| Revision as of 18:28, 6 August 2007 editAdrian M. H. (talk | contribs)9,272 edits →Active disagreements: Rm Talk:John_Howard - went to respond but more than two parties involved - will suggest RFC or similar← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:34, 6 August 2007 edit undoAdrian M. H. (talk | contribs)9,272 edits Being bold - updating 3O layout and wording - see talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| | | | | ||
| | ] | | ] | ||
| | '''This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process |
| '''This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project.''' | ||
| | {{Shortcut|WP:3O |
| {{Shortcut|WP:3O|WP:THIRD}} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{dispute-resolution}} | {{dispute-resolution}} | ||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| '''Third opinion''' is a means to request a third-party mediator in the event of a dispute. When editors cannot reach a compromise and need a third opinion, they may list a dispute here. The third-opinion process requires ] and ] on both sides of the dispute. | |||
| Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We what to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. | |||
| This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the ] process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes. | |||
| If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the ] (with the option of a {{tl|User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page. | |||
| This page is primarily 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. | |||
| == |
==How to list a dispute== | ||
| <div style="margin-right:200px"> | |||
| Please discuss the dispute on the talk page ''before'' coming here. | |||
| Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process ''before'' making a request here. Follow these instructions to make your post: | |||
| *If, after discussion, '''only two editors''' are involved, you may list the dispute below in the '''Active Disagreements''' section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process. | |||
| *Provide a concise and '''neutral''' description of the disagreement, with a ] to the article's talk page. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *If the talk page is long, please use a ] to the specific section that contains the dispute. If possible, please ] the link to keep it short. | |||
| *Start your entry with a hash (#) and place it directly below any existing entries to maintain a numbered list. Line spacing will break the list. | |||
| *If you wish to provide a link to an important ] from the article's history, you can do so. Just paste the full URL between a single pair of square brackets. | |||
| ⚫ | *Sign with five tildes (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality. | ||
| ⚫ | *Do not enter into any discussion on this page. Confine the discussion to the relevant talk pages. | ||
| ⚫ | Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed or refactored as required. | ||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| </div> | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| {| style="margin:15px 0 15px 0; padding:4px 12px 7px 12px; border:1px solid #A3B1BF; background:#f5faff; font-size:95%; line-height:1.6em;" | |||
| | '''An example entry before wiki-formatting:''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki># ]: Should more example entries be provided with the instructions to assist editors? ~~~~~ </nowiki> | |||
| |- | |||
| | '''This will be displayed as:''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1. ]: Should more example entries be provided with the instructions to assist editors? 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ⚫ | ==Active disagreements== | ||
| {{clear}} | |||
| <!-- NOTE: Please read the instructions before adding to this section --> | |||
| <blockquote style="border: 1px solid green; padding: 2em;"> | |||
| ;→ <u>Example</u> | |||
| "]: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive ]s. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ==Providing third opinions== | ==Providing third opinions== | ||
| *Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four ''tildes'', like so: <nowiki>~~~~.</nowiki> | *Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four ''tildes'', like so: <nowiki>~~~~.</nowiki> | ||
| *Read the arguments of the disputants. | *Read the arguments of the disputants. | ||
| *Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. | *Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. | ||
| *Write your opinion in a ] way. | *Write your opinion in a ] way. | ||
| *Third opinions must be ]. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. | *Third opinions must be ]. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. | ||
| *Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your ] for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people. | *Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your ] for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people. | ||
| ⚫ | *When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily. | ||
| ⚫ | *When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. | ||
| ===Third opinion project=== | |||
| *The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes. If you are a third opinion provider, you are part of the project and are encouraged to add the ] (with or without the {{tl|User Third opinion}} userbox, as you prefer) to your userpage. | |||
| ⚫ | ==Active disagreements== | ||
| <div style="border: 1px solid green; padding: 1em; margin: 1em;">'''Reminders:''' | |||
| *Your description must be neutral — see Example above. | |||
| *Link to the correct talk page discussion '''section.''' (You may wish to pipe the link to keep it short). | |||
| *Do not enter into discussion here. | |||
| *Sign with '''five''' tildes <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> for timestamp only. | |||
| *Use an accurate edit summary.</div> | |||
| <!-- ADD NEW ENTRIES BELOW THIS LINE, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. SIGN WITH FIVE TILDES FOR TIMESTAMP ONLY. USE THE HASH KEY (NUMBER SIGN) TO PROVIDE A NUMBERED LIST. --> | |||
| # | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 18:34, 6 August 2007
|
This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project. | Shortcuts |
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Third opinion is a means to request a third-party mediator in the event of a dispute. When editors cannot reach a compromise and need a third opinion, they may list a dispute here. The third-opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.
Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We what to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.
This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.
If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.
How to list a dispute
Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. Follow these instructions to make your post:
- If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active Disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.
- Provide a concise and neutral description of the disagreement, with a wikilink to the article's talk page.
- If the talk page is long, please use a section link to the specific section that contains the dispute. If possible, please pipe the link to keep it short.
- Start your entry with a hash (#) and place it directly below any existing entries to maintain a numbered list. Line spacing will break the list.
- If you wish to provide a link to an important diff from the article's history, you can do so. Just paste the full URL between a single pair of square brackets.
- Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.
- Do not enter into any discussion on this page. Confine the discussion to the relevant talk pages.
Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed or refactored as required.
| An example entry before wiki-formatting: |
| # ]: Should more example entries be provided with the instructions to assist editors? ~~~~~ |
| This will be displayed as: |
| 1. Third opinion: Should more example entries be provided with the instructions to assist editors? 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC) |
Active disagreements
Providing third opinions
- Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
- Read the arguments of the disputants.
- Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental way.
- Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
- Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
- When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.