Wikipedia:Third opinion

The Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and they require a third opinion that can be used as a tiebreaker.

This page is 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.

The third-opinion process requires good faith on all sides. If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith, do not request a third opinion.

Listing a dispute

• List a controversy involving only two editors.
• Use a short, neutral description of the disagreement, and provide links to appropriate talk pages or specific edits in question. By giving a link to a specific section in a talk page you will increase the chance of a useful response. For example: "Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides"
• Sign the listing with "~~~~~" (five tildes) to add the date without your name.
• Do not discuss on this page. Leave the discussion to the linked talk page.
• Provide a third opinion on another item on the list, if one exists.

Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.

Providing third opinions

• Only provide third opinions on the relevant article's talk page, not on this page.
• While this page is meant to provide a swift procedure, do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in many of these cases, you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.
• Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Consider watching pages on which you state your opinion for a week or so, to ensure your opinion is not ignored. Articles listed on this page are frequently watched by very few people.
• You are, of course, entirely free to provide a third option—that is, to disagree with both disputants.
• After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page.

Active disagreements

• indigo children could use some help regarding NPOV disputes and unsourced statements 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Paul of Tarsus: could use third party based on massive editing. Eschatology, Scholarly articles, and Consultation with apostles is continually summed up, effectively losing most of its objective grounds and eliminating controversy. Redactor in question is lostcaesor (quite often str1977 as well). Also repeatedly ask for discussion to be made however it seems they would like to edit without reason, this is to promote some sort of bias. Plese help. 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Inanna: Needs a third party to mediate on which version of the descent myth is best. Users: user:Thegingerone and user:The Great Honker can not agree on which of their versions are best. 17:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: Needs a third party to mediate on the inclusion of military and financial aid to Israel from the USA. User:Tewfik is continually removing the detail citing the consideration of Hezbollah as illegal as the reason. This should be reviewed- an agenda driven edit war is being promoted. 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Real World: London: Needs some help working out an NPOV on a non-scientific page, as well as identifying original research. Ckessler 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• John J. McCloy: Revert war starting to break out over John McCloy's role in preventing the bombing of Auschwitz. Could use help regarding NPOV, unsourced statements. 17:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Slither (film) | Talk: Slither (film): Need help to stop a revert war about the use of information from Rotten Tomatoes. Thanks. Sensorium 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)