Jump to content

User:Signimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I contribute to Wikipedia since 2006[1] by adding, and seldom reverting (hence low edit count, but still >6K[2]).

I am mostly contributing to science and musical articles, although my interests are broad and change over time. I am currently more invested in Wikiversity, as it provides a great complementary platform with a different philosophy, allowing the introduction of scientific concepts via practical tutorials. I am often at WT:MED and I support WP:RETENTION.

My editing methodology is as follows: searching for high quality sources, read them, and then use them to write entries in a WP:BRD fashion. I edit Wikipedia as I would do a state-of-the-art literature review, so Wikipedia is a by-product of my own research but it allows me to follow a strict methodology, and that's very nice! I try to be a true (bayesian) skeptic and avoid pseudoskepticism.

If you disagree with my edits, it means either I am wrong, or you are wrong, or we're both wrong, or we're both correct and we don't know it . I never edit entries pertaining to my job or my interests (apart from curiosity ) to reduce bias. I will always be open to discussion to resolve these kinds of issues, so please feel free to reach to me (if I do not do it first). If nothing else works, please see what to do next in WP:DISPUTE. I comply foremost with WP:BRD, WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. I do my best to stick to WP:Wikilove, but highly dislike WP:BRR, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:ESDONTS, WP:BRD-NOT and WP:POVRAILROAD.

My own rules of behavior:

  1. Rule 1: stick to WP:WikiLove, always remember the goal is to make better articles, no matter the hardships.
  2. Rule 2: always avoid discussing when fatigued.
  3. Rule 3: always follow Rules 1 & 2!

It seems my main abilities are in finding reliable scientific sources, and adding/revising content, as shown in xTools authorship of most articles I edit[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. That is not to say that deletionism is useless, of course it's necessary, like it's necessary for the brain to trim minor memories out to leave room for more significant ones, it's just not where I (and my brain) are good at doing

(Sorry, no fancy boxes here, I am not fond of personality traits categories... But if you really want one, I think I might be a Wikipedia:WikiDragon)

A practical introduction to medical articles edition

[edit]

Totally new to Wikipedia

[edit]

If you are totally new to Wikipedia, the best thing is to follow The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tutorial that will guide you through each step. When you will feel more confident in your understanding of Wikipedia's interface and how collaborative editing works, you can follow the indications below that are specific to medical articles on English Wikipedia.

The rest of this practical tutorial below pertains only to medical content, in other words to content pertaining to human health, where WP:MEDRS applies. For the rest, such as historical accounts or biomolecular content, the less stringent WP:RS applies instead (and if you want to follow good practices, use WP:SCIRS for non-medical scientific content). In any case, secondary sources are always to be preferred to primary sources.

Collaborative editing & reliable sources

[edit]

For editors new to medical articles editing on Wikipedia, which follows specific more stringent rules different from the rest of Wikipedia, the most useful and quick tips IMO are to 1. watch the intro video below (3min), 2. read WP:MEDHOW or this document for a general outline of how to contribute (10min), 3. then WP:MEDRS to identify reliable sources (20min). All of these links will help in identifying what content is pertinent for Wikipedia.

An intro to medical articles editing on Wikipedia (click on the lower-right gear to increase quality if text is unreadable)

Summary: a good reliable source is: 1. a secondary source like a review, or a tertiary source like an encyclopedia, 2. there are quality differences between reviews: guidelines are the highest (international > national > professional society), then Cochrane's systematic reviews are considered of very high quality, then systematic reviews and meta-analyses are high quality, then narrative reviews, and then mini-reviews, 3. it needs to be published by a reliable publisher, ie, not in WP:CRAPWATCH and generally with a PubMed id (PMID). If you use such reliable sources, your content should most of the time be accepted, but however not always.

To make your life easier, you can (ab)use of internal citation tools (additional tools here and more tutorials here), which can autofill all fields to cite a journal/book/website from just the PMID, DOI, ISSN or url, see the two videos below. Personal tip: always use the PubMed's PMID to cite a scientific work, this will both ensure that the work is referenced in PubMed (which is a positive indication on quality, if it's not on PubMed it's generally a bad sign that this source is not usable on Wikipedia, although there are exceptions). There is also a Citation bot to do additional clean up, or to check that you formatted the citations correctly.

How to use the internal citation tool with autopopulation (click on lower-right gear to increase quality if text is unreadable)
More examples of the citation tool, particularly the "journal" template which you will most often use for medical articles, and can be autopopulated using the PMID (PubMed ID) or DOI

Formatting

[edit]

Finally, but it's more daunting, read the WP:MEDMOS, WP:MOS, WP:REFPUNCT and MOS:WORDS to know how to format your contributions. If you are an academic working on the topic you are editing on Wikipedia, see also WP:EXPERT. In my opinion, WP:MEDMOS is less important than having a sourced pertinent content as the formatting can be fixed without any knowledge of the topic (and sometimes even automated) and thus takes much less time, I will personally be happy to fix the formatting for you as long as you provide reliably sourced content, but other editors might think otherwise and revert you for formatting mistakes.

Dispute resolution

[edit]

Disputes are a normal part of the process of any collaborative project, and Wikipedia is unfortunately no exception. Despite the time you may take upon yourselves to make great contributions to Wikipedia, sometimes your contributions may get totally annihilated (ie, reverted).

In any case, try to remain calm and patient, follow WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion, remember that WP:PERFECTION is not required, and at worst follow WP:DISPUTE. If you think other editors may be WP:STONEWALLING you, don't fight back: the solution is to always to seek more editors opinions. You can do so by first asking for a WP:THIRDOPINION or directly ask on the closest WikiProject (such as Medical WikiProject), and if this doesn't work out, you can seek the dispute resolution noticeboard or another more pertinent noticeboard such as reliable sources noticeboard. As a last resort, you can open an RfC. If the other editor's behavior is the problem (eg, insults, threats), you can seek help from administrators at WP:ANI, but be warned that this last option can WP:BOOMERANG at you and get you banned, so make sure to always have WP:WIKILOVE behavior and avoid WP:KETTLE. Requesting the WP:ANI is often disadvised, the best if the situation is stalled is to drop the WP:STICK and work on other articles, away from the editors with whom you had issues. See also the sound advices here. Also post help requests in only exactly one of these avenues at a time, and wait at least 1 week without any reply before moving on to another avenue, as otherwise this could be considered forum shopping and get you banned.

Tip: if you come from a Wikipedia of another language, you should not assume that the rules are the same! For instance, warnings can be issued on your talk page by any user, not just admins, and even though they may be unjustified.

Always remember, and particularly in dire times, that we are all WP:HERE to build the sum of human knowledge Contributing to medical articles will become easier over time and experience

