Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Shortcut:
WT:3O
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Templates

There seems to be a few templates related to third opinion but only {{uw-3o}} appears on WP:3O. I found {{3O}} and {{Third opinion}}. Neither of these appear on the project page, shouldn't they be included?

Additionally (I don't know whether its been discussed as I am new here), but wouldn't it be a good idea to have a template to place at the top of the talk page section that is listed for third opinion. Something like this:

Third Opinion: This section is a discussion about a dispute. An editor has requested a third opinion.

or something like that. Billscottbob (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I'm going to add a sentence about them. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not really a template, but

This quote has inspired me from my first encounter with this project:

"I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =Axlq 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)"
(Preserved in Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 1#Non-neutral descriptions.)

I've begun posting the following message to users whose entries don't comply with the listing guidelines:

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with [[Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute]]. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. ~~~~

Third opinion project is the section heading I use. — Athaenara ✉ 07:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-3o}} might interest you :). But it's a good idea to notify users, as we don't want any well poisoning going on. Justin chat 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I considered using it, but it's long and repeats information in the "how to list" section. I find it too wordy for the point I want to get across. — Athaenara ✉ 09:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've come across this problem as well. Would it be possible to come up with a template that has each of the stipulations as an option, as we just pick the ones we want? Something like {{uw-3o|neutral=yes|sign=yes}}? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never made a template and don't know how, but if any project members think the text I've been using by the simple copy/paste method would be useful, whether copied as I do or in a template, of course it may be used. — Athaenara ✉ 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Man, writing templates is much harder than I thought. I can pump out all the PHP code you'd ever want, but these templates.. Anyway, here's what I came up with: {{User:HelloAnnyong/test|neutral=yes|sign=yes|link=yes}}. The three parameters are optional. Here's what it looks like:

[edit] Your addition to WP:3O

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. Your addition was edited because it did not maintain a neutral point of view.In the future, please sign your additions with five tildes (~~~~~), not four. This will ensure that only the timestamp is added.Your addition was edited because the link provided was incorrect.If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks.

I couldn't figure out how to add signatures to templates, and this needs to totally be checked over by someone who knows what they're doing. But it's just a first attempt. Can you think of anything else that should be added? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How strict on "only two editors"?

I'd like to use the "third opinion" option, but there are three editors involved. There are, however, only two "sides" - any thoughts on whether "third opinion" is appropriate? The discussion in question is here; things get difficult in relation to the single-sentence in italics several paragraphs into the discussion. Thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've got an RfC for that article, and I think that will prove more useful than a 3O. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about deletion and redirect of AL-kitab as per Qur'an.

Editor2020 has changed the page name. islamic holy books has not the same text even then first atttatched to that. replied about knwledge research even hang template was also placed by me even then that article has been deleted. is ther any body who can check and control Editor2020 attitude along with talk pages of editor2020 and Al-kitab as per Qur'an talk pages. he moved the pagege to islamic hjlybooks but the relevent pages are also not there. i replied all his acguments that i have to change the page name , i changed the name . he said that it seems like Islamic Holy book, i told that text is not same because Al-kitab as per text of quran has only references of Qur'ani ayats to tell that Al-kitab doesnot reffer to gospels or torah or zabur whici struth of Qur'an it looks that wikipedea is a place to write about some thing and not as per that thing. like Qur'an related articles are as per people arguments and not as per text of quran it self. better wikipedea should write " wikipedea is a place to tell about Qur'an what ever they like butdonot write as per text of Qur'an.

no control here on administrator Farrukh38 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 attitude please come and check the details on farrukh38 talk page and try to justify. why did he do that? is there anybody who can help in this dispute.thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Um.. I'm not quite sure what's going on, but it looks like the main discussion is over at Talk:Al-kitab (Quran), so you should discuss your problems there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDCAB & WP:3O streamlining

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) message also posted at MEDCAB and dispute resolution

This is a pretty good idea. It seems like I missed the boat on discussion though....Lazulilasher (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The "suggestion on the WP:3O page" is simply the transclusion of the {{dispute-resolution}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is third opinion

Is it the abuse of good will of mediators when a user asks for third opinion if he is the only one complaining versus consensus reached by other editors (many of them who were strongly against each other in the past so it required a lot of effort to reach a common position). Specifically user who failed to receive any support at talk page came here to ask for support. And Athaenara directed him at the article talk page but he reverted Athaenara's edit again pushing those things where he failed to receive any support from other editors. Is it OK to ask for a third opinion if it's not two users who fail to reach an agreement but rather one user who feels current article state is not good and wants it changed? --Avala (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Crossin

Hi, please look at the warning user Steve Crossin issued me! I just edited a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France, which said the country France signed an armistice with a person, Hitler. Which is an anomaly. Countries normally go to war against countries or groups of individuals, not single persons. So I corrected the heading. And this guy Steve is warning and threatning me.

Could somebody please evaluate his judgement, competence, ability to think in a rational manner or whatever would qualify him as an editor for Wikipedia? And hopefully reinstate my edit if it is not asking for too much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.155.10 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note- I have commented on the users talk page, and I reverted my mistake almost instantly. Steve Crossin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forwarded post

The following was posted (diff) on my user talk page:

Wikipedia:Third opinion
"The ip had a rationale, he was reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user, it is obvious as the user User:Gregs the baker attempted to solve the geordie dispute and got banned for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker‎, and his new account User:Waterwater212‎ is attempting to solve the same dispute claiming to be a "new user", since when did new users jump into solving wikipedia disputes . Dr Nat (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"
      → ["Dr Nat" is in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Molag Bal. — Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)]

I have forwarded it here for attention from other project volunteers.

This relates to edit warring on List of Geordies and Talk:List of Geordies ...

[Interjected: The article and its talk page were deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies. — Athaenara ✉ 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)]

See also: WP:3O page history for recent reverts. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user about 3RR; until the sockpuppetry case is approved, I think that good faith needs to be observed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The user reverted my addition; the diff is here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be typical of these edit warriors. At least three were blocked:
I found the whole thing rather nightmarish :-/ By the way, the article has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies. — Athaenara ✉ 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: I restored (diff) your post. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What a mess. I guess it's all worked out now... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sadly not though, it is now at Afd, if you guys (without prejudice) who think it is worth saving could include your comments at the Afd it would be appreciated, details of the socks would be useful, this to me is a very bad listing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two? editors

Would this qualify for 3O? At this point, the dispute is primarily between myself and one other editor, but there are two other editors who are somewhat involved. The original dispute was between A and B, a beginner. The beginner didn't know what to do so asked a question at WP:EAR where I picked up. Since then I have been tying to persuade editor A to stop his reverts. The beginner is not directly involved right now because, well because she is a beginner and doesn't know policy. I'm acting on her behalf, so at the moment the dispute is primarily between myself and editor A. There is also editor C, who supported my position on A's talk page. I don't know whether C will continue to be involved. So currently it is just two editors actively involved in a dispute. But you could also say that there are three or four editors. If editor A won't listen to my latest note on his talk page, would it be appropriate for me to come here, or should I take it back to EAR, or perhaps ANI, or RFC/U? I don't want to make a bigger deal than necessary but editor A has to back off. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it's less of a content dispute and more of an editor's actions. Have you considered WP:WQA? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Are they all like this?

I thought I might like to help out at 3o so I took a look at Talk:List of road-related terminology#What a neologism is. Wow! Is that typical? I don't have the energy to deal with something like that. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. Sometimes I've offered a 3rd opinion and it resolved the dispute instantly, and others generate discussion that drags on for weeks.
That one you referenced doesn't even qualify for a 3rd opinion request, because there are more than two editors involved in the bickering.
If you don't want to deal with one plea, look for another. That's what I do. There isn't any requirement to deal with them in order, although personally I try to give more weight to pleas that have been sitting there a while. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I generally look for topics that I have a chance of being able to constructively contribute to the conversation.Lazulilasher (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer Film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_film

The editor there will not include how the the models were created for the film.

