Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

User FAQ

• See Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/User FAQ

error adding request

Hi, I have been attempting to add a request, but getting errors. Dont know what I am doing wrong. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I added it for you. Katzrockso (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what I did wrong so I understand next time? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe you have to put the # at the start of your 3O, because it seemed to want to take the # later on in your comment as the start and got confused. Not great with the technical stuff, though. I removed the diffs since they are unneeded. Katzrockso (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Inappropriate request

Since September 2025, the TA @~2026-21913-57 (using lots of previous TAs and IPs) has made edits to union type with which at least three other editors disagreed: User:Taylor Riastradh Campbell, User:Vincent Lefèvre and I. Now the TA claimed I'm the only one who disagreed and posted this 3O request... This is getting increasingly silly. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, one of those editors raised disagreement months ago and it was proven that they were wrong when they claimed that the example did not compile (steps were clearly given on how to compile the example). Another briefly joined the discussion on User:Chrisahn's side but the majority of comments on that page are between me and User:Chrisahn. If anything, this attempt to try and discredit the 3O request in as many places as possible is what's particularly silly, petulant even. ~2026-21913-57 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"proven that they were wrong" – That made me laugh. You really don't seem to understand what people are trying to tell you. You ignore the disagreements with your edits expressed in edit summaries. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

More WP:ICA. I'm sure that will help your case. ~2026-21913-57 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"one of those editors" — Incorrect. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See the banner at the top of the page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third opinion page. ~2026-21913-57 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy. You really believe you know how Wikipedia works, don't you? Wikipedia:Third opinion#Instructions: "If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." — Chrisahn (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That made me laugh. You really don't seem to understand what people are trying to tell you.

You really believe you know how Wikipedia works, don't you?

What's with this implied sense of superiority/seniority and talking down upon others? I made a mistake there, we all do. How about we chill it with the belittling remarks? If you knew as much as you care to champion before others, you would have added your complaint here to begin with, not directly in the section where the request Discussions of issues should not take place here. is written in plain sight, either. ~2026-21913-57 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You still misunderstand what the word "issues" means in that sentence. I added a short comment under your request, and I still think that was appropriate, but you deleted my comment. No big deal, I didn't want to start an edit-war, so I started the discussion here instead. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:14, 10 April 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)