Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC).

• Greg L (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

It is desired that User:Greg L:

1. acknowledge that his behavior over the last few months is contrary to Wikipedia's goals and policies.
2. adopt a cooperative, civil tone in discussions, ceasing entirely the personal attacks, ridicule, hostility, and goading.
3. stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground, stop claiming that "consensus" is determined by majority rule, stop proposing votes, and make an honest effort to cooperate with others in forming a guideline that all can be happy with.
4. no longer edit the Manual of Style directly. (If consensus has actually been reached, it will be done by others.)

If the above fail, it is desired that Greg be banned from editing or discussing the Manual of Style, and making edits related to the dispute. (He appears to have some potential for productive editing in other venues.)

Description

User:Greg L is persistently belligerent to other editors, contributing to an atmosphere of hostility on Manual of Style talk pages, driving away a number of contributors. He proudly disregards the opinions of others, attempting to create policy through brute force and votes instead of making an honest effort to understand and address the viewpoints of others.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Incivility and ridicule of others

1. "You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be." Greg L (my talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2. "Who is this anonymous chicken shit? ... How old are you? Sixteen? Grow up. ... you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a crap about this."[1] 21:15, 24 March 2008
3. "Two options (because “Are you smarter than a fifth grader” wasn’t suitable for a third)"00:03, 11 April 2008
4. "“Oh God! The people who go to Star Trek conventions wearing Spock ears have hijacked Wikipedia.” That’s not intended as a personal attack whatsoever. It’s the simple truth; an observation intended to help yank some authors here back to reality!"00:29, 11 April 2008
5. "Stunts like that is just horse crap we can deal with. Even as an admin (a power Omegatron has apparently abused since he first got it), he can’t make history files disappear. This is the opposition’s leader? Would you rather be up against a formidable one? He rammed through the current MOSNUM policy without a proper consensus and the years of endless bickering that have gone on ever since is all a result of his initial goof (and intransigence afterwards)." Archive B7 21:44, 11 April 2008
6. "That’s pure B.S. and these proponents of using them have to get real." Greg L (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
7. "a ridiculous extremist movement"21:42, 7 May 2008
8. "Your above post is purely specious garbage. You’re now running around to articles and mucking them up with stupid edits ... Stop acting like a stubborn child, go with the flow of the level-headed majority here that has spoken clearly, and grow up!"Clarification of disputed edit 17:39, 11 May 2008
9. "P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid?" Greg L (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
10. "No. I’m not willing to be unnecessarily dragged down a path of mental and verbal gymnastics for something that is so simple a sixth grader could settle it." 22:45, 17 May 2008
11. "Jeh: As to your charge that I canvassed votes and this improperly influenced the outcome, that’s pure garbage and I addressed the crap here." 07:29, 18 May 2008
12. "Even if you don orange robes and set fire to yourself over this, your argument will continue to be soundly rejected as false; the clear consensus (those editors with honest and reasoned arguments) is that the wise thing to do is reject and ignore such nonsense." 17:45, 20 May 2008
13. "makes Wikipedia appear as if it has been hijacked by foolish, idealistic young people who’ve read way too many sci-fi books." 17:45, 20 May 2008
14. "we’re still battling a minority of holdouts that buzz around like agitated killer bees and make it nearly impossible to go about with life. Cease and desist." 17:55, 20 May 2008
15. "makes Wikipedia look like it’s been hijacked by a bunch of space cadets." 18:38, 20 May 2008
16. "I think that if you really feel that way, you need some more maturing. ‘Ridicule of conduct’, though you may not like it, is not a prohibited personal attack." Greg L (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
17. "What is wrong with you?!?" Greg L (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
18. "I pretty much guarantee you that twenty years from now, you’re going to look back at this time of your life and think: “Gaad, I was such a dill weed back then.”" 17:06, 21 May 2008
19. "Give it up for God’s sake." Greg L (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
20. "I’m sorry, I can’t debate something with someone who doesn’t have a remote connection to reality. ... You can don orange robes, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself alight over how you don’t think FCL had or has consensus. I don’t care." 08:03, 28 May 2008
21. "What’s going on with you Jimp? Have you been up too late? ... I’m quite done trying to have a rational discussion with you; I can’t handle writings that exhibit military-strength detachment from reality and wholesale disregard of simple facts; I’m going back to Earth now." 08:59, 28 May 2008
22. "I think I’ve just had my belly full of a voiciferous minority of editors making Wikipedia look brain damanged by running off using weird units of measure ... And you guys still support this train wreck of a policy! Unbelievable. ... just pardon me all over the place but I’ve seen that kind of language out of you before and it never went anywhere. You just happen to be the only editor who gave such a piss-poor vote on the purple box." 15:25, 28 May 2008
23. "smeared lipstick on their pig and tried to pass it off as a prom date" 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
24. 'That’s “ridicule” of certain arguments, not a “personal attack”. No whining.'19:57, 31 May 2008
25. "No. I reject such an attitude as arrogant and utter nonsense." 20:53, 31 May 2008
26. "getting Woodstone to agree to such a point is like trying to compress a balloon between cupped palms: push a bulge in here and one or two others are bound to pop out elsewhere. Someone take the hammer away from me; banging my head over and over with the thing is starting to feel good!" 21:14, 31 May 2008
27. "I bound into the brush like a hunting dog to flush ‘em out, and Fnagaton swings around his ol’ 12-gauge." 21:39, 31 May 2008
28. "I really do wish you’d stop waiving your hands in the air, playing a logical game of “you can’t catch me”, and just admitted that you really intend on fully messing up Wikipedia" Greg L (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
29. "I see trying to make it ambiguous so editors can do whatever the hell they want is just a continuation of the same old shit that has gone on for three years now"23:35, 1 June 2008
30. "Thunderbird. I have a high sensitivity threshhold for illogical statements and utter nonsense. ... Why do your arguments rely so much on breathtaking displays of brass?" 22:37, 1 June 2008
31. "What I dish out isn’t much more than what you’d see from any college-level debate class; I think you’re a big enough boy to handle it."02:08, 4 June 2008
32. etc.

