User talk:MIT Trekkie/BeachyRFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below is a rough draft for text that may be posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It is here so that people might make it more appropriate for the RFC page before such posting. I would appreciate the input of anyone would seek to aid such an endeavor, particularly User:Minghong, who may satisfy the requirement of two people's documenting their efforts to resolve the dispute. As with the rest of Wikipedia, feel free to make constructive edits of any nature, but leave Users certifying the basis for this dispute and subsequent sections as they are.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Beachy has allegedly demonstrated repeated personal attacks, repeated failure to assume good faith, and repeated incivility. He has engaged in multiple violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Other alleged offenses are detailed later as appropriate.

Description[edit]

Beachy has allegedly engaged in consistent violations of fundamental Wikipedia policies. Allegedly, he has constantly engaged in personal attacks and failed to assume good faith, and has demonstrated a notable lack of civility. He has engaged in multiple violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. He has allegedly made excessive use of reversion and deletion, violating "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". Allegedly, he has repeatedly and intentionally introduced bias into Wikipedia articles, in opposition to the Wikipedia official policy "Avoid bias." He has edited almost exclusively in the Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox and related articles and admittedly bears an inclanation that favors Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

Note that all references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are as indicated by the current (or recent) versions of the appropriate articles. This is not an attempt to enforce an ex post facto standard, but merely for the sake of convenience, so that one will have to refer only to a single version of a rule throughout this article.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Note[edit]

For the sake of brevity and storage space, some alleged violations of "Avoid bias" and "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible" have been omitted.

Alleged violations of Wikipedia official policy[edit]

All edits listed below by an external link were performed by Beachy. In the alleged violations below, diff pages for related edits appear together. Alleged violations appear in chronological order of the first relevant edit performed by Beachy.

[1]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, Removed insinuation of security implications and corrected definition. Altered paragraph reads, Later, IE was modified to integrate more closely with Windows, with version 4.0 including an option to enable "Active Desktop", which aimed to make navigating local files and the Internet more similar. The description is inaccurate or unrealistic and indicates bias on the part of Beachy. This is an alleged violation of the Wikipedia policy "Avoid bias."

[2]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads Restored valid points sneakily removed by Fubar. Added text to the "Positive" heading of "IE for Windows" reads,

There is no indication that User:Fubar Obfusco had malicious intent in removing these points, while Beachy's use of the word "sneakily" greatly implies that he did. Incidentally, this edit leans the article toward Beachy's apparent bias. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

In the first edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer reads, (Weak) POV attack on reputation of IE. The bug in question was patched a long time ago and US-CERT never made a general recommendation against IE, unlike Mozilla Evangelists would have you believe. The summary is arguably inflammatory and lacking in civility, and further indicative of apparent bias. The second through fifth edits are reversions in the Internet Explorer article to the same content (but different from that of the first edit). Specifically, the third, fourth, and fifth edits are from

On July 6, 2004, CERT released an exploit report in which the last of seven workarounds was to use a different browser, especially when visiting untrusted sites. [9].

to

On July 6, 2004, CERT released an exploit report in which the last of seven temporary workarounds (until a fix was released) was to use a different browser, especially when visiting untrusted sites. [10]. At least one news report erroneously described this as a recommendation not to use Internet Explorer at all.

In the second edit, which is related in content to that of the first edit, edit summary, reads, Reinstating statement of fact censored by Andrevan. US-CERT has never issued a general recommendation against Internet Explorer. The tone and language are demeaning. The last four edits are reversions to the content of the second edit and take place within a 24-hour time span, directly violating the three-revert rule. In the third edit, edit summary reads, Let's keep the facts in, eh? The tone is accusatory. In the fourth edit, edit summary reads, 1/7 solutions to a _patched_vulnerability. Since SP2 (and many other patches) - this is obsolete. US-CERT has NEVER issued a general recommendation. See talk page. The tone is again accusatory. In the sixth edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer talk page reads, Reality check. The tone is demeaning. Added paragraph reads, Yes, and since SP2, the other vulnerabilities are largely obsolete. Not that it really matters since US-CERT have NEVER issued a general recommendation against IE. The closest thing I have seen to a CERT recommendation against one browser is RUS-CERT's report about Mozilla's secretive security policy details here. I know how much you anti-IE guys would love it to have US-CERT to officially warn against IE - it would be a massive win for Firefox. However, the truth is there is no report that is entitled 'A Recommendation For Browser Usage.' There is no 'Use Alternative Browsers' directive. There is only Art Manion's note in the solutions of an isolated vulnerability report that has since been patched. ~~---- In the last three edits, the claim that US-CERT has not issued a general recommendation against Internet Explorer is irrelevant to the content at hand and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make the four reversions. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[11]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, "Design Problems" ? So Microsoft, being the evil corporation they are, _designed_ IE to let in Spyware?? The summary is excessively accusative, biased, and inflammatory. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[12]

Edited Internet Explorer article paragraph from

Some previous versions of Internet Explorer have attracted negative media coverage. Before Windows XP Service Pack 2, the lack of popup-blocker and execution of ActiveX / binary code allowed spyware and other harmful programs to target Windows users. Microsoft's Windows XP Service Pack 2 adds several important security features that combat this problem, including a firewall and popup-blocker. Microsoft encourages users to update Microsoft Windows (using Windows Update) regularly, and to adjust settings in order to increase security. Doing so may prevent the viewing of some web sites, a problem which is similar to recent lock-downs in the popup-blocker of the Mozilla Firefox browser.

to

Microsoft's recent Windows XP Service Pack 2 adds several important security features including a firewall and popup-blocker, addressing concerns with Spyware. Microsoft encourages users to update Microsoft Windows (using Windows Update) regularly, and to adjust settings in order to increase security.

Edit summary reads, Removing contention in this section. The talk page at that time [13] indicates no such contention. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[14]

Removed text from Internet Explorer article reads, After Microsoft released patches to close 20 holes in their general operating system in February 2003, Marc Maifrett of Electronic Eye stated that "If it really took them that long technically to make (and test) the fix, then they have other problems. That's not a way to run a software company." [15] Maifrett has previously released advisories on security flaws in various components of Internet Explorer such as its ActiveX component [16] and IE 5.01's PNG display component [17]. Edit summary reads, Anyone else heard of "Marc Maifrett" of "Electronic Eye"? The linked pages are just stubs. Let's keep personal opinions out of an encyclopaedia article, shall we? The removed text is not a personal opinion, as the edit summary claims. Furthermore, this is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[18] [19] [20]

In the first edit, the added paragraph for the Internet Explorer article, which follows the mention of the number of unpatched security flaws in Internet Explorer, reads, In comparison, Secunia reports zero security flaws unpatched in the Mozilla Firefox browser, though there are still unpatched flaws residing from the previous release. Note that Mozilla's security policy dictates that no open vulnerabilities in Firefox should be reported to security agencies or the public until they have been patched. Microsoft, on the other hand, publish comprehensive details of their vulnerabilities on their Tech-Net website. The second and third edits represents attempts to reestablish this content or similar content after having been removed.

Its reference to Firefox is clearly aimed at bolstering the image of Internet Explorer and is irrelevant or trivially relevant to the topic at hand. This is an alleged violation of the Wikipedia policy "Avoid bias."

[21]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, I'm not introducing bias towards IE. I am attempting to remove the bias towards Firefox that has been introduced into this article. Unfortunately I appear to be outnumbered by Firefox advocates on this article. It's no mystery - since Firefox will only take off when the public have lost their faith in IE, the agenda is pretty clear. The tone is demeaning, and emphasis is on attacking other contributors to the article. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[22]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article ends, And for god's sake stop pretending that Firefox is perfect! The tone is demeaning, and emphasis is on attacking other contributors to the article. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[23] [24]

In response to a claim that Beachy had put in weasel words in a previous edit, added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk reads, Well if it's a problem then let's just take out that paragraph altogether. "Critics have claimed" etc etc - It's just opinion for goodness sake. Imagine if this were a real encyclopedia - would you really expect to see quotes like "that's not the way to run a software company." Come off it! --Beachy 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is demeaning. The recommendation to remove the paragraph, which represents opposition to Internet Explorer, is inappropriate and is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[25] [26]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page ends, "I'll do you a deal" is merely an expression. Next you'll be tearing my ideas to shreds because of a spelling mistake. --Beachy 20:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is demeaning and insulting. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[27] [28] [29] [30]

Added text for all three edits reads Chief Hacking Officer. The title of Marc Maiffret is added in an obvious attempt to discredit his opinion, which is critical of Microsoft and of Internet Explorer. Similarly, the edit summary of the third edit reads, Adding a job title to the source of a quote is hardly "trying hard". Alistair seems to be rather keen on removing it... The job title stays - feel free to remove the quote et al if you're embarassed. Again, Beachy takes a position that is indicative of his apparent bias. Furthermore, the four edits represent an edit war. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

  • "Avoid bias."
  • "Respect other contributors."

[31]

The first added paragraph to the Internet Explorer talk page reads, Maifrett has been criticised for mass publicising obscure holes in MS technology, and without this publicity, it's unlikely that exploits such as Code Red would have got off the ground - read this To suggest that Maifrett is a heroic altruist is completely naive --Beachy 15:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is inflammatory and demeaning. The second added paragraph reads, Oh for goodness sake - you look at the testing matrix and call it an 'excuse'? What planet are you on? Have you ever worked for a commercial software outfit with scores of high profile clients relying on the stability of your product?? You claim for Microsoft "Security isn't a priority" - how do you know this? Have you ever worked for them? The evidence is pretty unambiguous - they have spent over $1BN on SP2, and a year of comprehensive testing. If you think this is an just a mere 'excuse' then you're more ridiculously anti-Microsoft than most! --Beachy 15:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) The tone is excessively inflammatory, insulting, demaining, and accusatory. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[32] [33]

Text added to Internet Explorer talk page includes, There is a very obvious systematic bias against Microsoft amongst many Wikipedians on this page. This is rather accusatory and the claim is great in magnitude and poorly supported. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[34] [35] [36]

The edits are reversions. In the last edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, Why is Alistair obsessively removing information about SP2 (the single largest security effort a browser manufacturer has ever made)? The tone is insulting and demeaning. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[37]

