| Revision as of 12:36, 23 October 2006 editWikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,646 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:38, 23 October 2006 edit undoESkog (talk | contribs)Administrators79,877 edits remove trollingNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| == Active disagreements == | == Active disagreements == | ||
| <!-- please add new entries to the bottom of this list. Sign with FIVE tildes, please, not four. --> | <!-- please add new entries to the bottom of this list. Sign with FIVE tildes, please, not four. --> | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Continuing abusion and provocation of me (calling a vandal, sockpuppeter, etc), continously reverting my edits . He Deliberately uses very emotional words and phrases (for ex: well known vandal) wich (in enwiki) istantly creates a negative image about me in others, without knowing the ongoing situation between us, and makes a false image about me and abt the backround of my contribs. I already sent him warning templates to stop calling me a vandal, per ]. I'm not able to discuss with him, because he's not talking with me, I always tried to find a solution.. Misleading others - just one, the easiest to prove: The really well known vandal , ], the ''friend'' of Tankred (they share the same opinion and point of view in everything) made nasty changes , wich I simply reverted, and put facts into the place of it. - of course I can easily prove (and proved also) that all the other statements by Tankred abt me or my contribs are misleading and false about me, and about history. I many many times tried to use discuss pages, (see my contribs) but usually no answer just a lot of agressivity. Constantly calling me a vandal, because our political views are the opposite. Per:] I warned him to stop this broadside against me several times, with templates. He managed to remove those templates, by simply not mentioning the ongoing situation between us. The most sad thing is that he's a well stated user on enwiki, but unfortunately he simply lost his mind in this case :( | |||
| You'll see a good example of it here (written by him), soon, wich of course I can challenge with facts. | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Please list new requests ABOVE this line. Sign with FIVE tildes, please, not four. Thanks! --> | ||
| I suggest him to be warned for ], ], and blocked for 24hrs because of continous sneaky personal attacks and ] - (per ''Pestering''). Thanks. 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) - this was posted by ] | |||
| :Just to say that sockpuppetry of VinceB was proved and he was blocked for it, so calling him a sockpuppet is simply description of his proved behaviour. Furthermore, the edit in which user:Tankred called him a vandal was because user:VinceB removed parts of the article that he did not liked, which could be described as vandalism. ] ] 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Contious rever warer, continously deleting cited facts to uncited and totally disputed POVs. some page histories for ex: , , per his totally ridicoulus and obviously very false . Then he calles ''me'' as an ultra-nationalist when I call this a joke. :)) | |||
| I urge to block him for revert warring and ] - (per ''Pestering'') - for 24 hrs, and warn him to ], and ], ] and ]. Thanks. 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) - this was posted by ] | |||
| :Use:VinceB here simply continue his personal "crusade" against me and user:Tankred because he is not able to discuss his edits in civilized manner. I do not have to repeat here that he is a constant POV pusher: he simply deleting parts of the articles that he do not like and adding to the articles stuff that has nothing with the subject. For example in the Bács-Bodrog article, he added sentence that has nothing to do with Bács-Bodrog. He was already blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption of Misplaced Pages (which could be easily confirmed by other users) and any further comment to this is futile. ] ] 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Please list new requests ABOVE this line. Sign with FIVE tildes, please, not four. Thanks! --> | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 12:38, 23 October 2006
Shortcut- ]
Misplaced Pages: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.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
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.