| Revision as of 17:55, 1 December 2008 editThunderbird2 (talk | contribs)6,831 edits rv censorship by Fnagaton: it says clearly on the article page that further discussion should take place on the talk page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:35, 22 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchive}} | |||
| Moved stuff about 'Outside view' from main page. | Moved stuff about 'Outside view' from main page. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 56: | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| :What's a vote? The vote is only one indicator of consensus. Only a dozen (out of about seven million) editors voted. There never was consensus on FCL, not on the day it was first inserted, not on the day it was finally removed nor any time between. Greg was mistaken. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | :What's a vote? The vote is only one indicator of consensus. Only a dozen (out of about seven million) editors voted. There never was consensus on FCL, not on the day it was first inserted, not on the day it was finally removed nor any time between. Greg was mistaken. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I second Jimp's comment. ] ] 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ::I second Jimp's comment. ] ] 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Yet again, consensus is not only a vote but also good arguments. Since good strong counter arguments were not presented there was consensus was the change. ''']]''' 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | :Yet again, consensus is not only a vote but also good arguments. Since good strong counter arguments were not presented there was consensus was the change. ''']]''' 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 102: | Line 103: | ||
| :Let me say this: ''do not post substantial changes on any style-guide UNTIL you have consensus. | :Let me say this: ''do not post substantial changes on any style-guide UNTIL you have consensus. | ||
| :Part of the strategy of you and your cabal is to claim consensus, repeatedly, when there is substantial objection by more than one person on the talk page. Let this stop. | :Part of the strategy of you and your cabal is to claim consensus, repeatedly, when there is substantial objection by more than one person on the talk page. Let this stop. | ||
| :I'm not watchlisting this page, because the whole thing makes me vomit. ] ] 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | :I'm not watchlisting this page, because the whole thing makes me vomit. ] ] 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::There isn't substantial objection because, as Headbomb pointed out, when the opposing side stated something they did not provide substantive reasons and also when direct questions were made those questions went unanswered. Also as was shown by the village pump talk there was consensus for the change at the time it was made. Actually there was stated refusal to answer direct questions, therefore that is a refusal to properly discuss the issue. So don't keep on trying to claim the opposite about the consensus because it simply is not true. ''']]''' 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | ::There isn't substantial objection because, as Headbomb pointed out, when the opposing side stated something they did not provide substantive reasons and also when direct questions were made those questions went unanswered. Also as was shown by the village pump talk there was consensus for the change at the time it was made. Actually there was stated refusal to answer direct questions, therefore that is a refusal to properly discuss the issue. So don't keep on trying to claim the opposite about the consensus because it simply is not true. ''']]''' 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 109: | Line 110: | ||
| :To the extent that I have anything to say on this at all (and I was asked to comment here, presumably because over a month ago I attempted, and failed, to informally mediate the IEC prefix dispute at ]), I think both sides of the debate have been highly tendentious and are not really listening to each other or accepting that the other side has anything valid to say at all; neither have been quite ''disruptive'' per the definitions at ] (please keep in mind that labeling a WP editor "disruptive" is a blatant ]; it should not be done lightly); both have engaged in editwarring; and, the debate has not reached consensus and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Ergo, something akin to the version of the text as it was before the dispute (re-)erupted should remain in place until such time as consensus on the issue is actually reached. I remain neutral on the matter. I ''personally'' have no problem with KB/GB/etc. units, since I know how they apply differently to different media, I understand the argument for KiB/GiB/etc., recognize that those latter units are in fact prescribed by a standard, yet also know full well that that standard has been almost totally ignored. The real question of the debate is: Is the alleged disambiguatory power of the KiB-style units worth the cost of using units that will be unfamiliar to almost all WP readers? Questions like this have come up before in other aspects of WP, and the answer is not formulaic. In some cases, WP does use terms/acronyms/whatever that are more precise but less familiar to the average reader, and in other cases they have been eschewed. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and in ''this'' case, we have no consensus after at least 2 years (probably much longer; ''I'' first became aware of the recurrent IEC debate here about 2 years ago.) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | :To the extent that I have anything to say on this at all (and I was asked to comment here, presumably because over a month ago I attempted, and failed, to informally mediate the IEC prefix dispute at ]), I think both sides of the debate have been highly tendentious and are not really listening to each other or accepting that the other side has anything valid to say at all; neither have been quite ''disruptive'' per the definitions at ] (please keep in mind that labeling a WP editor "disruptive" is a blatant ]; it should not be done lightly); both have engaged in editwarring; and, the debate has not reached consensus and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Ergo, something akin to the version of the text as it was before the dispute (re-)erupted should remain in place until such time as consensus on the issue is actually reached. I remain neutral on the matter. I ''personally'' have no problem with KB/GB/etc. units, since I know how they apply differently to different media, I understand the argument for KiB/GiB/etc., recognize that those latter units are in fact prescribed by a standard, yet also know full well that that standard has been almost totally ignored. The real question of the debate is: Is the alleged disambiguatory power of the KiB-style units worth the cost of using units that will be unfamiliar to almost all WP readers? Questions like this have come up before in other aspects of WP, and the answer is not formulaic. In some cases, WP does use terms/acronyms/whatever that are more precise but less familiar to the average reader, and in other cases they have been eschewed. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and in ''this'' case, we have no consensus after at least 2 years (probably much longer; ''I'' first became aware of the recurrent IEC debate here about 2 years ago.) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == evidence of recent use of ridicule, threats and accusations of bad faith == | |||
| Why was this case closed? See for example | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| The following abuse, including a threat to me of a "permanent ban" was recently added by Greg_L to the MOSNUM discussion. ] (]) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * As is your (consistent) style, you (again) attempt to duck the issue Thunderbird2. And you try to bait Headbomb and set him up for another one of your ANIs. You hide behind procedural rhetoric about how you contest that there ever was a consensus to deprecate the IEC prefixes. That is a moot point, since Omegatron (a lead proponent of the IEC prefixes) himself admitted that “there was no consensus” to begin using the IEC prefixes in the first place. I’m calling your horseplay for what it is. You are simply hoping to come to WT:MOSNUM when Fnagaton, Headbomb, and I aren’t “looking” (or are ignoring you), get two or three like-minded editors to agree with you, and then revise MOSNUM to permit the IEC prefixes. Then you’d edit war over how there is no consensus to undo your move. Isn’t that right?<p><!-- | |||
| -->'''To any admin looking at this post:''' I have clear proof that Thunderbird has lost the right to be presumed to be operating here in good faith since it is a matter of record that he lied and deceived to get his way only about five months ago. He pretended to be a swing-vote moderate and said that to gain his support, he wanted some concessions in wording that watered down arguments against using the IEC prefixes. I gave him ''precisely'' what he asked for. But when it was clear that the revised wording would ''still'' ban the IEC prefixes, he finally “came out of the closet" ramped up his opposition to what was going on, and in the end, voted *against* the wording after I watered it down per his wishes. He manipulates others and isn’t up front in his dealings. He wastes our time. He is not due an “assumption of good faith” because he has proven his SOP is to '''''not''''' operate in good faith. I utterly reject the notion that any rule in a decent and civilized society requires that civilized men in a party have to endlessly put up with a brute who crashes a party, disrupts all the proceedings, and refuses to behave himself. It’s high time to kick his ass out onto the street curb.<p><!-- | |||
