This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
It is desired that User:Greg L:
If the above fail, it is desired that Greg be banned from editing or discussing the Manual of Style, and making edits related to the dispute. (He appears to have some potential for productive editing in other venues.)
User:Greg L is persistently belligerent to other editors, contributing to an atmosphere of hostility on Manual of Style talk pages, driving away a number of contributors. He proudly disregards the opinions of others, attempting to create policy through brute force and votes instead of making an honest effort to understand and address the viewpoints of others.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
I do not have the time to respond to all that an administrator like Omegatron is capable of resorting to. I am not an administrator myself and am at a disadvantage here. I have done good work on Wikipedia, being the principle shepherd of Wikipedia’s
Kilogram and
Thermodynamic temperature articles. If you will click on the above Administrators’ noticeboard link you will find that many, many other editors, most of whom have been active the goings-on on Talk:MOSNUM, and at least one of whom is an uninvolved editor believe this is nothing more than a content dispute and is not one over my behavior; an argument I and the others regard as a red herring. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over
Follow current literature, which would
deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes). Omegatron is attacking an editor who has been the major force in reversing this. This is abuse by an administrator who is gaming the system. I will now have to go back to each of the editors who tried to help me over the last few hours on Administrators’ noticeboard, and ask them to weigh in here too in my defense. No, I will not jump through all these hoops. This is abuse by administrator and I ask that it be stopped at once. All the editors who came to my defense the first time shouldn’t have to chase after Omegatron to here. Please see their responses
here. Thank you.
Greg L (
talk)
02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I decided to copy my primary response from Administrators’ noticeboard to here. It is as follows:
As for charges of “vote stacking”, many, many editors have voted on various incarnations of a policy that would discontinue the use of the IEC prefixes. In each vote, a clear majority of editors wanted to discontinue the practice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), most of these editors aren’t nearly as passionate about the IEC prefixes; they just weigh in with a vote comment along the lines of “makes sense to me and will solve a long-standing problem that has been a source of friction for years” and then go off to happier editing waters where there is less bickering. After those votes had been conducted, the opponents of change (proponents to continue using the IEC prefixes) moved the discussion to hard-to-find backwater venues and took the issue completely off the radar screens of all these moderate, less impassioned editors. It magically seemed that they also knew how to work in a highly coordinated fashion when doing so. Then, when a new vote comes up, the only people voting on it were a very small subset of the original editors who had voted on the original proposals. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these moderate-minded editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I did this out in the open using postings on talk pages and did not use e-mails whatsoever. First I was told this was “canvassing”. When it became clear that I had only contacted moderate editors who had lost track of the issue, I was told it was “vote stacking.” I responded that the proponents of the continued use the IEC prefixes could contact “no-vote”-minded editors if they liked. They didn’t take me up on the offer and the obvious reason is that all the editors who were ever going to continue to vote “oppose” to the new guidelines were the ones who were active on the discussion and were working in consort; the tactic of moving the discussion to remote backwaters had achieved the intended effect of taking it off radar screens. And my letting these other editors know about that their original votes had been nullified amounted to playing right into a trap. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to throw me into jail for doing so.
As for incivility, my read on policy is that I am not permitted to do “personal attacks”, which I have no interest in remotely getting close to. So it comes down to whether my “incivility” has risen to the level of being terribly rude and disruptive. I’ve come across other pages where editors where sanctioned for calling other editors “stupid” or suggesting that certain editors should leave editing to others who “are more intelligent.” Again, I don’t think I’ve written anything that rises to this level, and if I did, I apologize. At the same time, I have no difficulty calling childish behavior childish. For instance, to choose just one of the above quoted “charges” against me, I feel that Thunderbird2 had gone to an article ( Mac Pro) and purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes just to show how “impossible” the task was. He even wrote on the Talk:MOSNUM pages that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” I checked, and there wasn’t a “number of different articles” that he tried it on, just the “Mac Pro” article. I’ve written numerous times that what he did was a simple case of passive resistance to prove a point. It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. I am a believer in “assuming good faith.” But when certain editors have clearly demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior, such as pledging to support a proposal with a “support” vote if I do exactly as they request with some modified wording (removal of some text and addition of some other), and then they reciprocate with an “oppose” vote, I don’t think any policy on Wikipedia requires that editors have to suspend common sense.
