Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

(Redirected from Template talk:Third opinion response/sandbox)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic Two difficulties
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

User FAQ

edit

How to proceed

edit

I've responded to a third opinion request here [1] but I don't feel able to resolve it. How should I proceed at this point? Can I just relist it and let someone else provide the third opinion?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a tutorial or instructions page for future responders?

edit

I'm thinking about monitoring several 3O discussion to see how they develop, with a view to perhaps becoming a 3O responder at some future point. Is there an instructions page or tutorial where I can read up on best practices for 3O responders? I'm thinking of something like the instructions for New Page Patrol reviewers, or the Articles for creation reviewing instructions. Anything like that exist here? It would be great to have a page summarizing the collective advice of regular 3O folks here distilled into a Project page about best practices in 3O, to encourage other editors who might want to volunteer to help out here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other than the instructions provided on the main page, I don't believe there is such a thing. I understand how it might be helpful in theory, but in my experience, every dispute is so different that it would be difficult to provide advice that could reasonably be broadly applied, though perhaps more experienced 3O editors might feel differently.
That said, perhaps a 3O mentorship program, where interested 3O editors have the opportunity to observe disputes, might be useful, but by the same token, everyone can already see the disputes that get listed and nothing's stopping anyone from lurking on the discussions. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
General advice: Read up on policies and guidelines, and especially the gamut of dispute resolution pages (including essays). You can't know every guideline but get a feel for what's out there and what to search for when needed. Follow discussions at the Teahouse, here, RfCs, etc., look at the initial posts and think of how you'd resolve it, then see how other editors approached the issue. Keep in mind that 3O is non-binding so solutions at this level have to be agreeable to both parties. Sometimes that means talking editors through the guidelines and why they exist. Other times it means coming up with a third approach that neither of the initial parties considered. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not abiding by third opinion

edit

Is it edit warring for a user in a 1v1 dispute to overturn and not abide by a provided third opinion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Read the big information box on the project page. Third opinions are not binding. Edit-warring is a matter of an editor persistently reverting to their preferred text and is independent of any offered opinions. Without more specifics, difficult to know whether this shoudld be handled as a content or conduct matter though. DonIago (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

UX feedback

edit

Since the editors are supposed to remove active disagreements before providing a third opinion, there is no indication how many disagreements have been handled and to a casual observer the project could appear inactive. Possibly it would help to provide some statistics (e.g., X requests for 3O, Y requests answered in the last 365 days) on the project page. Alaexis¿question? 06:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

clarification on third opinion request

edit

@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

edit

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