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.

Guidelines

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.

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 disagreements 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.
• When a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove the listing 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 the listing 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 disagreements

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). Please do not discuss the disagreement on this page. If there is a backlog, please add {{backlog}} to top of page.

It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another disagreement.

Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed.

• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Edit war about the (dis)advantages of categories and the use of {{POV-section}} (plus {{Controversial3}} on the talk page). 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• V for Vendetta page needs a third opinion regarding ambiguities in the V character's identity and, now, historical development outside the text. See Talk:V for Vendetta particularly under "The disclaimer" subsection. 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Bill Moyers page needs a 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here [[1]]. The issue is not being debated by the 2nd party, who responded with edits that unintentionally or intentionally misrepresented source content. Possible original research. OR edits gone as of [the "08:30, April 11, 2006" version], but the dispute remains unresolved. (08:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC))
• Friends of South Asia - dispute on edits suggesting that a California Indo-Pak peace group is strongly biased against India, and toward Pakistan. See Talk:Friends of South Asia for details. 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• ApeXtreme needs a third opinion regarding the two users' dispute over various cleanup-type edits to that page. 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Autogynephilia#"Two Type Theory of Transsexuality" Debate over whether one or all theories about the causes of transgender and transsexualism need(s) its/their own article has escalated - a neutral third opinion is desperately needed, preferably before this moves into article space. -- AlexR 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Left Party (Sweden) - a dispute and edit war with critical material on Left Party repeatedly added and deleted. See difference and Talk:Left_Party_(Sweden)#Soman.27s_recent_erasures_.5B12.5D for details.--16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Communist Party of Turkey - material from website of one party inserted. Possible copy-vio, as well as incorrect presentation that current TKP is the continuation of original TKP founded in 1920. --Soman 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game) - Dispute over supposed "fake" information leaked prior to E3. 18:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Scottish Knights Templar and Alexander Deuchar need a third opinion as one user keeps deleting external references provided by the author that that they do not agree with. 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Biograph Studios. Debate whether Consolidated Film Industries or Empire Trust Company owned the studio and laboratories 1928-1939, and whether CFI purchased the Biograph Company. 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. Disagreement over whether the Lyttons are (or should be) a "real" Native American tribe or not, and to what extent information favorable to each side should be included. 04:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Bullwhip. At dispute is if BDSM, a human sexual behavior, belongs in this article. 15:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)