User talk:NuclearWarfare/ACE2010

Lawyers[edit]

FYI, I believe that Stephen Bain is a lawyer as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His statement says that he is a history PhD student. Did he serve as a lawyer before going to grad school? NW (Talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought so, anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe law is an undergraduate degree in his native land. I'm debating what that tells us about the practice of law in that nation. Risker (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you incorrectly described psychiatry as a "science". HTH. :P Just kidding. Some of my best friends are psychiatrists. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are-- but are they scientists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although, come to think of it, if you look at the Nobel Prizes awarded in the field of psychiatry, they went to a Nazi who infected schizophrenics and syphilitics with malaria to "cure" them and to the guy who invented lobotomy. So maybe less science is better in this case. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NW, just so you know, I edit under my real name, so there are 6 candidates who edit under their real name including Casliber, David Fuchs, Georgewilliamherbert, John Vandenberg, and Stephen Bain. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know if I have ever met anyone with the last name of "Knight" before, which is why I think I didn't catch it before. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KITT is most displeased by your lack of awareness. Joke, for those who do not know the reference and do not feel like following the link. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the New Mexico legislature get it right?

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.
Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand.
Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong.
— Proposed bill from the New Mexico legislature, as quoted in Sundby, Scott E. (2007). Life and Death Decision: A Jury Weighs the Death Penalty. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 45–46. ISBN 9780230600638.

NW (Talk) 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like somebody's suffering from a bit of transferance. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factoids[edit]

You might want to modify your language a bit to "has declared..." in more cases. I see a couple of omissions, that I'm not sure I care to correct in detail at this point. It really depends on what you mean by "formal training in the sciences", for example, but my science background is not fully elaborated in either my talk page or candidate statement. If you really care to know and it matters for your endorsements, I'd consider disclosing it--just hadn't to date because there's been no obvious reason to. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you are correct that my username is derived from my real name, for what it's worth. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I considered "formal training in the sciences" to be graduate work or equivalent, just because I think that affects how people approach disputes, especially science-related ones. I had thought it might matter only a little bit, but with the way the field of candidates looks right now, it might affect things a bit more than I had thought. I won't hold it against you no matter if you choose to disclose or not, so it is entirely up to you. NW (Talk) 19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently 30+ semester hours into a graduate-level medical program; while my undergraduate degree is in information systems, I had completed 48 undergraduate semester hours of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics prior to matriculation, in addition to the math and programming classes I took for my original undergraduate degree. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this isn't my first graduate degree, either. It will, in fact, be my third, though my first two aren't relevant to the sciences. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose[edit]

Just to confirm, did you read my exhaustive reply to Lar's BLP question? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your take on my take on BLP. It's by far the most comprehensive single articulation of my views, and I've invested a good bit of time in it, so specific feedback is entirely welcome. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it now, and thought it was rather good. I'm retracting my vote for the time being; some of the positions you articulated in your answer were directly in opposition to what I had thought your position was. Clearly, I have gotten your views mixed up with someone else, and I shall have to do more than rely on my memory. My apologies. NW (Talk) 02:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are here, I have a small question for you: I read your ideas for when to recuse. They seemed somewhat general. Could you expand on it, and possibly give some examples when you would recuse? NW (Talk) 02:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal is based on actual conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest. That was one thing that was beaten into me in the RfC over the summer. On the other hand, if someone has to make the hard block, sometimes it's best if it is an admin from the same "side"--as I just did this week with blocking Colonel Warden. I have no idea how that would translate into ArbCom action at the moment, though. Recusal for "man, I just am not going to have time to deal with this, given other commitments" is a legitimate answer, but one that should be used sparingly and for good justification only; while it's better to have no opinion than just "me too" someone you trust, the reason for the number of Arbs is so that a diversity of thoughtful opinions can be presented in any case. I've never had to recuse myself from anything to date, so I'd probably have a frank discussion about any case with the rest of the mailing list, if it came to that and the answer wasn't immediately obvious to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or did you want me to update the general questions with this answer? Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is fine. What about a case that was very strongly related to the Article Rescue Squadron, or some element of notability? I have a view on this, but it might not be the obvious one you would guess. NW (Talk) 03:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was been beaten into me at the RfC this summer that I will be considered involved in such matters, regardless of whether or not I believe I can be impartial. My relationship with the ARS in general has been misconstrued and misunderstood, but I've given up trying to explain it, since no one seems interested. As far as notability... why would ArbCom ever consider it? If the Gavin.collins case had not been handled by the community and had come to ArbCom, his peculiarly hyperrestrictive stance on notability would not have been an issue; his conduct would have. At any rate, in such cases I would probably be better off as a witness, someone who has observed back-and-forth behavior, misconduct, and whatnot in the realm over my time here. Sitting on a case as a voting member would be out because I've worked with (including against) so many of the participants; there's no way the community would tolerate it, nor should they. At the same time, and since you seem to be looking for a non-traditional answer, I have no idea how absent recused members are expected to be from ArbCom deliberations. To the extent I can be helpful as a non-voting participant in the discussion, I would be happy to serve in that capacity.

