Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Donald Albury

Donald Albury

I have been around Wikipedia for a few years now, but have always shied away from a run at ARBCOM. My primary joy is adding content to the project. I also get satisfaction from fixing problems that I run across, but I don't generally search for things to fix. I long ago realized that I cannot save Wikipedia single-handedly, so I have concentrated on things that I like to do. Fixing things sometimes requires the the use of admin tools, but I am more or less average among active admins in the use of those tools. I may not always agree with the details of policies and guidelines, but I recognize the benefits to the project of adhering to such policies and guidelines. This is a collaborative effort, and the assumption of good faith (until proven otherwise), cooperation, and civility are vital to the improvement of the encyclopedia. I generally shy away from confrontation, and I try to not let my ego affect my judgment, but I will stand up for my principles when I think it vital to do so. I was on the OTRS team for a while, many years ago, and worked with the Education program for a while about a decade ago. Serving on ARBCOM would be a different level of experience for me. I feel ready to commit to serving the community on the committee for a year or two, if enough Wikipedians are willing to support me.

As a one-time member of the OTRS team, I have previously conformed to the access to nonpublic personal data policy, at least as it existed at the time, and agree to do so again. I have an alternate account, User:Alt.Donald Albury, as posted on my user page, and a non-editing doppleganger of my original account name, User:Dalbury, redirected to my current account name. Many years ago (about 15, I think) I created another account, which I intended to use in editing articles about contentious subjects which I did not feel comfortable editing from my regular account, and behind which I hoped to be anonymous. I sent an email about the account to a then member of ARBCOM, but as I never received a reply, I don't know if the email was received. In any case, I stopped using that account after a very few edits, and I can no longer remember what I called it, and have no access to it.

• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

 Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   My hope is that we on enwiki can protect the integrity of enwiki while maintaining an acceptable level of civility in the community. If the Foundation ever decides to intervene in enwiki to enforce the UCoC, then the project is in trouble, whether that is because we, as a community, have failed to maintain an acceptable level of civility, or because the Foundation is overreaching.

4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   No particular case sticks out in my mind. I have seen editors that I thought were good contributors get into trouble, sometimes de-sysoped, for reasons I was not always clear about. I do realize that good editors, through baiting or mounting frustration, can become abusive towards other editors. Civility must be maintained, but I sometimes wish that more could be done to protect productive users from provocations before their patience wears out.

Questions from Mikehawk10

2. Standards of Evidence: What standards of proof should the arbitration committee use when deciding to enact a sanction on an individual, and should these standards vary depending on the type of sanction being considered?

   ARBCOM is not a court of law, and no user's life, liberty or property is at risk (well, maybe a paid editor's income, but that is another issue). A preponderance of the evidence seems to me to be the appropriate standard, tempered by a consideration of the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e., the risk of harm to the project from a wrong assessment in one direction vs. the risk of harm to a user from a wrong assessment in the other direction. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

4. Standards for Evidence: When the arbitration committee is presented with off-wiki evidence (such as discord logs, screenshots of emails, or text messages), what is the mechanism that you believe the arbitration committee should implement to verify that the evidence presented is truthful, and how does your vision compare and contrast with current ArbCom processes in place?

   I have not researched how the ARBCOM currently deals with off-wiki evidence. Given the nature of evidence in electronic form, I think the use of such evidence depends heavily on the reputation/reliability of the source. Context and supporting evidence are also important in evaluating such evidence.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Would you have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin) in this case?

   Slim Virgin gave me very helpful advice when I was a novice editor. Our paths did not cross much in more recent years, but I would be ready to listen to and consider any advice she might offer me. My understanding of the policies, guidelines and functioning of Wikipedia have deepened over the years, and I do not know if she and I would agree on all specifics now, but I still would carefully consider her thoughts.

Question from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. What motivated you to put forward your candidacy this time?

   I have toyed with the idea of running over the years, but for one reason or another hesitated. This year I saw the notice in AN that there were only 60 hours left for nominations, and saw there were only three candidates at the time. I figured that the community deserved to have more candidates running than available seats, and so offered myself. If I am selected, I hope I can contribute to the community for the year or two I would serve on ARBCOM. If there are eight candidates who are more qualified who are selected ahead of me, I figure that is a win for the community.

Question from TheresNoTime

2. In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   To deal with behavior problems that the community has been unsuccessful in controlling through less formal mechanisms, including administrators who are harming the project through inappropriate use of their position.

