| Revision as of 18:19, 16 July 2006 editReswobslc (talk | contribs)3,364 edits Provided opinion re: External link on London Heathrow Airport← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:31, 16 July 2006 edit undoFagstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,973 edits →Active disagreements: rmved entry not appropriate to WP:3oNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| <!-- please add new entries to the bottom of this list --> | <!-- please add new entries to the bottom of this list --> | ||
| * No third-opinion requests are currently pending. | |||
| === NPA Warnings === | |||
| I have presently been given a "third and final warning" by ] on my ] about ] for referring to another editor's dialogue and actions as trolling. I declined to answer another editor's religiously-based questions citing my belief that he was trolling, and when he brought that discussion to my talk page, I referred to that as trolling too. I was reprimanded for by Jossi in less than an hour for it. I understand (whether correctly or not) from ], that referring to an editor's actions as trolling is acceptable, while referring to an editor as a troll is not. While I also recognize that there's a better way to say anything, it seems overreaching to receive warnings that I will be blocked predicated upon what I believe to be Jossi's personal criteria for a personal attack, rather than ]. It doesn't help any for me to have found that Jossi has been engaged in a debate at ], espousing a far broader and much more subjective definition of NPA than is accepted and posted. I don't claim to always have had clean hands (I recently called another editor a jerk and deserved the warning I got from the same admin for it), but what I'd appreciate is an outside reference as to what extent the "trolling" comments I made violated both the letter and the spirit of ], detached from Jossi's unique interpretation of it. (I have since changed the comments in question, but am asking for comments regarding the "hot potato" version ). ] 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- new entries above this line --> | <!-- new entries above this line --> | ||
Revision as of 23:31, 16 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 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
- No third-opinion requests are currently pending.