binary prefix

Attempt at clarification

There seem to be some misunderstandings here. I will try to help by explaining my position more clearly. First, no one is disputing that the source refers to 32 KiB of memory. Further, no one is disputing that K was sometimes used to mean 1024, and that such use began in the early 1960s.

The point being made is that it was sometimes used to mean 1024 and sometimes to mean approximately 1,000, even in the context of binary arithmetic. An example is the 1961 IBM article using 65K to mean ca. 65,000 B (an approximation to 64 KiB). The fact that it was used in the two different ways makes the meaning ambiguous unless the author makes an explicit statement about it. When I asked SWTPC6800 for some early sources using K=1024, he was kind enough to provide me with two, the earliest of which is dated 1965. I assume that at that time at least he was unaware of any earlier cases, or he would have mentioned them then.

What is disputed, therefore, is the meaning of “K” in “32K”. It is possible that its author meant K=1024. But he did not say so explicitly, and therefore it is also possible he meant it in the sense of “approximately 32,000”, exactly as in the IBM article at around the same time. To claim that 32K must have meant 32 KiB (as opposed to approximately 32,000 B) is equivalent to stating that 65K must have meant 65 KiB (and not approximately 65,000 B).

The statement in the WP article is equivalent to a claim that the author meant K=1024. The onus is not on me to show that he did not mean that, it is on those who defend the claim to show that he did.

reply

reply1

This decision of yours bothers me, and is the main reason I have stopped contributing to en.wp. The reason it bothers me is that two sides in a dispute were not treated equally, and I would like to give you a chance to explain. This is what I saw:

User:Thunderbird2 makes 3 reverts in a 24 hr period [1] [2] [3] and is blocked without warning
User:Fnagaton makes 5 reverts in two 24 hr periods [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and is neither blocked nor warned.

I repeat what I said then that the intention of my reverts was to take the dispute to the talk page, where it could be discussed and resolved without disruption to the article. If you see that as edit-warring that is fair enough. What I cannot understand is the unequal treatment. How do you justify it?

Hrm, I'm sorry that you feel that way Thunderbird, but I was only reviewing the unblock request. I reviewed your actions and your actions alone, and did not look at other side; this would have been the responsibility of the blocking admin. However, if you do feel that I, or another admin, has made an error in judgment or the fulfillment of my duties, please raise a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for further outside opinions. I do not wish to see you stop contributing to Wikipedia, and encourage you to continue to do so, but all of us must realize that at some point, we may be at odds with consensus and just have to accept that fact. I've been there; it's frustrating, but in the end just look at the big picture and find something else to do. Feel free to ask for further clarification on any of the above. Best regards, –xeno (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

reply2

- Thanks for your explanation. You seem to be saying that you treated us unequally because the rules require you to do so, which doesn't make me feel any more inclined than I was before to continue editing. The blocking admin appears to have been responding to an accusation that I had made 5 reverts in 24 hrs. That is pure fiction, but if taken at face value, I can see why he acted in the way he did. But if the reviewing admin is not permitted to take the more complete picture I provided into account, the unfairness of the situation is institutionalised. Or are you saying that the blocking admin should have investigated the situation more thoroughly before acting?
- A final question, raised by Fnagaton's intervention above: How should I respond to his accusation of vandalism?

Hrm, that's not quite what I said... what I said was that in reviewing an unblock request only the actions of the blockee are taken into account. I don't have time at present to review the situation thoroughly and determine if any other parties should have been blocked as well or if your edits can be reasonably construed as vandalism. I will try to take a look tonight, but this complaint is really best raised with the blocking admin or WP:AN (I can initiate these discussions if you like), as I was simply reviewing the block which in and of itself appeared sound to me at the time of my review. I do recall taking about 10-15 minutes reviewing it before declining and determining that it did indeed meet the definition of edit warring. Again, I would be saddened for this to be the straw that made you leave Wikipedia, and I know nothing at all of binary number theory so I can't really help with mediating that content dispute, but just remember that when your opinion is of the minority, sometimes you just have to move on to more fruitful endeavours. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

reply3

You’re right, of course. That isn’t exactly what you said, but isn’t it an inevitable consequence of looking at only half of the picture?

Don’t let Fnagaton mislead you into believing I was editing against consensus. There were two other editors (Tom94022 and Shreevatsa) who agreed with my interpretation and two others (Greg_L and Swtpc6800) who agreed with Fnagaton. Greg_L’s bullying tactics put off Tom94022 and Shreevatsa, leaving a false impression of consensus on the page. You probably suspect that there is more to this dispute than meets the eye, and there is. It is just the tip of an iceberg, so I will try to give you a feel for the sense in which this was the last straw for me.

Greg_L has used this approach previously, and Greg_L & Fnagaton work closely together to achieve their objectives (so closely that they vote on each other’s behalf when one is offline), accusing of disruption those who dare to challenge them. Greg_L is the rudest editor I have ever encountered on wp, and his incivility continues with impunity. My main motivation for editing on wp, I believe in common with most other editors, is that it is enjoyable and relaxing. But, believe me, it is no fun dealing with these two, so where is the motivation for me to continue?

Omegatron once tried to reign in Greg_L’s behaviour at WP:MOSNUM by means of this RfC, but it has made no difference. My request for mediation at mosnum was turned down, as far as I can tell because Greg_L & Fnagaton, unsurprisingly, do not wish to see any mediation. Omegatron was driven away from mosnum by Greg_L and Fnagaton, and has been inactive for some time. He has now left the project altogether. He was disillusioned for much the same reasons as I am.

If you really wish to encourage me to stay, one way to do so would be to find someone prepared to mediate here. I do not plan to take this up at WP:AN myself (Omegatron tried that route also and it came to nothing, and anyway, I would not know what to write), but I have no objection to you doing so, if you think you can achieve something. Actually I would appreciate it. It is high time the antics of Greg_L & Fnagaton were investigated.

Thank you for your offer to initiate a discussion at WP:AN ...

- - not editing against consensus: there were three editors who questioned the wording (myself + Tom94022 + Shreevtsa) while three defended it (Fnagaton, Greg_L and SWTPC). Of the three, one is renowned for incivil behaviour (which continued during the discussion). That is not consensus.
  - BTW I have no intention to stop contributing to other languages. It is only en.wp where I have witnessed the likes of Fnagaton [9] and Greg_L roaming unchecked.

reply4

evidence of harrassment

09:24, 7 June 2008 [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]03:29, 28 August 2008
accusations of dishonesty at mosnum
?[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
User_talk:Doug#IEC_Binary_Prefix
User_talk:Matt_Britt
![49][50][51]

mp

[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

?[62][63][64][65][66]

I see that the editors at AN are all saying you followed the rules, but I don't see anyone addressing the question of fairness (in the sense of equal treatment of equal sins), which for me was the important point. Thanks for trying, anyway. By the way, as I was feeling harrassed by Fnagaton, I thought I might learn something useful by trawling through his recent edit history. I discovered, amongst other things, that he has twice accused me of sockpuppetry,09:01, 19 July 2008 & 01:12, 27 August 2008 - thus strengthening my feeling of harrassment - and without having informed me on either occasion. More to the point here though, the search confirmed my suspicions that he reported 5 reverts, one of which is pure fabrication. (Of the other 4, 3 are clear reverts and the 4th is debatable - but we've been through that). What I also discovered is that he used this diff as evidence that I knew about the 3RR rule. The edit is a warning by Fnagaton to an anonymous editor, on my talk page, but it gives the false impression that I had being warned for infringing 3RR. It's hard to imagine that he did not do so deliberately. Anyway, the admin swallowed the bait and the rest is history. Is there anything more that can be done?

reply5

You may recall that you advised me some time back to seek mediation concerning this issue. Well, I followed your advice, but unfortunately it came to nothing because no mediator would take on the case. (The discussion here more or less sums up the story.) Worse than that, it led to increasing harrassment by User:Fnagaton and User:Greg_L, including two frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry here, biting a newcomer and here.(The evidence upon which the accusations are based seems to be along the lines of "the two editors share the same opinion; therefore they are sock puppets"). As a result of the harrassment I no longer enjoy editing here, and have therefore stopped doing so. [Fortunately there's more to life than WP :)]. However, I feel responsible for the second editor named in the SP case (the one accused of being my sockpuppet), who is now on the receiving end of the harrassment that was previously directed at me. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at what is going on here and put a stop to the silliness. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, what consensus?

Re Arthur Rubin’s comment of 7 October

See also the new consensus on KiB / MiB / GiB, where we state that the recognized international convention is not used.

The last time this was discussed there were as many editors arguing against the present wording as in favour. Greg_L’s tactic of ridicule towards those arguing against the wording, including myself, resulted in a mediation request. Mediation was initially offered by Doug but later turned down at the request of Greg_L and Fnagaton. [67] There is no such consensus. Nor will there be until such time as a reasoned discussion takes place instead of a shouting match.

recent events

INSTABILITY ON MOSNUM BETWEEN 17 APRIL AND 7 JUNE The instability started at 03:02 on 17 April 2008 following this edit by Greg_L, in which he introduces some text into WP:MOSNUM that had not previously been discussed at WT:MOSNUM. (It had been discussed on a sub-page, but most editors on the main talk page were not aware of the proposed new text). Greg_L’s edit was followed by:

list of editors contacted on 15 June 2008 because they

participated in RfC

Aluvus, Fnagaton, Francis_Schonken, Headbomb, Lightmouse, MJCdetroit, Omegatron, Quilbert, SWTPC6800

were mentioned in my post

Gene_Nygaard, Jimp, Tony1

participated in relevant MOSNUM discussion

Woodstone, Jeh, Pyrotec, Seraphimblade

same text used for everyone

Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you.

also contacted

SMcClandish, 16 June, because he attempted mediation at one point

Should MOSNUM continue to deprecate IEC prefixes?

On 7 June 2008 a substantial change was made to WP:MOSNUM, including a virtual ban on the use of IEC units of computer storage such as the mebibyte. At that time, the views of editors arguing against the ban were not taken into account, despite an 11-0 majority against such deprecation only 2 months before that. As far as I know, no attempt was made to seek the views of those 11 editors, even though only 4 of them were involved in the discussions prior to the change in June. Nearly a month has passed since then and it may be time to reconsider whether it is wise for MOSNUM to include a statement for which there is little or no consensus.

A brief summary of events leading up to the change is discussed here. Details of the long discussion leading to the change can be found here. Two subsequent attempts to discuss this point were made by Omegatron and by Quilbert.

Below I list some arguments for and against deprecation.

arguments in favour of the deprecation of IEC prefixes

IEC prefixes are rare and unfamiliar to many readers
etc

arguments against the deprecation of IEC prefixes

IEC prefixes are unambiguous, simple to use and simple to understand
the use of IEC prefixes is supported by national and international standards bodies (IEC, BIPM, IEEE, NIST)
use of IEC prefixes in scientific publications is increasing: 1999-2001 (17 hits); 2002-2004 (34 hits); 2005-2007 (53 hits)
the alternative (binary use of SI-like prefixes) is deprecated by the same standards bodies
deprecation (of IEC prefixes) increases the difficulty threshold for disambiguation, reducing the rate at which articles can be disambiguated by expert editors
in turn this reduces the total number of articles that can be further improved by less expert editors with footnotes etc (assuming that there is consensus to do so)
deprecation is interpreted by some editors as a justification for changing unambiguous units into ambiguous ones
removing IEC prefixes from articles, even when disambiguated with footnotes, destroys a part of the information that was there before, because it requires an expert to work out which footnote corresponds to which use in the article
etc

discussion

I have little doubt that both lists are incomplete. Comments are invited, as well as new additions to either one

who to contact?

editors

all involved in 11-0 vote (except self & Fnagaton's sock)

all involved in discussions prior to 7 June

other involved editors

User:Quilbert (attempted to start a discussion at WT:MOSNUM)
EncMstr (raised point on FAT talk page)
Potatoswatter Mac 512K talk page

final list (union) in alphabetical order

named explicitly in initial mediation request

added later to mediation request by Fnagaton

other involved editors

articles

the 9 affected articles + binary prefix

Should MOSNUM continue to deprecate IEC prefixes?

A discussion has been started at WP:MOSNUM concerning the continued deprecation of IEC prefixes. Please comment at the MOSNUM talk page. ~~ ~~

where next?

About a month ago I approached you for advice on how to deal with a conflict at WT:MOSNUM. You suggested I use this RfC as a suitable venue to respond to the accusation of disruption that had been made against me by User:Greg_L. You can read my response and the ensuing discussion here.

Since then I have been blamed for the conflict at MOSNUM by User:Headbomb during the first of his 2 RfAs and accused of disruption again, this time by User:Fnagaton, on Headbomb’s talk page. This accusation of disruption followed my attempt to start a discussion on 5 July at MOSNUM. As might be expected in any discussion, some editors agree with my point of view and others don't. The problem is that those who agree with me are met with ridicule such as

while an editor who disagrees is cheered on with

Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here.

The net result is to discourage meaningful discussion, giving a false impression of consensus. The best way to get a feel for the atmosphere is to start at the top and read down. Here are some more examples[68] [69].

The question now is what to do about it. I have been advised by one editor to walk away, and I have to admit that option is a tempting one. But last time I came here you suggested mediation as a possible route to resolution. The question then is what does that entail, and how would it solve the problem?

was there ever consensus on this?

reasons to question that consensus was reached:

the concerns of the 3 minority editors (in the 7-3 vote for the present wording) were not taken into account
- the excuse given for this is that these were "I don't like it", but they were not
- mine was a "there is no consensus for this" vote, based on months and months of archived discussion, culminating in a vote of 11-0 against the very deprecation that is used in the present wording
- I did not see a need to go over all of the reasons for an umpteenth time, as I could not believe anyone would have the temerity of ignoring such an overwhelming consensus against deprecation - I was wrong
the views of the editors involved in the 11-0 vote (against the present wording) were not sought
the discussion was held in an acrimonious atmosphere, in which any opposition to deprecation was met with a barrage of ridicule from Greg_L.[70] Some elected to stay away rather than participate in such a mockery of a debate.(under Evidence that editors stay away from MOSNUM due to disruptive behaviour); see also Omegatron's statement

is there consensus for it now?

two attempts at starting a discussion were shouted down [71][72]
in a 3rd attempt, still ongoing, at least 5 editors (Jeh, Seraphimblade, Thunderbird2, Tom94022, Woodstone) are arguing against the present wording[73]. Those who dare to support their view are met with the ridicule from Greg_L:

a similar number is arguing for keeping the present wording. They are cheered on by Greg_L
- Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here.
the need to resort to these tactics to prevent even a discussion about the text demonstrates the weakness of the case for keeping it
the ridicule tactic is not new [74]
Policy statements
- Reasonable consensus-building: Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.
- Forum shopping: It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons.
see also the theses of Quilbert and Omegatron on their personal spaces

not strictly related to consensus but indicative of how things were handled generally

Woodstone had to vote about 5 times to get his vote even counted (it was removed repeatedly)
On many occasions I could not edit the page because it was too big for my browser - that put me at a disadvantage because I was unable to respond to comments of others until after the discussion had passed them by; it may also have put off others, so perhaps there is a (minor) question of consensus here too. My request for splitting the discussion into more manageable sub-pages was ignored
My own version of events is here
Headbomb claims to be even-handed, but he:
- tolerated Greg_L's antics during the debate
- hounded me for answers to his questions while Fnagaton was accusing me of dishonesty, without so much as a request to Fnagaton to withdraw his accusation, despite the fact that I had stated this as a condition for answering them
- accused Omegatron of starting an edit war and ignored evidence to the contrary when presented to him
- presents biased evidence in his archive, leaving the tables of statistics showing that IEC prefixes are rarely used, while hiding all other evidence
- was one of the editors removing Woodstone's vote

evidence that certain editors interpret the guideline as preferring ambiguity

evidence that certain editors prefer the ambiguity

[78]

the case against deprecation

IEC prefixes are unambiguous, simple to use and simple to understand
the use of IEC prefixes is supported by national and international standards bodies (IEC, BIPM, IEEE, NIST)
use of IEC prefixes in scientific publications is increasing: 1999-2001 (17 hits); 2002-2004 (34 hits); 2005-2007 (53 hits)
the alternative (binary use of SI-like prefixes) is deprecated by the same standards bodies
deprecation (of IEC prefixes) increases the difficulty threshold for disambiguation, reducing the rate at which articles can be disambiguated by expert editors
in turn this reduces the total number of articles that can be further improved by less expert editors with footnotes etc (assuming that there is consensus to do so)
deprecation is interpreted by some editors as a justification for changing unambiguous units into ambiguous ones
removing IEC prefixes from articles, even when disambiguated with footnotes, destroys a part of the information that was there before, because it requires an expert to work out which footnote corresponds to which use in the article
Omegatron's thesis
Quilbert's view
in longer term the use of IEC units avoids need to use same symbol (eg MB) with two different meanings (could be implemented with a user preference)