Disregard for consensus

1. Repeatedly re-adding text to the Manual of Style despite the resistance of several other editors, and removing {{disputed}} tags placed on the disputed section.[2][3][4]
2. Repeatedly revert warring text that others disagree with, to the point of violating 3RR[5][6][7]
3. Creating a vote and
   canvassing only to like-minded users. "I gathered the names of the “support” votes from the original vote on Archive 97 and posted a message to that subset of the list who hadn’t yet weighed in on the current vote."[8][9]
4. Mocking the rules against vote stacking: "I never let myself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules."[10]
5. "I am truly not interested in wasting my time in the name of “finding common ground”" [11]
6. "I won’t rest until I’ve done my part to help put an end to this hogwash." [12]
7. "I can’t see any evidence that trying to accommodate any of the “oppose” elements’ concerns accomplishes anything." [13]
8. "All this “let’s find common ground” business of Thunderbird2’s, with its gamed questions that have had the examples stripped completely the hell out of them so they are ambiguous beyond all reason, is a colossal waste of time. Get to the point!" [14]
9. "When you begin an argument with totally fallacious charges, I tune out the rest of your arguments; they aren't worthy of the time to refute them. Goodbye." Greg L (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
10. "My objective is to get it turned into a policy as fast as the process will allow."[15]
11. "Fnagaton: T-bird’s vote should be ignored as far as trying to get the measure of the proper consensus here." [16]
12. "Its a damn shame that Wikipedia’s dispute-resolution process and policy-setting process allows itself to be hijacked by a vocal, extreme minorities"
    Purplebox Vote Comments [17]
13. "What is this “significant minority” business? Only on Wikipedia does one ever find such a ridiculous amount of mollycoddling to a vocal minority. One can change the U.S. Constitution, convict the U.S. President in a Senate impeachment trial, and find a party culpable to the tune of millions of dollars in a civil trial with vote balances like this." [18]
14. Declaring a vote to end without notice [19] and then disregarding subseqent votes. [20][21]
15. etc.

Failure to assume good faith

1. "Thunderbird, there is no point trying to game the system by pretending to be on the fence" [22]
2. "He should also know better than to solicit an editor who isn’t involved on Talk:MOSNUM just because he knows the editor is predisposed to playing follow-the-leader in his bash-fests" 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
3. "you simply solicited Aluvus for an "I agree with Omegatron" validation on your ANI because of his (very) recent, wholesale support in your most recent effort to bash Fnagaton." 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
4. "In an apparent effort to “prove” how impossible the task of disambiguating without the IEC prefixes, Thunderbird a month or so ago, went to the “Mac Pro” article to disambiguate it and dicked it all up." 18:54, 8 June 2008
5. etc.

Evidence that editors stay away from MOSNUM due to disruptive behaviour

1. User:LeadSongDog [23]
2. User:Lightmouse Greenbox
3. User:Tony1 This MOSNUM mess [24]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Civility
   • "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others."
   • "Incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and, as such, are to be avoided."
2. Wikipedia:Consensus
   • "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons."
   • "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority."
3. Wikipedia is not a democracy
   • "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."
4. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
   • "By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, voting may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume good faith. A vote on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious."
   • "Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case."
   • "Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing."
   • "Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution."
5. Wikipedia:Canvassing
   • 'In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.'
6. Assume good faith
   • 'Making accusations of bad faith can be
     personal attack
     if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.'

