Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Continuous removal of support organization

I disagree with the repeated removal of the fully sourced information on OOXML supporting organizations by user:Scientus. I have requested assistance on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on this issue. hAl (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of such a removal edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479

It would be nice if you wouldn't mix all the organizations that relate to OOXML in some way together in a messy section like this. For instance, many organizations who had people going to TC46 meetings at the time of OOXML standardization were against the adoption of OOXML, yet it is easy to read your text as saying that their presence in TC46 implied that they supported OOXML. That's a false inference. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I find you comment confusing refering to your own committee which is not in the article. The only standards committee mentioned in the support section of the article is the Ecma committe and of that committee ALL members still fully support the Office Open XML format. So I do not understand your point .hAl (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

HAl edits against consensus

HAl continues to make edits against the established consensus.Scientus (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No i do not. That section refers to a claim of free and open being removed on the Ecma standard. I have to disagree on that as the Ecma stand in itself alread is an open standard. However I altered the the lead to reflect OOXML being a free and open ISO standard. I have not heard arguments that contradict ISO/IEC 29500 is an open standard.
Btw, You also seem to be extremly confused in naming people
user:Scientus is obseesed by removing information related to support groups for the Office Open XML format even though those groups are very obvious in their support for this format. You show classic signs of Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing where you entered this article a few months ago by disruptive cite-tagging adding fact tag to just about every thing in what is already a densely referenced article. Also all you edits have been tendentious in nature only adding critisims or removing support claim for the file format and have not been about not contributing anything encyclopeic on the Office Open XML file format itself. You do not engage in consensus building by avoiding the substance in the issues talked about but instead going on a path of wikilaywering and attacking other editors on the talk page or on their personal talk pages. And after that you try to get rid of people who do not agree with your actions by acusing them on the administrator boards behind their back in a campaign to drive away productive contributors. hAl (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the lede to state what the reference actually supports. It does not support "free", but does support "freely available". --Alvestrand (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You state that it does not support free. I state it does. The cite supports the free availability as and the ISO/IEC standardization implies the rest. What part is not free or open about a freely available ISO/IEC standard. hAl (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So you keep repeating. Until such point as you have convinced those disagreeing with you (who are in an evidently large majority right now) of this, there's no consensus that this should be how the article is worded. This repeated edit warring is not helping your case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are in a majority then why can't you find a single example referenced argument that support your viewpoint. An open standard is even according to the relevant wikipedia article a standard that is royalty free and that is standaridized by a standard committee. So unless you come up with an argument that show you are required to pay royalties or can serieusly deny that ISO/IEC JCT1/SC34 is committe of standard organizations ISO and IEC I find your statements inadequate. Why can't any of you address the content of the text. It is not so hard to discuss free and open ISO/IEC standard. Are you claiming that ISO/IEC is not a standard organization ? Are you claiming that the specification is not free or royalties are required for use of the standard ? Or are some wikipedia editors here deciding on themselves what constitutes a free an open standard. Having a seperate set of rules/guidelines/definitions just for OOXML ?
There is no requirement for my case to need help as you did not bring up any case against it at all. I submit that several people do WANT Office Open XML to be called free and open even if though they lack arguments on why this particular freely available ISO/IEC 29500 standard would not be free and open. hAl (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There are no separate standards. We're just applying the same rules regarding the use of secondary sources which all articles should follow. I'm not addressing the text because I know better than to edit articles based on my own reading of primary sources. The other editors who disagree with you have taken a similar standpoint. At this point there's little left to do except to advise you to re-read WP:SECONDARY, which specifically says "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". We do not have a reliable secondary interpretation that MS's corrections in the second draft have resulted in the standard being unequivocally free and open, so we can't put that in the article. That is the entirety of the argument against your proposed text. You could spend even more time repeating yourself, or you could resolve this by finding a reliable secondary source which interprets the second draft in the way that you did. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You suggest the standardards are not different but you have no reliable info that the sourced information from before still applies to the current ISO/IEC standard. You also refuse to put any of those so called reliable sources/information before me so that we can together decide/discuss whether those sources actually claim that Office Open XML is not a free and open standard and whether or not the claims in it still apply to the current ISO/IEC standard. Claims in the past were well known to rely on statements that the format was only implemented by Microsoft (which is of course long in the past), that Microsoft controlled the format (currently both the ownership and maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 Office open XML are fully within ISO/IEC JTC1) or that the standard referred some undefined items (for which information was added during the ISO standardization proces). So we can in fact easily see if any of those old claims still apply. The refusal to bring forth those arguments and see if they apply to the ISO/IEC standard is shocking. You claim consensus on a viewpoint that you then refuse to support with actual real claims/arguments. I claim that it is enough for an officielly approved ISO/IEC standard to be publicy available free or charge and royalties to be called a free and open standard. That information alone complies with the definitions given on the relevant wikipedia articles. Unless you put forward real arguments (and not some consensus on imaginary non-existing arguments) that these definitions are not met by the ISO/IEC 29500 standard I will re-add the claim to the article. hAl (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point I think it's safe to say that this discussion is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would you would have actually brought forward any argument to discuss the free and open claim. I have not heard a single argument from you why a free publicly available ISO/IEC standard would not be fre and open. Still you claim consensus on it. That is truly amazing. hAl (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
When reading WP:Consensus, you'd be suprised to learn that consensus does change. For instance, when reading in the discussion archive, you'll see that we already had established consensus for a quite a long time that Office Open XML is a free and open standard. Months ago, several independent and valid referenced had been added to support this. However, they have since been removed again but can of course still be found somewhere in the article history. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

As HAl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promised, he has continued to revert to his preferred point of view in the article lede; his most recent revert undid significant copyediting in the process. This is pretty clear-cut tendicious editing in the face of consensus here. I think we need to look at a longer-term solution, as discussion has reached a dead end. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange you suggest I undid significant copyediting. It was not a revert but an edit the readd the information about OOXML being a free and open international ISO/IEC standard. That information is supported by the relevant articles on that. I made the edit and got an edit conflict. I did not notice any significant changes (and looking at it now I hardly see them as it seems nearly all layout / whitespace changes which you were doing at the time. I'll restore if needed. hAl (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The whitespace changes are easy enough to reinsert; the major issue was your tendicious readdition of the link to free file format for the third time in 24 hours, even going so far as to remove an explanation of the availability of the standard document itself drawn directly from the ISO website. Whether or not your edits reflect the truth, you are obliged not to edit war to re-add them tendiciously in the face of consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You should not misrepresent the facts. The article did not contain a senctence claiming that OOXML is an fre and open international ISO/IEC standard before. That was thus an original edit which conforms to the information in the related wikified articles and was sourced. You should not remove it without arguments why this information is incorrect. Also now you claim the whitespace changes are easy enough to reinsert whilst a momemt before you named it a significant copy edit. hAl (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What consensus are you referring to. I have repeatedly asked for argument on why a free an publicly available ISO/IEC 29500 standard would not be considered free and open. Nooone has put forward ANY argument that applied to the ISO/IEC standard in relating to it not being an open standard of a free file format. Apperantly consensus is that there is not a single argument against this ISO/IEC standard being a free and open standard. hAl (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've given a number of arguments above, have repeated them since this article first became a hot topic, and have seen you ignore them for just as long. The references have been all over Standardization of Office Open XML and in other people's edits. But since you say that "noone has put forward any argument", I guess that either you don't read what I write, or you don't consider what I write arguements. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just reread all of the above staments you made. You agreed that the standard is publicly availalbe for free. Other than that I can only see you claim that this would not mean that a publicly avaialble free ISO/IEC standard would not be the same as "free". You just stated that but did not provide an argument for why this would not be a Free file format. However I have read the Free file format article and the Open format article and those both support that the ISO/IEC Office Open XML standard is indeed free and open. And even allthough both those wikipedia articles already support this claim you object to the claim being in this article??? hAl (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that there's no consensus that this is enough to call it "free". For instance, people a year ago were still claiming that there were patent issues - long before the present (possibly unrelated) lawsuit. It's no surprise that Richard Stallman thinks the format is not free. In other examples of disagreements over the word "free", I'm still a bit upset that Ubuntu removed RFCs from its distribution (see, for instance, this bug; I didn't find the policy document) because they were not free enough for distribution with free software (users don't have the right to modify them). And, as I've pointed out several times, the ISO license does NOT allow unlimited copying. (I do believe that ECMA avoided that particular stupidity.) --Alvestrand (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Non of the definitions in wikipedia on open standards or free file format require unlimited copying of the specification (allthough indeed Ecma does allow unlimited copies for OOXML) and on patents all the definitions mentioned in the wikipedia articles require rand or even royalty free licensing where Microsoft does indeed provide that royalty free licensing. You seem to base you view on higher standards or stricter definitions than the wikipedia articles on Open standard and Free file format do. I think the definitions provided by wikipedia should apply when using the wikified links to those articles and not arbitrary extra stricter definitions (even though it seems OOXML might comply to those as well). Based on the definitions in the relevant wikipedia articles a publicly available free ISO/IEC standard should be enough for stating the standard is free and open. hAl (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add two thoughts: The current version of the ECMA standard specification is aligned to the ISO/IEC version. You are correct, Ecma International does not limit copying of the standard. ("Ecma Standards and Technical Reports are made available to all interested persons or organizations, free of charge and licensing restrictions[...]"[1]) Also, I don't think that boycottnovell counts as an unbiased source when claiming that the ISO/IEC standard is not free. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: We are not here to decide whether anything is true or false, (i.e. whether OOXML is or isn't 'free and open'). There is a controversy, with various parties on both sides. We are here to report the fact that there is a controversy and report the arguments from both sides with citations. Please let us move on; the rest of this article is in serious need of improvement too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any valid independed sources that say that the ISO standard is not free and that there is an actual controversy about this. IMHO we really need this if we are to include this as a "fact". Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously question that a controversy exists as to whether or not OOXML is a 'free and open' standard? --Nigelj (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed and in particular since the ISO/IEC standard was published (by both ISO and Ecma) and the control and maintenace moved to ISO/IEC and since subsequently several main oss office product have implemented OOXML including OpenOffice and Symphony and also Google apps all main line applications all from former opponents of the standardization. The format has moved on from past disputes and so will the wikipedia entry. hAl (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a controversy about that on this Wikipedia talk page, but I doubt that this talk page is a valid source for its own article as long as editors like User:Alvestrand with a potential conflict of interest are involved in creating a controversy like this. I'm indeed not aware of a 'free and open' controversy outside of Wikipedia regarding the recently published ISO/IEC standard. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, in addition to the references I gave earlier in the discussion above
* "Where ODF meets the four objective criteria of open standards handsomely, OOXML does not satisfy any of the four as extensively."[2]
* "Free software is software that all users have a right to copy, modify and redistribute, and as Microsoft points out in the OSP, there is no sublicensing of rights under it."[3]
Here are two more that relate specifically to the terms of the OSP.
* Bilodeau, J-F (March 19, 2008). "Three Things Microsoft Should Do". Use the GNU GPL 3: Most free software is released under the GNU GPL 2 or 3, which is incompatible with Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) and the Ms-PL (Microsoft Public License). This is not an accident. Microsoft does not want software written using their technology to spread to other platform. Again, it's vendor lock-in. If Microsoft truly wanted to work with the Open Source community, they should abandon the OSP and the Ms-PL for the GPL, or another OSI certified license.
* "Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: No Assurance for GPL". Software Freedom Law Center. 2008-03-12. ...it permits implementation under free software licenses so long as the resulting code isn't used freely.
I'm sure you may forget that you've seen them again, but at least there's a few in one place to copy and add to now. As I've said before, we MUST NOT accidentally get sidetracked into re-reading the OSP and the OOXML spec and trying to prove if these people are right or wrong all over again. We must try to remember that there is a controversy, and so we should report its existence, with citations, in the article --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you just edited the OSP articled to represent the SLFC opinion on it. YOu should mayby not e that the SLFC document is actually an opinion document published close to the standardization vote to inlfuence that. It is easy to see a giant hole in the SLFC document and that is that the licensing by Micrsoft is identical in wording to the IBM patent licensing for ODF and also is accepted by OASIS as licensing on for Micrsofct on ODF. so actually the standaridzation organization of Opendocument (OASIS and ISO/IEC) endorse the OSP and the identical ISP licensing by IBM making the comments by the SLFC a complete joke. Also something mesmorising is that the SLFC stated soemthing on sublicensing where actualy I have never heard of any standards patent license that is sublicensable. Not a single standard organization nor any definition requires somehting like that. It would be like demandign that people can predict the future. The only thing controversial is that document by the SFLC but the actual licensing is not controversial at all and is accepted by standard organization like OASIS, Ecma and ISO/IEC and is used by open source implementations like OpenOffice and Symphony. hAl (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(I edited the OSP article yesterday lunchtime, I didn't 'just' do so - all kinds of stuff needs maintaining here, you know :-). So... I can take your assurance, based on what you 'have never heard of', that there is no controversy over the total freedom of all OOXML patents then? That is legal advice that you want to publish here, ignoring and contradicting the published analyses of The Software Freedom Law Center and Groklaw's legal team? That's no basis to argue that there is no controversy. This controversy exists must be reported fairly, with both sides' views represented in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a document published in the heat of the standardization proces. Howsever you have not applied to the freeandc open claim in the article. That article states that the license does not apply to future versions but none of the definition on free and open formats says something about future versions. Actually all open standards organizations (like w3c, ecma and oasis) even confirm that the commitment only applies as long as you are participating to that version and not for the future version after that. The SFLC document does not coverf code beyond the scope of the spec. Wow, so with the OSP you can actually implement OOXML for free but it odes not apply to all the rest of the implementations in the world. You can't use one line of code from OpenOffice put in in a non OOXML application and think you have a patent license because the code is derived from an OOXML implmentation. The license applies to implementation that implment the specification and not arbitrary implementation. But this point is also not relevant to the free and open claim of Office Open XML as actually OOXML is a psecification fully covered by the OSP (as is Opendocument) and as longh as you arfe implementing OOXML the OSP applies. The SFLC coducment in fact confirm that. In addition to the document states it is not consistant with GPL because the licensie is excluded guture version. That does not mean that OOXML is not free and open but means tha GPL cannot be used to implement open standard like XML or HTML because there is not a single standards organization that requires unlimited patent licensing into an unknown future. You should possibly add that to the GPL article as it show that GPL and openstandards are incompatible. However there is no requirement for open standards to be conmpatible with GPL. Non of the SFLC document states that it OOXML not an open standard. Apperantly the SFLC qualifies that GPL and open standards are incompatible based on a never heard of and non gpl defined requirement for future versions licensing of open standards. Interesting but their document was ment to influcence the ISO/IEC BRM metting (as is evident from the introduction). The CEO's from both ISO and IEC have made a clear stament (http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q4-1) that there are no problem the OSP is a accepted patent license and interestly the ISO/IEC standard is what the current free and open claim was referring to. Other organization requireing open format like OASIS and also oss implemnters like OOo and the gnome foundation have embraced OOXML in their products. hAl (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR. There is a controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you claim controversy, you name a docoment from the SFLC that does not mention free file format or open standard but only suggests some possible incompatibility between OSP liceisng and GPL code. Standards organization like OASIS and Ecma (that only produce free licensed publicly avaible open standards) which have patent licensing requirements however allow the OSP which is also the licensing that MS applies to opendocument and which is identical to the licensing applied by IBM for Opendocument. Some (opinionated) critique on the OSP license does not mean that OOXML it is not an open standard. That would be a WP:OR conclusion by you. Effectifly as the OSP license is used for OpenDocument and is also identical to the IBM's ISP licence for ODF we can easily see that such a license does not influence the format from being an open standard. Talking like the SFLC does about possible licesing on possible future versions has nothing to do with the current version which is the actual ISO/IEC standard. The free and open statement applies to a standard and not some unknown future version of a format which might or might not be. If in the unlikely event that for a future version of OOXML a current patentholder would withdraw their licensing then that new version would probably not even be standardised untill the patent issue were resolved or circumvented. The current version would of course still be an open standard and the article would then be altered to reflect that. Unless you can unequivically show that an open standard would reuire licensing beyond the standard itself (on future versions or on software outside the scope of the standard) there is no controversy whatsoever. That would in fact kill all open standards as the OSP licensing is probably on of the freeest licensing examples that exist for open standard contributions by standarss participants. hAl (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
One problem here is that hAl seems to believe that unless people are yelling "I disagree" in a WP:RS every month, he thinks they agree with him that OOXML is "free". My reading of the non-Microsoft community is that they gave up on OOXML as a bad deal after the ISO vote, and are just implementing support when they have to - thinking that the point that it's not an free standard has been so blatantly demonstrated that they don't need to say it again. But when hAl discounts every WP:RS that was published reasonably close to the standards process, and refuses to accept generic statements as being relevant to OOXML.... we have a problem reaching agreement. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually to demonstrate Office Open XML is not a free an open standard you would need to come up with an issue that restricts implementation of the ISO/IEC standard or demonstrate why you would have to pay for the ISO/IEC standard. However since several oss applications are actually implementing the format and not paying anybody that would be very hard to demonstrate. So of course that has never been demonstrated even though the Alvestrand claims that. And as for generic staments. The OSP license applies to ODF as wel as for Opendocument. A generic statement that OSP licensing applied to a format would exclude a standard from being Open would actually mean that Opendocument was no longer open either. hAl (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually to demonstrate whether or not there is a controversy about Office Open XML is not a free an open standard you would need to come up with reliable sources that contend the point. We've done that - over and over. I think we have a disagreement as to what Wikipedia is and how it works. --Nigelj (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Controversy on Office Open XML in general is not relevant for specific question like the ISO/IEC standard being and free and open standard. Also I think it is evident that any controversy has been only linked to the standardization proces and has completly died sinde the publication of the ISO/IEC standard in november 2008. If controversy tstill existed then why don't you show us that controversy still existing. What you in fact can see is that the former opponents in the format competition are now putting away any differences and you see OOo and Symphony implementing OOXML and on hte ohter hand MS Office implementing ODF. You have been claiming controversy still exist for days but I have not seen you produce anything relevant about controversy from since the ISO/IEC standardization a year ago. If you want controversy go to the Standardization of Office Open XML article that describes the past. hAl (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
* Jason Matusow (02 August 2009). "Balance of Contributors & Implementers". Microsoft Corporation. But the "no IP restrictions" concept of "open standards" does away with too much. Out of balance. [...] There is no evidence to date that a GPL product can't implement a standard with IP restrictions. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
* Glyn Moody (03 August 2009). "A Jesuit's Guide to Open Standards". ComputerworldUK. ...you can't include RAND standards *in* GPL'd code. As the guide to the GNU GPLv3 explains: "Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them." That means *without* payment, not just for a reasonable payment, which may be small, but is still impossible for software that can be freely distributed. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
So, last month these guys were still debating the openness, or lack of, of OOXML, in terms of the OSP's compatibility with GPL. I was particularly impressed by the following as well, but I'm not sure how we can best use it here once edit restrictions are lifted. Any suggestions?
* Rob Weir (09 June 2009). "ODF Lies and Whispers". I think this demonstrates the triangle-trade relationship among Microsoft, Alex Brown (and other bloggers) and Wikipedia, by which Microsoft FUD is laundered via intermediaries to Wikipedia for later reference as newly minted "facts". No wonder one of Microsoft's first actions during their OOXML push was to seize control of the Wikipedia articles on ODF and OOXML via paid consultants. [...] You obviously can't trust Wikipedia whatsoever in this area. This is unfortunate, since I am a big fan of Wikipedia. I want it to succeed. But since the day when Microsoft decided they needed to pay people to "improve" the ODF and OOXML articles, these articles have been a cesspool of FUD, spin and outright lies, seemingly manufactured for Microsoft's re-use in their whisper campaign. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
--Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If usable at all, it probably belongs under Standardization of OOXML - it's about the process, not the spec. I have sometimes wondered if hAl was paid by Microsoft, but have concluded (tentatively) that he's probably not. You can rarely pay people to exhibit that particular combination of tenaciousness, stubbornness and sheer ability to use infinte time - it seems more likely that he's just one of those people with a definite opinion and the will to express it. But then, I have not heard him deny it either. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you link to discusions on RAND licensing when talking about OOXML. OOXML is an example of royalty free licensing. Fromats like MP3 are RAND licensing (RAND license from the Fraunhofer institute). Allthough many open standard definitions allow RAND licensing it is not a relevant question for OOXML as that is not just RAND but even a royalty free license which is not controversial for open standards at all. So I think you should not try to claim discussion on RAND licensing as controversy on OOXML. And as for Rob Weir, he as ODF TC chairman should have spent more time in improving ODF as the improved version of that is already two years behind schedule. Unlike certain people here I am at least independant from any office software related companies. hAl (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making that explicit statement! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
HAl, you should try to be more neutral. That part about Rob Weir for example is WP:POV. It is OK to express this kind of opinions here in the talk page, but it is in danger of tinting your edits in the article itself. And I don't really understand your last sentence? Hervegirod (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure that is POV but if Rob Weir places on his blog an opinion on people editing wikipedia which shows up here then I can have an opinion on him. It seems he as IBM emplyee and OpenDocument chairman tried to influences people to edit wikipedia articles related to document formats in a certain way which I think he should not do. Evidently he is influencing people as user:Nigelj is citing him here. Neutrality seem far away from this article if I compare how people here object to the most basic of edits on this article which are often worded near identical to similar articles on other document formats. If there is a lack of neutrality it evident where that comes from. hAl (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had just about enough of the personal sniping, strawmen and ad hominem nonsense that the two main pro-Microsoft editors on this page hand out to rest of us. I'm tempted to remove it from my watchlist and let those who've got nothing better to do look after it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We might just leave them alone for a month or two, then come back and chip off some of the whitewash. Or perhaps not. In the end, I believe the truth will survive (despite the fact that Microsoft was better at getting their viewpoint published than anyone else, thus producing lots of WP:RS material to quote from). Personal attacks on Rob Weir when they don't like what he's saying, indeed.... --Alvestrand (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_Open_XML/Archive_9&oldid=321895044"