Wikipedia:Third opinion

"WP:3" redirects here. For You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta or Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, see WP:3 (disambiguation).

Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute 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 in the discussion.

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.

How to list a dispute

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.

If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

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. You may place the {{3O}} template on that page at the top of the section where the discussion of the issue has occurred, or wherever it seems appropriate to best help the Third Opinion editor understand the issue.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

• Begin a new entry in the Active Disagreements 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, and without trying to argue for or against either side
  • A five tilde signature (~~~~~) to add the date without your name.
• Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.

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.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here. If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list.

Example entry

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

1. Talk:Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy#change in focus Disagreement over the nature of lede to article, if it meets Notability, and over which version to use about the ending of the event. Please follow the discussion all the way till the end of Talk:Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy#welcome progress on lede (currently the last section on the talk page). Thanks. 07:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
2. User talk:Andrei nacu#Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map? Disagreement over removing Dacian distinct group from Roman Empire Map File:Roman Empire 125.svg and File:Roman Empire 125.png, and from the corresponding commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg and commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png. Please check all talk sections till the bottom of the page at User talk:Andrei nacu#Response to above discussions as they are multiple. Also, discussions are open in the image talk pages and on some pages using this map. 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Talk:Szczecin#undue. Disagreement about the proper place to include text on historical development of the architecture of the city; architecture or history section. Also some dispute on verifiability/accuracy of some statements within the that text. 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Talk:Vienna New Year's Concert#Coatrack: Anschluss / Clemens Krauss Disagreement about the appropriateness to include the Anschluss and the history of the career of the conductor Clemens Krauss in this article. 08:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have 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 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 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: ~~~~.
• The {{3OR}} template is handy for inserting a third opinion on the talk page. Usage: {{subst:3OR | <your response> }}.
• 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}} 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 before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.
• Check the article's talk page for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the talk page.
• Check the list of tagged talk pages occasionally for disputes which have been tagged but not listed here.
• If you're going to ask for an opinion, also consider giving one; this reciprocation is called good wiki-karma.

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 respondant's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{The Third Opinion Award}} on their user talk page.

If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page.

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:Third opinion Wikipedians.

Declining requests for third opinions

Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action.

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:

• Be civil.
• Explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
• Suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")