Wikipedia:Fourth opinion

Fourth opinion (4O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between three editors. When three editors do not agree, any of those editors may list a discussion here to seek a fourth opinion. The fourth opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from all editors during the discussion in order to be successful. In addition, always remember no personal attacks.

Fourth opinion works in much the same way as third opinion. Using the third opinion process before using the fourth opinion process is permitted, however, it is not a prerequisite. Please note this page is not for disputes involving only two editors.

How to list a dispute
Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 4O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only three editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 4O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly three editors with an extra editor having minimal participation.

It is recommended that the filing editor notifies the other two editors about the post here. If the either of the others editors disagree with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a fourth opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the other editors are free to ignore the fourth opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 4O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the fourth opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at fourth opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Instructions
No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:
 * Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
 * Your entry should contain the following:
 * a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 4O discussion.
 * a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by all participants.
 * a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes . (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and edit history.)

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a fourth opinion or because you do not want a Fourth Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a fourth opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Fourth Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.

Active disagreements
'This proposed procedure has failed. Please do not list disputes as they will not be answered. See Dispute Resolution for other dispute resolution options.'

Providing fourth opinions

 * Fourth opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a fourth opinion on that dispute.
 * Read the arguments of the disputants.
 * Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some any participant may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with them. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
 * Provide fourth opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~.
 * Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
 * Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
 * Consider keeping pages on which you have given a fourth opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
 * If it's not clear what the dispute is, please post a reply in the discussion asking the disputants to summarize.
 * For fourth opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, you may alert the disputant on their user talk page.
 * When providing a fourth opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your fourth opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's fourth opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider thanking them on their user talk page.

Declining requests
If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should:
 * Be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
 * Explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
 * Suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")