User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/PantherLeapord Exam 5

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A-


 * Editor assistance: This "level" of dispute resolution invites an uninvolved editor to comment on the situation to the editor requesting assistance on ways to possibly resolve the situation.
 * Indeed.


 * Third opinion: This is a more formal version of the previous level. The uninvolved editor will make a comment on the relevant page about the situation.
 * Yup, and they're uninvolved with the situation beforehand.


 * Mediation: This "level" of dispute resolution has both an informal and a formal option. Both of which may attract a few editors to step in and attempt to work things out.
 * Mmmhmm. I think only formal mediation is left, actually, but yes.


 * Request for comment: This "level" of dispute resolution requests input from the community at large and is usually used in an attempt to gain consensus to aid in resolving the dispute.
 * Very good. RfCs can also be used for policy where there is no dispute but we just want information.


 * Arbitration: The ultimate last resort. Like the Supreme court they only hear a few cases a year and only those that the regular system could not handle. If a dispute ends up here and is accepted as a case then it is almost certain that severe actions will be taken against several parties in the dispute with the goal of resolving it once and for all.
 * They also set precedent, like courts.

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * Part A) Is this edit warring?
 * A- This is textbook edit warring
 * Yeah, this isn't really how they should approach it. They haven't violated the 3R rule, but it's approaching that.
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A- They should initiate discussion on the relevant talk page to resolve the dispute.
 * They certainly should, but then approach other options.

3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A- I would ignore the comment and if they keep up the abuse I would report them to the relevant noticeboard (Most likely WP:ANI)
 * 5/5 WP:DENY is a good policy here - nice choice! You're right, we don't tolerate personal attacks.  Before reporting to ANI, I would recommend talking to an experienced editor about this to see if they can intervene.  AN/I is no fun.

4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
 * A- Honestly; I wouldn't change anything. I think that the pyramid is fine as it is.
 * 5/5 I did, too, when I took this. Acceptable answer!

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 6: Deletion.
 * ✅20/20