Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trek mambo (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 11 January 2008 (→‎Deleted Requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Deleted Requests

I've my interpretation is correct, two requests were recently deleted when the current request was posted. I have copied those two requests from the history and will paste them in now.

My apologies if I've misinterpreted this. I though it possible that someone had selected them for review, but the summaries did not suggest that.

Burkander 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not provided specifics, I can only make a general observation that we remove posts that do not adhere to the guidelines of 3O. I had to remove a lengthy non-neutral request just now. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Adrian's comment, no deleted request cannot be reposted. In fact, we (i.e. the regulars over here) very much like that, because it would be a shame to see the dispute unsolved. User:Krator (t c) 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Disagreement

Hi I would like to refer to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Assumtions_are_unethical_and_a_disgrace_to_acedemics_which_use_wikipedia

After reading the discussion I had here about the validity of the articles statements I was shown the door. I would like a thrid opinion on this, am I out of place to expect academic accuracy in this regard?

Please advise

Hello,

I'm an administrator trying to deal with a particularly difficult editor who is actively working on getting himself blocked. He is abusive towards another editor and is completely ignoring my warnings about blocks and recommendations on different procedures to follow. I've attempted to communicate with him in the most effective mannor I know and have failed. I would like a third opinion on this mater for a few reasons:

  1. So we don't lose an editor because I wasn't able to communicate with him well.
  2. To introduce this editor to the larger Wikipedia dispute process which will help him interact with other editors better.
  3. To help me learn how to more effectively communicate all of this with the particular editor I'm having a hard time communicating with.

To follow my interactions with him, read the following pages:

  1. User_talk:Kevinp2#Your_conduct_on_the_Gitmo_page - My first warning
  2. User_talk:Triddle#Your_conduct_on_the_Gitmo_page - his response to that warning
  3. User_talk:Kevinp2#Formal_block_warning_-_your_behavior_must_change - next warning about 1.5 to 2 weeks later

Please advise. Triddle 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems to be a complaint about Kevinp2 (talk · contribs). I've found no verification that Triddle (talk · contribs) is a wikipedia administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should help: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suva (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I continued searching. He is listed:
According to the admin links, he has performed almost no administrator actions since 2005. (The edit summary with ‘changed rights from none to none’ in the link Suva posted is puzzling). — Athaenara ✉ 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From "(none)" to "(none) (+sysop)". If the log doesn't contain modechange to "(sysop) (-sysop)" he is still admin. The category is added when user adds Category:Wikipedia administrators on his user page or the admin userbox. It's not really obligatory to add it either way. Suva Чего? 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found his July 2005 self-nom on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triddle.
Opinion: I think he should leave Kevinp2 alone. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The easiest way to verify admin status is to check Special:Listusers. Anyone with a special status will have that status displayed in parens after their username, c.f. Triddle's entry. --Darkwind (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless comments?

Just a question: if a user is leaving third opinions that are useless and/or do not contribute anything to the conversation, is there anything that can be done? I ask this because 64.26.98.90 has now left two opinions on pages, both of which are fairly worthless. The first, on here, was commented on by another user as to how it did not help. The other, on here, was entirely off-topic as to what was written on the 3O page. Anyone else have thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're fortunate that what you described has not been a ongoing problem. I agree that it deserves some attention. (Sorry I didn't see this until today). — Athaenara ✉ 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it happened points up the fact that following the progress of third opinions which we haven't given, ourselves, is also very helpful to the project. — Athaenara ✉ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mentor people if needed. User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution slowdown

There is a discussion brewing about an apparent slowdown in at least some area of dispute resolution. (This discussion may be found here.) I thought that the regular contributors to this area might be interested in joining the discussion. Cheers! Vassyana 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it sure has been quiet around here. Kind of weird.. is it just that people aren't having issues, or that they're not looking for help as much? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion barnstar?

After such great work recently from Amatulic, Axlq, HelloAnnyong, SilkTork, and others, I'm beginning to think a Third Opinion Barnstar is called for. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Just glad to lend a hand around here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about a third of a barnstar? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or three little stars? — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Why are third opinion cases confined to situations involving only two people? What should I do if the clear results of an Rfc are being ignored by a single editor? Mrshaba (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is the nature of the project. The second sounds like disruptive editing. Depending on the specific problem, posting on WQA or ANI may help, or on COIN for an editor conflict of interest, or on BLPN for a biography of a living person. — Athaenara ✉ 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may have been a misunderstanding about what 3rd opinion means. When two people can't agree, you go out to get a 3rd opinion, an opinion from someone other than the two involved. I think that what Mrshaba thought was a 3rd opinion was if you got two other opinions but you didn't like them, so you sought out a 3rd opinion. The issue at hand was succinctly summarized at [2], but Mrshaba didn't like the opinion, so he sought a 2nd and a 3rd opinion. I have objectively printed out the article and showed it to random people and most liked the image, and thought that it was a good image for the article. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion&oldid=183532174"