Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

Please do not list Third Opinion requests on this page.
Instead list them in the Active Disagreements section of the main project page
after reading the instructions at the top of that page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third opinion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:3O

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 90 days

User FAQ

See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

clarification on third opinion request

@Doniago When I made my third opinion request, I was specifically referring to only my dispute with Mason.Jones. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't clear (to me) from your filing, as the section you linked to unambiguously had more than two editors involved. You're welcome to relist, but I might suggest breaking off the pertinent dispute into its own section first so that it's more clear where the specific dispute with only two involved editors lies. If/when you've done that and wish to relist, I'm happy to strike my comment from the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the subsection. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to relist also. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently removed my 3O request, I'm conceding this dispute now because I honestly do not have the capacity to continue it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two difficulties

Intermittently I have been sharing my third opinion. I find following difficulties.

1) We do not have system of getting notified when a 3O request comes.

2) Other than few exceptions most users do not provide reasonable enough summary -at the article talk page dispute section- as has been suggested. Practically for us it becomes WP:TLDR issue

I suppose two of above reasons may cause some WP:3O requests going unattended. Idk if these issues have been discussed previously and also do not know, can there be any solution to it?

Thought sharing is better than not sharing it. Bookku (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1), I find watchlisting works well. 2) is an occasional problem, but if you ask the involved editors for a summary they normally give it (maybe with some arguing). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found watchlisting works, particularly when the "xxx remaining" convention is used on edit summaries. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku, User:AirshipJungleman29 - I just read this. I haven't been active in Third Opinion recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that watchlisting tends to be sufficient for seeing new notifications and that, if you want to weigh in on a dispute but aren't sure you understand it, there's nothing wrong with asking for a summation, and that, as noted, the editors simply providing such may move them toward a resolution. DonIago (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I tried to request a third opinion on the project page but probably made some mistake and so, what I typed is not visible. Please correct it.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, but the request has been removed because there was no attempt at discussion at the relevant talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: There has been a discussion here so please add my request back.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganeemath A discussion?! You have replied to each other once, and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Wikipedia editor to attempt to resolve disagreements yourself. Seeking another volunteer editor to do that job is the last resort. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesmath No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called talking with them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: We have talked on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Now, he is removing more text from Abdullah Azzam. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-Ganeemath (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page Ganeemath? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Please do. IntGrah is removing text from the Abdullah Azzam article. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here. He is even defending the removals here. He has even reverted sourced content with this edit. Then, when I propose what can be added here with sources, he doesn't bother to respond!-Ganeemath (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on whether there is an issue of reliable sources (and several others) leading to the (un)deletion of a section of the article

I see the editor is blocked for edit warring, in any case there were 3 other editors involved including me. Sorry about signing, Doug Weller talk 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The editor being blocked is secondary to the fact that there were already more than two involved editors. I'm also not sure an RSN dispute is really appropriate for filing here (though I'm not sure it does any harm either). DonIago (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I agree noticeboard disputes should not be listed here since 3O is a different form of article dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]