This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 25 October 2006 (→MBA Rankings Article: corrected errors of fact and removed POV sentences per direction.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:30, 25 October 2006 by Anachronist (talk | contribs) (→MBA Rankings Article: corrected errors of fact and removed POV sentences per direction.)(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
User:Daviegold recently added an article listing the rankings of MBA programs from various published sources, using text written for the Master of Business Administration article. User:Amatulic tagged it with a deletion prod. Daviegold asked him not to just delete it, but to nominate it for deletion, and allow people to vote.
Amatulic nominated it for deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MBA Rankings), then when consensus was reached to redirect the article back to MBA, withdrew his nomination, and redirected the link. All of this happened before Daviegold had a chance to comment.
Amatulic claims on this link page that his AFD discussion reached consensus, and keeps changing the redirect to the MBA page rather than the MBA Rankings page after the AfD resolution. Daviegold believes that if someone typed Mba rankings into the search engine that they would not be searching for the general MBA page.
Amatulic feels that the subject is central to the MBA article and that it should stay there. The original author of the ranking text in the MBA article prefers keeping the text there, as do the other voters in the AfD. Amatulic and other voters in the AfD felt that including rankings from publishes sources violates WP:COPYVIO and singling out specific sources violates WP:NPOV. The original MBA article already includes these sources in External links. Amatulic objects to including ranking lists in the article itself, noting that if one remove the copyvio rankings from Davigold's article, one is left with a duplicate of a section of the MBA article.
Per AfD resolution, our main discussion has been moved to Talk:Master of Business Administration, and also on our talk pages.
Daviegold feels that a reasonable resolution would be if the article was nominated for deletion, and the discussion is allowed to run to consensus. Another user disagrees because the vote wasn't to delete, but rather to redirect.
(Amatulic has edited Daviegold's text the above to be historically accurate and NPOV). -Amatulic 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: