text:
User talk:MIT Trekkie/BeachyRFC

Below is a rough draft for text that may be posted on 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.

 * (Beachy | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''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 Three-revert rule. Other alleged offenses are detailed later as appropriate.

Description
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 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.

Note
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
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.

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."

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,

 * Simple, easy-to-use interface and controls

 * Built-in search facility using multiple engines (Search Companion)

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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. .''

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. . 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:

 * "Avoid bias."
 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Three-revert rule
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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  indicates no such contention. This is an alleged violation of the following Wikipedia policies:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

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." Maifrett has previously released advisories on security flaws in various components of Internet Explorer such as its ActiveX component and IE 5.01's PNG display component .  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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Civility

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."

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Avoid bias."
 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."

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."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

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:

 * "Avoid bias."
 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Three-revert rule
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

In the first edit, added paragraph to 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:

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! . 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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

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

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"

Added text to Internet Explorer talk page begins, ''Ah so it's Mr "I've been spreading Firefox before the creation of Spread Firefox" 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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

Supplementary information
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.

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.

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.

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * Civility

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.

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 --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.

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.

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Civility

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

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:

 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

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.

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

 * Policies and guidelines
 * "Avoid bias."
 * "Respect other contributors."
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * "Be polite."
 * No personal attacks
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * Three-revert rule
 * Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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)
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility
 * Wikiquette
 * "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible"
 * "Be polite."
 * "Work toward agreement"
 * "admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste"
 * "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."
 * "If polite discussion fails, take a break if you're arguing"

 * 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.

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)

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)''

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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

On the hypothesis that attempts to resolve the dispute failed
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
(sign with ~ )

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

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

title: User talk:MIT Trekkie/BeachyRFC


text: Talk:Betico Croes

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Betico Croes


text:
Category talk:Plays by country

Untitled
What sort of category is this? What makes an "Irish play" Irish? Saying that a play has some sort of nationality is rather nonsensical. A play can be written by someone with a nationality, or set in some country, but saying that a play has a nationality itself?? Dysprosia 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I imagine it's a generalized way of saying it was written by someone with a nationality. It's just an idiom/figure of speech. Like calling a book a British/American/French novel -- it's implicit that one's referring to the author, since obviously the book is not a person. --Phoenix-forgotten 03:26, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * In most Wiki categories, the phrase refers to the author's nationality. So if the author is Irish, then it would be an Irish play. Adding a sentence to clarify that. Dugwiki 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I added an introduction in the category's description that clarifies what is meant by "nationality". Basically, the nationality is the nationality of the playwright.  I also added some qualifications in cases of multiple citizenship or multiple authors.  Hopefully the introduction isn't controversial, but if someone objects to what I wrote feel free to discuss it here and we'll go with whatever description the consensus wants. Dugwiki 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Plays by country


text:
Talk:Catastrophic failure

′

Untitled
They're the sort of things the History Channel does when not busy with their usuall Hitler-preoccupation. 68.39.174.150 03:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought maybe that is one itself... "LOL"! 68.39.174.150 03:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Um...
Is there really a point to this article? Mbarbier 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently editing a mechanical engineering stub about ultimate failure. Regrettably it still remains relatively small and unnoticed by fellow engineers. Although there are some differences between our articles I was wondering if you wanted to try and merge them together to try and create a stronger stub about failure. If you are interested either leave a post on the site ultimate failure or on my own personal page. Thank you for looking into the matter. Engl315ISU (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

About this term when applied to computers.
"The term catastrophic failure is occasionally (and erroneously) used in computer software to indicate an unexpected error from which the system cannot meaningfully recover."

