62:
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
235:
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
Knowledge works. Knowledge's
241:
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
123:
43:
73:
64:
182:
69:
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
80:
39:
116:, 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:
55:
193:
247:
113:
108:
236:
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.
162:
149:
131:
32:
79:
the discussion was held in an acrimonious atmosphere, in which any opposition to deprecation was met with a barrage of ridicule from Greg_L.
31:
Twice now in the last week, a discussion that I started has been prematurely archived, without giving
Headbomb a chance to answer the
172:
the need to resort to these tactics to prevent even a discussion about the text demonstrates the weakness of the case for keeping it
243:
203:
106:
213:
104:
65:
11 editors had expressed a view that use of IEC prefixes should not be deprecated by MOSNUM (to none against).
176:
83:
219:
230:
192:
And now, because I dare to question the claimed consensus, Greg_L portrays me as some kind of lunatic
250:) stay away from the discussion because they do not wish to be on the receiving end of such abuse.
63:
deprecation. The reason for the concern, at least on my part, was that only 2 months previously,
242:
dominated by abusive remarks from Greg_L. The result is that editors who wish to take part (like
8:
159:
a similar number argued for keeping the present wording. They were cheered on by Greg_L
223:
199:
17:
91:
82:
Some elected to stay away rather than participate in such a mockery of a debate.
132:“I want my IEC prefixes! I want my IEC prefixes! We had them for three years
151:
Well, Anomie, do you feel better now after that little fourth-graders’ rant?
54:
There are several reasons to question that consensus was reached for the
86:
Evidence that editors stay away from MOSNUM due to disruptive behaviour
125:
This MOSNUM talk page has officially been declared a “no whining zone”
186:
164:
Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here
26:
46:
for the case against the deprecation of their use on
Knowledge.
72:
despite this concern, the views of the editors involved in the
35:. So let's forget the question and concentrate on the issue.
218:
Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a
103:
Three attempts at starting a discussion were shouted down
38:
First, "What is an IEC prefix?" I hear you ask. Read
49:
209:The following WP Policy statements are relevant:
97:
27:There is no consensus to deprecate IEC prefixes
76:(against the present wording) were not sought
14:
185:. An offer of mediation was made by
56:present deprecation of IEC prefixes
23:
24:
259:
50:was there ever consensus on this?
175:the ridicule tactic is not new
98:is there consensus for it now?
13:
1:
214:Reasonable consensus-building
42:for a brief introduction and
7:
10:
264:
206:on their personal spaces
189:and rejected by Greg_L.
198:See also the theses of
222:to work together in a
181:After those attacks I
92:Omegatron's statement
33:question I put to him
183:requested mediation
220:good faith effort
18:User:Thunderbird2
255:
263:
262:
258:
257:
256:
254:
253:
252:
134:and I want them
100:
52:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
261:
239:
238:
231:Forum shopping
228:
179:
178:
173:
170:
169:
168:
157:
156:
155:
147:
129:
118:
117:
110:
99:
96:
95:
94:
77:
70:
67:
51:
48:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
260:
251:
249:
245:
237:
232:
229:
227:
225:
221:
215:
212:
211:
210:
207:
205:
201:
196:
194:
190:
188:
184:
177:
174:
171:
166:
165:
161:
160:
158:
153:
152:
148:
145:
144:
140:
139:
135:
130:
127:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
109:
107:
105:
102:
101:
93:
89:
87:
81:
78:
75:
71:
68:
66:
61:
60:
59:
57:
47:
45:
41:
36:
34:
19:
240:
234:
224:civil manner
217:
208:
197:
191:
180:
163:
150:
142:
137:
136:
133:
124:
85:
53:
37:
30:
114:3rd attempt
90:; see also
244:Omegatron
204:Omegatron
138:baaaaack!
74:11-0 vote
248:Quilbert
200:Quilbert
141:. Well…
112:In the
84:(under
143:tough
16:<
246:and
202:and
187:Doug
44:this
40:this
146:and
233::
216::
195:.
58::
226:.
167:.
154:,
128:,
88:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.