User:TransporterMan/WP3O/WP3O Standards

My personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian

It should be noted that these standards evolve and change as I gain experience.

Giving a third opinion is just that, nothing more or nothing less. I should not claim to be, act as, offer to be, or become, in connection with the dispute: a judge, an advocate, a mediator, an arbitrator, an expert, or an administrator, bureaucrat, or steward.
The neutrality standard says, "If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute" (emphasis added), ~~but my base presumption should be that any dealings will bias my response. Therefore:~~
a.   If I have had dealings of any kind with the article involved in the dispute, or with the dispute itself, I should not offer a third opinion on that dispute, provided that "dealings of any kind:"

i.     Does include non–compliance removals from the 3O list involving incivility (removals due only to multiple editors do not fall under "dealings of any kind"), but

ii.    Does not include the posting of 3O clarification or opinion–pending notices.

b.   If I have had dealings with any of the users involved in the dispute, I should not offer a third opinion on that dispute unless the prior dealings were of the "just happened to be in the same place at the same time" nature and could not be perceived by anyone to have been either friendly or adverse to those users.

c.   Exception: I reserve the right to determine whether or not I have had past dealings with an editor and, if so, whether or not those dealings were disqualifying under these standards, entirely upon the basis of my memory. I do not commit to performing any sort of search or other due diligence, either in Wikipedia records or in any private records which I choose to keep, for the purpose of determining whether or not I've had past dealings with an editor. Comment: As of September 1, 2013 (actually unofficially some time prior to that date), I must regretfully abandon the standard struck out above. This exception has grown to consume that general rule. Having now been on Wikipedia for several years, and having handled hundreds of dispute resolution cases in at least four different venues during all that time, there are few disputes which I now handle in which I have had no contact with at least one of the parties or in which at least one of their names does not sound familiar to me. I now have to default back to the general which would bias your response standard. If I remember someone well enough to have an opinion about them, pro or con, which may bias my response, I'll not take a case (at least not for anything more than purely administrative handling), but that's the best I can do at this point and still continue in dispute resolution.

d.   Exception: If one of the disputants is an IP-only editor (at least to the extent of his or her involvement in the dispute at hand), I will not concern myself with whether or not I've had prior dealings with him or her before. This is not due to bias against IP editors, but due to the uncertainty of identity arising from dynamic IP addresses and from the possibility of multiple individuals simultaneously or sequentially editing from the same IP address.
Before accepting a third opinion request, I must carefully decide whether in the future I want to be an editor or be a 3O opiner in reference to the article. If I want to edit, I should not opine; if I want to opine, I should resolve not to edit the article or become involved in the dispute beyond issuing my 3O opinion.
a.   While I have the right to become an editor of the article after opining, or even become involved in the dispute, to do either is unethical and, by weakening my neutrality, weakens the opinions that I give.

b.   Not becoming involved in the dispute also includes not becoming involved in a dispute over my 3O opinion.

i.     Explaining or clarifying my opinion after a disputant responds to it is acceptable and is not becoming involved in the dispute, but must be carefully limited to that and must not become an argument to support my opinion.

ii.    Changing or correcting my opinion should be avoided unless I do it at my own initiative before any disputant responds (and even then it is not a good idea).

iii.   Expanding my opinion to cover issues not covered in my initial opinion is unacceptable (see #2 above), unless the issues were already part of the dispute and the expansion is for the purpose of explaining, clarifying, or correcting my initial opinion within the guidelines set out above.

iv.    If my opinion is, however, that a disputant has not adequately satisfied a Wikipedia content standard (or done it at all), it is not a violation of this standard to either voluntarily or upon request opine whether a subsequent correction or amendment of that insufficiency is adequate to satisfy my prior objections.
If a dispute continues, as it often will, after I give a third opinion, I should encourage the parties to issue a request for comments, or to move on to some other form of dispute resolution, but this should be a recommendation, not a demand or command or ultimatum, and I should not request or file any form of dispute resolution on their behalf or in reference to the dispute.
If a third opinion request is made for a page where an edit war or other inappropriate conduct is taking place, I must make the decision whether to, on the one hand, request page protection or make a report to the appropriate noticeboard or, on the other hand, to issue a 3O opinion, but I should not do both.
a.   Unless the conduct is particularly egregious or there is a high likelihood that a third opinion will be fruitless, my choice should ordinarily be to opine.

b.   If, however, I choose not to opine for one of those reasons, I may remove the third opinion request from the pending request list for incivility, notify the disputants of the removal and the reason, and, if I choose to request page protection or make a report, mention the nature of my connection the matter in making the request or report.

c.   If I see serious misconduct — in general, conduct of the kind that can cause a user to be blocked or banned without warning — after I have opined, I can report it without regard to whether the conduct occurred before or after I opined, provided that if it occurred before I opined, I must not have been aware of it before I opined.

d.   Nothing in these standards prevents me, whether I opine or not, in taking action to remove edits which Wikipedia says must be immediately removed without discussion, such as unsourced contentious BLP information.
These standards only apply if I am offering a third opinion pursuant to WP:3O; if I see the request at 3O and just want to offer an opinion or become involved in editing or discussion without accepting or removing the request at 3O, then I'm just another editor despite also being a 3O Wikipedian (and also despite the fact that my opinion may cause another 3O Wikipedian to remove the dispute listing from 30 due to a third opinion having already been given or due to more than two editors being involved in the dispute). Because I have publicly declared myself to be a Third Opinion Wikipedian on my user page, however, if I do this I must immediately make clear on the article's talk page that I am not participating as a 3O Wikipedian. Similarly, if I do offer a third opinion pursuant to WP:3O I must clearly identify it as such in the opinion and must remove the dispute from the pending dispute list.