Wikipedia:Third opinion: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia: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.

• 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.

Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.

• Provide third opinions on the relevant article's talk page, not on this page.
• Do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that in many of these cases your opinion is a tie-breaker. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly.
• Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you have had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Consider watching pages on which you state your opinion for a week. Articles listed on this page are frequently watched by very few people.
• You are free to disagree with both disputants.
• After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page.

A third opinion is requested at Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong. I had a version of the article from mid-May to end-October that was stable and neutral (see Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong#Complete_rewrite where I announced the original version). Here is the link to the October 31 version [1]. I have been busy on other matters for the past few weeks and when I returned the article has been completely changed (please see the current version which in my opinion is completely POV-oriented). I have discussed in the talk page civilly (see Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong#Reply_to_Relhistbuff) I have offered to start from scratch and work together, but clearly I am not getting anywhere. I would request a third opinion before I bring this to RfC. Some advice on how to deal with this would also be appreciated (on my talk page or email). --09:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)