| -->I’ll have none of your B.S. anymore Thunderbird2. Your objective here is clear. There will no longer be inconsistent use of binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages (where some articles say “256 megabytes (MB)” to denote 1024<sup>2</sup> bytes, and ''still other articles'' say “256 mebibytes (MiB)” to denote the exact same value. We '''''will''''' be consistent here. Further, you '''''will not''''' be permitted to get your way by using procedural maneuvers. What you clearly want—I’d bet a hundred bucks—<u>is to weasel in a MOSNUM guideline that “permits” their use and then you’ll start changing article upon article until we’ve once again got a bastard mess here on Misplaced Pages.</u> This is the same bullshit ] tried until he got banned '''for life'''. No one else in the real world is using the IEC prefixes (no computer manufacturer to their customer base, no computer magazine to a general-interest readership, and no general encyclopedia). If you got what you want, Misplaced Pages would be all alone on this one as far as real-world practice goes. For God’s sake, everyone agreed—even you—that our readership ]. And yet, here you are, agitating for using them anyway. So…<p><!-- | |||
| -->I’m going to do an end run around you Thunderbird2 and put all my chips in. Call my bet or get out of the game. '''No'''. We will not argue about whether there was or was not a consensus at various points in the past. We '''will''' determine what the consensus would be ''today'' if a vote were held on what you ultimately want. '''No'''. We will not merely “<u>allow</u>” the IEC prefixes so you can slyly go about your edits and Misplaced Pages becomes a bastard mix of of inconsistent usage. '''No'''. There will be no further debate. There has been a '''''<u>record</u> amount of discussion''''' on this issue already (fifteen archives dedicated exclusively to this one God damned issue). We’ll simply have a new vote. We’ll put a notice on a number of computer-related articles, on WP:MOS, WT:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and WT:MOSNUM. The vote will be either that we go A) ''Completely'' to IEC prefixes for any binary value, or B) use the conventional terminology everyone else on this ] uses. If the vote is for “A” then we set a bot loose and change all binary values on Misplaced Pages to kibibyte (KiB), mebibyte (MiB), and gibibyte (GiB).<p><!-- | |||
| -->You know what I think your response to the above will be? You will A) argue on procedural grounds over how our current policy never had a proper consensus. Or B) respond with an RfC or ANI over my mistreatment of you (bring it on: I’m just sick of your continual disruption of Misplaced Pages; I, at least, ''try'' to deal with others honorably and play by the rules). Or C) you will fall silent and duck the inconvenient fact that if a vote was conducted today on standardizing on the consistent and exclusive use of the IEC prefixes for binary values, the motion <p><!-- | |||
| -->Now stop ducking and bobbing and weaving and playing your horseshit games. Do you want to have a new vote to see what the true consensus is <u>'''today'''</u>(?), or do you just want to keep on being the most annoying Wikipedian who still hasn’t been banned for life? Signed, with pleasure: <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>:</small> “Why yes. I’m fine. I won’t try to hurt myself or others. I’m feeling much better now. Thank you.” <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see that none of you are ready for any kind of constructive debate. Greg_L in particular has reverted to the ] that have served him so well in the past. At the risk of repeating myself: I believe that MOSNUM should only include statements for which there is a strong consensus. None of you have been able to offer any evidence that there is consensus for the present wording, apart from a discussion that was dominated by bullying and ridicule. You cannot achieve consensus by such methods, only the appearance of such. ] (]) 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::* T-bird, if you’re going to behave in a way that is continually disruptive, you will be treated commensurately. Stop acting like you didn’t read and understand any of the preceding, including my above post. Your arguments are like a stuck record.<p>Your allegation that there is no consensus for the present wording is patently absurd because it was the product of a 7:3 vote in favor. As also stated above, the leading proponent of the policy it had replaced ''admitted'' that our adoption of the IEC prefixes had been done without a consensus, so your argument that the previous policy should be restored is <u>totally bankrupt</u>. Your allegation that we haven’t produced evidence of a consensus is <u>patently absurd</u> because a copy of the ballot table is copied above. Your argument that the consensus is invalid because it was the product of “bullying” is <u>utterly fallacious</u>. The arguments of the pro-SI prefix crowd simply didn’t hold any water and crumbled. The only way ''you'' saw fit to sneak around the inconvenient truth that your camp’s arguments weren’t substantive was to simply <u>refuse to answer direct questions from Headbomb</u> and be evasive. That continued refusal ''still'' has Headbomb recovering from a near fit. You have no one to blame but yourself for failing to advance arguments to persuade others to your point of view.