Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L

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’ve just spent hours answering Omegatron’s charges at here at Administrators’ noticeboard. Now I find myself chasing Omegatron to yet another forum today where he has put together a expansive list of examples of my outrageous behavior. I see he has dropped wording that I was being “uncivil” and now offers up charges that I am impeeding progress. In fact, the complaint here is not that I am impeeding progress, but that I and others are making progress towards a MOSNUM guideline that would undo what Omegatron is a major proponent of.

  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:

• From Greg L: For the benefit of the administrators who have to quickly sort this out, Let’s take a look at what the real issue is. This dispute with the use of the IEC prefixes has raged for years on Talk:MOSNUM. The fact that there are now twelve “Binary” archives devoted to this one topic, shows that its use on Wikipedia has likely proven to be the most contentious, most disputed, least successful guideline/policy on all of Wikipedia. A clear majority of editors want it changed but a highly active minority has blocked change from the beginning. Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus to use the IEC prefixes when he lead the effort in getting the policy posted to MOSNUM but he went ahead and did so anyway. It has had its extreme detractors and extreme proponents and this brings about passions. I’m relatively new to this dispute but have studied the past history and am now up-to-speed on what has transpired in the past.

  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:

The consensus has been building (again) to not use the IEC prefixes. The wording Thunderbird2 had been advocating would have made it less clear that the IEC prefixes should not be used. We tried voting on a version with some key wording stripped out. After a day of thinking about it, Thunderbird2 voted with a reduced vote after concluding that the present wording still didn’t allow the use of the IEC prefixes. Indeed, that’s what the proponents are trying to do here; we solve nothing by allowing policies to be posted that have ambiguous wording that allows a handful of editors to continue to use the prefixes. We’ll have a “B24” archive before this bickering finally ends. Note too that since this weekend, I have had very little involvement here this week (my contributions). Note my limited activity Monday and Tuesday, except to motion that a policy was close enough to consensus that it should be adopted into a larger policy proposal for unitized voting. I did so at 00:13, 2 June 2008. Omegatron comes here to complain.

I think the main problem here is that “Follow current literature” (the policy that is currently posted to MOSNUM) has not been voted on by a wide enough spectrum of editors. I suggested on Talk:MOSNUM that a big, BIG vote be conducted where wide spectrum of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer and technical articles be invited to comment on whether FCL is something they support. I think it is highly revealing that NONE of the editors who oppose “Follow current literature” and who support the continued use of the IEC prefixes like the idea of soliciting wider input. I suggest we put an end to the bickering here (and this outrageous attempt at exploitation of Administrators’ noticeboard) and solve this issue once and for all. The question is simple: all other general-interest encyclopedias use the conventional binary prefixes like “megabyte”. Why? Because all the computer manufacturers in their literature, and owners manuals, and packaging, and advertising to end users do so. As a consequence, all general-interest computer magazines use the same terminology that the computer manufacturers are using. As a consequence, The word “mebibyte” (symbol MiB) is not widely recognized by the typical Wikipedia reader. The issue we would put to a much wider spectrum of editors here on Wikipedia would be this: Is “Follow current literature”, and its call to put Wikipedia in line with real-world usage, a good thing? I further submit that this wider-input voting and discussion be monitored by a panel of three mediators, who would rule whether or not a general consensus had been achieved, and that their ruling by binding. I think this is a better solution for Wikipedia, rather than allow Omegatron to stifle the voice of the lead proponent of a move to reverse something he was largely responsible for three years ago; something that has had twelve archives devoted exclusively to bickering over, something that makes Wikipedia all alone as the only general-interest publication (either print or on-line) to use terminology that only confuses readers.

“[Greg L’s] intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.” OMG Omegatron! That is such a flagrant attempt to paint yourself as Mahatma Gandhi, and paint me as someone who suddenly interjected himself into the thoroughly peaceable goings-on of some editors who were r-e-a-l-l-y close to achieving a consensus on this dispute. Since—particularly in this forum—I must be “civil” in my response to this, I guess I will just say that the picture you painted isn’t at all true (in my opinion). Greg L (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Some of Omegatron’s “evidence” against me is either preposterously mild, or can too easily be taken out of context. For instance, this one: "You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be." That one was to an editor who complained about not being able to follow the complex discussion threads on a talk page. That editor complained about not being able to decipher what the issue was really about, voted on the issue anyway, and then admonished those who had been participating in all the interwoven discussion threads for not keeping the threads sufficiently organized for him (or her) to join in late to it all and quickly understand it. So when I was referring to “you should read more”, I was not suggesting the editor was generally an un-read, ignorant person; I was saying he (or she) can’t expect to arrive late to a discussion and vote on something they didn’t even bother to read or even profess to understand. It could be that Omegatron did not understand this context when he chose it for inclusion here. Maybe he did.

  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:

1. Fnagaton 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -- The evidence is missing proper diffs and has very selective quoting.
3. As well as everything below this also written by Mr. L. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• PPS: It is so easy for someone, who wants to silence a lead adversary, to spend untold hours upon hours dredging up quotes out of context and splashing them about. I was struck this morning by these little jewels on Talk:MOSNUM from Tony (talk) :

1. “I don't think I give a shit about CGPM, NIST and the NPL.” and…
2. “If anyone persists in using them in MOSNUM, I'll revert immediately.”

And that’s just what’s there this morning after the page has been stripped down after a massive archiving. I know for a fact that I could come up with a more persuasive list than what Omegatron produced, and which is equally as expansive if I were to devote the same time as Omegatron did for me. Why the double standard? Because Tony and Omegatron both see (“saw”; the binary prefix battle is over now) eye to eye on the binary prefix issue. So why don’t I make more hay about this and demonstrate how “Tony is just as much a ‘poopy head’ as Greg L is and how it’s a double standard”??? Because,

1. The IEC prefix battle is over, and
2. it’s obvious on the face of it that most editors here see this issue for what it is: a dispute over content and an effort by Omegatron to silence an influential proponent of a policy to reverse something Omegatron did, and
3. this whole complaint by Omegatron is nothing more than a bug splat on my windshield of life.

All: I just had another editor, Felipec, a software engineer from Mexico, complain on my talk page as follows: “[Omegatron] is selectively using them [Wikipedia guidelines] to achieve his goals while ignoring the things that work against him. I'm not sure what is the proper thing to do here but I think I can help to demonstrate that Omegatron needs disciplinary actions.” I wrote back to Felipec that he should probably share his concerns at User talk:Seicer#Abuse by Omegatron. Thanks to my friends and the other editors here, weighing in on this issue. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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:

• Don't be a dick
• 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?

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)

• Yes, absolutely. Thunderbird2 is misrepresentating the whole situation and he is ignoring consensus. It is obvious Thunderbird2 needs to be punished for posting false evidence and trying to subvert the RfC process. Fnagaton 00:42, 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.}

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.}

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.