Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

I have moved an unsigned POV remark to the discussion section, as it is not part of my request for mediation. Further, the names of 4 editors:

• Swtpc6800
• MJCdetroit
• Dfmclean
• Pyrotec

have been added to my original list. I don't particularly see the benefit of including these editors in the mediation discussion, but do not object either. To keep things balanced, though, the invitation should in that case be further extended to those editors involved in the 11-0 vote against deprecation. These are:

1. SamBC
2. Greg L
3. Jeh
4. Tom94022
5. LeadSongDog
6. Dpbsmith
7. Seraphimblade
8. Christoph
9. Woodstone
10. Omegatron
11. Thunderbird2

Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it back again. It is not POV, it is fact and the edit belongs in that section because your failure to accept consensus and your failure to actually answer questions and your failure to take part in reasoned debate is part of "what has been going on" so it is part of the mediation request. Do not move it into discussion because I do not intend for it to belong there.Fnagaton 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb: I don't think it is wise to mess with the format of this page. For the last time, please leave it alone. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're messing with the format of the page, not Headbomb. If you did not want the inconvieniant truth about your failure to make reasonable debate and failure to answer questions brought up then you should not have created this mediation page in the first place. Fnagaton 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's you who messed up with it Thunderbird. That section is reserved for mediators. You are not a mediator, therefore you don't comment in that section. If you can't follow simple instructions such as "Don't comment here if you're not a mediator", then I really don't see why anyone should take anythign you do seriously. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, either location is fine. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. If we allow that one, then it'll lead to a bunch of people posting things in the mediator section that should be posted elsewhere. Thunderbird's comments pertains to the request, its not a response to mediators, and so it should either stated at the top (where it belongs), or in the discussion. Discussions are structured this way so things can be followed easily. This mediation request is as unnecessary as it gets, but if Thunderbird doesn't back down from his wikilawyering, then expect the longest mediation request you'll ever see. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment was automatically generated (and placed in Mediator Notes) when I filled in the form, so I presume that is where the mediator will expect to find it. Apart from Headbomb messing around with the format (and me attempting to restore the original), the only people who have edited that section are User:Steve Crossin and User:Greg_L. Nevertheless, if PhilKnight says it's OK in either place, that's good enough for me, so I'll leave it alone. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from project page

Discussion

<!-- You can discuss you problem with the mediator and other users under this heading, or at the involved article's talk page -->

Fragaton's assertion that this is an "unsupported disagreement" is typical of the misrepresentation on this topic. A quick review of the record will show that two months prior to the Jun 7^th deprecation, 11 editors voted that IEC units should not be deprecated. Most of these editors were not consulted in a subsequent vote that is now asserted to be a "consensus." I suggest the arbitrator compare the two "votes," June 7^th and 1.1.3 IEC units should be banned except for direct, verbatim quotes, and articles discussing the units themselves. FWIW, in Wiki space these two votes were physically close to each on one talk page, but somehow wound up in two different archives. The arbitrator may wish to look at the original talk page and not the somewhat misrepresentative archives. It is typical of the lack of discourse that Fragaton continuously asserts that the editors against deprecation are merely expressing "I don't like it" opinions when in fact each reason cited by an editor is dismissed by Fragaton because he doesn't like it, using phrases such as "a statement of fact that is not a good reason." or other such expressions of his opinion. In particular I suggest the arbitrator look at 7.2 arguments against the deprecation of IEC prefixes for an example of Fragaton's style of discourse, I believe that in each case the unsigned counterpoints were all anonymously added by Fragaton. In each case, it seems to me, that Fragaton is merely stating that he doesn't like the argument. I for one believe the IEC Binary units should not be deprecated because they are unambiguous, supported by a reliable organization and succinct. As such they are a reasonable approach to disambiguation of the ambiguous prefixes used in parts of the computer industry. Furthermore, depreciation amounts to censorship for no good reason other than some editors do not seem to like IEC Binary Prefixes Tom94022 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Fragaton's assertion that this is an "unsupported disagreement" is typical of the misrepresentation on this topic." - This statement is actually obvious misrepresentation because as the talk archive shows there have been no attempts by Tom94022 to provide substantive arguments. By substantive it is "arguments which have not already been refuted by earlier discussions" because repeating refuted points of view does not suddenly make a weak argument a better argument. As is the case of Tom94022's comment which I will highlight below. Tom94022, it has already been shown that votes on their own do not make consensus, instead strong arguments and debate make consensus. Since no strong arguments were made relating to the vote you cite then the results of the vote are weaker than the very strong arguments as presented in the talk archive. It is also disingenuous to cherry pick the results of one old vote on a narrow issue and claim it supports your point of view about what consensus is. I am not "is merely stating that he doesn't like the argument" because I give reasons and examples to support my argument as shown by the talk page and archives. The position "I for one believe the IEC Binary units should not be deprecated because they are unambiguous, supported by a reliable organization and succinct." has already been refuted by the much stronger arguments presented on the talk page, for example a short summary some of those arguments is:

1) Other encyclopedias (the main-stream popular ones) do not use IEC prefixes, instead if they do need to disambiguate then they use the numbers of bytes instead.

• • An interesting partial truth but not particularly relevant to Wikipedia's decision process, particularly since conventional media seems oblivious to the ambiguity. Furthermore, arguably the traditional media's failure to make the distinction has enabled frivolous law suits. Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Both of those statements are supposition without proof, as such it is not a strong argument.Fnagaton 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2) The IEC prefixes are unfamiliar to the majority of readers thus their use confuses the reader and are not a good choice for disambiguation

• • A statement of opinion, partially factual, but not particularly relevant to Wikipedia's decision process, particularly given the advocates approval of exponentiation, that is, the majority of readers are just as likely to be unfamiliar with 2²⁰ as GiB. Following this opinion to its logical conclusion, Wikipedia could only contain terms of an eighth grader's vocabulary. Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not a statement of opinion, rather it is the result of months of debate which you have not been involved in. Confusion of readers is important to Wikipedia which is why we have WP:OR and WP:V. Fnagaton 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • It is a statement of opinion of some editors; there are no factual bases for "confusion" or "not a good choice". IMO, all the editors who voted to not deprecate IEC Binary Prefixes would disagree with parts of this statement. It is also false to say that I was not involved in the debate. Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • No, it is a valid conclusion based on the evidence, based on months of discussion that you were not a part of and based on the considered opinion of many editors. So it is relevant to Wikipedia's decision process. Those editors you mention did not provided any valid reasons for their position related to this topic. It is correct to say you were not involved in the debate because as shown by your edit history you did not make any valid contribution to the outcome of the consensus for the current guideline text. Proof of this is easy to show: The start of the process for the current guideline text was with Headbomb's edit 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC). Looking through the archive on that talk page you have not made any comments after the date 20 May 2008. Therefore it is correct to say you were not involved in the debate. Fnagaton 07:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

3) The real world very rarely uses IEC prefixes and because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and because Wikipedia reports the world how it is (not how IEC supporters want it to be) applying WP:UNDUE means that the rarely used IEC prefixes are not given as much weight in articles as the commonly used prefixes with easily understood disambiguation such as stating the exact the number of bytes.

• • I my real world, the ambiguity has caused real problems that could have been avoided thru the use of IEC Binary Prefixes. WP:UNDUE does not authorize or support the censorship advocated by Fnagaton. Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Personal opinion without evidence is not a strong argument. Also WP:UNDUE does apply here and I note you have not provided any valid substantive reasons to refute the argument I have already presented. As for using the word "censorship" it is hyperbole because when reading WP:UNDUE it is clear that minority points of points are not to be included in general articles, for example the point of view that the Earth is flat is not to be included everywhere. The same applies to the extremely rare IEC prefixes. WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." which is a very important point to remember because by looking at the sources we cite in articles it is obvious IEC prefixes are very rarely used and for most articles this means IEC prefixes are not used. This means of course that even if there are many editors who turn up and want the flat Earth theory added to lots of articles then we have to wait for the flat Earth to appear in the majoirity of reliable sources first before adding it to articles. The same applies to IEC prefixes. Fnagaton 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • There is ample evidence of the frivolous lawsuits. IEC is a reliable source. There is nothing in WP:UNDUE that requires a weighting of one reliable source over another or a group or other sources. Your Flat Earth analogy is a classic strawman argument, there are no reliable sources for a Flat Earth theory which further exposes the weakness of your argument Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Mentioning frivolous lawsuits does not demonstrate that IEC prefixes have to be used on Wikipedia because you have not provided any valid argument to connect "frivolous lawsuits" with "must use IEC prefixes on Wikipedia". As for the "IEC is a reliable source" it completely ignores the fact that the IEC does not specifically deal with computer memory and it ignores the fact that the JEDEC is the standards organisation that specifically deals with computuer memory. Therefore the JEDEC trumps what the IEC claims. Again you do not write anything that refutes what I posted about WP:UNDUE. The flat Earth analogy is not a straw man because as I wrote above it goes to demonstrate why WP:UNDUE applies to this situation. You claimed "there are no reliable sources for a Flat Earth theory" but it is easy to prove that statement wrong because there are reliable sources (see later) that document the flat Earth theory and you need to read the guideline on reliable sources because I think you don't understand what are actually reliable sources in the context of Wikipedia terminology. If you look at the article on Flat Earth it has 74 references in the current version I looked at and these are reliable sources that follow the WP:RS guideline. "Reliable source" does not only mean "sources that show the truth as defined by Tom94022". Since your "no reliable sources" claim is proven to be false then also your "classic strawman" claim is also proven to be false. So like the flat Earth theory WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies to the IEC prefixes. This is because if you actually read the guideline it says "that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field." and since the IEC prefix "standard" is in contrast to the mainstream view then the parts of WP:UNDUE I have quoted previously on this subject apply. Therefore what you have posted is still wrong and what you have posted has not refuted anything I've posted. Fnagaton 07:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the "..were all anonymously added by..." accusation that is completely false since it is in my edit history that I added comments while logged in so there is nothing "anonymous" about it at all.

• • As posted the author is not visible. It is true that you can figure it out from the history, but, IMO the majority of readers would or could not, so to those folks who Fnagaton seems to care about, his posting was anonymous.Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    No you posted "were all anonymously added by" which has different meaning to "the author is not visible" so I take your attempt to change your meaning as your admission that what you wrote in the first place is wrong.Fnagaton 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for admitting you anonymously added the material, I used anonymous in its simple dictionary definition which is "1  : not named or identified <an anonymous author>." Your objection is typical of your attempt to define language to suit your purpose. Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I did not admit anything of the sort, the fact that you are now misrepresenting what I have written shows you are wrong. Do not repeat such misrepresentation in the future otherwise I will have to assume you are doing so deliberately and in doing so you intend your misrepresentation to be a persoanl attack. Fnagaton 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The post above uses an ad hominem logical fallacy and does not tackle the actual substance on my arguments.Fnagaton 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • one ad hominem deserves another :-) Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, the problem with your argument is that you argue it from your personal point of view without providing evidnece and that is why your arguments are much weaker. When I present an argument I cite existing Wikipedia policy (like WP:UNDUE) and provide evidence. That is why my arguments are much stronger. Fnagaton 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Actually I find your arguments quite week and always expressed from your personal point of view and frequently without providing meaningful evidence. You do like to say that your arguments are strong, but saying so doesn't make it so. By my count your arguments may have persuaded one of 10 or 11 editors to change his/her mind. You certainly have not persuaded me or T2 or several other editors. This is strong evidence of the weakness of your arguments. Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't matter what you personally think, what matters is what you can actually show and what you can demonstrate. What you actually show is how your arguments are weak and how your arguments have been refuted. It doesn't matter that you or TB2 cannot be persuaded since as demonstrated by the talk history archive you have not provided any substantive arguments relating to the current guideline. Also TB2's "arguments" have been refuted because TB2 refused to answer questions and since he refuses to answer questions then "not being able to persuade him" (as you put it) is just another indication that he is unwilling to debate properly in the first place. Some people stick to their position regardless of the arguments made before them, like yourself and TB2. Other editors when faced with better arguments that refute their position do accept that to be the case and instead of sticking to their position they withdraw from the debate. Now then, assuming you mean the vote I think you mean then most of those editors have not contributed to the recent debate of the new guideline and in fact some of those editors have stopped editing completely. They have withdrawn from the debate. So then it is presumptuous of you to try to make that claim without any kind of reliable evidence. Also if you check back through the archives I've been very active since the beginning in getting Omegatron's troublesome version of the guideline changed to something that better fits Wikipedia. The fact is more established editors have recently been joining on the MOSNUM talk page and they also read the arguments and they have also expressed their opinion that the deprecation stays. Just as it is presumptuous of you to try claim I've only persduaded one editor it would also be presumptuous of me to claim those editors were persuaded by my arguments, however it is good enough for me that they read the arguments and broadly agree with my point of view on the subject and of course broadly disagree with TB2's point of view. It is also very good that someone who personally likes IEC prefixes also says of my arguments that they make sense. The positive opinion of someone is worth much more than someone who is refusing to accept consensus and who refuses to take part in the debate. So I don't expect to change your mind or TB2's mind because you will both just stick to your position regardless. Fnagaton 08:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tom94022, you wrote above that “I for one believe the IEC Binary units should not be deprecated because they are unambiguous, supported by a reliable organization and succinct.” Well, so too do a number of editors, including Thunderbird2. But that’s beside the point here and doesn’t matter in the least. We are no longer debating the virtues of which prefix to use in our articles. The only issue at hand is whether or not sufficient debate had transpired to allow all participants to share their views, debate the issues, register their opinion in fact-finding polls, and vote on the final wording of the new guideline.

  The current debate is now a matter of record. It started on Archive B8 on 18 March 2008 and continued without a break until Archive B13 when the new guideline was uploaded on about 6 June. That was nearly three straight months of continuous debate.

  Well, one might ask, “was that debate fair and complete enough to be able to discern a general consensus?” Well, take note of the magnificent job of trying to find common ground and understand each other here on Archive B9. I submit that there have been very few other guidelines or policies on Wikipedia where greater effort has been devoted to arriving at a good, proper consensus. Twelve editors stuck through all that effort to the bitter end and registered their votes. The entire process could serve as the paradigm for how consensus is arrived at on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you weren’t among those that I could see as your last post on this issue was on 21:42, 27 April 2008. So you knew about the issue, but chose for one reason or another to no longer participate and let the other editors hammer out what to do. And what was the result of all that effort you barely participated in? THIS 7:3 vote. Was it unanimous? No. Does any Wikipedia “consensus” have to be unanimous? No, and they never did. All that it required is that in the final analysis, each editors’ views were expressed and considered when the final judgment came down. Thunderbird2’s problem is that he never would directly address our questions; he ducked them, which is clearly his style but does little to pursuade others. That was his choice. So there was a consensus. It’s just not one you agree with.

  Now you might argue that your opinion is rather new (again) to this issue so that should tip the balance in some way on the 7:3 vote. Uhm… no. It doesn’t work that way. There are plenty of other editors who voted on Follow current literature (or “FCL”, a precursor to the current guideline) who would also support what eventually replaced it. We can’t start heading down that path.

