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 require a tiebreaker —a third opinion.

In the context of disagreements —related to policy or content — sometimes these disputes involve only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, (which not many people watch.)

Reasoning

Some things can only be done one way or another. Despite good will on both sides, some disagreements cannot be solved without outside help. When only two people are involved, this may lead to a deadlock. This page is meant to provide a streamlined process for solving disagreements involving only two editors.

Guidelines

Listing

• Any editor may list any controversy involving only two editors. If you are not one of the participants in the disagreement, however, you are encouraged to provide a third opinion yourself.
• This page is meant only for disagreement involving precisely two people. If more are involved, try convincing — or coming to a compromise with — the other people. If that fails, try other Wikipedia dispute-solving procedures.
• If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it from the list below (regardless of whether you listed it in the first place). If you provide a third opinion in any disagreement below, please remove it from the list.

Providing Third Opinions

• Only provide third opinions on the relevant talk pages, not on this page.
• While this page is meant to provide a swift procedure, do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in most cases listed on this page, you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.
• 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. If you do this, as in all cases in which a third opinion has been provided, remove the article from the list below.

Active Disputes

Add new conflicts at the bottom. Use short (one line), neutral descriptions, and provide links to locations where more information is available. Do not sign your name, but add a date (using "~~~~~" - five tildes).

• Polygamy - Talk:Polygamy has heated up again. One of the editors seems to come back on a once a week or every other week basis. This is fine, but may make you believe that the dispute is resolved, when it is just delayed. 17:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nuclear Option - [[1]] Disagreement over the section titled 60% requirement; see talk page at 35.17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The Holocaust - Talk:The_Holocaust#Principal_target Dispute over NPOV and whether Jews were the main or principal targets of the Nazis. 06:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Bioconservatism - Two of us are clearly at a standoff as to whether the use of the word "reactionary" in this article is appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

• Metroid: Zero Mission - Two users disputing over whether the game should be considered a remake or a prequel, which could possibly have large implications for the content of the page. Links, images, and arguments are plentiful on the talk page. 22:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Arsenal F.C. - minor dispute between two editors as to whether or not the club crest should be in the infobox. The relevant discussions have been moved to Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Crest in infobox. --khaosworks 03:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Truth - dispute over maintaining neutral point of view resulting in endless revert battle

• Wayne State University - dispute over relevance and importance that "Wayne State University is a Pepsi campus..." 16:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Afghanistan - Dispute over whether today's Afghanistan was once called by the name Khorasan, and before that by Ariana (Aryana). Text in dispute (with revert war actions) is located in the Origin and history of the name section of the page. The dispute is raging on the talk page.23:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Devadasi - Talk:Devadasi This entry has descended into an edit war, between this entry [[2]] and this entry [[3]], with personal attacks and racial comments in the discussion page. The contest is supposedly about the legitimacy of certain aspects of devadasi culture, but one editor is just deleting any comment made by the other editor without discussion or comment apart from personal attacks.16:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Positive right and Negative right - What we have here is a failure to communicate. Literally. Despite my best efforts, User:RJII claims that he simply does not understand my arguments, and therefore keeps reverting them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Italian Beef and Talk:Italian Beef - Dispute over wheather calling a varient of the Italian Beef sandwich is inauthentic is POV or not. 04:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)