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. 'The nutshell description of
   WP:CIVIL is: "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally." ... Ridiculing arguments is not civil and is the crux of why this issue has still not been resolved.' (User:Aluvus) 23:02, 23 March 2008
2. 'Your berating those people seems to have done little to change their minds. If anything, it has simply made them oppose you more strongly, just like every time someone else has tried the same tactic before. I have tried to encourage you to actually engage people in discussion, or at the very least to direct your rhetoric at me instead of other participants, so that this might finally be settled.' (User:Aluvus) 05:34, 24 March 2008
3. 'After that, it’s important to find out precisely what people’s concerns and objectives are (it’s not just me and Jimp, because our wishes are likely to conflict with those of others), as succinctly as possible – like SMcCandlish was trying to do before his domestic strife. Perhaps if we approach him again now (and promise to him that we will be civil to each other) he may be prepared to give it another try.' (User:Thunderbird2) User_talk:Greg_L#fifth_draft 13:51, 15 May 2008
4. 'Greg, Headbomb is trying to help here. Feel free to criticise what he or anyone else writes, but kindly refrain from making
   personal attacks in the future. You may wish to read through your last post and consider rephrasing it.' (User:Thunderbird2) 17:57, 20 May 2008
5. 'Consensus means making a good faith effort to understand where each side is coming from, and fairly representing everyone's concerns in the finished product. Aggressively belittling others and summarily dismissing their opinions as "invalid" or "stupid" demonstrates that you have no interest in actually working towards consensus.' (User:Omegatron) 23:59, 20 May 2008
6. 'To Greg: I was referring to: the clear consensus (those editors with honest and reasoned arguments) is that the wise thing to do is reject and ignore such nonsense. The clear implication was that those editors who disagree with you are dishonest. That is a disparaging remark which does nothing to help here, and I was hoping you might withdraw it. A number of editors, including myself and Headbomb, are trying to achieve a version of Section 4 that has consensus - something that is a pre-requisite for including it in MOSNUM. If you want to help yourself, try a little constructive criticism instead of your usual colourful accusations of "shameless ploy" and "horse crap". But all of this is just wasted energy. So - please tone down your commentary, avoid unhelpful accusations and let's concentrate on the issues. ' (User:Thunderbird2) [Third attempt] 18:32, 21 May 2008
7. In response to "T-bird’s vote should be ignored as far as trying to get the measure of the proper consensus here", Thunderbird2 wrote "Headbomb has worked hard on this. Please show some respect for his efforts, concentrate on the issues, and try to move towards consensus".21:17 2 June

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. (Response to 'The nutshell description of WP:CIVIL is ...' by Aluvus) "Aluvus, I am quite disgusted with all this arguing with you about "how” people make their points here ... Now please take your parting shot below and make it a good one as I will no longer be responding directly to you; it is clearly unproductive and fruitless. Goodbye."01:49, 24 March 2008
2. (Response to 'Greg, Headbomb is trying to help here ...' by Thunderbird2) "I figured you’d pipe up with such a horse-crap accusation after I wrote that."18:38, 20 May 2008
3. Many of the instances listed in #Evidence occurred after the attempts at resolving the dispute
4. (response to "Headbomb has worked hard on this. Please show some respect for his efforts, concentrate on the issues, and try to move towards consensus") "So just pardon me all over the place if I’m a little skeptical about ever being able to have a reasonable expectation of what any given bargain or compromise with certain editors here will result in. Maybe it’s just me, but I view “outcomes” like this as evidence that the arguments of the pro-IEC prefix crowd are weak." 00:35, 4 June 2008
5. (continues to argue that ridicule is an acceptable form of debate) "I try to focus my ridicule so as to point out the logical holes in others’ specious or fallacious arguments." 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
6. (thinly veiled accusation of lying) "Now, once again, you used (*ahem*)… non-truth to buttress one of you arguments." 20:47, 9 June 2008

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. — Omegatron (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. — Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3. — Aluvus (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4. — Woodstone (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Lightmouse (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Definitely: I took MOSNUM off my watchlist because the regulars have been elbowed out by this aggressive new push, to the detriment of the style-guide. Tony (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

• I’ve just spent hours answering Omegatron’s charges at here at Administrators’ noticeboard. Now I find myself chasing Omegatron to yet another forum today where he has put together a expansive list of examples of my outrageous behavior. I see he has dropped wording that I was being “uncivil” and now offers up charges that I am impeeding progress. In fact, the complaint here is not that I am impeeding progress, but that I and others are making progress towards a MOSNUM guideline that would undo what Omegatron is a major proponent of.

  I do not have the time to respond to all that an administrator like Omegatron is capable of resorting to. I am not an administrator myself and am at a disadvantage here. I have done good work on Wikipedia, being the principle shepherd of Wikipedia’s Kilogram and Thermodynamic temperature articles. If you will click on the above Administrators’ noticeboard link you will find that many, many other editors, most of whom have been active the goings-on on Talk:MOSNUM, and at least one of whom is an uninvolved editor believe this is nothing more than a content dispute and is not one over my behavior; an argument I and the others regard as a red herring. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over Follow current literature, which would deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes). Omegatron is attacking an editor who has been the major force in reversing this. This is abuse by an administrator who is gaming the system. I will now have to go back to each of the editors who tried to help me over the last few hours on Administrators’ noticeboard, and ask them to weigh in here too in my defense. No, I will not jump through all these hoops. This is abuse by administrator and I ask that it be stopped at once. All the editors who came to my defense the first time shouldn’t have to chase after Omegatron to here. Please see their responses here. Thank you. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to copy my primary response from Administrators’ noticeboard to here. It is as follows:

• From Greg L: For the benefit of the administrators who have to quickly sort this out, Let’s take a look at what the real issue is. This dispute with the use of the IEC prefixes has raged for years on Talk:MOSNUM. The fact that there are now
  twelve “Binary” archives devoted to this one topic, shows that its use on Wikipedia has likely proven to be the most contentious, most disputed, least successful guideline/policy on all of Wikipedia. A clear majority of editors want it changed but a highly active minority has blocked change from the beginning. Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus to use the IEC prefixes when he lead the effort in getting the policy posted to MOSNUM but he went ahead and did so anyway. It has had its extreme detractors and extreme proponents and this brings about passions. I’m relatively new to this dispute but have studied the past history and am now up-to-speed on what has transpired in the past.

  As for charges of “vote stacking”, many, many editors have voted on various incarnations of a policy that would discontinue the use of the IEC prefixes. In each vote, a clear majority of editors wanted to discontinue the practice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), most of these editors aren’t nearly as passionate about the IEC prefixes; they just weigh in with a vote comment along the lines of “makes sense to me and will solve a long-standing problem that has been a source of friction for years” and then go off to happier editing waters where there is less bickering. After those votes had been conducted, the opponents of change (proponents to continue using the IEC prefixes) moved the discussion to hard-to-find backwater venues and took the issue completely off the radar screens of all these moderate, less impassioned editors. It magically seemed that they also knew how to work in a highly coordinated fashion when doing so. Then, when a new vote comes up, the only people voting on it were a very small subset of the original editors who had voted on the original proposals. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these moderate-minded editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I did this out in the open using postings on talk pages and did not use e-mails whatsoever. First I was told this was “canvassing”. When it became clear that I had only contacted moderate editors who had lost track of the issue, I was told it was “vote stacking.” I responded that the proponents of the continued use the IEC prefixes could contact “no-vote”-minded editors if they liked. They didn’t take me up on the offer and the obvious reason is that all the editors who were ever going to continue to vote “oppose” to the new guidelines were the ones who were active on the discussion and were working in consort; the tactic of moving the discussion to remote backwaters had achieved the intended effect of taking it off radar screens. And my letting these other editors know about that their original votes had been nullified amounted to playing right into a trap. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to throw me into jail for doing so.

  As for incivility, my read on policy is that I am not permitted to do “personal attacks”, which I have no interest in remotely getting close to. So it comes down to whether my “incivility” has risen to the level of being terribly rude and disruptive. I’ve come across other pages where editors where sanctioned for calling other editors “stupid” or suggesting that certain editors should leave editing to others who “are more intelligent.” Again, I don’t think I’ve written anything that rises to this level, and if I did, I apologize. At the same time, I have no difficulty calling childish behavior childish. For instance, to choose just one of the above quoted “charges” against me, I feel that Thunderbird2 had gone to an article (Mac Pro) and purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes just to show how “impossible” the task was. He even wrote on the Talk:MOSNUM pages that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” I checked, and there wasn’t a “number of different articles” that he tried it on, just the “Mac Pro” article. I’ve written numerous times that what he did was a simple case of passive resistance to prove a point. It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. I am a believer in “assuming good faith.” But when certain editors have clearly demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior, such as pledging to support a proposal with a “support” vote if I do exactly as they request with some modified wording (removal of some text and addition of some other), and then they reciprocate with an “oppose” vote, I don’t think any policy on Wikipedia requires that editors have to suspend common sense.

  Finally, as to the charge that my “intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution”, that is utter and complete nonsense. The only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because I first got involved back in March with my Third, hybrid proposal: Binary prefixes in computer memory and storage. That developed into Fourth draft in April, which a number of outside, uninvolved editors declared as having achieved consensus and was posted to MOSNUM as Follow current literature. That new guideline calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. Thunderbird doesn’t like it. Both he and Omegatron allege that it didn’t have a consensus for being posted. Of course, both can’t be considered as unbiased as to whether or not a consensus was truly achieved. It is notable that uninvolved editors, one of whom Francis Schonken, who is active in dispute resolution and policy issues on Wikipedia stated as follows: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” And that was before yet another major vote was conducted, which was 8:3 for adoption to MOSNUM, with no more “oppose” votes in over two days

  . No, in fact, the only reason Omegatron has come to Administrators’ noticeboard is because a consensus has been building in a direction he does not want it to go. Below is the vote, as of this writing on an alternative policy that would still call for no longer using the IEC prefixes:

The consensus has been building (again) to not use the IEC prefixes. The wording Thunderbird2 had been advocating would have made it less clear that the IEC prefixes should not be used. We tried voting on a version with some key wording stripped out. After a day of thinking about it, Thunderbird2 voted with a reduced vote after concluding that the present wording still didn’t allow the use of the IEC prefixes. Indeed, that’s what the proponents are trying to do here; we solve nothing by allowing policies to be posted that have ambiguous wording that allows a handful of editors to continue to use the prefixes. We’ll have a “B24” archive before this bickering finally ends. Note too that since this weekend, I have had very little involvement here this week (my contributions). Note my limited activity Monday and Tuesday, except to motion that a policy was close enough to consensus that it should be adopted into a larger policy proposal for unitized voting. I did so at 00:13, 2 June 2008. Omegatron comes here to complain.

I think the main problem here is that “Follow current literature” (the policy that is currently posted to MOSNUM) has not been voted on by a wide enough spectrum of editors. I suggested on Talk:MOSNUM that a big, BIG vote be conducted where wide spectrum of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer and technical articles be invited to comment on whether FCL is something they support. I think it is highly revealing that NONE of the editors who oppose “Follow current literature” and who support the continued use of the IEC prefixes like the idea of soliciting wider input. I suggest we put an end to the bickering here (and this outrageous attempt at exploitation of Administrators’ noticeboard) and solve this issue once and for all. The question is simple: all other general-interest encyclopedias use the conventional binary prefixes like “megabyte”. Why? Because all the computer manufacturers in their literature, and owners manuals, and packaging, and advertising to end users do so. As a consequence, all general-interest computer magazines use the same terminology that the computer manufacturers are using. As a consequence, The word “mebibyte” (symbol MiB) is not widely recognized by the typical Wikipedia reader. The issue we would put to a much wider spectrum of editors here on Wikipedia would be this: Is “Follow current literature”, and its call to put Wikipedia in line with real-world usage, a good thing? I further submit that this wider-input voting and discussion be monitored by a panel of three mediators, who would rule whether or not a general consensus had been achieved, and that their ruling by binding. I think this is a better solution for Wikipedia, rather than allow Omegatron to stifle the voice of the lead proponent of a move to reverse something he was largely responsible for three years ago; something that has had twelve archives devoted exclusively to bickering over, something that makes Wikipedia all alone as the only general-interest publication (either print or on-line) to use terminology that only confuses readers.

“[Greg L’s] intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.” OMG Omegatron! That is such a flagrant attempt to paint yourself as

Mahatma Gandhi, and paint me as someone who suddenly interjected himself into the thoroughly peaceable goings-on of some editors who were r-e-a-l-l-y close to achieving a consensus on this dispute. Since—particularly in this forum—I must be “civil” in my response to this, I guess I will just say that the picture you painted isn’t at all true (in my opinion). Greg L (talk

) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Some of Omegatron’s “evidence” against me is either preposterously mild, or can too easily be taken out of context. For instance, this one: "You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be." That one was to an editor who complained about not being able to follow the complex discussion threads on a talk page. That editor complained about not being able to decipher what the issue was really about, voted on the issue anyway, and then admonished those who had been participating in all the interwoven discussion threads for not keeping the threads sufficiently organized for him (or her) to join in late to it all and quickly understand it. So when I was referring to “you should read more”, I was not suggesting the editor was generally an un-read, ignorant person; I was saying he (or she) can’t expect to arrive late to a discussion and vote on something they didn’t even bother to read or even profess to understand. It could be that Omegatron did not understand this context when he chose it for inclusion here. Maybe he did.

  Yet another quote that seems scandalous when taken out of context is, "Who is this anonymous chicken shit? ... How old are you? Sixteen? Grow up. ... you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a crap about this." That was directed to an I.P. user (later understood to be the banned-for-life NotSarenne), who came to my personal talk page to anonymously accuse me of being biased and having a hidden agenda. For the record, NotSarenne continues to vandalize and harass editors on Talk:MOSNUM and has had numerous range-blocks put on his IPs (217.87…). All to no avail as he readily circumvents them. We just put up with him. Editors such as this may be dealt with differently from editors who don't purposely try to be disruptive. I have no doubt that Omegatron understood this perfectly well when he chose that little jewel for inclusion here. He is perfectly familiar with “217.87…”. HIs choosing to include this anyway not only inconveniences me, but he is exploiting the fact that bureaucrats and other administrators are too time constrained to pay attention to all these details. IMO, he’s playing us all for fools.

  Much of the rest—writings in response to specious and fallacious arguments posted on Talk:MOSNUM—seems pretty tame to me. I’m referring to quotes like "P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid?", "Give it up for God’s sake." "No. I reject such an attitude as arrogant and utter nonsense." I reject the notion that Wikipedia’ sense of “civility” has grown so thin-skinned that this is prohibited thought that can not be expressed. Has Wikipedia gotten to the point where plain-speak is no longer allowed? Where a computerized voice from the PA system intones “That is twenty demerit points Sgt. John Spartan.” No, Omegatron knows that if you throw a humongous list of accusations up against the wall, certainly some of it must stick—particularly when he exploits little nuggets he knows full well will be taken completely out of context. I had a business partner who tried this same stunt (throwing up a huge pile of paperwork) in binding arbitration. The arbiter saw right through it all and ruled entirely in my and other business partner’s favor. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fnagaton 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -- The evidence is missing proper diffs and has very selective quoting.
3. As well as everything below this also written by Mr. L. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• PPS: It is so easy for someone, who wants to silence a lead adversary, to spend untold hours upon hours dredging up quotes out of context and splashing them about. I was struck this morning by these little jewels on Talk:MOSNUM from Tony (talk) :

1. “I don't think I give a shit about CGPM, NIST and the NPL.” and…
2. “If anyone persists in using them in MOSNUM, I'll revert immediately.”

And that’s just what’s there this morning after the page has been stripped down after a massive archiving. I know for a fact that I could come up with a more persuasive list than what Omegatron produced, and which is equally as expansive if I were to devote the same time as Omegatron did for me. Why the double standard? Because Tony and Omegatron both see (“saw”; the binary prefix battle is over now) eye to eye on the binary prefix issue. So why don’t I make more hay about this and demonstrate how “Tony is just as much a ‘poopy head’ as Greg L is and how it’s a double standard”??? Because,

1. The IEC prefix battle is over, and
2. it’s obvious on the face of it that most editors here see this issue for what it is: a dispute over content and an effort by Omegatron to silence an influential proponent of a policy to reverse something Omegatron did, and
3. this whole complaint by Omegatron is nothing more than a bug splat on my windshield of life.

All: I just had another editor, Felipec, a software engineer from Mexico, complain on my talk page as follows: “[Omegatron] is selectively using them [Wikipedia guidelines] to achieve his goals while ignoring the things that work against him. I'm not sure what is the proper thing to do here but I think I can help to demonstrate that Omegatron needs disciplinary actions.” I wrote back to Felipec that he should probably share his concerns at User talk:Seicer#Abuse by Omegatron. Thanks to my friends and the other editors here, weighing in on this issue. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.: In Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute, above, Thunderbird2 wrote his #6 point. This is another example of T-bird being (*ahem*)… “disingenuous and selective” in what he chooses to quote from my writings. The following, is my entire comment (∆ here) in-context after T-bird had been arguing with Fnagaton here on Talk:MOSNUM and was continuing to defend his having edited against consensus.

This was a case where the issue of the IEC prefixes had been (supposedly) settled, the policy posted to MOSNUM, and Thunderbird conveniently ignored the policy, continued to edit against consensus, and reverted another editor’s work. Thunderbird was roundly admonished by me, Fnagaton, SWTPC6800, Warren, and Francis Schonken for this. In fact, Francis, in the face of this disruption, transcluded

• Don't be a dick
• Wikipedia:Use common sense
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
• Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?

Thunderbird’s response? He came here, cited one snippet out of context, and further, had the gal to cite that snippet as “Evidence of [my] failing to resolve the dispute”. In fact, the truth was entirely the opposite: Thunderbird was continuing to create conflict by ignoring the consensus view. His coming here and quoting me out of context in order to make it look like the reverse is a violation of

I am not angry about this. Not in the least. In fact, I was quite happy that T-bird did so; for obvious reasons. Thank you T-bird. Cheers. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely. Thunderbird2 is misrepresentating the whole situation and he is ignoring consensus. It is obvious Thunderbird2 needs to be punished for posting false evidence and trying to subvert the RfC process. Fnagaton 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Inside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

View by SWTPC6800

The clash between Omegatron and Greg L is a content dispute. The Binary Prefix section of the Manual of Style (data and numbers) had been stable since August 2007 with "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." This was the result of months of talk page discussion and was not the version Omegatron favored. Without further discussion, Omegatron has made changes to the Manual of Style to restore his preferred version, "There is no consensus on whether to use the historical prefixes or the newer IEC standard in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." [25] [26][27]

The IEC proponents felt that SI units were essential and the ambiguity must be removed without regard to readability. In March, Greg started campaigning to diminish the use of the IEC prefixes because most readers found them to be techno-babble and no one outside of Wikipedia used them. Greg provided powerful and convincing arguments that were filibustered by the IEC supporters. Greg was forceful in his proposal but would make numerous changes to try to placate his opponents. If Greg thought that someone's argument is specious, he might tell them so with a colorful expression. Some of Greg comments might have been a bit strong but some of the opponent's arguments were very specious.

This went on for three months with the IEC proponents not willing to concede that Wikipedia should follow other encyclopedias, the technical press, the general press and the computer industry that ignore the IEC prefixes. It looked like Greg's or Headbomb's proposal would be adopted, both diminished the use of the IEC prefixes. Omegatron had strangely been on the sidelines. All of a sudden, Omegatron attacks Greg's "uncivil" behavior. Omegatron has been deeply involved in the IEC binary prefix dispute for 3 years. These charges might carry more weight if they were brought by someone not so closely identified with this content dispute.

The dispute about "Follow the outside world" versus "Ambiguity must be eliminated" is not new. In the first binary prefix talk archive has the following: User:Nohat suggested The Wikipedia should only represent common usage. Omegatron dismissed Nohat's suggestion with a very "Greg L" style response, "Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. - Omegatron 12:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)"

SWTPC6800 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) -- I have been watching the binary unit dispute since April 2007. I have closely followed the discussion over the last few months and have made comments here and there. I am not sure where my response goes in this RFC. Please move them if this is not the correct section.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorsing SWTPC6800's summary, not Headbomb's additions to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorsing SWTPC6800's summary, not Headbomb's additions to it.Fnagaton 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I refactored the "selective quoting" comment out of the first section because some agree with it but not the rest of my summary. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Selective quoting in evidence

The "Evidence of disputed behavior" above is extremely biased with selective quoting. Some of the "barbs" are directed in jest at Greg's supporters or even at himself. On other occasions Greg's comments are the mildest of the debate. If you look at the context around the selective quote: P-u-h-l-e-e-ze! Who are you trying to kid?[28] You will find Greg's opponents making disruptive statements like "rabid editors such as Fnagaton" and "Fnagaton should have been blocked with Sarenne."

I would guess half of the claims have no merit at all. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree with that last part. Those reviewing the dispute should strongly consider looking at each individual piece of "evidence" in the context it was made. Some claims have merit, many don't. Things are strongly biased. Headbomb (ταλκ • κοντριβς) 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorsing SWTPC6800's summary, not Headbomb's additions to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorsing SWTPC6800's summary, not Headbomb's additions to it.Fnagaton 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
   
   

↪ (iTunes) ♬♩Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends ♬♩ Greg L (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig

Greg's "lipstick on a pig" comment was directed at the IEC, not a Wikipedia editor. Greg sometimes works with real live pigs in his day job, I am not sure if he has to apply lipstick on them.

"What matters is that in the context of computer memory, the IEEE approved the SI-style prefixes for use with bytes and bits to mean base-2 values and that it did so well before the IEC smeared lipstick on their pig and tried to pass it off as a prom date (sorry no takes for that date so far in the professional publishing world). Greg L (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) "[29]

SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Another example of how the "complaint diffs" for this RfC are quoted out of context to paint a biased, slanted and untrue picture against Greg. As Badger Drink just posted below, this RfC needs to be used to examine the bad behaviour of Omegatron instead.Fnagaton 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Binary Prefix Overview

Computer memory size is usually multiples of 2. For example: 256. 512, 1024, or 2048. These are known as binary multiples. In the 1950s, computer engineers and programmers began referring to 1024 as 1K or 1k. Based on the kilo being 1000.

At the same time, there were computers such as the IBM 1401 that had decimal sized memory. For example: 4000, 8000 or 16000 characters. These were referred to as 4k, 8k or 16k.

There was minor confusion about how big was 4k of memory. Soon all computers used binary addressed memory. Storage media, magnetic tape and disk, would have its capacity measured in decimal, with an exact number.

In the 1980s, computer users would see the memory measured in binary and the storage measured in decimal or binary. There was some confusion about the capacity of a 360 KB or 720 KB floppy (KB = kilobyte = 1024 bytes). The misnaming of 1440 KB floppy as the 1.44 MB floppy caused more confusion. Hard disks were often measured with decimal units. (540 MB or 2 GB)

In 1999, several standards bodies tried to fix this problem by creating a new set of units. The kilobyte (kB) was always to be 1000 bytes, and the new kibibyte (KiB) would be 1024 bytes. These are referred to as the IEC binary prefixes. There was a decimal megabyte (MB) and a binary mibibyte (MiB). (And so on, and so on.)

Many standards bodies adopted the new units but the publishing industry and computer industry have ignored them. In 2005, a group of Wikipedia editors proposed that the new units become a part of the Manual of Style. They were incorporated into the MoS and there has been continuous arguments about them ever since. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fnagaton 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Fnagaton

• In a nutshell we have Omegatron and a minority of others trying to advocate the virtually unused and unfamiliar IEC prefixes which goes against several Wikipedia policies about using notable content in articles with a neutral point of view. It is also about the
  undue weight for IEC prefixes advocated by some. Omegatron claims there wasn't consensus when actually the fact is there was consensus for the change and Omegatron personally disagrees with the result of the debate. The burden of proof for consensus has been demonstrated several times already and several uninvolved editors have stepped in and said so over the past few months. Omegatron's personal disagreement with the consensus is not a good enough reason to keep on reverting something that was placed with consensus. One only has to look at the repeated edit warring from Omegatron (removal of content with edit comments incorrectly claiming there isn't consensus) and uncivil comments (for example trying to belittle Greg by calling him fanatical) which is probably why Greg sees Omegatron as abusing his position as administrator. Omegatron had one simple solution which was to stop reverting content but Omegatron did not stop doing that. Omegatron's actions have escalated the situation to where it has reached now. Omegatron should know better than to try to game the system by continuously reverting the same bit of text, even if Omegatron keeps on doing it every few days it is still tendentious editing. I would also say to that Greg does listen to opposing arguments, however the opposing arguments (for IEC use) have been refuted many times and are very weak but still they are repeated ad infinitum. Omegatron has consistently failed to respond to valid counter arguments to his weak arguments and has instead used revert warring. Thus the blame for failure to resolve the dispute rests Omegatron. This RfC is completely without merit. I also second the motion that a big mediated vote needs to be taken regarding the IEC prefix issue. Fnagaton
  06:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to add a point about process and why the RfC should be closed. The RfC main page says "A user who is the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template...". Omegatron has not done this step but instead Omegatron did remember to canvass two other editors who are likely to agree with him [30] [31]. It looks like Omegatron is trying to unfairly game the system. I see this RfC as one that has been brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. Fnagaton 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out Greg did specifically agree that mediation or ArbCom would be a good avenue to explore. If nothing else this disproves the accusation of Omegatron that Greg "refuses to resolve a dispute" because Greg agreeing to mediation is of course the correct and proper thing to do when faced with someone like Omegatron who refuses to engage in meaningful debate about a topic. This agreement to mediation was posted way back on May 15th. It is worth noting that up to this point the consensus and status quo is that the text (that Omegatrong is reverting) should remain on the guideline page. If an editor then refused to agree to mediation and continued to then edit war their point of view, by reverting content for example, this would show that editor to be at fault. Of course what happened next is that Omegatron did continue to edit war his point of view and revert content multiple times after Greg agrees to mediation/ArbCom, as shown by the following diffs. [32] [33] [34]. Obviously Omegatron is in the wrong here and needs someone to tell him that he should wait for mediation and that Omegatron should stop trying to edit war his point of view that is contrary to consensus. I think at the very least Omegatron should have his admin rights suspended until he agrees not to be disruptive to the MOSNUM guideline page. Fnagaton 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out at this point that Thunderbird2 who has added his support has specifically refused to resolve the dispute by refusing point blank to answer questions and instead has been misrepresenting the facts as they appear on the talk page in an attempt to avoid answering a question put directly to him. So the RfC complaint is also against Thunderbird2's conduct for refusing to resolve the dispute. As for Omegatron, he has not made efforts to resolve the dispute either because of edit edit warring as shown above. I hope whoever looks at this takes the bad conduct of Omegatron and Thunderbird2 into account. As I see it Greg has tried, more than enough times, to resolve the dispute so no blame can be attached to him on that aspect. The "Desired outcome" part should definitely be applied to Omegatron. Fnagaton 07:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The acutal page was created at 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) and the creator (Omegatron) failed to notify Greg on his talk page until 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (nearly 48 hours after the page was created) but did see fit to request votes from two other editors one hour after the page was created at 01:48, 4 June 2008 [35] [36]. Fnagaton 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since the "dispute" over IEC prefixes has been resolved (the guideline text gained consensus and is now the new guideline) I don't think this RfC has any need to be open anymore. Fnagaton 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that Thunderbird2 has been shopping around for people [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] to add their comments here [43] [44] (etc...) but most of these people have an axe to grind against Greg because those editors disagree with the changes made to the guideline but as Headbomb has already pointed out those editors did not provide substantive arguments. The issue of course being that to engage in meaningful debate and to reach consensus involves making good strong arguments instead of just repeating a personal point of view without good strong arguments to support that point of view. So if any of those editors now proceed to endorse this RfC their input should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Fnagaton 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. ——MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Pretty much. This RFC would be better used to examine the behavior of Omegatron, really. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I agree with Fnagaton’s latest post, above. Canvassing editors who wanted to continue to use the IEC prefixes produces skewed results and isn’t probative. Two of the editors T-bird canvassed better illustrate a reasonable-minded viewpoint now that the fur has settled: Lightmouse has a more realistic view (“Walk away” here) as does Quilbert (“Let’s rather work on possible solutions rather than revenge” here). Greg L (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Orderinchaos 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

