses the Opinion Barnstar with a handshake icon, to suggest a third-party opinion attempting to bridge consensus. It isn't very inspired but I thought I'd give it a try (plus I wanted to try using Inkscape). I'm willing to tweak it or to try something else. Please let me know what you think. (If there is support, I would add this as an alt image in Template:The Third Opinion Award.) – Reidgreg ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan: Thank you for starting the WP:cycle. There are two benefits to {{ format linkr}}: (a) it automatically puts a § sign, and, more importantly, (b) it automatically corrects for underscores, which many people put in their requests, as they just copy it from URL bar. Kindly see also Template talk:Please see § Template-protected edit request in re {{format linkr}}. Your revert made me notice the existence of {{ section link}}, and now I also found a bug in it, so I'll be opening another template-protected WP:ER thanks to you. Thanks! Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan and Reidgreg: Your points are well taken. We just needed ever so slightly more magic, is all. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose to remove {{format linkr}} altogether. It is impossible to include a link to a specific edit within this template and attempts to do so result in cryptic Lua error. People shouldn’t need to learn about regular expressions or a programming language just to ask for a third opinion. Using a template just to correct spaces to underscore is an overkill. A bot is better for this purpose. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder: The instructions to volunteers state that when you remove a case for any reason that you state in your edit comment how many cases are left in the list. That way people don't have to come here to check the list as often. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Admin, I need advice for the subject matter, I am not sure if I am on the right page. Kindly guide me. I have also posted the below at the DRN talk page[ [4]]. Copying here for an opinion---
One user @ Roxy the elfin dog . is continuously bothering me. He is always policing me and revert the edits. He always leaves the discussions incomplete on article talk pages. May I request you to see and resolve this case? As per him, I am illiterate, harmful to the project and Wikipedia, and many more. He is self-obsessed. He always tries to discourage me. My objective here is not to fight but to contribute constructively and positively. I am not putting here all examples but the recent one is [ [5]]. "Making mistakes is better than faking perfection" I am learning and very much committed and can never harm the community and the projects. Kindly advice. Thanks, RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 11:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Please remove this item from the list of active disagreements. There is no active disagreement because I have left the article and the talk page. I am no longer prepared to edit that article or its talk page. James500 ( talk) 08:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to put the 30 request in the page multiple times but I don't know code. I have copied the instructions and attempted to follow them but not working. Can this page be made into visual edits for the new editors who don't know code? And if you can fix my mistakes, please tell me here what I did wrong so I can learn. Thanks! Truthfactsmatter ( talk) 02:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one providing a 3O on the disagreements. That doesn't seem right. I could back away for a while, but I don't see much activity here and it would be great if there was a way to promote more use. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to use the tool for the first time and was told here I cannot use it for my purposes as more than two editors are involved on the talk page (see here). I felt that the main disagreement was between exactly two editors (me and User:אלכסנדר סעודה) and the others were just adding peripheral comments but so be it. My suggestion now would be to change the first sentence of the description of the tool which currently says: "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." It doesn’t say “exactly two editors”. Later it says: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." We could make it even clearer by saying "do not attempt to use this tool if more than two editors have written on the talk page" or something like that? EMsmile ( talk) 10:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49:, I don't understand the rationale of your revert. You stated, "the previous order was more friendly for people listing disagreements. it gave them instructions and then the section to add." The reason I made the edit was literally to have all the instructions before the section to add. Therefore, I don't understand why you reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Do other editors feel that it might be a net benefit to 3O to add a handful of example requests? In my experience, editors who are new to 3O tend to get overly detailed and oftentimes non-neutral in the process; perhaps providing some samples with things like "Disagreement about whether source supports content" would be helpful? DonIago ( talk) 19:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:Third Opinion#Providing third opinions states that "Third opinions must be neutral", but opinions are by definition not neutral. I think that rule should be rewritten. Megalogastor ( talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a template to be used when notifying a user of a 3O request? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it
would be good if the Third Opinion project would also mediate in exclusively editor conduct issues. I think only having the administrator's noticeboard and arbitration for that is not enough and in many situations may be overkill. Also, contacting a specific editor to provide opinion in said disputes may look like
WP:CANVASS.
According to
WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL, If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.
Regards,
Thinker78
(talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
( refactored from Active disagreements )
Please thoroughly read all of the relevant talk page to see all arguments, and the existence or lack of citations/sourcing. Particularly whether there are direct sources of testimony for De Sade’s conduct, versus invalid secondary sources that don’t cite direct testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNople ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)