User:TransporterMan/WP3O/3OBasics
What is the Third Opinion Project?
[edit]The third opinion project is, in its simplest conception, a service provided by volunteer Wikipedians to other Wikipedians to help to resolve disputes between two editors. In its current form (as shown in this diff) the essential elements and guidelines are as follows. The project:
- is neither official nor mandatory,
- is non-binding,
- is informal [compared to other forms of Dispute Resolution],
- is for the benefit of editors currently in dispute,
- is only for disputes involving two editors,
- provides an opinion regarding a content discussion from a third party,
- requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors,
- provides an opinion which is neutral, unbiased, civil, and nonjudgmental,
- provides an opinion which is considered and careful,
- provides an opinion on the dispute listed on the 3O project page by a disputant, and
- allows any Wikipedian to serve as a third party and issue third opinions under the project without joining or becoming a member of the project, but simply by removing a dispute from the project page and issuing an opinion.
Wikipedians who choose to issue third opinions under the aegis of the project may choose to categorize themselves as Third Opinion Wikipedians, but may also choose not to do so. For ease of reference, however, any person who both removes a dispute from the project page and issues an opinion in that dispute will be referred to as a Third Opinion Wikipedian (or 3O Wikipedian) even if they do not self–identify as such.
The abbreviations 3O and WP:3O are frequently used interchangeably to refer to the Third Opinion Project.
What makes the 3O Project different?
[edit]The 3O Project has been accepted as part of the Dispute Resolution hierarchy, standing — as shown to the right — at a point in the hierarchy just above Editor Assistance and just below a Request for Comments.
3O is, in effect, a form of quick mediation; a device to get editors who are in dispute to voluntarily come to consensus.
What the 3O Project is not (among other things):
- 3O is not a Request for Comments:
- Third Opinions are not tiebreakers and cannot be counted towards consensus.
- Individuals issuing Third Opinions should be neutral and unbiased; participants in an RFC can be partisan.
- RFC's can involve multiple editors; only two editors can be involved for a 3O to be issued.
- 3O is not a Wikiquette alert:
- 3O is only for content disputes; Wikiquette alerts are only for conduct disputes.
- Wikiquette alerts can involve multiple editors; only two editors can be involved for a 3O to be issued.
- 3O is not a quick form of Arbitration:
- Third Opinions are not tiebreakers and cannot be counted towards consensus; arbitration is binding and enforced.
- Arbitrations can involve multiple editors; only two editors can be involved for a 3O to be issued.
- 3O is for content disputes; arbitration is, in almost all cases, only for conduct disputes.
- 3O is not a Request for (Formal) Mediation (RFM):
- 3O does not require the consent of the disputants; a Third Opinion can be issued at the request of any one disputant.
- 3O is informal; RFM's are formal.
- RFM's can involve multiple editors; only two editors can be involved for a 3O to be issued.
- 3O is not a Request for Mediation Cabal Mediation:
- 3O does not require the consent of the disputants; a Third Opinion can be issued at the request of any one disputant.
- 3O is informal; Cabal mediations, while less formal than RFM's, are far more formal than 3O's.
- Cabal mediations can involve multiple editors; only two editors can be involved for a 3O to be issued.