Finally, as to the charge that my “intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution”, that is utter and complete nonsense. The only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because I first got involved back in March with my Third, hybrid proposal: Binary prefixes in computer memory and storage. That developed into Fourth draft in April, which a number of outside, uninvolved editors declared as having achieved consensus and was posted to MOSNUM as Follow current literature. That new guideline calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. Thunderbird doesn’t like it. Both he and Omegatron allege that it didn’t have a consensus for being posted. Of course, both can’t be considered as unbiased as to whether or not a consensus was truly achieved. It is notable that uninvolved editors, one of whom Francis Schonken, who is active in dispute resolution and policy issues on Wikipedia stated as follows: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” And that was before yet another major vote was conducted, which was 8:3 for adoption to MOSNUM, with no more “oppose” votes in over two days. No, in fact, the only reason Omegatron has come to Administrators’ noticeboard is because a consensus has been building in a direction he does not want it to go. Below is the vote, as of this writing on an alternative policy that would still call for no longer using the IEC prefixes:
5 - Purplebox is perfect, it is as if a benevolent deity (which I may or may not believe in) came down on earth and gave us this version of MOSNUM.
4 - Purplebox is a vast improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. While I have some minor concerns, it addresses all of my major concern in a satisfactory way. I can fathom that there is a possibility that someone comes along with a new way of doing things that might be better than this one, but this is good enough for me.
3 - Purplebox is a improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. However, I still have some major concerns that were are not addresses by this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before I can say I'm comfortable with things.
2 - Purplebox is an downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some severe objections to this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being I can say I'm comfortable with things.
1 - Purplebox is a severe downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some nearly irreconcilable objections to this version of the Purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being saying that I am even remotely comfortable with things.
0 - Purplebox is the the pinnacle of counter-productiveness that all trolls strive for. It's as if the authors wrote it with the goal of maximizing the ill-effects that would ensue if people are silly enough to adopt this version of things.
User | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [1] | |||||
Greg L ( talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | X [2] | |||||
Fnag aton 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | X [3] | |||||
Woodstone ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [4] | |||||
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | X | |||||
Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | X [5] | |||||
MJCdetroit 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | X [6] | |||||
Thunderbird2 ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [7] | |||||
Dfmclean 19:00, 28 May 2008 | X [8] | |||||
New user |
Yet another quote that seems scandalous when taken out of context is, "Who is this anonymous chicken shit? ... How old are you? Sixteen? Grow up. ... you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a crap about this." That was directed to an I.P. user (later understood to be the banned-for-life NotSarenne), who came to my personal talk page to anonymously accuse me of being biased and having a hidden agenda. For the record, NotSarenne continues to vandalize and harass editors on Talk:MOSNUM and has had numerous range-blocks put on his IPs (217.87…). All to no avail as he readily circumvents them. We just put up with him. Editors such as this may be dealt with differently from editors who don't purposely try to be disruptive. I have no doubt that Omegatron understood this perfectly well when he chose that little jewel for inclusion here. He is perfectly familiar with “217.87…”. HIs choosing to include this anyway not only inconveniences me, but he is exploiting the fact that bureaucrats and other administrators are too time constrained to pay attention to all these details. IMO, he’s playing us all for fools.
Much of the rest—writings in response to specious and fallacious arguments posted on Talk:MOSNUM—seems pretty tame to me. I’m referring to quotes like "P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid?", "Give it up for God’s sake." "No. I reject such an attitude as arrogant and utter nonsense." I reject the notion that Wikipedia’ sense of “civility” has grown so thin-skinned that this is prohibited thought that can not be expressed. Has Wikipedia gotten to the point where plain-speak is no longer allowed? Where a computerized voice from the PA system intones “ That is twenty demerit points Sgt. John Spartan.” No, Omegatron knows that if you throw a humongous list of accusations up against the wall, certainly some of it must stick—particularly when he exploits little nuggets he knows full well will be taken completely out of context. I had a business partner who tried this same stunt (throwing up a huge pile of paperwork) in binding arbitration. The arbiter saw right through it all and ruled entirely in my and other business partner’s favor. Greg L ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
P.P.P.S.: In Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute, above, Thunderbird2 wrote his #6 point. This is another example of T-bird being (*ahem*)… “disingenuous and selective” in what he chooses to quote from my writings. The following, is my entire comment ( ∆ here) in-context after T-bird had been arguing with Fnagaton here on Talk:MOSNUM and was continuing to defend his having edited against consensus.
