Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive B16

This is a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It is a talk page to discuss the specific issue of IEC prefixes (kibibytes and so on).

There is no consensus to deprecate IEC prefixes

Twice now in the last week, a discussion that I started has been prematurely archived, without giving Headbomb a chance to answer the question I put to him. So let's forget the question and concentrate on the issue.

First, "What is an IEC prefix?" I hear you ask. Read this for a brief introduction and this for the case against the deprecation of their use on Wikipedia.

was there ever consensus on this?

There are several reasons to question that consensus was reached for the present deprecation of IEC prefixes:

• the concerns of the 3 minority editors (in the 7-3 vote for the present wording) were not taken into account. All three (Seraphimblade, Thudnerbird2, Woodstone) expressed concerns about exactly the same piece of text in a larger guideline. The piece of text they were concerned about was the said deprecation. The reason for the concern, at least on my part, was that only 2 months previously, 11 editors had expressed a view that use of IEC prefixes should not be deprecated by MOSNUM (to none against).
• 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
• despite this concern, 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.[1] 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?

• Three attempts at starting a discussion were shouted down [2][3][4]
• In the 3rd attempt, at least 5 editors (Jeh, Seraphimblade, Thunderbird2, Tom94022, Woodstone) argued against the present wording. Those who dared to support their view were met with further ridicule from Greg_L:

• • This MOSNUM talk page has officially been declared a “no whining zone”,
  • “I want my IEC prefixes! I want my IEC prefixes! We had them for three years and I want them baaaaack!. Well… tough and
  • Well, Anomie, do you feel better now after that little fourth-graders’ rant? ,
• a similar number argued for keeping the present wording. They were 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 [5]

After those attacks I requested mediation. An offer of mediation was made by Doug and rejected by Greg_L.

And now, because I dare to question the claimed consensus, Greg_L portrays me as some kind of lunatic[6].

See also the theses of Quilbert and Omegatron on their personal spaces

The following WP Policy statements are relevant:

• 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.

In other words, there is no reason to assign any more weight to the 7-3 vote than to the 11-0 vote before it. The dead horse that anti-IEC editors are so fond of quoting simply doesn't apply here, because there has never been a discussion that concluded in favour of deprecation that has not been dominated by abusive remarks from Greg_L. The result is that editors who wish to take part (like Omegatron and Quilbert) stay away from the discussion because they do not wish to be on the receiving end of such abuse. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrating there is consensus for the guideline text to deprecate IEC prefixes.

IMO there has never been a consensus to deprecate IEC Binray Prefixes and this subject needs to be discussed in this talk page. It is really improper for anyone to revert this section. Tom94022 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO there has never been a consensus to allow IEC binary prefixes (except in articles about the prefixes themselves, or if they're actually used in the source), as they're not used "in the real world". Apparently, even though IEEE accepted the standard, journal authors refused to use it. There's no "there" there.

