This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lastexit (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 1 May 2006 (overstock.com address/location). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:15, 1 May 2006 by Lastexit (talk | contribs) (overstock.com address/location)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
The Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and require a tiebreaker—a third opinion.
In the context of disagreements—related to policy or content—sometimes these disputes involve only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, which not many people watch.
| 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 disagreements 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 disagreements
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). Please do not discuss the disagreement on this page.
It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another disagreement.
Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed.
- Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes Edit war about the (dis)advantages of categories and the use of {{POV-section}} (plus {{Controversial3}} on the talk page). 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Dianetics#Defining the minority view A discussion of "third party" between BTfromLA and Spirit of Man is not resolving. BT presents definition of "third party" from dictionary, to define Bridge as a "third party publisher". Spirit agrees with dictionary but not the way BT uses uses the idea. "interested" third party needs to be distinguished from "neutral" third party and "disinterested" third party and "credible" publisher per Misplaced Pages policy. See the paragraph with, "I encourage you to ask some disinterested third parties their opinion about this definition and it's application here--" 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- V for Vendetta page needs a thrid opinion regarding ambiguities in the V character's identity and, now, historical development outside the text. See Talk:V for Vendetta particularly under "The disclaimer" subsection. 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bill Moyers page needs a 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here ]. The issue is not being debated by the 2nd party, who responded with edits that unintentionally or intentionally misrepresented source content. Possible original research. OR edits gone as of , but the dispute remains unresolved. (08:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC))
- Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs - disagreement about an entry in the infobox. 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Friends of South Asia - dispute on edits suggesting that a California Indo-Pak peace group is strongly biased against India, and toward Pakistan. See Talk:Friends of South Asia for details. Anirvan 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:VeggieTales - Dispute on weather or not to make a separate page for each VeggieTales episode or to put them all on the main VeggieTales page. 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Jim Sensenbrenner - Dispute on whether Sensenbrenner is a nativist on par with the KKK, Nazis, and Aryan Brotherhood, whether a citation is needed for claims to Sensenbrenner having mediocre high school grades, and whether his elder son is gay. OCNative 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Overstock.com - Company is listed in corporate filings and news accounts as located in Salt Lake City. User insists on saying, based on own research, that company is located in a different community AND in saying that address listed "rather erroneously" in corporate documents. I remove "erroneously" and he reverts. See talk page discussion. Would appreciate third opinion on this --Lastexit 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)