Editors should use the conventional prefixes, such as kilobyte (KB) and megabyte (MB), and disambiguate where necessary.
The IEC prefixes are not to be used on Wikipedia except under the following circumstances:
• when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes,
• when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes,
• in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes.
The consensus was that for the byte and bit prefixes, the spirit of the MoS is better reflected by having familiar but ambiguous units, rather than unambiguous but unfamiliar units.
This was a case where the issue of the IEC prefixes had been (supposedly) settled, the policy posted to MOSNUM, and Thunderbird conveniently ignored the policy, continued to edit against consensus, and reverted another editor’s work. Thunderbird was roundly admonished by me, Fnagaton, SWTPC6800, Warren, and Francis Schonken for this. In fact, Francis, in the face of this disruption, transcluded WP:DEADHORSE to the MOSNUM talk page, which provided the following links to Thunderbird to read up on:
Thunderbird’s response? He came here, cited one snippet out of context, and further, had the gal to cite that snippet as “Evidence of [my] failing to resolve the dispute”. In fact, the truth was entirely the opposite: Thunderbird was continuing to create conflict by ignoring the consensus view. His coming here and quoting me out of context in order to make it look like the reverse is a violation of Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Engaging in incivility, which cites this as being uncivil: “Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them.”
I am not angry about this. Not in the least. In fact, I was quite happy that T-bird did so; for obvious reasons. Thank you T-bird. Cheers. Greg L ( talk) 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Inside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The clash between Omegatron and Greg L is a content dispute. The Binary Prefix section of the Manual of Style (data and numbers) had been stable since August 2007 with "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." This was the result of months of talk page discussion and was not the version Omegatron favored. Without further discussion, Omegatron has made changes to the Manual of Style to restore his preferred version, "There is no consensus on whether to use the historical prefixes or the newer IEC standard in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." [25] [26] [27]
The IEC proponents felt that SI units were essential and the ambiguity must be removed without regard to readability. In March, Greg started campaigning to diminish the use of the IEC prefixes because most readers found them to be techno-babble and no one outside of Wikipedia used them. Greg provided powerful and convincing arguments that were filibustered by the IEC supporters. Greg was forceful in his proposal but would make numerous changes to try to placate his opponents. If Greg thought that someone's argument is specious, he might tell them so with a colorful expression. Some of Greg comments might have been a bit strong but some of the opponent's arguments were very specious.
This went on for three months with the IEC proponents not willing to concede that Wikipedia should follow other encyclopedias, the technical press, the general press and the computer industry that ignore the IEC prefixes. It looked like Greg's or Headbomb's proposal would be adopted, both diminished the use of the IEC prefixes. Omegatron had strangely been on the sidelines. All of a sudden, Omegatron attacks Greg's "uncivil" behavior. Omegatron has been deeply involved in the IEC binary prefix dispute for 3 years. These charges might carry more weight if they were brought by someone not so closely identified with this content dispute.
The dispute about "Follow the outside world" versus "Ambiguity must be eliminated" is not new. In the first binary prefix talk archive has the following: User:Nohat suggested The Wikipedia should only represent common usage. Omegatron dismissed Nohat's suggestion with a very "Greg L" style response, "Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. - Omegatron 12:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)"
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) -- I have been watching the binary unit dispute since April 2007. I have closely followed the discussion over the last few months and have made comments here and there. I am not sure where my response goes in this RFC. Please move them if this is not the correct section.
Users who endorse this summary:
Note: I refactored the "selective quoting" comment out of the first section because some agree with it but not the rest of my summary. --
SWTPC6800 (
talk)
16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Selective quoting in evidence
The "Evidence of disputed behavior" above is extremely biased with selective quoting. Some of the "barbs" are directed in jest at Greg's supporters or even at himself. On other occasions Greg's comments are the mildest of the debate. If you look at the context around the selective quote: P-u-h-l-e-e-ze! Who are you trying to kid? [28] You will find Greg's opponents making disruptive statements like "rabid editors such as Fnagaton" and "Fnagaton should have been blocked with Sarenne."
I would guess half of the claims have no merit at all. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Lipstick on a pig
Greg's "lipstick on a pig" comment was directed at the IEC, not a Wikipedia editor. Greg sometimes works with real live pigs in his day job, I am not sure if he has to apply lipstick on them.
