Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:46, 25 September 2012

Last year, an RFC was opened to examine dispute resolution. As a result of that discussion, many changes were made to dispute resolution generally and to specific venues. This RFC proposes further changes, which are intended to improve and enhance the effectiveness of yet more DR venues.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.^[1]

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, this RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Proposal 1

Each dispute resolution forum should have an easy to use form specialized for that forum to request dispute resolution (enabled for all users)

Support

Support. Standardization and simplification can only be a good thing in this important and complex area. -- Hex [^t/_c] 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Support in principle, but what venues specifically will have this form? --Rs chen 7754 03:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would envision all the dispute resolution forums that currently exist - Third Opinion, DRN, RFC, formal mediation, and the other DR noticeboards will use a form similar to DRN. Obviously some of them will be very basic (like at Third Opinion) but the underlying reason is to simplify the process but also provide some basic structure. The form was used at DRN and helped focus the discussions, which improved response times and increased the amount of disputes that were successfully resolved. This is why I'm proposing it across the board, but the finished forms will be shown to the community before they are implemented - the reason for this RFC is to get consensus on the idea. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about SPI, ArbCom, or ANI? --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI doesn't fall in the scope of DR, ArbCom would likely have a simplified way to file a request (as opposed to wikitext) and ANI, well, it doesn't fall in the scope of DR . It could be discussed separately, but it is not part of this RFC. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, SPI is listed at WP:DR. I'm reluctant to add ArbCom to the list without their permission, though, and the same with MedCom. --Rs chen 7754 05:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI might be listed there, but it doesn't fall under the scope of regular dispute resolution. I know MedCom is keen on this idea (as I have discussed it with them several times) but I will discuss it with ArbCom on the ArbCom talk page. I do think this is an implementation detail though, and that getting some general agreement on the idea would be of benefit to allow us to move forward. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the process follows the DRN model and utilizes a list of editors that have special powers within the noticeboard (see more details below in Discussion section). Support if the process permits all uninvolved editors to comment freely (and, yes, it is okay if the process maintains an internal list to distinguish parties from uninvolved editors). --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is just for the creation of a form - the DRN specifics which perform the behaviour you describe (the status template and the bot) are not part of this proposal. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above assumes facts not in evidence. Nothing about the current system at WP:DRN stops any uninvolved editors from commenting freely. The restriction is on housekeeping chores like closing a case, and even then, everyone is free to put their name on the list of volunteers and do housekeeping chores if they want to. More details below in Discussion section -- probably best to keep the discussion about this in one place. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Proposal 2 is better. Trying to create a bunch of different forms would be like herding cats, and trying to get a bunch of noticeboard regulars to agree would be like nailing jello to a tree. (Note to self: figure out way to insert platypus analogy...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these proposals would go through. The univeral wizard would sit on the main DR page, but each forum should still maintain a way to file a request directly at that board. Making it only possible to file a request for DR through one form would be opposed even stronger - this I think can work. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only proposal 2 is better (and we don't want yet more duplication, do we?), but in most cases the idea of a filing wizard looses the sense: eg. in 3O the "case" is a wikilink, a short description and a timestamp, which is easier to do manually, then with a wizard. On most other boards the "cases" are ordinary comments, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

A universal way to file requests for all types of dispute resolution (which would be in a format like this) and hosted at WP:DR should be created. (enabled for all users)

Support

Support. Single points of entry into systems are extremely useful for inexperienced users. Also, the name "universal dispute resolution wizard" is one of the best things ever. -- Hex [^t/_c] 13:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but first we should make sure that all noticeboard consolidation is finished (see question below asking "have we consolidated all the noticeboards already?" in Discussion section). --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support' • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. If it were 1 form, no need for option 1. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both need to be an option - making it mandatory for all to file a request through one form will get a fair bit of pushback. Let's create both, and see how things go. Creating a universal form is ideal, but having a similar form at each DR forum will at least create some structure and make it less confusing. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea of a universal access point for dispute resolution to help streamline the process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just because we are doing something a certain way now, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea. Expecting users to find the right noticeboard and then edit WikiMarkup is a terrible idea. If someone proposed the current sustem today the idea would be instantly shot down. The Right Thing To Do is to have software that automates the process. Yes, it will need to be done properly, but it is obviously needed. It is time to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 1980s .--Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, and I would suggest to add a link to this filing wizard to toolbox for talk pages, so that it could also be used to help novice editors to find a most appropriate forum. "Conditional" because no wizard is there yet, and too livid imagination may render the whole thing useless or even unusable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "I like the idea of a universal access point for dispute resolution to help streamline the process." I also like the fact that this process doesn't seem rushed and that it proceeds in a transparent way. --LFOlsnes-Lea 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion question

How we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers?

