| Revision as of 13:46, 22 February 2006 editMr. Zarniwoop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users590 edits →Disagreement on []← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 22 February 2006 edit undoTomstoner (talk | contribs)252 edits →Active disagreementsNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| * ]: Should an external link to a baseball fan website be removed from a ] if an ] because the people running the site in question do not have a ] on their external site? 13:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | * ]: Should an external link to a baseball fan website be removed from a ] if an ] because the people running the site in question do not have a ] on their external site? 13:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * ] Should a description of an SEC answer to the question "did naked short selling cause my stock to decline" contain the entire answer, to put naked shorting in context, or just the part describing naked selling?--] 18:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- New listings above this line --> | <!-- New listings above this line --> | ||
Revision as of 18:01, 22 February 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 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.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Reasoning
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.
Guidelines
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 Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures.
- If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it 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 it 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.
It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another disagreement.
Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed.
- Jewellery - simple question. Does William Calley belong under famous jewelers simply because he is a famous person who is now a jeweler? -- 06:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Chicago White Sox: Should an external link to a baseball fan website be removed from a list of independent/fan websites if an editor views that site to be a bad site because the people running the site in question do not have a NPOV on their external site? 13:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Naked Short Selling Should a description of an SEC answer to the question "did naked short selling cause my stock to decline" contain the entire answer, to put naked shorting in context, or just the part describing naked selling?--Tomstoner 18:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)