Wikipedia:Third opinion

This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project.

"WP:3" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta.

Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.

This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.

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 and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.

How to list a dispute

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

1. Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
2. Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
3. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Example entry:

# [[Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up]]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~

Example displayed:

1. Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here.

1. Talk:Mousesports#Fate of the page. Dispute over the merging between the Mousesports and G7 Teams pages. 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Talk:Cradle of civilization#Three reverts on sourced information. Dispute on removal of sourced information and changing the scope. 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Talk:Milton Friedman#Why Klein's criticism isn't encyclopedia-worthy. Long-standing dispute over whether or not a source deserves to be included in the article. 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo#COPIED FROM Longchenpa Archive from 22:18, 23 July 2008. Disagreement about insertion of material. 20:16, July 24, 2008 (UTC)
5. Template talk:University of Alabama Dispute regarding proper placement of link to the UAB School of Medicine 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Talk:Michel Foucault#Foucault on pedophilia and the age of consent in France. Dispute over Foucault's advocacy for abolishing minimum age for sexual consent 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Talk:Neo-orthodoxy#Reversion explanation Dispute over whether previous version of article [1] is superior to current verison Neo-orthodoxy. 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
8. On Comfort women and other Japanese-Korean WWII related topics, the request is primarily regarding the conduct of Caspian blue (talk · contribs) who appears to using a number of aggressive, exaggerated and anti-social strategies to WP:OWN said topics such as persistent revisions, deletions, "creative" edit summaries and personal attacks so as to provoke and waste others time. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
• Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• 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}} in a new section on the talk page of the article.
• 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}}.
• When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.
• Check the article for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the article and/or talk page.