This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daviegold (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 25 October 2006 (→Active disagreements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:34, 25 October 2006 by Daviegold (talk | contribs) (→Active disagreements)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. When editors cannot come to a compromise and need a third opinion, they list a dispute here.
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
- In the section below, 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. By giving a link to a specific section in a talk page you will increase the chance of a useful response. For example: "Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: 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
MBA Rankings Article I recently added an article listing the rankings of MBA programs. User Amatulic redirected my article to the MBA page. I asked him not to just delete it, but to nominate it for deletion, and allow people to vote.
He nominated it for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MBA_Rankings , then took down his nomination, and redirected the link again.
He claims on this link page that his AFD discussion reached consensus which it did not, and keeps changing the redirect to the MBA page rather than the MBA Rankings page. It would seem to me that if someone typed Mba rankings into the search engine that they would not be searching for the general MBA page.
Our main discussion has been on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:MBA_Rankings , and also on our talk pages. I feel he has been unreasonable in his behavior.
I feel that a reasonable resolution would be if the article was nominated for deletion, and the discussion is allowed to run to consensus. 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: