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

Request details

 * Case submitted. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was advised to seek mediation by User:Rlevse. I understand this is the first step in that process. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

 * A major change to the MOSNUM text (related to the choice of units and unit symbols to be used on wikipedia) was uploaded at WP:MOSNUM on 7 June 2008; for all new sections except one it is agreed by involved editors that there was consensus. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The exception concerns the section on units of data storage (multiples of bits and bytes), where one group of editors argues that consensus was reached and another that it was not. The disputed section was nevertheless passed with a 7-3 majority vote and uploaded with the remainder of the new text on 7 June. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The group questioning the consensus (Jeh, Seraphimblade, Thunderbird2, Tom94022 and Woodstone)wishes to start a discussion to establish whether there is consensus for the disputed text. The new discussion is opposed by the group claiming consensus (Fnagaton, Greg_L and Headbomb). Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thunderbird2 was asked repeatedly by multiple editors to answer questions and to also provide provide at least one substantive reasons to support his position, to date Thunderbird2 has refused multiple times to answer questions and has not provided substantive reasons. (,, , , , , , and on Headbomb's page , ]) Thunderbird2 refused to take part in reasonable debate therefore Headbomb invoked the "unsupported statements may be disregarded"" method. Since then Thunderbird2 has been misrepresenting the actual situation, misrepresenting other editors and claiming consensus exists in an old vote. This is despite Thunderbird2 being shown that votes do not make consensus and instead proper debate with good strong reasons actually makes consensus. To date no substantive reasons relevant to Wikipedia and the guideline text (either during the proposal stage or after the proposed text became the guideline) have been provided by Jeh, Seraphimblade, Thunderbird2, Tom94022 or Woodstone. The evidence of Thunderbird2's refusal to properly debate the issue and repeated misrepresentation is documnented by Headbomb at Rlevse's talk page link below and also at the MOSNUM talk page link. So, without any substantiated objections to the proposed guideline text the substantiated arguments and much stronger good reasons meant the proposed guideline text then became the current guideline text.Fnagaton 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus applies here. Consensus for the current guideline text was reached. Thunderbird2 did not provide substantive reasons but just disagreed with the consensus. Then Thunderbird2 tried to open the debate again and lots of editors (Greg, Headbomb, Aervanath, Orderinchaos and myself) disagree and said "support the deprecation". Basically Thunderbird2's attempt was rejected. So what does he then do? Attempts to open it up again and yet again the attempt is rejected by multiple editors. So what does Thunderbird2 then do? Open up this mediation request. A clear case of WP:Consensus. Fnagaton 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have just that: a calm and reasoned discussion, in order to achieve consensus. The present atmosphere on the page makes this impossible without outside mediation. For some background, see this discussion on Rlevse's talk page. The most recent attempt at raising the issue is on the article talk page.Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While the discussion is taking place, it is requested that a tag be placed to identify the disputed text.Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderbird2's unsupported disagreement ("I don't like it" is not substantive) about the guideline text is not a good enough reason to place a disputed tag in the first place. It is disingenuous for Thunderbird2 to call for a "a calm and reasoned discussion" because Thunderbird2 has refused multiple times to take part in a calm and reasoned discussion. I would like to see Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the actual situation and to stop misrepresenting other editors. I would like to see Thunderbird2 read and understand WP:POINT (specifically "Refusal to 'get the point'") because to keep on misrepresenting the situation when faced with so many other editors asking him not to goes against WP:POINT. Lastly, I would like to see Thunderbird2 actually put forward at least one substantive argument that is relevant to the situation here on Wikipedia. Fnagaton 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fnagaton. The four-month-long debate process we devoted to arriving at the new MOSNUM guideline could serve as a paradigm of how dispute resolution on Wikipedia should be conducted and how a solid general