  This issue is only about Thunderbird’s failure to get the point and refusal to accept the consensus view. Somewhere, he seems to have confused “won’t go along with the council’s decision around the campfire” with “the definition of a Wikipedia ‘consensus’ and respecting them”. I really do hope that he figures it out, because no rule of conduct in a decent and civilized society requires that anyone should have to put up with so much disruption from him while trying to pursue what should be an enjoyable hobby. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I am arguing that consensus was not properly achieved on Jun 6^th because the clearly expressed opinions of 6 or 7 editors, myself included, were not considered by the group that implemented the changes. When T2 raised the issue of should we revisit the decision, you above and Fnagaton, over and over again assert, that the arguments made then were non-existent; I believe they were made and have merely attempted to summarize the many arguments in favor of IEC Binary Prefixes. Fnagaton at least admits there were arguments made, he just likes to call them weak :-). Bottom line, IMO, u as editor should never had proposed deprecating IEC Binary Prefixes given the 11 to 0 vote against such deprecation until you had assured that the vast majority of the editors who voted no had been persuaded to change their vote. By my count, one editor may have been persuaded. BTW, 7-3 would not generally qualify as consensus, that is, "general agreement" and with the clearly expressed opinion of the not considered gang of six or seven taken into account, I really think consensus was not achieved and therefore is it proper to revisit this part of the rewrite of the article Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tom94022: You wrote above “I am arguing that consensus was not properly achieved on Jun 6^th because the clearly expressed opinions of 6 or 7 editors, myself included, were not considered by the group that implemented the changes.” I find it simultaneously easy to debate you (because your arguments are utterly fallacious) and difficult (because no one should really have to waste their time responding to this sort of logic).

  Indeed, your opinions and those of “6 or 7” other editors were not considered. How can we? You didn’t participate whatsoever in the process for most of the three months we worked on it. The issue of the IEC prefixes was active from 18 March 2008 until 7 June 2008, when the new guidelines were uploaded to MOSNUM. Of those 81 days, you participated for only the first 40 days. For the last 41 days, you had no involvement whatsoever, including every spec of the voting—including the primary vote on the prefixes. You didn’t even stick with it long enough to participate in the earlier vote on “Follow Current Literature”.

  We’re not your mommy and can’t be expected to roust you out of bed so you can participate in any of this. Indeed, only 11 editors managed to weigh in for the main vote on FCL (with three “OMG” votes after-the-fact after two entire days where no one bothered to vote) and only ten voted on the prefixes section in the final vote. Editors on both sides of the issue dropped in and out during the entire process; your situation is not unique to either you as an individual nor to your camp as a group. I addressed this very issue of your not participating in my above 02:29, 15 July 2008 post and yet you come here to again raise this issue of being disenfranchised (though you didn’t explain why) and complain about how that somehow means there was no consensus. READ MY LIPS: If you are not going to participate in the last half of the discussion, debate, polling, and voting, then your input can not possibly be included. But by no stretch of the imagination, does your not participating somehow invalidate the vote. If you think it does, please present your “I am really, really special” license to us for inspection. Please stop wasting our time on this. This allegation that there was no consensus was discredited long ago because the complete history of what really occurred is a matter of public record. Greg L (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed way of debate

In order to limit the bickering, and the 20498-people-commenting-at-once phenomena, I propose that the two sides elect one spokesperson each and that only that spokesperson can comment here. This would make things far easier would keep the debate well structured. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I lead the debate, I propose that I represent the "anti-IEC" side, and since Thunderbird lead the "pro-IEC" side, that he represents the pro-IEC side. Is this agreeable? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me.Fnagaton 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, after posting my previous comment, I then scroll down and find this. So, yes, that’s fine by me. I’ll just assume that everything is being handled. I don’t quite follow why we would continue with this though. We don’t have to participate. So why not pursue this until our point has been made, and when we get into the same “we’re-getting-nowhere” mode, then drop it? If we were to accept a ruling here, it could well be a “split the baby down the middle” compromise that results in “mebibyte” being used by whomever wants to in some articles and “megabyte” in still others. We tried that and it was insane; this isn’t like a “colour v.s. color” issue. I think we should just use this forum in hopes it will get T-bird to accept the consenus and go with the flow. If not, well… it’s up to you Headbomb. You’ve already established yourself as our tireless secretary who keeps the ‘minutes of the meetings’. So it will be largely up to you to do most of the heavy lifting if this goes to arbitration. So I will leave it entirely up to your judgement from here. Good luck! Greg L (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  P.S.: Please note Xavexgoem’s question above. Adios. Greg L (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Believe me I would much rather be doing the other stuff, and I really don't see what can be said here that already hasn't been said in the B9-13 archives. There was a 7:3 vote for the deprecation, this time where people gave reasons rather than their personal feelings about IEC prefix. Of the 3 opposition, 2 were "I don't like it" (one strong, one regular) and 1 was more concerned about disambiguation than opposition the deprecation. About 20 editors were contacted, including many opponents of the IEC. I reached out to all sides equally, here and worked with both sides equally. After two months there were a ballpark 10:2 vote (up to 11:2, or down to 10:3) on whether or not the text maximized the level of agreement between editors. That one was specifically on wheter or not the text maximized agreement so people could not claim that the text didn't maximize consensus, (and of the two opposed vote, only Thunderbird believed it didn't (the other vote being a personal opposition to an IEC deprecation)). I have a hard time fathoming that this is what is under debate considering the clarity of that vote.
  