Why "erroneously?" It's simply borrowing an expression from structural engineering. -- -- Boldupdater 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose the thinking is that you can always recover from a software error.. restart the machine. However, I agree with you.. it's a borrowing of the expression, and it's not really an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.221.211 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 * An example of when recovery might not be possible would be when data has been lost as a result of the failure. The data may be critical to the business, or even to the functioning of the software. Another example might be when the software itself is broken (e.g. a failed update that left the software in a state where it can no longer execute). — JoeyTwiddle (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 * There is many cases where unhandled or unexpected error or bug in software is unrecoverable and will result in catastrophic error. In many cases you can't restart the machine or program, as it will be either too late and too slow, or it will hit the error again. Check the Arian 5 Flight 501 incident for example. There are many computer systems where failure will lead to loss of life or other systems, this include electric grid control systems, chemical reactors and refinery controls, life support systems, rockets, cars, planes, nuclear reactors, etc. 81.6.34.246 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Software that results in loss of life
It is my understanding that the term "catastrophic failure" has a more specific meaning when applied to computers. Here is a slide set prepared by the Intecs group, an Italian software firm that works closely with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Corporation for Space Standardization (ECSS) to develop software for space applications.

On slides 11 and 12, they distinguish between Class A software (failures of which will be "catastrophic", i.e. loss of life), Class B software (failures of which are "critical", i.e. may damage significant amounts of property but no loss of life), Class C software (failures are "major") and Class D software (failures are "marginal"). This is consistent with my own personal experience with computing... the term "catastrophic failure" is reserved for failures in which there will be loss of life.

Does that seem okay? If nobody has objections, I would like to add a little paragraph explaining that usage of the word in the computing world. Chris Clark (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Logic of Failure
Why is: added to the Resources section? The failures described in that book include some "catastrophic" failures, and some other systemic failures. Also, I'm not convinced that the book is a useful reference, even for the sort of failures it does discuss. See http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/d/dtrchdrn.htm (from the article), for reasons why it might not be a useful reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dietrich Dörner The Logic of Failure (1996) ISBN 0201479486

Computers
Catastrophic failure is usually to restrain computers from communicating internally. Normally between programming languages and databases i.e Visual Basic and Microsoft Access. Pchiume (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this mean anything?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal pumps
The section about centrifugal pumps seems unnecessarily detailed and unrelated to anything else on this page. I have parked the text below. It could maybe be merged into the article centrifugal pump, which has currently less than a sentence on this phenomenon. It says simply "These are some difficulties faced in centrifugal pumps... Overheating due to low flow." This equation was originally added to the Catastrophic failure article on 18 April 2009 by 124.30.231.66.

 * Catastrophic failure in centrifugal pumps
 * A catastrophic failure of a centrifugal pump can occur if the liquid within the pump casing is allowed to vaporize. To prevent flashing due to overheating of the fluid, a flow must be maintained through the pump to keep the liquid below saturation temperature.
 * If a temperature rise of 15 °F (8 °C) is accepted in the casing—minimum flow through a centrifugal pump can be calculated as
 * q = PBHP / 2.95 • cp • SG        (1)
 * where
 * q = minimum flow rate (gpm)
 * PBHP = power input (BHP)
 * cp = specific heat capacity (Btu/lb °F)
 * SG = specific gravity of the fluid
 * PBHP = power input (BHP)
 * cp = specific heat capacity (Btu/lb °F)
 * SG = specific gravity of the fluid

--Officiallyover (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Not a catastrophe
I wonder if it might be worth adding a clarification like the following:

 * The adjective catastrophic in this term refers to the inability of the system to recover from the change. It does not necessarily mean that the change will result in a humanitarian catastrophe. Depending on the scenario, there could be no harm incurred as a result of the incident, aside from the cost of the damaged equipment.
 * So the failure is catastrophic for the system, but not necessarily catastrophic for people.

This article was actually cited as evidence that a catastrophic failure does not necessarily mean a catastrophe has occurred in the common sense of the word. I can believe that is a common misconception, which is why I suggest adding this clarification. — JoeyTwiddle (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Catastrophic failure


text:
Idiopathic postprandial syndrome

Idiopathic postprandial syndrome, colloquially but incorrectly known by some as hypoglycemia, describes a collection of clinical signs and symptoms similar to medical hypoglycemia but without the demonstrably low blood glucose levels which characterize said condition.

People with this condition suffer from recurrent episodes of altered mood and cognitive dysfunction, often accompanied by weakness and adrenergic symptoms such as shakiness. The episodes typically occur a few hours after a meal, rather than after many hours of fasting. The principal treatments recommended are extra small meals or snacks and avoidance of excessive simple sugars.

