Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

User FAQ

• See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

More than two editors

It seems to me as though we summarily close a fair number of 3O requests because there are more than two editors involved. I don't think we have any way to know why someone filed a 3O request despite more than two editors being involved in a dispute, though my admittedly bad-faith assumption is that they either didn't read or didn't understand the instructions.

In any case, should we update the project page to either emphasize that 3O is typically for disputes between (only) two editors, or perhaps add a clause advising filing editors that disputes between more than two editors are likely to be summarily closed? DonIago (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I remember declining due to this a lot. Recently, I took two requests after years and one of them had the same issue. Nothing's changed it would seem. The editor apologised and admitted they did not read that part. I guess in the heat of all these arguments most do forget as we often see them bungling formatting too (No offence or bad faith implied here about the editors, just casually musing).

I support you doing either. If you're not feeling particularly bold-y and don't mind waiting long, then feel free to propose your changes here. If anything done helps even a little, it'll reduce the workload for the rest of the volunteers needlessly skimming through discussions for such a trivial reason and having to notify the editors.

Idea: maybe also making an Editnotice plainly stating our two conditions ("see further information on the project page etc") for declining? I think it's overdue for this project now that you bring this up. This alternative approach might be more effective if over the years of meticulous rewording to the project page did not bear much results. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at this via the addition of a second ombox below the listing of disputes, as I couldn't figure out how to add an editnotice that wouldn't match the ombox's format, and it looked a bit clunky otherwise. Feel free to make improvements! DonIago (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Some recommended changes, especially putting the second Thoroughly Discussed clause. Wording/bolding taken directly from the main page. If you can make this less wordier or improve formatting, then great. Otherwise just paste this over point 1 of your bulleted list entry.

Disputes are likely to be procedurally closed if (A) More than two editors are involved; 3O is generally for disputes between two editors. (B) The issue has not been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page; 3O is only for assistance in disputes that have stalled.

Pretty nice, this should do. An edit notice would right now seem like an overkill. Maybe later if nothing changes even after this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I made an update based on your suggestions. Because the ombox is using bullet points, I wanted to keep each one fairly concise. Let me know if that doesn't really work for you, or feel free to edit yourself; though I do feel strongly that shorter bullet points are likely to be more effective than longer ones, and that we should definitely avoid having too many; the goal is a quick and easy recap. DonIago (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The second condition fits in the box well now. I've just put italics for emphasis and consistency on the "more than two editors" part too. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

COURTESY PING Ugog Nizdast
I have to just hereby give feedback that I recently requested a 3O that was wrongly responded by a previously-involved editor who also made clear of her bias and then Doniago took it up after I re-instated it following her refusal to rectify by asking me to do it myself instead, and he didn't just repeat the claim, but refused to clarify when it is so clearly mentioned that only "two principal editors" (emphasis mine) in the prose on FAQs under the section "What if my dispute has two viewpoints but multiple editors?" below, a distinction rather uniquely present in policy-making of 3O:

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.

Far from addressing that when pointed out, he not just didn't do anything regarding the fellow respondent — but also emulated an evident hostile tone towards me couched in Wikilawyer-speak. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Is a public relations firm representative for the article subject submitting a COI edit request counted as a party?

A representative from a PR firm places a request on behalf of the article subject through edit request. Disagreement arises between two uninvolved editors in the editorial decision over implementing or not implementing the decision.

I feel that it would be a disagreement between two users under such a circumstance. Is it considered a two party dispute or a three party-dispute? It would seem to me that it could be interpreted that the requester is simply acting as an agent of the article subject, as opposed to acting as an editor.

Graywalls (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. 2 editors is 2 editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Giuseppe Palamara

Disputants: Adri08 and Kasper2006 Third opinion: The dispute involves a disagreement over the subject's notability (WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE). While the other party suggests the sources are local, I argue the subject has reached a threshold of national significance in Italy: Academic/Professional: Author of technical papers in "Galileo" (March 2025, College of Engineers of Padua), edited by Prof. Enzo Siviero. Indexed in Google Scholar and Wikidata. Key Projects: Designer of the Belvedere dello Stretto and contributor to technical statistics regarding the Strait of Messina Bridge, presented at the Italian Senate. National Citations: His work has been utilized and cited by national figures such as former Minister Renato Brunetta. I am requesting a neutral assessment to confirm if these professional milestones and high-level academic endorsements justify the subject's inclusion and the removal of the notability tag.

