Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles

• See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. As noted on our dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard, this dispute is between three editors
2. After our dispute failed, the moderator specifically noted that our next step would be to go to WP:RFC
3. The editor is creating unnecessary burden of proof by framing my position incorrectly as "resurgence" versus simply that the movement is still active

--Elephanthunter (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I don't think third opinion is the correct avenue to resolve this dispute, I have no problem with another editor chiming in. And I am definitely planning on filing a RfC, so I am not attempting to postpone the issue. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• there is no third editor. in case you have not noticed, The third editor has already removed himself from this dispute, owing to busy schedule so we are just 2 here. --DBigXray 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He never explicitly removed himself from the dispute, he simply said that he might not be able to reply promptly. Also, tt is not a matter of opinion that the moderator specifically told you our next step was to file a RfC. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify with him if you are in doubt about his participation. No one told me to do anything, they shared their opinions on best course of action and I choose mine. I think 3O is a good idea, no harm. --DBigXray 19:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you are misrepresenting our argument to game the stats in your favor. If the average editor would see things my way 70% of the time, a sample size of 1 would be favorable to you. But the larger sample size of an RfC would go my way.

And Adamgerber80 did not specifically bow out. So how are you so sure? In any case, Adamgerber80 appears to very recently be in the middle of an arbitration disagreement (diff) for allegedly disguising edits related to India-Pakistan relations as combating vandalism. It might soon just be the two of us. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 3O participants. recently a new user handled my 3O request [1]. 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. --DBigXray 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you can't just pull the slot machine lever until you get your way. You refuse to play ball and just bring this to RfC, where it would quickly become obvious that your stance is ridiculous. The person who responded was admittedly new, but the response was fair. You just didn't like to hear that your position false. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]