Questions from Sdrqaz

2. When accepting cases regarding administrative conduct, an oft-used qualifier is that opening a case does not mean sanctions are inevitable. However, historically, that has not been the case. What are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   Off hand, I don't have any thoughts about that. If I am selected to serve, I wish to view each case on its merits.

4. Of the decisions taken this year by the Committee, which one did you disagree with the most? Please note that may include choices not to take actions and simple inaction where you felt the Committee should have done so.

   I stopped following individual cases a while back. While I might look at an open case if I run across some reference to it, I don't follow cases I have to which no connection.

Questions from Kudpung

2. If one were to compare the structures of Arbcom cases and ANI threads (apples and oranges to some), what would be your opinion on the piling on and participation of users who are clearly not involved and their eventual influence on the deliberations of the Committee, i.e. should the Committee be examining directly uninvolved participants' comments for veracity, relevance and substance and taking those comments into consideration?

   I stopped following ARBCOM cases and ANI discussions where I don't have a dog in the fight precisely because of the sheer volumn of comments. The committee has to decide whether evidence offered is credible and relevant.

4. If an accused declines to actively participate in the Arbcom case against them (Cf. RexxS) and/or retires from the project (or if an admin voluntary cedes their tools) during it, in your opinion would this be a clear admission of guilt and one that permits the Committee to pronounce by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Silence is not an admission of guilt, but a refusal to defend oneself against charges can reasonably lead to a restriction of editing prividges and access to tools until the editor agrees to engage with the committee and has successfully defended themself. I also think the committee may set conditions of when and how the editor may return to defend themself.

Thank you for your answers, Donald. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

WMF Banned User
Questions from Horizon of Happy In your long history as an Administrator, what is your single best example (or top three if you prefer) of you attempting to resolve the sort of dispute that reaches ArbCom? What is your general perception of the nature of disputes that are accepted by ArbCom? Horizon of Happy (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Extraordinary Writ

2. What sort of on-wiki experience do you have in resolving disputes (the Committee's primary function)?

   I disagree that the Committee's primary function is resolving disputes. The Committee's function is to deal with behavior that is disruptive to the project, and which the community has been unable to control. Disputes about content, policy, guidelines, and behavior are supposed to be resolved by consensus. Consensus may be reached on talk pages, in Requests for Comment, or on various project pages and noticeboards. It is only when dispute resolution is disrupted by editor behavior, and the community has not been able to control that disruptive behavior, that the Committee may take up the case. That said, I do have in mind a case this year that took a while to resolve, but, as it involves edits to three user talk pages, an article and its talk page, and at least two project pages, over a two or three month period, I need a little time to assemble the links in a coherent manner. The case I had in mind involved less input from me than I remembered, and probably is not what you were looking for. In summary, an edit war at Gaur involved several people over a couple of months. I did try to get the most involved editors to stop the edit war, but my patience with the situation was a bit longer than some other admins, and the edit war ended with the indefinite block of one of the participants. A timeline of the edit war is at User:Donald Albury/Gaur edit war. 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from A7V2

2. As a hypothetical, suppose two otherwise very positive content editors are simply unable to get along (with the associated disruptions to discussions, etc), and arbcom ultimately imposes a mutual IBAN on them. One of the editors subsequently finds the restriction too restrictive and stops editing. Was the sanction a net positive for Wikipedia?

   In my opinion, the function of the Arbitration Committee should be to reduce disruption as much as possible to enable the community to get on with the business of building an encyclopedia. As the purpose of any sanctions should be to prevent future disruption, the committee has to predict the effect of such sanctions on everyone involved, including the whole of the community. For the health of the community, disruptive behavior must be controlled, and a mutual IBAN is one tool for doing that. If a user does quit editing because they are subject to an IBAN (and one can never be certain that is the only reason they quit), then the loss of any future contributions they may have made will be a loss to the community. On the other hand, allowing the editors to continue to interact disruptively with each other would also be a net loss for Wikipedia, not only in the articles the two fight over, but in the perception that would be sent that there an no serious consequences to interacting disruptively.

4. In general, should editor retention be a factor when deciding on sanctions? Should the type of editor (in a broad sense) and type of contributions they make matter in this regard?

