Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion

Please read before requesting for a third opinion

Third opinion (3O) 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 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. Some disputes may involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of an editor. 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.

To request a Third Opinion, visit the Third Opinion Project and follow the instructions there.

Main page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Dispute resolution requests provides a central compilation and easy-access overview of noticeboards for dispute resolution, and details the various different methods used at each of the Wikipedia dispute resolution pages.

Article content dispute resolution requests

Third opinion Specialised noticeboards Requests for comment Dispute resolution noticeboard Request an outside opinion when there is a content dispute between only two users. Ask questions and request assistance from users familiar with the content policies and guidelines relevant to that noticeboard. Request input on a specific content issue from a broad number of uninvolved users. Have uninvolved volunteers facilitate a discussion about an ongoing content dispute. Unsure which one to use? Check out our guide to dispute resolution, or ask at the talk page.

User conduct dispute resolution requests

Edit warring noticeboard Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Arbitration Enforcement Report editors who are repeatedly undoing others' edits to try to "win" a dispute. Request assistance from administrators and experienced editors regarding recent or ongoing misconduct by an editor. Request enforcement against a user who you feel is acting in breach of the remedies described in a closed arbitration case. Unsure which one to use? Check out our guide to dispute resolution, or ask at the talk page.

Advanced disputes

Arbitration Cases Apply to the Arbitration Committee for an examination and binding decision regarding a long-standing issue of misconduct after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted.

See also

• Help:Simple guide to vandalism cleanup, for situations where an editor is clearly deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, for situations where an editor is suspected of abusively using two or more Wikipedia accounts.