View by Headbomb

Like SWTPC6800, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate section for my comments. Move them to the correct section as appropriate.

I feel that both sides are mostly correct in their claims. Starting with Greg L, he was indeed right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote, and of the opposition vote, only 1 was substantiated from Jimp). Omegatron started an edit war by reverting FCL, that went on between Greg L and Omegatron (I also reverted things some of the time to show that Greg was not the only one thinking that there was indeed consensus for the upload.) I consider this to be disruptive editing from Omegatron's part (some say abuse of power, but I don't understand what Omegatron did that a regular couldn't), altough I do not pretend to know the reasons of his editing. As time progressed, "against" votes increased and FCL lost the consensus it had, and a newer proposal made by myself covered the intent of FCL section in a way that eventually did gain consensus. Proper responsed should've been to leave the FCL section on the MOSNUM page, and put a disputed tag on it, mentionning that section was under debate. Greg's frustration with some editors was very understandable, as they seldom gave reasons for the things they said, and the reasons given were often weak.

However, with that said, the way Greg L handled things was often completely inappropriate, ranging from arguing from bad faith, personal attacks, insults, refusing to hear what the other side said, labeling of people who disagreed with him as "radical extremists". The reasoning invoked was that "[i]n discussions here on Wikipedia talk pages, criticism of and ridicule of someone’s positions are fair game". And all this with very little regards to whether or not the target of his attacks was a legitimate source of frustration. Not that this would've been the right attitude to have were the target of his attacks a legitimate source of frustration in the first place.

IMO both sides should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

View of Tony1

I must say that my view of Greg has shifted over the past few months since the fracas over the rewriting of several sections at MOSNUM—from feeling he was rather aggressively pursuing his bids to improve the page, to a realisation that he's making a valuable contribution to reforming a key page in the project, and expresses himself in colourful and larger-than-life language. He should probably tone it down, especially for newcomers who don't know him, but I think the regulars have by and large come to read his comments in the right context, as being in good faith and well-meaning underneath a ruffled surface. Quickly reading through the cited comments at the top made me realise that some of them are humorous, taken in that vein; I also see that in another place, with other people, they might give offence.

My view is that people should chill out and take his discourse in context at MOSNUM. He's a valuable member of our community, and this page has gone on quite long enough. I suggest that it be closed. Tony (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should now be closed. I believe this RfC was created by Omegatron as a bad faith attempt to try to remove an editors who by force of strong arguments refuted Omegatron's arguments. Since Omegatron has now quit Wikipedia, a good thing since we do not need baised disruptive admins, there is now no basis for needing this page to be kept open. Fnagaton 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

View by Quilbert

I’m not going to indulge in the heat of the debate but will just add some remarks that might or might not be helpful.

• Everyone who hasn’t already should calm down. I agree that this is less a debate about Greg’s conduct but about IEC prefixes.
• That debate is almost unthinkable to form a consensus. On dewiki, there was an official poll that was in preparation for seven months before it could finally start. I reckon that the discussion devoured hundreds if not thousands of user hours to that point, and it was equally far from consensus as before. So, polling is a good method to end such endless discussions as a last resort. Now, after the poll, some people (including me) are dissatisfied but accept the outcome. Finally, we could start over with more productive work.
• The outcome was to use SI prefixes, but always in the binary sense. We use templates like de:Vorlage:MB10 now. Unfortunately, I came too late to the polling site for introducing an option that would use SI prefixes, but always in the decimal sense, maybe using tooltips as this: 11 MB. That might be considered here as I believe it could possibly satisfy a majority.
• I know Greg L, and I know he is a very productive editor (though with a slightly hot-tempered way of putting things through). I am really sure that he only fights for the better of Wikipedia and should not be accused for his temper in this way.
• To Greg: Note that only a few people were engaged in the discussion (the barrier is extreme in such a huge discussion). The majority you assume may not be as vast as you think (compare the German 108:52 poll). You could consider making your attacks less personal. You don’t need polemics to get your message across, and most people don’t deserve to be attacked in such a way. Even if you think they are stupid, why should they be directly confronted with that fact?

I hope these comments can be a little of help and that I didn’t tap on anyone’s toe. --Quilbert (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Jaysweet

I have almost nothing to say, but it is relevant that

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.