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Binary Prefix Overview
Computer memory size is usually multiples of 2. For example: 256. 512, 1024, or 2048. These are known as binary multiples. In the 1950s, computer engineers and programmers began referring to 1024 as 1K or 1k. Based on the kilo being 1000.
At the same time, there were computers such as the IBM 1401 that had decimal sized memory. For example: 4000, 8000 or 16000 characters. These were referred to as 4k, 8k or 16k.
There was minor confusion about how big was 4k of memory. Soon all computers used binary addressed memory. Storage media, magnetic tape and disk, would have its capacity measured in decimal, with an exact number.
In the 1980s, computer users would see the memory measured in binary and the storage measured in decimal or binary. There was some confusion about the capacity of a 360 KB or 720 KB floppy (KB = kilobyte = 1024 bytes). The misnaming of 1440 KB floppy as the 1.44 MB floppy caused more confusion. Hard disks were often measured with decimal units. (540 MB or 2 GB)
In 1999, several standards bodies tried to fix this problem by creating a new set of units. The kilobyte (kB) was always to be 1000 bytes, and the new kibibyte (KiB) would be 1024 bytes. These are referred to as the IEC binary prefixes. There was a decimal megabyte (MB) and a binary mibibyte (MiB). (And so on, and so on.)
Many standards bodies adopted the new units but the publishing industry and computer industry have ignored them. In 2005, a group of Wikipedia editors proposed that the new units become a part of the Manual of Style. They were incorporated into the MoS and there has been continuous arguments about them ever since. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
Like SWTPC6800, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate section for my comments. Move them to the correct section as appropriate.
I feel that both sides are mostly correct in their claims. Starting with Greg L, he was indeed right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote, and of the opposition vote, only 1 was substantiated from Jimp). Omegatron started an edit war by reverting FCL, that went on between Greg L and Omegatron (I also reverted things some of the time to show that Greg was not the only one thinking that there was indeed consensus for the upload.) I consider this to be disruptive editing from Omegatron's part (some say abuse of power, but I don't understand what Omegatron did that a regular couldn't), altough I do not pretend to know the reasons of his editing. As time progressed, "against" votes increased and FCL lost the consensus it had, and a newer proposal made by myself covered the intent of FCL section in a way that eventually did gain consensus. Proper responsed should've been to leave the FCL section on the MOSNUM page, and put a disputed tag on it, mentionning that section was under debate. Greg's frustration with some editors was very understandable, as they seldom gave reasons for the things they said, and the reasons given were often weak.
However, with that said, the way Greg L handled things was often completely inappropriate, ranging from arguing from bad faith, personal attacks, insults, refusing to hear what the other side said, labeling of people who disagreed with him as "radical extremists". The reasoning invoked was that "[i]n discussions here on Wikipedia talk pages, criticism of and ridicule of someone’s positions are fair game". And all this with very little regards to whether or not the target of his attacks was a legitimate source of frustration. Not that this would've been the right attitude to have were the target of his attacks a legitimate source of frustration in the first place.
IMO both sides should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say that my view of Greg has shifted over the past few months since the fracas over the rewriting of several sections at MOSNUM—from feeling he was rather aggressively pursuing his bids to improve the page, to a realisation that he's making a valuable contribution to reforming a key page in the project, and expresses himself in colourful and larger-than-life language. He should probably tone it down, especially for newcomers who don't know him, but I think the regulars have by and large come to read his comments in the right context, as being in good faith and well-meaning underneath a ruffled surface. Quickly reading through the cited comments at the top made me realise that some of them are humorous, taken in that vein; I also see that in another place, with other people, they might give offence.
My view is that people should chill out and take his discourse in context at MOSNUM. He's a valuable member of our community, and this page has gone on quite long enough. I suggest that it be closed. Tony (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
I’m not going to indulge in the heat of the debate but will just add some remarks that might or might not be helpful.
I hope these comments can be a little of help and that I didn’t tap on anyone’s toe. -- Quilbert ( talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I have almost nothing to say, but it is relevant that Thunderbird2 ( talk · contribs) brought this to the Wikiquette Alerts page here. It is sort of redundant to add a Wikiquette Alert when there is already a user conduct RfC, so I marked it as such. Not sure if this adds to the discussion or if it is red herring, but there it is.. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oi. Greg. Shut. -- harej 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
It is desired that User:Greg L:
If the above fail, it is desired that Greg be banned from editing or discussing the Manual of Style, and making edits related to the dispute. (He appears to have some potential for productive editing in other venues.)