Signs and symptoms
The symptoms include many of the symptoms associated with milder degrees of hypoglycemia, especially the adrenergic symptoms, but do not progress to objective impairment of brain function, seizures, coma, or brain damage.
 * Shakiness
 * Sense of weakness
 * Altered or depressed mood
 * Confusion
 * Fatigue
 * Anxiety
 * Paleness
 * Perspiration
 * Increased pulse or respiratory rate
 * Hunger

Etymology and history of diagnosis
The term idiopathic postprandial syndrome, which literally means a syndrome that occurs after eating (postprandial) and is of unknown cause (idiopathic), was coined in an attempt to reserve the term hypoglycemia for those conditions in which low glucose levels could be demonstrated. It was offered as a less confusing alternative to functional hypoglycemia and as a less pejorative alternative to "nonhypoglycemia" or "pseudohypoglycemia".

The syndrome resembles reactive hypoglycemia except that low glucose is not found at the time of symptoms.

The common usage of the term "hypoglycemia" was noted and countered by doctors writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the 1970s:
 * The "syndrome of hypoglycemia" has become popular among patients and physicians alike, primarily because it seems to provide an explanation (?) for obscure symptoms, and it gives the patient something to do, ie, manipulate his or her diet continuously. Here is where the concept of "hypoglycemia" as a disorder meets up with all other modern dietary fads such as "natural" foods, vitamin "lack", and "organic" foods. It is also an area in which the hormones are involved. Hence "glandular causes" and "glandular therapy" play a large role.

The author said "a cult has developed, consisting of a believing public aided and abetted by 'nutritionists', medical journalists, and a host of physicians."
 * Hypoglycemia enjoys a popular position in the public's eye as a non-specific medical condition that frequently provides an explanation for the varied symptoms that occur in daily life.

These doctors cautioned against the over-diagnosis of reactive hypoglycemia. They said "both physicians and the public deserve major re-education."

Non-disease
In October 1974, The New England Journal of Medicine carried an article "Non-hypoglycemia as an epidemic condition" which described the condition as a "non-disease". The authors claim
 * Over the past few years people have appeared in droves with the self-diagnosis of "hypoglycemia" – a term that has become the layman's final common pathway for a variety of conditions, only a few of which are related to endocrinologic abnormalities.
 * Most common are somatic complaints such as fatigue, spasms, palpitation, numbness and tingling, pains, severe sweating and mental dullness.
 * Hypoglycemia provides all at once a socially acceptable problem, a quasi-physiologic explanation and the promise of a relatively inexpensive and successful self-help program.

The same issue of the Journal carried a "non-editorial on non-hypoglycemia" that acknowledged the "current popular epidemic of non-hypoglycemia" and proposed the term "clinical pseudo-hypoglycemia". After describing the known mechanisms of blood glucose regulation, the authors call for more research:
 * The body's normal response to carbohydrate ingestion includes elaboration of an as yet unidentified hormonal (gut) factor from the upper intestine.

They say that a glucose tolerance test is appropriate but caution that:
 * It must be kept in mind that the oral glucose load is far from a normal physiologic meal, and tests only glucose as the provocateur, whereas protein might be as much at fault by stimulating over-production of the gut factor, probably pancreozymin. Thus much more research is indicated to define the norms as well as to characterize the role and nature of the various gut factors and the responses of the beta cells to these factors.

Adrenergic postprandial syndrome
There is some evidence of the existence of a so-called "adrenergic postprandial syndrome": the blood glucose level is normal, and the symptoms are caused through autonomic adrenergic response. Often, this syndrome is associated with emotional distress and anxious behaviour of the patient.

title: Idiopathic postprandial syndrome


text:
APC by Schneider Electric

APC by Schneider Electric (formerly American Power Conversion Corporation) is a manufacturer of uninterruptible power supplies (UPS), electronics peripherals, and data center products.

In 2007, Schneider Electric acquired APC and combined it with MGE UPS Systems to form Schneider Electric's Critical Power & Cooling Services Business Unit, which recorded 2007 revenue of US$3.5 billion (EUR 2.4 billion) and employed 12,000 people worldwide. Until February 2007, when it was acquired, it had been a member of the S&P 500 list of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.

