Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs) at 12:36, 23 October 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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.

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

User:Tankred

Continuing abusion and provocation of me (calling a vandal, sockpuppeter, etc), continously reverting my edits for example. He Deliberately uses very emotional words and phrases (for ex: well known vandal) wich (in enwiki) istantly creates a negative image about me in others, without knowing the ongoing situation between us, and makes a false image about me and abt the backround of my contribs. I already sent him warning templates to stop calling me a vandal, per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I'm not able to discuss with him, because he's not talking with me, I always tried to find a solution.for example's talk page. Misleading others - just one, the easiest to prove: The really well known vandal , User:Juro, the friend of Tankred (they share the same opinion and point of view in everything) made nasty changes in numbersm and gave the magyarization part, wich I simply reverted, and put facts into the place of it. - of course I can easily prove (and proved also) that all the other statements by Tankred abt me or my contribs are misleading and false about me, and about history. I many many times tried to use discuss pages, (see my contribs) but usually no answer just a lot of agressivity. Constantly calling me a vandal, because our political views are the opposite. Per:WP:NPS I warned him to stop this broadside against me several times, with templates. He managed to remove those templates, by simply not mentioning the ongoing situation between us. The most sad thing is that he's a well stated user on enwiki, but unfortunately he simply lost his mind in this case :( You'll see a good example of it here (written by him), soon, wich of course I can challenge with facts.

I suggest him to be warned for WP:CIV, WP:FAITH, and blocked for 24hrs because of continous sneaky personal attacks and trolling - (per Pestering). Thanks. 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) - this was posted by User:VinceB

Just to say that sockpuppetry of VinceB was proved and he was blocked for it, so calling him a sockpuppet is simply description of his proved behaviour. Furthermore, the edit in which user:Tankred called him a vandal was because user:VinceB removed parts of the article that he did not liked, which could be described as vandalism. PANONIAN (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN

Contious rever warer, continously deleting cited facts to uncited and totally disputed POVs. some page histories for ex: , , per his totally ridicoulus and obviously very false POV. Then he calles me as an ultra-nationalist when I call this a joke. :))

I urge to block him for revert warring and trolling - (per Pestering) - for 24 hrs, and warn him to WP:CITE, and WP:Verify, WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. Thanks. 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) - this was posted by User:VinceB

Use:VinceB here simply continue his personal "crusade" against me and user:Tankred because he is not able to discuss his edits in civilized manner. I do not have to repeat here that he is a constant POV pusher: he simply deleting parts of the articles that he do not like and adding to the articles stuff that has nothing with the subject. For example in the Bács-Bodrog article, he added sentence that has nothing to do with Bács-Bodrog. He was already blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption of Misplaced Pages (which could be easily confirmed by other users) and any further comment to this is futile. PANONIAN (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution