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.Dispute resolution requests (WP:DRR) provides a central compilation of and an easy-access overview of noticeboards for dispute resolution, and details the various different methods used at each of the Wikipedia dispute resolution pages.
Remember: All content and conduct issues should be discussed at either the article or user talk pages before requesting dispute resolution.
Apply to the Arbitration Committee for an examination and binding decision regarding a long standing issue of mis-conduct after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. Or request enforcement against a user who you feel is acting in breach of the remedies described in a closed arbitration case.