ScienceApologist goes mad, Assembles armies of the night Options

[Proabivouac]

Elonka blocked ScienceApologist as ArbCom enforcement, and Jehochman disagrees with the block but won't overturn it. In 48 hours, SA will be free to edit again, and all will be well with the world.

What administrators don't get - more accurately, what they full well know, but pretend not to see - is that lording over and blocking people is more uncivil than almost anything you might say to their face as an equal.

Apply the "which would you rather have done to you" test; it works every time.

[Moulton]

What administrators don't get - more accurately, what they full well know, but pretend not to see - is that lording over and blocking people is more uncivil than almost anything you might say to their face as an equal.

I dunno if anyone here is old enough to recall the Woolworth's Lunch Counter Sit-Ins in Greensboro NC from 1960. It helped launch the Civil Rights Movement in the US.

Today, on the IRC channel, #wikiversity-en ...

(12:36:41 PM) Woolworths left the room (Kicked by Mike_lifeguard (You are not welcome here. Do not come back.)).
(12:36:54 PM) You have been kicked by Mike_lifeguard: (You are not welcome here. Do not come back.)

This is what the WP admins are teaching the children of the 21st Century.

[Hipocrite]

Apply the "which would you rather have done to you" test; it works every time.

How do you stop profit-motivated fringe-agenda pushing individuals who care not a whit about educating the populace, such as those SA is constantly at war with? The problem isn't with blocking, it's with the blockers having no grounding whatsoever in the subject matter.

The most recent group of mental deficients that SA was fighting with believe that Cold Fusion - remember, that fraud from the late 1980s, is real (oh, and for just a small small fee you can subscribe to their newsletter for all of the exciting opourtunities to invest). Previously, people he got in disputes with believed that the entire universe was made out of plasma and sprung in to being out of nothingness all at once, that the big bang was a lie (oh, and for just a small small fee you can participate in the wonderful upside of their very promising plasma research). Before that, he was in a fight with people who are certain they can hear your dead relatives through your tv turned to static (oh, and for just a small small fee they will tell you that you have an important person in your life whose name starts with J. J is definetly coming through. Something about sudden chest pain?). The people editing Minimum Wage? Either True Believers in Freshman Economics 101, or paid shills for various lobbing groups. The gold bugs? They've got a great investing scheme for you.

It's all profit motivated. Wikipedia is the biggest site you can edit in the world, and it takes only one sucker sending a million dollars to Nigeria.

[Cla68]

I'm assembling my armies of the night
First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.


Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255562610

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days. He's taking a content dispute(s) way too personally and reacting in an inappropriate manner.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 4th December 2008, 12:00am

[EricBarbour]

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days. He's taking a content dispute(s) way too personally and reacting in an inappropriate manner.

Yeah, how dare he??? Burn him!

[Milton Roe]

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

A little?

A lot. Read just the lead (as you did). Here's the evidence for "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism and hurt the very people they are intended to help." (this claim is wrong and sourced only to a partisan political interest group - the Republican members of the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress of the US.)

The second fact is about unemployment - there is wide agreement that in the short run, raising the minium wage causes employment losses. There is not wide agreement about its effects in the long run. The phraseolgy used in the study "employment losses" is a one-time effect. The phraseolgy used in wikipedia is "unemployment," which has indeterminate length. Sloppy, if I were charitable. Dishonest, if I were opining as to the most likley reason. The number (73%) is about a specific change in the minimum wage - not a general "up." The proposed change is drastic, to say the least. Again, dishonest.

It continues dishonestly from there. I don't have enough time.

Ummm. This is news to me that economists actually disagree about whether or not a minimum wage has a long term effect on unemployment. Suppose we set it at $100/hr. Does anyone disagree that it would have a permanent effect? Okay, how about $50? Basically, at what price-- at what point-- do economists argue that it STOPS having a permanent effect, and only has a temporary one?

A number, please. And reasoning. There are very few discontinuous curves in nature, and I don't know of any in economics. This would be a first.

[Somey]

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days....

I dunno - I tend to agree with Mr. Yeti Jr. on this one, and Hipocrite too for that matter. SA has burned out and may not return to Wikipedia for some time, which is unfortunate for the rest of the world, who may have lost yet another soldier in the never-ending Quixotic battle to make Wikipedia look marginally less ridiculous over time.

That isn't to say that pseudoscience advocates shouldn't be allowed to write about their causes in Wikipedia - but the main thing is to keep pseudoscience advocacy out of mainstream science articles, and to maintain some balance. Alas, pseudoscience advocates have a huge advantage in the Wiki/Wikipedia context, since participation in the WP system counts far more than the weight of opinion and evidence within the scientific community. In that sense, SA is absolutely right about WP being the "world's shittiest encyclopedia." (He's also right in a general sense too, of course. )

Admittedly, I've had an experience recently that has caused me to really, really despise quack practitioners, so I'm probably a bit more biased against them now than I have been in the past...