This is very relevant , yet he seems to think it's not.

Couple of persons edits have been removed by him.

Please remove the editor for that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic

Anon IP 67.49.8.228 (12:31, 1 April - 08:49, 2 April 2008 UTC contribs), who is apparently user Pedant, [yes. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)] has twice added a WP:3O listing about disputes on a 9/11 talk page, linking the following:

There are many editors involved on the article talk page and it is clearly beyond the scope of this project.

One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox...

I've removed the listing itself, but I haven't got whatever it takes to explain to this user what several other editors have already explained. — Athaenara ✉ 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the same as the first complaint. This is between me and Tarage, who has asserted that he can call me a troll all day long with impunity. I just want an opinion on whether it is within any policy that it is not a personal attack to call me a troll. Tarage is a single-purpose account, edits almost exclusively on talk:911, and I have thousands of good edits to hundreds of articles. I'm not a troll, but Tarage keeps calling me one. If by "One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research" you are talking about me, you are wrong. I firmly believe in the policies, am very aware of them, and have even substantially edited some of them. Im FOR facts, sources, verifiability, neutrality and consensus. I'm against stating unfounded assertions as fact without a reliable source. I'm against stating as fact assertions which are impossible to know the truth or falsity of' . But my only purpose here is a deliberate and measured escalation of dispute resolution procedures, re: Tarage calling me a troll. WP:DR suggests I ask for a third opinion. WP:30 is the proper place for this, no? If several other editors have already explained to me that it's ok for me to be repeatedly attacked by Tarage, please just point that out to me? 67.49.8.228 (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam

An involved editor just pointed out to me that the wide-ranging issues under discussion at Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam are all interconnected and actively involve more than two editors. I will therefore be offering merely an opinion rather than a full-blown 3O. Despite this lack, I do not think that this issue should be relisted here, so I am offering this explanation instead. Regards. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Persian Mesopotamia#THIRD OPINION

It is now the oldiest one listed among the active third opinion request. Can we have volunteers taking a quick look at the issue and give their opinion? Chaldean (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my own view is that Persian Mesopotamia, the present article name, is more useful than any of the others proposed, including Achaemenid Assyria. Because there are so many editors involved in the discussion (see the Requested move section as well) I think that the WP:3O request should simply be withdrawn. — Athaenara ✉ 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted (diff) as requested. — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently (diff), it wasn't what he wanted ... — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New to 3O

I'm pretty new to providing Third Opinions, just wondering whether a couple of more experienced folk might keep an eye on me for a bit, just to make sure I'm not screwing up. Cheers, Eve Hall (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sure. One thing I'd say about your comment on Talk:North Korea is that it's not really obvious where the third opinion actually is. I usually bold mine, or make them into a separate subsection. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your WP:3O was a good contribution, Eve Hall. I added a Third opinion subsection heading. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Eve Hall (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving target

We need a third opinion or maybe admin intervention in stopping the movement of articles relating to Catholicos of the east which are being moved around by editors to various renamed articles without discussion. You may have to browse for it!  :( One of today's versions is at Catholicos of The East and Malankara Metropolitan. Yesterdays was at Catholicos of the East or the "east" whenever you happened to sign on. The prime editors seem to include User talk:Arunvroy, User talk:Lijujacobk and User talk:Stifle. My request for a third party got lost during one of the moves. No point in attaching it to the article. It may not be there tomorrow! Student7 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong. Located request intact. Still may need help with movers though. Student7 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about a process fork?

Dario D (talk • contribs • logs) has just added a "fourth opinion" request[1] in his long-running battle to defame the Webby awards. This is a process fork / forum shop of an AN/I case, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on Webby Awards. He seems to be energized by a poorly-considered opinion coming from this page (itself a fork of a bogus arbitration case he started) and is coming for another dip in the well. I would delete or comment his request but I would rather not be so aggressive in dealing with him. All I can do is urge anyone who would think this is a simple request to be very careful about responding. Probably best to leave it to AN/I. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)