Schneider Electric, with 113,900 employees and operations in 102 countries, had 2008 annual sales of $26 billion (EUR 18.3 billion).

In 2011, APC by Schneider Electric became a product brand only, while the company was rebranded as the IT Business Unit of Schneider Electric.

History
APC was founded in 1981 by three MIT Lincoln Lab electronic power engineers. Originally, the engineers focused on solar power research and development. When government funding for their research ended, APC shifted its focus to power protection by introducing its first UPS in 1984.

Acquisition by Schneider
Schneider Electric announced its acquisition of APC on October 30, 2006 and completed it on February 14, 2007. APC shareholders approved the deal on January 16, 2007. The European Union authorized the merger, provided that Schneider divest itself of the MGE UPS SYSTEMS global UPS business below 10kVA. Late in 2007 Eaton Powerware bought the MGE Office Protection Systems division of Schneider.

Product lines

The company focuses its efforts on four application areas:
 * Home/home office
 * Business networks
 * Access provider networks
 * Data centers and facilities

Symmetra
APC Symmetra LX is a line of uninterruptible power supply products, aimed at network and server applications. Symmetras come in power configurations ranging from 4 kVA to 16 kVA. Symmetras are built for use in a data center (in a 19-inch rack for example). They include features such as integrated manageability, hot-swappability, user-replaceable power, and battery and intelligence modules.

Smart-UPS
APC Smart-UPS is a line of smaller units intended for home and office use, available as floor-standing and rackmount versions. With the exception of the Smart-UPS Online series (SURT and SRT models), Smart-UPS units are line-interactive UPS systems, running their outputs off the inverters only when the grid power is unavailable.

PowerChute
PowerChute is a computer program by APC designed to control and manage UPS systems. It facilitates unattended shutdown of servers and workstations during extended power outages and provides monitoring and logging of UPS status. Versions vary to cater to different user needs and environments.

PowerChute Business Edition requires servers to be connected via serial port or USB to the monitored Smart-UPS equipment. It provides UPS management and safe server shutdown for up to 25 servers. UPS Network Management Cards made by APC enable UPS management by directly connecting the UPS to the network with its own IP address, avoiding dependence or the need for a server, which can be useful in wiring closets where no servers are present. PowerChute Network Shutdown, together with the UPS Network Management Card, enables safe server shutdown by communicating over a network to any network-enabled APC Smart-UPS (those that contain a UPS network management card).

title: APC by Schneider Electric


title: File:Adamstrange2005.JPG


text:
Wedge (golf)

In the sport of golf, a wedge is a subset of the iron family of golf clubs designed for special use situations. As a class, wedges have the highest lofts, the shortest shafts, and the heaviest clubheads of the irons. These features generally aid the player in making accurate short-distance "lob" shots, to get the ball onto the green or out of a hazard or other tricky spot. In addition, wedges are designed with modified soles that aid the player in moving the clubhead through soft lies, such as sand, mud, and thick grass, to extract a ball that is embedded or even buried. Wedges come in a variety of configurations, and are generally grouped into four categories: pitching wedges, sand wedges, gap/approach wedges and lob wedges.

History
The class of wedges grew out of the need for a better club for playing soft lies and short shots. Prior to the 1930s, the best club for short "approach" shots was the "niblick", roughly equivalent to today's 9-iron or pitching wedge in loft; however the design of this club, with a flat, angled face and virtually no "sole", made it difficult to use in sand and other soft lies as it was prone to dig into soft turf. The club most often used for bunker shots was called the "jigger"; it was used similarly to today's pitching wedge, and had a similar short shaft, but its loft was closer to the "mashie" of the day (equivalent to today's 4-iron). The lower loft prevented the club "digging in" to soft lies, but the low launch angle and relatively high resistance to the club moving through the sand to "dig out" a buried ball made recovery from a bunker with this club very difficult. The club was also not ideal for approach shots from a bunker near the green, as a chip shot made with this club tended to roll for most of its distance.