In spite of the fact that I don't think Greg understands consensus, he was right in this instance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 I see you have not actually tackled the real issue and instead have again misrepresented the actual situation and again have attempted to misrepresent other editors and have again attemtped to use ad hominem. Nothing you have posted above has any substantive valid argument, as I will now demonstrate. For example: You claim you asked a question that had not been answered [7] but that question is fallacious because you know full well there was discussion and that in that discussion you failed to answer questions put directly to you. The question you asked is the same as asking an equally fallacious question such as "Can you point to a discussion proving the moon is not made of cheese?". The "question" you put to him is irrelevant and the answer already known and as such your demand that he answer it is not a valid demand and is wasting the time of Headbomb. You then go on to try to cite really old votes on a tiny issue but there is a much newer larger debate that refutes the older votes you cite because the newer much larger debate provides much stronger arguments than just the vote you cite. Strong arguments make consensus, votes are not strong arguments, and because you keep on repeating this accusation this demonstrates you are refusing to get the point WP:POINT. Then you again repeat the allegation that concerns of some editors were not taken into account, again as the talk archive shows the concerns of the editors were heard but when refuted by much stronger arguments there were no strong arguments in reply (you Thunderbird2 actually refused to give any valid answers many times, this is documented at the end of the talk archive). In the talk archive I can point to at least two key questions asked by two different editors directly to Thunderbird2 where no valid answer relevant to the topic was given. Since those opposing the text made no strong substantive arguments compared to the stronger substantive arguments for the text then the much weaker point of view does not have to be included in the guideline. It is obvious why unsupported weak points of view are not included in guidelines because guidelines need to be made from strong arguments, otherwise we would have guidelines saying "in all articles about the Earth it must be stated that some people believe the Earth to be flat" for example. Read WP:UNDUE because it applies to this situation. Again, repeating false allegations is a violation of WP:POINT. Then you attempt to misrepresent other editors because instead of discussing their arguments you personally attack them instead, therefore you are trying to use ad hominem instead of valid debate. Your actions are a violation of WP:NPA. Also this is not the first time you have posted the same refuted old arguments yet you still continue to repeat them and that is called "beating a dead horse". Since you repeatedly continue to violate policies and guidelines intended to promte valid debate on Wikipedia then this demonstrates disruptive editing. The consensus as demonstrated in the talk archive is that IEC prefixes are not to be used except in very limited situations and that consensus is reflected in the guideline text.Fnagaton 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the tug-of-war

I don't want to see this block of text be inserted and reverted and inserted and reverted anymore. Let it go. It will be automatically archived by the bot, normally, if the interest in it dies down; there is no hurry to archive it. This is getting dreadfully tiresome and close to warranting protection or issuing blocks. I doubt anyone wants to see that happen. If someone wants to keep beating this dead horse into a pulp, let them. Ignore it, don't get involved in an edit war over it. Shereth 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2's comments were archived to remove the violations of WP:NPA from the talk page. Since the user is again repeating those same false allegations then the comments should again be archived and removed to avoid cluttering up this talk page with irrelevant comments.Fnagaton 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• (*sigh*) …since it’s a simple copy/paste… here is the consensus:

Figure of Merit—Binary prefixes (Purplebox)

Degree of support

User	5	4	3	2	1	0
[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)		X
Greg L (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)		X
Fnagaton 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)	X
Woodstone (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)				X
SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)		X
Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)				X
MJCdetroit 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)		X
Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)					X
Dfmclean 19:00, 28 May 2008		X
Pyrotec 22:35 05 June 2008		X

The above was after three solid months of debate. No rule of conduct in a decent and civilized society requires that a single holdout can keep on disrupting a system for so long. T-bird: your objections were heard but your persistent silence, when Headbomb asked you (repeatedly) to explain your reasoning, was deafening. You have no one to blame but yourself for failing to persuade others to your way of thinking. As I stated above, we are done with this issue for now. When there is a change in the reality of the situation and there is actually a fair amount of real-world usage of the IEC prefixes, let us know. Until then, please accept with grace that the consensus is that Wikipedia will communicate to its readership the same way all other encyclopedias and computer magazines do: with terminology and symbols that readers actually recognize. Greg L (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing more can be said to you, Thunderbird2, that hasn’t already been said ten to a hundred times. You arguments and tactics remind me of a stuck record. Your views were heard by all and rejected as unwise. As for “abusive” remarks, and your implication that such alleged abuse somehow undermined the validity of the entire proceedings: nice try, but you obviously stayed in the thick of it to the bitter end (note your above vote)—even in the face of your perceived slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. You have no one to blame but yourself for failing to persuade others to your way of thinking.

  Actually, you had an insurmountable objective: arguing a case to make Wikipedia do something foolish and use terminology that no other encyclopedia in the world uses, nor any computer magazine directed to a general-interest audience, nor which any computer manufacturer uses in marketing communications to their customer bases. Further, you were advocating Wikipedia use terminology that you conceded our readership didn’t even recognize (the fifth entry down is your signature). Further, your silence here for six days on this thread and then, after I archived it, your deciding to drag it back here to keep on flogging this dead horse, is just more of the same old stuff from you. Your actions here are tedious at best, and disruptive at the worst, and I will no longer dignify your tactics with any further responses. Goodbye. Forever. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Something to take under advisement

This page in a nutshell:

If you are the only person left beating the horse after it has died, consider the possibility that you should stop.

There comes a point in every debate on Wikipedia where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in an honourable draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away.

If you don't, if you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it, if you continually refer to old news, if you parade your triumph in the faces of others... you're not really winning friends and influencing people. Instead, you are annoying the hell out of everyone nearby.

If you've "won": good for you. Now go about your business, don't keep reminding us of the fact that your "opponent" didn't "win". If you've "lost": sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business, don't keep reminding us of the fact that your "opponent" didn't actually win because of... whatever. If the debate died a natural death: let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cared except you. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it.

So, the next time you find yourself with the body of a horse: please stop beating it. It won't help.

See also

• Don't be a dick
• Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates
• Wikipedia:Use common sense
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
• Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?
• Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
• Wikipedia:The Last Word

Greg L (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

rebuttal to claim that IEC prefixes never had consensus

• Arthur Rubin states IMO there has never been a consensus to allow IEC binary prefixes (except in articles about the prefixes themselves, or if they're actually used in the source), as they're not used "in the real world". This is simply incorrect. Binary prefixes have been accepted by MOSNUM at least since July 2005 (and even recommended for some of that time). The present dispute began in January 2008 when Fnagaton removed the statement that they were permitted without first establishing that there was consensus to do so. In April 2008 Greg_L removed the text that he and Fnagaton were disputing (twice). [8] [9].
• Greg_L presents his tired table of votes for the umpteenth time, which proves that 3 editors voted against the present text, forgetting to mention that the 3 votes were all for exactly the same reason: that it has been established after lengthy discussion that there is no consensus for the present deprecation.
• Fnagaton protests weakly that I have not tackled the real issue. But he is wrong, for from the outset I present a detailed case against deprecation, prepared by Tom94022 and myself. In case he missed it the first time, he can read it again here,

Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting the actual situation, as I will now demonstrate by refuting each of your points in order: 1)Arthur is correct to say there has been no consensus because since the start of the time period where you claim IEC prefixes are encouraged that actual change to MOSNUM did not have consensus, meaning the arguments presented at the time were not strong arguments that were compatible with existing guidelines. Even Omegatron admits that the original change to "encourage" IEC prefixes does not have consensus. 2) You claim the votes are for the same reason and yet those three same reasons were not substantiated by any strong arguments and were actually refuted by much stronger arguments. Since you and those two other votes do not have any strong argument and are just "ILIKEIT" then are are irrrelevent when it comes to deciding consensus. Again, do not misrepresent the situation by trying to cite much older refuted arguments when much newer stronger arguments exist in newer talk archives. 3) The link you post is to your talk page and misrepresents the situation by missing out the actual links to the multiple times you have repreated the same old refuted statements. Proof of this is that everything in that link you posted is basically a copy-paste of the same text here with minor tweaks and in that talk page archive those unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected again by multiple editors. Then the time before that in the previous archive and then again here. A very short summary of the whole talk page archives presented above is that everything in that link you posted above is contrary to how Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies because nothing in that link tackles the real issue that using IEC prefixes is against the following WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Those cited guidelines and policies are relevant because we use secondary sources for articles and those sources do not use IEC prefixes in the majority of cases (less than 1% of secondary sources actually use IEC prefixes). You want to rely on the primary sources of the standards bodies but you cannot do that without secondary sources to support your point of view, since you have very few secondary sources then WP:UNDUE applies. The fact that the majority of publications do not use IEC indicates that they do not see IEC as a benefit to their readers. This is no surprise because the majority of manufacturers also do not use IEC prefixes. IEC Prefixes were proposed nine years ago now so their failed adoption by most of the technical people indicates they are a failed standard, thus they are a fringe theory (WP:UNDUE). Headbomb is an excellent example of remaining balanced and neutral because he personally likes IEC prefixes but he also knows that Wikipedia is not the place to use them ecause he reads and understands the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This neutrality is why we must reference existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies when considering changes to guidelines. Since the vast majority of the real world does not use IEC prefixes then to advocate use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation presents a false point of view (synthesis of an idea from a primary source) to our readers, which violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Thunderbird2, just because you keep on repeating the same weak statements does not suddenly mean you have a strong argument, you do not, you have been refuted many times by much stronger arguments, stop beating this dead horse. I therefore note you have still not provded any substantive arguments and you have still not tackled the actual issue and that you have not answered questions put to you.Fnagaton 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been answered about twenty millions times by now and your lack of tackling the real issue has been well documented. I've asked you well over 20 times to give substantial arguments over 3 months and you've failed to do so every time (See [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]] amongst others). I've berated Greg for encouraging bad faith when it came to dealing with you ([19]) , saying that I would rather form my own opinions on this. Greg took numerous swings at me and at my supposed agenda for the promotion of the IEC prefixes. I'm a personal proponent of IEC prefixes in the real world, I use them and I love them. The fact that I side with Greg and Fnag (and Pyrotec, and Marty Goldberg, and SWTPC6800, and MJCdetroit, and Franci Schonken, and Jimp, and Rilak, and Dfmclean ...) on this is a testament to both the weakness of your position and arguments and the strength of theirs. Please drop the stick. You are a single-purpose account who spends >95% of his time pushing for binary prefixes. Go away. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• What the holy hell are you proposing Thunderbird2? Do you want to take Wikipedia back to the days when we had some computer articles that used “megabyte (MB)” to denote 1024² bytes and still others used “mebibyte (MiB)” to denote the same value? Using different terminology in different articles isn’t going to happen here before hell freezes over; we’re going to be consistent. So just what do you want? Just answer that one damned question, will you please? Do you want Wikipedia to standardize—completely  in every article that refers to these sort of values—upon the IEC prefixes? Or do you just want them somehow “permitted” so you can use them in any article you touch and not have them reverted? Answer that question or go away. Man you are annoying. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Motion to archive the above

Headbomb and Greg, since Thunderbird2 and Tom have not provided any new substantive arguments on this issue and because if Thunderbird2 had not just posted the same old refuted statements he has repeated ad nauseam then this section would have been archived by the bot and because Thunderbird2 has still not given valid answers to questions directed to him: I propse that this whole section be archived to avoid cluttering up this talk page with Thunderbird2's violations of WP:POINT. In the interests of playing fair Thunderbird2 and Tom can have one last chance to present new substantive arguments and to give valid answers to questions in the talk archive (instead of repeating the same refuted statements from his talk page). If either of them continue to repeat the same old refuted statements (i.e. beat the dead horse) then I propose to archive immediately. Does anyone (apart from Thunderbird2 or Tom, obviously) disagree with this? Fnagaton 04:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stop the nonsense a while ago, but alas it didn't work so we have this diarrhea on WT:MOS once more. Trying to archiving it again will just lead to more accusations of who knows what at this point. Let's just ignore them and have the bot archive this whole crap. We're tried sensible discussion, they aren't interested in that. So unless they can somehow establish that using binary prefixes is does not go against WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and I'm sure you know of many others since you've been here longuer than I, let's just move on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:UNDUE as well. I seem to remember Arthur also mentioning WP:NEO, Arthur can you remember where that was? Fnagaton 07:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Archiving just looks like censorship. I tried archiving, but that was after he hadn’t responded in six wholes days. Then he posted the whole damned thing back here and added a little message that he was really discussing it somewhere else. To us, his antics seem like spraying graffiti. Clean it off the wall, and a couple days later the wall says “Thunderbird2 was here” in the morning. To others, he is expressing a minority viewpoint.