consensus can be arrived at. The final 7:3 vote is as good as it was ever going to get. Why? Because several editors just could not be persuaded to come over the majority view and insisted that Wikipedia should Lead by example and show the path to a better future©®™ notwithstanding the fact that we would be confusing our readers the entire time until the world wised up and followed our lead (and not withstanding the fact that no other publication or computer manufacture actually chose to follow Wikipedia’s lead during our three-year-long experiment with using the IEC prefixes). The consensus view was that the wise thing for Wikipedia to do was to simply follow current real-world practices and not try our hand at social engineering by being all alone in the use of unfamiliar terminology like “2 gibibytes of RAM”. Note, when you click on the above “7:3 vote” link how Thunderbird2 is all alone with his low-value “1” vote; he denies that there is a consensus only because he so strenuously disagrees with the outcome, not because there wasn’t a general consensus on the right course to take for Wikipedia. His problem is just a WP:POINT issue. I’m sorry, but I think the best of all solutions is for Thunderbird2 to accept the consensus view. Failing that, the only viable course is to then solicit binding arbitration. And a final note. I am solidly of the belief that his desire to place a {disputed} tag on the text he disagrees with is entirely in keeping with his style as of late, which is to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see Thunderbird2 stop using his talk page sand box to continue writing his own version of events when actually the entire page contains misrepresentation of the facts, unsupported claims and unsupported accusations against other editors (This page contains the evidence regarding said misrepresentations). Fnagaton 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

 * While not offering to mediate this case, (I'm already taking a rather hard one at the moment), I should point out something. This case has been active (created), for just over 3 days, and right now, is nearly at 50k in size. For an unopened case, this is a huge amount for a mediator to sift through. What I would advise in this situation is to move most of this discussion onto this case's talk page, and try to condense the discussion here. That would make it easier for the mediator who decides to take this case. If needed, my talk page can be reached in the usual manner. Steve Crossin   (contact)  08:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to move text that could be considered as extraneous, while a tempting option, could result in editwarring and I am not so tempted at the moment to head down that path. I would suggest that you can get the essential ingredients of what this is all about by reading the following sections:


 * Who are the involved parties?
 * What's going on?
 * What would you like to change about that?
 * History and background


 * That should give you the quickest overview of what this is about. Greg L (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the extraneous debate to the discussion page. We’ll see if it stays there. Greg L (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some parties contacted to see if mediation is still needed. Vassyana (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediation is still needed Tom94022 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented at the bottom of the page that I do not think mediation will succeed in this case for several reasons, however, if the parties agree to mediate, I will attempt it. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon further review, the parties are not in agreement to mediate. Throughout, neither Greg L, nor Fnagaton appear interested in mediating at all.  None of the parties appear to understand the purpose and scope of mediation, referring to this debate, an arbiter, and a decision, and then attempting to start a self-led debate on this case page in the absence of a mediator.  It is clear this won't work.
 * A lengthy discussion at User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_11, recommended mediation or arbitration and appeared to be the catalyst for this case. Of course the former is to be preferred, but if the parties do not agree it will not work. To quote from Rlevse:
 * To all sides, DEADHORSE seems very applicable here. If you guys can't agree, then there are some options: 1) all walk away and let things be as they are (I don't even know what state the MOSNUM thing is in), 2) you can continue the debate and hope it ends on its own one day, 3) seek mediation, 4) seek arbitration


 * Option 3 is not tenable. Neither here nor at WP:MEDCOM.  Option 1 is the only one which is really in accord with Rlevse's sage advise, but if the parties insist 2 and 4 remain possibilities.  Since only Tom has responded to Vassyana's message, I believe there is no other choice but to close this case without mediation.