The modern sand wedge, the first of the clubs to be called a wedge, was developed by Gene Sarazen after flying in Howard Hughes' private plane. Sarazen noticed the flaps on the wings that were lowered on takeoff to help create lift, and surmised that the same could be done to a high-lofted golf club to help the clubhead cut through and then lift out of the sand (bringing the ball with it). He built his first prototype in 1931 by taking a niblick and soldering extra lead to its sole to add mass, then adjusting the angle of the sole to about 10 degrees from level with the ground, which he found to be the optimal angle to prevent the clubhead either digging deeply into the sand or skimming (bouncing) along the top. The resulting clubhead profile was roughly wedge-shaped as opposed to the blade-like style of high-lofted irons, hence the name. He brought his new club to compete in the 1932 British Open, but kept it hidden from the authorities to avoid having it ruled illegal. He won that tournament with a then-record score of 283 (the sum of four rounds of play), and also won the subsequent 1932 U.S. Open with a final-round score of 66 that would stand as a tournament record for almost 30 years.

Sarazen's new club, including the wide, angled sole, was ruled legal by both R&A and USGA authorities, and the club itself and its basic design concepts became widely copied by other golfers and by club manufacturers. As irons became more standardized in the 20s through the 40s, the wide sole of the sand wedge was copied on other mid- and high-lofted irons to add mass, which compensates for the progressively shorter shaft lengths to provide a similar feel across all the irons with a given swing. The highest-lofted irons got the most additional weight, resulting in the widest soles, giving these clubs the same eponymous wedge-shaped profile as the sand wedge. This led to the tradition of calling these high-lofted irons "wedges", regardless of the amount of bounce (angle of the sole to the ground) that the sole provided.

Wedges, and the golfer's "short game", have come to be emphasized by pro players and teachers/coaches as an area of critical importance. By simple math, with par for a hole based on 2 putts, and at least one additional stroke needed to get the ball on the green, a scratch golfer will take up to 54 strokes on a typical par-72 course with the intention of getting on the green and/or in the hole; only about a third of the strokes taken in a round will be with a wood or long iron with the main intent being distance. In cases where the player doesn't make "green in regulation" (meaning the ball is not on the green with two strokes left for putts), shots normally taken as putts must instead be used to approach, and so must be very accurate in direction and distance in order to set the ball up for a one-putt par (the chip shot and putt combination is called an "up and down") or even a birdie or eagle made with the chip shot itself. Even touring professionals miss an average of 6 GIRs in a round, making chip shots and other close-in strokes typically made with wedges that much more important.

As a result, since the mid-80s the number of wedges available to players has grown from 2 (pitching and sand) to 5 (adding gap, lob and ultra lob), most of which are now available in a wide array of lofts and bounces to allow a player to "fine-tune" their short game with the wedges that best meet their needs. In some cases, with the high degree of customization, companies have done away with the traditional names for each club, and instead simply label each club with its loft and bounce angles. A 52-8 wedge, for example, would have 52 degrees of loft and 8 degrees of bounce, generally placing it in the "gap wedge" class. Most players carry three or four wedges on the course, and sometimes more, usually sacrificing one or two of their long irons and/or higher-lofted fairway woods to meet the 14-club limit.

Newer designs of wedges, especially the sand wedge, have changed the shape of the sole slightly to reduce the bounce along the heel (hosel side) and provide a more curved leading edge. This newer shape allows for the golfer to "open" the clubface for short, high-backspin chip shots that "stick" on the green or even roll backwards, without the wide heel lifting the bottom edge of the club at address or the additional angle providing too much bounce.

Recently, a ruling by the USGA and R&A to ban the sale of wedges with backspin-increasing 'square' grooves (but grandfathered certain existing designs) accelerated revenues from wedge sales as golfers rushed to acquire designs incorporating these grooves before the ban took effect. Sales peaked in 2010 with a 23% revenue increase, and wedge prices inflated to a record $97 (from a nominal price of between $25 and $75 per club).

Pitching wedge
A pitching wedge is the lowest-lofted of the named wedges, used to hit a variety of short-range shots. The modern pitching wedge has a loft of around 48° (exact lofts vary by clubmaker and player preference) and little or no "bounce" (angle of the sole to the ground).

The pitching wedge is descended from the "niblick", an obsolete blade-style club with a high loft. As the older naming system gave way to numbered sets in the mid- to late 1930s, the standardization of loft angles led to a split in the niblick's normal range of lofts, to create the 9-iron (with a loft at the time of about 48–50°) and a new club lofted around 52–54°. Some manufacturers such as MacGregor kept with the numbering system and labelled this club the "10-iron", while other makers, seeking to capitalize on the usefulness of this club in the "short game", named the club the "pitching wedge" to associate it with the relatively new sand wedge and its similar utility for close-in shots. The term "pitching wedge" is now used by virtually all manufacturers and players to describe this club; Karsten Manufacturing (maker of the PING brand) simply labels their pitching wedges "W" for "wedge".

The modern pitching wedge is typically used from the fairway or rough for "approach" or "lay-up" shots requiring a distance of between 100 and 125 yards (exact distance will vary, as with any golf club's distance, on a number of variables such as exact club design, player skill and swing speed, and course conditions). It can also be used to play a ball from a bunker when the ball has not buried itself into the sand and the player needs more distance on the shot than their sand wedge can provide. With an abbreviated "chip shot" swing, a pitching wedge can produce high-accuracy shots in the 30–70-yard range, and with a putting motion, the club can be used for "bump and run" shots from the rough or fringe onto the green.

Gap wedge
A gap wedge is the next higher-lofted wedge after the pitching wedge, and is usually used in a similar manner. It is a newer wedge and so is one of the least standardized as to its purpose and thus its design, but lofts for gap wedges are centered on 52° and have a moderate amount of bounce.

The concept of the gap wedge originated when the loft angles of irons were reduced as a result of the higher launch angles of modern "cavity-back" irons for a given loft, and also from amateur players' desire for greater range. The pitching wedge was de-lofted along with the numbered irons from about 50–52° to about 45–48°; however, sand wedges remained the same, because their 54–58° loft is part of their design which makes them effective at cutting through sand. This results in a "gap" of about 8–10° between the pitching wedge and sand wedge, which can result in a difference in carry distance of up to 40 yards between these two clubs. To fill this "gap" in loft and distance, some golfers began carrying an additional wedge in the 50–54° range. This club was often the pitching wedge or 9-iron from the player's older "muscle-back" set, but as the practice became more common, manufacturers began designing wedges specifically for this role. While clubmakers invented different names for this club, such as "approach wedge" (Callaway), "attack wedge" (TaylorMade), "dual wedge" (Cleveland) and "utility wedge" (Karsten Manufacturing - PING), the term "gap wedge" is typically used in conversation to describe a wedge in this general loft range, and is used by some manufacturers such as Adams Golf. Some are simply identified by their loft angle and bounce; a "52-8" wedge is a gap wedge with 52° of loft and 8° of bounce.

The specifics of the gap wedge's design differ more between various examples than other wedges because the club is newer and so has a less well-defined traditional purpose. With the nominal loft of 52°, a gap wedge can be used for almost any shot in which the player would normally use their pitching wedge, but needs lesser distance; a full swing with a gap wedge will carry about 90–110 yards depending on the many inherent variables. A key area of variation between different gap wedges is in the bounce angle; typically the more bounce the club has, the better its performance in soft lies and tall grass, but the worse it will perform on firm or tight lies, and vice versa. Many players use a bounce of between 5° and 8°, making this club a blend of the characteristics of the neighboring pitching and sand wedges, allowing it to be used for certain bunker shots while not sacrificing its utility on firmer ground. However, gap wedges are available from 48–56° loft and with 0° to 12° of bounce, allowing a player to select the club with the exact characteristics they feel they'll need.

Sand wedge
A sand wedge is a type of golf club with a specialized design intended to help the player play the ball from soft lies such as sand bunkers. It has a loft of about 56°, and about 10° of "bounce".

Gene Sarazen won the 1932 British and US Open tournaments with a new club he had invented that was specialized for sand play. He is hailed as the inventor of the modern sand wedge, which he developed by taking a niblick (9-iron), soldering additional metal underneath the leading edge to create a wide, heavy sole on the club, and then experimenting with the angle that the sole made to level ground. The resulting club had a wedge-shaped profile, and offered better loft to escape from deep or sloped bunkers (unlike the older low-lofted "jigger" traditionally used for bunker shots), while not "digging in" to the soft sand like a lofted iron such as the niblick would normally do.

