This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nereocystis (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 6 June 2005 (→Active Disputes: add more information to polygamy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:40, 6 June 2005 by Nereocystis (talk | contribs) (→Active Disputes: add more information to polygamy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
Sometimes a disagreement — related to policy or content — involves only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, which not many people watch. Sometimes the two editors have two different opinions, and cannot come to a compromise. What these editors need is a tiebreaker — a third opinion. That is the purpose of this page.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Reasoning
Some things can only be done one way or another. Despite good will on both sides, some disagreements cannot be solved without outside help. When only two people are involved, this may lead to a deadlock. This page is meant to provide a streamlined process for solving disagreements involving only two editors.
Guidelines
Listing
- Any editor may list any controversy involving only two editors. If you are not one of the participants in the disagreement, however, you are encouraged to provide a third opinion yourself.
- This page is meant only for disagreement involving precisely two people. If more are involved, try convincing — or coming to a compromise with — the other people. If that fails, try other Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures.
- If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it from the list below (regardless of whether you listed it in the first place). If you provide a third opinion in any disagreement below, please remove it from the list.
Providing Third Opinions
- Only provide third opinions on the relevant talk pages, not on this page.
- While this page is meant to provide a swift procedure, do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in most cases listed on this page, you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.
- 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. If you do this, as in all cases in which a third opinion has been provided, remove the article from the list below.
Active Disputes
Add new conflicts at the bottom. Use short (one line), neutral descriptions, and provide links to locations where more information is available. Do not sign your name, but add a date (using "~~~~~" - five tildes).
- Polygamy - User:Researcher99 continues to put material into the polygamy article which needs discussion under Talk:Polygamy#Disputed This user has not used the disputed section in the weeks since I set it up, yet the user continues to make changes in disputed area. While this person writes comments in the Talk section, s/he will not respond in the disputed section. Most of the comment in the talk section are attack on other editers, accusing others of sneaky vandalism and POV. It is difficult to keep the user to the facts. Please help resolve the dispute. After I created the disputed section, User:Researcher99 add this section Talk:Polygamy#Sneaky_Vandals.27_Anti-Polygamy_Destruction_of_Polygamy_Wiki, which consists of a little content and lot of attacks on other editors. I again requested the s/he use the Disputed section. His response was to make wholesale changes to Polygamy without discussion. Nereocystis 23:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)