Tips and pitfalls to avoid

[edit]
  • Often, newcomers (and even experienced editors), and particularly those from academic backgrounds, have issues with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:AND, Overgeneralization and WP:INTEGRITY. Make sure you read and understand these two very important points. To summarize: you can write only what is written in reliable secondary sources. You can select (the pertinent info), you can reduce/synthesize (to make it more concise and short), but you can't combine (to create a new meaning, even a slight bias)! Make sure what you write is findable, without interpretation nor reasoning, in the source. There are however a few limited exceptions: WP:CALC for simple calculations with consensus and WP:OI for images (as we have to deal with images copyright, so it's allowed to make original images as long as it contains published infos, but not necessarily all in the same ref and not necessarily in the same way). Original research is however allowed and sometimes necessary to evaluate the pertinence and WP:WEIGHT of sources and sentences with competence, see also WP:SYNTHNOT.
  • A competence that is not necessary for content editing but absolutely required for efficient collaborative communication is to learn how to use Help:Diffs.
  • If you modify the lede (introductory text at the head of any article), make sure to read and follow MOS:LEDE, which provides invaluable and clear advices.
  • There are 2 sides of Wikipedia: there are obscure articles that almost noone care about, and there are popular/controversial articles (such as those found on WP:CEN). If you work with articles in the latter type, you will find more opposition and conflictual situations, whereas with unpopular articles you can 99% of the time work on your own without any discussion raised. That's because popular/polemic articles are more scrutinized by more editors, and more closely, one could say they are "sensitive" articles/topics. For a newcomer, it's advisable to start with unpopular articles first. Never focus all your contributions on only popular/polemic articles, you should mix both types when contributing, else you will be in for a lot of troubles! Check also WP:NOTHERE and avoid these!
  • Tip for good sources: check that your reference has a PubMed PMID and use that to make a reference using the cite journal tool (this will signal to other editors that this reference is listed on PubMed). If not, check if the publisher is not in WP:CRAPWATCH nor WP:RS/P and has a high enough impact factor (as a rule of thumb, anything lower than 2 is not worth considering for Wikipedia). In case of doubts, check the archives of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and if still in doubt you can ask Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard .
Supercharge your Wikipedia experience by enabling gadgets, such as the Navigation popups
  • Content forking: If, like me , you work iteratively but a bit randomly (so that some of your edits might not comply with Wikipedia's formatting or sourcing rules), and are easily frustrated by reverts, then you can copy an article's source into your own userspace draft: Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft. This is called "content forking". This is allowed, either in your userspace (don't forget to add in the header {{userspace draft}}) or as a temporary subpage of the main article or its talk page (don't forget to add {{Workpage}}). Content forking is allowed, including for major revisions to avoid modifying an article with sub-standard material that could cause disruption by edit warring, as long as it's not for POV reason (a POV-fork, see here and here). This will allow you to work at your own pace, and when you are done, follow the instructions on the preceding link to ask for a review, or post a link to your draft on WT:MED or the TeaHouse to discuss the changes before (WP:CAUTIOUS), before moving your draft to the mainspace where all public articles reside Another way to publish is to copy section by section, one day at a time, and maintaining references consistency (by placing refs definitions in top to bottom order and outside of the lede), in order for other reviewers to have the time to review your changes in small bits[17][18], as to avoid placing other editors in front of a WP:FAITACCOMPLI Start copying from the top section to the bottom, with lede last if all sections are approved (as the lede must only contain info that is already in the entry's content). You should copy sections by sections as soon as your draft is good enough, so that you continue further modifications with the normal collaborative process. When doing that, always follow WP:0RR or WP:1RR and WP:EPTALK (stop after each copy to see if there was a revert, and discuss, don't revert back until it's fixed using other editors feedback). Be careful, if your userspace draft is left without editions for some time (or if it does not have the banner tags above such as {{userspace draft}}, it can get deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:UP#COPIES! See also other possible use of content forking/moving in userspace: Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space, Wikipedia:When_in_doubt,_hide_it_in_the_woodwork and content dumping: Wikipedia:Workpages. See also this discussion[19].
  • Tip for discussions: often, most discussions (and oppositions to edits) will be on the basis of WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (which could be summarized as "mainstream, not fringe"[20]). Knowing and understanding these pages will ensure your arguments will be constructive. Also ensure you comply with WP:COI by clarifying your affiliation on your userpage if you intend to work on articles pertaining to your expertise.
  • Tip for WP:DISPUTE: follow WP:AGF and try to be concise, save your and others' time by avoiding WP:MWOT and following Wikipedia:Noticeboards#Suggestions_for_success and Wikipedia:ANI_advice and WP:NOPUNISH and WP:KETTLE ;-) Often, the best thing to do is simply to focus on content and not on other editors, and to find higher quality sources per WP:MEDRS and don't forget to WP:PRESERVE :-D If agreement can't be reached, no problem, just ask on a WikiProject or make an RFC. Use the ANI only when there are big behavioral problems that are inadmissible, any other dispute should be solved by other means and foremost by discussion, as any adult should be able to do!
Configure your Watchlist with the new AI-powered colored filters, and combine with inlineDiff and navigation popups gadgets to save a lot of time!
  • Tip for advanced users: you can configure your Watchlist to save you a lot of time! (See the video on the right).
  • Tip for science (but not necessarily medical) lovers: a similar but less constraining set of guidelines for good sourcing to WP:MEDRS but for science in general is available at WP:SCIRS. It's only an essay but several science editors are already following it, and I think that's great

I wish you an enjoyable collaborative editing experience on Wikipedia full of WP:Wikilove! :-D

PS: of course, Wikipedia is far from perfect and has systemic biases[22][23], try to be patient and stick to WP:Wikilove, in the end things tend to get better :-)

Awards

[edit]
A Barnstar! Ça faisait longtemps que j'y songeais mais voila, je te décerne ce laurier tout spécial pour te remercier de tout le boulot que tu as fait pour que le 1er avril de cette année sur Wikipédia soit spécial et remarquable. Encore un grand bravo pour ta réactivité et tes bonnes idées. À bientôt peut-être !
VateGV ◦ taper la discut’ ◦ -- about April's Fools event of April 1st 2018 event of French Wikipedia


The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
for your random acts of kindness!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please also see the wonderful heart-shaped WikiLove plugin[24] at the top right :-D For the very interesting rationale behind, see [25][26][27].

My contributions

[edit]

Wikipedia

[edit]
  • List of created articles: en[28], fr[29].

Wikiversity

[edit]

Wikibooks

[edit]
  • SPM slice order, before there was almost no info on the net (at least not centralized!) for such a critical parameter for fMRI studies!
  • All contributions: Signimu

Essays

[edit]

Going further (about WP architecture and intricacies)

[edit]

This section mainly describes concepts and links that are or have been of interest to me. In other words: this is a mess, although you may find some stuff to be of interest for yourself.

Unordered

[edit]

"Wikipedia has changed from 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' to 'the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.'"[31]

  • Easily fixable errors are not grounds for revertion/rejection WP:NOTBUREAU and WP encourages inclusionism rather than reductionism WP:PRESERVE. Interestingly, another alias for WP:PRESERVE is WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE.
  • See also WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (can't just say "unnecessary" as a reason for revert), the latter confirming my interpretation of WP:CIR (competence is required) also reminded in WP:CIRNOT, at worst incompetent editors should be eased, not just labelled incompetent and driven out.
  • «Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.», from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Editorial_process.
  • "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and "Does not engage in consensus building" and "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
  • "Their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion" WP:RUNAWAY. And Dealing with disruptive editors WP:DDE.
  • Consensus: "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others. You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first" and "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors. Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors." and "banning others from your talk page" [32].
  • WP:NINJA
  • "Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected." WP:GAMING
  • "Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the "evidence" for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action. This is more often categorized as a breach of the guideline to assume good faith, and in particular, repeated unjustified "warnings" may also be viewed as a breach of civility." WP:GAMING
  • "It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post a change request on the article talk page." WP:CIRNOT
  • Stonewalling to status quo ante bellum is clearly rejected in Wikipedia policies: WP:STONEWALL and WP:Stonewalling, "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution" and "Removing a large addition for a minor error" and gaslighting technics, baseless contradiction, bad-faith negociating (luring into a false compromise and removing it when the other editor has compromised), "Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing, or BRD without the D", "Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more", "arguing against discussion by alleging time wasting", "Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved", lack of consensus does not imply a consensus favoring the status quo: "Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't", "Drive-by long-distance reverts", "Unreasonable sourcing demands", etc. And also indirectly under the term "filibuster" at WP:CONSENSUS#Pitfalls_and_errors. And in fact totally accepted in WP:GAMING with a description closer to stonewalling than real filibustering.
  • WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information, not to all infos in biomedical articles (clarified in MEDRS and Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands). See also: [33][34][35][36] and somewhat related about competence: [37]
  • revert to status quo ante bellum while discussions are fostered?
  • "How to discourage stonewalling": "Advocate for the reverting of unexplained reverts" WP:Stonewalling.
  • Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary "Reverts drive editors away"
  • Wikipedia:Reverting#Reasons reasons why edit warring are bad
  • About edit summaries and discussion:
  • Avoid vague edit summaries WP:SUMMARYNO.
  • WP:CCC "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor".
  • «Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. [...] Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions.» WP:EDITCONSENSUS
  • "Little or no interest in working collaboratively. Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns..." WP:NOTHERE
  • "Tactics can include frustrating the editor, hostility that discourages them from participating, or creating a false narrative that misrepresents actual events or edits in order to discredit the editor. [...] Tactics can include continuously and exclusively referring to users in a negative manner." WP:POVRAILROAD. There is an ArbCom ruling WP:ASPERSIONS: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. [...] An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."
  • "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute." Arbcom ruling[38].
  • How to avoid abuse of talk pagesWP:AVOIDABUSE and avoid indirect criticism and scare quotes WP:INDCRIT - also acknowledge that criticism should be clear enough even for non-native English speakers.
  • Conciseness: WP:KEEPCONCISE, WP:BLUDGEON and the opposite view: WP:ALLARGUMENTS.
  • Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility
  • WP:ASPERSIONS
  • Consensus is achievable through editing without discussion (apart from edit summaries), and is considered the "ideal" collaborative editing form: Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing and WP:BRDR and WP:BRB. But WP:BRR = edit warring.