User:Greg L is persistently belligerent to other editors, contributing to an atmosphere of hostility on Manual of Style talk pages, driving away a number of contributors. He proudly disregards the opinions of others, attempting to create policy through brute force and votes instead of making an honest effort to understand and address the viewpoints of others.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
I do not have the time to respond to all that an administrator like Omegatron is capable of resorting to. I am not an administrator myself and am at a disadvantage here. I have done good work on Wikipedia, being the principle shepherd of Wikipedia’s
Kilogram and
Thermodynamic temperature articles. If you will click on the above Administrators’ noticeboard link you will find that many, many other editors, most of whom have been active the goings-on on Talk:MOSNUM, and at least one of whom is an uninvolved editor believe this is nothing more than a content dispute and is not one over my behavior; an argument I and the others regard as a red herring. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over
Follow current literature, which would
deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes). Omegatron is attacking an editor who has been the major force in reversing this. This is abuse by an administrator who is gaming the system. I will now have to go back to each of the editors who tried to help me over the last few hours on Administrators’ noticeboard, and ask them to weigh in here too in my defense. No, I will not jump through all these hoops. This is abuse by administrator and I ask that it be stopped at once. All the editors who came to my defense the first time shouldn’t have to chase after Omegatron to here. Please see their responses
here. Thank you.
Greg L (
talk)
02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I decided to copy my primary response from Administrators’ noticeboard to here. It is as follows:
As for charges of “vote stacking”, many, many editors have voted on various incarnations of a policy that would discontinue the use of the IEC prefixes. In each vote, a clear majority of editors wanted to discontinue the practice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), most of these editors aren’t nearly as passionate about the IEC prefixes; they just weigh in with a vote comment along the lines of “makes sense to me and will solve a long-standing problem that has been a source of friction for years” and then go off to happier editing waters where there is less bickering. After those votes had been conducted, the opponents of change (proponents to continue using the IEC prefixes) moved the discussion to hard-to-find backwater venues and took the issue completely off the radar screens of all these moderate, less impassioned editors. It magically seemed that they also knew how to work in a highly coordinated fashion when doing so. Then, when a new vote comes up, the only people voting on it were a very small subset of the original editors who had voted on the original proposals. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these moderate-minded editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I did this out in the open using postings on talk pages and did not use e-mails whatsoever. First I was told this was “canvassing”. When it became clear that I had only contacted moderate editors who had lost track of the issue, I was told it was “vote stacking.” I responded that the proponents of the continued use the IEC prefixes could contact “no-vote”-minded editors if they liked. They didn’t take me up on the offer and the obvious reason is that all the editors who were ever going to continue to vote “oppose” to the new guidelines were the ones who were active on the discussion and were working in consort; the tactic of moving the discussion to remote backwaters had achieved the intended effect of taking it off radar screens. And my letting these other editors know about that their original votes had been nullified amounted to playing right into a trap. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to throw me into jail for doing so.
As for incivility, my read on policy is that I am not permitted to do “personal attacks”, which I have no interest in remotely getting close to. So it comes down to whether my “incivility” has risen to the level of being terribly rude and disruptive. I’ve come across other pages where editors where sanctioned for calling other editors “stupid” or suggesting that certain editors should leave editing to others who “are more intelligent.” Again, I don’t think I’ve written anything that rises to this level, and if I did, I apologize. At the same time, I have no difficulty calling childish behavior childish. For instance, to choose just one of the above quoted “charges” against me, I feel that Thunderbird2 had gone to an article ( Mac Pro) and purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes just to show how “impossible” the task was. He even wrote on the Talk:MOSNUM pages that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” I checked, and there wasn’t a “number of different articles” that he tried it on, just the “Mac Pro” article. I’ve written numerous times that what he did was a simple case of passive resistance to prove a point. It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. I am a believer in “assuming good faith.” But when certain editors have clearly demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior, such as pledging to support a proposal with a “support” vote if I do exactly as they request with some modified wording (removal of some text and addition of some other), and then they reciprocate with an “oppose” vote, I don’t think any policy on Wikipedia requires that editors have to suspend common sense.
