| Revision as of 19:04, 17 July 2006 editFagstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,973 edits →Active disagreements: Removing item with numerous opinions already← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:48, 18 July 2006 edit undoHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →Active disagreements: add stephNext 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 --> | ||
| ] - is a blog being sued by the individual in the article a rbanned primary source of information about the lawsuit? Relevent policies are ] and ] 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- new entries above this line --> | <!-- new entries above this line --> | ||
Revision as of 21:48, 18 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
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)
Category: