Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Opabinia regalis/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward! A woman who will pass kittens and cookies!

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Questions from Antony–22

 * I wasn't motivated by specific incidents so much as a general sense that civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. So the question is whether you think this fear is valid, and how can we keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not actually sure that there's much connection between the participation of "professionals" of various kinds and their expectations for conduct. I know I've commented elsewhere - though I forget where now - about the tendency to react to purported incivility with arguments like "that wouldn't be allowed in a real job!" (Come to think of it, almost never by people who are "professionals" in your sense.) First of all, by "real job" people usually mean a white-collar office job in a first-world country, and imposing those standards of conduct is a kind of systemic bias in itself. Second of all, white-collar office jobs are no strangers to "incivility" in the form of passive-aggression and power games - not standards of conduct we want to emulate. Third and most importantly, Wikipedia isn't a job. You can't manage a large online project of volunteers who work on whatever they like whenever they like with the HR Department handbook written for a physical office full of people with specific tasks to accomplish. It's true that a big part of the original sense of countercultural transgressiveness has been co-opted following the evolution of other online projects that will happily accept your cognitive surplus - many of which are much more effective for people who want to use their spare time to build up a reputation with professional benefits. (Hmm, now that I've written that it sounds icky, but I'm referring to things like stackoverflow, or the proliferation of opportunities to contribute to open-source software. Worth noting that almost all such places have a "gender gap" at least as big as ours, even though we're less directly dependent on the tech field where women are underrepresented.)
 * Anyway, I'm not sure that I have a cohesive position on this; I'm just thinking out loud. It's an interesting thought but my personal experience of the wiki doesn't quite match up with your premise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't motivated by specific incidents so much as a general sense that civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. So the question is whether you think this fear is valid, and how can we keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not actually sure that there's much connection between the participation of "professionals" of various kinds and their expectations for conduct. I know I've commented elsewhere - though I forget where now - about the tendency to react to purported incivility with arguments like "that wouldn't be allowed in a real job!" (Come to think of it, almost never by people who are "professionals" in your sense.) First of all, by "real job" people usually mean a white-collar office job in a first-world country, and imposing those standards of conduct is a kind of systemic bias in itself. Second of all, white-collar office jobs are no strangers to "incivility" in the form of passive-aggression and power games - not standards of conduct we want to emulate. Third and most importantly, Wikipedia isn't a job. You can't manage a large online project of volunteers who work on whatever they like whenever they like with the HR Department handbook written for a physical office full of people with specific tasks to accomplish. It's true that a big part of the original sense of countercultural transgressiveness has been co-opted following the evolution of other online projects that will happily accept your cognitive surplus - many of which are much more effective for people who want to use their spare time to build up a reputation with professional benefits. (Hmm, now that I've written that it sounds icky, but I'm referring to things like stackoverflow, or the proliferation of opportunities to contribute to open-source software. Worth noting that almost all such places have a "gender gap" at least as big as ours, even though we're less directly dependent on the tech field where women are underrepresented.)
 * Anyway, I'm not sure that I have a cohesive position on this; I'm just thinking out loud. It's an interesting thought but my personal experience of the wiki doesn't quite match up with your premise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not actually sure that there's much connection between the participation of "professionals" of various kinds and their expectations for conduct. I know I've commented elsewhere - though I forget where now - about the tendency to react to purported incivility with arguments like "that wouldn't be allowed in a real job!" (Come to think of it, almost never by people who are "professionals" in your sense.) First of all, by "real job" people usually mean a white-collar office job in a first-world country, and imposing those standards of conduct is a kind of systemic bias in itself. Second of all, white-collar office jobs are no strangers to "incivility" in the form of passive-aggression and power games - not standards of conduct we want to emulate. Third and most importantly, Wikipedia isn't a job. You can't manage a large online project of volunteers who work on whatever they like whenever they like with the HR Department handbook written for a physical office full of people with specific tasks to accomplish. It's true that a big part of the original sense of countercultural transgressiveness has been co-opted following the evolution of other online projects that will happily accept your cognitive surplus - many of which are much more effective for people who want to use their spare time to build up a reputation with professional benefits. (Hmm, now that I've written that it sounds icky, but I'm referring to things like stackoverflow, or the proliferation of opportunities to contribute to open-source software. Worth noting that almost all such places have a "gender gap" at least as big as ours, even though we're less directly dependent on the tech field where women are underrepresented.)
 * Anyway, I'm not sure that I have a cohesive position on this; I'm just thinking out loud. It's an interesting thought but my personal experience of the wiki doesn't quite match up with your premise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from GrammarFascist



 * Thanks for responding, . It's a bit late for me to ask now, but what do you think a more effective version of my question would have been? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . It's a bit late for me to ask now, but what do you think a more effective version of my question would have been? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

Question from Johanna

 * I have to say that I am quite impressed with your answer. It really seems like you've thought about it a lot, and I enjoy your analytical approach to things while still adding a spice of humor in there and giving us some perspective. :) Best of luck! Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I am quite impressed with your answer. It really seems like you've thought about it a lot, and I enjoy your analytical approach to things while still adding a spice of humor in there and giving us some perspective. :) Best of luck! Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from SageRad
Hi, Opabinia regalis. Thank you for running for the position, i know it takes a lot of personal time and effort.

Questions from Ryk72
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from PizzaMan
Thank you for your answers. I'm not a proponent of positive discrimination, the question was perhaps trickier than it seemed, but well answered. Diversity is definitely needed for any team to function well. You have my vote. As for scientific merit: mine is limited too, i'm still struggling to finish my PhD. But if you ever come across an arbitration case (or article) on neuroscience or medicine in general, which is in dire need of expertise, feel free to leave me a note.PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)