Finally, as to the charge that my “intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution”, that is utter and complete nonsense. The only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because I first got involved back in March with my Third, hybrid proposal: Binary prefixes in computer memory and storage. That developed into Fourth draft in April, which a number of outside, uninvolved editors declared as having achieved consensus and was posted to MOSNUM as Follow current literature. That new guideline calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. Thunderbird doesn’t like it. Both he and Omegatron allege that it didn’t have a consensus for being posted. Of course, both can’t be considered as unbiased as to whether or not a consensus was truly achieved. It is notable that uninvolved editors, one of whom Francis Schonken, who is active in dispute resolution and policy issues on Wikipedia stated as follows: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” And that was before yet another major vote was conducted, which was 8:3 for adoption to MOSNUM, with no more “oppose” votes in over two days. No, in fact, the only reason Omegatron has come to Administrators’ noticeboard is because a consensus has been building in a direction he does not want it to go. Below is the vote, as of this writing on an alternative policy that would still call for no longer using the IEC prefixes:
5 - Purplebox is perfect, it is as if a benevolent deity (which I may or may not believe in) came down on earth and gave us this version of MOSNUM.
4 - Purplebox is a vast improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. While I have some minor concerns, it addresses all of my major concern in a satisfactory way. I can fathom that there is a possibility that someone comes along with a new way of doing things that might be better than this one, but this is good enough for me.
3 - Purplebox is a improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. However, I still have some major concerns that were are not addresses by this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before I can say I'm comfortable with things.
2 - Purplebox is an downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some severe objections to this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being I can say I'm comfortable with things.
1 - Purplebox is a severe downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some nearly irreconcilable objections to this version of the Purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being saying that I am even remotely comfortable with things.
0 - Purplebox is the the pinnacle of counter-productiveness that all trolls strive for. It's as if the authors wrote it with the goal of maximizing the ill-effects that would ensue if people are silly enough to adopt this version of things.
User | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [1] | |||||
Greg L ( talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | X [2] | |||||
Fnag aton 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | X [3] | |||||
Woodstone ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [4] | |||||
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | X | |||||
Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | X [5] | |||||
MJCdetroit 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | X [6] | |||||
Thunderbird2 ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | X [7] | |||||
Dfmclean 19:00, 28 May 2008 | X [8] | |||||
New user |
Yet another quote that seems scandalous when taken out of context is, "Who is this anonymous chicken shit? ... How old are you? Sixteen? Grow up. ... you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a crap about this." That was directed to an I.P. user (later understood to be the banned-for-life NotSarenne), who came to my personal talk page to anonymously accuse me of being biased and having a hidden agenda. For the record, NotSarenne continues to vandalize and harass editors on Talk:MOSNUM and has had numerous range-blocks put on his IPs (217.87…). All to no avail as he readily circumvents them. We just put up with him. Editors such as this may be dealt with differently from editors who don't purposely try to be disruptive. I have no doubt that Omegatron understood this perfectly well when he chose that little jewel for inclusion here. He is perfectly familiar with “217.87…”. HIs choosing to include this anyway not only inconveniences me, but he is exploiting the fact that bureaucrats and other administrators are too time constrained to pay attention to all these details. IMO, he’s playing us all for fools.
Much of the rest—writings in response to specious and fallacious arguments posted on Talk:MOSNUM—seems pretty tame to me. I’m referring to quotes like "P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid?", "Give it up for God’s sake." "No. I reject such an attitude as arrogant and utter nonsense." I reject the notion that Wikipedia’ sense of “civility” has grown so thin-skinned that this is prohibited thought that can not be expressed. Has Wikipedia gotten to the point where plain-speak is no longer allowed? Where a computerized voice from the PA system intones “ That is twenty demerit points Sgt. John Spartan.” No, Omegatron knows that if you throw a humongous list of accusations up against the wall, certainly some of it must stick—particularly when he exploits little nuggets he knows full well will be taken completely out of context. I had a business partner who tried this same stunt (throwing up a huge pile of paperwork) in binding arbitration. The arbiter saw right through it all and ruled entirely in my and other business partner’s favor. Greg L ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
P.P.P.S.: In Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute, above, Thunderbird2 wrote his #6 point. This is another example of T-bird being (*ahem*)… “disingenuous and selective” in what he chooses to quote from my writings. The following, is my entire comment ( ∆ here) in-context after T-bird had been arguing with Fnagaton here on Talk:MOSNUM and was continuing to defend his having edited against consensus.