Added paragraph to the Internet Explorer talk page begins, I had added this information about MS's testing matrix to the Security section. Unfortunately you may not notice it under the weight of dubious cynical rubbish in that section. The tone is demeaning and inflammatory. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[38]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page begins, Ah Alistair, it appears you're being a touch hypocritical here. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[39]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, I don't expect Firefox Evangelists to leave facts like this in the article, but if you want an edit war then bring it on! This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[40] [41]

In the first edit, removed paragraph from Internet Explorer article reads, ActiveX controls, once run have all the users' privileges instead of the limited privileges granted by competing approaches (like Java and JavaScript); ActiveX controls are also non-standard and are not portable to non-Windows platforms. In the second edit, which is a reversion to a reversion of the first edit, edit summary reads, Just like XPI of Firefox. This is irrelevant to the content at hand and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make the reversion. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

  • "Avoid bias."
  • "Respect other contributors."

[42]

Added text to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Heh, you guys really are enjoying all this toying with the reputation of ActiveX aren't you! Must be fun imagining all the things you could do. But have you or anyone you know had their computer "taken over," or hard drives wiped by a rogue ActiveX control? Ever? Or any of your friends? --Beachy 00:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is demeaning and insulting. Also, it is trivially relevant to the content at hand and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make the reversion. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[43] [44] [45] [46]

The four edits are reversions which involve removal of text and take place within a 24-hour time span, directly violating the three-revert rule. In the first edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer article begins, This inane FUD about Service Pack 2 is getting ridiculous. The tone is insulting and demeaning. In the second edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer article begins, Alistair, let's hear the reason behind your repeated, unexplained revokes of this edit. Or is it just general anti-MS FUD about SP2? This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[47]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Alistair, if personal experiences are irrelevant, then you shouldn't let your bad experiences colour your edits on this page. You only see compromised PC's, day in, day out - you don't see the vast majority of Microsoft PC's that are fine, and not crippled by spyware, and are not crawling with virii, and are getting along just fine with SP2. Embittered as you probably are, I should think you mistrust Microsoft in general, and will look straight for any minor flaw in SP2 in order to support your sentiment. The fact is, short of incorporating a virus-checker into SP2 (which would immediately land MS in trouble with Sophos, Norton, Symantech et al), Microsoft have made an unprecedented and significant lock-down within IE. It is a ridiculous to put FUD in this article suggesting (with no evidence) that the registry may have to be edited before SP2 can be installed. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[48] [49] [50]

In the first edit, added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, I'm sorry to hear about your experience, and that of your friend with the laptop. However, please don't let your annecdotes colour the fact that SP2 is a very important step for Windows / IE users to take in prevent future problems like those that you have described. A firewall, popup-blocker and lockdowns on scripts/binaries/ActiveX are all significant steps to take to combat the spread of spyware. I don't care if you can find 10 snippets from people who still have spyware after installing SP2, this is NOT conclusive evidence to support your anti-SP2 attitude to the extent that you can FUD against it on the Internet Explorer page. Trust me, I will not give up on this edit - "information" like the paragraph I removed is coloured by POV and very counter-productive. --Beachy 12:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC). The text is in response to a response to his comment that reads, But have you or anyone you know had their computer "taken over," or hard drives wiped by a rogue ActiveX control? Ever? Or any of your friends? That he thorougly reverses his sentiment from one which requires anecdotal evidence to one that opposes it, and that by doing so he supports his apparent bias, suggests that his comments are more strongly grounded in intentional bias than in an effort to improve the Internet Explorer article. In the last two edits, added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, I can prove that at least one Firefox user (me) has had to rename their 'chrome' directory to solve a crippling error which prevented the browser starting up, even after a reinstall. Now, should I write this on the Firefox Wikipedia article in a section called "Concerns and Problems"? What do you think people would say? Shall I try it? Such annecdotal evidence against Firefox would be equivalent to what Alistair is using to FUD about IE6 SP2. Might be fun to see what revoke-edit responses I get. The tone is demeaning and insulting. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[51] [52] [53] [54]

Added text in first edit to Internet Explorer talk page and in second and third edits to Internet Explorer article begin, At long last, Service Pack 2 for XP has arrived. Like many in the security community, I'm excited about this, as it represents real, true progress for Microsoft and their commitment to security. This is not just a Service Pack - it really includes functionality, usability, and core changes in the underlying code extensive enough to be called "XP2". Its relevance to Internet Explorer is neither explicitly mentioned nor immediately evident and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make make these edits. The third edit is a reversion to restore the text. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

  • "Avoid bias."
  • "Respect other contributors."

[55]

Added text to Internex Explorer talk page reads in part, I despair at the anti-MS POV that seems engrained in the psyche of most editors here. It's desperately negative and acheives nothing, unless you guys are simply here to present a case for competing browsers. --Beachy 21:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is demeaning. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[56] [57] [58]

Edit summaries for first two edits, which both represent removal of quotes from the Internet Explorer that is critical of Internet Explorer and / or Microsoft, read, Removing copyrighted contents. One might argue that rather than the stated reason, the quotes were removed solely because of Beachy's apparent bias. Edit summary for the last edit reads, in which the quotes are again removed after being restored, reads Maybe Alistair ought to fight that out with Minghong, who deleted the only pro-MS quote on the page for copyright reasons. In any case, we now have permission to use that quote. The summary is irrelevant to the content at hand and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make the edit. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

  • "Avoid bias."
  • "Respect other contributors."

[59]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Then by the same logic we should remove all the information about removing Internet Explorer, even though security experts allegedly recommend that, too. But, oh, wait a minute, that contradicts your agenda doesn't it... --Beachy 10:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC). The tone is demeaning and insulting. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[60] [61]

Added text to Internet Explorer talk page reads in part, You are criticising the nature of my edits and relentlessly reverting them - therefore I think it's pretty obvious that you're on the extreme end of the anti-IE camp. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[62]

Added paragraph to Beachy's user talk page reads in part, As ususal, you use a slip like that to attempt to discredit me. People will rapidly tire of the both of us if you continue to be so aggressive with your comments and edits. --Beachy 22:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC). This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[63]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, I'm putting the design of ActiveX in context, referring to a very similar technology in the most significant competitor. Why are you trying to censor this? You seem quite happy to make FF comparisons. The language, particularly the use of the word "censor", is demeaning. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[64]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, Don't censor facts. The language, particularly the use of the word "censor", is demeaning. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[65]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, Let's keep the facts in, eh? Sorry if the Mozilla Evangelists find it a little painful. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[66]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, Haha, what a bitchy little comment! That's coming straight out. The tone is demeaning, insulting, and intimidating. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[67]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, Common sense, Alistair - not POV! Surely you can see the reality of this marketing strategy. Note that I have not criticised it. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[68]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, By Alistair's logic... It is an edit that labels a commentator as anonymous, as User:AlistairMcMillan had earlier labeled another person. The change favors Beachy's apparent bias, as it discredits someone whose included quote is favorable to Firefox. The summary is irrelevant to the content at hand and thus is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias which may have intentionally influenced his decision to make the edit. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[69]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, Removed POV ('ambiguous') and corrected details on security settings. This article has clearly been further raped by advocates of minority browsers since I last visited. The tone and language are inflammatory and demeaning. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

In the first edit, added paragraph to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internet Explorer reads, Object The article has been thoroughly raped by proponents of Firefox and other competitors. An example I recently corrected -- like all sections, the JavaScript paragraph had been twisted to make out that MS was trying to 'embrace extend and extinguish' the standard, that MS has unfairly extended the standard, that Microsoft had gone against the W3C spec. The unforgiveable flaw in all this anti-MS ranting was that the author had absolutely no clue about the JavaScript methods in question, and had criticised Internet Explorer for supporting addEventListener, when this is in fact a W3C DOM standard! It beggars belief that such unbalanced and incorrect rubbish is allowed to fester on this page. If only the MS developers would start contributing here and set the record straight, as they have been doing on the IEBlog. --Beachy 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC). The tone is excessively demeaning, insulting, and inflammatory. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

The last six edits are similar to the first. In the last six edits, under the heading Overriding Ridiculous POV Trash, added text to Internet Explorer talk page reads, The article has been thoroughly raped by proponents of Firefox and other competitors. Each section ends with a snidey connotation/suggestion/allegation about Microsoft or Internet Explorer. It reads like a poorly-veiled Firefox advocacy page (like the allegedly informative 'BrowseHappy.com').

An example I recently corrected -- the JavaScript paragraph had been twisted to make out that MS was trying to 'embrace extend and extinguish' the standard, that MS has unfairly extended the standard, that IE's implementation had gone against the W3C spec blah blah blah. The unforgiveable flaw in all this anti-MS ranting was that the author had absolutely no clue about the JavaScript methods in question, and had criticised Internet Explorer for supporting addEventListener, when this is in fact the W3C DOM standard! [77]. And as for IE defying the W3C's 'Range' object, let's get the facts straight shall we? The TextRange object in IE was first seen in IE5 in 1998. The W3C made their 'Range' recommendation in 2000. So, who is defying who here? And who are we to criticise IE for supporting an innovation that Microsoft made 2 years before the burocrats at W3C decided on an alternate version?

It beggars belief that such clear anti-MS POV is allowed to fester on this page. If only the MS developers would start contributing here and set the record straight. Just look to the latest entries in the IEBlog if you want to know what's really going on with Internet Explorer. Ironically it's more neutral than the Firefox-inspired rubbish you'll find here. --Beachy 00:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC). The tone is excessively demeaning, insulting, and inflammatory. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[78]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Make it clearer? What, make it more clearly wrong? :-) I thought these articles were meant to showcase reality rather than false speculation? Maybe I'm wrong, and I've been wasting my time here... --Beachy 01:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC). This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[79] [80] [81]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Yawn, I'm sorry, perhaps I should have referred to it as a 'metaphorical sexual violation without consent'? --Beachy 01:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC), referring to someone's criticism of referring to fellow editors' work as "rape". The tone is patronizing. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[82]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, And by the way, the paragraph you reverted made a completely false statement about attachEvent vs addEventListener. Please don't knee-jerk revert my edits like you've done so many times before. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[83] [84] [85]

Beachy removes a large paragraph three times. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

Added text to Internet Explorer talk page begins, Ah so it's Mr "I've been spreading Firefox before the creation of Spread Firefox"[93] Minghong that wrote the inaccurate paragraph about Internet Explorer's JScript. No surprises there. What's genuinely surprising is that after reading this discussion he actually wants to put it back, albeit with two methods switched around! Clearly the point was misunderstood before and after my removal of this paragraph. Let me reiterate. Firstly, you _cannot_ criticise IE for implementing a method which later became a W3C standard (otherwise we'll have to look into Firefox's 'mozOpacity' and the like won't we?). Secondly, you WILL NOT censor the information about IE complying with the standardising organisation ECMA (I noticed you subtley slipped that one out!). Thirdly, since most of your paragraph is speculation, it carries little encyclopedic weight anyway. It's coming out. The tone is insulting, derogatory, and intimidating. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[94]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, No evidence of such "controversy" - wouldn't be a deliberately snide way of ending the section would it now? This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[95] [96]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Ah, many wise words from Fubar here, although he fails to see that Firefox advocates are not my NPOV "fellows." If anyone else is having trouble coming to terms with my language (yikes, 'rape' - what a taboo!), then I'll put a little warning above each potentially offensive paragraph so you and and any small children reading the IE discussion page know when to look away. --Beachy 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC). The tone is demeaning and insulting. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[97] [98]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Oh, and careful who you accuse of "raping" articles, Minghong -- Fubar is watching! The tone is demeaning and intimidating and the nature is personal. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[99]

Edit summary for Embrace and extend reads, You forget that this whole article is POV, Alistair. Not everyone believes in such conspiracy theory, and you will not succeed in censoring points that help balance this article. The tone and language are belligerent, notably the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" and the word "censoring". This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[100] [101]

Added text for Internet Explorer talk page reads in part, Noone likes a nasty personal response do they, Minghong? You seem quite happy to deal them out though:

"You really don't know what you're talking about. XPCOM is NOT XPI" 17:48, 29 Jan 2005 Minghong (history log). The tone is accusatory and belligerent. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[102]

Edit summary for Embrace and extend article reads, Hold on Minghong, doesn't the article specifically (and unchallenged) refer to ActiveX in the paragraph above? Or is that paragraph okay because it's POV is anti-MS? This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[103]

Added text to Internet Explorer talk page reads in part, Just because you don't know about the enhancements in IE6, you should not taint the article with your ignorance. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[104]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, You know this is the truth. Don't twist it. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[105]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, The campaign details are not speculation. It's pretty obvious that the media has been instrumental in the decline of IE, but if you want to censor this then I give up trying to stop you. The language, specifically the use of the word "censor" indicates failure to assume good faith. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[106]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads in part, A 'consent' is not reached by your censorship of valid information. I appreciate your recent reshuffling of sections, and removal of much of the FUD content (or at least you have separated it off into other articles). However, you are not the editor-in-chief of this article, and you do not have the right to remove content simply because you personally disagree with it.. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[107]

Added paragraph to Beachy's talk page reads, I have admitted my mistakes in the past. As for biases, hah! Don't be such a hypocrite when your edits, talk page and actions on SFX all scream bias --Beachy 18:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC). This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[108]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, LOL, maybe answers.com is a more Firefox-friendly website? --Beachy 03:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC). It refers to a user's reference to http://www.answers.com/, a Wikipedia fork, rather than Wikipedia itself. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

[109]

Added paragraph to Open source article reads, I don't think any advocate of open-source will ever be able to convincingly counter the argument that free software disrupts the commercial software market. Ah well, you guys had better censor out / dilute this argument then, eh? --Beachy 16:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC). This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:[reply]

Supplementary information[edit]

I do not claim with certainty that the following edits are a violation of Wikipedia policy in themselves, due to either their nature or severity. However, they do provide context and perspective for preceding edits. Some may be interpreted as violations, although no conclusive evidence is presented.

Once again, all edits listed below by an external link were performed by Beachy. In the edits below, diff pages for related edits appear together. Groups of related edits appear in chronological order of the first relevant edit performed by Beachy.

[110] [111]

Added paragraph to Beachy's user page reads:

I've recently helped make some corrections and additions in order to make the Internet_Explorer page more NPOV. I'm getting rather tired of the constant and disinformative attacks coming from the open-source / Mozilla community. They have a giant to topple for their own gain.

More on that at my Tech Journal

This edit is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias.

[112] [113] [114] [115]

Added paragraph to user talk page reads, When you have citations from experts claiming that IE was designed to be insecure, then you will have a case for removing my revisions. I justified each one of my changes and I'm disappointed to see someone reverting them with no written justification. The edit to which it refers was from

(1) Many security analysts attribute IE's exploitation to its popularity, since its market dominance makes it the most obvious target.

to

(2) Some people have attributed IE's security failings to its popularity, saying that its popularity makes it a bigger target. Others consider that argument spurious, citing inherent flaws in IE's design.

Beachy subsequently reverted to (1), with the Edit summary, Reverted back to justifiable revisions. No valid justification was given for the reversion of the last three edits.

Subsequent attempts to use (2) were also met by resistance. Edit summary for one such attempt reads, Wikipedia does not call security analysts "cynics". The concerns are real, even if you do not agree with them. Reverting. In another reversion to (1), Beachy's edit summary reads, Find me a real live security analyst that suggests removing IE from Windows, and then you will be justified in removing the word "cynic".

The response was disproportionate to the edits. I suggest that Beachy may have reverted the edits because of unchecked personal bias, by contrast with the stated reasons for the reversions, and attempted to intimidate others into compliance with excessive standards for article modification.

[116]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, This section has become predictably POV'd against Microsoft, who in actual fact were not charged with anti-trust violation in this case - a fact that people have attempted to muddy. The implication is that the relevant contributor(s) were intentionally introducing bias, and the tone is negatively charged. Should one accept the implication as intentional, this would be a violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

In the first two edits, added content to Internet Explorer talk page, in response to a list of sites provided intended to establish Marc Maiffret, who is quoted by the current version of the article at the time as being critical of Microsoft's work on Internet Explorer, as a viable source, begins --Beachy 00:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) The first article on your Google list (by CBC news) tells us all we need to know about Marc Maiffret:. It is followed by an attempt to discredit Maiffret by claiming that he was in it for the money. The tone of the response is inflammatory. In the last three edits, Beachy attempts to remove all references to Maiffret. In the third edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads See discussion on Marc Maifret, seems he's making money out of mass-publicising MS vulnerabilities to support his "SecureIIS" software - Not the kind of reference that an NPOV article on IE needs. In the fourth edit, edit summary reads See discussion - Maifrett is not an independent observer, and has been criticised for mass publicising security holes in order to sell his own security software. In the fifth edit, edit summary reads, "This is no way to run a wikipedia article" Chris Beach, Chief Hacker, Eye For an Eye Digital Security Warehouse - Let's publicise the holes, encourage exploits and then profit from patches, yeah! ;-) The accusations are great in magnitude and not well supported, and are arguably indicative of Beachy's apparent bias.

[122]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer article reads, Alistair - I'll do you a deal - Maifrett's quote goes in if I can have this in the anti-trust section: "Separate markets exist for shirts and buttons, cars and tires, cars and rustproofing, yet few people would object to these integrations." —Stephen Margolis, Professor of Economics at North Carolina State University, writing for the Independent Institute think tank [123] --Beachy 23:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Again, Beachy takes a position that is indicative of his apparent bias. Furthermore, he is engaging in content bargaining, which is inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia.

[124]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, There is no general recommendation from US-CERT against using Internet Explorer. This note (one of seven solutions to a patched vulnerability) has simply been over-hyped by Mozilla Evangelists and other nay-sayers. It dates back to June, pre-dating SP2. Sorry guys but the excitement's over. --Beachy 17:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) The tone is arguably demeaning. In addition, that it is irrelevant to the content in the specific text in the article in question, but is supportive of Beachy's apparent bias, is indicative of Beachy's apparent bias.

[125] [126] [127]

These edits are reversions of the same content. In the second edit, edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, Plain and simple on the Mozilla pages describing XPCOM - you should have a read. And what I have written about the ActiveX prompt is correct (it is stated above). Are you addicted to reverting me? Although so mild in extent so to appear in the Supplementary information section, this is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[128]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads in part, In this case XPCOM and ActiveX are practically identical technologies, but the mention has been removed, probably because it balanced the criticism of ActiveX in IE. The pattern of unwavering, unbalanced assault on IE/MS has to stop, before this article loses all neutrality and credibility. Although so mild in extent so to appear in the Supplementary information section, this is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[129]

Added paragraph to Internet Explorer talk page reads, Minghong's talk page: "Since Year 2004, I've been addicted to Mozilla, web standards, open-source.. I've been spreading Firefox before the creation of Spread Firefox community site.." --Beachy 16:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC). It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. One might argue that the purpose for its inclusion was solely to harm the credibility of User:Minghong. One might further argue that this may constitute a violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

[130]

Edit summary for Mozilla Firefox article reads, once you have emailed Peter and found his email address and identity to be invalid, you can call him 'anonymous'. I suggest that Beachy may have reverted the edits because of unchecked personal bias, by contrast with the stated reasons for the reversion, and attempted to intimidate others into compliance with excessive standards for article modification.

[131]

Edit summary for Internet Explorer article reads, God there's some rubbish here - for example the 'non-standard' addEventListener() method that IE implemented? It's W3C for crying out loud!! Read: http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html. The language is excessively inflammatory.

Applicable policies[edit]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

[132] [133] [134] [135]

The writer of this text, User:MIT Trekkie, has requested that Beachy attempt not to engage in offensive and other objectionable behavior. The relevant portion of the discussion on User talk:Beachy reads as follows, under the heading A humble request:

I humbly request that you attempt to adhere to the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. By this request, I intend neither animosity nor accusation.

MIT Trekkie 18:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just out of interest, was there any particular reason for you providing me with this information? If you are referring to my deletion of SP2 FUD on the Internet Explorer page, remember there are two sides to an edit-war. I believe I have been civil throughout. Despite Alistair referring to me personally as a "cheerleader" and suchlike I have never made a deliberate personal attack myself --Beachy 18:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was referring not to any single event, so much as to a general trend of behavior. I have no interest in taking sides or accusing anyone of being a "cheerleader" or anything of that nature. I would simply prefer that all actions be taken to avoid unnecessary prolonged conflict, but rather to constructively create better articles. MIT Trekkie 18:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) P.S. I wish the same of Alistair, that he would refrain from personal attacks, and may choose to give him a similar request.

User:Fubar Obfusco also requested (multiple times) that Beachy curtail personal attacks.

[136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]

The relevant transcript appears below.

I think you might do well to re-read Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and calling your fellow editors "conspiracy theorists" is not acceptable conduct. --FOo 03:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. A "personal attack" (as you put it) rather necessitates being directed towards a person, doesn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I never made personal accusations towards any one person of being a conspiracy theorist.
Wikipedia's NPA states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - which is exactly what I was doing when I referred to "this anti-MS conspiracy theorist stuff." In any case, to call someone a conspiracy theorist would hardly be the worst insult I've seen on here. How come you didn't pull Alistair up when he referred to me personally as a "cheerleader?" Pah, anyway, it's pretty obvious to me what's going on here. I'm sure it's obvious to most other observers too. If you want to draw attention away from points that you don't agree with then I cannot and will not stop you. However, you will not discourage me from expressing them. --Beachy 03:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beachy, I'd say that your persistent accusations that your fellow editors are biased certainly do constitute personal attacks. Note, I'm not talking about criticism of content -- I'm talking about your incessant refrain that others are "ridiculously anti-Microsoft", "biased", are the "extreme end of the anti-IE camp", and so on. This is not an occasional behavior or once-in-a-while over-the-top comments. It is a persistent sequence of attacks upon your fellow editors' motives, and it is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

I agree with you that Alistair and others have from time to time made personal remarks towards you. That's also unacceptable, and I don't pretend that it's okay. I'd point out that neither Alistair nor you responded when I pointed out that you were both engaging in an edit war contrary to policy, so I think you have both done some damage in that regard. However, the constant beating of the "everyone else is biased!" drum is something that you in particular have been doing, and it has got to stop.

Please note, I'm not trying to run you off or discourage you from working on this article. I think you've made some very useful and informative contributions, and I do not in any way intend to impugn your privilege as a Wikipedia editor to work on this or any other subject. I am trying to get the attacks to stop. Not only are they against Wikipedia rules, they are also the chief problem drawing attention away from serious collaboration on this article. --FOo 00:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There have also been many attacks on my motives too, but to be honest that doesn't bother me. In many ways we are ALL biased, and each tend to make our edits with either a pro-IE or a (more common) anti-IE leaning. To pretend that editors are all "NPOV" is rather missing the reality of the debate (which is what this page is designed for). Like you say, I am outspoken in this forum, but I do not consider my criticisms to be unfair or unwarranted. And if they are mean enough to hurt the feelings of other editors, then I apologise -- I just thought people in here were made of stronger stuff. Beachy 15:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not individual editors are biased is beside the point. Speculations (and that's all they can ever be) concerning an editor's motives is irrelevant. It is the content of the article which is important, and which should be the subject of the debate. It is the content of the article which should be NPOV. Making claims about individual editors biases or motives serves no useful purpose, and should be assiduously avoided by all. Paul August ☎ 16:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Whether there have been attacks on your motives is irrelevant. Whether it bothers you is irrelevant. Whether we are all biased is irrelevant. Whether all editors are NPOV is irrelevant. Whether you are outspoken on the forum is irrelevant. Whether you consider your criticisms unfair or unwarranted is irrelevant. Whether people here are "made of stronger stuff" is irrelevant. Your entire post fails to address the comment given. -- MIT Trekkie 17:28, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well he did apologize, that is relevant and does address, to some extent, "the comment given". Paul August ☎ 18:34, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
In my view, the purpose of the WP:NPA policy has nothing to do with "hurt feelings" and everything to do with the productivity of the Wikipedia project. We are here to build an encyclopedia. If we could do that more effectively by insulting and accusing each other all the time, then Wikipedia policy would require personal attacks, instead of forbidding them. We would have a policy that says that every edit must be made with an insulting edit summary, that every talk comment must accuse other editors of everything from bias to bestiality, and that we are all expected to go to each other's User Talk pages and berate each other every once in a while. (No, I'm not saying you do those things. They are silly examples.)
The present policy reflects a judgment that the opposite is the case: that insulting and accusing one another reduces the productivity of the Wikipedia project. I happen to agree with that judgment. The more time and effort people spend fussing about themselves and each other, the less encyclopedia gets written. (That's why this will be my last post on the subject of WP:NPA here. Writing this isn't getting any encyclopedia written.)
I think the real problem with accusations of bias is that they come across as attacks against people's suitability to work on Wikipedia. Because we value neutrality here, the accusation "You're biased" translates as "Go away." Whereas it's frequently fitting to deal with a piece of biased article text by deleting it or modifying it to be more neutral, we do not have the privilege to tell other editors to go away or modify themselves. So the accusation of bias comes across as "I, the accuser, am privileged to judge who is fit to work on this article."
A thought on "bias": It is true that we all come to discussions of any subject (such as Internet Explorer) with pre-existing beliefs and ideas. It is not true that these beliefs are all biases or prejudices. For instance, if a person has had very good experiences with Internet Explorer, I would expect him or her to have a positive view of it. This positive view is not a "bias" -- it is experience.
We expect people to form views from experience; doing so is usually called "learning". Moreover, we expect that people who have experience are more worth listening to on a subject than people without experience. Not only does experience not constitute a threat to neutrality, it constitutes a benefit. (This may have something to do with Larry Sanger's rant about "anti-elitism", but not terribly much.)
Different people can have experiences which disagree with one another. My boss, for instance, uses Internet Explorer all the time, doesn't use anti-spyware software, and yet never gets spyware. Other coworkers of mine use Internet Explorer all the time and have awful problems with spyware. My boss's positive view of Internet Explorer is not formed by bias ... but by experience. The same is true for the others' negative view of it.
If a person makes a faulty generalization from their own experience -- for instance, if my boss said (which he does not) that everyone can use IE and no anti-spyware software and yet be trouble-free -- that still is not "bias". It's just a logical fallacy. You can't do induction from one case to a universal.
When is it useful to say that someone is biased? I'm not sure it ever really is. Possibly when a person has no experience of something and yet has oh so many opinions about it. But even then, on Wikipedia it is probably more useful to simply point out (with citations) where such a person's claims are wrong, and leave their ego problem out of it. --FOo 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the mature responses in this thread, and do take heed of them. I agree that debating sometimes leads to fighting and fighting is not a useful practise in building WP articles. However, in my defense I would say there's a bit of an over-emphasis on accusations I have made in the past. Looking over the last 250 edits of the article, I've found far more personal attacks from Alistair, for example, than from myself:
17:48, 9 Jan 2005 AlistairMcMillan (...When you actually know what you are talking about, I'll stop reverting.)
19:01, 26 Dec 2004 AlistairMcMillan (→Concerns and problems - Revert Beachy's muddy language.)
14:03, 26 Dec 2004 AlistairMcMillan (Revert Beachy. Please take your agenda elsewhere.)
12:06, 24 Dec 2004 AlistairMcMillan (→Concerns and problems - Restore passage deleted by the Microsoft and Internet Explorer and SP2 cheerleader.)
11:49, 24 Dec 2004 Beachy (Alistair, let's hear the reason behind your repeated, unexplained revokes of this edit. Or is it just general anti-MS FUD about SP2?)
00:34, 24 Dec 2004 Beachy (This inane FUD about Service Pack 2 is getting ridiculous. Alistair - name some spyware that ad aware will not remove, and requires hacking about in the registry.)
Note also that my comments are on the content, whereas his are regularly personal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove that I'm innocent here - but I'm putting this in context and I certainly don't think I'm the worst offender. One thing is clear - that I have too much spare time, and should be revising for my finals. If anyone wants to continue this thread it had probably ought to be on my talk page as the debate seems no longer on IE itself Beachy 22:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[153] [154] [155] [156] [157]

The relevant transcript appears below.

Beachy, you know better than to behave like this. It is utterly unacceptable for you to refer to your fellow editors' work as "rape". You have useful information to contribute. That's good. However, if you choose to behave in a manner which violates Wikipedia policy, you're not going to get to contribute it. That would be bad. Cut the personal attacks. --FOo 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, I'm sorry, perhaps I should have referred to it as a 'metaphorical sexual violation without consent'? --Beachy 01:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead you retract the insult, figure out why it was the wrong way to start your response to this article, apologize honestly to the editors you insulted, and resolve to behave in a constructive fashion rather than continuing to flout the rules here?
I personally think you're likely making a valid technical point here regarding DOM -- albeit one that's subject to interpretation, considering the vagaries of the standards process, as Alistair pointed out. We have a policy here to assume good faith until that assumption is disproven. But it's quite understandable that others will have trouble believing you're editing in good faith when you herald your return here with such contempt and vileness towards your fellows. --FOo 04:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, many wise words from Fubar here, although he fails to see that Firefox advocates are not my NPOV "fellows." If anyone else is having trouble coming to terms with my language (yikes, 'rape' - what a taboo!), then I'll put a little warning above each potentially offensive paragraph so you and and any small children reading the IE discussion page know when to look away. --Beachy 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above constitutes three attempts by two different users to address the same behavior, namely personal attacks.

minghong, please enter your efforts to stop Beachy's alleged violations of Wikipedia policy here, and add to the following section as appropriate[edit]

On the hypothesis that attempts to resolve the dispute failed[edit]

This section aims to support the hypothesis that attempts to resolve Beachy's disputed behavior failed by showing that alleged violations continued after such attempts. After the first attempt indicated above, the alleged violations indicated by the external links numbered 49, 50, 54 - 76, 78 - 92, and 94 - 109 were performed. After the second attempt indicated above, the alleged violations indicated by the external links numbered 64 - 76, 78 - 92, and 94 - 109 were performed. After the third attempt indicated above, the alleged violations indicated by the external links numbered 90 - 92 and 97 - 109 were performed.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Response[edit]

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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MIT_Trekkie/BeachyRFC&oldid=17578174"