  I’d truly like him to simply explain what precisely his ultimate objective is here. That’s preferable to listening to him complain about how nobody is listening. OK, we’re all ears Thunderbird2. What is your objective? Do you want the IEC prefixes used here on Wikipedia? Because if you do, we better be consistent here. Even though no one else in the real world is using them (no computer manufacturer to their customer base, no computer magazine to a general-interest readership, and no general encyclopedia), if Wikipedia is to be all alone on this one as far as real-world practice goes, we’re going to be consistent about it. So man-up T-bird! If that is your objective (get Wikipedia using the IEC prefixes), we should run your proposal up the flagpole and see who salutes it. If you can’t answer this simple question (what is it you’re trying to accomplish besides annoying Headbomb, Fnagaton, and me), you really should shoot your damned computer so you can resist the temptation to come here and bother others; that’s not nice. Greg L (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the case when someone is repeatedly being disruptive to Wikipedia then archiving their comments to remove clutter couldn't be seen as censorship, more like enforcement of policy. Fnagaton 07:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For once it is Headbomb you chooses to be offensive while Greg_L is being constructive, in his fashion. I will respond to his challenge directly, disregarding its unnecessarily confrontational nature. My objective is the same now as it always has been: to establish whether or not consensus exists for the present deprecation. You 3 insist that it exists but are unable to demonstrate it. I am completely pragmatic: maybe it exists, maybe not. Let’s find out by asking the question, without insulting those who happen to disagree with one or other point of view. There has never been any need or justification for that. (It goes without saying that archiving the discussion before it has run its course amounts to censorship). Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus and the evidence is archived. The archive also shows you failed to provide any valid strong argument and also shows you failed to respond to questions directed to you. Your point of view is demonstrated as being unsupported and therefore weak which is why it was considered and rejected and not allowed to be part of the guideline. Weak unsupported points of view are not included in guidelines for obvious reasons. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is consensus for the strong arguments in that archive. Stop violating WP:POINT. Archiving a discussion before it is finished might be censorship, but what you are doing is not a discussion, what you are doing is repeatedly violating WP:POINT and as such archiving your violations is enforcement of policy because your edits are disruptive to Wikipedia. Stop trying to claim there isn't consensus for something when there obviously is, instead actually tackle the real substance of the arguments presented and start answering questions. I note you have still refused to give valid answers to questions directed to you. Due to your repeated violations of guidelines and policies you cannot be assumed to be acting in good faith anymore, that is why the moderator dismissed your request for mediation and that is why the multiple admins dismissed all of your unblock requests. You are in the wrong here, the sooner you realise this and stick to constructive editing the better it will be for you. Fnagaton 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• As is your (consistent) style, you (again) attempt to duck the issue Thunderbird2. And you try to bait Headbomb and set him up for another one of your ANIs. You hide behind procedural rhetoric about how you contest that there ever was a consensus to deprecate the IEC prefixes. That is a moot point, since Omegatron (a lead proponent of the IEC prefixes) himself admitted (∆ here), that “there was no consensus” to begin using the IEC prefixes in the first place. I’m calling your horseplay for what it is. You are simply hoping to come to WT:MOSNUM when Fnagaton, Headbomb, and I aren’t “looking” (or are ignoring you), get two or three like-minded editors to agree with you, and then revise MOSNUM to permit the IEC prefixes. Then you’d edit war over how there is no consensus to undo your move. Isn’t that right?

  To any admin looking at this post: I have clear proof that Thunderbird has lost the right to be presumed to be operating here in good faith since it is a matter of record that he lied and deceived to get his way only about five months ago. He pretended to be a swing-vote moderate and said that to gain his support, he wanted some concessions in wording that watered down arguments against using the IEC prefixes. I gave him precisely what he asked for. But when it was clear that the revised wording would still ban the IEC prefixes, he finally “came out of the closet" ramped up his opposition to what was going on, and in the end, voted *against* the wording after I watered it down per his wishes. He manipulates others and isn’t up front in his dealings. He wastes our time. He is not due an “assumption of good faith” because he has proven his SOP is to not operate in good faith. I utterly reject the notion that any rule in a decent and civilized society requires that civilized men in a party have to endlessly put up with a brute who crashes a party, disrupts all the proceedings, and refuses to behave himself. It’s high time to kick his ass out onto the street curb.

  I’ll have none of your B.S. anymore Thunderbird2. Your objective here is clear. There will no longer be inconsistent use of binary prefixes on Wikipedia (where some articles say “256 megabytes (MB)” to denote 1024² bytes, and still other articles say “256 mebibytes (MiB)” to denote the exact same value. We will be consistent here. Further, you will not be permitted to get your way by using procedural maneuvers. What you clearly want—I’d bet a hundred bucks—is to weasel in a MOSNUM guideline that “permits” their use and then you’ll start changing article upon article until we’ve once again got a bastard mess here on Wikipedia. This is the same bullshit Sarenne tried until he got banned for life. No one else in the real world is using the IEC prefixes (no computer manufacturer to their customer base, no computer magazine to a general-interest readership, and no general encyclopedia). If you got what you want, Wikipedia would be all alone on this one as far as real-world practice goes. For God’s sake, everyone agreed—even you—that our readership didn’t even recognize  the IEC prefixes. And yet, here you are, agitating for using them anyway. So…

  I’m going to do an end run around you Thunderbird2 and put all my chips in. Call my bet or get out of the game. No. We will not argue about whether there was or was not a consensus at various points in the past. We will determine what the consensus would be today if a vote were held on what you ultimately want. No. We will not merely “allow” the IEC prefixes so you can slyly go about your edits and Wikipedia becomes a bastard mix of of inconsistent usage. No. There will be no further debate. There has been a record amount of discussion on this issue already (fifteen archives dedicated exclusively to this one God damned issue). We’ll simply have a new vote. We’ll put a notice on a number of computer-related articles, on WP:MOS, WT:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and WT:MOSNUM. The vote will be either that we go A) Completely to IEC prefixes for any binary value, or B) use the conventional terminology everyone else on this pale blue dot uses. If the vote is for “A” then we set a bot loose and change all binary values on Wikipedia to kibibyte (KiB), mebibyte (MiB), and gibibyte (GiB).

  You know what I think your response to the above will be? You will A) argue on procedural grounds over how our current policy never had a proper consensus. Or B) respond with an RfC or ANI over my mistreatment of you (bring it on: I’m just sick of your continual disruption of Wikipedia; I, at least, try to deal with others honorably and play by the rules). Or C) you will fall silent and duck the inconvenient fact that if a vote was conducted today on standardizing on the consistent and exclusive use of the IEC prefixes for binary values, the motion won’t go at all well.

  Now stop ducking and bobbing and weaving and playing your horseshit games. Do you want to have a new vote to see what the true consensus is today(?), or do you just want to keep on being the most annoying Wikipedian who still hasn’t been banned for life? Signed, with pleasure: Greg L (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[*Greg L’s response to the guys in the white pants and shirts holding the straight jacket*]: “Why yes. I’m fine. I won’t try to hurt myself or others. I’m feeling much better now. Thank you.” Greg L (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that none of you are ready for any kind of constructive debate. Greg_L in particular has reverted to the time-honoured bullying tactics that have served him so well in the past. At the risk of repeating myself: I believe that MOSNUM should only include statements for which there is a strong consensus. None of you have been able to offer any evidence that there is consensus for the present wording, apart from a discussion that was dominated by bullying and ridicule. You cannot achieve consensus by such methods, only the appearance of such. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Last chance warning for Thunderbird2 before user conduct RFC

Thunderbird2, this is the last chance warning before you are referred for user conduct RFC. The following three items summarise the issues with your edits: 1) Stop using ad hominem to misrepresent other editors (on your talk pages and other pages) and thus only tackle the substance of their arguments. 2) Stop trying to claim there is no consensus because the talk archive shows your claim is baseless. 3) Stop repeatedly copy-pasting/spamming the same content from your talk pages because when you do you violate WP:POINT "Refusal to 'get the point' ". Fnagaton 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)