On the topic of inclusionism in general, though, I think you'll find my recent !votes at AfDs tend to focus on merging content appropriately: I raise the issue wherever it's relevant, in large part because I think it's a less threatening and divisive alternative than "delete or keep?", and the key question is often not "Do we want this information?" but rather "How should an online encyclopedia best present this information for our readers' benefit?" Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what, the third opinion change on me? :-) I'd love to hear what you're thinking that prompts all this churn. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Yeah, I know. Sorry about that. It's just a bit of back-and-forth, really, about some of the actions that I have seen you take that are value the process over everything else a bit too much. In the end, it came down to a gut feeling. I hate saying that, because I don't like to just leave it as that, but that's really all it was (the decision actually came to me when I was away from my computer having an early lunch, actually). Sorry! NW (Talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK--it shows you're thinking, which is more than some others have done. If anything has surprised me about running for ArbCom, it's not the number of opposes (I'm running about where I expected to be; I've made both mistakes and enemies in 2 years as an admin) but the dearth of questions. Either Lar asked everything anyone cared about, or people just aren't asking things. You realize no one has formally asked me a single inclusionism question? Your questioning here is as close as anyone's gotten, and I wasn't expecting that at all. I was expecting to have to field more, but really, if you take Lar's questions out, I've got fewer questions thrown my way than an average RfA candidate. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very odd. I think that might have been the result of both SecurePoll and the movement away from everyone asking multiple questions. I shall be arguing very strongly against the latter in the upcoming RFC. As far as inclusionism goes...well, I think people know your views by now :). It is somewhat odd though. NW (Talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must gall Tony1 that people actually like my questions. It really takes the wind out of his argument that they're excessive. You can (of course) count on my support for your position on questions. I'd rather see them all on the main page with collapse boxes so the less interested folks can skim instead of this current (4? 5?) part system with questions scattered everywhere. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it's because every single person who feels the urge to ask a question appears to have been drawn to myself and Brad for some reason… – iridescent 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any questions to ask due to the dearth of good candidates-- my votes are almost entirely based on "trust", so I don't need to ask anything! Most of my votes are opposes, on candidates who couldn't answer any question in any way that would convince me to support anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giano[edit]

If it was anyone else with that record, I'd oppose, as a run of the mill terminally disruptive editor. However, it's Giano. I know, I know, that flies right in the face of my perennial "no free passes" sentiment. But, Giano is one editor that I want to see put up or shut up. Just thought I'd throw that out there, and can't say I'm actually trying to change your mind, ...maybe just clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen[edit]

I assume you meant "shoulders" rather than "soldiers".--SPhilbrick T 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for catching my mistake. There are probably plenty more mistakes on the page; my spelling, grammar, and diction are all atrocious. Everyone, feel free to make any appropriate changes without consulting me beforehand. NW (Talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job[edit]

Yours is one of my favorite guides this year. Thoughtful comments, and you definitely did your research. Thanks for taking the time to put this together! --El on ka 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elonka :) NW (Talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bump that up to the best guide I've read. Nice job dissecting the BLP issues. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 09:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]