87% of respondents were male, only 8.4% of respondents female – roughly in line with the results of the Wikimedia Editor Survey of 9%;
over half of all respondents (and 80% of female respondents) were older than 40. 68% held a degree in some form, and 73% have contributed to Wikipedia for four to eight years – potentially showing that editors active in dispute resolution tend to be older, more mature editors;
70% of respondents have offered assistance at a dispute resolution forum at some point – and a third of those do so frequently;
50% of the respondents have offered assistance in a dispute within the last year – however some forums have more volunteers than others;
respondents graded the overall effectiveness of dispute resolution relatively poorly – Arbitration fared the best with one in three rating it as Good or better, whereas in contrast, Wikiquette assistance was rated the worst – only one in twelve rated it as satisfactory; overall, 35 people gave negative feedback on every single venue they had an opinion on;
respondents who volunteered in dispute resolution did so because they felt the process was critical to the functioning of Wikipedia, wanted to help keep article content neutral, liked helping people or as a way of paying back the community as a former recipient of dispute resolution;
respondents who haven’t volunteered explained that this was because they felt that disputes were so toxic that dispute resolution was difficult or unpleasant; others due to its prolonged nature and complexity, because they didn’t know how to participate, or because of past bad experiences with the process;
respondents reported that the most positive aspects of their experience with dispute resolution were that the dispute was resolved in some fashion; they praised the example set by dispute resolution volunteers, describing them as fair, even-handed editors; some also commended the behavior of their fellow participants, describing their behavior as "polite" and "working in good-faith" to a resolution;
respondents also felt that processes were too slow and can become unfair – many citing the source of this unfairness as administrators that became involved in the process;
respondents were generally unhappy with their personal experiences in dispute resolution – only one in five were satisfied with their experience – however despite this all respondents had requested assistance from a dispute resolution forum – 94% at some point and one in four on a regular basis, and noticeboards were used the most – seven out of ten had used them at some point;
dispute resolution is most effective at resolving issues over policy and its interpretation, and issues with reliable sources, according to two in five respondents, with one in three feeling that it was effective at resolving issues with POV pushing;
participants felt that dispute resolution was too complex, too hard to find, that there were too many resolution processes and not enough volunteers to resolve disputes;
respondents want stricter action taken against problematic editors, a simplified, more accessible process where closure can be bought to a dispute quickly – potentially with the use of "teeth" – the ability to make a resolution "stick";
following or explaining policy is key to resolving disputes, as is the participation of uninvolved editors;
the ability to block editors from editing specific pages, a bot which could detect disputes and the creation of a filter that could warn someone before they breach 3RR were all ideas that respondents felt could resolve disputes; and
a little over half of the respondents were interested in participating in further discussions on improving dispute resolution, and a third were interested in learning how to resolve disputes, or to teach others.