  I didn't know we could turn down mediation. I'm very tempted to do so to avoid the "gray fallacy" that generally results from them. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I thought about this last night before going to sleep. This mediation request is a clear case of an individual (Thunderbird2) disagreeing with something and then filing this request to try to get their own way while still refusing to actually provide any substantive arguments for their position. Nothing has changed, the user has still not provided any substantive reasons even after all this time and the user still refuses to accept consensus. This mediation request only draws attention to the fact that the user has still refused to take part in the debate. WP:DEADHORSE applies to this mediation request thus this mediation request can be safely disregarded (because the user has failed yet again to substantiate their position) until the user changes their behaviour and starts to take part in the debate in a meaningful and productive way. Fnagaton 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we started down this path and the mediator is asking questions. We’re obligated now to press forward. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, we're not obliged to anything (and BTW no mediator's been assigned). Fnag is right, this is simply Thunderbird wikilawyering because things didn't go his way. I say we say screw this, Thunderbird and the IEC proponents had three frickin' month to chip in and tell us how the IEC prefix don't go against WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTALBALL, after several attempts made by the anti-IEC side to understand them. Debate was held in a high-traffic place, open to everyone, and everyone who chipped in on the Follow Current Litterature section were contacted. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. “Wikilawyering.” I forgot about that term but it is quite appropriate here. I would motion that we’ve probably now said everything that really should be said at this juncture. How say we sit back, and—unless provoked by T-bird with some false accusations that bait us—just watch this page and see what happens. T-bird asked for two remedies: 1) to open up discussion again, and 2) he wants to get some backing to place a {disputed} tag on the current prefix guideline.

  As regards his first request: “The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have … a calm and reasoned discussion in order to achieve consensus.” I think we’ve amply demonstrated that that little gem is nothing more than a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Personally, I think it is a despicable misrepresentation of the true facts. After three straight months of continuous debate and an unmeasurable number of polls and votes, we arrived at a proper consensus and that debate is over. No rule of conduct in a decent and civilized society requires that people just put up with being harangued by an editor who refuses to let go of views that have be discredited long ago. T-bird’s calls for “further discussion” amounts to nothing more than flogging a dead horse by someone who lost and disagrees with the consensus view. As regards point #2, that’s just wikilawyering and is disruptive.

  I think we’ve provided ample proof to rebut those two requests and have demonstrated that they amount to nothing more than violations of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as well as Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and Don’t be a dick. Greg L (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee we went from 20498 people bickering to just T2 - don't forget me! I can count several other editors who think "consensus" has not been achieved with regard to deprecating IEC Binary Prefixes. And I am the one who proposed putting the disputed tag in the article, I still intend to do so. Tom94022 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What you think and what has been demonstrated are two entirely different things. Fnagaton 08:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Pretty much. “I deny your reality and substitute my own.” Given that you, Tom94022, didn’t elect to even participate in the entire second half of the 81-day discussions and votes leading up to the new guideline, you don’t have a leg to stand on when you come here to complain about that outcome. As far as I’m concerned, you’re pretty much just a spectator who has rushed down onto the field after a game to complain about the 7:3 score on the scoreboard. If there was a Wikipedia policy titled WP:Don't sit on the sidelines & eat popcorn while the world passes you by, I’d link to it. We’re here to settle whether or not the current guideline had a proper consensus when it was adopted. That you didn’t participate in crafting the new guideline (per your choosing) or don’t like the outcome is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Greg L (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)