User:Wndl42/SB2

Recent AE notice

 * I appreciate your concern. With respect to "exhausting the patience of those who oversee" in the context of what you refer to as my frustration and judgement in the matter, first...allow me to assure you that I am not at all frustrated with the process. I am attempting (for the first time) to use the process. Of course I am relatively new here, so you may correctly (if you choose) attribute the matter to inexperience. I honestly don't accept your null hypothesis that the problem here is "clouded judgement" in the context of "frustration".


 * As regards "exhausted patience". Allow me to (a) reference Jimbo, and (b) provide some evidence for an alternative hypothesis; that being that the "patience of those who oversee those pages" has been exhausted because ScienceApologist has been incivil for so long and to so many and in such an irrepressible way as to create a classic human case of ad nauseum avoidance amongst those who oversee those pages.


 * Referencing Jimbo from 2-5-07 (a):


 * "Agreed. And (**user**) was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence for an alternative hypothesis (b):


 * A control population to establish an ad nauseum "patience exhaustion" quotient can be established by examining (per WP:SET the cache of en.wikipedia.org for ScienceApologist, and the resulting control is 1,600 hits as I write this.


 * Now, please consider the following sample of those 1,600 hits, yielding:


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 817 from wikipedia.org for ScienceApologist civil OR ignorant OR ignorance OR civility OR incivil OR incivility OR uncivil. (0.08 seconds).


 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112 - Wikipedia, the ...Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, .... this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Levine2112 - 105k - Cached - Similar pages


 * User talk:ScienceApologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNor even if you are right does would it justify incivility. Since you both assumed bad faith and were incivil, the block stands. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist - 54k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist - Wikipedia, the ...Filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. ... is attempting to coach ScienceApologist in how to phrase things with just enough civility ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ScienceApologist - 37k - Cached - Similar pages


 * User:Paul August/Subpage 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCivility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_August/Subpage_2 - 89k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ...I, in turn, removed the incivility and posted (IMHO) a very civil message on ScienceApologist .... User:ScienceApologist has a civility restriction here: ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive13 - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAsking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts - 424k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ...... 6 Darwinek and breach of standard civility parole ... 12 Eupator; 13 User:Ehud Lesar; 14 FerryLodge, continued; 15 ScienceApologist/Martinphi ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive11 - 424k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ...WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist? This is more of a civility issue ... SA is not allowed to be incivil and then strike comments - the arbcom case ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement - 164k - Cached - Similar pages


 * User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 7 - Wikipedia, the free ...Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. ..... I am as civil as I possibly can be. --ScienceApologist 22:57, 25 April 2007(UTC) ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist/Archive_7 - 128k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ...People get banned for incivility around here. It seems to me that you've been ... A previous ArbCom case found that "ScienceApologist is uncivil" and "has ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive6 - 285k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Of course some of these hits are likely to be spurious, but applying a little bit of good old human pattern recognition skills suggests that Douglas Adams famous "SEP" field ("Somebody Else's Problem"; a sci-fi example of the Kitty Genovese tragedy) could be applied to suggest strongly that what is really happening here is a classic case of ignoring the "elephant in the room", because looking squarely at this particular elephant makes people sick. In the context of Jimbo's recent comment "these are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind", I would suggest that ignoring the elephant in the room is the root cause underlying the inexplicable failure to recognize the consequences of SA's long term effect on Wikipedia.


 * Certainly I have not yet rigorously proven the alternative hypothesis via an exhaustive statistical analysis, but I think the prima facie evidence (and a cursory look at the additional 807 811 818 hits leaves the null hypothesis greatly in need of some additional support.WNDL42 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)