Wikipedia:Third opinion
|
This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process by which editors interested in lending a hand on content disputes can meet those that need such help, and those that seek that help can advertise their need for assistance. |
Wikipedia:Third opinion is a suggestion for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. When editors cannot reach a compromise and need a third opinion, they may list a dispute here. The third-opinion process requires good faith on both sides of the dispute.
This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. More complex disputes should be worked out on article talk pages or by following the dispute resolution process.
Listing a dispute
Please discuss the dispute on the talk page before coming here.
- If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute here. Otherwise, follow other parts of the dispute resolution process.
- Provide a short, neutral description of the disagreement, with links to the specific section of the talk page where it is discussed.
- Sign with five tildes ("~~~~~") to add the date without your name.
- Do not discuss on this page. Leave the discussion to the linked talk page.
- Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.
- → Example
"Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"
Providing third opinions
- 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: ~~~~.
- 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.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental way.
- 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.
- 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.
- After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page with a brief edit summary.
Third opinion project
- The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes. If you are a third opinion provider, you are part of the project and are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with or without the {{User Third opinion}} userbox, as you prefer) to your userpage.
Active disagreements
- Your description must be neutral — see Example above.
- Link to the correct talk page discussion section.
- Do not discuss here.
- Sign with five tildes ~~~~~ for timestamp only.
- Use an accurate edit summary.
Need third opinion concerning external links at Wikipedia entry Frank R. Wallace. Thanks. 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)