User scripts

[edit]

Useful markups

[edit]
  • {{tl}} to show a markup code
  • highlighted text with {{tq}}
  • {{PMID}} to make a link to a pubmed article directly without a {{reftalk}}
  • {{rp}} to add a precision to locate the page or figure/table from a source: : Supp.Table3 

Graphics

[edit]
Relative risk of mortality by BMI in White US Men & Women
Relative risk of death over 10 years for white men (blue) and women (purple), who have never smoked, in the United States by BMI. The 22.5 to 24.9 BMI range is set as the reference.[1]: Supp.Table3 

References

  1. ^ Berrington de Gonzalez, A; Hartge, P; Cerhan, JR; Flint, AJ; Hannan, L; MacInnis, RJ; Moore, SC; Tobias, GS; Anton-Culver, H; Freeman, LB; Beeson, WL; Clipp, SL; English, DR; Folsom, AR; Freedman, DM; Giles, G; Hakansson, N; Henderson, KD; Hoffman-Bolton, J; Hoppin, JA; Koenig, KL; Lee, IM; Linet, MS; Park, Y; Pocobelli, G; Schatzkin, A; Sesso, HD; Weiderpass, E; Willcox, BJ; Wolk, A; Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A; Willett, WC; Thun, MJ (2 December 2010). "Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million white adults". The New England journal of medicine. 363 (23): 2211–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1000367. PMID 21121834.

Fun

[edit]

Vandalism

[edit]

Automation

[edit]

Copyvio

[edit]
  • WP:BACKWARDSCOPY header when external sources duplicate Wikipedia, see also how to detect[64].
  • Detect copyvio potential issues: Earwig's copyvio detector[65].

Sources

[edit]

English grammar

[edit]

ToDo

[edit]

3O and DRN

[edit]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

[edit]
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Wolf In Progress Nagging Prawn (t) 28 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 17 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic New Randomstaplers (t) 24 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 16 hours Bon courage (t) 1 days, 9 hours
Genocide Closed Bogazicili (t) 12 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 21 hours
Double-slit experiment New Johnjbarton (t) 7 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 22 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage New Wolfdog (t) 5 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 22 hours EncreViolette (t) 3 days,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor New PromQueenCarrie (t) 4 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 23 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion disputes

[edit]
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.

The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

How to list a dispute

[edit]

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Instructions

[edit]

No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

  • Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
  • Your entry should contain the following:
    • a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
    • a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
    • a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
  • Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. 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.

Active disagreements

[edit]

<onlyinclude>

  1. Talk:International Committee of the Red Cross#Removal of 'Criticism' section Dispute regarding whether or not to remove a criticism section. 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Talk:BiglyBT#Tags Dispute over whether a notability and primary-sourcing tag should remain on the article. 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia talk:A picture of you#"Welcome_to_Wikipedia!" Should this essay begin with the phrase "welcome to Wikipedia"? 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. At Darius J. Pearce, one editor felt the biography was defamatory, has significantly edited the article and now believes the issue resolved; another believes that the edits constitute whitewashing to de-emphasise that the person has been convicted of money laundering and is currently serving a long sentence. 09:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

[edit]

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.

Providing third opinions

[edit]

When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list

  • 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.
  • Read the arguments of the disputants.
  • Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
  • Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
  • Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
  • Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
  • Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
  • If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
  • For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.

Use template

[edit]
  • The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):
{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}

Declining requests

[edit]

If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:

Volunteers

[edit]

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.

Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links: 

Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=edit&section=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>


update, Purge

[edit]
Last updated by Reports bot 100 seconds ago [Refresh]
View full list – Add this feed to your Watchlist

Request for Comments

[edit]

To get notifications, register at WP:FRS or check manually WP:RFC/All. For me:

Committed identity

[edit]
Committed identity: cecd154d8fab67c73ae5eec2d8f7a9c5767820fbaeb41b666fa6f469c009e5787db8a406a2661956e3b9f4b3ced96f3ca5a3ac641995e7bb445458d0b2474dd1 is a SHA3-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Signimu&oldid=975120327"