<p>Your clear desire to go back to the past wording, which “allowed” the use of the IEC prefixes is <u>beyond unrealistic</u>; no one on Misplaced Pages but you wants to go back to where we had a bastard mix of the IEC prefixes on some articles and conventional prefixes in others.<p>The only ''possible'' policy decision is whether to have project-wide standardization '''''entirely''''' on the IEC prefixes, or to continue to simply follow what everyone else on this ] does. You know as well as I do that such a proposal doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell of passing; ergo, your continual popping up here on WT:MOSNUM with your periodic attempts to sneak in—when Headbomb, Fnagaton, and I aren’t looking—a guideline that would “allow” the IEC prefixes so you can slyly go about your business of converting articles until Misplaced Pages once again becomes a bastard mix of binary prefix conventions. We tried that for three years and became a <u>laughing stock</u>; people throughout the world just dismissed those who were responsible for our use of the IEC prefixes as being some sort of wide-eyed futurists who go to Star Trek conventions wearing Spock ears.<p>There has been a record amount of discussion on this single topic (<u>16 “Binary” archives</u>!), and Headbomb’s efforts at mediating the dispute and arrive at a consensus should serve as a paradigm of how other mediators should operate. It’s all over now. Give it up.<p>'''To any administrator reading this post:''' Please read my above, 19:47, 30 October 2008 post. Thunderbird2 is not due a presumption of good faith because he has demonstrated that he consistently operates in an exceedingly frustrating, underhanded manner. “Assumption of good faith” ≠ “suspension of common sense.”<p>'''To Thunderbird2:''' Choose your next post carefully and consider yourself warned. Your behavior as of late bears all the hallmarks of a tendentious, single-purpose editor whose benefits to Misplaced Pages are wildly offset by the disruption you cause. One remedy for this, which is distinctly possible, is a permanent ban. Please ].<p><span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:35, 22 May 2022
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Moved stuff about 'Outside view' from main page.
This section is supposed to be for 'Outside views'. Looking at the contributions of SWTPC6800 and Fnagaton, they appear to me to be 'Inside' and the table posted by Greg shows them as two of nine involved editors. I could not find a definition of 'Outside' so I could be wrong. Lightmouse (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- SWTPC6800 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) -- As I said in my statement "I am not sure where my response goes in this RFC. Please move them if this is not the correct section." Deleted because Fnagaton and SWTPC6800 views were originally posted as 'Outside views' and are now relocated as 'Inside views'. Lightmouse (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Fnagaton and SWTPC6800 are doing their best to shoehorn their "round" desires into a square hole. The complaint is by Omegatron and is against me (Greg L). SWTPC6800 and Fnagaton are involved editors on Talk:MOSNUM, and are therefore intimately familiar with the goings-on there. They know all the details of the IEC prefix dispute and are not targets of Omegatron's complaint; so it makes sense to me that their offerings can most reasonably be considered as "Outside views" as far as trying to get anything accomplished here. Like SWTPC6800 said, move their comments if necessary. Alternatively, we can change the section headings to better fit the circumstances. Greg L (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Deleted because Fnagaton and SWTPC6800 views were originally posted as 'Outside views' and are now relocated as 'Inside views'. Lightmouse (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Diffs
Sorry about the lack of actual diffs. Greg's made over 1000 edits to the talk page, more than any other editor, ever, and it's a profound amount of work to dig through the history and copy and paste each URL. I asked for technical help with this last night, but there doesn't seem to be a solution besides hours of manual labor. — Omegatron (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Response by Thunderbird2 to Headbomb's comments
Headbomb makes a number of statements that I wish to respond to. In each of the following sub-sections, the header is Headbomb's statement and the text is my response. I have signed each of the 3 responses separately.
Omegatron started an edit war by reverting FCL ....
The edit war started on 17 April . Omegatron’s first involvement, placing a disputed tag on the disputed section, was on 11 May. In what sense was it started by Omegatron? Omegatron later removed the disputed text once it had become clear there was no consensus for it, more than two weeks after the first attempt to do so.Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Omegatron was in not way edit warring. He placed a disputed tag on a section which was disputed. He removed the section which never had consensus. He was well justified in what he did. He didn't do this is what I'd call an edit-warrior-like fashion. He was consistently reverted, often by a sock. Once reverted he did not immediately counter-revert. JIMp talk·cont 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Omegatron did edit war, especially after mentioning mediation and then continuing to revert war, exactly as described in the counter evidence presented. Fnagaton 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
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
At least 5 different editors attempted to do just that, and one of them was Omegatron. The others were
Jimp was accused of vandalism for doing so. The editors removing the disputed tag were
- a sock
At one point, Thunderbird2 attempted to clarify which parts of the text were disputed . This is Greg_L's colourful response.Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The proper response should have been to have deleted the section but, yes, if it had had to be there, it should have had the tag. The proponents of FCL might have truely believed that they had consensus but surely weren't so blind that they didn't notice the raging dispute about the text. It was clear however that Greg & Fnagaton weren't going to allow the tag ... or at least not without something in return. An interesting turn in the case of the disputed tag was when several editor resqested that one of the FCL examples include a conversion. A clear majority of participants at the time were in favour of this, moreover, I believe we had the stronger argument. Greg, however, attempted to make the inclusion of the conversion conditional on there being no disputed tag on his section. JIMp talk·cont 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Time and time again the users who tried to put a disputed tag there were challenged to provide substantive reasons for doing so. Every time they failed to provide substantive reasons the disputed tag was removed because, as Headbomb points out, unsubstantiated objections can be largely rejected. Fnagaton 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg L right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote …)
The vote referred to here (which ended 7:5, not 8:3) was an attempt by Greg_L to gain consensus after the text was placed for the first time on MOSNUM.Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- the archive shows 8 votes in favour, but one of these is a sock. See also this discussion
- What's a vote? The vote is only one indicator of consensus. Only a dozen (out of about seven million) editors voted. There never was consensus on FCL, not on the day it was first inserted, not on the day it was finally removed nor any time between. Greg was mistaken. JIMp talk·cont 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I second Jimp's comment. TONY (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yet again, consensus is not only a vote but also good arguments. Since good strong counter arguments were not presented there was consensus was the change. Fnagaton 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Third-party comments
- This subsection is for comments on this aspect of the RfC, from parties uninvolved in the dispute.
- I was asked to comment here, so here goes: Looks like a routine editwar to me. Nothing unusual for WP, and especially nothing unusual for WP:MOS and its subpages. Just hash it out like normal instead of getting all RFC about it folks? For what it is worth, I agree strongly with the gist of the disputed material that I've seen so far (i.e., the point of technical writing is communication, not geekery for geekery's sake), although I think that the passage (in the versions I looked at) is unnecessarily long and redundant; the examples need to be compressed. The entire point could probably fit in 2 normal-length sentences. (PS: Yes, I am aware that I am often tumid myself. This isn't ironic, but rather a strong indication that the passage is too wordy. If I find it wordy, then it must be really, really wordy!) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- All of the responses by Thunderbird2, Jimp and Tony above misrepresent the actual truth and evidence presented elsewhere in this RfC. Omegatron did edit war by removing the entire section multiple times and as the village pump talks noted there was consensus for the MOSNUM change at the time. Fnagaton 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Response by Thunderbird2 to Greg_L's accusation of disruption
On 14 June, Greg_L left a message on my talk page accusing me of disruption. I have been advised to respond to it here, so I have reproduced it below, beneath my signature.
Greg_L refers to some recent edits of mine that he deems inappropriate and “against consensus”. Here are the edits, complete with their edit summaries:
- restore latest unambiguous version per Talk
- restore latest unambiguous version
- restore latest unambiguous per MOSNUM: "For bits and bytes, specify whether the binary or decimal meaning of the prefixes kilo (k, K), mega (M) ...")
- restore latest unambiguous version per WP:MOSNUM
- restore latest unambiguous version
- rv incorrect information: 2^30 B <> 10^9 B
- correct error
All of these edits are attempts to improve the respective articles, either by removing ambiguity or by correcting an error. Other editors may agree or disagree with me that they are improvements, but all are made in good faith and none are disruptive. What I do consider disruptive is to have threats of "disciplinary action" placed on my talk page. What is needed here is not more disruption, but less of it. The question is how that can be achieved, given the currently hostile atmosphere at WT:MOSNUM, and the rejection of two recent attempts (1st attempt; 2nd attempt) to discuss the prefix issue on that page. I wish I knew the answer to that question.Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Thunderbird2 your changes are dispruptive. Please stop posting your version of events all over the place because your interpretation is not consistent with the evidence presented.Fnagaton 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Warning about editing against consensus
Thunderbird2: These disruptive edits on computer-related articles, , , , , , , and constitute violations of Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing and Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.
Refusal to 'get the point' says the following that you should read:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
Misplaced Pages is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing:
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by a consensus.
Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Greg L (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what gives Greg the idea that he can go about issuing these warnings. I got one from him in May. I don't believe Thunderbird2's intention was ever to be disruptive. I don't have a great deal of interest in the binary prefix debate but the use of IEC prefixes is one means of removing ambiguity. The removal of ambiguity is a good thing. It seems that this was Thunderbird's intention. Perhaps these prefixes are not the most appropriate way of removing the ambiguity on WP. What's needed is a bit of level-headed discussion to agree on what is. "Warnings" don't help. JIMp talk·cont 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Um, this is a bit galling to be told by you that someone else is editing disruptively. You are someone who—against all notions of consensus-gathering—plastered your proposal on the MOSNUM page itself in raw state. Then, when it was clearly disputed by others on the talk page, it was removed. But no, you and your collaborators reverted repeatedly.
- Let me say this: do not post substantial changes on any style-guide UNTIL you have consensus.
- Part of the strategy of you and your cabal is to claim consensus, repeatedly, when there is substantial objection by more than one person on the talk page. Let this stop.
- I'm not watchlisting this page, because the whole thing makes me vomit. TONY (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't substantial objection because, as Headbomb pointed out, when the opposing side stated something they did not provide substantive reasons and also when direct questions were made those questions went unanswered. Also as was shown by the village pump talk there was consensus for the change at the time it was made. Actually there was stated refusal to answer direct questions, therefore that is a refusal to properly discuss the issue. So don't keep on trying to claim the opposite about the consensus because it simply is not true. Fnagaton 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- At it again, I see. Greg, there's no excuse for repeatedly referring to MOSNUM as policy. You know perfectly well that it is only a guideline. It's right at the top of the page. Please desist. In case there's any lingering confusion over what the difference is, see Misplaced Pages:Policies_and_guidelines. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- To the extent that I have anything to say on this at all (and I was asked to comment here, presumably because over a month ago I attempted, and failed, to informally mediate the IEC prefix dispute at WT:MOSNUM), I think both sides of the debate have been highly tendentious and are not really listening to each other or accepting that the other side has anything valid to say at all; neither have been quite disruptive per the definitions at WP:DE (please keep in mind that labeling a WP editor "disruptive" is a blatant accusation of bad faith; it should not be done lightly); both have engaged in editwarring; and, the debate has not reached consensus and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Ergo, something akin to the version of the text as it was before the dispute (re-)erupted should remain in place until such time as consensus on the issue is actually reached. I remain neutral on the matter. I personally have no problem with KB/GB/etc. units, since I know how they apply differently to different media, I understand the argument for KiB/GiB/etc., recognize that those latter units are in fact prescribed by a standard, yet also know full well that that standard has been almost totally ignored. The real question of the debate is: Is the alleged disambiguatory power of the KiB-style units worth the cost of using units that will be unfamiliar to almost all WP readers? Questions like this have come up before in other aspects of WP, and the answer is not formulaic. In some cases, WP does use terms/acronyms/whatever that are more precise but less familiar to the average reader, and in other cases they have been eschewed. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and in this case, we have no consensus after at least 2 years (probably much longer; I first became aware of the recurrent IEC debate here about 2 years ago.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)