Editors should use the conventional prefixes, such as kilobyte (KB) and megabyte (MB), and disambiguate where necessary.
The IEC prefixes are not to be used on Wikipedia except under the following circumstances:
• when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes,
• when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes,
• in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes.
The consensus was that for the byte and bit prefixes, the spirit of the MoS is better reflected by having familiar but ambiguous units, rather than unambiguous but unfamiliar units.
This was a case where the issue of the IEC prefixes had been (supposedly) settled, the policy posted to MOSNUM, and Thunderbird conveniently ignored the policy, continued to edit against consensus, and reverted another editor’s work. Thunderbird was roundly admonished by me, Fnagaton, SWTPC6800, Warren, and Francis Schonken for this. In fact, Francis, in the face of this disruption, transcluded WP:DEADHORSE to the MOSNUM talk page, which provided the following links to Thunderbird to read up on:
Thunderbird’s response? He came here, cited one snippet out of context, and further, had the gal to cite that snippet as “Evidence of [my] failing to resolve the dispute”. In fact, the truth was entirely the opposite: Thunderbird was continuing to create conflict by ignoring the consensus view. His coming here and quoting me out of context in order to make it look like the reverse is a violation of Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Engaging in incivility, which cites this as being uncivil: “Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them.”
I am not angry about this. Not in the least. In fact, I was quite happy that T-bird did so; for obvious reasons. Thank you T-bird. Cheers. Greg L ( talk) 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Inside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The clash between Omegatron and Greg L is a content dispute. The Binary Prefix section of the Manual of Style (data and numbers) had been stable since August 2007 with "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." This was the result of months of talk page discussion and was not the version Omegatron favored. Without further discussion, Omegatron has made changes to the Manual of Style to restore his preferred version, "There is no consensus on whether to use the historical prefixes or the newer IEC standard in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units." [25] [26] [27]
The IEC proponents felt that SI units were essential and the ambiguity must be removed without regard to readability. In March, Greg started campaigning to diminish the use of the IEC prefixes because most readers found them to be techno-babble and no one outside of Wikipedia used them. Greg provided powerful and convincing arguments that were filibustered by the IEC supporters. Greg was forceful in his proposal but would make numerous changes to try to placate his opponents. If Greg thought that someone's argument is specious, he might tell them so with a colorful expression. Some of Greg comments might have been a bit strong but some of the opponent's arguments were very specious.
This went on for three months with the IEC proponents not willing to concede that Wikipedia should follow other encyclopedias, the technical press, the general press and the computer industry that ignore the IEC prefixes. It looked like Greg's or Headbomb's proposal would be adopted, both diminished the use of the IEC prefixes. Omegatron had strangely been on the sidelines. All of a sudden, Omegatron attacks Greg's "uncivil" behavior. Omegatron has been deeply involved in the IEC binary prefix dispute for 3 years. These charges might carry more weight if they were brought by someone not so closely identified with this content dispute.
The dispute about "Follow the outside world" versus "Ambiguity must be eliminated" is not new. In the first binary prefix talk archive has the following: User:Nohat suggested The Wikipedia should only represent common usage. Omegatron dismissed Nohat's suggestion with a very "Greg L" style response, "Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. - Omegatron 12:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)"
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) -- I have been watching the binary unit dispute since April 2007. I have closely followed the discussion over the last few months and have made comments here and there. I am not sure where my response goes in this RFC. Please move them if this is not the correct section.
Users who endorse this summary:
Note: I refactored the "selective quoting" comment out of the first section because some agree with it but not the rest of my summary. --
SWTPC6800 (
talk)
16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Selective quoting in evidence
The "Evidence of disputed behavior" above is extremely biased with selective quoting. Some of the "barbs" are directed in jest at Greg's supporters or even at himself. On other occasions Greg's comments are the mildest of the debate. If you look at the context around the selective quote: P-u-h-l-e-e-ze! Who are you trying to kid? [28] You will find Greg's opponents making disruptive statements like "rabid editors such as Fnagaton" and "Fnagaton should have been blocked with Sarenne."
I would guess half of the claims have no merit at all. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Lipstick on a pig
Greg's "lipstick on a pig" comment was directed at the IEC, not a Wikipedia editor. Greg sometimes works with real live pigs in his day job, I am not sure if he has to apply lipstick on them.
SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Binary Prefix Overview
Computer memory size is usually multiples of 2. For example: 256. 512, 1024, or 2048. These are known as binary multiples. In the 1950s, computer engineers and programmers began referring to 1024 as 1K or 1k. Based on the kilo being 1000.
At the same time, there were computers such as the IBM 1401 that had decimal sized memory. For example: 4000, 8000 or 16000 characters. These were referred to as 4k, 8k or 16k.
There was minor confusion about how big was 4k of memory. Soon all computers used binary addressed memory. Storage media, magnetic tape and disk, would have its capacity measured in decimal, with an exact number.
In the 1980s, computer users would see the memory measured in binary and the storage measured in decimal or binary. There was some confusion about the capacity of a 360 KB or 720 KB floppy (KB = kilobyte = 1024 bytes). The misnaming of 1440 KB floppy as the 1.44 MB floppy caused more confusion. Hard disks were often measured with decimal units. (540 MB or 2 GB)
In 1999, several standards bodies tried to fix this problem by creating a new set of units. The kilobyte (kB) was always to be 1000 bytes, and the new kibibyte (KiB) would be 1024 bytes. These are referred to as the IEC binary prefixes. There was a decimal megabyte (MB) and a binary mibibyte (MiB). (And so on, and so on.)
Many standards bodies adopted the new units but the publishing industry and computer industry have ignored them. In 2005, a group of Wikipedia editors proposed that the new units become a part of the Manual of Style. They were incorporated into the MoS and there has been continuous arguments about them ever since. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
Like SWTPC6800, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate section for my comments. Move them to the correct section as appropriate.
I feel that both sides are mostly correct in their claims. Starting with Greg L, he was indeed right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote, and of the opposition vote, only 1 was substantiated from Jimp). Omegatron started an edit war by reverting FCL, that went on between Greg L and Omegatron (I also reverted things some of the time to show that Greg was not the only one thinking that there was indeed consensus for the upload.) I consider this to be disruptive editing from Omegatron's part (some say abuse of power, but I don't understand what Omegatron did that a regular couldn't), altough I do not pretend to know the reasons of his editing. As time progressed, "against" votes increased and FCL lost the consensus it had, and a newer proposal made by myself covered the intent of FCL section in a way that eventually did gain consensus. Proper responsed should've been to leave the FCL section on the MOSNUM page, and put a disputed tag on it, mentionning that section was under debate. Greg's frustration with some editors was very understandable, as they seldom gave reasons for the things they said, and the reasons given were often weak.
However, with that said, the way Greg L handled things was often completely inappropriate, ranging from arguing from bad faith, personal attacks, insults, refusing to hear what the other side said, labeling of people who disagreed with him as "radical extremists". The reasoning invoked was that "[i]n discussions here on Wikipedia talk pages, criticism of and ridicule of someone’s positions are fair game". And all this with very little regards to whether or not the target of his attacks was a legitimate source of frustration. Not that this would've been the right attitude to have were the target of his attacks a legitimate source of frustration in the first place.
IMO both sides should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say that my view of Greg has shifted over the past few months since the fracas over the rewriting of several sections at MOSNUM—from feeling he was rather aggressively pursuing his bids to improve the page, to a realisation that he's making a valuable contribution to reforming a key page in the project, and expresses himself in colourful and larger-than-life language. He should probably tone it down, especially for newcomers who don't know him, but I think the regulars have by and large come to read his comments in the right context, as being in good faith and well-meaning underneath a ruffled surface. Quickly reading through the cited comments at the top made me realise that some of them are humorous, taken in that vein; I also see that in another place, with other people, they might give offence.
My view is that people should chill out and take his discourse in context at MOSNUM. He's a valuable member of our community, and this page has gone on quite long enough. I suggest that it be closed. Tony (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
I’m not going to indulge in the heat of the debate but will just add some remarks that might or might not be helpful.
I hope these comments can be a little of help and that I didn’t tap on anyone’s toe. -- Quilbert ( talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I have almost nothing to say, but it is relevant that Thunderbird2 ( talk · contribs) brought this to the Wikiquette Alerts page here. It is sort of redundant to add a Wikiquette Alert when there is already a user conduct RfC, so I marked it as such. Not sure if this adds to the discussion or if it is red herring, but there it is.. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oi. Greg. Shut. -- harej 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.