| Revision as of 18:04, 13 July 2006 editJohnDBuell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,892 edits →Active disagreements← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 13 July 2006 edit undoScott Wilson (talk | contribs)1,485 edits →Active disagreements: Third opinion given on Douglas Adams#Religion, list not empty.Next edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| *] Edit war about the (dis)advantages of categories and the use of {{Tl|POV-section}} (plus {{Tl|Controversial3}} on the ] page). 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | *] Edit war about the (dis)advantages of categories and the use of {{Tl|POV-section}} (plus {{Tl|Controversial3}} on the ] page). 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] -- {{user|Stanley011}} and {{user|Sysrpl}} have reached a standstill over three points: 1) Whether or not to describe ] as a comedian and/or a political commentator (whether or not this description would be undermining Franken's credibility in the topic); 2) A wording complication: if Franken stated that he perfomed a search in a computer, should the article read that "Franken performed a search" or that "Franken ''claimed that'' he performed a search"; 3) Regarding the existence of a sole source supporting a few allegations, and the trouble of deciding whether or not the source is reputable enough to be taken into account, plus the issue of qualifying the source (disputed term: "conspiracy theorist"). Relevant discussion awaiting third opinion at ]. 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | *] -- {{user|Stanley011}} and {{user|Sysrpl}} have reached a standstill over three points: 1) Whether or not to describe ] as a comedian and/or a political commentator (whether or not this description would be undermining Franken's credibility in the topic); 2) A wording complication: if Franken stated that he perfomed a search in a computer, should the article read that "Franken performed a search" or that "Franken ''claimed that'' he performed a search"; 3) Regarding the existence of a sole source supporting a few allegations, and the trouble of deciding whether or not the source is reputable enough to be taken into account, plus the issue of qualifying the source (disputed term: "conspiracy theorist"). Relevant discussion awaiting third opinion at ]. 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] -- should the story in the 2nd paragraph be called an allegory or an analogy? 17:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Or indeed something else? "Parable" and "Anecdote" have been suggested.... Relevant talk page section at ] 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- new entries above this line --> | <!-- new entries above this line --> | ||
Revision as of 20:44, 13 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 require a tiebreaker—a third opinion.
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 short, neutral explanations of both sides of the argument, and provide links to appropriate talk pages or specific edits in question.
- 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
- Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes Edit war about the (dis)advantages of categories and the use of {{POV-section}} (plus {{Controversial3}} on the talk page). 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bill O'Reilly controversies -- Stanley011 (talk · contribs) and Sysrpl (talk · contribs) have reached a standstill over three points: 1) Whether or not to describe Al Franken as a comedian and/or a political commentator (whether or not this description would be undermining Franken's credibility in the topic); 2) A wording complication: if Franken stated that he perfomed a search in a computer, should the article read that "Franken performed a search" or that "Franken claimed that he performed a search"; 3) Regarding the existence of a sole source supporting a few allegations, and the trouble of deciding whether or not the source is reputable enough to be taken into account, plus the issue of qualifying the source (disputed term: "conspiracy theorist"). Relevant discussion awaiting third opinion at the article's talk page. 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)