[Cla68]

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days....

I dunno - I tend to agree with Mr. Yeti Jr. on this one, and Hipocrite too for that matter. SA has burned out and may not return to Wikipedia for some time, which is unfortunate for the rest of the world, who may have lost yet another soldier in the never-ending Quixotic battle to make Wikipedia look marginally less ridiculous over time.

That isn't to say that pseudoscience advocates shouldn't be allowed to write about their causes in Wikipedia - but the main thing is to keep pseudoscience advocacy out of mainstream science articles, and to maintain some balance. Alas, pseudoscience advocates have a huge advantage in the Wiki/Wikipedia context, since participation in the WP system counts far more than the weight of opinion and evidence within the scientific community. In that sense, SA is absolutely right about WP being the "world's shittiest encyclopedia." (He's also right in a general sense too, of course. )

Admittedly, I've had an experience recently that has caused me to really, really despise quack practitioners, so I'm probably a bit more biased against them now than I have been in the past...

I can understand becoming angry and letting loose on irritating jerks who won't shut the heck up. I can remember one time when I tore, or tried to tear, William Connolley a new one on the Global Warming talk page (I'll try to find the diff sometime, it was a couple of years ago). The difference is that I did it without using profanity or jokingly threatening to harm him. I don't think it's necessary to yell at someone that way.

[Somey]

The difference is that I did it without using profanity or jokingly threatening to harm him. I don't think it's necessary to yell at someone that way.

Okay, sure, but I'm thinking maybe you just need to listen to a few Lewis Black comedy albums, you know, for perspective. It's the way of the future, and the sooner Wikipedia catches up, the better for us all...

[Hipocrite]

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

A little?

A lot. Read just the lead (as you did). Here's the evidence for "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism and hurt the very people they are intended to help." (this claim is wrong and sourced only to a partisan political interest group - the Republican members of the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress of the US.)

The second fact is about unemployment - there is wide agreement that in the short run, raising the minium wage causes employment losses. There is not wide agreement about its effects in the long run. The phraseolgy used in the study "employment losses" is a one-time effect. The phraseolgy used in wikipedia is "unemployment," which has indeterminate length. Sloppy, if I were charitable. Dishonest, if I were opining as to the most likley reason. The number (73%) is about a specific change in the minimum wage - not a general "up." The proposed change is drastic, to say the least. Again, dishonest.

It continues dishonestly from there. I don't have enough time.

Ummm. This is news to me that economists actually disagree about whether or not a minimum wage has a long term effect on unemployment. Suppose we set it at $100/hr. Does anyone disagree that it would have a permanent effect? Okay, how about $50? Basically, at what price-- at what point-- do economists argue that it STOPS having a permanent effect, and only has a temporary one?

A number, please. And reasoning. There are very few discontinuous curves in nature, and I don't know of any in economics. This would be a first.

There is no disagreement that large changes in the minimum wage would have major negative effects on employment. Economics, however, past economics 101, cannot be assumed by saying "What happens if we make a REALLY BIG MOVE - ok, a small move is the same."

Empirical studies about the unemployment rate have been inconclusive, to say the least. Here's a paper from the world bank that shows that employment can have multiple equilibria (one of thsoe functions you claim to never have heard of in economics).

http://www.worldbank.org/html/dec/Publicat...049/wps2049.pdf

One of the co-authors is Joseph E. Stiglitz. You may have heard of him.

Another paper was written by George A. Akerlof (and Janet Yellen) - you may have heard of him. He discussed "Efficiency wages."

A further argument is that the labor market is monopsonistic. This causes market failure, as the buyers methodically underbid for labor.

There are scores of cross-state studies - the one I remember is a NJ/PA study that showed that when NJ raised its minimum wage, fast food chains in NJ on the boarder didn't change employment at all, but I can't remember or find that study right now.

None of this, however, is discussed in freshman economics for Computer Science majors, so Wikipedia ignores it. Luckily the Nobel committee didn't.

[EricBarbour]

I can understand becoming angry and letting loose on irritating jerks who won't shut the heck up. I can remember one time when I tore, or tried to tear, William Connolley a new one on the Global Warming talk page (I'll try to find the diff sometime, it was a couple of years ago). The difference is that I did it without using profanity or jokingly threatening to harm him. I don't think it's necessary to yell at someone that way.

I beg to differ.

If someone doesn't yell at the trolls with hidden agendas, they win.

And don't start me about economists. Wanna good example of a bad one?
Ben Stein.
Doesn't even have a degree in economics, yet is
quite happy to go around blathering about it.

And what is his defining moment? "Bueller? Bueller?....."
Or maybe that stupid "documentary" of his?
(Would you let that guy tell you how to set taxation, or invest your savings?)