Wikipedia:Third opinion

[[:|WP:3
WP:3O
WP:THIRD
WP:RF3O]]

Wikipedia:Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. When editors cannot come to a compromise and need a third opinion, they list a dispute here.

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

In the section below, 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

Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen

Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen needs a third party help set the tone for the article. As I am writing the article, another party is deleting what I am writing and dismissing it as "fluff". Please look over the edits and make recommendations. A lot of the diasagreement is over style such as should children be listed with their last names, and whether they should have their spouses listed. 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted what I thought violated the "Wikipedia is not a genealogical database" rule, and consolidated some of the section titled "Timeline" into the "Biography." The previous biographical information was set up in sections of about three-to-four sentences each. And biographical information that was in "Timeline" was more appropriately, but quite remarkably absent from the biographical sections of the article. An impartial observer will likely note that my edits are within policy, and actually improve the article. 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon

I believe that I violated 3RR in correcting vandalism to Carleton S. Coon, but the vandalism isn't so clear so I think it's difficult for this particular user to understand why it's vandalism. He keeps reverting the article so that the article states that Coon was a physical as opposed to biological anthropologist. Technically, he was biological because that is the wider field which once encompassed physical anthro, once physical anthro was discredited, physical anthropologists and biological ones were both considered to be biological anthropologists. Wiki reflects this fact by redirecting the physical anthropology article to biological anthropology and the article refers to them as being the same thing. Coon is even listed as a biological anthroplogist on the biological anthropology article. I tried explaining this, but he just wants to edit war. Please give me your input. I didn't know what notice board to put this on. 04:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to temporarily protect a page from any editing, to stave off an edit war, give parties a chance to cool down and resolve their differences on the article's talk page. -Amatulic 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus John

My editing has been called into question, with specific regard to this entry, and other entries, as well. The reasons for disagreement are well expressed at Talk: Augustus John. I would most appreciate comment on this article, and on my previous editing. Thank you for your help. 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)