Discussion question responses

As someone who occasionally chimes in at RS/N, ANI and even ArbCom, I have to say DRN looks way too bureaucratic. The landing page appears more intimidating even than ArbCom's. It looks closest to SPI in complexity. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the setup of DRN is complex - but the process has become more efficient and effective since it went through changes. I think that has to count for something. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how it appears bureaucratic and how you think it could be changed. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does all that extraneous stuff serve? Why bother having designated "volunteers"? DRN is pretty much a model of what not to do. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DRN is a model of what to do. Asking volunteers to list themselves allows a number of automated functions. The current system of asking the user to figure out which noticeboard to go to and then edit Wikimarkup with the only help being a few HTML comments is fine -- if you are a UNIX sysadmin. That sort of user interface went out of style -- with good reason -- in the 1980s. For ordinary users and especially for newbies, the current system is craptacular. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, DRN goes on and off my watchlist nearly every day, as my will to volunteer there balances the pain of coping with a huge high-traffic page with overly aggressive and overly simplistic bot. Making people cope with templates (basic skill on Wikipedia anyway) seems to be less painful to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the DR forums (both content and conduct) should be further merged. With 3O, DRN and MedCom being a linear path of dispute resolution, other content DR forums (RSN, NORN, NPOVN, etc) become somewhat of side product of DR process. May be it would be better to merge all of this to DRN (with some kind of dispute categorization via wizard) and make it a catchall? Not only it would help with forum shopping, but also concentrate the volunteers at a single location and help resolve disputes more effectively. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am going to wait just a bit before I make any determination as to which routes are best. However, it has been my experiance with the DR process that complication is but one reason that editors do not use any DR venue. Many editors are actually encourged one way or another to be a brick wall or use endless "walls of text" to clog the system with never ending arguments and personal perception or interpretation of policy and guideline. Of major concern to me is the lack of conduct or behavioral venues to encourage editors to be more civil or just stop disruptive editing that is harasive or intimidating in design. I don't know the answer on how to solve such problems but...I think it may well be time for editors of the newer projects to step up and be more involved in these processes. I would say that the help projects need to be accessed more and included in some formal manner. WP:WER is an excellent example of a new project that aims to help with such situations in attempting to reach out to editors of all levels and for nearly all reasons in order to keep them on Wikipedia. I guess the best I can offer as a suggestion is this: Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive and encourage all editors to reach out and help one another. Collaboration and consensus is not enough. We need to help in all areas and be willing to answer the call in the DR process and not just with answering questions and pointing out policy!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think that the content dispute noticeboards should resolve behavioural problems, as without resolving both, the dispute may continue, behaviour is a problem that is harder to resolve. We can't just suggest to stop, we must take out the hammer to keep them in line. Break their legs if they disagree, as behavour is nothing the party itself wants to correct. And so behavoural problems are not fit for all the noticeboards. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issue A: Software is like a locomotive - Once software is written to manage a process, it takes on a life of its own and it has a lot of momentum. Once software tools are in place, every little change to the process requires requires a request to the software owner to implement the change. Example: Today, if we decided to eliminate RSN and merge it into DRN, that could be done in 5 minutes (after consensus was reached to do so). But if these RfC improvements were implemented, the change would be a lot more complex: mere editors could no longer make process improvements: every improvement would have to go through a gatekeeper (the bot/software owner). The bottom line is that the owners of the software end up being in positions of power. We need to weigh that against the potential user-friendliness benefits this proposal would bring to the community. Is this a show stopper? No, because the trend in WP is towards a more sophisticated GUI, more forms, more user-friendliness. As WP becomes more user friendly, we need to say good-bye to the good old days where mere editors could improve the processes by simply updating an instruction page. We are now at the mercy of the software owners. But, if it makes WP more friendly to rookie editors, it is probably worth it. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not try to make a interactive wiki-text system? It would not work. Wiki-text was made to be static, and have templates with parameters. The templates cannot be dynamic. If we wanted to make the interactive system to be more efficient, we cannot have an owner, but "that anyone can edit." It would resolve all the problems you have mentioned. No owner, everyone can push.~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issue B: Cabal - The software used in the DRN process makes for a very smooth process for the parties: even rookie editors can navigate the step-by-step wizard, and there is a DRN bot that helps out. But the DRN bot relies on a list of DRN "volunteers" who have special privileges: only they can mediate DRN cases. This is contrary to fundamental WP principles of egalitarian editing (for instance, see this discussion). I'm concerned that this apparent elitism would now get propagated to other noticeboards. My recommendation is that a policy be established that (except for FormalMediation and ArbCom) these new processes be organized in a a way that there is no list of editors that have special powers. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always put your name on the list. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to require editors to put their name in a list. Right now, that requirement is only in place at DRN, and only about a dozen editors have thought about the requirement there. But this proposal here is suggesting that the DRN process be replicated in several other noticeboards (ANI, ORN, RSN, etc). Those boards have hundreds of editors that participate. They need to know that the process proposed by this RfC requires them to add their name to a list before they can manage cases. The WP community may decide that is allright. I can live with whatever the community decides. I'm just raising the issue. --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's statement is factually incorrect. Nothing about the DRN bot stops anyone from mediating a case. You can check this for yourself; pick a case and jump in. You will find that nothing stops you. The DRN bot's restriction is on housekeeping chores like closing a case without first putting your name on the volunteer list.

Noleander's objection was asked and answered in the discussion he links to above. Everyone at DRN agrees that special rights/powers of any sort are a Very Bad Thing unless there is a procedure on place to evaluate and accept/reject candidates.

As has been explained to Noleander several times, saying that the DRN bot gives some sort of "special privileges" to those who put there name on the list of volunteers is like saying that Wikipedia denies the "special privilege" of editing Wikipedia to those who choose to not turn on their computer. As long as it remains true that anyone can put themselves on the list, then anyone can make case-state changes -- the list is just part of the procedure for doing so. There is a parallel in the way we treat IP vs registered editors. The registered editors do have several extra right/powers, but that's OK because any IP editor can register and thus avoid the restrictions.

Noleander's charges of elitism and behavior that is contrary to fundamental WP principles of egalitarian editing were refuted at his RfC when he first brought them up. They didn't fly there, and I doubt that they will fly here. There really is no Cabal. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue C: Any more consolidation? - WQA and MedCab are gone now. Will more consolidation be happening? Eg. should we merge RSN or ORN into DRN? If so (and I'm not saying that is a good idea) that consolidation should be done before either proposal #1 or #2 were implemented. But if we think all consolidations are now over with, it is time to forge ahead. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 1, 2, and 3. Noting I have never used the "wizard", so no idea about it. - jc37 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be more proposed closures. I will assure that. The system will change, but my answer to B could answer this. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I renamed the three issues I listed above as "A, B, C" (they were "1, 2,3") to avoid possible confusion with the RfC proposals. So jc37's comment about "I agree with 1, 2, and 3" should perhaps read "agree with A, B, C". --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas: I just had two ideas. First, the easiest: Can you make the DR script notify all parties involved automatically? (I know the answer is yes, but will you?) Also, diffs are always very helpful in dispute resolution. What I would like to see is a list of bad behaviors editors could have and a list of the editors involved. A user could click a behavior and a username and a box shows up where they can type in diffs. They can repeat this process for multiple users and multiple behaviors and the result is a very restructured representation of dffs. Good idea or pain in the ass to code?--v/r - T P 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the DRN bot automatically notifies parties that the case has been submitted. Of course, the notification is limited to those editors that are specifically enumerated by the originator. No comment on the other questions posed. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour proposal will just create a bickering ground and will not help. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are already required by policy when making characterizations of other people's behavior. How is facilitating policy bad?--v/r - T P 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes, they are reqired by policy, but people could abuse it easily, and if the diff is reqired, some newcomers will not be able to make a valid point. Diffs are required, the user to post the message does not have to be the one with the diff (posting the diff on the user's behalf). ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 21:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: That (edit conflict) is kept as main utility against disputes and disagreement. Usually fair to both parties until a justified consensus has built up. Nr. 2. That all the administrators options are available due to the WP:VAN and the rest, with even fine pages to use for the users themselves. That after a normative period of time, and after some sensible opinion has been reached that the Administrators strike, hard or not. Also, that stupid Administrators are moved elsewhere or even removed and banned if useful, that stupidity is to be considered costly with the Administrators themselves (given they are triggerhappy enough). I simply support the above given the Wikipedia history. I haven't got all the experience, but you can take the "Proposal 3" text for what it's worth or not! Good? --LFOlsnes-Lea 17:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"that stupidity is to be considered costly with the Administrators themselves (given they are triggerhappy enough)" Right, it's not that people like to blame Administrator's when the editor breaks clearly written policies either. Let's not even suggest that. Let's also perpetuate the propoganda that Administrators are da evilz without a single diff at all. Really? Can I get a trigger happy admin to block for a personal attack on every admin? Any? Any trigger happy admins around? Guess not. Goodbye.--v/r - T P 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No to javascript

Some editors do not use javascript (for various reasons).

The DR process should NEVER rely on JS. - jc37 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but it should not rely on gerrit either. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 20:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new wizards will actually be coded in HTML5 - I'm not exactly sure how that works, but a volunteer developer is coding it and it looks good so far. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's open-source that we can edit. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal users will have JavaScript enabled in their browsers. Every single browser in common use, mobile or desktop has good support for JavaScript.

The only users who might not have JavaScript enabled on their browser are geeks who are perfectly capable of enabling it for Wikipedia if the dispute resolution process requires it - and they make up a tiny fraction of the community. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Zhang - HTML5 is heavily Javascript-based. HTML 5 does not have programmatic functionality by itself. It only facilitates JS by providing a document object model.--v/r - T P 21:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds about right, its not realistically going to be possible to do a good job without JavaScript. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, HTML is something I know how to write far better than js. :) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly agree with the notion that JS should not become required, I think there is a way to avoid it – the wizard may be constructed so that with no JS it is simply a set of links to preloaded edit links (with "case" templates substituted to the target). Such layout would help people like me (I use lynx as a primary browser). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly to say that HTML5 is good and JS is bad, when both are standards, and JS probably has a much higher adoption percentage than HTML5. Gigs (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Eraserhead - you are absolutely wrong about that (sorry). For example, I know for fact that some businesses by default turn off javascript for (additional) security reasons and/or because it is presumed "unneeded" for employee internet use by the "powers-that-be" in some businesses. And that not taking into account people at home or on the move who turn JS off because it may affect their browsing speed, or system "hangs", or even to reduce bandwidth drain, etc. Besides that, "normal" is such a weasely word that, I don't think I need to comment on it further.

Regardless, on Wikipedia, JS things are optional, and never necessary. - jc37 23:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing a discussion of what you want to do with what technology you want to use to do it never ends well. See Premature optimization. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May

[1] Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May

[1]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 #'''Support'''. Just because we are doing something a certain way now, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea. Expecting users to find the right noticeboard and then edit WikiMarkup is a ''terrible'' idea. If someone proposed the current sustem today the idea would be instantly shot down.  The Right Thing To Do is to have software that automates the process. Yes, it will need to be done properly, but it is obviously needed. It is time to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 1980s .--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 #'''Conditional support''', and I would suggest to add a link to this filing wizard to toolbox for talk pages, so that it could also be used to help novice editors to find a most appropriate forum. "Conditional" because no wizard is there yet, and too livid imagination may render the whole thing useless or even unusable. — [[user:czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[user talk:czarkoff|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/czarkoff|track]]) 23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
+#'''Support'''. "I like the idea of a universal access point for dispute resolution to help streamline the process." I also like the fact that this process doesn't seem rushed and that it proceeds in a transparent way. --[[User:LFOlsnes-Lea|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''LFOlsnes-Lea'''</span>]] 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 ====Oppose====