User:TransporterMan/WP3O/Nonconsensus3O

History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding
In its earliest conception, the 3O project was seen as a means of providing a tiebreaker decision, in effect, a form of arbitration. In keeping with the deep commitment of Wikipedia to deciding content matters only by consensus with very few exceptions (for example, arbitration is not available for content matters, only conduct), the effect of a 3O was thus changed from an initial position of being a tiebreaker to being only an opinion.
 * 1) the lede of the project read, in pertinent part: "Sometimes the two editors have two different opinions, and cannot come to a compromise. What these editors need is a tiebreaker — a third opinion. That is the purpose of this page." (Emphasis added.) The tiebreaker element was part of the initial proposal for the project.
 * 2) the language was changed to make the adoption of the Third Opinion as a tiebreaker discretionary with the editors: "Sometimes editors cannot come to a compromise, and they require a third opinion that can be used as a tiebreaker." (Emphasis added.) There was a brief talk page discussion about this change, which says that the change was made to "clarify that you're offering an opinion, not a decision."
 * 3) Then all references to a 3O opinion being a tiebreaker were removed from the project. I can find no discussion relating to this change, which had an edit summary of only "(better phrasing)".
 * 4) Finally language was added, which still remains, specifying that 3O opinions are non-binding. This discussion was contemporaneous with the change but seemed to be more about informality (which is admittedly a related concept, and which was the subject of subsequent discussion) than about the binding nature of 3O, per se.