Durova : Arbitrators and risk avoidance

http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/04/arbitra...-avoidance.html

The Arbitration Committee exists to settle Wikipedia's toughest disputes. But do arbitrators get elected on the basis of a successful dispute resolution record, or because they don't step on too many toes? Last night YellowMonkey, a former arbitrator, argued the latter. It was the sort of statement that looks like the end of a long period of holding one's tongue, by someone who knows a lot, and it's very intriguing.

One could say one of the reasons why I didn't become an ArbCom member is the toes I stepped on.

Does this take into account the majority of rejected arbcom cases in which no party even bothered to try going through the Dispute Retribution (WP:DR) process?

I think that's why 40% is the highest number, that so many of the rejected by all cases are ones where little, if any DR was done.

I'd be interested in the remedy numbers, with soft remedies vs hard remedies.. A lot of the time, ArbCom took a stance that had the net effect of punting things back to the community and the administrators who worked at ArbCom Enforcement ("All Parties Reminded", remedies, etcetera)

Some arbitrators are more hardline than others; you can get an approximation of that in this case, which neatly split the committee 50/50 on whether the party should be desysopped before compromise was reached. I don't think it correlates well with their election percentages.

Putting aside Durova's questionable metrics this "YellowMonkey" fellow seems to have One dead to rights:

Is the Yellow Monkey saying that our One is stuffed fursuit?

Here's what that ArbCom talk page discussion looks like as of now.

One of those paragraphs Yellow Monkey wrote has got to be the longest, baggiest paragraph I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I mean, FT2 proportions. Also pretty talkative and peppery. It looks like something you'd write after having a couple too many beers. I like it though. Interesting ideas.

Whatever he's drinking, pass it around to the other ArbCom members. I'd like to see their reactions. (It'd probably result in a couple more resignations, but it sure would be interesting.)

To be fair I made the direct connection not Mr. Monkey.

Yeah, that's it. He's just afraid to take a stand. Can't get him to take a position when it's controversial. That's our CoolHand, all right. [The eye-rolling smiley doesn't roll his eyes nearly enough to express what I'm thinking right now.]

You keep thinking that Moulton (my mistake) GlassBeadGame.

I really do appreciate that, Noroton.

I think YellowMonkey's comments have been perceptive. The only thing that puzzles me is that he apparently believes that ArbCom is going to drop the axe on him at any moment. I'm not alone in my puzzlement; other arbitrators are concerned about him as well. Perhaps he's aware of something I'm not, but I don't think a single arbitrator is gunning for him.

I thought it was an attempt at humor. Just a comment said a couple of times in passing, part of the general breeziness of the posts. If it was serious, I think the tone would be different.

I think Yellow Monkey (and Durova) are actually referring to New York Brad, not Cool Hand One.

Maybe, but a few days ago it looks like he strongly considered retiring as I noted here. He alluded to Boxer, the workhorse in Animal Farm, who was callously sold to the knackers at the first sign of injury.


Well, in the prior sentence, he talks about Arbitrators who were elected by being clerks or mediators. That would describe NYB and several others. Then he talks about people who post empty words in high-traffic forums. I suppose that describes me, but it also suggests others who were alleged to post lots of uncontroversial statements at ANI. These comments are perceptive because they describe a significant number of current arbitrators.

The overall take-away seems to be the message that Durova got from it: that Arbitrators are not selected for any particular ability, but for managing to score name recognition without offending anyone.

I don't have any basis for favoring either interpretation but judging by the context I'm guessing you mean you think there are "none" rather than "multiple". Wouldn't hurt to clarify it though.

I don't know if all this is true, but it seems pretty perceptive. The main point is that Arbcom doesn't take strong-enough stands, but for me the most interesting ideas are about the motives of people who start cases at Arbcom. He's observed a lot of them.

Interminable disputes, of course, are demoralizing, and that's got to be the point for some fighters.

Much of this rests upon the odd made-up-by-amateur-of-the-web kind of process that is employed with such charming features as no standards for evidence and a pillory like invitation to one and all to hurl taunts and garbage at he participants or even each other. Of course only a certain type of participant would want to be an Arb after knowing about this process.

Yes. I meant something like, "I don't think any Arbitrator is gunning for him."

The correlation coefficient between % of cases accepted and % popularity in bid for seat is about -0.27. It's something, but a rather weak inverse relationship.

No, it just means that whichever arbitrator(s) are gunning for him are married, not single!