I expanded article with peer-reviewed academic publications (Galileo/University of Padua), formal institutional presentations (Italian Senate, Messina City Hall), and national government-level collaborations (Ministry-level COVID statistics). Strengthened neutrality and added secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The article now relies on high-quality secondary sources, including a peer-reviewed engineering journal (Galileo), institutional records from the Italian Senate, and national media coverage of his collaboration with the Ministry of Public Administration during the pandemic. Kasper2006 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a transwiki promotional article (see the English, German, Spanish, Italian, and Japanese versions!)

The available sources, which can be assumed to be quite comprehensive given the apparent proximity between the author and the subject of the article, indicate that notability is primarily linked to a specific structure (Strait of Messina Bridge) , which, incidentally, is the focus of most of the article. Secondary sources devoted to the subject of the article are scarce, if we consider, as is customary, that an interview is a primary source. Even the Italian article questions the subject’s notability. Best regards.--Adri08 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the intention is here, but if it's to file a dispute, then one of you should be doing so on the Project page (WP:3O) not here, and as per the instructions there, the filing should be brief and neutral. If you want more involved dispute resolution, then you may have better results at WP:DRN. Either way, this page is not the place to hash out a dispute. DonIago (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal Talk:Bni Chiker § Name in Tarifit. Disagreement over whether the Tamazight name is correctly sourced and linguistically correct

I don’t think it’s okay that the other user put such a emphasis on linguistic correctness. That was not my point of discussion. He didn’t talk with me beforehand so we can formulate a fitting 3O together Bananakingler (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors aren't required to discuss the formulation of a 3O request before posting it. I'm a little unclear on why the request was ultimately removed, but if the goal was to get a third opinion, then I think antagonizing your fellow editor by modifying their request was counterproductive and also a bit rude if you didn't discuss it with them first...which you presumably didn't, since otherwise they would have modified it on their own.

Rather than get hung up on the specific wording of the request for a third opinion, I think you might be advised to look at what your goal is. DonIago (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I ultimately removed the request because things got heated to the point the other user said they were leaving Wikipedia for a year. At that point, a third opinion didn't seem useful anymore, and I didn't want to keep hammering on something after they'd already stepped away. lankdadank (chat) 01:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd just seen that and was going to make an addendum to my above comment in light of that, but you beat me to it. Agreed that if they're going dormant for a year then the 3O request would be a moot point. I'm sorry this went in the direction it did, but I doubt you're solely responsible for their decision. I wish they hadn't taken it upon themselves to edit your 3O request as well, whether or not it's now a moot point. Best wishes! DonIago (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent change

@Doniago the edit in question says "Look for sources yourself, when you think that would help.". That isn't a requirement in all circumstances, but if something would help resolve the dispute, an editor should be doing it. Katzrockso (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think, in particular, that some discussions would get resolved faster if the 3O responder didn't blindly trust everything that was claimed on the talk page. We should tell 3O responders to read the argument, but we should also signal that merely reading the argument may not always be sufficient. "Based on what I've read on the talk page, editor #1 sounds more convincing" is sometimes not nearly as helpful as "Based on what I've seen in the sources, I think ____". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there evidence that this has been a problem? DonIago (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I've seen a few 3Os that look like the editor read the comments on the talk page, couldn't decide between them, and has just replied with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ because they didn't want to spend more than two minutes on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the opportunity to take a look at these. If this happens once in a blue moon, it doesn't necessarily seem like something that merits a change to the main page. If it's happening more frequently, especially if it's also happening more recently, then it might be a concern. Or, if it's a single editor doing this, it might be something to speak with them about. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I find the wording unnecessarily prescriptive. Even "Consider looking..." would be better, and I think this merits discussion rather than a unilateral change, especially since the editor who made the change had also just filled a 3O request. DonIago (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor who made this change is also usually the more convincing-sounding editor in any 3O situation, so consider it a suggestion against my own interests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I hope you can appreciate how it can appear when you file a 3O request and then change the instructions on your own initiative? DonIago (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's called WP:BRD. I would assume good faith in that WhatamIdoing probably doesn't read the instructions on the 3O page that much, and when filing the request noticed what she saw as an absence. Katzrockso (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith there. I didn't accuse WAID of anything, merely pointed out that changing the instructions after filing a case could raise eyebrows. DonIago (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Katzrockso is correct about the process – it's been more than a decade since the last time I posted a request here – and DonIago is correct that it would have been more diplomatic for me to mark my calendar to make that change in a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)