 * If any of the parties want to discuss this with me further, please bring it to my talk page or send me an e-mail since I'll never find your comments here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
curious question: Is this a case where the introduction of the new text would improve a certain set of articles? I'm on another case where an MOS guideline is in conflict with another. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The current guideline text improves most computer articles by encouraging terminology the reader is much more likely to be familiar with and encouraging disambiguation with methods that the average reader will be familiar with, the terminology is also used by the majority (>99%) of reliable sources used in articles. Thunderbird2 advocates uses terminology that is very rarely used, is unfamiliar to most readers and is not used by most reliable sources (<1%). Basically: Thunderbird2 wants Wikipedia to report the world how he thinks it should be, rather than letting Wikipedia report the world how it really is.Fnagaton 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History and background
Nutshell: Yes, Xavexgoem, the new guideline improves pretty much all computer-related articles. There is no conflict within MOSNUM nor with MOS. During the debate process and some ensuing editwarring, we had several mediators exert their subtle influence to facilitate the new guideline being adopted and administrators magically interceded to lock down MOSNUM in similarly helpful ways. Details: All computer manufacturers use the conventional prefixes like “megabyte (MB” and “kilobyte (KB)” when communicating to their customer base. They do so in their advertisements, brochures, packaging, and owners manuals. In turn, all general-interest computer publications use the same terminology. Not surprisingly, all professional print encyclopedias (both in their print and on-line versions) also go with the flow and use the terminology that is well recognized by computer users (“megabyte”). In 1999, the IEC proposed new terminology to address an ambiguity in the use of the conventional prefixes. This is because kilobyte means 1024 bytes for RAM and 1000 bytes for hard drives. The distinction rarely causes any practical problems in real life. The IEC proposal introduced new terminology like “mebibyte (MiB)” “kibibyte (KiB)”, “kibibit”, etc. Three years ago, Wikipedia allowed the use of the IEC prefixes and an editor Sarenne, who is now banned for life, changed hundreds of Wikipedia’s articles. Then a handful of editors, lead by an administrator—Omegatron—blocked changing the articles back. After editwarring, it was finally agreed that existing articles wouldn’t be changed from one standard to another, thus leaving Wikipedia in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs where the term “kilobyte” and “megabyte” meant one specific thing in some articles, and yet another meaning in still other articles. Still more troubling, is that even the proponents of the IEC prefixes agreed in a unanimous, 12:0 poll that the IEC prefixes aren’t even recognized by our readership. I can tell you that I’ve been using computers since 1982 and until I came to Wikipedia, I never saw “3 GiB of RAM” before. The consensus view was that Wikipedia was doing no one a service by our being all alone with our use of the IEC prefixes. Notwithstanding our three year experiment with using them, the industry (and the rest of the world) was not following Wikipedia’s lead on this issue. We agreed that notwithstanding the shortcomings of the conventional prefixes, the computing industry and the rest of the real world uses them and that is what readers are familiar with. Accordingly, the 7:3 consensus vote was to follow real-world practices and use only the conventional prefixes, disambiguating their ambiguous 1024/1000 meaning where necessary. We felt that his guideline best adheres to the basic principle of technical writing, which is to communicate with minimal confusion to our target audience. Clearly, a 7:3 vote is not unanimous. Does a Wikipedia-style “consensus” have to be unanimous today? No, and it never did. What is required for a general consensus is that each editors’ views were expressed and considered and in this case, 81 straight days of continuous debate was more than adequate to accomplish this. In light of this reality and the fact that there were more archives on Talk:MOSNUM on this single issue than any other (14, and soon to be 15) and the problem wasn’t going away, the consensus view was that we volunteer Wikipedia editors were not somehow more *enlightened* than the professional editors at PC World and Encyclopedia Britannica and maybe we should look towards their practices for guidance. That resulted in our 7:3 vote. The complete history of the debate is now a matter of record. It comprised nearly three solid months of continuous debate and discussion and included innumerable polls and votes in an effort to identify common ground and agree on the basic facts. Debate 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. Note, when you click on and examine the 7:3 consensus vote, that Thunderbird2 is all alone there with his low-value “1” vote. More than anyone else, he dislikes the outcome of the vote. That is why we are here: because he refuses to recognize it as a legitimate consensus. I have a “problem” with Thunderbird because early on, he painted himself as a moderate, who couldn’t make up his mind and was sitting on the fence on this issue. When I was the lead proponent of a new policy called “Follow current literature”, which accomplished the same end as what we eventually ended up with, he asked for some concessions in the wording by writing “To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB does have a valuable role to play.” He also asked for not mentioning something known as the “uno”. After I gave him precisely what he asked for, he reciprocated in the end with a “1” vote on a scale of 0 to 4. I was baffled at first. But, far from his being a moderate who is sitting on the fence and is undecided and is just getting concessions in wording to mollify other, more extreme editors, Thunderbird’s behavior consistently met the pattern of a someone who was actually that most extreme of editors in so far as his support for the IEC prefixes and his opposition to following the rest of the world. I saw this as a consistent pattern (argue like a moderate but fail to reciprocate as promised). He seemingly pretended to be for one thing but then did another. Only after the new guideline was posted, did he “come out of the closet” so to speak, and argue like he votes. Headbomb, Fnagaton, and I have all been quite frustrated by Thunderbird2’s refusal or inability to directly address the issues we’ve put to him. It seems to us that this amounts to nothing more than a WP:POINT problem. He seems to be somewhat obsessed with this issue. He maintains a profoundly detailed blow-by-blow of all that is related to this issue and is maintaining this list of every single article that has been “damaged” as a result of the new guideline. The result has been a consistent propensity to edit against consensus and be disruptive. Greg L (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Greg it is worth noting that everything Thunderbird2 is writing at that link is nothing but misrepresentation and Thunderbird2 does not provide any valid proof of any of the accusations he makes in that link. It is easy for Thunderbird2 to write accusations without any valid evidence at all to support his claims, however since Thunderbird2 provides no proof to counter the evidence Headbomb, Greg and myself have already posted then what Thunderbird2 is writing at that link is obvious misrepresentation. If Thunderbird2 ever copies any part of the misrepresentation on that page to here or other pages it will demonstrate that he wishes to deliberately write misrepresention. Doing so would weaken his point of view, not strengthen it. Deliberate misrepresentation of editors can be considered a personal attack. Fnagaton 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to keep this brief and apologize in advance for the long rebuttal that I fear inevitably will follow. A 7-3 vote is not a consensus, it is particularly not a consensus when the lead editor publicly states,
 * The two month prior vote was 10-0 to not deprecate IEC Binary Prefixes. I suggest that such willful ignoring of a clearly expressed opinion without further consultation is the very opposite of consensus building. Tom94022 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The two month prior vote was 10-0 to not deprecate IEC Binary Prefixes. I suggest that such willful ignoring of a clearly expressed opinion without further consultation is the very opposite of consensus building. Tom94022 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg L and Fnagaton try to represent that this is an odysesy of Thunerbird2, but in fact there are a number of editors who oppose deprecation of IEC Binary Prefixes, at least 10 of record. GregL and Fnagaton have also continuously assert that such editors have not expressed any reasons at all but when they, GregL and/or Fnagaton, do at least admit that there were reasons expressed they dismiss them as "weak."  I won't waste the space by repeating them since I know they will be rebutted in length but I do suggest that an arbitrator set up a process whereby the constant bickering is minimized Tom94022 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To the mediator: For the record, Fnagaon, Headbomb, and I have not “continuously asserted that all “oppose” editors did not offer reasoning to justify their positions. We have said that one particular editor, Thunderbird2, did not. Note too, that the vigorous, continuous debate that resulted in the current policy lasted 81 days. Indeed, a poll or vote that was conducted “two months ago”, while certainly having some bearing in forming various editors’ opinions, is not a final vote. Such an early vote has no more bearing on the final outcome than does early polling in a jury room. No progress could be made in civil trials if respondents could overturn verdicts by saying “Judge, let’s ignore the final vote, because early voting only one-third in on a particular point of order was in my favor.” While certainly an attractive theory for some here, nothing works that way in real life. Given that Tom94022 didn’t elect to participate whatsoever in the entire second half of the 81-day discussions and votes leading up to the new guideline, I don’t believe he has a leg to stand on when he comes here to complain about the outcome. As far as I’m concerned, he is 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. While it may be unfortunate that Tom94022 chose not to participate in the last 41 days of the process, he has no one but himself to blame for that. Further, his situation is not at all unique. Many “support” and “oppose” editors dropped in and out during the process. Some probably dropped out because they felt their arguments had been discredited. Others simply didn’t have the stomach for the lengthy proceedings and left for happier editing waters. We can’t force editors to participate from start to finish. We are here to simply settle whether or not the current guideline had a proper consensus when it was adopted. Greg L (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I made twenty seven edits between March 18 and April 27 but for a number of reasons was unable to participate again until July. I also admit that subsequent to the 11-0 vote not to deprecate I stopped watching the page under the mistaken belief that the ongoing editors would respect such a clear decision.  I leave it to the arbiter to  characterize my participation, as usual GregL is perjorative and self serving.  Tom94022 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then from April 28 to the start of July (end of June) you made 26 edits. So you participated in editing Wikipedia, you just chose to not participate in the MOSNUM talk page. So don't be surprised that discussion about the new guideline continues after you chose not to participate. Again, votes do not make consensus because valid reasons and good arguments make consensus. The 10-0 vote you try to cite doesn't present any good solid argument, the good solid arguments came later on and then it became apparent that actually the results of the vote are invalid because the vote is not related to how Wikipedia policies and guidelines operate. It is also but one vote out of many so it is disingeuous to try to claim it fits your point of view about what consensus is. The comments by Greg are not "perjorative and self serving" and actually because you have still failed to provide evidence of your claims then your position is still unsupported. Unsupported objections can be disregarded. Fnagaton 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, during the relevant period, 27 April to 7 Jun I made 6 edits, I was traveling during most of May. I do admit to not watching the page in the mistaken belief that my fellow editors would honor the unanimous consensus reached on 6 April.
