228:, 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
205:
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,
114:
This exception has grown to consume that general rule. Having now been on
Knowledge (XXG) 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
189:
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
199:
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
185:
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
98:
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
170:
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
136:
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
129:
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
109:
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
176:
iv. If my opinion is, however, that a disputant has not adequately satisfied a
Knowledge (XXG) 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
119:
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
45:
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
159:
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
211:
d. Nothing in these standards prevents me, whether I opine or not, in taking action to remove edits which
Knowledge (XXG) says must be immediately removed without discussion, such as unsourced contentious BLP
165:
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).
35:
194:
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.
110:
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
73:
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:"
130:
arising from dynamic IP addresses and from the possibility of multiple individuals simultaneously or sequentially editing from the same IP address.
112:
Comment: As of
September 1, 2013 (actually unofficially some time prior to that date), I must regretfully abandon the standard struck out above.
115:
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
154:
b. Not becoming involved in the dispute also includes not becoming involved in a dispute over my 3O opinion.
78:
i. Does include non–compliance removals from the 3O list involving incivility (removals due
49:
The neutrality standard says, "If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute
21:
234:
I must clearly identify it as such in the opinion and must remove the dispute from the pending dispute list.
224:; if I see the request at 3O and just want to offer an opinion or become involved in editing or discussion
145:
to become an editor of the article after opining, or even become involved in the dispute, to do either is
87:
ii. Does not include the posting of 3O clarification or opinion–pending notices.
17:
230:
220:
32:
41:
It should be noted that these standards evolve and change as I gain experience.
186:
any form of dispute resolution on their behalf or in reference to the dispute.
218:
These standards only apply if I am offering a third opinion pursuant to
149:
and, by weakening my neutrality, weakens the opinions that I give.
82:
to multiple editors do not fall under "dealings of any kind"), but
55:, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute" (emphasis added),
200:
of my connection the matter in making the request or report.
177:
insufficiency is adequate to satisfy my prior objections.
206:I must not have been aware of it before I opined.
226:without accepting or removing the request at 3O
8:
69:a. If I have had dealings
63:dealings will bias my response. Therefore:
57:but my base presumption should be that
141:a. While I have the
7:
99:friendly or adverse to those users.
28:
117:which would bias your response
52:which would bias your response
1:
31:My personal standards as a
249:
137:issuing my 3O opinion.
125:d.
105:c.
18:User:TransporterMan
240:
248:
247:
243:
242:
241:
239:
238:
237:
213:
207:
201:
195:
178:
172:
166:
161:
155:
150:
131:
121:
101:
88:
83:
74:
39:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
246:
244:
236:
235:
216:
215:
214:
210:
208:
204:
202:
198:
196:
193:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
173:
169:
167:
164:
162:
158:
153:
151:
140:
134:
133:
132:
124:
122:
104:
102:
96:
91:
90:
89:
86:
84:
77:
68:
47:
38:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
245:
233:
232:
227:
223:
222:
217:
209:
203:
197:
192:
191:
188:
184:
174:
168:
163:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
138:
135:
128:
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
100:
95:
93:
92:
85:
81:
76:
75:
72:
67:
65:
64:
62:
61:
54:
53:
48:
44:
43:
42:
37:
34:
33:Third Opinion
30:
23:
19:
229:
225:
219:
212:information.
146:
142:
126:
116:
111:
106:
97:
94:
79:
70:
66:
59:
58:
56:
51:
50:
40:
120:resolution.
71:of any kind
171:out above.
127:Exception:
107:Exception:
36:Wikipedian
190:do both.
147:unethical
160:opinion.
46:steward.
20: |
231:WP:3O
221:WP:3O
143:right
16:<
80:only
22:WP3O
60:any
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.