The modern sand wedge still uses the ideas of high mass, high loft, and bounce angle, but the modern sand wedge clubhead has much higher mass than earlier designs, up to 40oz (2.5 lb, 1.13 kg), to drive the clubhead through the firmer sand found in many courses. There can also be differences in shaft length; while some sand wedges follow the systematic progression of shorter shaft lengths for higher lofts, many sand wedges are longer than the adjacent lofted wedges. This encourages the player to hit sand wedge shots "fat" (the club hits the ground before the ball), which on a firm lie is generally bad, but in the case of a ball embedded or buried in soft bunker sand this will get the clubhead all the way under the ball to lift it out. The resulting plume of sand from such a shot was made famous by Sarazen as the "explosion shot" and is a common sight in televised golf events.

As its name suggests, a sand wedge is used most often to extract the ball from a bunker. However, the features which make it useful for this purpose are advantageous in other soft lies such as thick rough, soggy ground or mud. While the high angle of bounce can make it difficult to use on firm lies (the sole will raise the leading edge of the club which can result in the player hitting the ball edge-on; a "thin" or "skulled" shot), it can be used much as any other "short iron" would; with a "full swing", a skilled golfer can typically hit a sand wedge between 80 and 100 yards, and with a chip shot, a sand wedge can produce short "lobs" of between 20 and 60 yards.

Lob wedge
The lob wedge is a club with a loft of around 60°, typically the highest in a player's bag. It is used for specialized shots requiring either extreme launch angle, short carry distance and/or no rolling distance after impact.

Dave Pelz, a former NASA physicist and golf short-game coach, envisioned the lob wedge in the 1980s as an answer to modern greens, which are designed to be more difficult to approach to add extra challenge to the game. These greens are typically elevated above the fairway, are less level and more undulating than traditional greens, and are surrounded on some or all sides by hazards. These greens require an approach shot that drops the ball very precisely onto the green near the pin, and then "sticks" with little or no roll to prevent the ball following an uneven grade or overshooting the pin into a hazard. He proposed a new club with low to mid bounce and a loft angle of 60° to accomplish such a shot. Pro player Tom Kite was among the first players to use such a club, encouraging other professionals and amateurs to follow his lead. In 1984, Karsten Manufacturing introduced the first mass-produced "L" wedge, as part of PING's widely successful Eye and Eye-2 iron sets, cementing the wedge's name as the "lob" wedge.

The lob wedge can be used for any shot requiring a short carry distance (typically 10–50 yards), and/or a very high launch angle, which also results in high backspin and thus little rolling distance after impact. Such shots include tight approaches to the green, shots from close to a tree or other tall obstruction, shots to gain a more favorable lie on the fairway, and certain bunker shots. The high launch angle and thus long carry time can be an impediment in high winds, but skilled golfers can use the long "hang time" of a lob wedge shot to take advantage of a favorable wind. The wedge typically has low to moderate bounce (0–4°) for fairway and other firm lies, but because of its high loft even 2–3° of bounce will counterbalance the downward force of the wedge's striking face, making a club with this configuration useful in sand as well. Players will often use a lob wedge to play from a sand trap adjacent to the green, instead of "opening" a sand wedge (a more difficult shot to make accurately). It can be used with a full swing from the fairway or rough to carry about 40–60 yards, but it's more commonly used with a chip shot from very close to the green, to carry 10–40 yards and "drop" the ball into an exact spot on the green.

Ultra lob wedge
An ultra lob wedge is a specialization of the lob wedge with an extremely high loft, as high as 70°. Synonyms are generally marketing terms and include the "flop wedge" and "final wedge". When included in a club set, it generally has the highest loft of the set. It is used for specialized, extremely high-angle shots such as from the "lip" of a bunker. This wedge is generally made by specialty companies, and some argue that their purpose is redundant, as a regular lob wedge can be "opened" for extra loft in situations calling for such a high launch angle. However, these shots are very tricky to make as they require substantial changes to a player's normal swing mechanics.

title: Wedge (golf)