 * Fragnaton may assert that "the good solid arguments came later" there is no evidence to support his opinion about timing of the arguments nor any evidence that the later arguments were superior; the best evidence is that only one of the 11 who voted to not deprecate apparently changed his mind.
 * Fragnaton's argument is weak and hypocritical in now trying to deny my participation in a review of a decision, six weeks after it was made, when, on Jun 7th he and a small group overturned unanimous consensus arrived at eight weeks earlier.
 * Fragnaton's argument that there is something superior about the "consensus" reached on Jun 7 than the "vote" concluded 6 April is specious; both were votes in an attempt to see if there was consensus. We can argue whether 7-3 is or is not "general agreement" (dictionary definition of consensus) but it is pretty clear that 11-0 is general agreement.
 * Tom94022 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) So you chose to continue to edit Wikipedia yet you chose not to contribute to the discussions relating to MOSNUM. 2) The good solid arguments came later in the talk archive, that is the evidence. 3) It is not weak or hypocritical, this is because a vote on a tiny individual issue is not unanimous consensus on the later proposed guideline text. Also the vote you cite as 11-0 is not 11-0 at all because it has at least one editor voting against it. You cannot logically take an old vote in isolation on one tiny issue and then try to claim it applies to all future proposed guideline texts, consensus doesn't work like that. Good reasons and solid arguments make consensus and good reasons and solid arguments made the new guideline text. Obviously in the course of the debate new people, like Headbomb, came along and the debate progressed. You did not take part even though you were editing Wikipedia at the time. You think one tiny old vote is consensus, well no the old vote does not represent consensus at all. You still need to read WP:CCC and WP:Consensus because they contain all the reasons you need to stop trying to cite this old vote. 4) There is something superior about the consensus reached for the current guideline text because the current guideline text was proposed, debated, changed, debated, changed some more, debated and then uploaded after many such cycles. The vote you cite does not demonstrate any propsed guideline text, does not demonstrate any debate and therefore it doesn't demonstrate any consensus because the vote itself does not have any good reasons attached to it. And again, votes do not make consensus and it is disingenuous to try to claim that old vote supports your point of view about consensus because as the newer talk archive shows those old votes were then superseded by the newer much stronger arguments. Just so you're clear, the vote you cite did not even vote on any proposed guideline text, so that is why the old vote was superseded. New guideline text was proposed and people expressed their views on that instead. The only thing you accomplish by trying to cite an old superseded vote is to show you do not understand the process of how consensus is reached. Fnagaton 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom94022, I don’t understand why you are dwelling on a vote that had been conducted much early in the process. A huge amount of discussion, debate, polling, and voting occurred afterwards. If you are proposing that we turn the clock back, invalidate the last set of votes, and all the discussions that lead up to that because you were under the impression that the issue had been settled earlier and don’t like how things played out afterwards, well… uhm… what can I say? Nothing in the world works that way. Are you saying that we should have anticipated that you *mistakenly* were absent from the discussions and notified you when the final sets of votes were coming up? Uhm… sorry, I don’t think so. Note that User:Rilak had voted for Follow Current Literature and also didn’t stick around to vote on the current guideline. Had he done so, he undoubtedly would have voted “support” for what replaced FCL. So as I stated above—but which you seem to ignore again and again —is your situation is not unique to you as an individual nor as a class of voter. And also like I stated before, unless you can present us with your “I am really, really special”-license for inspection, no policy on Wikipedia says that we have to turn the clock back and start all over because you missed out! Now, if I am in error on this last point, please point to a current Wikipedia policy that states as much. Otherwise, please, please stop hounding us on how you think Wikipedia should have ground to a halt the day you last participated on MOSNUM. Or are you suggesting there can be no logical and just consensus if you don’t participate in it? Or are you suggesting that you alone, posses a unique capability that would have enabled you to have successfully carried the “logic” of that earlier vote forward and forestall what eventually happened over two months later—a unique mental prowess that none of the other “oppose” editors you left to fend for themselves possessed? All these conclusions are implicit in your repeated demands that we turn the clock back to the last vote in which you participated. You have no one to blame but yourself if you actually thought the issue had been settle with a vote conducted in late March because you continued to participate in debate until the end of April and knew—or should have known—that the issue was  clearly  still active the day you lost interest. The only question at hand here for the mediator is whether or not the final vote constituted a general consensus and was properly arrived at. I declare that your position, when you wrote above as follows:


 * …is positing nothing less than the only vote that should matter is a much much earlier and we all should have noticed your absence in the discussions and stopped to solicite your input at each critical juncture. That notion is patently and utterly absurd. Greg L (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or simply put : WP:STICK. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting my quote, that is exactly the question that I think the arbitrator should address; particularly in light of Headbomb's uncivil comment quoted above and the three year history of usage.  Your shouting that the 2 month interval is "much much earlier" is hypocritical in that you, now almost two months later, try to limit Thunderbird2, I and others from questioning the deprecation of IEC Binary Prefixes.  It is particularly disappointing that you are so uncivil as to not even acknowledge that there is a dispute.   Tom94022 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm again accused of incivility before of the comments of others. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Headbomb, there’s no need to fret about unfounded accusations of incivility. If there is an injured party here (and I think we’re all big boys who can take these sort of tactics on the chin), it’s YOU since unfounded accusations of incivility are truly uncivil. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps I'm accused of incivility because of your selective quoting. If you're going to quote me, give the full quotation, not some manipulated version of what I wrote. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or simply put: WP:STICK. On Wikipedia, a “consensus” is not 100% of editors being in complete agreement, and it never was. Clearly, I agree there is a dispute, otherwise we wouldn’t be here now, would we? Given that there was clearly a consensus for the current guideline after 81 days of continual discussion, the “dispute” you and T-bird have amounts to nothing more than a violation of WP:POINT: refusal to accept the consensus view and failure to drop a position that has long since been discredited. And please stop throwing around unfounded accusations of myself and others here (Headbomb) being uncivil. Incivility is attacking the editor in rude ways and/or being dishonest in one’s dealings with others. Exposing the fallacies of another editor’s arguments and revealing them for what they are is simple debate. You and T-bird do not have the right to repeat falsehoods and illogical statements with impunity; your statements can—and will—be rebutted. In fact if you read up on Engaging in incivility, you will find that “Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold” and “deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors” really does constitute incivility. Try sticking to the facts here please. Finally, your efforts to pull the rug out of other editors’ arguments by throwing around unfounded accusations of incivility are profoundly transparent and won’t get you anywhere. Prove there was no consensus or hold your peace. Merely citing that ‘there had been a vote one third of the way into the debate and you missed out of all those later votes’ doesn’t cut it. Not in the least. Greg L (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Greg. Tom and Thunderbird2 writing obviously false claims will be rebutted and to do that is not being uncivil at all. Fnagaton 11:47, 22 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)


 * [...] 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)

Clarification of what this debate is about
I propose that this debate is solely about the uploading of the IEC section, including all events prior to and including June 7th. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 this argument is specious and is purely a problem with WP:POINT. We already achieved a consensus; it’s just that the consensus view was for a guideline he vehemently disagrees with and won’t accept. As regards point #2, that’s just wikilawyering and is disruptive. Both desires originate from T-bird’s refusal to accept the reality that the current MOSNUM guideline governing expressing the values of computer storage was a consensus that had been properly arrived at. I suggest that the mediator consider just this fundamental point: was there or was there not a general consensus for the adoption of the current guideline.  Greg L (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediator
Hi, im just wondering if this dispute still requires mediation?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid it does. The thread on the MOSNUM talk page has reached a stalemate wihout a resolution in sight. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed it does need mediation. If you are interested in mediating, I would strongly urge that u set some rules, perhaps a formal debate style so as to minimize the bickering - rather than limiting time, you might consider limiting each side to the same number of characters. Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Prom3th3an but this does not need mediation. The claimed "stalemate" from Thunderbird2 above is without any basis. The thread on the talk page reached a perfectly fine consensus and there is no "stalemate", this is because the consensus reached uses the strong arguments presented in that thread and it is those strong arguments and good reasons that refuted Thunderbird2's unsupported assertion. Fnagaton 21:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual Fnagaton misstates the status; the thread on the talk page is waiting upon this mediation and his shouting that the arguments are strong does not make them so. Tom94022 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not misstated anything and what you have written misrepresents the actual situation. This is because: 1) The thread I cited reached a natural conclusion when consensus was reached. 2) The thread is not waiting on this mediation. 3) I am not "shouting" that the arguments are strong, the consensus reached in that thread demonstrates the arguments are strong and stronger than the lack of substantive reasons from Thunderbird2. So, in conclusion what you have posted actually misstates the situation and you should retract what you have written. Fnagaton 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok well, The ~150k of talk has probably scared most the mediators away, however im going to print a copy off and read over it tonight and tomorrow, to get a feel for whats been discussed. If what Fnagaton said is correct and the "consensus reached uses the strong arguments presented in that thread and it is those strong arguments and good reasons that refuted Thunderbird2's unsupported assertion." and there is in fact a consensus i may well still consider mediating, however from what little of the 150k of talk I have read I believe that this is pretty much a all or nothing situation...  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I warn you that you'll need to peruse pretty much the entirety of the Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements archive if you want to gain any sort of meaningful overview of the situation. I would also suggest reading the archives before reading this, otherwise you'll have to "unlearn" what you read here, in order to make any sort of sense of the events. Thunderbird's style is one of misrepresentation and of fudging up the order of things in a way that you get caught in an ocean of molasses (either intentionally or not). I lead the debate and I remember very well how things happened and in what order, so if you're confused by anything, just drop me a line and I'll unconfuse you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I went to the archive listed above, looked at my sidebar and thought ok this isnt to bad, then I noticed there were alots of collapsed discussions :S, after expanding them all and noticeing it went for 94 pages, I thought to myself two words. I think that it would be unplausable for me to mediate this case, especially if your looking for a timely resolution as I do not have the background knowlege and it would take a while for me to even get a half decent grasp.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I can understand you being put off by that archive, but I don’t think it is really necessary to do more than skim over it, and it sounds like you've done that already. I also don’t think you need any specialist knowledge here, because all I am asking for is the right to hold a discussion at MOSNUM without me and like-minded editors being ridiculed.  What I am asking of the mediator is to be present at the MOSNUM discussion and stop any mudslinging. Please read this thread on the MOSNUM talk page before making a final decision on this. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what you are asking for. What you are asking for is the invalidation of the consensus reached on July 7 by mediators because you don't like it. This is a textbook example of forum shopping. If you're asking for the "right to hold a discussion without being ridiculed", which I assume is directed at Greg L, then make a RfC for Greg L, not a RfC about the MOSNUM. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ill think about weather or not to accept this case over teh rest of tonight and tomorrow, usually monday's depicts how my week will go. If I dont accept this case my only advice is for when the next mediator sticks is head in the door, dont tell him / her about all the pre reading they have to do until after they take the case (giggles) lol :-)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you can mediate without reading the entire archive or for that matter any of it. I do suggest you think about structure for the mediation because if you do take a brief look you will see that there are strong advocates on both sides. I suggest debate format might work, something like:
 * flip a coin to pick who goes first
 * Side one states its affirmative position
 * Side two states its affirmative position in not more characters than Side one
 * Side two responds to Side ones affirmative position (interdigitating text)
 * Side one responds to Side twos affirmative position (interdigitating text) in not more characters than the Side two response
 * You as any specific questions of a side
 * Render your advice.
