This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biruitorul (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 12 April 2007 (→Active disagreements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:53, 12 April 2007 by Biruitorul (talk | contribs) (→Active disagreements)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process by which editors interested in lending a hand on content disputes can meet those that need such help, and those that seek that help can advertise their need for assistance. | Shortcut
|
Misplaced Pages:Third opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. When editors cannot reach a compromise and need a third opinion, they may list a dispute here. The third-opinion process requires good faith on both sides of the dispute.
This page is primarily 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.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Listing a dispute
Please discuss the dispute on the talk page before coming here.
- If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute here. Otherwise, follow other parts of the dispute resolution process.
- Provide a short, neutral description of the disagreement, with links to the specific section of the talk page where it is discussed.
- Sign with five tildes ("~~~~~") to add the date without your name.
→ Example:
"Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"
- Do not discuss on this page. Leave the discussion to the linked talk page.
- Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.
Providing third opinions
- Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page.
- Read the arguments of the disputants.
- Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental way.
- Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
- Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
- After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page with a brief edit summary.
Third opinion project
- The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes. If you are a third opinion provider, you are part of the project and are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with or without the {{User Third opinion}} userbox, as you prefer) to your userpage.
Active disagreements
- Talk:Anarchism#Culling the source-spam - Inclusion or deletion of a huge number of sources which all support one view, versus a more balanced version (with less sources for said view, and a few sources in opposition) in Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism. 10:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:The Secret (2006 film)#Editorial coverage - Two issues regarding a review of the film: (1) is OR happening in the attempt to summarize what the reviewer says and (2) are citations needed for saying the reviewer is making "a common criticism"? 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Mind Dynamics -- Usage of the term Large Group Awareness Training in the lead. 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Talk:Holiday Magic -- Same as above, Usage of the term Large Group Awareness Training in the lead. However more detailed rationale on this talk page... 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Soviet occupation of Romania, Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania -- User:Anonimu (an avowed communist) keeps adding a "POV-title" tag, despite the fact that I have produced copious evidence that Romania was under occupation from 1944 to 1958, while he has failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice (1944-47) as an occupation and the subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. Instead, he deflects the issue by calling me a "nationalist" and "grumpy", telling me to "calm down" and claiming that I have "lackeys", and persists in restoring the tag in the hope that some mythical "consensus" (ie, his view) will prevail. Biruitorul 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)