   Retention of an editor is not always the best outcome. If an editor's behavior to date makes it appear that their behavior in the future will continue to be disruptive to Wikipedia, then appropriate sanctions need to be imposed. In deciding to ban an editor, or in weighing the risk that an editor will quit editing in response to sanctions imposed, then the loss of potentional improvement to the encyclopedia has to be weighted against the potential for further disruption. Quantity and quality of edits does not excuse disruptive behavior. If sanctions can largely prevent future disruption while allowing an editor to productively edit, then Wikipedia will benefit. In general, reducing disruptive behavior and thereby (hopefully) raising the level of civility in Wikipedia should help with editor retention overall.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Kolya Butternut

2. An SPI on Daner's Creek was opened this year in connection to an arb announcement, Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen. An investigation into one of the potential socks was declined as stale. Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?

   I do not see what this has to do with the Arbitration Committee. While ARBCOM (and individual admins) can block socks they have identified, formal sockpuppet investigations are conducted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The Arbitration Committee does not set policy or guidelines for SPI. As for the case you point to, an account that had not been active for nine months will provide no evidence to a checkuser. While behavioral evidence (Wikipedia:Duck) may help identify a sock, I don't see the point of investigating an account that had not been used in nine months and had been blocked for six months. I think there is plenty for SPI to do dealing with active potential socks.

Question from Epiphyllumlover

2. There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things?

   I have to say that your statement was initially hard for me to process. You are describing paid meat-puppetry. Meat-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing are serious problems for Wikipedia. I wonder, though, how well the interests of whoever is paying the meat puppets is served. Meat puppets are often suspected, and their comments/!votes tend to be discounted. Discussions that are important enough to draw a number of participants should be closed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, and not on just the number of !votes. Wikipedia does need to attract and retain editors that are as representative of the global English-speaking population as possible, but I think it would be a mistake to pay editors to not be meat-puppets in pursuit of that goal. The community is uncomfortable with paying editors in any manner. See the discussion earlier this year about a contest that awarded gift certificates for adding images to Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#Image competition? Cases involving meat-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing can come before the Arbitration Committee, if the community has not successfully dealt with them more informally. Devising and implementing programs to attract and retain editors, including paying people to edit, or programs to provide training to new editors, is beyond the purview of the Arbitration Committee.

Oh, wow. I did not know about the complications to the image competition. Thank you for sharing it with me. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Reward board has been less of a problem, although that could be due to low activity more than anything else.--16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Hijiri88

2. What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment? In the past, ArbCom has rejected one-way IBAN proposals in favour of two-way IBANs on purely technical grounds (that they are subject to being gamed, that they "don't work", etc.), but if such a one-way IBAN is implemented and it doesn't stem disruption (for example, if the hounded party is simultaneously placed under a TBAN that is not placed on the hounding party), and instead only leaves the harassed party subject to repeated remarks of "User X is subject to an IBAN with User Y -- he wouldn't be banned if he hadn't done something wrong" and unable to explain the context, would you be open to repealing it? (I am assuming that BANEX applies to these questions.)

   IBANs, like other sanctions, should be designed to prevent future disruption to the project. If, in the judgement of the committee, the past behavior of two editors in a dispute predicts that a one-way IBAN will be sufficient to prevent future disruption, then the one-way is appropriate. I have seem comments to the effect that a one-way IBAN is effectively a two-way ban, because if the second editor uses the existence of the IBAN to gain advantage over the first editor, then the second editor may be sanctioned to prevent further disruption. As for your second question, I am confused. Do you know of a case where an editor who was being hounded was placed under a one-way IBAN and the editor who was harrassing the first editor was not? Or are you asking about a case in which an editor who has not been placed under an IBAN is harrassing an editor who is banned from interacting with them?

It wasn't really a "second question", but I think you misread me; the hounded user (me) was placed under a topic ban, but since no evidence of disruption on the part of the hounding party was presented other demonstrating the fact of the hounding, they were not placed under a similar topic ban until the community stepped in about six months later. Honestly, I did not really know how arbitration worked (a fact several users, not just the one who was sanctioned, seemed to want to take advantage of): I assumed that the committee would disregard as tainted evidence presented by someone who was clearly hounding one of the parties to the dispute, and so did not seek to demonstrate any further disruption on their part beyond hounding, until after the proposed decision had been posted and it was too late. So they were left, temporarily, free to undo my earlier edits to that topic area (to which they had originally followed me), with me unable to report them publicly. At this point, six years on, the only effectiveness the IBAN has now, as far as I can see, is that every few months/weeks (or every few days, if I'm especially active -- the last time it happened was three days ago) someone says out of the blue "Hijiri88 has an IBAN" as a chilling effect to force me out of a discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The above appears to have crossed a line. I apologize for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   This is a tough question that I have had to think about for a while. I'll try to answer your points. 1) I am not aware of a policy that requires sharing of information. Not revealing behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry has been practice for a long time, which implies at least a lack of consensus to require disclosure of that information. Until such time as the community developes a consensus that such information should be revealed, I see no reason to force disclosure. 2) As I have said elsewhere, we are not depriving anyone of life, liberty or property when we sanction them, so I don't see a moral problem in blocking someone based on non-public information. 3) Good point. Maybe there could be a process for appealing blocks based on non-public evidence, similar to reviews of closed discussions, with other admins reviewing the evidence. 4) Is there evidence that this is a significant problem? I have no idea how many blocks for sockpuppeting are false positives, but I hope they are small. And I don't see much incentive for falsely admitting to sockpuppeting.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position about ArbCom finally following through with DS amendments and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   I do not know what the committee has done on drafting changes. I do know that I favor measures that help protect Wikipedia from behavior that seriously disrupts adherence to the five pillars and the process of reaching consensus. We need sufficiently robust processes to control disruption. Some form of Discretionary Sanctions, or other processes that produce equivalent results, is almost certainly needed. I will note that I have not been involved in any areas covered by Discretionary Seactions, other than one or two BLPs (I can think of one who is still living, off hand).

Thank you for volunteering, and for your response to my question.

Question from Robert McClenon

2. Some of the most troublesome disputes in Wikipedia are protracted content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, such as incivility, civil POV pushing, stonewalling, and filibustering. These disputes often go to WP:ANI more than once. This is a two-part question, and maybe will be considered to be one question or two. First, how should ArbCom decide when it is necessary to accept a case that is a combination content-conduct dispute? Second, there are relatively few available mechanisms for dealing with such protracted cases short of conduct adjudication (WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or an arbitration case). Third Opinion is for straightforward cases with two editors. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is normally for relatively simple disputes that will take two or three weeks to resolve. Do you have any ideas for how to try to resolve protracted content-conduct disputes to minimize their division of the community before arbitration is sought?

   ArbCom has to determine that the conduct issues in a dispute are unlikely to be resolved by other processes, and that those conduct issues could be resolved by methods available to the committee. As for dealing with the conduct issues in disputes short of ArbCom, perhaps a venue with more structure than ANI and a wider scope than AE might help, if the community would accept adding another layer to the process.

I have been around Wikipedia for a few years now, but have always shied away from a run at ARBCOM. I primary joy is adding content to the project. I also get satisfaction from fixing problems that I run across, but I don't generally search for things to fix. I long ago realized that I cannot save Wikipedia single-handedly, so I have concentrated on things that I like to do. Fixing things sometimes requires the the use of admin tools, but I am more or less average among active admins in the use of those tools. I may not always agree with the details of policies and guidelines, but I recognize the benefits to the project of adhering to such policies and guidelines. This is a collaborative effort, and the assumption of good faith (until proven otherwise), cooperation, and civility are vital to the improvement of the encyclopedia. I generally shy away from confrontation, and I try to not let my ego affect my judgment, but I will stand up for my principals when I think it vital to do so. I was on the OTRS team for a while, many years ago, and worked with the Education program for a while about a decade ago. Serving on ARBCOM would be a different level of experience for me. I feel ready to commit to serving the community on the committee for a year or two, if enough Wikipedians are willing to support me.

As a one-time member of the OTRS team, I have previously conformed to the access to nonpublic personal data policy, at least as it existed at the time, and agree to do so again. I have an alternate account, User:Alt.Donald Albury, as posted on my user page, and a non-editing doppleganger of my original account name, User:Dalbury, redirected to my current account name. Many years ago (about 15, I think) I created another account, which I intended to use in editing articles about contentious subjects which I did not feel comfortable editing from my regular account, and behind which I hoped to be anonymous. I sent an email about the account to a then member of ARBCOM, but as I never received a reply, I don't know if the email was received. In any case, I stopped using that account after a very few edits, and I can no longer remember what I called it, and have no access to it.