 * Tom94022 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the entire archive does need to be read because it contains examples of how Thunderbird2 has repeatedly failed to provide substantive arguments and has repeatedly refused to accept consensus. What you propose, stating positions with limits on characters etc, is just another attempt to repeat the same old already refuted arguments again (see later for the reason why). The talk archive already shows the refuted unsupported assertions and the much stronger arguments, there is no point in going around in that circle yet again when it is already documented in the archive. As an example of the same old refuted arguments being repeated, the text Thunderbird2 is writing here has many unsupported assertions or statements of fact that are not relevant to how Wikipedia works or statements that are incorrect. What he is writing is basically a copy-paste of the same text here with minor tweaks and in that talk page thread his unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected, again by multiple editors just like the time before that in the previous archive and then again here. So, like I said it is pointless to want to repeat old refuted assertions again unless Thunderbird2 or you can provide any new substantive arguments because it is a waste of time for the mediator and this process. Old refuted assertions are not suddenly good arguments just because they are repeated again and again. So, reading the whole archive is very important because it shows that you and Thunderbird2 have not provided any substantive arguments (meaning that the argument is not refuted) and it also shows that no new substantive arguments have been presented by yourself or Thunderbird2 in the latest talk page on this subject, despite you both having ample opportunity and time to do so. Lastly and probably most importantly, the forum for debate on the topic of IEC prefixes is at MOSNUM not on this page because presenting already refuted assertions to a different talk page in the hope things go your way is not how Wikipedia operates. That's why we have WP:POINT because if someone keeps on trying to insert "the moon is made of cheese" into the article about moon rock by repeating the same old refuted assertion again and again we still don't accept that refuted assertion. Fnagaton 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the mediator ought to be able to let us make our case without you shouting that your arguments are strong and everyone else's are weak.  That's exactly what you did there (BTW, without attribution). Also, I believe you (or one of your colleagues) first said Thunderbird2 made no arguments in spite of being repeatedly asked during the intensive review, now they are weak, refuted, not substantive, etc.  It seems you want it both ways.  Why don't you just let a mediator decide? Tom94022 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you are misrepresenting the actual situation because I am not shouting anything like that at all. The actual arguments presented were shown to be stronger because that is the consensus of the multiple editors in that thread and the archives. What you are doing is shouting about consensus but you and Thunderbird2 have not provided any substantive arguments that support those claims. The links showing Thunderbird2 repeatedly refusing to provide substantive arguments are included earlier on this page in the section providing evidence. By refusing to provide substantive arguments then his assertions are weak, refuted and not substantive. Then after that refusal to provide substantive arguments phase we have Thunderbird2 posting some weak arguments which were then also refuted and rejected by multiple editors and multiple times (links already given in my post above). Thunderbird2's refusal to accept consensus has gone on for quite some time and his unsupported assertions has been repeated more than once. It is therefore incorrect to state "It seems you want it both ways" because the history of Thunderbird2's actions demonstrates a change from the earlier refusal to answer questions to the more recent modus operandi of repeating refuted arguments that are weaker than the already provided strong arguments. I am letting the mediator decide, it is you and Thunderbird2 who are trying to persuade the mediator from reading the evidence in the archive. It is not logical to claim "there was no consensus in the talk page talks" and then say "don't read the talk page archive". So since there is nothing substantive here, because it is basically a copy-paste of what is already refuted and rejected on the MOSNUM talk page, are you going to provide any new substantive arguments on the proper MOSNUM talk page? Fnagaton 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Defer to WP:Medcom
Hi guys, if the issue still reuqires mediation i advise you to take it to formal mediation. it seems no one is willing to take this case here (quite frankly i dont blame them) ;)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Before they do that, I suggest they consider whether mediation is appropriate at all. Tom is asking for someone to decide and refers to an arbiter.  Neither this forum nor MedCom can provide a decision.  These fora are to facilitate the parties solving this problem amongst themselves.  If they aren't able to discuss the issue without reverting to "back in May so and so said such and such" or "he never listens" then there is nothing that can be done here.  The parties are polarized and this has become way too personal; MedCab is not a form of Super WQA.  Recommend mediation be closed and the parties try to return to editing.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding my comments above, if the parties are intent on mediation, I will attempt it. I must be crazy.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, this case is closed, see .--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug, you are right to say this case is closed. After a three year experiment in promoting IEC Binary Prefixes, Wikipedia has abandoned them and uses the units the rest of the publishing and computer world uses. A few IEC promoters are just having a difficult time giving up this failed experiment. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)