| Revision as of 05:13, 20 July 2006 editPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits Cold fusion← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:00, 20 July 2006 edit undoMaurreen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,724 edits clarify introNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| The '''Third Opinion''' is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. | 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 |
Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and they require a third opinion that can be used as a tiebreaker. | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 20 July 2006
Shortcut- ]
The Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and they require a third opinion that can be used as a tiebreaker.
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
- 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. For example: 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.
Active disagreements
Talk:Stephanie_Adams - is a blog being sued by the individual in the article a rbanned primary source of information about the lawsuit? Relevent policies are WP:RS and WP:BLP 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Cold fusion - disagreement on the length and style of the "Transmutation section" 05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Category: